Indeed. :(

I fail to see the relevance. If the idea for shifting time is so that you can force people to go work earlier (because otherwise they wouldn't?), why not shift it for the whole year, even more than mere one hour. Why shift it back at all in the winter, if the advantages are so apparent?

So we reap great benefits from it? Finland didn't take daylight-saving into use until 1981 (probably just to sync with the rest of the Europe), somehow we magically managed without it before that.

Daylight saving is merely a silly relic that does nothing but inconveniences people. It is one of those things where a big part of the world seems to have swallowed a crazy pill at the same time. The US Department of Transportation claimed in 1975 that daylight saving saves energy by 1%, but already in 1976 that was debunked.

Was that a "yes"?

What about F1 racers? :P

By the way, by what I´ve read so far, I don´t know how it is in other countries, or if they do it for the same reason we do it, but at least in here, using daylight saving time helps save millions of credits to the state, since people gets out of work an hour earlier meaning less electricity use, and since days are longer, shops and offices are already operating during the daylight hours, so no need to use excess of electricity.

The idea is to adjust aggregate human activity such that it occurs when daylight is available. In wintertime, we get up when it is dark, and go to sleep when it is dark. We're using all the light already. In summertime, we get up after sunrise, and go to sleep after sunset. So we can shift the clock (which tends to dictate when aggregate human activity occurs, even if you personally feel like doing your own thing) to ensure greater overlap between activity and natural light.

In Thailand, the variation in available daylight is small enough that it may not be worth the shift.

Like many ideas, this has both disadvantages and advantages. Certainly, some people feel inconvenienced by DST. They must shift their sleep schedule by an hour, and there is some confusion caused because it is not a globally uniform shift. Also, even nominally intelligent people can't be bothered to read a single page on the subject. So yes, if the only factor was to align activity with available light, we could certainly shift the clock daily to accommodate continuously varying sunrise times. But instead, there's a compromise. Two simple yet awkward shifts during the year for a season's worth of benefit.

Finland magically managed without the internet in 1981. You could be right. For Finland, aligning with Europe could have been the driving force. It could be you already collectively behaved in such a way as to take full advantage of the limited winter light.

Rather than cherrypick studies I'll just link to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time#Dispute_over_benefits_and_drawbacks
And folks can draw their own conclusions.

I haven't been rude to you. Extend me the same courtesy.

I think the argument is that people are accustomed to going to bed well after dark, but prefer not to awaken well before sunrise. Maintaining the shift in the wintertime will yield darker mornings. Certainly, there are groups pushing for what you describe, though.

I clearly didn't present the internet as an equal invention. I was making the point that "people managed without x in 1981" doesn't indicate a value of x.

And nope, I expect the system is generally regarded with indifference in the US, except at the two times when the shift occurs. Unsure how I feel about it myself. Largely indifferent. It's only in the wintertime that I have daylight complaints, and as implemented, DST doesn't do anything for that.

And it also happened in my country...Yawn...I actually could do without the DST stuff....