Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Most Parents Allow Unsupervised Internet Access To Children At Age 8

Posted by samzenpus on from the how-old? dept.

colinneagle writes "The timing for this study is interesting, given the arrests of two teenagers believed to have bullied a 12-year-old classmate until she committed suicide, but Microsoft found that 94% of parents said they allow their kids unsupervised access to at least one device or online service like email or social networks. The average age at which most children are allowed access to at least one online service, such as email or social media, was 8 years old, while 40% allow children under the age of 7 to access a computer unsupervised."

39 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Yup, I'm one of those parents... by t0qer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My kids are 4 and 7. They've been exposed to computers as early as possible. We play a lot of minecraft. The 7 year old has graduated to looking at odd things on youtube and "Movie Star Planet" She loves to tell me, "If you search Justin Beiber on google, it says, "Justin Beiber eats poop"

    I think it's good.

    Just last week I'm building a PC and the older one wants to help. It wasn't a full build, just plugging in cables. I was in shock though, she pretty much knew where everything was supposed to go. She just lacked the hand/eye to wiggle things in correctly.

    In school they're both far ahead of their peers in terms of reading and typing.

    1. Re:Yup, I'm one of those parents... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Informative

      My 11 yr old completed Portal last night and moved onto Portal 2. The only 'supervision' was that I required her to finish Portal 1 first.

      Learning to type and write is boring. Chatting to friends, blogging, showing off online are all fun. The same basic skills are learnt, only the latter is much, much more efficient.

      Let them explore. Talk to them. Keep an eye out for trouble. This is no different to raising a child in earlier times.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Yup, I'm one of those parents... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, it's actually really depressing going to public libraries these days, how many people you can see just using the public computers for porn.

      In an edifice full of the wisdom of millenia, instead they are looking at porn.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: Yup, I'm one of those parents... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      They had easy access to horses instead. Or whatever other livestock.

      A child can be morally corrupted without parental supervision, absence of the internet or not.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    4. Re:Yup, I'm one of those parents... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'm sure that eight year-olds had easy access to horse porn long before the internet came along.

      If they grew up on a farm, you betcha!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Yup, I'm one of those parents... by Minupla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps not horse porn, but I knew where the kids stashed their playboy collections in a vacant lot.

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    6. Re:Yup, I'm one of those parents... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, I'm a security designer. So I look at the browsing history and if I can find stuff she's been looking at that she might be embarrassed about, then I have the 'talk' with her to explain how to cover her tracks when using a computer and how to understand the many ways a computer can be used by someone to spy on you.

      These are important modern lessons to learn.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  2. Zero Cool by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If Zero Cool was not a lesson to all parents, I don't know what is. The fact that he grew up to be Sherlock Holmes is neither a blessing nor a curse.

    --
    Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
  3. Re:Bad Idea, by Defenestrar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the parenting and maturity of the kid that counts; environment plays a role too.

    Another problem with a statement like this is that "unsupervised" can mean a lot of things. When I was on a farm I had "unsupervised" access to my dirt bike at age five or so - even had chores which required its use about a mile away from the house (although I don't remember when the close in tasks/riding moved up to the further away ones). I bet my parents still kept an ear open and an eye on the clock while I was out on it and it's a sure thing that they spent the time making sure I knew what I was doing and how much trouble I'd be in if I went past the limits.

    Other tools are the same way - knives, hand tools, power tools, guns (again environment is important - I was on a farm out in the country where there were active bounties on certain pests as well as other hazards (suspected rabid animals which needed putting down, etc...)), and even the internet. So, either parents these days are being reckless with their children's safety, or they've gotten a reasonable handle on how to teach their kids about limits and safety on the 'net. Personally, I think it's more of the latter than the former - but of course there's no test required to become a parent other than the physical.

