|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 9, 2015 5:54:18 GMT
NO ONE is to mention the white eared elephant, ok?....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 9, 2015 15:02:07 GMT
let's drop in that onerous tax on time known as daylight s(l)avings.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Mar 9, 2015 15:21:21 GMT
let's drop in that onerous tax on time known as daylight s(l)avings. Does any other developed country in the world perform this feat of chronological lunacy? Then again, why does the US still do it? |
|
|
|
Post by craighudson on Mar 9, 2015 23:13:07 GMT
The UK, and probably a lot of the EU.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 9, 2015 23:18:18 GMT
I know Austalia does it too, it means at in winter we have a time difference of 11hrs, in our summer the difference is 13, as they put their clocks back and we go forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Mar 9, 2015 23:53:54 GMT
Can anyone give a logical and compelling reason for changing the clocks? And no, I don't buy the thing about kids at bus stops. Most of the winter as a kid I was waiting for the bus in the dark as is my kid now.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 10, 2015 5:12:41 GMT
Can anyone give a logical and compelling reason for changing the clocks? And no, I don't buy the thing about kids at bus stops. Most of the winter as a kid I was waiting for the bus in the dark as is my kid now. last I checked kids waited at bus stops in the morning, not the evening. therefore the excuse about kids at bus stops is invalid. the common reason is to make the daylight period in the evening longer so people can play later in the evening. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 10, 2015 7:24:53 GMT
I have heard all the different excuses in my time, none of them make sense...
Except the one that if you wanted to get up earlier, get up early.
Its making no difference to me here when it finally happens in UK, 'cos I will just get paid work or play.
On a Mechanical tacho disk.
You have no reason whatsoever to alter the time with a mechanical disk, thats considered cheating, time must be set before the start of the working day.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 10, 2015 7:26:12 GMT
If Dst, BST, or whatever you want to call it is voted for as useless, I am more than willing to put it into Room 101, as it doesnt make any logical sense to continue with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 10, 2015 8:26:34 GMT
The REAL argument was never about anything that happened in winter, so the kids and school buses one is completely bogus and made up by someone who doesn't understand what DST was really made for. After all "winter time" is also called "normal time". We set clocks FORWARD during summer and go back to normal during winter. It doesn't have anything to do with energy consumption either.
The original argument was that since the sun rises earlier in summer than in winter, setting the clocks forward one hour makes people get up earlier, instead of sleeping while it's light out, getting more out of the hours of daylight available. With DST, sunrise is around 4.30 - 5 a.m. (depending on how close it is to the solstice), but without DST, it would be 3.30 - 4 a.m. How many people are up to enjoy the sun at that hour?
Since the sun sets later as well, it doesn't make much difference in the evenings. With DST, the sun sets at around 10 p.m. three weeks before and three weeks after the summer solstice around here. Without DST, sunset would be around 9 p.m., so I'm guessing for kids whose parents won't let them be out after dark, DST is pretty cool during the summer vacation. On the other hand, for people who need to go to bed early, because they need to get up early next morning, not having the sun set until 10 p.m. is pretty annoying. I know from experience. Then again, there's no making everyone happy, is there?
Setting the clocks back again for winter means that sunrise gets an hour closer to when you get up and an hour further away from when you need to go to bed. With only about 7 hours of daylight available three weeks before and after the winter solstice, having them all crammed into the time slot where most people are awake makes pretty good sense. If we were still doing "summer time" at that time of year, the sun would rise at around 7.30 a.m. and set around 2.45 p.m. on the shortest days of the year, as opposed to rising around 8.30 a.m. and setting around 3.45 p.m. with "normal time".
For most people here, the workday starts between 7 and 8 a.m. and ends between 3 and 4 p.m., so most of their work hours are crammed into that time slot where there's daylight. Of course that also means that all their free time is spent in darkness, which many studies suggest causes more suicides, especially among people who work inside all day. It's dark when they get up, it's dark when they enter the factory or office, they spend all the available hours of daylight in there and when they get out, it's dark again.
Many would say that's an argument against DST, but removing DST wouldn't give you more daylight in the winter. It only affects hours of available daylight during the summer, so removing it would mean that during summer, you would sleep most of the daylight away and it still wouldn't change the fact that it's only light out for 7 hours during the shortest days of winter.
