Well, we sprang forward again to enjoy the benefits of a longer daylight afternoon. I don't mind Ben Franklin's conceit all that much, it's the execution I find flawed.
First, two arbitrary, early Sunday morning dates are chosen by those in charge for the translation of temporal axes. Few people change their clocks at 2:00 AM, and the surprise the next morning is punctuated by "What time is it?" or groans from revisionistic sleep.
[Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established that in 2009, daylight time begins on March 8 and ends on November 1]
I wear an "atomic" wristwatch synchronized to standard time in Colorado. My watch really isn't atomic, but it is radio linked to the time given by the cesium fountain atomic clock in Boulder. Several clocks in my house have the same feature. My computers get corrected time on-line. I like the automatic adjustment feature. When I wake up Sunday morning in March, the only surprise for me is the misleading feeling that I must have overslept because my automatically adjusted watch indicates a later time.
There is, of course, the system shock from translating an hour up or down on the new schedule, and the social discomfort of listening to everyone bitch about "why don't they stick to one time and quit the changes?" Well, atomic clocks gave me an inspiration. If a signal can automatically adjust my watch twice a year to the politically mandated time, why couldn't it do it every day?
Now this isn't an idle thought, power companies can adjust their 60 hertz power generation frequency and your home electric clock will adjust its speed in response. Many watch owners adjust their mechanical timekeepers weekly, sometimes daily to correspond to radio or workplace time. Of course there are a large number of relatively accurate, digital or mechanical watches that keep reasonable time without automatic reference to these standards. These timepieces will be obsoleted by my plan
What we need are two standards: accurate time for precision work and continuous daylight saving time (CDST) for everyday, commercial living for the rest of us.
Here's my proposal for (pseudo) continuous daylight savings time. Beginning with the winter solstice, add 30 seconds to the official (accurate) government broadcast time at midnight accumulating to the CDST for each night. By the time we reach summer solstice, the accumulated adjustment would have launched our clocks forward approximately 1 and 1/2 additional hours. With summer solstice, reverse the process and subtract 30 seconds from the official government time every night at midnight to the CDST.
There it is. No trauma. No gnashing of teeth. Only an imperceptable, easing to longer daylight time in the summer and corresponding painless return to standard time for the short-day wnter months.
Oh sure, the nay-sayers will point out the problems. Many people will have to buy new watches. Could be. Call that my contribution to economic stimulus. On the third hand, I lived for years with cheap watches that I adjusted every few days to approximate correct time. Don't expect me to be sympathetic if your Rolex is off time a few minutes each week.
We don't have the political will, you say. Well even the people I know who like daylight savings time wish that we could just save daylight all year long. If it is good to have light at the end of the day in summer when there is lots of light, how much more important is it to have daylight at the end of the day in the winter when it is really needed? When did we vote to make it the way it is? Do you trust politicians to take care of your taxes, the economy, defense, law and order, infrastructure, and education, but you won't give them the time of day?
Hmm... Well on third thought, maybe there are some flaws in my plan that need to be resolved.
***
Speaking of politics, I've been thinking about the Senator Greeg for Secretary of Commerce fiasco, particularly in relation to who should be in charge of the census. As I see the problem, we are trying create geographical boundaries to partition transient voters into favourable voting groups. In this digital age that makes little sense, particularly because the artificial boundaries disenfranchise the "losing side" in the next election.
More On the Third Hand views on elections using geographic boundaries to limit people next time.
Comments
Post a Comment