From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 21-Jun-14 20:43, John Levine wrote:   
   >> Another is that our time zones probably aren't correct in the   
   >> first place.  If most of us (particularly along the borders)   
   >> shifted one time zone, we could keep the same time year-round.   
   >> Sure, the mornings in the winters would be darker, but most of us   
   >> have to get up in the dark anyway and then head into environments   
   >> that are artificially lit all day anyway, so there's no energy loss   
   >> there.   
   >   
   > The complaints we got around here for extended DST were about kids   
   > waiting for school buses in the dark in the late fall and winter.   
   > In the summer, even with DST the sun rises here by 5:30 AM, when only   
   > the farmers are up.   
      
   Kids here wait for school buses in the dark all year, so extending DST   
   didn't change anything on that count.  Only around the summer solstice   
   is the sun up that early--when they're on vacation and wishing the sun   
   would get up later so they could sleep in.   
      
   > In any event, the major point of time zones is so that people with   
   > common interests use the same time.   
      
   I thought the point of time zones was that having every city using local   
   solar time made railroad schedules difficult to understand; prior to   
   that, humans couldn't travel or communicate fast enough for the slight   
   differences to matter.   
      
   > I expect that's the same reason Detroit is on EST/EDT, it's useful   
   > to be on the same time as New York and Washington.   
      
   They probably have more in common with Chicago these days.  And it's a   
   mess for the rest of Michigan, especially the UP, and Indiana (and most   
   of Ontario) since their solar time puts them solidly in the UTC-6 zone.   
    Being on UTC-5 is bad enough, but moving to UTC-4 for over half the   
   year is nuts.   
      
   Likewise, most of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas   
   really belong in UTC-7, and Arizona, Utah, Idaho and about half of   
   Montana really belong in UTC-8.  Being in UTC-6/7 is bad enough, but   
   moving to UTC-5/6 for over half the year is nuts.   
      
   >>> Hawaii is so far south that the variation in day length is   
   >>> insignificant.   
   >>   
   >> By that logic, Florida and at least half of Texas probably   
   >> shouldn't do DST either.   
   >   
   > Um, Texas is about ten degrees farther north than Hawaii.   
      
   About half of Texas is further south than Arizona, and that half is   
   close enough to the tropics that the length of the day doesn't change   
   appreciably.  Most of the other half is in the wrong time zone anyway.   
      
   > But if Texas wanted to have different time from the rest of the   
   > country, I wouldn't stop them.   
      
   The first step would be to drop DST, which would put us on the same time   
   as Arizona is now.  New Mexico would probably do the same because they   
   are tied more to us than to Colorado.  Oklahoma has more solar variation   
   than us, but they're also tied to us more than any of their other   
   neighbors, so they might do it too.  Florida wouldn't drop DST unless   
   Georgia did, and they're probably too far north.  Nobody cares what   
   Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would do, but they'd   
   probably all stay or go as a bloc.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)