text:
Carrying capacity

The carrying capacity of an environment is the maximum population size of a biological species that can be sustained by that specific environment, given the food, habitat, water, and other resources available. The carrying capacity is defined as the environment's maximal load, which in population ecology corresponds to the population equilibrium, when the number of deaths in a population equals the number of births (as well as immigration and emigration). Carrying capacity of the environment implies that the resources extraction is not above the rate of regeneration of the resources and the wastes generated are within the assimilating capacity of the environment. The effect of carrying capacity on population dynamics is modelled with a logistic function. Carrying capacity is applied to the maximum population an environment can support in ecology, agriculture and fisheries. The term carrying capacity has been applied to a few different processes in the past before finally being applied to population limits in the 1950s. The notion of carrying capacity for humans is covered by the notion of sustainable population.

An early detailed examination of global limits was published in the 1972 book Limits to Growth, which has prompted follow-up commentary and analysis, including much criticism. A 2012 review in Nature by 22 international researchers expressed concerns that the Earth may be "approaching a state shift" in which the biosphere may become less hospitable to human life and in which human carrying capacity may diminish. This concern that humanity may be passing beyond "tipping points" for safe use of the biosphere has increased in subsequent years. Recent estimates of Earth's carrying capacity run between two billion and four billion people, depending on how optimistic researchers are about international cooperation to solve collective action problems.

Origins
In terms of population dynamics, the term 'carrying capacity' was not explicitly used in 1838 by the Belgian mathematician Pierre François Verhulst when he first published his equations based on research on modelling population growth.

The origins of the term "carrying capacity" are uncertain, with sources variously stating that it was originally used "in the context of international shipping" in the 1840s, or that it was first used during 19th-century laboratory experiments with micro-organisms. A 2008 review finds the first use of the term in English was an 1845 report by the US Secretary of State to the US Senate. It then became a term used generally in biology in the 1870s, being most developed in wildlife and livestock management in the early 1900s. It had become a staple term in ecology used to define the biological limits of a natural system related to population size in the 1950s.

Neo-Malthusians and eugenicists popularised the use of the words to describe the number of people the Earth can support in the 1950s, although American biostatisticians Raymond Pearl and Lowell Reed had already applied it in these terms to human populations in the 1920s.

Hadwen and Palmer (1923) defined carrying capacity as the density of stock that could be grazed for a definite period without damage to the range.

It was first used in the context of wildlife management by the American Aldo Leopold in 1933, and a year later by the American Paul Lester Errington, a wetlands specialist. They used the term in different ways, Leopold largely in the sense of grazing animals (differentiating between a 'saturation level', an intrinsic level of density a species would live in, and carrying capacity, the most animals which could be in the field) and Errington defining 'carrying capacity' as the number of animals above which predation would become 'heavy' (this definition has largely been rejected, including by Errington himself). The important and popular 1953 textbook on ecology by Eugene Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, popularised the term in its modern meaning as the equilibrium value of the logistic model of population growth.

Mathematics
The specific reason why a population stops growing is known as a limiting or regulating factor. The difference between the birth rate and the death rate is the natural increase. If the population of a given organism is below the carrying capacity of a given environment, this environment could support a positive natural increase; should it find itself above that threshold the population typically decreases. Thus, the carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals of a species that an environment can support in long run.

Population size decreases above carrying capacity due to a range of factors depending on the species concerned, but can include insufficient space, food supply, or sunlight. The carrying capacity of an environment varies for different species.

In the standard ecological algebra as illustrated in the simplified Verhulst model of population dynamics, carrying capacity is represented by the constant K:

 * $$ \frac{dN}{dt} = rN \left(1 - \frac{N}{K}\right) $$

where

 * $N$ is the population size,
 * $r$ is the intrinsic growth rate
 * $K$ is the carrying capacity of the local environment, and
 * $dN/dt$, the derivative of $N$ with respect to time $t$, is the rate of change in population with time.

Thus, the equation relates the growth rate of the population $N$ to the current population size, incorporating the effect of the two constant parameters $r$ and $K$. (Note that decrease is negative growth.) The choice of the letter $K$ came from the German Kapazitätsgrenze (capacity limit).

This equation is a modification of the original Verhulst model:

 * $$ \frac{dN}{dt} = rN - \alpha N^2$$

In this equation, the carrying capacity $K$, $$N^*$$, is

 * $$ N^* = \frac{r}{\alpha}. $$

When the Verhulst model is plotted into a graph, the population change over time takes the form of a sigmoid curve, reaching its highest level at $K$. This is the logistic growth curve and it is calculated with:

 * $$f(x) = \frac{L}{1 + e^{-k(x-x_0)}},$$

where

 * $e$ is the natural logarithm base (also known as Euler's number),
 * $x_{0}$ is the $x$ value of the sigmoid's midpoint,
 * $L$ is the curve's maximum value,
 * $K$ is the logistic growth rate or steepness of the curve and
 * $$f(x_0) = L/2.$$

The logistic growth curve depicts how population growth rate and carrying capacity are inter-connected. As illustrated in the logistic growth curve model, when the population size is small, the population increases exponentially. However, as population size nears carrying capacity, the growth decreases and reaches zero at $K$.

What determines a specific system's carrying capacity involves a limiting factor; this may be available supplies of food or water, nesting areas, space, or the amount of waste that can be absorbed without degrading the environment and decreasing carrying capacity.

Population ecology
Carrying capacity is a commonly used concept for biologists when trying to better understand biological populations and the factors which affect them. When addressing biological populations, carrying capacity can be seen as a stable dynamic equilibrium, taking into account extinction and colonization rates. In population biology, logistic growth assumes that population size fluctuates above and below an equilibrium value.

Numerous authors have questioned the usefulness of the term when applied to actual wild populations. Although useful in theory and in laboratory experiments, carrying capacity as a method of measuring population limits in the environment is less useful as it sometimes oversimplifies the interactions between species.

Agriculture
It is important for farmers to calculate the carrying capacity of their land so they can establish a sustainable stocking rate. For example, calculating the carrying capacity of a paddock in Australia is done in Dry Sheep Equivalents (DSEs). A single DSE is 50 kg Merino wether, dry ewe or non-pregnant ewe, which is maintained in a stable condition. Not only sheep are calculated in DSEs, the carrying capacity for other livestock is also calculated using this measure. A 200 kg weaned calf of a British style breed gaining 0.25 kg/day is 5.5DSE, but if the same weight of the same type of calf were gaining 0.75 kg/day, it would be measured at 8DSE. Cattle are not all the same, their DSEs can vary depending on breed, growth rates, weights, if it is a cow ('dam'), steer or ox ('bullock' in Australia), and if it weaning, pregnant or 'wet' (i.e. lactating).

In other parts of the world different units are used for calculating carrying capacities. In the United Kingdom the paddock is measured in LU, livestock units, although different schemes exist for this. New Zealand uses either LU, EE (ewe equivalents) or SU (stock units). In the US and Canada the traditional system uses animal units (AU). A French/Swiss unit is Unité de Gros Bétail (UGB).

In some European countries such as Switzerland the pasture (alm or alp) is traditionally measured in Stoß, with one Stoß equaling four Füße (feet). A more modern European system is Großvieheinheit (GV or GVE), corresponding to 500 kg in liveweight of cattle. In extensive agriculture 2 GV/ha is a common stocking rate, in intensive agriculture, when grazing is supplemented with extra fodder, rates can be 5 to 10 GV/ha. In Europe average stocking rates vary depending on the country, in 2000 the Netherlands and Belgium had a very high rate of 3.82 GV/ha and 3.19 GV/ha respectively, surrounding countries have rates of around 1 to 1.5 GV/ha, and more southern European countries have lower rates, with Spain having the lowest rate of 0.44 GV/ha.

This system can also be applied to natural areas. Grazing megaherbivores at roughly 1 GV/ha is considered sustainable in central European grasslands, although this varies widely depending on many factors. In ecology it is theoretically (i.e. cyclic succession, patch dynamics, Megaherbivorenhypothese) taken that a grazing pressure of 0.3 GV/ha by wildlife is enough to hinder afforestation in a natural area. Because different species have different ecological niches, with horses for example grazing short grass, cattle longer grass, and goats or deer preferring to browse shrubs, niche differentiation allows a terrain to have slightly higher carrying capacity for a mixed group of species, than it would if there were only one species involved.

Some niche market schemes mandate lower stocking rates than can maximally be grazed on a pasture. In order to market ones' meat products as 'biodynamic', a lower Großvieheinheit of 1 to 1.5 (2.0) GV/ha is mandated, with some farms having an operating structure using only 0.5 to 0.8 GV/ha.

The Food and Agriculture Organization has introduced three international units to measure carrying capacity: FAO Livestock Units for North America, FAO Livestock Units for sub-Saharan Africa,  and Tropical Livestock Units.

