Rats! Rocky Rodent Joins Long List of Mars Deceptions

Last week, a picture showing a Martian rock that looked like a rat went viral in both alternative and then mainstream media. The question posed by some: are rodents running around the Red Planet? Ell, to anyone with an ounce of common sense, the answer is a resounding “no!” but, thanks to many people lacking common sense, the debate will continue in fringe circles about something that should be confined to the pages of Mars deceptions, hich have been capturing the public's imagination since the 19^th century.

Giovanni Schiparelli
It was in 1888 during a close approach of Mars that Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiparelli thought that he saw channels, or “canali” in Italian, on Mars. In translation, canali was misinterpreted as 'canals,' thus implying some sort of artificial intelligence. Result: Mars fever swept the world, infecting an American aristocrat, Percival Lowell, who would go on to build one of the largest observatories in the world and spend untold hours at his telescope (then one of the world's largest) studying the canals on Mars, which turned out to be a mere optical illusion.

In 1924, professor David Todd actually convinced the military to listen for radio signals from Mars for a period of 3 days. Unfortunately, the professor was unable to silence private radio, whose continued operation doomed the already futile task to failure.

The Face on Mars in the 1970s. See below link to see what the 'face' really looks like.

In the 1970s with the Viking Program, NASA cameras captured an image that led many UFO/alien enthusiasts to believe that an advanced civilization once flourished on the planet Mars: a giant "face" sculpted out of the planet's surface. At this time, the era of Watergate and Vietnam, trust in government was at a very low point. So, when NASA scientists stated that the "face" was merely an illusion caused by the angle of light shining on a natural formation, many people refused to buy it, especially considering the "pyramids" situated around the face in a region called Cydonia.

Almost from the day the image of the Face hit the news, writers, led by Richard C. Hoagland, used it as the basis for speculative works on a lost Martian civilization. In the meantime, scientific caution was drowned out in an uproar of wild, unverifiable claims. Unfortunately, after Viking, NASA's Mars exploration programs went on a nearly two decade hiatus until the mid 1990s. However, upon a new generation of robotic explorers, the 'face' was shown to be what it truly was: a hill.

 Gandhi on Mars!

 The Martian Monolith.

'Trees' on Mars
 

Unfortunately, not even high technology is infallible.

In the past few years, the web, especially conspiracy theorists, were abuzz over several Martian anomalies, including trees, Gandhi, and a monolith. However, the granddaddy of these recent Mars 'findings' was the so-called 'Bio Station Alpha,'a strange looking white feature seen on Google Mars. While most people took one look at the anomaly and thought nothing more of it, a few latched onto the idea put forth by one man, David Martines, that this thing was, by virtue of its being there, a secret base. In the end, Bio Station Alpha turned out to be nothing more than an digital artifact from a cosmic ray hitting the camera. This idea of a camera goof was originally put forth just after the buzz started but only after seeing the proof were many satisfied.

Conclusion: there are/never were any rats on Mars for the simple reason that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that any rodent delivered to Mars would die within seconds. Nor were there canals, faces, pyramids, trees, more faces, and secret bases, either.

Humble Requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, Cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

In-Depth Review: Nikon's Nikkor 28 f1.4 AF-D Aspherical Lens

Tech Specs
Focal Length: 28mm
Dimensions: 3.1 x 3.0 in.
Weight: 18.3oz.
Maximum Aperture: f1.4
Minimum Aperture: f16
Diaphragm Blades: 9
Front Element: non-rotating, non-extending
Optical arrangement: 11 elements in 8 groups
Autofocus Mechanism: Mechanical Drive
Closest Focus: 1.15 feet
Maximum magnification: 1:8.3
Filter Size: 72mm

Shout-Out: First of all, a big thank you goes out to Tyler Beckman of Lensrentals.com for making this review possible.