    Oh, if someone want's to play the "what if a pedophile targets your kid" card, I'll just say that there are tools to deal with that situation too - pretty much the same list as earlier ;)

  4. If that's true, Most parents are NUTS! by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have two great kids but we simply DON'T allow unfettered access to the internet. Folks think I'm nuts, but we do not allow unmonitored access to social networks, e-mail or chat services from ANY device. Having been in the network security business previously, I have the tools and equipment to actually control and monitor what my kids are doing. I have multiple layers of network security and logging. They might manage to get by the filters, but they won't bypass the logging so I'll know. What's more, they both KNOW they are being monitored and I reenforce that view regularly by asking them about specifics I find in the logs. We also make sure that internet access happens only in the common spaces in our home. We have laptops (3) but you cannot take them to your room by yourself to use them and nobody but me has an administrative account.

    Any parent who just turns the kids loose on the net is NUTS. There is a huge percentage of trash out there and it is irresponsible to just let a kid access this junk either on purpose or by accident. Parents need to be *active* in this area to avoid the sad stories like this one, as rare as it is. There are a number of other reasons to know what your kids are up to, sexting, pedophiles, identity theft, bullying etc are all reasons you need to at least monitor what your kids are doing online. (Not to mention to keep the NPAA off your case should they figure out how to bittorrent the latest movie they want..)

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:If that's true, Most parents are NUTS! by khellendros1984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To a computer, I'm sure. To the internet? Depending on their age, that's not as likely.

      Personally, I had access to a computer from a very early age (3 or 4), was allowed to run things like Doom when I was about 10, and didn't have unsupervised access to the internet until I was 15 or so (although I had access at home around 10 or 11, with a parent hovering, filtered and supervised access at school around 14).

      The fact is that my children will grow up in a different world and society than I did, and what worked for me might not work as well in a new social context (always-on broadband internet connections, social networking, free access to staggering amounts and varieties of information). People raising kids right now have to play some things by ear, since there aren't necessarily solidified social norms yet.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    2. Re:If that's true, Most parents are NUTS! by Greymoon · · Score: 2

      Grats on raising lambs for the slaughter. Your method will backfire - it is just a matter of when. A paper clip defeats your "security". Think about it.

    3. Re:If that's true, Most parents are NUTS! by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You cannot filter everything they see and are aware of forever. It is the Internet, not real life, they cannot actually get hurt, decapitated, or disabled while using it.
      That is why the Internet is such a great place for children to explore unfettered. Little Jonny can wonder off alone and learn about the word and himself, and you do not actually have to worry about them being eaten by a wolf or breaking their leg like our parents/grandparents used to, when learning about the worded entailed large amounts of real danger and life threatening situations.

      As far as I am concerned, knowingly filtering a child's knowledge, and retarding their ability to learn, is nothing sort of child abuse.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:If that's true, Most parents are NUTS! by timeOday · · Score: 2

      I am closer to you than most of the other responses (our computers are connected to desktop displays in the main room - no laptops in bedrooms). However, I have stopped short of using technical means for compliance. I think that fosters an adversarial situation, where circumvention is some sort of victory, instead of conveying standards and expectations. Granted we haven't had that "litmus test" moment yet of walking in on something, so it's all somewhat hypothetical until then.

    5. Re:If that's true, Most parents are NUTS! by Minupla · · Score: 2

      And when they go over to their friends' houses and get access to an unfiltered internet connection, will they have the skill set to self filter?

      At the moment our daughter has access to an unfiltered network connection (she's 5) through one of our PCs. She uses it to go to abcmouse.com.

      I don't think she'll get a PC in her room, and all our computers are in a public space in the house, but I'm realistic about my ability to shelter her, and more importantly, realistic about her probable eventual abilities to circumvent the filtering at school. She's attended her first Defcon after all.

      Just like everything else, I work on blocking the biggest risks and educate about the low incident-but-high impact ones. I don't live my life assuming the worst will happen to me, and don't (or at least try not to) live my daughter's life like the worst will happen to her either.