Another rougher and less precise method of determining the carrying capacity of a paddock is simply by looking objectively at the condition of the herd. In Australia, the national standardized system for rating livestock conditions is done by body condition scoring (BCS). An animal in a very poor condition is scored with a BCS of 0, and an animal which is extremely healthy is scored at 5: animals may be scored between these two numbers in increments of 0.25. At least 25 animals of the same type must be scored to provide a statistically representative number, and scoring must take place monthly -if the average falls, this may be due to a stocking rate above the paddock's carrying capacity or too little fodder. This method is less direct for determining stocking rates than looking at the pasture itself, because the changes in the condition of the stock may lag behind changes in the condition of the pasture.

Fisheries

In fisheries, carrying capacity is used in the formulae to calculate sustainable yields for fisheries management. The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is defined as "the highest average catch that can be continuously taken from an exploited population (=stock) under average environmental conditions". MSY was originally calculated as half of the carrying capacity, but has been refined over the years, now being seen as roughly 30% of the population, depending on the species or population. Because the population of a species which is brought below its carrying capacity due to fishing will find itself in the exponential phase of growth, as seen in the Verhulst model, the harvesting of an amount of fish at or below MSY is a surplus yield which can be sustainably harvested without reducing population size at equilibrium, keeping the population at its maximum recruitment. However, annual fishing can be seen as a modification of r in the equation -i.e. the environment has been modified, which means that the population size at equilibrium with annual fishing is slightly below what K would be without it.

Note that mathematically and in practical terms, MSY is problematic. If mistakes are made and even a tiny amount of fish are harvested each year above the MSY, populations dynamics imply that the total population will eventually decrease to zero. The actual carrying capacity of the environment may fluctuate in the real world, which means that practically, MSY may actually vary from year to year  (annual sustainable yields and maximum average yield attempt to take this into account). Other similar concepts are optimum sustainable yield and maximum economic yield; these are both harvest rates below MSY.

These calculations are used to determine fishing quotas.

Humans
Human carrying capacity is a function of how people live and the technology at their disposal. The two great economic revolutions that marked human history up to 1900—the agricultural and industrial revolutions—greatly increased the Earth's human carrying capacity, allowing human population to grow from 5 to 10 million people in 10,000 BCE to 1.5 billion in 1900. The immense technological improvements of the past 100 years—in applied chemistry, physics, computing, genetic engineering, and more—have further increased Earth's human carrying capacity, at least in the short term. Without the Haber-Bosch process for fixing nitrogen, modern agriculture could not support 8 billion people. Without the Green Revolution of the 1950s and 60s, famine might have culled large numbers of people in poorer countries during the last three decades of the twentieth century.

Recent technological successes, however, have come at grave environmental costs. Climate change, ocean acidification, and the huge dead zones at the mouths of many of world's great rivers, are a function of the scale of contemporary agriculture and the many other demands 8 billion people make on the planet. Scientists now speak of humanity exceeding or threatening to exceed 9 planetary boundaries for safe use of the biosphere. Humanity's unprecedented ecological impacts threaten to degrade the ecosystem services that people and the rest of life depend on—potentially decreasing Earth's human carrying capacity. The signs that we have crossed this threshold are increasing.

The fact that degrading Earth's essential services is obviously possible, and happening in some cases, suggests that 8 billion people may be above Earth's human carrying capacity. But human carrying capacity is always a function of a certain number of people living a certain way. This was encapsulated by Paul Ehrlich and James Holdren's (1972) IPAT equation: environmental impact (I) = population (P) x affluence (A) x the technologies used to accommodate human demands (T). IPAT has found spectacular confirmation in recent decades within climate science, where the Kaya identity for explaining changes in emissions is essentially IPAT with two technology factors broken out for ease of use.

This suggests to technological optimists that new technological discoveries (or the deployment of existing ones) could continue to increase Earth's human carrying capacity, as it has in the past. Yet technology has unexpected side effects, as we have seen with stratospheric ozone depletion, excessive nitrogen deposition in the world's rivers and bays, and global climate change. This suggests that 8 billion people may be sustainable for a few generations, but not over the long term, and the term ‘carrying capacity’ implies a population that is sustainable indefinitely. It is possible, too, that efforts to anticipate and manage the impacts of powerful new technologies, or to divide up the efforts needed to keep global ecological impacts within sustainable bounds among more than 200 nations all pursuing their own self-interest, may prove too complicated to achieve over the long haul.

One issue with applying carrying capacity to any species is that ecosystems are not constant and change over time, therefore changing the resources available. Research has shown that sometimes the presence of human populations can increase local biodiversity, demonstrating that human habitation does not always lead to deforestation and decreased biodiversity. Another issue to consider when applying carrying capacity, especially to humans, is that measuring food resources is arbitrary. This is due to choosing what to consider (e.g., whether or not to include plants that are not available every year), how to classify what is considered (e.g., classifying edible plants that are not usually eaten as food resources or not), and determining if caloric values or nutritional values are privileged. Additional layers to this for humans are their cultural differences in taste (e.g., some consume flying termites) and individual choices on what to invest their labor into (e.g., fishing vs. farming), both of which vary over time. This leads to the need to determine whether or not to include all food resources or only those the population considered will consume. Carrying capacity measurements over large areas also assumes homogeneity in the resources available but this does not account for how resources and access to them can greatly vary within regions and populations. They also assume that the populations in the region only rely on that region’s resources even though humans exchange resources with others from other regions and there are few, if any, isolated populations. Variations in standards of living which directly impact resource consumption are also not taken into account. These issues show that while there are limits to resources, a more complex model of how humans interact with their ecosystem needs to be used to understand them.

Recent warnings that humanity may have exceeded earth's carrying capacity
Between 1900 and 2020, Earths’ human population increased from 1.6 billion to 7.8 billion (a 390% increase). These successes greatly increased human resource demands, generating significant environmental degradation.

Millennium ecosystem assessment
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) of 2005 was a massive, collaborative effort to assess the state of Earth's ecosystems, involving more than 1,300 experts worldwide. Their first two of four main findings were the following. The first finding is:"Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth."The second of the four main findings is:"The changes that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people. These problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations obtain from ecosystems."According to the MEA, these unprecedented environmental changes threaten to reduce the Earth's long-term human carrying capacity. “The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this [21st] century,” they write, serving as a barrier to improving the lives of poor people around the world.

Critiques of Carrying Capacity with Relation to Humans
Humans and human culture itself are highly adaptable things that have overcome issues that seemed incomprehensible at the time before. It is not to say that carrying capacity is not something that should be considered and thought about, but it should be taken with some skepticism when presented as a concretely evidenced proof of something. Many biologists, ecologists, and social scientists have disposed of the term altogether due to the generalizations that are made that gloss over the complexity of interactions that take place on the micro and macro level. Carrying capacity in a human environment is subject to change at any time due to the highly adaptable nature of human society and culture. If resources, time, and energy are put into an issue, there very well may be a solution that exposes itself. This also should not be used as an excuse to overexploit or take advantage of the land or resources that are available. Nonetheless, it is possible to not be pessimistic as technological, social, and institutional adaptions could be accelerated, especially in a time of need, to solve problems, or in this case, increase carrying capacity. There are also of course resources on this Earth that are limited that most certainly will run out if overused or used without proper oversight/ checks and balances. If things are left without remaining checked then overconsumption and exploitation of land and resources is likely to occur.

