No a 12 or 13 year old has no maturity or judgment but a 17 year old should at least know the difference between right and wrong. And for a 17 or 18 year old to possess nudes of a 12 year old is definitely in the very wrong department.
The parts of the brain in charge of things like self-control don't fully mature until some time in the 20s.
Your determination of putting the consequences of the wage agreement of the employer/employee onto the customer shows a complete lack of maturity.
No, it just reflects reality. It is a simple fact that without tips, most servers cannot make a living. Their wages minus taxes due amount to nothing or almost nothing. This is not a decision that is made by individual servers, it's just how the current situation is the US. The job market for relatively low-skilled workers is such that "just get another job" is often not practical.
You can whine all you like, but you are just coming across as immature.
I'm not whining, I'm just encouraging you to accept the consequences of your actions. I'm not sure what's immature about that.
As I have said before, if the agreement is not supporting your lifestyle, get another job.
In an ideal world where jobs are plentiful, sure. In the world we actually live in, that's often not a useful suggestion.
Don't try and justify your lack in negotiating your employment agreement...
This pretends that a server has any negotiating leverage whatsoever. He does not. Your general approach seems to focus on theory and how you would like things to be, rather than reality. I'm just pointing out reality.
Law enforcement says "the terrorists used encryption to conceal their communications from us", with the implication being that therefore something needs to be done about encryption so terrorists can't use it anymore. But there's nothing special about encryption morally or legally, it's just a type of privacy. So substitute "privacy" for "encryption":
Law enforcement says "the terrorists used privacy to conceal their communications from us", with the implication being that therefore something needs to be done about privacy so terrorists can't use it anymore.
When put that way, it's obviously outrageous, because clearly they can't remove terrorists' privacy without removing everyone's. For some reason it's not as obvious to everyone that encryption, as a type of privacy, is exactly the same.
I can't claim any of this as my original thinking, just something I was thinking about the other day listening to one of these law enforcement people talking about this.
Right, so your agreement with your employer then mandates that the customer has to, without the customer being part of the agreement, participate in your agreement. Are you stupid or something?
You're the one having trouble with basic reading comprehension. I will quote myself: "You can choose not to tip..." See, that is the exact opposite of what you seemed to think I said.
Again, you can do whatever you want with your money. But if you choose not to tip servers in the US do it with the understanding that your choice is directly affecting their livelihood. That your choice is causing them to work for essentially no pay. Whether you like it or not, and clearly you don't, saying "that's not my problem" doesn't change the consequences of your decision on other people. If you're fine with those consequences, go ahead. If you're not, eat somewhere that tips aren't expected. I recommend Chipotle.
I totally get that this isn't how it is where you live (Europe?). The way you do things works great there, and my comments are not relevant to how you do business at home.
They are not mutually exclusive. The threats were also propaganda.
Correct, one is a subset of the other, but importantly, the threats are a subset of propaganda, not the other way around. So supporting arresting people for spreading ISIS propaganda is materially different from supporting arresting people for spreading specific death threats.
The server provides the service as per the arrangements he/she has with the owner (that is a part of their job for which the owner's responsibility is to pay them the agreed upon wage).
That agreement is based on the worker also getting tips from customers. Minimum wage laws explicitly acknowledge this - the minimum wage is lower for a job that receives tips than for one that doesn't. You can choose not to tip, but if you do it in the US you should understand that in general tips are a server's livelihood. Don't go to a restaurant where the servers need tips in order to pay their bills, and then pretend it's none of your business what the employees are paid.
This is exactly what Director Comey promised during his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 12, 2015, when he said he would designate FBI officials to read the full, final version of the Committee's Study and consider the lessons that can be learned from it.
Now she knows how it feels when a politician tells her he'll do one thing and then does the opposite.
The accused cannot access them, but neither can the government.
That still assumes that the government is correct that the money was ill-gotten. They don't have to prove anything before taking it. This should only be even potentially acceptable if the defendant can access the money for the purpose of mounting a defense.
If this was really to keep the accused from spending all the money to avoid having it seized, they should let her access however much of it she wants to in order to pay for a defense. The government gets insurance, and the accused gets to mount a vigorous defense. I'm not crazy about it but it would be an improvement.
That ignores the debate about whether the fungibility of money means legal assets can be seized.