      Min

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    6. Re:If that's true, Most parents are NUTS! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Before you judge my response below, be aware that I'm actually the kind of parent who strongly believes in teaching kids to do things by themselves, eventually leading to unsupervised activities after guided exploration. By the time a kid is 4 or 5, he/she can be prepared to do all sorts of "dangerous" "adult" tasks, with proper education and training. In years past -- and still in many other countries -- 5-year-old kids can probably cook on a hot stove or in an oven (if not manage an open fire), use sharp knives for cooking and other repetitive tasks, etc.

      But kids who learn to do these things are able to because they've been taught how to know what is safe and unsafe.

      It is the Internet, not real life, they cannot actually get hurt, decapitated, or disabled while using it.

      The internet may be a "virtual place," but that doesn't mean that interactions on the internet can't lead to real-life interactions (and even potentially dangerous ones).

      The internet may be a "virtual place," but that doesn't mean that encounters there couldn't cause real-life emotional or psychological damage to young people who don't have the frame of reference that adults have.

      That is why the Internet is such a great place for children to explore unfettered. Little Jonny can wonder off alone and learn about the word and himself, and you do not actually have to worry about them being eaten by a wolf or breaking their leg like our parents/grandparents used to, when learning about the worded entailed large amounts of real danger and life threatening situations.

      The "wolves" and "broken legs" can still appear in different forms, from creepy guys who "groom" kids and young teens in inappropriate interactions (perhaps coaxing them into real-world "encounters") to cyberbullying scenarios that can drive a kid to depression or even suicide. In case you haven't noticed, people tend to be meaner on the internet -- not having to say or do nasty things to someone's face often makes it easier. How many people who lay on the horn in their car? How many of those same people would start randomly screaming at somebody who was walking too slowly in front of them?

      The "virtual" space of the internet allows more abstract interactions -- often more extreme and unusual than in real life -- some of which children and young people may need guidance to navigate.

      As far as I am concerned, knowingly filtering a child's knowledge, and retarding their ability to learn, is nothing sort of child abuse.

      Filtering knowledge and retarding abilities to learn are different from providing guidance or creating reasonable restrictions when a child cannot be continuously monitored. I agree with you that the GP's approach can sound rather extreme. I personally think an ideal solution involves parents providing direct guidance and supervised exploration, rather than background monitoring and surveillance.

      On the other hand, I don't see a huge amount of difference in the GP's behavior from a parent who puts up a fence around the yard so the 2-year-old doesn't go wandering into the street. Having a fence to keep the kid from wandering away in the few seconds a parent may be distracted by something else is a reasonable restriction. And it doesn't mean that the parent can't also have the gate open at times, teach the child to look both ways, teach the child never to run after balls into the street until he/she is older, etc.

      The place I disagree with the GP is the sense of constant surveillance. Kids need to have "safe places" to explore on their own. There are places on the internet that is possible, just like there are places in the backyard that are safe for a 2-year-old. A better solution would allow a kid to wander about in those safe places without being worried about parental surveillance.

      However, the entire internet is NOT always a safe place. It's incredibly naive to act like it is.

    7. Re:If that's true, Most parents are NUTS! by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The key I think is just parental supervision. That doens't mean forbidding things just putting it in perspective. Ie, homework must come FIRST, then chores, and only then spend the small amount of remaining time in the day on television or internet or texting on the phone. But even then good parental supervision might encourage the children to read a book first and to go outside and get some real exercise (unstructured play that is, not necessarily sports).

      So when a parent says they can't help it when their kid is on the smartphone all day, that means they're abdicating their job. Just cancel the phone, it is that easy. If you're concerned that they won't be able to phone the police in an emergency then get a dumb phone or lock down the dataplan. This is NOT child abuse. We survived for millenia without having the internet in arms reach at all times.

      Unsupervised access to internet should be like most other things in life, it gets granted to you as part of a gradually increasing amount of trust and responsibility. Child proves they are a bit more responsible which earns a bit more trust. Eventually you get to the stage of going out to dinner without hiring a babysitter first, and similarly there should be a time when the internet can be used even without adults in the house.