Ecological footprint accounting
Ecological Footprint accounting measures the demands people make on nature and compares them to available supplies, for both individual countries and the world as a whole. Developed originally by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, it has been refined and applied in a variety of contexts over the years by the Global Footprint Network (GFN). On the demand side, the Ecological Footprint measures how fast a population uses resources and generates wastes, with a focus on five main areas: energy use, land devoted to direct settlement, timber and paper use, food and fiber use, and seafood consumption. It converts these into per capita or total hectares used. On the supply side, national or global biocapacity represents the productivity of ecological assets in a particular nation or the world as a whole; this includes “cropland, grazing land, forest land, fishing grounds, and built-up land.” Again the various metrics to capture biocapacity are translated into the single term of hectares of available land. As the Global Footprint Network (GFN) states:"Each city, state or nation’s Ecological Footprint can be compared to its biocapacity, or that of the world. If a population’s Ecological Footprint exceeds the region’s biocapacity, that region runs a biocapacity deficit. Its demand for the goods and services that its land and seas can provide—fruits and vegetables, meat, fish, wood, cotton for clothing, and carbon dioxide absorption—exceeds what the region’s ecosystems can regenerate. In more popular communications, we also call this “an ecological deficit.” A region in ecological deficit meets demand by importing, liquidating its own ecological assets (such as overfishing), and/or emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If a region’s biocapacity exceeds its Ecological Footprint, it has a biocapacity reserve."According to the GFN's calculations, humanity has been using resources and generating wastes in excess of sustainability since approximately 1970: currently we use Earth's resources at approximately 160% of capacity. This implies that humanity is well over Earth's human carrying capacity for our current levels of affluence and technology use. According to the GFN:"In 2022, Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 28. Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has exhausted nature’s budget for the year. For the rest of the year, we are maintaining our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We are operating in overshoot."The concept of ‘overshoot’ can be seen as equivalent to exceeding human carrying capacity. According to the most recent calculations from GFN, most of the world's residents live in countries in ecological overshoot (see the map on the right). This includes countries with dense populations (such as China, India, and the Philippines), countries with high per capita consumption and resource use (France, Germany, and Saudi Arabia), and countries with both high per capita consumption and large numbers of people (Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Planetary Boundaries Framework
According to its developers, the planetary boundaries framework defines “a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system.” Human civilization has evolved in the relative stability of the Holocene epoch; crossing planetary boundaries for safe levels of atmospheric carbon, ocean acidity, or one of the other stated boundaries could send the global ecosystem spiraling into novel conditions that are less hospitable to life—possibly reducing global human carrying capacity. This framework, developed in an article published in 2009 in Nature and then updated in two articles published in 2015 in Science and in 2018 in PNAS,  identifies nine stressors of planetary support systems that need to stay within critical limits to preserve stable and safe biospheric conditions (see figure below). Climate change and biodiversity loss are seen as especially crucial, since on their own, they could push the Earth system out of the Holocene state: “transitions between time periods in Earth history have often been delineated by substantial shifts in climate, the biosphere, or both.” The scientific consensus is that humanity has exceeded three to five of the nine planetary boundaries for safe use of the biosphere and is pressing hard on several more. By itself, crossing one of the planetary boundaries does not prove humanity has exceeded Earth's human carrying capacity; perhaps technological improvements or clever management might reduce this stressor and bring us back within the biosphere's safe operating space. But when several boundaries are crossed, it becomes harder to argue that carrying capacity has not been breached. Because fewer people helps reduce all nine planetary stressors, the more boundaries are crossed, the clearer it appears that reducing human numbers is part of what is needed to get back within a safe operating space. Population growth regularly tops the list of causes of humanity's increasing impact on the natural environment in Earth system science literature. Recently, planetary boundaries developer Will Steffen and co-authors ranked global population change as the leading indicator of the influence of socio-economic trends on the functioning of the Earth system in the modern era, post-1750.

title: Carrying capacity


text:
Talk:Zero Wing

the four phrases mentioned all had > 1000 google hits, which considering how weird they are, is a sign that they have definitely been copied from Zero Wing. "somebody set up us the bomb" is actually more popular at 1780 hits than "move 'zig'" at just over 1000. "all your base" alone returns 52,000.

However, the less known phrases are probably more likely to acquire meanings...

http://hubert.retrogames.com/article.php?sid=1 is a good history of all this.

PC Engine cutscenes
Didn't the PC Engine vesion also feature cutscenes which are substantially different (although still have the same setting) than the ones from the MegaDrive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.127.71.84 (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

As far as I know it did, but what I want is a video of it. I've been wanting to see what it's likeAllyourbasearebelongtousomg 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation
Correctly translated, it should have read something like "All your bases are now in our possession. Do what you will, you have no chance of surviving!"

I didn't think it was necessary to include this piece of information since it's rather obvious what the line is trying to say. Kakashi-sensei 05:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

cube60659the phrases all your base are belong to us is more of a way of comunication that inables one seen of people to comuincate with the same or simuler people

Release date
I'm not sure if the European Mega Drive version was released in 1991 - the back of the box says:

(c) 1991 TOAPLAN CO., LTD. 1991

(c) 1992 SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD. Made in Japan

So I think it was probably released in 1992, but I don't have any evidence further than Sega claim copyright then (for the packaging?), even if the game itself only has a 1991 copyright date.

 * Could be a late 1991 release. Copyright year doesn’t always match year of release. I have a book I bought in December 2006 for example which was copyrighted 2007. — NRen2k5 08:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot
The article needs a screenshot. 138.237.165.140 12:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

4th level power up on the arcade version
I may well be wrong but i have been playing the original roms on the mame emulator, i have held the bomb untill i should get another one. The normall sequence continued no new bomb or 4th level power up. Could this be a difference between the sega version and the arcade?

 * That's what I think it is, I think I tried it once and it didn't work for me on an emulator either. --Eruhildo (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Funny... I played it on a Mega Drive emulator several times and never got weapon level 4. Then, after reading this topic, I played again, and guess what: suddenly it worked. I'm not sure why, because I couldn't reproduce it. In Stage 2 I had the bomb and weapon levels 3, then I shot a supply ship with a homing missile powerup, and when I picked that up, I got a "10 UP" - 10 extra lives! Shortly after that I destroyed another supply ship and I don't know whether it normally would have carried another bomb or a thruster powerup, but I guess the former, because there spawned the weapon level 4 powerup. Seems to be dependent on a randomizer. It's not imba, though. The biggest visual improvement is with the missiles - they're huge. And tactically they're generally the best weapon, as I think you will agree. --217.85.236.120 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

intro
if the Genesis version does not have AYB intro, does it have another one? Rds865 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mega Drive = Genesis. --Eruhildo (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More appropriately, there is no Genesis version of Zero Wing. 152.26.54.3 (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I'm starting to think that All your base are belong to us should be merged into this article. Both articles are pretty short, and 'Aybabtu' has only a little references, while 'Zero Wing' has none. Furthermore, I doubt 'Aybabtu' will ever be able to reach Good Article status with what little sources it has, so a merger wouldn't hurt. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, Aybabtu is far more famous than the game ever was. I think it makes more sense to keep them separate: this is an article about a game, that's an article about a meme. Stevage 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't change the fact that both pages are seriously lacking in material. Here in Wikipedia, we put page quality before the fame of the subject. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Both are above average in size. "Here in Wikipedia" it's better to have articles about clearly defined topics. The "quality" of the articles would not be improved by merging them. Stevage 04:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Above average in size"? Look at the video game articles Conan (2007 video game) and Alleyway. They are both Featured Articles, which means they are of the highest quality in Wikipedia. They are also both longer and more informative than either 'Zero Wing' or 'AYBABTU'. Only by merging the articles can they even come a little bit close to the length of either of those articles. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Length isn't everything. If there's not a lot to say about either one then so be it - we have two short articles. I agree with Stevage that they are about two different things and should stay two separate articles. Orpheus (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) No they should stay separate, like Stevage said this is about the game and the other page is about the meme. And who is to say that either one could not be brought to GA status? I've seen much shorter articles progress that far.  Whispe ring  08:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the articles should not be merged. Length has very little to do with quality. I say it would be much better to beef up the two articles with refs. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Here in Wikipedia" it is better to have articles organized rationally by topic. Someone searching for AYBABTU wants to find an article about either the meme, video, or song. Someone searching for Zero Wing wants information about the game. While I agree that both articles could be improved, it is better to independently improve both articles, rather than muddling things up by merging them into a long article with two subjects. Articles ought to be organized by subject, and based on what users are searching for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.185.61 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if this is how it's going to be, we'll have to consult some of the higher-ups that are experts on this subject on what should be done. I'm getting on that right away. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the articles should remain separate. This article is about the video game, and the other is about the Internet phenomenon. Both articles have the potential to be expanded beyond their current states. --WillMcC (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep them separate: AYB != Zero Wing. One a phenomenon, the other a game. I once saw train cars crawling past tagged "ALL", "YOUR", "BASE". I doubt fans of Zero Wing were responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.16.245 (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep separate. All your base is the original internet meme, and by far the most recognizable. It'd be absurd to merge it. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fame alone doesn't merit a separate article. Numerous third-party references and sufficient article length are needed as well. 204.169.132.2 (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I, for one, came to this page today simply to read about a game I used to play as a kid.  I did not wish to have an old, tired meme rehashed at great length.  If I wanted that, I'd visit All your base are belong to us itself.  Linking is sufficient.  Deltwalrus (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's anything to merge, Zero Wing should be merged into All your base. But those are two separate things and it should not be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witols (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards
I've been told that G4's annual video game award show has a category for the worst translation in a video game of all time, which Zero Wing wins every year. Would that be noteworthy for the entry? 129.237.90.15 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the (former?) popularity of the All your base are belong to us meme, I'd say yes. Since that award pertains to the game itself, and the shoddy translation is already mentioned in the article.  A link to the actual award would be nice, though, and I couldn't grok it off of the Google. Deltwalrus (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

2001 vs. 2000
I beieve that the following saying it sparked internet meme in 2000. It was actully mid-2001. I will not change it until I have complete proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Dad (talk • contribs) 03:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Google
Google reference here. not sure how these things work, but i propose a temporary lock? 74.180.79.68 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All our base are belong to whom?
With Toaplan bankrupt, who owns the exclusive rights in this game? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Zero Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090908011236/http://www.wired.com:80/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/02/42009 to http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/02/42009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cats?
Is it an acronym for Cruel Alien That Shoots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.8.98 (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Japanese of Zero Wing has 35 endings, mostly humorous; game rumored to be created by new developers
Source: http://legendsoflocalization.com/zero-wing-had-32-weird-secret-endings-in-japan/

In the comments, [someone mentioned that Zero Wing was made by new programmers of Toaplan, to test their capabilities http://legendsoflocalization.com/zero-wing-had-32-weird-secret-endings-in-japan/#comment-668183]. The owner of the website wasn't able to find a source for that, however. --Kakurady (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Zero Wing


text:
Vardar Macedonia

Vardar Macedonia (Macedonian and Вардарска Македонија, Vardarska Makedonija) was the name given to the territory of the Kingdom of Serbia (1912–1918) and Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1941) roughly corresponding to today's North Macedonia. It covers the northwestern part of geographical Macedonia, whose modern borders came to be defined by the mid-19th century.