Background
For indoor and/or available light shooters in the film era (when anything above ISO 1600 was unheard of), fast aperture lenses, typically those of f1.4 were the golden standard of optics for the simple reason that only their light-gathering ability can provide enough aperture to get shots in any photographic condition. Unfortunately, the standard, cheap to make 50s are often simply not wide enough for indoors, which was the impetus for opticians to try and take the f1.4 aperture into the wide-angle range. In the 1969, Nikon came up with the 35 f1.4, which would be updated to AI and AI-S in the coming decades. With the advent of autofocus in the mid 1980s, Nikon was suddenly without an AF, ultra-wide, ultra-fast optic. In 1994, many photographers' demand was finally satisfied with the release of the 28 f1.4D Aspherical, which set records for aperture at such a wide focal length at that time. So, is Nikon's record breaker's bite as strong as it's bark? Read on to find out!

Build Quality 5/5
The Nikkor 28 f1.4D Aspherical is built like the proverbial tank. By picking up the lens, one immediately recognizes that this is a serious photographic tool, not a toy. The first thing one notices is the cool temperature of the lens, which quickly indicates that it is virtually all metal in construction. From lens mount to filter threads, the only plastic to be found on this Nikkor is the aperture and AF/MF ring. Honestly, if this lens were flatter, it could probably double as a hockey puck (just remember to keep the caps on!) Moving up the barrel, one comes to the focus ring, which is highly textured, rubberized, and extremely smooth in action. Continuing on, one ends at the filter rings, which use the 72mm variety and are solid metal, too. 

AF Performance 5/5

Being a 'D' lens, the Nikkor 28 f1.4D Asphericql does not feature the latest AF-S drive, but the old-style mechanical slotted screw AF drive. On the D700, which sports Nikon's most powerful AF motor, focus is fast, accurate, and very quiet for this older design, creating only a soft buzzing noise that is far quieter than the actual slap of the SLR's mirror. On other cameras with different AF motors, speed may differ but, being a wide angle lens with a short focus path, AF speed should be on the quick side, too. Now, if your camera doesn't feature a built-in motor (D5200 and lower), there will be no AF with your camera, but the lens still can be focused manually.

Of special note here is the AF/MF switch mechanism, which takes the form of a small ring on the lens barrel. Used only for a short time in the early to mid 1990s on high-end lenses, the AF/MF switch on this lens in pure genius in design. Unlike most Nikkors of similar vintage, the focus ring does not spin during AF thank s to the floating focus ring design, so feel free to grab the lens anywhere when shooting with it. To go to MF mode, press the small silver button on the ring and rotate it so that the arrow moves away from the 'A' and points to the 'M' on the barrel. By doing this, one engages the focus ring so that the lens can be focused manually. The great thing about this design is that there is no need to fumble around with the camera's unseen (from the back) focus mode switch, which makes switching modes a whole lot simpler and faster. An even better thing is that there is no chance of accidentally messing up your focus by bumping the focus ring like on current AF-S lenses. Really, it's too bad that Nikon didn't decide to implement such a design on more lenses.  

Optics: 5/5
A lot goes into determining the optical quality of a lens, so let's look at them individually.

 Center sharpness

 Mid-frame sharpness.

Corner sharpness

Sharpness
Designing a 28mm lens that starts at f1.4 and is usable at the same time is no small undertaking. Most lenses of such a fast aperture are rather soft wide open, not so with the Nikkor 28 f1.4D Aspherical, which has contributed to the legend of this one of a kind lens. Wide open, this lens is sharp across virtually the entire frame, the exception being the extreme corners, where there is some falloff. The good news is that, unless one is printing poster-sized images, no one is going to notice an optical shortcoming impacting such a tiny area of the picture. By f2.8, the central and mid regions are as good as they're going to get. At f5.6, the lens is tack-sharp right across the entire frame.

Vignetting across the f-range. 

Vignetting
If there is one weakness (although not an unexpected one) in the optical design of this lens, it is the vignetting. Shooting wide open at f1.4, there is obvious darkening caused by light falloff. Stopping down to f2 greatly alleviates, but does not eliminate thus problem as the shading is now moved out to the periphery of the image. By f2.8, vignetting is gone. On DX cameras, vignetting should be a non-issue.

For real life examples, see below.

Night shots at f1.4 (top), f2 (middle), and f2.8 (bottom).

Day shots at f1.4 (top) and f2 (bottom). Note how much stopping down just one click reduces the vignetting.

Distortion
There isn't any.
Chromatic AberrationThis lens does show a very minimal amount of CAs, but nothing to worry about in non pixel-peeping terms. 