If your workday starts at 8 a.m. and ends at 4 p.m., keeping "summer time" instead of going back to "normal time" would mean you get half an hour of daylight before work - when you're usually in your car and on your way TO work - and get total darkness after work. I'm not sure that would change much, so my advice if you don't like working when it's light and having your free time in the dark is to get a night job or move closer to the equator. If you work inside and only see darkness the entire winter, get a job where you get outside, or at least one that gets you closer to a window.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 10, 2015 9:17:00 GMT
Up on the farm, the day revolves around the NON-Human life.
Cows dont know the clocks, they just know its milking time, and feeding time, and that just after the sun goes up...
Farmers work during daylight, so get up early anyway.
All farm stock works by the sun, get up at sunrise, have a wander and find food.
Its us Humans that are hell bent on keeping time.
"Some say" that accidents in early morning traffic are altered around the time of clocks changing...
Yeah, right, so you spend your life a slave to the clock, the clock changes, and yous system takes a while to respond, you aint awake as much as you were, so you aint concentrating.
Thats why the accident rate goes up.
The change for winter is said to be that tired children on their way home are a greater accident risk... in the dark...
Especially younger children.....
Here is an idea, change the time the younger ages SCHOOL works.
Let the kids kick out an hour earlier during Winter so they can walk home in the dark?....
Not that many of them do walk these days.
Otherwise, I cant see why we need all this change.
Its just an excuse to mess up peoples lives twice a year.
Childcare issues?...
Let the workplace know you are dependent on childcare, if its a modern thinking place, they already allow part-time workers to work around school times, I am sure they will alter your shift to accommodate...
As long as you are getting your work done, does it matter what time you do your work, as long as you are doing your 20 hrs a week you agreed to work for?...
We are living in a world where the 9-5 "norm" isnt a norm any more, people work all kinds of different hours.
If your job doesnt suit you, get one that does?...
I gave up the rat-race of factory work to go do the "Oh My GAWDS its early" start on empty roads of driving, I dont see rush hours any more, from the seat in my own car, not getting paid to be there, and my life is much better for it.
One of my friends does a one-and-a-half hour journey every morning and every night for work.... at 10mph if he is lucky.
He spends more hours a week in his car than he does in front of his television?.... just to get too and from his place of work....15 hrs a week of "wasted" time.
Thats like spending the first two days a week working for free.....
That good is it?...
The furthest I go these days is half hour from here.
Its about the same physical distance as him, if not more, sometimes much more, but I dont sit in "Rush hour" traffic....most of the time, I am keeping it just on the speed limit on the way to and from work, on the Ring-Road motorway.
At work, I sit in traffic, all day, but at lest I am getting paid for it.
Heh heh heh heh... mercenary git that I am... I get paid to sit in traffic queues... I laugh at the dashboard chewers that are "late" for everything....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 10, 2015 14:19:13 GMT
The REAL argument was never about anything that happened in winter, so the kids and school buses one is completely bogus and made up by someone who doesn't understand what DST was really made for. After all "winter time" is also called "normal time". We set clocks FORWARD during summer and go back to normal during winter. It doesn't have anything to do with energy consumption either. The original argument was that since the sun rises earlier in summer than in winter, setting the clocks forward one hour makes people get up earlier, instead of sleeping while it's light out, getting more out of the hours of daylight available. With DST, sunrise is around 4.30 - 5 a.m. (depending on how close it is to the solstice), but without DST, it would be 3.30 - 4 a.m. How many people are up to enjoy the sun at that hour? Since the sun sets later as well, it doesn't make much difference in the evenings. With DST, the sun sets at around 10 p.m. three weeks before and three weeks after the summer solstice around here. Without DST, sunset would be around 9 p.m., so I'm