History
Vardar Macedonia usually refers to the central part of the region of Macedonia attributed to the Kingdom of Serbia by the Treaty of Bucharest (1913) after the Balkan Wars. The territory is named after Vardar, the major river that cuts across the region from northwest to southeast, to distinguish it from both Greek Macedonia and the region around the Pirin Mountain in Bulgaria.

The region was initially known as Serbian Macedonia although the use of the name Macedonia was prohibited later in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, due to the implemented policy of Serbianisation of the local Slavic-speakers. From 1919 to 1922, the area (including parts of today Kosovo and Eastern Serbia) was part of South Serbia (Jужна Србија, Južna Srbija), In 1929, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was divided into provinces called banovinas. Vardar Macedonia as part of South Serbia then became part of Vardar Banovina.

During World War I it was occupied by Bulgaria as part of the Military Inspection Area of Macedonia. After the war the present-day Strumica and Novo Selo municipalities were broken away from Bulgaria and ceded to Yugoslavia. During the Second World War, Bulgaria established two administrative districts in the region – Bitola and Skopje. In 1946, most of Vardar Macedonia as one of the six constituent countries of SFR Yugoslavia became the People's Republic of Macedonia (1946–1963), which was later renamed to Socialist Republic of Macedonia (1963–1991). Before the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, the region was also called Yugoslav Macedonia.

After the breakup of Yugoslavia, besides North Macedonia, the region encompasses also Trgovište and Preševo municipalities in Serbia, as well the Elez Han municipality in Kosovo.

title: Vardar Macedonia


text:
Daylight saving time

Daylight saving time (DST), also referred to as daylight saving(s), daylight savings time, daylight time (United States and Canada), or summer time (United Kingdom, European Union, and others), is the practice of advancing clocks to make better use of the longer daylight available during summer so that darkness falls at a later clock time. The typical implementation of DST is to set clocks forward by one hour in spring or late winter, and to set clocks back by one hour to standard time in the autumn (or fall in North American English, hence the mnemonic: "spring forward and fall back").
 * alt=World map. Europe, most of North America, parts of southern South America and southeastern Australia, and a few other places use DST. Most of equatorial Africa and a few other places near the equator have never used DST as the seasons are not marked by drastic changes in light. The rest of the landmass is marked as formerly using DST.|Daylight saving time regions:

DST is not usually observed near the Equator, where sunrise and sunset times do not vary enough to justify it; conversely, it is often not observed in places at high latitudes where a one-hour clock shift would provide little benefit because of the wide variations in sunrise and sunset times. Consequently, only a minority of the world's population uses DST. Some countries observe it only in some regions for example: it is observed only by some Australian states and by all states in the United States except for Hawaii and Arizona (within the latter, however, the Navajo Nation does observe it.

Historically, several ancient societies adopted seasonal changes to their timekeeping to make better use of daylight; Roman timekeeping even included changes to water clocks to accommodate this. However, these were changes to the time divisions of the day rather than setting the whole clock forward. In a satirical letter to the editor of the Journal de Paris in 1784, Benjamin Franklin suggested that if Parisians could only wake up earlier in the summer they would economize on candle and oil usage, but he did not propose changing the clocks. In 1895, New Zealand entomologist and astronomer George Hudson made the first realistic proposal to change clocks by two hours every spring to the Wellington Philosophical Society, but this was not implemented until 1928 and in another form. In 1907, William Willett proposed the adoption of British Summer Time as a way to save energy but although seriously considered by Parliament it was not implemented until 1916.

The first implementation of DST was by Port Arthur (today merged into Thunder Bay), in Ontario, Canada, in 1908, but only locally, not nationally. The first nation-wide implementations were by the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, both starting on 30 April 1916. Since then, many countries have adopted DST at various times, particularly since the 1970s energy crisis.

Rationale
Industrialized societies usually follow a clock-based schedule for daily activities that do not change throughout the course of the year. The time of day that individuals begin and end work or school, and the coordination of mass transit, for example, usually remain constant year-round. In contrast, an agrarian society's daily routines for work and personal conduct are more likely governed by the length of daylight hours and by solar time, which change seasonally because of the Earth's axial tilt. North and south of the tropics, daylight lasts longer in summer and shorter in winter, with the effect becoming greater the farther one moves away from the equator. DST is of little use for locations near the Equator, because these regions see only a small variation in daylight over the course of the year.

After synchronously resetting all clocks in a region to one hour ahead of standard time in spring in anticipation of longer daylight hours, individuals following a clock-based schedule will be awakened an hour earlier in the solar day than they would have otherwise. They will begin and complete daily work routines an hour earlier; in most cases, they will have an extra hour of daylight available to them after their workday activities.

Proponents of daylight saving time argue that most people prefer a greater increase in daylight hours after the typical "nine to five" workday. Supporters have also argued that DST decreases energy consumption by reducing the need for lighting and heating, but the actual effect on overall energy use is heavily disputed.

The clock shift is also motivated by practicality. In American temperate latitudes, for example, the sun rises around 04:30 at the summer solstice and sets around 19:30. Since most people are asleep at 04:30, it is seen as more practical to treat 04:30 as if it is 05:30, thereby allowing people to wake closer to the sunrise and be active in the evening light.

Variation within a time zone
The effect of daylight saving time also varies according to how far east or west the location is within its time zone, with locations farther east inside the time zone benefiting more from DST than locations farther west in the same time zone. In spite of a width spanning thousands of kilometers, all of China is located within a single time zone per government mandate, minimizing any potential benefit of daylight saving time there.

History
Ancient civilizations adjusted daily schedules to the sun more flexibly than DST does, often dividing daylight into 12 hours regardless of daytime, so that each daylight hour became progressively longer during spring and shorter during autumn. For example, the Romans kept time with water clocks that had different scales for different months of the year; at Rome's latitude, the third hour from sunrise (hora tertia) started at 09:02 solar time and lasted 44 minutes at the winter solstice, but at the summer solstice it started at 06:58 and lasted 75 minutes. From the 14th century onward, equal-length civil hours supplanted unequal ones, so civil time no longer varied by season. Unequal hours are still used in a few traditional settings, such as monasteries of Mount Athos and in Jewish ceremonies.

Benjamin Franklin published the proverb "early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise", and published a letter in the Journal de Paris when he was an American envoy to France (1776–1785) suggesting that Parisians economize on candles by rising earlier to use morning sunlight. This 1784 satire proposed taxing window shutters, rationing candles, and waking the public by ringing church bells and firing cannons at sunrise. Despite common misconception, Franklin did not actually propose DST; 18th-century Europe did not even keep precise schedules. However, this changed as rail transport and communication networks required a standardization of clocks unknown in Franklin's day.

In 1810, the Spanish National Assembly Cortes of Cádiz issued a regulation that moved certain meeting times forward by one hour from 1 May to 30 September in recognition of seasonal changes, but it did not change the clocks. It also acknowledged that private businesses were in the practice of changing their opening hours to suit daylight conditions, but they did so of their volition.

New Zealand entomologist George Hudson first proposed modern DST. His shift-work job gave him spare time to collect insects and led him to value after-hours daylight. In 1895, he presented a paper to the Wellington Philosophical Society proposing a two-hour daylight-saving shift, and considerable interest was expressed in Christchurch; he followed up with an 1898 paper. Many publications credit the DST proposal to prominent English builder and outdoorsman William Willett, who independently conceived DST in 1907 during a pre-breakfast ride when he observed how many Londoners slept through a large part of a summer day. Willett also was an avid golfer who disliked cutting short his round at dusk. His solution was to advance the clock during the summer, and he published the proposal two years later. Liberal Party member of parliament Robert Pearce took up the proposal, introducing the first Daylight Saving Bill to the British House of Commons on 12 February 1908. A select committee was set up to examine the issue, but Pearce's bill did not become law and several other bills failed in the following years. Willett lobbied for the proposal in the UK until his death in 1915.