Flare/Ghosting
Shooting into the Sun, there isn't any flare/ghosting visible.

Macro
This lens is not a dedicated macro by far.

Value: 4/5
Well, an out of production lens that commonly sells for over $3,000 is not cheap by any means, so how does this lens score a so high on value? Simple: it's just that good. The build is top-notch, the AF is fast and accurate, the optics are good right from the get-go at f1.4 (how many lenses can you say that about?), and it is usable with any Nikon SLR ever produced, too. Needless to say, the lens has earned its reputation as one of the finest Nikkors ever produced. The only reason I'm not giving it a 5 is that there is a current, cheaper 24 f1.4 available right now.


Odds and Ends:Competition
Nikkor 28 f1.4D vs. Nikkor 24 f1.4G 
Obviously, the most clear-cut competition for the Nikkor 28 f1.4D Aspherical comes in the form of the new 24 f1.4G, released in 2010. NOTE: I have never played around in-depth with the 24 like I have the 28, but have only had a brief hands-on with one (still, that's enough to make a lot of useful comparisons). In fact, it's hard to believe that Nikon allowed for a 4-year gap in between phasing out the 28 and introducing the 24. So, when comparing the 28 to the 24 (which costs less), let's look at the pros and cons and keep a running score.

Build quality: Both lenses are well built, but there is no denying that the 28 has better construction quality, with the only plastic coming on the aperture and AF/MF ring. On the other hand, the 24 uses plastic for parts of the barrel as well as filter threads. One point for the 28.

Autofocus: Neither lens is a slouch in regards to AF, but the 24 comes with AF-S, which means quieter focus and the ability to be used on any current Nikon dSLR. The 28? It can only focus on D7100/D90 (plus ancestors) and up models. One point for the 24. 

Durability: When it comes to mechanics, there's no doubt that the 28 will outlast a 24 because of one simple reason: the 28 is a mechanical drive AF while the 24 uses a built-in motor. End result: your camera will die before the 28 while the opposite could be true for the 24. One point for the 28. 

Comfort factor: despite being a solid metal construction, the 28 is actually lighter than the plastic and metal 24. The 28 is quite a bit smaller, too. While no lightweight (it weighs just over 18 ounces), the 28 won't be as taxing on one's wrist as the 24. One point for the 28. 

Compatibility: The 24 will work on all current Nikon cameras just perfectly but will have problems when getting back to first generation AF cameras and, thanks to its lack of aperture ring, will be just about useless on a manual focus film camera. The 28 will work to a degree on all Nikon SLRs ever produced, with the only restriction being that it won't AF on current, cheap cameras. It's a draw here. 

Environment-resistance: Neither lens changes length when focusing (thus minimizing the chances of any crud getting inside), but the 24 has the added advantage of a rubber gasket at the mount, which is more crucial than ever for today's delicate digital cameras. One point for the 24.

Optics: Unfortunately, not having done any in-depth playing around with a 24, I can't comment on this. No points here. 


So . . . which one to buy?
If you like to shoot both film as well as digital, the 28, thanks to its complete reverse-compatibility, is a no-brainer as it will work on any Nikon camera ever made. For anyone who knows that photography is not a passing interest, I recommend the 28 as well thanks to its durability (those modern AF-S motors may be fancier, but they're much more prone to breaking). For anyone who has no intention of shooting film and/or who lists cost as a top concern, the 24 is your lens as it was designed for digital and costs, on average, about $1,000 less than the 28. DX shooters? Skip both, save a ton of cash, and buy the 35 f1.8 instead.


Other Competition:
The closest non-Nikon lens out there to the 28 f1.4D Aspherical are the 'bargain buckets' from Sigma, namely the 20, 24, and 28 f1.8 models. Honestly, despite having never played with any of these, I can feel safe to assume that the only advantage these Sigmas offer over the Nikkor is in terms of price. In camp Nikon, the closest thing is the new 28 f1.8G, which has the same compatibilities and rubber gasket as the 24 f1.4, but costs around $700 thanks to slower aperture and cheaper construction. Again, not having played with one, I can't offer any optical comparisons except for the obvious notion that the Nikkor will probably kick the pants off the Sigmas.