  5. Crazy talk! by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At age 8, I would never have allowed my parents unsupervised use of the home PC.

    Now, by 12 or 13, I had learned enough about security basics to limit their access enough as to render them relatively harmless. But before that? No frickin' way - One "install our daily free coupon print driver" ad away from needing to do a total reimage.


    Oh, wait... You meant... Ahahaahahhaaaaahah!!11!!1!!!!!

    How quaint. As though non-IT professional parents have the least shot at keeping their kids off the internet. Cute notion, though.

    1. Re:Crazy talk! by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      at age 8 I had complete root access of the computer and by age 9 I had started to disassemble it for hardware modifications and was OS hacking. I was online before my parents because I was the one who figured out the passwords for the local UUNET dial up node 300bps and I was rocking the ASCII art boobies!

      My porn was finding more and more information, When I discovered what some people had out there, I really wanted a real computer so I started searching for business that went under to get my dad to go to the auctions. Scored a Cromemco Miniframe computer by the age of 12 that has 2 VT100 terminals. I had to hack the root password to even get access, so my very first task was to own the box.

      Children need unrestricted access to the computer and to knowlege and information. they do NOT need unrestricted access to a cesspool.

      Fast foreward to today, my daughter grew up having 2 computers that she had 100% control over. I bought her every book she ever wanted on programming, hacking, etc... but she did not get unrestricted internet access, Unless she figured out how to completely bypass my hardware filtering firewall, then she deserved the access. But I never detected any breaches, so either she never cared to try to get to nasty-horse-porn.com or she is a damn good hacker.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Crazy talk! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they do NOT need unrestricted access to a cesspool.

      Meh. I allow my child unrestricted access to this 'cesspool' for educational purposes. Have to learn how to deal with idiots.

      Honestly, the fact that a few kids occasionally kill themselves doesn't mean there's some huge epidemic.

  6. Re:Bad Idea, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about in real life?

    Do you honestly constantly monitor your 8 year old 24x7?

    At age 4 I was already allowed to walk to friends houses that were a few blocks away.

    By age 8, I was playing alone in the woods next to a highway.

    By 14, I was staying up all night with my friends playing RPGs.

    At 16, I got a girlfriend, and suddenly I needed a curfew.

  7. And in "real-life"... by profplump · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And in "real life" 100% of parents allow 8-year-olds to have unsupervised in-person social interaction with their peers (and probably on the phone as well). The fact that socialization is happening with the aid of a computer does not make it inherently more dangerous; without the Interwebs this girl would still have been harassed, and we should be working to stop the harassment, not to stop the use of computers in harassment.

    1. Re:And in "real-life"... by Nimey · · Score: 3, Informative

      I give you the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

      People (kids too) are more likely to be fucking barbarians when they're behind a computer and have a little pseudonymity, when someone can't reach over and punch them in the nose for going too far.

      And as the AC noted, pedos.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:And in "real-life"... by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that socialization is happening with the aid of a computer does not make it inherently more dangerous...

      Yes it does. There is far more access to dangerous materials and dangerous people online than there is in person. While there's a slight advantage in a greater pool of potential victims to hide in the crowd of, the danger in the ability of predators of any stripe (not just sexual) to reach your kids from anywhere in the country or even the world. There's not as much ability for kids to tell what a "bad neighborhood" is online as in real life.

      There's also less public shame for bad behavior and a greater tendency for people to act in herds of like-minded individuals. (See, e.g. the resurgence of white supremacist groups in the modern day or "thinspiration" sites.) You don't have to encounter people who disagree with you, unless you want to -- even if just to troll them. Witness comments section of any news or politics site.

      [W]ithout the Interwebs this girl would still have been harassed, and we should be working to stop the harassment, not to stop the use of computers in harassment.