Port Arthur, Ontario, Canada, was the first city in the world to enact DST, on 1 July 1908. This was followed by Orillia, Ontario, introduced by William Sword Frost while mayor from 1911 to 1912. The first states to adopt DST (Sommerzeit) nationally were those of the German Empire and its World War I ally Austria-Hungary commencing on 30 April 1916, as a way to conserve coal during wartime. Britain, most of its allies, and many European neutrals soon followed. Russia and a few other countries waited until the next year, and the United States adopted daylight saving in 1918. Most jurisdictions abandoned DST in the years after the war ended in 1918, with exceptions including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, and the United States. It became common during World War II (some countries adopted double summer time), and was standardized in the US by federal law in 1966, and widely adopted in Europe from the 1970s as a result of the 1970s energy crisis. Since then, the world has seen many enactments, adjustments, and repeals.

It is a common myth in the United States that DST was first implemented for the benefit of farmers. In reality, farmers have been one of the strongest lobbying groups against DST since it was first implemented. The factors that influence farming schedules, such as morning dew and dairy cattle's readiness to be milked, are ultimately dictated by the sun, so the clock change introduces unnecessary challenges.

DST was first implemented in the US with the Standard Time Act of 1918, a wartime measure for seven months during World War I in the interest of adding more daylight hours to conserve energy resources. Year-round DST, or "War Time", was implemented again during World War II. After the war, local jurisdictions were free to choose if and when to observe DST until the Uniform Time Act which standardized DST in 1966. Permanent daylight saving time was enacted for the winter of 1974, but there were complaints of children going to school in the dark and working people commuting and starting their work day in pitch darkness during the winter, and it was repealed a year later.

Procedure
The relevant authorities usually schedule clock changes to occur at (or soon after) midnight and on a weekend, in order to lessen disruption to weekday schedules. A one-hour change is usual, but twenty-minute and two-hour changes have been used in the past. Notable exceptions today include Lord Howe Island with a thirty-minute change, and Troll (research station) that shifts two hours directly between CEST and GMT since 2016. In all countries that observe daylight saving time seasonally (i.e., during summer and not winter), the clock is advanced from standard time to daylight saving time in the spring, and it is turned back from daylight saving time to standard time in the autumn.

For a midnight change in spring, a digital display of local time would appear to jump from 23:59:59.9 to 01:00:00.0. For the same clock in autumn, the local time would appear to repeat the hour preceding midnight, i.e. it would jump from 23:59:59.9 to 23:00:00.0.

In most countries that observe seasonal daylight saving time, clocks revert in winter to "standard time". An exception exists in Ireland, where its winter clock has the same offset (UTC±00:00) and legal name as that in Britain (Greenwich Mean Time)—but while its summer clock also has the same offset as Britain's (UTC+01:00), its legal name is Irish Standard Time as opposed to British Summer Time.

Since 2019, Morocco observes daylight saving time every month but Ramadan. During the holy month (the date of which is determined by the lunar calendar and thus moves annually with regard to the Gregorian calendar), the country's civil clocks observe Western European Time (UTC+00:00, which geographically overlaps most of the nation). At the close of that month, its clocks are turned forward to Western European Summer Time (UTC+01:00).

The time at which to change clocks differs across jurisdictions. Members of the European Union conduct a coordinated change, changing all zones at the same instant, at 01:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which means that it changes at 02:00 Central European Time (CET), equivalent to 03:00 Eastern European Time (EET). As a result, the time differences across European time zones remain constant. North America coordination of the clock change differs, in that each jurisdiction changes at each local clock's 02:00, which temporarily creates an imbalance with the next time zone (until it adjusts its clock, one hour later, at 2 am there). For example, Mountain Time is for one hour in the spring two hours ahead of Pacific Time instead of the usual one hour ahead, and instead of one hour in the autumn, briefly zero hours ahead of Pacific Time.

The dates on which clocks change vary with location and year; consequently, the time differences between regions also vary throughout the year. For example, Central European Time is usually six hours ahead of North American Eastern Time, except for a few weeks in March and October/November, while the United Kingdom and mainland Chile could be five hours apart during the northern summer, three hours during the southern summer, and four hours for a few weeks per year. Since 1996, European Summer Time has been observed from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October; previously the rules were not uniform across the European Union. Starting in 2007, most of the United States and Canada observed DST from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November, almost two-thirds of the year. Moreover, the beginning and ending dates are roughly reversed between the northern and southern hemispheres because spring and autumn are displaced six months. For example, mainland Chile observes DST from the second Saturday in October to the second Saturday in March, with transitions at the local clock's 24:00. In some countries, clocks are governed by regional jurisdictions within the country such that some jurisdictions change and others do not; this is currently the case in Australia, Canada, and the United States.

From year to year, the dates on which to change clock may also move for political or social reasons. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 formalized the United States' period of daylight saving time observation as lasting six months (it was previously declared locally); this period was extended to seven months in 1986, and then to eight months in 2005. The 2005 extension was motivated in part by lobbyists from the candy industry, seeking to increase profits by including Halloween (31 October) within the daylight saving time period. In recent history, Australian state jurisdictions not only changed at different local times but sometimes on different dates. For example, in 2008 most states there that observed daylight saving time changed clocks forward on 5 October, but Western Australia changed on 26 October.

Politics, religion and sport
The concept of daylight saving has caused controversy since its early proposals. Winston Churchill argued that it enlarges "the opportunities for the pursuit of health and happiness among the millions of people who live in this country" and pundits have dubbed it "Daylight Slaving Time". Retailing, sports, and tourism interests have historically favored daylight saving, while agricultural and evening-entertainment interests (and some religious groups  ) have opposed it; energy crises and war prompted its initial adoption.

Willett's 1907 proposal illustrates several political issues. It attracted many supporters, including Arthur Balfour, Churchill, David Lloyd George, Ramsay MacDonald, King Edward VII (who used half-hour DST or "Sandringham time" at Sandringham), the managing director of Harrods, and the manager of the National Bank Ltd. However, the opposition proved stronger, including Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, William Christie (the Astronomer Royal), George Darwin, Napier Shaw (director of the Meteorological Office), many agricultural organizations, and theatre-owners. After many hearings, a parliamentary committee vote narrowly rejected the proposal in 1909. Willett's allies introduced similar bills every year from 1911 through 1914, to no avail. People in the US demonstrated even more skepticism; Andrew Peters introduced a DST bill to the House of Representatives in May 1909, but it soon died in committee.

Germany and its allies led the way in introducing DST (Sommerzeit) during World War I on 30 April 1916, aiming to alleviate hardships due to wartime coal shortages and air-raid blackouts. The political equation changed in other countries; the United Kingdom used DST first on 21 May 1916. US retailing and manufacturing interests—led by Pittsburgh industrialist Robert Garland—soon began lobbying for DST, but railroads opposed the idea. The US' 1917 entry into the war overcame objections, and DST started in 1918.

The end of World War I brought a change in DST use. Farmers continued to dislike DST, and many countries repealed it—like Germany itself, which dropped DST from 1919 to 1939 and from 1950 to 1979. Britain proved an exception; it retained DST nationwide but adjusted transition dates over the years for several reasons, including special rules during the 1920s and 1930s to avoid clock shifts on Easter mornings. , summer time began annually on the last Sunday in March under a European Community directive, which may be Easter Sunday (as in 2016). In the US, Congress repealed DST after 1919. President Woodrow Wilson—an avid golfer like Willett—vetoed the repeal twice, but his second veto was overridden. Only a few US cities retained DST locally, including New York (so that its financial exchanges could maintain an hour of arbitrage trading with London), and Chicago and Cleveland (to keep pace with New York). Wilson's successor as president, Warren G. Harding, opposed DST as a "deception", reasoning that people should instead get up and go to work earlier in the summer. He ordered District of Columbia federal employees to start work at 8 am rather than 9 am during the summer of 1922. Some businesses followed suit, though many others did not; the experiment was not repeated.

Since Germany's adoption of DST in 1916, the world has seen many enactments, adjustments, and repeals of DST, with similar politics involved. The history of time in the United States features DST during both world wars, but no standardization of peacetime DST until 1966. St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, kept different clocks for two weeks in May 1965: the capital city decided to switch to daylight saving time, while Minneapolis opted to follow the later date set by state law. In the mid-1980s, Clorox and 7-Eleven provided the primary funding for the Daylight Saving Time Coalition behind the 1987 extension to US DST. Both senators from Idaho, Larry Craig and Mike Crapo, voted for it based on the premise that fast-food restaurants sell more French fries (made from Idaho potatoes) during DST.

A referendum on the introduction of daylight saving took place in Queensland, Australia, in 1992, after a three-year trial of daylight saving. It was defeated with a 54.5% "no" vote, with regional and rural areas strongly opposed, and those in the metropolitan southeast in favor.

