"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." --Adolph Hiter
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." -Adolph Hitler
Hmmm... from a purely legal perspective, that's all well and good.
But if you're the innocent dude with the open wireless, TOR proxy, pre-fetching browser, crawler-bot software or are a clicker of random unsolicited email links and ALL of your equipment (including all of your utility bills? and mail? apparently?) are taken by the Feds.
That's ironic because what the FBI is doing COULD (using the same analogy) be akin to raiding your house and taking all your stuff for some robber breaking into your house and molesting a child while he's there.
The concept of a "panopticon" society has been tried in places like orphanages. Despite the fact that you know who is watching you, the whole concept of being CONSTANTLY watched and NEVER having a private moment is extremely disruptive and destructive to the human psyche.
Children raised in soviet orphanages arranged in this way almost always had massive psychological problems, attachment disorders, psychosis and were pretty generally regarded as sociopaths when released on society.
That's not the world I want MY kids raised in... frankly.
Your lack of fear of the government is disturbing.
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said "when people fear the government, that is tyrrany; when government fears the people, that is liberty."
Your crime-and-punishment viewpoint is interesting. I might point out that the United States currently has almost 20 times the incarceration rate of most other developed country, however; they actually ALSO have the highest violent crime rates.
Countries with the lowest incarceration rates have the lowest crime rates.
This is not necssarily a causation in either direction, but I can't help but point out the correlation. And that makes the concept of "catching criminals reduces crime" very suspect.
In fact, I subscribe to the "making people feel constantly supervised leads to huge social problems" (and hence, more crime)
Maybe I'm wrong... but I think it's an equally valid opinion that tends to balance the argument.
And the final straw for me is the fact that governments have PROVEN over and over and over again throughout millenia, that they cannot be trusted. Power corrupts. The fact that we've had 150-some years with relative political stability amongst most developed nations is absolutely remarkable in the scheme of history and has to (I think) with the principals of "checks and balances" introduced through things like the American Revolution, French Revolution, Magna Carta, etc.
Keep telling yourself "power corrupts" whenever you view a political power struggle, or new sweeping law enforcement powers and then you might see the historical context that tends to cause knee-jerk reactions from people here.
THe fact that 5% of the UK population is already in the system doesn't make it right. It just means that we've already become desensitized to it. It's the frog-in-boiling-water parable. Toss a frog in and it jumps out, but slowly warm the water and the frog will allow itself to be boiled alive.
And always remember... Most persons are smart. Most people are panicky and stupid.:-)
Well, the fact that the UK is ahead of the US on privacy violations doesn't excuse the US from it's gross privacy violations.
In comparison to other developed nations, BOTH the US and the UK are leaps ahead of the rest in cataloging and methodically destroying personal privacy and governmental sanity.:-)
Ahh yes, but I want a 40ft+ cat. Those tend to be pricey unless you want one of the "box on floats" made in the 80s.
And the same goes for airplanes. You can get a neglected old Cesssna 172 for like $40k if you have lots of time to repair and renovate it.
However, if you want a turbocharged mooney with integrated GPS, you're going to spend $250k.:-)
I wish i lived on the coast... I might have already bought the boat and just used it as a liveaboard.
As for being rescued.. good advice.:-) I've been sailing since I was 6. I singlehanded halfway across Lake Superior when I was 12 and dad was nasty sick for a few days. I know it's not the North Atlantic, but the principals are generally the same.
Because of where I live, I just race my Hobie Tiger, but I'd like to get back on the ocean someday.:-)
Aha, one of the situations where it might be economical to fly.
If you live near a small airport, frequently travel to another location with a small airport, own your own airplane, would normally have to fight traffic to get to a big airport, have transportation when you arrive...
Yes, if ALL of those things fit, then it's a great idea.
I know of a guy who lived in Rural Wisconson and travelled to Minneapolis, Green Bay, Madison and Chicago for work. Had a deal where he paid a guy at the airstrip like $15 to haul the plane out, warm it up and he would just roll up, toss his bags in and go...
