Snooze Alarms: Tool of the Devil or Savior of Humankind?

[marcusmarcusrc]

There was a recent Tech Review article about an invention named
Clocky. Clocky is an "attempt to solve a common problem" - eg, hitting the snooze button one too many times - by rolling off your table and to some random location on the floor after you hit him, so you have to get up to find him in order to hit snooze again.

But why have snooze buttons at all? People seem totally wedded to the snooze concept but it seems to me that if I can afford to get up 15 minutes later than the time I have set my alarm for originally - why not just set my alarm for that time? I certainly don't trust myself 5 seconds after waking up to intelligently make a decision "can I afford five more minutes of sleep or do I need to get up now?", so I just assume that if my alarm goes off then I really need to get up. And then I try to set my alarm for the latest possible minute I can get away with...

Comments

[gigglefest.livejournal.com]

I set two alarms 5 minutes apart, so I get the feeling of being lazy and rolling over without having to make decisions in a hazy-sleep state. :)

Are you morally opposed to call waiting, out of curiosity?

[ilai]

Hey, that's exactly what I do! Once I got my dual-setting alarm clock, that is :-)

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

I'm somewhat divided about call-waiting. It serves a very useful purpose (there can be calls that are time-sensitive) (and, in my case, my cell phone doubles as my door bell), but it seems sort of rude to put people on hold while you deal with your other call.

See, I can see the appeal of being lazy and rolling over, but I dislike alarms in general, so for me the extra alarm is more negative than the 5 minutes of being lazy is positive. I think one of the things I liked about ET was that a person waking me up is much nicer than an annoying electronic device...