In 2003, the United Kingdom's Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents supported a proposal to observe year-round daylight saving time, but it has been opposed by some industries, by some postal workers and farmers, and particularly by those living in the northern regions of the UK.

In 2005, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Convenience Stores successfully lobbied for the 2007 extension to US DST.

In December 2008, the Daylight Saving for South East Queensland (DS4SEQ) political party was officially registered in Queensland, advocating the implementation of a dual-time-zone arrangement for daylight saving in South East Queensland, while the rest of the state maintained standard time. DS4SEQ contested the March 2009 Queensland state election with 32 candidates and received one percent of the statewide primary vote, equating to around 2.5% across the 32 electorates contested. After a three-year trial, more than 55% of Western Australians voted against DST in 2009, with rural areas strongly opposed. Queensland Independent member Peter Wellington introduced the Daylight Saving for South East Queensland Referendum Bill 2010 into the Queensland parliament on 14 April 2010, after being approached by the DS4SEQ political party, calling for a referendum at the next state election on the introduction of daylight saving into South East Queensland under a dual-time-zone arrangement. The Queensland parliament rejected Wellington's bill on 15 June 2011.

Russia declared in 2011 that it would stay in DST all year long (UTC+4:00) and Belarus followed with a similar declaration. (The Soviet Union had operated under permanent "summer time" from 1930 to at least 1982.) Russia's plan generated widespread complaints due to the dark of winter-time mornings, and thus was abandoned in 2014. The country changed its clocks to standard time (UTC+3:00) on 26 October 2014, intending to stay there permanently.

In the United States, Arizona (with the exception of the Navajo Nation), Hawaii, and the five populated territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands) do not participate in daylight saving time. Indiana only began participating in daylight saving time as recently as 2006. Since 2018, Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio has repeatedly filed bills to extend daylight saving time permanently into winter, without success.

Mexico observed summertime daylight saving time starting in 1996. In late 2022, the nation's clocks "fell back" for the last time, in restoration of permanent standard time.

Religion
Some religious groups and individuals have opposed DST on religious grounds. For religious Muslims and Jews it makes religious practices such as prayer and fasting more difficult or inconvenient. Some Muslim countries, such as Morocco, have temporarily abandoned DST during Ramadan.

In Israel, DST has been a point of contention between the religious and secular, resulting in fluctuations over the years, and a shorter DST period than in the EU and US. Religious Jews prefer a shorter DST due to DST delaying scheduled morning prayers, thus conflicting with standard working and business hours. Additionally, DST is ended before Yom Kippur (a 25-hour fast day starting and ending at sunset, much of which is spent praying in synagogue until the fast ends at sunset) since DST would result in the day ending later, which many feel makes it more difficult.

In the US, Orthodox Jewish groups have opposed extensions to DST, as well as a 2022 bipartisan bill that would make DST permanent, saying it will "interfere with the ability of members of our community to engage in congregational prayers and get to their places of work on time."

Effects on electricity consumption
Proponents of DST generally argue that it saves energy, promotes outdoor leisure activity in the evening (in summer), and is therefore good for physical and psychological health, reduces traffic accidents, reduces crime or is good for business. Opponents argue the actual energy savings are inconclusive.

Although energy conservation goals still remain, energy usage patterns have greatly changed since then. Electricity use is greatly affected by geography, climate, and economics, so the results of a study conducted in one place may not be relevant to another country or climate.

A 2017 meta-analysis of 44 studies found that DST leads to electricity savings of 0.3% during the days when DST applies. Several studies have suggested that DST increases motor fuel consumption, but a 2008 United States Department of Energy report found no significant increase in motor gasoline consumption due to the 2007 United States extension of DST. An early goal of DST was to reduce evening usage of incandescent lighting, once a primary use of electricity.

Economic effects
It has been argued that clock shifts correlate with decreased economic efficiency and that in 2000, the daylight-saving effect implied an estimated one-day loss of $31 billion on US stock exchanges. Others have asserted that the observed results depend on methodology and disputed the findings, though the original authors have refuted points raised by disputers.

Effects on health
There are measurable adverse effects of clock-shifts on human health. It has been shown to disrupt human circadian rhythms, negatively affecting human health in the process, and that the yearly DST clock-shifts can increase health risks such as heart attack, and traffic accidents.

A 2017 study in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics estimated that "the transition into DST caused over 30 deaths at a social cost of $275 million annually", primarily by increasing sleep deprivation.

A correlation between clock shifts and increase in traffic accidents has been observed in North America and the UK but not in Finland or Sweden. Four reports have found that this effect is smaller than the overall reduction in traffic fatalities. In 2018, the European Parliament, reviewing a possible abolition of DST, approved a more in-depth evaluation examining the disruption of the human body's circadian rhythms which provided evidence suggesting the existence of an association between DST clock-shifts and a modest increase of occurrence of acute myocardial infarction, especially in the first week after the spring shift. However a Netherlands study found, against the majority of investigations, contrary or minimal effect. Year-round standard time (not year-round DST) is proposed by some to be the preferred option for public health and safety. Clock shifts were found to increase the risk of heart attack by 10 percent, and to disrupt sleep and reduce its efficiency. Effects on seasonal adaptation of the circadian rhythm can be severe and last for weeks.

Effects on social relations
DST hurts prime-time television broadcast ratings, drive-ins and other theaters. Artificial outdoor lighting has a marginal and sometimes even contradictory influence on crime and fear of crime.

Later sunsets from DST are thought to affect behavior; for example, increasing participation in after-school sports programs or outdoor afternoon sports such as golf, and attendance at professional sporting events. Advocates of daylight saving time argue that having more hours of daylight between the end of a typical workday and evening induces people to consume other goods and services.

In 2022, a publication of three replicating studies of individuals, between individuals, and transecting societies, demonstrated that sleep loss affects the human motivation to help others, which in its fMRI findings is "associated with deactivation of key nodes within the social cognition brain network that facilitates prosociality." Furthermore, they detected, through analysis of over three million real-world charitable donations, that the loss of sleep inflicted by the transition to daylight saving time reduces altruistic giving compared to controls (being states not implementing DST). They conclude that the effects on civil society are "non-trivial".

Another study, which also examined sleep manipulation due to the shift to daylight saving time in the spring, analyzed archival data from judicial punishment imposed by US federal courts which showed sleep-deprived judges exact more severe penalties.

Inconvenience
DST's clock shifts have the disadvantage of complexity. People must remember to change their clocks; this can be time-consuming, particularly for mechanical clocks that cannot be moved backward safely. People who work across time zone boundaries need to keep track of multiple DST rules, as not all locations observe DST or observe it the same way. The length of the calendar day becomes variable; it is no longer always 24 hours. Disruption to meetings, travel, broadcasts, billing systems, and records management is common, and can be expensive. During an autumn transition from 02:00 to 01:00, a clock shows local times from 01:00:00 through 01:59:59 twice, possibly leading to confusion.

Many farmers oppose DST, particularly dairy farmers as the milking patterns of their cows do not change with the time, and others whose hours are set by the sun. There is concern for schoolchildren who are out in the darkness during the morning due to late sunrises.

Remediation
Some clock-shift problems could be avoided by adjusting clocks continuously or at least more gradually —for example, Willett at first suggested weekly 20-minute transitions—but this would add complexity and has never been implemented. DST inherits and can magnify the disadvantages of standard time. For example, when reading a sundial, one must compensate for it along with time zone and natural discrepancies. Also, sun-exposure guidelines such as avoiding the sun within two hours of noon become less accurate when DST is in effect.

Andrew D. Huberman, a professor of neurobiology at Stanford University, suggests viewing sunlight before the sun is overhead & exercise, ideally outside, before 2 pm the day following the clock adjustment. This applies regardless of if the sky were to be covered by clouds.