guessing for kids whose parents won't let them be out after dark, DST is pretty cool during the summer vacation. On the other hand, for people who need to go to bed early, because they need to get up early next morning, not having the sun set until 10 p.m. is pretty annoying. I know from experience. Then again, there's no making everyone happy, is there? Setting the clocks back again for winter means that sunrise gets an hour closer to when you get up and an hour further away from when you need to go to bed. With only about 7 hours of daylight available three weeks before and after the winter solstice, having them all crammed into the time slot where most people are awake makes pretty good sense. If we were still doing "summer time" at that time of year, the sun would rise at around 7.30 a.m. and set around 2.45 p.m. on the shortest days of the year, as opposed to rising around 8.30 a.m. and setting around 3.45 p.m. with "normal time". For most people here, the workday starts between 7 and 8 a.m. and ends between 3 and 4 p.m., so most of their work hours are crammed into that time slot where there's daylight. Of course that also means that all their free time is spent in darkness, which many studies suggest causes more suicides, especially among people who work inside all day. It's dark when they get up, it's dark when they enter the factory or office, they spend all the available hours of daylight in there and when they get out, it's dark again. Many would say that's an argument against DST, but removing DST wouldn't give you more daylight in the winter. It only affects hours of available daylight during the summer, so removing it would mean that during summer, you would sleep most of the daylight away and it still wouldn't change the fact that it's only light out for 7 hours during the shortest days of winter. If your workday starts at 8 a.m. and ends at 4 p.m., keeping "summer time" instead of going back to "normal time" would mean you get half an hour of daylight before work - when you're usually in your car and on your way TO work - and get total darkness after work. I'm not sure that would change much, so my advice if you don't like working when it's light and having your free time in the dark is to get a night job or move closer to the equator. If you work inside and only see darkness the entire winter, get a job where you get outside, or at least one that gets you closer to a window. depends on your latitude and where you sit in the time zone. for me, I think the earliest I see daylight is 5:00 AM on the summer solstice, and twilight lasts well after 9:00 PM. right now, for example, it is 7:18 and darker than the inside of a cow. I expect if I am able to persuade myself it is morning by time to go to work at 8, I will have just enough morning light to get to my truck. normally this time of year I deliberately delay my start time to 9:00, so I will have daylight to go to work. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 12, 2015 10:00:58 GMT
SMART cars and other MICRO-Mini cars that ignore traffic rules.
You aint a bike.... GTF out of that Cycle lane, you aint using it to filter past me on the inside... ok?...
Nor does it give you "Permission" to use 100yds of Bus lane to get to the left turn lane ahead of everyone else who wants to turn left but is stuck in the queue for 500yds before that left turn lane starts....
The sign says no "U" turns, just 'cos you can turn around in the width of the road in one go, doesnt mean you can ignore the sign.
BIG RANT, I left enough space between me and the car in front to be able to get out again when I parked up, when I return, that car has gone, but two other [not so]smart things have parked there, one was about two inches away from my front bumper, and I have very little room to reverse.
Who gives you the right to inconvenience others?...
Good job your handbrake wasnt that good, 'cos I have a strong bumper, and I pushed you forwards so you and your best mate were touching to make enough room to get out.
If you dont need a big car, fine, get a likkle toy, but dont think it gives you any more right than any other car driver or road user, and OBEY THE LAW.
The video footage of you blatantly ignoring the Bus lane and using that with no good reason to queue jump has been passed to authorities I believe... so expect the police to ask you why you did that.
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 12, 2015 11:07:21 GMT
we have dst/summer time because the rest of europe has it.
Since "daylight" during summer is pretty much from 22.00 till 04.00, we use thick curtains....
