Here's what they look like.

I *always* squeeze out one or more easter eggs.

My latest: The application, which is free, is software defined radio. It's loaded with features, and everything is documented in detail. Radios have something called an "S Meter", which in a "real" radio is often an actual meter. I offer, and fully document, quite a few different s meter types you can switch by simply clicking on the currently displayed meter. Left click gets you the next model, right click the previous model. Some are classic looking meters, some are digits, some are graphs, some have audio dB meters incorporated as well, some read S, some read S+AGC, some read S+noise reduction, some read S+microvolts at the antenna input, some graphs are vertical, some are horizontal... and there are various combinations of the foregoing. Quite a variety.

So, if you follow the directions, you get exactly what the docs tell you you'll get.

But if, when you reach the last s-meter model, you left click again, you get an s-meter with some of the above information packed into it... in Klingon. :)

If you click one more time, you get the same set of information again, but this time... predator.

Both meter styles are quite dynamic. As they should be, since they're driven by actual data and displaying it. Albeit not in the usual fashion.

My only regret is that Alien's aliens were not written language users. I suppose it was alien to them. And perhaps that's why they were so mean... because they were... alienated.

Ok, I'll stop now. :)

I simply answered the asserted hypothetical correctly. I didn't attack anyone. Carry on. :)

Move to the US.

I'm a US citizen. I live in the US.

We have a document that lists the rights and it describes how the rights are not granted ... they are an attribute.

Yes, we do. That document does two things. Both of which are 100% subordinate to exactly what I said above.

First, it enumerates a small set of rights that the government is enjoined against interfering with. The constitution, however, has no power -- there's no constitutional punishment for congress making, and the legal system enforcing, violation of those rights. Which is one of the prime reasons why we have multiple laws that are fully realized interferences with the very rights specified in the document. The only way such interference can be prevented is if someone with power takes up the cause of defending them. This completely backs up the assertion you were responding to.

Second, constitution refers (vaguely) to other rights in the 9th amendment, stating that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means that the various government bodies of lawmakers can make laws against exercise of those rights, whatever they may be, with impunity. And they do.

For instance, perhaps you might assert you have the right to walk outside naked. No one else is damaged by this; at worst, they might do damage to themselves because they have been conditioned to be neurotic, but that, of course, should not be your responsibility, any more than it should be your responsibility for walking by someone wearing a hat when said person is neurotic about hats.

Therefore, any infringement on a presumptive right to walk around outside naked should be construed as denial as defined in the ninth. But no one in power will defend this right (primarily because they are also neurotic, or catering to the neurotic, but I digress.) Consequently, it does not actually exist other than as a mental exercise or within very limited, generally quite private, circumstances. This is true for anything you can imagine that is not explicitly called out in the constitution.

Again, this precisely makes my point. When there are no powerful people backing a right up, then it's no more than an idea of no particular consequence unless one incorrectly assumes it is more than that, in which case, other people with power will show you the error of your ways, and you will indeed incur consequences. Not the ones you thought you should, either.

Bottom line: We have a document that talks big, but has no legal teeth. Without people who have, and are willing to use, the power to enforce the very rights that it lays out, and for that matter the ones that it does not, they simply do not exist in any objective sense. They're just concepts you are extremely ill-advised to rely on.

Suggestion: talk to some trafficking victims.

Locating someone who legitimately fits the definition would be nearly impossible. However, counter suggestion: Dig yourself out of the propaganda you've been fed. Example -- don't simply read that, although it is quite accurate -- actually follow the links in it and confirm for yourself.

More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.

The underlying assumption you are working from is incorrect. You assume those girls were coerced, and therefore had to consent. While the (ridiculous, but that's a different subject) legal "age line in the sand" that permits young sex workers to consent and to make choices for themselves has not been crossed in either instance, it still requires coercion by another person, not personal choice without interpersonal coercion -- informed or not -- in order to meet even the vaguest concept of "trafficked."

Reasons to enter into the sex worker trade are myriad. The money can be good, and of course our society offers advantage in direct proportion to the amount of money one has. As long as that is the case, income, even the perception of income, will be a prime motivator. Sex work can be fun. It offers both self-management and self-reliance, and this in turn can allow setting one's own schedule as opposed to the typical wage-slave. It can be rewarding, particularly in service to those who are unable to otherwise obtain sex with others due to the intense social stigma associated with looks and/or physical handicaps. Presently there's an element of legal risk, as well as one of push-back, and either or both may serve as titillation.

Any combination of the foregoing (and other similar issues -- post is long enough as-is) can serve to provide sufficient motivation for someone legally underage to decide to go this way. These are not in any sense "trafficked" individuals. They are, at most, people whose decisions you disagree with, who are breaking (arbitrary, ridiculous) rules based on their own decision making.

Which, if you want to concern yourself with it, is something completely different. But at least it is real, unlike the entire trafficking narrative. Arguments can be made and countered for both views on it. Trafficking is, in any significant sense, illusory. Arguments against an imaginary problem are inherently unproductive at the very least. All they do is paint a highly inaccurate picture of the world, which can (and has, in this case) lead to all manner of negative outcomes.

Now go out to one of the cops who is actually properly trained in dealing with human trafficking

You mean like this?

But it is very real.

In the sense that it hasn't happened zero times, yes, it's real. In the sense that it's in any sense a significant social problem affecting numerous individuals, no, it isn't real at all. It is in fact one of the most overblown and pernicious hoaxes pulled on the public in recent years. You've been hoodwinked.

a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.

Again, the facts do not support your assertion. You are regurgitating propaganda. Not facts. Learn the facts. Only when in possession of the actual facts can you make informed statements about a subject. Without them, you're more likely to do harm than anything else.

