Whilst I know the Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that for a bricks-and-mortar store the invitation to treat doesn't need to be honoured until the money has been accepted for the goods, I'm wondering for online transactions at what point the implicit contract is "signed". Does the retailer sign the "contract" when they take payment, when they deliver, what?
>"someone who appears in media (any form, but particularly film/video) has the right to object if their performance is distorted"
I suspect you're misunderstanding. If a film portrays a real person falsely then the person has a libel claim (under eg UK law). If an actor plays a role and that role demonstrates that the character is a pathological beacon of hatred, a sadistic coward or whatever, then the actor isn't being misrepresented as they are merely playing a role, no natural person is being unfairly treated only a [fictional/historic] character is being [unfairly] libelled. There is nothing to be done about that, you can't injure/libel a fiction.
An actor has as much say in the final form of the film as they put in their contract.
>" as if she had spoken them"
The actress seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of her vocation. An actress speaking lines is playing a part, it is not her that speaks, it is her character. If the characters comments are altered by playwrights/directors/whoever then over-dubbing can be required.
This all seems to be a construction to avoid idiot Islamic adherents, who make the same misunderstanding, causing people [physical] harm. It's definitely nothing to do with copyright; nor is it defamation of the actresses own character as she is not in the movie, she plays the part of someone who is in it.
Looks like someone is trying to push the price of bitcoin down again.
I should say
>it's not supposed to be a Minecraft clone
Having just looked at the site I can't really believe this. It has the same visual appearance (like Minecraft to Infiniminer but more so), the same tools in one screenshot, the same placement of the tools. From descriptions it appears to have the same general game mechanics. It doesn't have to be an exact replica to be a "clone" in game terms IMO.
Well FWIW you do in part pay for the BBC - they receive a sizeable stipend from general taxation in addition to the monies raised through the license fee.
Only an injust system would charge a successful defendant costs rather than make an award of [reasonable] costs against the plaintiff. Ridiculous.
Climate change study?
So criminals can now just use some sign language in front of any video camera - a conversation will have been recorded and the police will instead of charging the criminals order a destruction of the evidence and charge the camera owner with a felony.
That doesn't sound like something you'd need a good lawyer for, that sounds like something a law school student that had only been to half their classes should be able to bring up
I don't understand why we need to force more men in to nursing - certainly when I've needed a nurse then I've not cared which sex they were, just as when I've needed a doctor. What improvement does the healthcare system get from male nurses that female nurses can't provide?
>*But in this thread, looking around, some guys are claiming that women aren't good at math.*
Isn't the problem that the spread of achievement, ability, etc., is far greater in men. There are more male geniuses but also far more male fools. Women don't clamour to be recognised as fools though. In schools in my country girls have far out-performed boys in maths for a long time but they still don't choose the "hard" sciences or engineering courses at the same rates as boys; most likely because university level study creams off the top and so exaggerates the difference, leading to sex imbalance in workplace roles that garner people from those university courses.
Certainly in my chosen field whilst there were lots of women who were more intelligent, more studious and with greater achievement than many men (me for example) the couple of people in a thousand that stood out as future leaders in the field were men.
If you can't handle there being a sex-based difference then what are you going to do about autism rates, suicide rates, homelessness rates,
Well if 100 women applied for each position but only 10 men and the candidates were on average equally qualified whether female or male, ie their sex didn't on average make any difference as to their ability to perform, then the number of women would be greater than the number of men. If the numbers are the same then there has been unfair sexual discrimination.
So in this situation did the proportion of school children wishing to follow a particular career path match with the proportions who were accepted in to those roles in companies when ability is accounted for? If not then there was sexual discrimination.
I'd imagine that giving one group preferential treatment, more scholarships to men say, would mean a greater proportion of the suitably skilled were able to achieve a target role and thus discrimination would have occurred.
>"scholarship aimed at single mothers"
Why shouldn't fathers looking after kids on their own have that same opportunity?
>"There is a lack of women in STEM fields."
The corollary of this is that women can uniquely provide skills in STEM fields that men are unable to provide. Yet it's been hotly denied that men can bring anything to any field that women can't (even as a generality by some). So, in what way is there a lack of women? Are we suddenly allowed to say that a person brings skills to the table simply because of their chromosomes? Personally I don't doubt it but it contradicts exactly the express position of many feminists and undermines entirely the basis for equalising the proportion of each sex employed in a particular field.
>"If we were offering incentives to women to become nurses, I would have a problem with this."
Why? Don't we need people to become nurses just as we need people to work in other specialisms?
Suppose practically no women want to be sysadmins, lots of men do and that a certain cadre of nerds (who're perceived as being borderline-autistic) are most able to perform the role; such characters are usually men, these men want to do that job, few women want to do that job
Provided the choice of job candidates is performed fairly why should we rail against the progress in removing discrimination and add in new types of discrimination?
Ladies Nights are discriminatory. I have no problem with them for private businesses, the minute the government starts running them and claiming that they aren't discriminatory or that they somehow are working against discrimination, that's when the government has gone of the rails.