If we're going to start monkeying with the clock, a ten-hour day is more logical.Hell, while we're at it let's just change to a 26 hour day so Bajorans can celebrate with us.
It's Daylight Saving Time, not "savings." Common mistake.Daylight Savings Time is a bad enough idea. This would be worse.
When Greenwich Mean Time was adopted as an international time standard, Britain ruled one-fifth of the world. The empire is long gone, but the zero meridian has to be somewhere. I don't see anything wrong with keeping it in England.Extra thought: where is the time zone measured from initially? Greenwich? Which favours the Brits? Is that fair? (Actually none of it is fair).
If we're going to start monkeying with the clock, a ten-hour day is more logical.Hell, while we're at it let's just change to a 26 hour day so Bajorans can celebrate with us.
Using base-12 arithmetic makes perfect sense -- if you happen to have two extra fingers.Rather than monkeying around with the clock, let's just change our counting system.
Using base-12 arithmetic makes perfect sense -- if you happen to have two extra fingers.Rather than monkeying around with the clock, let's just change our counting system.![]()
Indeed. This may actually be the only idea even more utterly stupid and pointless than so-called daylight "saving" time.Daylight Savings Time is a bad enough idea. This would be worse.
I like the 26-hour system better than Metric time. I need more hours in the day, not less.
Changing to one time zone is a bad idea, but modifying DST would be a good idea. Since more and more clocks are now synchronized online, local time could be migrated fractionally every day and we could do away with the spring-ahead-fall-back nonsense.
But the best idea of all would be to switch to an eight-day week. That way we could have a four-day work week and a four-day weekend.![]()
In short, bad idea.
Extra thought: where is the time zone measured from initially? Greenwich? Which favours the Brits? Is that fair? (Actually none of it is fair).
It's Daylight Saving Time, not "savings." Common mistake.Daylight Savings Time is a bad enough idea. This would be worse.
I like DST. What have you got against it?
No. The problem is DST. It's pointless and totally antiquated.The problem isn't DST itself, it's the process of changing back and forth. Some of us have trouble adjusting -- it feels like having jet lag twice a year without going anyplace.
This will create a bigger problem than the one it solves.
My bar closes at 3am. DST means that one night out of the year I get off work an hour early when 2am magically becomes 3am. It's the best night ever. I vote we keep it.No. The problem is DST. It's pointless and totally antiquated.The problem isn't DST itself, it's the process of changing back and forth. Some of us have trouble adjusting -- it feels like having jet lag twice a year without going anyplace.
Besides, people usually drink, celebrate new years, and go to bed. Are they really going to do that at 3:00 in the afternoon? That's not New Years, it's Homecoming.
Celebrating new year at 1500 hrs does sound strange but imagine folks all over the world celebrating together at the same time. That will be great.
As for businesses, the extra holiday may not hurt them. People do work during holidays especially if your business experiences huge volume of customers during the holidays, like especially shops and bars.
And I'm a bartender! It would completely throw off my whole business if New Year's suddenly happened in the morning or afternoon.
People do drink during the daytime.
Daylight Savings Time is a bad enough idea. This would be worse.
RoJoHen, your money and time both balance out over the year!![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.