Machines have a lot higher initial one off costs.
The repair costs of some robots might make them more expensive per hour.
Humans are tried and tested, they don't break-down and stop your production line.
When designing the production lines they must weigh up the cost of a machine at each stage (initial cost, elec, repairs) vs workers and decide a time-frame they want to project and compare the costs over (because of their higher initial cost the longer period you do your projection over the more likely a robot will ever be cheaper).
I might be wrong, UK law is different than the rest of the EU (you can opt out of the working time directive here).
That said, isn't it a 40 hour max on contracted hours? Otherwise it is completely un-policeable. The idea is that you can't lose your job for refusing to work past 40 hours (i.e. refusing to take overtime). But you are allowed to work the overtime if you so please.
Don't offices and residential buildings have different building regulations, not to mention licenses. I don't know much on the subject but it would't surprise me if this was either illegal or only legal in a small set of cases where the buildings are up to standard.
Recently former BT employee here. The primary affects of stack ranking at BT is on bonus and raises. If you receive a sufficient number of sub-standard rankings then you would go through the usual UK process of being given warnings which tally up and could eventually lead to dismissal. It definitely is not the case that they fire the bottom x%.
I know for fact BT do not do this however it is my understanding that Amazon (and possibly other big US tech companies operating in the UK) employ their UK workers as contractors to the US subsidiaries to avoid employment law.
As some-one living in a flat, if there was somewhere with a quality piano I would happily pay gym prices to go play it. Although much like a gym, if I couldn't get at the piano I would soon stop paying.
I live nowhere that would have this unfortunately (140k pop town)
Was coming into this expecting an interesting piece about the distribution of prime numbers. Either a new approach to predicting them or a proof of why they're unpredictable. But no it's a visualisation of their distribution. Interesting but entirely not what was expected.
But that's precisely what this article argues is a falacy. He discusses a trial carried out in hospital conditions with regulated liquid meals of exactly the same number calories but differing carbs/ protein ratios. The results showed that given the same calories and exercise all the subjects maintained the same weight.
What this articles says is any diet which says you can eat the same number of calories and lose weight is lying. Some diets may make you want to eat less calories, but you cannot eat the same number of calories and lose more weight without doing more exercise.
The question is not one of who is worse. Universal does some morally reprehensible things, that does not excuse Grooveshark.
Grooveshark aren't for anybody other than themselves, they base their entire business on people uploading sharing songs without giving any money to the musicians. If a user uploads the song, not a registered artist then the artist gets nothing and the money goes where?
As a result I believe through those actions they weaken the argument for DMCA safe harbour provisions by showing such a clear loophole in the meaning.
That's my moral and non-legal argument against Grooveshark (but not for Universal).
I have no real knowledge of the law. But I thought it was more along the lines of, you have to have sufficient evidence. If it transpires you were wrong you're ok as long as you had good reason to think it was true.
I'm very intrigued to know how exactly the law works now.
It's websites like Grooveshark that weaken the premise for laws like DMCA safe harbour. Their entire business lies in using DMCA in a way in which it was clearly not designed, making it much easier to against such provisions. It's not only big music who might lose out because of them.
This drive for any business to continually grow (and this isn't a Valley specific problem) is a topic I could rant about for hours. From my understanding growth is necessary in public companies so shareholders can make a profit (assuming the company isn't big enough to issue huge dividends). What perplexes me is why people cared about SecondLife growing if it never tried to go public (beyond the initial investors caring).
This is entirely similar to my experience. I played when I was around 18 and created a hacky fix for skirts (they were an object attached to your body and when you sat down they would flow downwards still), this netted me a few hundred £ and started an enthusiasm for programming which has yet to stop. I still believe a 3D environment is one of the greatest ways to start learning object-orientated programming (due to the visual and tangible representation of your classes).
Machines have a lot higher initial one off costs. The repair costs of some robots might make them more expensive per hour. Humans are tried and tested, they don't break-down and stop your production line.
When designing the production lines they must weigh up the cost of a machine at each stage (initial cost, elec, repairs) vs workers and decide a time-frame they want to project and compare the costs over (because of their higher initial cost the longer period you do your projection over the more likely a robot will ever be cheaper).