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 12, 2015 11:08:03 GMT
we have dst/summer time because the rest of europe has it. Since "daylight" during summer is pretty much from 22.00 till 04.00, we use thick curtains.... during summer solstice, we have about 10 minutes of dusk/dawn. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 12, 2015 14:35:38 GMT
SMART cars and other MICRO-Mini cars that ignore traffic rules. You aint a bike.... GTF out of that Cycle lane, you aint using it to filter past me on the inside... ok?... Nor does it give you "Permission" to use 100yds of Bus lane to get to the left turn lane ahead of everyone else who wants to turn left but is stuck in the queue for 500yds before that left turn lane starts.... The sign says no "U" turns, just 'cos you can turn around in the width of the road in one go, doesnt mean you can ignore the sign. BIG RANT, I left enough space between me and the car in front to be able to get out again when I parked up, when I return, that car has gone, but two other [not so]smart things have parked there, one was about two inches away from my front bumper, and I have very little room to reverse.Who gives you the right to inconvenience others?... Good job your handbrake wasnt that good, 'cos I have a strong bumper, and I pushed you forwards so you and your best mate were touching to make enough room to get out. If you dont need a big car, fine, get a likkle toy, but dont think it gives you any more right than any other car driver or road user, and OBEY THE LAW. The video footage of you blatantly ignoring the Bus lane and using that with no good reason to queue jump has been passed to authorities I believe... so expect the police to ask you why you did that. the antisocial crank in me says hook the wheels to the lane, and just pull forward until you are out of the space. if it leaves the offender sticking into traffic, so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 14, 2016 10:05:51 GMT
I wish to bump this thread because I note we have no place to put nominations for "Worst Actor[/ress]" anywhere...
I would nominate Huge Rant, Huge Grant, however you spell it, for his continual mindless portrayal of a bonzo 'not quite in touch with the world' character that he plays well in all films, despite the script asking for someone more educated in reality....
Reason?.. he doesnt ever change that character even in real life.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 14, 2016 10:08:06 GMT
Cheryl Fernandez-Versini 'Set To Divorce'
The X Factor judge is reportedly beginning legal proceedings to divorce her French husband because of "unreasonable behaviour".
For this, and her recent tantrums because no one could get the "exact" pronunciation of he unreasonably complicated name right, I nominate her for room 101.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 16, 2016 11:42:21 GMT
I wish to bump this thread because I note we have no place to put nominations for "Worst Actor[/ress]" anywhere... I would nominate Huge Rant, Huge Grant, however you spell it, for his continual mindless portrayal of a bonzo 'not quite in touch with the world' character that he plays well in all films, despite the script asking for someone more educated in reality.... Reason?.. he doesnt ever change that character even in real life. Why anyone would label Hugh Grant an "actor" is beyond me. Temporarily using a different name, standing in front of a camera and reading something someone else wrote does not make you an actor. I'd like to nominate Mads Mikkelsen (formerly played a bad guy in "Casino Royale" and currently plays Hannibal Lecter in the TV series "Hannibal") for this room on the same grounds. Most non-Danes won't know this, as you wouldn't have seen much of his work prior to "Hannibal", but he's basically an uglier, more serious/aggressive version of Hugh Grant. The guy has two on-screen personas: 1. Skinny, ugly, fast-talking-while-mumbling, brooding and sometimes aggressive Danish dude 2. Skinny, ugly, slow-talking-in-poor-English, brooding and sometimes aggressive Danish dude, but most people don't know what a Danish accent sounds like, so let's call him Eastern European instead That's his entire repetoire. Seth MacFarlane is a better actor! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 16, 2016 12:46:57 GMT
I wish to bump this thread because I note we have no place to put nominations for "Worst Actor[/ress]" anywhere... I would nominate Huge Rant, Huge Grant, however you spell it, for his continual mindless portrayal of a bonzo 'not quite in touch with the world' character that he plays well in all films, despite the script asking for someone more educated in reality.... Reason?.. he doesnt ever change that character even in real life. Why anyone would label Hugh Grant an "actor" is beyond me. Temporarily using a different name, standing in front of a camera and reading something someone else wrote does not make you an actor. I'd like to nominate Mads Mikkelsen (formerly played a bad guy in "Casino Royale" and currently plays Hannibal Lecter in the TV series "Hannibal") for this room on the same grounds. Most non-Danes won't know this, as you wouldn't have seen much of his work prior to "Hannibal", but he's basically an uglier, more serious/aggressive version of Hugh Grant. The guy has two on-screen personas: 1. Skinny, ugly, fast-talking-while-mumbling, brooding and sometimes aggressive Danish dude 2. Skinny, ugly, slow-talking-in-poor-English, brooding and sometimes aggressive Danish dude, but most people don't know what a Danish accent sounds like, so let's call him Eastern European instead That's his entire repetoire. Seth MacFarlane is a better actor! now, THAT's bad.  |
|
