|
'Heatwave' is as old as the hills. Were you not around in 1976?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9082365 wrote: Were you not around in 1976?
No I wasn't Grandad.
|
|
|
|
|
Great Grand Uncle only, I'm afraid. (Mind you I haven't heard from Great Grand Niece in a while so I could be even Greater!)
|
|
|
|
|
It cranked up about 10 years ago by my reckoning. Subtly at first: instead of saying a day would be rainy when there was 60% chance of rain, it went to 50%, now 40%. Then they started reporting the most extreme figures from their models, knowing that models aren't accurate past a few short days. So they'd be able to say it would be 48C with 100cm of snow in 14 days time, and run that sound bite over and over, until closer to the day it's be 20C with a gentle breeze, possibly with butterflies.
Storms have been more frequent, but the sensationalist reporting is well and truly overtaken it.
At least in Australia they now admit we get tornadoes. For years they would call them "mini tornadoes" or mini-hurricanes or microbursts (which some storm damage is actually caused by). Thanks to American style sensationalism and the power of the advertising dollar demanding eyeballs on that TV screen, we have actual tornadoes. Tiny ones, possibly poisonous, but tornadoes nonetheless.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I remember someone complaining about weather bombs and there recent arrival last year.
Turns out they've been around for ages but weather reporters have only recently learnt of it.
Like when footballers started fracturing metatarsals instead of breaking toes, or having hip flexor injuries instead of groin strains.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
80% chance of raining death, followed by 2 days of black fog disease.
|
|
|
|
|
When did weather sensationalize?
About the same time as we started getting "the storm of the century", 3 times during the same winter.
|
|
|
|
|
In our Office cafeteria, Full Pizza costs 4 Euro and half Pizza cost 2.50 Euro. So is it ethically wrong with two guys who want half pizza come together and buy whole pizza and divide it later?
So Cafeteria earns only 4 instead of 5?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
No it's ethically perfectly correct because basically you pay less due to higher buy amount (mass is cheaper) 
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing wrong at all. Free market economics, you could make some money with a simple service here...
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Eating anything less than a full pizza is very unethical! 
|
|
|
|
|
Unethical would be standing outside the canteen selling 1/2 a Pizza for 2.25 Euro...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Unethical would be standing outside the canteen selling 1/2 a Pizza for 2.25 Euro...
I disagree. It may be illegal (he would be selling food without a licence, sanitary premises, etc.), but not necessarily unethical.
We have two cases:
1. The seller buys whole pizzas from the cafeteria at 4 Euro, cuts them in two, and sells each half for 2.25 Euro, making a profit of 0.50 Euro per pizza.
2. The seller brings in pizzas from elsewhere, selling them in halves.
In case (1), he is simply exploiting his ability to buy wholesale and sell retail. He is charging each customer 0.25 Euro to cut the pizza in two rather than the 0.50 Euro charged by the cafeteria, but is also providing a lesser service (no seating, etc.).
Case (2) is problematic. He is directly competing against the cafeteria, but on an unfair basis. He does not have to provide any of the amenities provided by the cafeteria, and can therefore provide the same goods at a lower cost.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Either way, he is running a business using his employers premises... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