Terminology
As explained by Richard Meade in the English Journal of the (American) National Council of Teachers of English, the form daylight savings time (with an "s") was already much more common than the older form daylight saving time in American English ("the change has been virtually accomplished") in 1978. Nevertheless, dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Oxford, which typically describe actual usage instead of prescribing outdated usage (and therefore also list the newer form), still list the older form first. This is because the older form is still very common in print and is preferred by many editors. ("Although daylight saving time is considered correct, daylight savings time (with an "s") is commonly used.") The first two words are sometimes hyphenated (daylight-saving(s) time). Merriam-Webster's also lists the forms daylight saving (without "time"), daylight savings (without "time"), and daylight time. Daylight saving time and its variants:
 * "also daylight savings time"
 * The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style explains the development and current situation as follows:"Although the singular form daylight saving time is the original one, dating from the early 20th century—and is preferred by some usage critics—the plural form is now extremely common in AmE. [...] The rise of daylight savings time appears to have resulted from the avoidance of a miscue: when saving is used, readers might puzzle momentarily over whether saving is a gerund (the saving of daylight) or a participle (the time for saving). [...] Using savings as the adjective—as in savings account or savings bond—makes perfect sense. More than that, it ought to be accepted as the better form."In Britain, Willett's 1907 proposal used the term daylight saving, but by 1911, the term summer time replaced daylight saving time in draft legislation. The same or similar expressions are used in many other languages: Sommerzeit in German, zomertijd in Dutch, kesäaika in Finnish, horario de verano or hora de verano in Spanish, and heure d'été in French.
 * "also daylight savings time"
 * The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style explains the development and current situation as follows:"Although the singular form daylight saving time is the original one, dating from the early 20th century—and is preferred by some usage critics—the plural form is now extremely common in AmE. [...] The rise of daylight savings time appears to have resulted from the avoidance of a miscue: when saving is used, readers might puzzle momentarily over whether saving is a gerund (the saving of daylight) or a participle (the time for saving). [...] Using savings as the adjective—as in savings account or savings bond—makes perfect sense. More than that, it ought to be accepted as the better form."In Britain, Willett's 1907 proposal used the term daylight saving, but by 1911, the term summer time replaced daylight saving time in draft legislation. The same or similar expressions are used in many other languages: Sommerzeit in German, zomertijd in Dutch, kesäaika in Finnish, horario de verano or hora de verano in Spanish, and heure d'été in French.
 * The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style explains the development and current situation as follows:"Although the singular form daylight saving time is the original one, dating from the early 20th century—and is preferred by some usage critics—the plural form is now extremely common in AmE. [...] The rise of daylight savings time appears to have resulted from the avoidance of a miscue: when saving is used, readers might puzzle momentarily over whether saving is a gerund (the saving of daylight) or a participle (the time for saving). [...] Using savings as the adjective—as in savings account or savings bond—makes perfect sense. More than that, it ought to be accepted as the better form."In Britain, Willett's 1907 proposal used the term daylight saving, but by 1911, the term summer time replaced daylight saving time in draft legislation. The same or similar expressions are used in many other languages: Sommerzeit in German, zomertijd in Dutch, kesäaika in Finnish, horario de verano or hora de verano in Spanish, and heure d'été in French.

The name of local time typically changes when DST is observed. American English replaces standard with daylight: for example, Pacific Standard Time (PST) becomes Pacific Daylight Time (PDT). In the United Kingdom, the standard term for UK time when advanced by one hour is British Summer Time (BST), and British English typically inserts summer into other time zone names, e.g. Central European Time (CET) becomes Central European Summer Time (CEST).

The North American English mnemonic "spring forward, fall back" (also "spring ahead ...", "spring up ...", and "... fall behind") helps people remember in which direction to shift the clocks.

Computing

Changes to DST rules cause problems in existing computer installations. For example, the 2007 change to DST rules in North America required that many computer systems be upgraded, with the greatest onus on e-mail and calendar programs. The upgrades required a significant effort by corporate information technologists.

Some applications standardize on UTC to avoid problems with clock shifts and time zone differences. Likewise, most modern operating systems internally handle and store all times as UTC and only convert to local time for display. However, even if UTC is used internally, the systems still require external leap second updates and time zone information to correctly calculate local time as needed. Many systems in use today base their date/time calculations from data derived from the tz database also known as zoneinfo.

IANA time zone database
The tz database maps a name to the named location's historical and predicted clock shifts. This database is used by many computer software systems, including most Unix-like operating systems, Java, and the Oracle RDBMS; HP's "tztab" database is similar but incompatible. When temporal authorities change DST rules, zoneinfo updates are installed as part of ordinary system maintenance. In Unix-like systems the TZ environment variable specifies the location name, as in. In many of those systems there is also a system-wide setting that is applied if the TZ environment variable is not set: this setting is controlled by the contents of the  file, which is usually a symbolic link or hard link to one of the zoneinfo files. Internal time is stored in time-zone-independent Unix time; the TZ is used by each of potentially many simultaneous users and processes to independently localize time display.

Older or stripped-down systems may support only the TZ values required by POSIX, which specify at most one start and end rule explicitly in the value. For example,  specifies time for the eastern United States starting in 2007. Such a TZ value must be changed whenever DST rules change, and the new value applies to all years, mishandling some older timestamps.

Opposition to clock changes
A move to permanent daylight saving time (staying on summer hours all year with no clock shifts) is sometimes advocated and is currently implemented in some jurisdictions such as Argentina, Belarus, Iceland, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Namibia, Saskatchewan, Singapore, Syria, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Yukon. Although Saskatchewan follows Central Standard Time, its capital city Regina experiences solar noon close to 13:00, in effect putting the city on permanent daylight time. Similarly, Yukon is classified as being in the Mountain Time Zone, though in effect it observes permanent Pacific Daylight Time to align with the Pacific time zone in summer, but local solar noon in the capital Whitehorse occurs nearer to 14:00, in effect putting Whitehorse on "double daylight time".

The United Kingdom and Ireland put clocks forward by an extra hour during World War II and experimented with year-round summer time between 1968 and 1971. Russia switched to permanent DST from 2011 to 2014, but the move proved unpopular because of the extremely late winter sunrises; in 2014, Russia switched permanently back to standard time. However, the change to permanent DST has proven popular in Turkey, with the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources saying the practice saves "millions in energy costs and reduces depression and anxiety levels associated with short exposure to daylight".

In September 2018, the European Commission proposed to end seasonal clock changes as of 2019. Member states would have the option of observing either daylight saving time all year round or standard time all year round. In March 2019, the European Parliament approved the commission's proposal, while deferring implementation from 2019 until 2021. In response to this proposition, the European Sleep Research Society stated "installing permanent Central European Time (CET, standard time or 'wintertime') is the best option for public health." , the decision has not been confirmed by the Council of the European Union. The council has asked the commission to produce a detailed assessment of its effects, but the Commission considers that the onus is on the Member States to find a common position in Council. As a result, progress on the issue is effectively blocked.

In the United States, several states have enacted legislation to implement permanent DST, but the bills would require Congress to change federal law in order to take effect. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 permits states to opt out of DST and observe permanent standard time, but it does not permit permanent DST. Florida senator Marco Rubio in particular has promoted changing the federal law to implement permanent DST, with the support of the Florida Chamber of Commerce seeking to boost evening revenue. In 2022, Rubio's "Sunshine Protection Act" passed the United States Senate without committee review by way of voice consent, with many senators afterward stating they were unaware of the vote or its topic. The bill was stopped in the US House, where questions were raised as to whether permanent DST or standard time would be more beneficial.

Advocates cite the same advantages as normal DST without the problems associated with the twice yearly clock shifts. Additional benefits have also been cited, including safer roadways, boosting the tourism industry, and energy savings. Detractors cite the relatively late sunrises, particularly in winter, that year-round DST entails.

Some experts in circadian rhythms and sleep health recommend year-round standard time as the preferred option for public health and safety. Several chronobiology societies have published position papers against adopting DST permanently. A paper by the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms states: "based on comparisons of large populations living in DST or ST or on western versus eastern edges of time zones, the advantages of permanent ST outweigh switching to DST annually or permanently." The World Federation of Societies for Chronobiology stated that "the scientific literature strongly argues against the switching between DST and Standard Time and even more so against adopting DST permanently." The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) holds the position that "seasonal time changes should be abolished in favor of a fixed, national, year-round standard time," and that "standard time is a better option than daylight saving time for our health, mood and well-being." The AASM's position is endorsed by 20 other nonprofits, including the American College of Chest Physicians, National Safety Council, and National PTA.

Current public opinion polls show mixed results. Surveys reported between 2021 and 2022 by the National Sleep Foundation, YouGov, CBS, and Monmouth University indicate more Americans would prefer permanent DST. A 2019 survey by the National Opinion Research Center and a 2021 survey by the Associated Press indicate more Americans would prefer permanent Standard Time. The National Sleep Foundation, YouGov, and Monmouth University polls leaned significantly in favor of seeing daylight saving time made permanent. The Monmouth University poll reported 44% preferring year-round DST and 13% preferring year-round standard time. In 1973 and 1974, NORC found 79% of Americans to be in favor of permanent DST before its implementation during the Oil Crisis, and only 42% to support permanent DST the following February.

In March 2024, the company Titan Casket and actor Ryan Reynolds team up to release a satirical commercial starring David Dastmalchian that pokes fun at DST. Working together, they launch a website, BuryDaylightSavings.com. The website provides a place for Americans to find the email addresses of their local legislators and send them an email about ending daylight saving time. According to data shared by Titan, hospitals see a 24% increase in heart attacks and a 6% increase in fatal crashes each year when the time changes.

title: Daylight saving time


text:
Let's roll

"Let's roll" is a colloquialism that has been used extensively as a command to move and start an activity, attack, mission or project. They were the last recorded words of passenger Todd Beamer on board United Airlines Flight 93 during the September 11 attacks in 2001, before he and other passengers attempted to storm the cockpit and retake the plane from the hijackers. The slogan subsequently became a battle cry for American forces during the war on terror.