Lots of additional useful related information here.

If you use electricity, you do [willingly breathe coal combustion products].

My electricity is strictly hydro.

So someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to smoke? WTF?

Second-hand smoke.

as manifested in these matters by our elected legislature's

Speak for yourself. They are not my elected representatives. There isn't anyone in congressional office I voted for. My opinion, input, and concerns are not represented directly or indirectly, fractionally or otherwise, by any currently sitting politician. The relationship to me of the legislature's work product in these particular matters is purely coercive.

If the fact that a person (you?) or group of people didn't like the use of those fuels was enough to make it go away, then pretty much everything would go away, because there's always someone who hates everything.

Sure. But that's not really what's at issue here, as it assumes that good choices will be made and bad choices will not, the nature of those choices being based upon the majority's indirect selection of quality representatives.

Sounds good. But the reality is that the majority of the voting public have made extremely poor choices in selecting legislators, who in turn have made (many) extremely poor choices in their name. This is precisely why the massively polluting carbon-based energy infrastructure -- coal, petroleum -- remains largely still in place.

What would demonstrate the kind of system where your observation would be on point is a situation where the majority of the voting public made good choices, and the representatives then made good choices for them.

As it stands now, we have legislators making decisions for the nation based on principles toxic to the nation, and a largely uninformed and complacent voting public that keeps those legislators in place doing so. There's no need for "haters" to make poor choices; congress already has that well in hand.

But I don't willingly want to live in a world that includes evil nuclear power or thousands of acres of pristine desert habitat ruined by solar farms that kill birds and ruin the scenery!

See how that works?

Yep, sure do.

You think nuclear power is "evil." It isn't. You've been a victim of pro-petroleum propaganda, directly or otherwise. Nuclear power is extremely low risk, extremely low-pollution, and efficient. Fun fact: Coal plants produce more radioactive pollutants than do nuclear power plants by a factor of about one hundred. 'Nuther fun fact: Nuclear power plants produce far more energy than do coal or petroleum technology plants. Cool, eh?

You think solar panels kill birds. They don't. Well, unless you picked up a solar panel and somehow managed to hit the bird with it. Perhaps you're thinking of windmills. Or cats. Or human hunters.

You think solar panels "ruin desert habitat." They don't. The habitat is still right there underneath and around the panels. As well as newly provided shade.

You have also expressed more concern about scenery in your post than you have about people's actual health and welfare.

It appears you've made your position clear. Would you care to clarify and/or further expound on your statements?

So if you live in Uganda and I out you as a homosexual, it's the culture that's to blame for what will happen next. Not me.

It's both. Neither one is an excuse for the other.

Nor is comparing punishment times useful, because that assumes one side of the comparison is correct. That has to be demonstrated first, and no one has managed that (nor, under the current legal system, have I any confidence that it could even be managed.)

Harm was done. Society is not innocent in the matter. While the individual who took the act needs reform, so does society. Work towards and/or call for both. Don't ignore the one presuming the other is irrelevant.

I see. Never mind, then. My misreading. :)

Big tobacco and big coal are legally operated. Users of their products do so willingly.

I don't willingly breathe coal combustion products, and I don't willingly breathe cigarette smoke. The same is true for many other people.

It is long past time we went nuclear, solar, etc. for power. Burning stuff that continuously pollutes the atmosphere is not the best choice available. It's just what the politicians working on behalf of petroleum profiteers work to keep SOP (congress: 14% approval rate, 94% re-election rate -- sigh.)

As for cigarettes, they should be smoked only where those that consent to cigarette smoke in their air hang out. Unlike most other forms of personal consumption, smoking has well documented pernicious third-party effects.

I can't imagine being sentenced to nearly two decades in prison over $30,000 bucks. It's like committing an armed robbery for a couple of packs of cigarettes.

Yeah, it kinda was. It wasn't the cigarettes, it was the armed robbery.

Similarly, It wasn't the $30k, it was the extortion.

See what I mean?

The only rights one ever actually has are those rights that someone, somewhere is willing to enforce. Anything else is pernicious, deceptive myth based on hand-waving, not fact.

You can't take something someone doesn't actually have in the first place. That doesn't mean they'll be okay with whatever you do, because most people live within an illusory worldview that presumes immunity and safety on multiple fronts where those safeties and immunities do not actually exist.

The key to dealing with this reality in the most successful way is to understand what is actually going on. If one proceeds under the assumption that no one will screw them because "rights", one is very likely to suffer multiple screwings, some of which may be profound. Unfortunately, neither modern parenting or our public educational system does a proper (or often, any) job of informing people about this particular issue.

1) No one should make records of acts the participant(s) intended to be private, public
2) No one should inculcate others that sexuality and bodies are shameful
3) Responsibility extends both ways - 1 is only harmful due to 2, but it harmful
4) "victim" is not in any way an inaccurate characterization of individuals in such records
5) Victims of self-destructive thoughts and actions bear high levels of responsibility
6) As with all personal & interpersonal matters, informed consent is a critical underpinning
7) Participating in pearl-clutching and increases harm and risk of harm. Don't.

Also, you have a huge number of girls in this country who are trafficked.

The data does not support that contention. Here's a link with some well-researched facts, complete with useful references. I suggest some reading in a thoughtful vein.

There is overwhelming evidence that the "trafficking" narrative is agitprop specifically designed to trigger moral outrage. Those who spread the meme and those who believe it are the actual victims here.

It's cute that you think it works that way.

It's cute that you assume I think it works that way. It should work that way, and in order to effect any change it should be presented group-neutral. I am simply pointing out the defective assumptions and language that are complicit in making it the way it is as a matter of backlash against stupidity.