      The harassment would have been completely different in tone and scale. Hiding behind a computer is quite different from doing something where witnesses who might disapprove would be present to act as a check or the much simpler one of being within arms reach. Witness Xbox Live, the domain of bullies who would be the bullied anywhere else.

      Tools matter. There's a difference between two hotheaded boys getting in a fist fight and two armed hotheaded boys getting into a fight. The same is true of cyberbullying v. in-person bullying. People act differently in different environments, and online is more (and less) dangerous for certain types of behavior.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  8. It's For the Children by LifesABeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't have children, you have no clue about this topic. And if you do, you're concerned about the lost child. But not enough to support those that would turn the internet into a corporate sponsored lock down.

    I use to think I'd be a fine husband, till I got married.
    I use to think I'd be a fine father, till I had chidren.
    I use to think I'd be a fine grandparent; I pray that I just don't fuck this up.

    1. Re:It's For the Children by profplump · · Score: 2

      And if you do have children you almost certainly lack perspective just as badly as those without children.

  9. Re:Bad Idea, by Xicor · · Score: 2

    i was unsupervised at 8, unsupersed at 12 and heavily monitored at 15+. my parents didnt like me watching porn.

  10. Re: BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... my mother was driving the tractor on the farm at age five. What kind of moronic five year olds do you know?

  11. Re: BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are a fucking shutin idiot if you dont think the poster you are replying to is actually fairly typical of a more rural area. Or even go back 30 years ago in the suburbs. 5 year old are much more capable than you presume.

  12. Re:Bad Idea, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here too, bro.

    When I was 4, I walked 3/4 of a mile to a neighbor's house, cutting through a cornfield along the way, just to bring back a few quarts of strawberries for my mom.

    When I was 8, I hung out unsupervised in that very cornfield lighting off firecrackers with kids 8, 9 and 10 years old.

    By 10, we all walked along the interstate to the truckstop to look for half-smoked cigarettes on the ground left behind by truckers.

    By 12, we were picking jimson weed along the highway to mix in with the cigarettes.

    At 13, I was hanging out with 15 and 16 year olds who knew where to get pot.

    By 14, I was one of those kids who knew where to get pot.

    At 16, my source of pot introduced me to meth. I soon was selling it to one of my friends' mom in exchange for sexual favors (unprotected).

    At 17, I got arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possesion of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, was tried as an adult and spent 18 months in prison.

    Now I'm 27, I've been clean for 9 years and work as a social worker with kids/young adults whose parents, like mine, couldn't be bothered to supervise them. This is real life.

  13. Re:Not "Most Parents." by ArbitraryName · · Score: 2

    Thanks for explaining how surveys work.

  14. Re: BULLSHIT by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not them, but I rode my bicycle to and from elementary school starting at 1st grade... Age 5. I also had to help KILL, GUT, AND COOK food. Take a trip to any 3rd world country and you'll see kids younger than 5 helping out.

    Your culture is bullshit. Thats why your kids are bullshit. That's why your parents are bullshit and try to censor the kids against reality... You laugh when little boys are DUMBER than 3rd world nation kids -- You laugh because boys think girls have penises and girls think that boys don't; Then you wonder why the ignorance leads to teen pregnancy. You shelter them from the reality of how their favorite foods make it to the table; Then you wonder why they don't give a damn about decades long wars that kill hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people. You are the bullshit.

    At age 8 I was reading about black holes in science magazines and had taught myself how to code in GW-BASIC and created a lesson plan / grade manager program (basically a custom spreadsheet w/ reports) for my Geography teacher, and was selling my software on Compuserve. My parents let me do, read and watch whatever I wanted, and stay up as long as I liked as long as I was respectful and my responsibilities were met: Chores done, and I went to school the next day. They respected that I was a sentient being. It's too bad your parents treated you like bullshit.

  15. Re: Pics or it didn't happen? Well, about that... by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

    Now we were poor and didn't have a video camera, but I'm pretty sure my parent's photo album still has several shots of me zipping through the alfalfa. Perhaps the following will help your perception of what a five year old kid can do:

    5 YO on a 50 cc Yamaha

    Another 5 YO on a 50 cc bike

    This one has a 3 YO But mine didn't have training wheels.