Yes, this picture is hand-held and those are stars!Astrophotography
Infinity is not infinity on the Nikkor 28 1.4D (at least on digital), which means that you'll have to play around a bit for perfect focus on stars. To save you the trouble, just manually focus to a distance of 15 feet and you'll be good to go all night. 

That rear aperture ring means that the 28 f1.4D can be used on any F-mount film camera dating back to 1959, sweet!

Reverse-Compatibility:
The Nikkor 28 f1.4D Aspherical will work on any Nikon SLR ever made, going back to the original Nikon F of 1959. The only incompatibility comes with recent cameras that lack the built-in motor that powers the AF slotted screw drive.

See all that glass? People are willing to pay big bucks for it, why is why the value of this lens has appreciated so much since it went out of production.

Shadow by Moonlight: why all that glass matters!

Should I sit on one?
When it comes to high-tech toys, age is usually bad news. Key word: usually. When it last sold new, the 28 f1.4D Aspherical was going for around $1,700, the most expensive lens in Nikon's lineup until you got to the 300 f2.8. After production ceased, many people still wanted the lens and, there being a very limited supply, prices skyrocketed to over $4,000 for ones in like-new condition, which begs the question: should I buy one now in order to sell it in the future at a higher price? My answer: no. No one knows what the future market asking price will be 1, 3, or 10 years down the road. My bet, with the 24 f1.4 and 28 f1.8 out now, prices on the 28 f1.4D will start to drop as there are now cheaper, virtual replacements of this lens on the market.

The Nikkor 28 f1.4D Aspherical: a lens you'll love to have on your camera!
Conclusion: 4.75/5
The Nikkor 28 f1.4D Aspherical is quite a lens, and its reputation as one of the finest ever produced by Nikon is well-deserved. Honestly, everything about the lens is of the highest grade with the only minor nitpick being the vignetting, which is very noticeable when shot wide open on FX/film, even in darker settings. The good news: stopping down to f2 or shooting JPEG while employing the vignette correction will cure this problem. Bottom line: if you are an indoor FX/film shooter who hates to use flash, this could be the only lens you ever need thanks to its whopping maximum aperture which, surprisingly, not only produces usable images, but downright good ones. Recommendation? Commonly selling for over $3,000 used, this lens is no cheap piece of glass but, for people who are either working pros and/or have the money to burn, you won't regret purchasing a 28 f1.4D, that is if you can find one. This is an outstanding lens and people hold onto them, which is why they're so rare on the used market (and expensive when they do show up). 


Gallery

Humble Requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Sony: Smartphones Could Kill Digital Cameras

Last week, Sony announced its DSC Cybershot HX50V, a pocket-sized 30x zoom point and shoot. In and of itself, the new Sony makes for quite the camera (on paper, at least) thanks to its optics, sensor, wireless connectivity, and manual modes, which could lead many to overlook an unusual, and telling, statement in the press release.

In the official announcement of the new camera, Patrick Huang, director of the Cyber-shot digital camera business at Sony Electronics, stated that “despite the emergence of smart phone cameras in today’s market, the HX50V model gives photographers plenty of reason to invest in a dedicated pocket camera.” The implication: Sony recognizes that smartphones threaten the traditional dedicated camera business.

So, will the smartphone kill the pocket cam? Hardly, if you ask me.

There are several things that make true cameras stand out: better resolution, better AF, more versatile optics (think zoom), external buttons that allow for quick changes to settings, and the laundry list of customizable options that do not appear on most cell phones. In addition, point and shoot cameras can be made to be water, freeze, and crush-proof, too.

For anyone who is serious about taking pictures, any smart phone's user interface is its biggest drawback. On a cell phone, you are forced to dive into menus and scroll around for pretty much every single setting change you want to make. On some (but not all) pocket cameras, the basic setting controls are at your fingertips in the form of buttons, no menu diving required. With this vital attribute, someone with a real camera can be snapping a once in a lifetime photo while the smart phone user is scrolling through menus, trying to find the setting he/she wants to change.

In the end, many smart phones have great cameras that can produce pictures that are just about impossible to distinguis from a traditional camera. The problem: lousy user interfaces.

Bottom line: unless you're only wanting the bare bones of photographic applications, namely aim and shoot, it will be wise to hold onto your camera for the time being because, while both can make great pictures, it's ust a lot less frustrating to use a real camera when time is crucial in getting or missing that fleeting, once in a lifetime photo-op.

