|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