Origins
In the American west, many wagon trains began their journeys with the shout "Wagons roll!" from the head of the train. A less formal terminology would soon develop from the historic precedent. The phrase, "let's roll" has been used as early as 1908 in the cadence song now called "The Army Goes Rolling Along", which likely extended into tank usage.

"The Roads Must Roll", a science fiction story written in 1940 by Robert A. Heinlein, mentions a re-worded version of "The Roll of the Caissons" called "Road Songs of the Transport Cadets". The protagonist of the 1937 supernatural comedy, Topper, played by Cary Grant, uses the phrase "Let's roll" to his wife, played by Constance Bennett, to indicate they should immediately exit their friend's stuffy office and find a drink. The protagonist of Ernest Hemingway's 1950 novel Across the River and into the Trees, Colonel Dick Cantwell, based on World War II commander Charles "Buck" Lanham, uses the phrase to his driver. The verb "roll" has been used in both the film and recording industry to signal the beginning of a film or audio recording.

September 11 attacks
On September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer, a passenger on the hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, tried to place a call through an air phone, but he was routed to a customer service representative instead, who passed him on to supervisor Lisa Jefferson. Beamer reported that one passenger had been killed and that a flight attendant had told him that both the pilot and co-pilot had been forced from the cockpit and may have been injured. He was also on the phone when the plane made a quick and violent turn. Later, he told the operator that some of the other passengers were planning to attack the hijackers and regain control of the aircraft, after they learned about what happened at the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. According to Jefferson, Beamer's last audible words were "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."

In a November 8 address from the World Congress Center in Atlanta, Georgia, President George W. Bush invoked Beamer's words: "Some of our greatest moments have been acts of courage for which no one could have been prepared. But we have our marching orders. My fellow Americans, let's roll!" He used them again in the 2002 State of the Union address: "For too long our culture has said, 'If it feels good, do it.' Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: 'Let's roll.'"

Music

 * Several musicians and bands have written songs entitled or including the phrase "Let's Roll", with the songs typically referring to Flight 93 or Todd Beamer. The first song with the name, Neil Young's "Let's Roll", was released as a single in November 2001, and was later included in his album Are You Passionate?. The following year, three diverse groups released songs: hard rock group L.A. Guns included "OK, Let's Roll" in their album Waking the Dead, country music duo The Bellamy Brothers's song "Let's Roll, America" was on Redneck Girls Forever, and Christian rock group dc Talk recorded and released a single entitled "Let's Roll" despite being on hiatus.
 * Three other 9/11-related songs by the name "Let's Roll" have been released in the following years. Montreal rock band The Stills's song was included on their debut album Logic Will Break Your Heart in 2003. Jonny L's song included a sample of President George W. Bush's 2002 State of the Union address which included the phrase. In 2004, Ray Stevens offered up the self-penned "Let's Roll" and referenced Todd Beamer in the lyrics. Stevens' recording appeared on his 2004 Thank You! CD. The recording later appeared on his 2005 Box Set project and on his 2010 We the People project.
 * Melissa Etheridge's 2004 song "Tuesday Morning", written in honor of Flight 93 passenger Mark Bingham, concluded with the phrase, "Let's roll".

Government

 * The phrase became especially known and popular after being used by President George W. Bush in a speech to AmeriCorps volunteers and during his 2002 State of the Union address. Even though the phrase was in common use long before September 11, many soon tried to lay claim to it as a trademark. The Todd M. Beamer Foundation was eventually granted a trademark for uses of the phrase relating to "pre-recorded compact discs, audio tapes, digital audio tapes, and phonograph records featuring music."
 * In early 2002, United States Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper ordered that one airplane in each USAF squadron and all USAF demonstration planes would bear an image of an eagle on an American flag with the words "Let's Roll" and "Spirit of 9-11", to remain until the first anniversary of the attack. It was also used by Lisa Beamer, widow of Todd, in a 2003 book titled Let's Roll: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage.

Sports

 * In the 2002 college football season, the Florida State Seminoles used "Let's Roll" as their official team slogan. After an initial uproar against the team by people who considered its usage in bad taste, the Todd M. Beamer Foundation officially licensed the trademark to the team.
 * NASCAR driver Bobby Labonte drove a 9/11 tribute car with the words "Let's Roll" on the hood of his stock car in the 2002 MBNA All-American Heroes 400 at Dover International Speedway.
 * Detroit Red Wings goaltender Jimmy Howard has the inscription "Lets Roll" on the back of his goalie helmet in reference to Flight 93.

Media

 * The phrase was also used in an episode of HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm ("The Survivor", season 4, episode 9). The show's main character, Larry David, says the phrase inadvertently to his rabbi once he and his wife are ready to go out and renew their vows, who then becomes offended because of a relative of his died on September 11, 2001 ("You knew my brother-in-law died on September 11th; how dare you say something like that?!"). Larry takes issue with this, as his rabbi's relative was hit by a bike messenger ("Well, with all due respect, wasn't that just a coincidence?"), in an incident completely unrelated to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
 * The phrase was used in the film: Let's Roll: The Story of Flight 93, which is a dramatized reconstruction of Flight 93.

title: Let's roll


text:
Summertime

Summertime may refer to:

Seasons and time of day

 * Summer, one of the temperate seasons
 * Daylight saving time or summer time, advancing the clock one hour during the summer
 * British Summer Time
 * Central European Summer Time

Films

 * Summertime, a 1935 cartoon by Ub Iwerks
 * Summertime (1955 film), a British/American film starring Katharine Hepburn
 * Summertime (2001 film), a South Korean film starring Choi Cheol-ho
 * Summer Times, a 2009 Taiwanese film starring Bryant Chang and Shara Lin
 * Summertime (2015 film), a French drama
 * Summertime (2016 film), directed by Gabriele Muccino
 * Summertime (2018 film), directed by Edward Burns
 * Summertime (2020 film), directed by Carlos López Estrada
 * Summer Hours (L'Heure d'été), a French film starring Juliette Binoche

Literature

 * Summertime (novel), 2009, by J. M. Coetzee
 * Summertime (1919 play), a comedy work by Louis N. Parker
 * Summertime, a 1937 play by Ugo Betti
 * Summertime, a 2000 play by Charles L. Mee

Albums

 * Summertime (Herb Alpert album), 1971
 * Summertime (MFSB album), 1976
 * Summertime (Paul Desmond album), 1969
 * Summertime!, an EP by The Drums, 2005
 * Summertime, by Joe Locke and Geoffrey Keezer, 2005
 * Summertime, an EP by The Subways
 * Summer Time (album), a 2021 album by Roy Wang

Songs

 * "Summertime" (George Gershwin song), from the opera Porgy and Bess
 * "Summertime" (Beyoncé song)
 * "Summertime" (Bon Jovi song)
 * "Summertime" (Brian Melo song)
 * "Summertime" (DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince song)
 * "Summertime" (Kenny Chesney song)
 * "Summertime" (The Maybes? song)
 * "Summertime" (New Kids on the Block song)
 * "Summertime" (Selah Sue song)
 * "Summertime" (The Sundays song)
 * "Summertime" (Wiley song)
 * "Summertime", by Another Level from Nexus
 * "Summertime", by Aaron Carter from Another Earthquake!
 * "Summertime", by Audio Adrenaline from Lift
 * "Summertime", by Barenaked Ladies from All in Good Time
 * "Summertime", by Bridgit Mendler from the soundtrack for the film Arrietty
 * "Summertime", by The Buckinghams
 * "Summertime", by The Click Five from Modern Minds and Pastimes
 * "Summertime", by Cody Simpson, B-side of the single "iYiYi"
 * "Summertime", by the Fire Theft from their self-titled album
 * "Summertime", by Gavin DeGraw from Face the River
 * "Summertime", by Kreayshawn from Somethin' 'Bout Kreay
 * "Summertime", by Michelle Branch from Everything Comes and Goes
 * "Summertime", by MNL48
 * "Summertime", by Mos Def
 * "Summertime", by My Chemical Romance from Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys
 * "Summertime", by Sam Adams
 * "Summertime", by Stromae from Cheese
 * "Summertime", by Vince Staples from Summertime '06
 * "Summertime", by Diana Ross from Red Hot Rhythm & Blues
 * "Summertime, Summertime", a song by The Jamies
 * "Summertime Summertime", a song by Corina
 * "Summer Time" (song), by James Barker Band
 * "Summer Time", by Pretty Things from the reissue of Parachute
 * "Doin' Time", by Sublime, a loose cover version of the George Gershwin song, and frequently referred to as "Summertime", 1997
 * "Sommartider" ("Summertimes"), a song by Per Gessle

Television

 * Summertime (TV programme), a short drama from 1995
 * Summertime (TV series), an Italian drama web television series distributed by Netflix in 2020
 * Summertime '57/'58, a Canadian variety television series

title: Summertime