Humble Requests:
If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

It's Official: the Canon Rebel T5i (700D) Sucks!

The Canon Rebel T5i is the exact same thing as the T4i (650D) and T3i (600D), which means that it is obsolete, over-priced garbage that should have hit the digital dumpster a year ago and not have been re-warmed in the technological microwave for a second time.

So, that out of the way, if you need to see why the T5i sucks so bad, just go here and see how virtually the specifications of the 2-generation old camera are the same as on the one introduced last week. Going beyond the numbers, let's continue.


For starters, Canon has shoved an archaic sensor into the camera: the same 18mp chip that the company has used in its sub-frame dSLRs since 2009. Yes, while it is nice to see Canon reining in the pixels, seeing them do it with a
sensor soon to celebrate its 4^th birthday is not good at all, especially with other manufacturers developing new chips.

Another point of irritation: less than 100% viewfinder coverage. Sure, a 95% viewfinder would have been passable a few years ago, but this is 2013 and people are demanding (and companies are providing) 100% coverage, even on consumer-grade models.

Other, smaller points to complain about are many, too. For starters, the T5i only has a 1/4000th second top shutter speed, which is sure to bother some people, as well as a slower than other Canons flash sync speed, too. Oh, yes, and Canon still has no AF assist lamp on the T5i (or anything else for that matter)!

As for what's new, well, I'm still trying to figure that out. So far, the only upgrades I can determine with certainty are an updated nameplate, box, and manual.

The good news is that all is not bad by any means as the old T3i, essentially the same thing, is still available for about $250 less than the T5i, with even greater discounts to be found on factory refurbished models.

Bottom line: don't buy a T5i.

If you feel that you must have a T5i, according to Canon, it will sell starting in April for $899.99 when bundled with an EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens kit, and $1,099.00 with the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens kit.

Humble Requests:
If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

How to See Comet PANSTARRS Tonight (Maps, Photos)

 

Well, I finally did it: got to see Comet PANSTARRS as the sky finally cleared at dusk for the first time since the comet entered the Northern sky (lovely Northeast Ohio weather!). So, having seen the comet for myself (with some difficulty), I thought it would be best to pass on some viewing tips to the world to aid others' comet hunts.

My biggest surprise with Comet PANSTARRS was just how difficult it was to spot in the first place. While it is being reported as shining around 0 magnitude, it is still very difficult to see thanks to its proximity to the Sun. In looking for the comet, I used my Starry Night Pro software to help. Problem: Starry Night shows the comet as popping into visibility too early, way too early.

At my location, the Sun sets about 7:30pm and Starry Night showed the comet popping into naked eye visibility around 8pm, 30 minutes after sunset. In reality, though, I couldn't see the comet until about 8:15, or about 45 minutes after sunset. Which brings me to tip #1: don't head out until about 45 minutes after sunset.

As for seeing the comet itself, it was made more difficult by a cloudy, hazy horizon (see above picture), so much so that, at about quarter past eight, I was about to just give up and head in after having fruitlessly scanned the sky with 10x50 binoculars in the freezing cold for over15 minutes. Before heading in, I decided to fire off one last picture, 2 second shutter speed, hoping that the camera would show up on camera, which it did. Therefore we have tip #2: use a camera to find the comet if you can't pick it up visually with binoculars.

Once found on camera, I went right back to that patch of sky with the binoculars and, as if by magic, the comet was there.

Once I had the comet spotted visually, it was getting closer to 8:30, which meant that the comet was scarcely 5 degrees above the horizon. Unfortunately, with the haze, houses, and killjoy lights, I didn't have much time to savor the view, let alone get off a good picture with a fixed telescope (no time to get all the cords), which brings me to my third and final tip #3: scout out a good Western horizon free of lighting.

So, hopefully, these tips will serve to help anyone who has yet to see the comet. As for a visual representation, use the pictures below to serve as a guide. All are  set for 8:30pm at 41 degree North. A final observation: Starry Night has PANSTARRS dropping a magnitude and a half next week, which will make spotting it all the tougher.

Okay, I lied: tip #4: make it a point to see the comet as soon as possible!

