Denver Post reports a ballot initiative attempt that would give voters a chance to choose permanent daylight time for Colorado. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27044142/proposal-would-keep-colorado-dayl... -- Steve Allen <sla@ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
It failed in Tennessee, my prediction is it will fail here as well. If passed, the time zone map would look quite strange, as parts of Kansas and Nebraska are currently aligned to follow Colorado into Mountain Time. I like the article though. Interesting bit at the bottom: "Lawmakers rejected the bill, citing programming costs to the state Department of Revenue to make the change permanent." Anyone have a link to explain that bit of trivia?
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:26:34 -0800 From: sla@ucolick.org To: tz@iana.org Subject: [tz] Colorado permanent daylight initiative
Denver Post reports a ballot initiative attempt that would give voters a chance to choose permanent daylight time for Colorado.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27044142/proposal-would-keep-colorado-dayl...
-- Steve Allen <sla@ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
On 12/01/2014 02:04 PM, Matt Johnson wrote:
Interesting bit at the bottom: "Lawmakers rejected the bill, citing programming costs to the state Department of Revenue to make the change permanent."
Last year the Colorado Dept. of Revenue estimated that it'd cost $9,820 to make the change; this includes the cost of updating about 300 servers running Microsoft Windows, GNU/Linux, other Unix, and HP-UX. See: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/5A41DE1DD... My guess is that the actual cost of upgrading has been underestimated, as the state has a lot more than 300 servers. It's just that only the Dept. of Revenue bothered to estimate the cost. There's also the cost to private citizens both within and outside of Colorado, but presumably the Colorado legislature doesn't care as much about that.
On Dec 1, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Matt Johnson <mj1856@hotmail.com<mailto:mj1856@hotmail.com>> wrote: ... I like the article though. Interesting bit at the bottom: "Lawmakers rejected the bill, citing programming costs to the state Department of Revenue to make the change permanent." Anyone have a link to explain that bit of trivia? Simple. They made it up, just like politicians always do when they don’t like something but need an excuse that most people will swallow. paul
participants (4)
-
Matt Johnson -
Paul Eggert -
Paul_Koning＠dell.com -
Steve Allen