    My parents weren't reckless though; I was at least 6 before my dad removed the speed governor.

  16. Re:Bad Idea, by flaming+error · · Score: 2, Informative

    That is *your* real life. Others of us didn't become drug dealers.

  17. Re: BULLSHIT by narcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At age 8 I was reading about black holes in science magazines and had taught myself how to code in GW-BASIC

    So you were a perfectly average 8-year-old in the 1980's. Good for you.

    It was a different time. Kids today have advantages we would have killed for, sure, but they also face different problems. Parents also face dramatically different social and legal pressures.

    When we were kids, it wasn't a big deal to ride your bike a few miles to a friends house, not checking in until after dark to ask if you can stay over night. Today, you're face would end up on the news before lunch, and net your parents a few visits from social services.

    Christ, just look at shit like this. If it were satire, it would be too implausible to be funny, but that's reality.

    Why can't little Johnny code? Because we suspended him for planning out a game where you shot alien space ships with guns. The Horror!

    Blame "culture" if you want, but it's a culture we've created. We're not kids any more. This is our world now. We did this. We're the ones who allow nonsense like the above to continue unchecked.

    What are you going to do about it?

    --
    Required reading for internet skeptics
  18. Re:Bad Idea, by Pubstar · · Score: 2

    At 16, how were you able to get meth and sell it for sexual favors without repaying the guy for meth? If you make up stories, try to make them believable. Seriously, as someone who was exposed to some weird shit when they were younger, and I was getting stoned and spending most of my class time getting drunk in high school. After highschool I got heavily into RCs, MDMA, and other designer drugs. Guess what? I was able to still run my own side business, go to school, and hold a full time job. I was never really supervised after I turned 14. All I fail to see is someone who really lacked focus in their life. Mine wasn't given to me by my parents, I just wanted that bank. I saw that being a total fuckup like the people I hung out with in HS was going to lead me nowhere fast, so I broke away from them to make it for myself. Maybe I'm different, but if I was getting laid by my friends mom to fuel her drug habit, I'd be looking down that road and wondering if I really wanted to take that. Maybe you were just too weak minded to have that foresight. Or maybe it was games teaching me early on that if I fuck up now and screw off, its going to be a long and painful path to the end boss.

  19. Re: BULLSHIT by puto · · Score: 2

    I am a natural born US citizen, who is also a citizen of Colombia and Panama. Both decidedly third world countries. I also have taught classes in both places and worked for companies for pesos. In addition I have worked in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Mexico, and Ecuador. In those countries kids until there are about 15 are under their mothers skirts because they are helpless. Your experience is not germane to the rest of the world. Get off your high horse, and your mother needs to tell you that other people can be smart.

    --
    The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
  20. Re:Bad Idea, by davester666 · · Score: 3, Informative

    All those number are missing some really important context.

    How many kids in total are working/living on farms.

    If the number is, say, 20,000, then your numbers should cause outrage.
    If the number is, say, 20,000,000, then probably not.

    As well, useful context would compare deaths/100,000 for kids on farms vs kids not on farms. Same with injuries.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the death rate were lower on farms, but the injury rate might be higher.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  21. Re:Bad Idea, by delt0r · · Score: 2

    The problem on a farm is that there is a large set of accidents that are quite survivable in the city because you get fast medical attention, where on a farm you are dead. We were always aware that even with a cell phone, help was 40 min or longer away from where we lived. And good medical help far longer.

    But you also missed some extra context to this "Oh my god people die on farms" GP post. I had a blast. I would far prefer to live my life before i die, than wait around to be old and sour and die anyway. I mean cars are bloody lethal. Yet we drive. In fact almost anyone in the west is mostly likely going to get a heart attack or cancer as your ticket out of life. Not some quad bike accident. Thou i did have a few of those.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?