|
I assumed that he was selling the pizzas on the pavement outside the office. I concede your point if he was actually selling the pizzas in his employer's premises.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I beg to differ with some of the other posters.
Assuming that you eat the pizza in the cafeteria, they are charging you an extra 1 Euro for cutting the pizza in two, for using an extra chair, and for providing you with (and subsequently washing) an extra set of cutlery and a plate. Comparing the price (in other locations) of a takeaway pizza to the price of eating in the restaurant should tell you whether this is a fair price. Whether or not the price is fair, evading the payment is ethically iffy IMAO.
Of course, if you take the pizza and eat it elsewhere, you are not evading the payment of any of the above costs so my argument is irrelevant.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
What if they both buy drinks? I've seen the margin on fountain drinks.
|
|
|
|
|
The second person is still using extra cutlery and crockery. The cost to the cafeteria may be less, but it is not zero.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: using an extra chair
So if you go to cafeteria and just chill with your coworkers without eating anything, then you're stealing?
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: providing you with (and subsequently washing) an extra set of cutlery and a plate
Do you get discount if you don't use any?
|
|
|
|
|
Mladen Janković wrote: So if you go to cafeteria and just chill with your coworkers without eating anything, then you're stealing?
A cafeteria provides places to eat etc. so that people will buy the food that is sells. They may be willing to tolerate a few freeloaders (people who don't eat) in the interest of profiting from those who do, but how long could they stay in business if every table were to have one eater and a few non-eaters?
Mladen Janković wrote: Do you get discount if you don't use any?
No more than you get a discount if you leave food on your plate. (The leftovers may not be fit for human consumption, but I'm certain that they could be used for animal feed or for composting.)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
It's all very nice, but now you are switching arguments from ethics to business. Or are you saying that our moral obligation is to maximize profit of cafeteria?
So once again, are you stealing by not eating in cafeteria?
And why is it more ethical to charge customers for something that they are not using, than for customers to use extra of the same?
|
|
|
|
|
Mladen Janković wrote: So once again, are you stealing by not eating in cafeteria?
Sitting (with your friends who are eating) in a cafeteria without ordering anything is not stealing, per se, but is a form of freeloading. I believe that it is unethical to sit in a cafeteria, taking up places that may be used by paying customers, without ordering anything.
To reiterate, the seating was provided for paying customers, and while a few freeloaders won't affect a cafeteria's profits too much, it is unsustainable if too many practice it. If you and your friends want to have a bull session, find a pleasant spot in the park.
Mladen Janković wrote: And why is it more ethical to charge customers for something that they are not using, than for customers to use extra of the same?
That is the airline model of pricing - everything is unbundled. It happens to work for airlines because for most people - the most important consideration re travel is the price (not that it stops them complaining about how lousy the service has become). On the other hand, most people prefer a single price for cafeteria offerings; they don't want to be nickle-and-dimed to death.
Again, you pays your money and takes your choice... 
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
No - the 50c is a hedge against having to throw away an un-bought half of the pizza.
If two of you buy the pizza that risk is zero so there is no need for that hedge.
|
|
|
|
|
But do they share the plate? Otherwise the cafeteria is down on the deal as they have twice the washing up.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Of course not. Two separate plates along with forks and knives
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Have you thought of buying up all the pizza and selling it at 2.25 Euro for half a pizza? 
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Almost everybody seems to have failed to realise is that the extra price on the half pizza is fully intended as a disincentive to encourage you to buy the full one. They want you to buy the whole one. Whether you divide it into a thousand pieces and feed it to the ducks or break bread with a colleague is of absolutely no concern to them.
And, for the love of God, who eats pizza with a knife and fork?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9082365 wrote: They want you to buy the whole one.
I too, thought it was obvious. Apparently it's not, or Lounge is another version of argument clinic[^].
modified 26-Jun-15 9:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Mladen Janković wrote: or Lounge is a another version of argument clinic
+100 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Last night I watched something I recorded from the weekend, a documentary about the Air France A330 crash enroute from Brazil to France. Pretty tense viewing, and God how I hate planes.
The cause of the crash was put down to bad weather, instrumentation failure and pilot(s) error. The pitot tubes (the right-angled things which tell you airspeed from pressure) had frozen up and were giving crazy readings for airspeed and descent speed, so the autopilot gave up and handed control back to a pilot who it turned out was too inexperienced to handle the situation. He pulled back, and kept pulled back such that the aircraft lost speed, stalled and plummeted into the sea.