 March 15

 March 17

 March 19

 March 21

March 23

Humble Requests:
If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

It's a Fraud: St Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes

Well, according to St. Malachy's famous (one might say infamous) Prophecy of the Popes, the final pontiff has been elected. There are just two problems: his name (birth or papal) isn't Peter and he isn't a Roman. Oops!

As anyone who has visited this website for the past year and a half knows, I have a like of debunking prophecy, especially in light of the astronomically-inspired Maya doomsday prophecy that some held meant that the world would end on December 21, 2012. Well, the Maya doomsday 2012 prophecy didn't pan out (obviously) and, come the end of the papal conclave, the Prophecy of the Popes missed the mark, too.

So, how could this be?

For starters, many Catholic scholars dismiss the prophecy as a hoax. Reportedly written by St. Malachy, who lived in the 1100s, the prophecy never came to light until 1595, when it was published by Arnold de Wyon, a Benedictine monk, who 'discovered' it. More evidence against the prophecy? St. Malachy's biographer, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, never mentions any such prophecy (though he does detail several miracles attributed to Malachy) nor, for that matter, did St. Malachy himself.

As another, interesting observation, consider this: the prophecy was startlingly accurate about the popes until the time of its discovery but the predictions become so vague thereafter that the short descriptions can be twisted to apply to any pope should someone look hard enough for a connection. Implication: a late 1500s forgery bolstered by the attribution to a famous saint.

As for the (unusually long) description of the last pope, it reads as follows: “In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end.” The implication: after the reign of this pope ends, the world will be destroyed.

Now the reality.

Yesterday, the College of Cardinals elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio pope. Bergoglio took the name of Francis, thus ending the speculation of a Pope Peter II. Additionally, the new pope's birth name is missing 'Peter' as well. As for his place of birth, Pope Francis was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which is thousands of miles from Rome.

However, that hasn't stopped the prophecy proponents from going out of their way to twist the prophecy to the breaking point in order to fit it to the new pope, noting that St. Francis of Assisi, in whose honor Bergoglio chose his papal name, had a middle name of 'Pietro' (Peter in English). Talk about tenuous.

Throughout history, people have always been trying, and failing, to predict the future. Whether the prophets be religious or secular, the results have always been the same in that they have often missed the boat, whether by being specific and wrong or being so ambiguous that the meaning of a particular prophecy could be debated until the real end of time itself.

The only real question that we should have here upon the election of Pope Francis is this: why do we continue to believe the 0 for your guess prophets of doom, anyway?

Humble Requests:
If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Why Do We Have Daylight Savings Time and Other DST Trivia

Love it or hate it, we've just had to spring ahead for Daylight Savings Time (DST). So, rather than complain, have fun with DST and baffle your friends with these interesting DST trivia facts. Enjoy!


*Many ancient civilizations divided their days into 24 hours just like us, but adjusted the 'hours’ lengths so that there would always be 12 hours of day and 12 of night (this had to make setting up a date really suck).


*While he did not propose DST, Benjamin Franklin, while serving as envoy to France, anonymously published a letter suggesting people rise early (and thus go to bed earlier) to economize on candles and make use of natural sunlight. so no, don't blame Ben Franklin for our having to change the clocks (and you being an hour early for church this morning!)

* The catalyst for starting DST: saving energy during World War I, after which it was dropped until, you guessed it, WWII. Funny how wars spur things to get done.


*While we shift by an hour today, twenty and thirty minute shifts, and also two hour shifts, have been used in the past anda re currently used in different places over the world.


* The Uniform Time Act of 1966 standardized DST start/stop dates for the United States even though it doesn't require states to observe DST (Ariziona and Hawaii don't).


*Even now, start/end dates aren’t standard around the world


*Switch dates are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere


*In some areas, voters have rejected use of DST altogether while in other areas, there are pushes to eliminate Standard Time and have DST all year long (thus making DST the new Standard Time).


*'Standard' Time only lasts about 4 months of the year (hardly standard if you ask, me, how about calling it Daylight Losing Time?)

* If you fail to spring forward, you may wind up in an alternate universe where you will spend the rest of your life running from creepy garbage men if you can't get someone in DST to set your watch ahead for you.  Don't believe me? See for yourself!

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.