We don't really know if it was successful yet. Since the goal was not to save power, but to give people more daylight so they could go spend more money at stores, we'll need to wait for reports from the retail sector.
It's poutine; but get a life, grammar nazis. If you are so confused by the lack of a silent 'e' that you can't understand the intended meaning, you're the one that needs to be chided. Damn, I'm hungry now... *goes to buy poutine*
@ bigdavediod"Actually if you ignore the headline and read the article there was a "modest" savings. Which could mean millions of pounds of CO2 not put into the air. Which means better air quality for you, with only a one time effort on our part. Seems like a sensible trade."Just a picky side note: CO2 is not poisonous. CO2 has little or nothing to air quality. NOX, ozone, carbon monoxide, however is a very different story.
flashing:>Just a picky side note: CO2 is not poisonous. CO2 has little or nothing to air quality. NOX, ozone, carbon monoxide, however is a very different story.They go together.
Benjamin Franklin was a "troublesome, meddling sort."??? Well I sure hope you enjoy his contributions, such as AMERICA for one, as one of the most noted founding fathers, and ELECTRICITY for two... that is unless you would prefer to enjoy your sundial elsewhere than the US.The comments some of you make just slay me... what the hell have you ever contributed to society?
"At the nation's publicly traded companies alone, the total cost to patch the glitch is $300 million to $350 million, Hammond estimates.And those companies may get a chance to do it all over again. If substantial energy savings from the new daylight-saving time aren't realized, Congress can switch back to the old date."<a class="user" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0703090142mar09,0,2093421.story?track=rss">http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0703090142mar09,0,2093421.story?track=rss</a>Not to mention all the non-publicly traded companies (80%?). I live in AZ, so no big deal to me when you want to change your clocks, but the greenies cost us big with their "experiment"...But I know they had only the best intentions.
Why not set Daylight Saving Time all year round?There is no saving during winter with Standard Time, since you waste the same energy whether early in the morning or late in the evening during winter.
codesuidaeApr 3, 2007
We don't really know if it was successful yet. Since the goal was not to save power, but to give people more daylight so they could go spend more money at stores, we'll need to wait for reports from the retail sector.
profoblivionApr 3, 2007
It's poutine; but get a life, grammar nazis. If you are so confused by the lack of a silent 'e' that you can't understand the intended meaning, you're the one that needs to be chided. Damn, I'm hungry now... *goes to buy poutine*
flashingcurserApr 3, 2007
@ bigdavediod"Actually if you ignore the headline and read the article there was a "modest" savings. Which could mean millions of pounds of CO2 not put into the air. Which means better air quality for you, with only a one time effort on our part. Seems like a sensible trade."Just a picky side note: CO2 is not poisonous. CO2 has little or nothing to air quality. NOX, ozone, carbon monoxide, however is a very different story.
vegangApr 3, 2007
The U.S. is behind in holidays? Seems like we have one or two a month.
Closed AccountApr 3, 2007
flashing:>Just a picky side note: CO2 is not poisonous. CO2 has little or nothing to air quality. NOX, ozone, carbon monoxide, however is a very different story.They go together.
geekeeApr 3, 2007
Only if you wrote your software in an incompetent manner in the first place.
awrhodes84Apr 3, 2007
Benjamin Franklin was a "troublesome, meddling sort."??? Well I sure hope you enjoy his contributions, such as AMERICA for one, as one of the most noted founding fathers, and ELECTRICITY for two... that is unless you would prefer to enjoy your sundial elsewhere than the US.The comments some of you make just slay me... what the hell have you ever contributed to society?
tdenton1138Apr 4, 2007
"At the nation's publicly traded companies alone, the total cost to patch the glitch is $300 million to $350 million, Hammond estimates.And those companies may get a chance to do it all over again. If substantial energy savings from the new daylight-saving time aren't realized, Congress can switch back to the old date."<a class="user" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0703090142mar09,0,2093421.story?track=rss">http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0703090142mar09,0,2093421.story?track=rss</a>Not to mention all the non-publicly traded companies (80%?). I live in AZ, so no big deal to me when you want to change your clocks, but the greenies cost us big with their "experiment"...But I know they had only the best intentions.
teslozNov 1, 2009
Why not set Daylight Saving Time all year round?There is no saving during winter with Standard Time, since you waste the same energy whether early in the morning or late in the evening during winter.