I've heard of a number of cases of pitot tubes freezing up, and even one where a wasps nest in one caused some sort of problem, but I can't remember the details.
You lot look like a bright bunch, so my question is this: Why not use GPS as an extra means of determining speed? I think the argument goes that would read groundspeed, not airspeed but surely that's preferable to no valid speed at all? Had they had my SatNav on the windscreen and a second reference speed perhaps they'd have been able to make sense of the situation.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you've answered it yourself. Aircraft have gps of course. The groundspeed could look fine but the actual airspeed could be near stall. Not good. How would you correct for that? Maybe a pitot tube. So the gps adds nothing but erroneous information.
http://www.quora.com/Do-airplanes-also-use-GPS-to-calculate-airspeed[^]
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Most airliners have at least four pitot tubes, all with internal heating elements to prevent them freezing up. The biggest issue with them is usually insects making a home in them while the planes on the ground (but that's why you normally take a look down them during the pre-flight check).
To add to this, they'd also have an AOA (angle of attack) indicator which should have been sounding off alarms in the cockpit about the aircraft being too nose-up.
The biggest problem I've seen over the years is the reduction in the level of pilot training. When I learnt, we did stalls and spins and we have engines where we needed to regulate fuel/air mixture manually, constantly be aware of magneto failure and carburetor icing and practice flying with no navigation instruments except for a map, a magnetic compass and the window to simulate total instrument failure
Modern training aircraft have GPS, glass cockpits, computer controlled fuel-injected engines, lumbar supporting seats and variable sized coffee cup holders  Most of them aren't even capable of spins (or even severe movements) and even a minor stall scares trainees out of their skins (I took a Diamond aircraft out for a flight a few years ago and the young pilot on board started panicking when I banked it past 60 degrees!).
Chances are, the co-pilot on your next flight hasn't been out of those planes long. Within a few years, they'll be the captain. Scary.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: carburetor icing
Grief! That's a phrase I haven't even thought of in fifteen years! I used to have a motorcycle which was prone to it on one cylinder out of two, and it was a PITA (until I was introduced to an additive which cured it). On an aircraft? Not good news, not at all...
Thank goodness for fuel injection, that's what I say!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
It keeps you alert in a plane - in my time, most forced landings were down to carb icing (i.e. pilots daydreaming)
In light aircraft you had a small "carb heat" lever which you religiously moved over on a regular basis to redirect warm air taken from around the exhaust back into the carb. You'd notice around 100 rpm drop off the engine speed while it was activated.
It was a pain - and a risk - but it kept you in touch with what you were flying. I think a lot of that has been lost these days
If you make everything appear ultra-easy and ultra-reliable, then you introduce complacency.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
On that matter of self-propelling two wheel vehicles, now that hayfever season is underway, what is the correct way of dealing with sneezing whilst wearing a motorcycle helmet?
This is a genuine question. It's only a matter of time now...
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
By preference, don't.
I wear a Shoei helmet where the chin piece "flips up" out of the way ("Multitec", I think - not certain) so it's less of a problem - I sneeze in bright light rather than as a result of hay fever, so it's a year round problem for me.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I sneeze in bright light rather than ...
That is apparently an inherited thing. Bad news, I think we are related. [not sure who has the bad news though.]
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
It's scary enough getting into a pressurized lump of metal as it is! But I suspect you are right. As they said in the documentary last night, the pilots would normally only be flying the plane for 4 minutes of the 8 hour journey.
So, really they are there for when things go wrong, and it didn't end well in this case.
I think they said the 'pull up' alarm sounded 70 times before switching itself off, but ironically that's what they were doing which was causing the stall.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
I grew up about a mile from the factory where they make all the wings fitted to Airbus aircraft. Most of the guys there were the ones too thick to get a job anywhere else.
One of the team leaders there was an ex-navi who'd spent a large portion of his working life tarmacking roads around the area. I always think about them when I'm sitting on an Airbus waiting for the pilot to taxi out, looking out at the wings
Luckily I can reassure myself with the fact that most aircraft accidents are down to pilot error, so I don't need to worry too much about the wings
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