Fly to Chicago in like 3 hours, outside Minneapolis in 1 hour...
But the cost was very high. I think a plane like a Mooney costs around $200,000 up front, more for the faster turbocharged versions. Annual maintinance runs a big and aviation fuel is like $7/gal right now. Those turbocharged prop engines aren't exactly efficient, especially if you're not willing to take it slow.
for primarily city-to-city travel, private planes are a joke. For rural-to-rural, it's a cool idea and *sometimes* for rural-to-suburban...
*shrugs*
still... I'd rather buy a sailboat and actually have time and space to enjoy my $250k investment.:-)
See.... "private craft" is all well and good, but unless you can afford a Gulfstream or some other such ridiculousness, you're stuck in a Cessna 172 doing about 140knots. After paying for the aviation fuel and spending and hour dicking around getting it out of the hangar, checklists, etc, then worrying about where to put it when you arrive... and what to drive...
Your break-even distance is almost 8 hours... in other words... if you aren't expecting to have to drive 8 hours, use your car or take a bus.
If you're going further than 8 hours by car, it's going to be like 5+ hours by Cessna and just suck up the 45 minutes to get through security (and the $500 in fuel) and take Southwest Airlines for $99.
I've only ever heard of about 3 situations where it was actually ECONOMICAL (both time and money) to take a private plane, unless you're god-awful rich and can afford a pilot to handle the checklists before you arrive.
This exact restriction already applies to registered sex offenders in many states.
Since it IS impossible to enforce, I can't see any purpose to it other than "security theater" (handwavium) or using it as the "case study" from which to base broader restrictions on everyone.
After all, people met those anti-offender online anonymity laws with cheering and parties... they can't be all bad, right?
Keep in mind this ALREADY PASSED as it applies to registered sex offenders, in many states.
And yet again, they use the pervs as the fine point of the wedge to meddle in our freedoms.
If I recall, THAT law was met with cheering and parties... despite the fact it does NOTHING to protect ANYONE because it's patently impossible to enforce, therefore... it's ONLY PURPOSE is to make people buy into the erosion of freedoms for insert noble purpose here
You know what cost a ton of money but took 20+ years to develop into something profitable?
The Integrated Circuit.
So I imagine... we should have just gave up when it was in theory labs "too small, not practical, too expensive to produce" and continued with the discreet electronics approach right?
And we'd all be typing on 80 pound computers that wouldn't run DOS6.
There are numerous examples of DAs who managed to hide or submarine important evidence of innocence in order to get another conviction on their record.
Even when faced with obvious and clear evidence the guy is innocent (such as recent DNA testing), many (most) will fight and scrap to ensure he doesn't receive another trial. Most of the time they fail and the guy gets a new trial in the case of DNA evidence, but I can recall a documentary I saw awhile back about some guys who hired a private DNA lab to run the evidence. The lab pulled hard DNA evidence that he was innocent, but the DA managed to keep it out of court, essentially guaranteeing an innocent man staying in jail... simply because it would look bad on his resume...
See, IP isn't a thing. Bob won't treasure his IP like it's an old car. Maybe he's proud of the idea, but if he's not charging licensing fees from it, does it matter whether he wants it or not?
If he seriously TREASURES it for non-monitary reasons and doesn't want to let it fall into the hands (and he wants to be able to freely use it), all he has to do is announce that it's now public domain.
Taxes, gone. Mega corp gets their IP for free and poor $70k Bob gets to use his IP all he wants.
The ONLY REASON to keep IP exclusive, is for monitary gain, isn't it? Make it public domain if you value it for the esoteric social benefit it provides...
Your "vintage car" analogy is odd as IP isn't a thing that can be "taken away" when you have the option to make it public domain where the result is "everyone in the world who cares to have one gets their own, with my name stenciled on the bumper".
It might be worth pointing out that the "Crimes Against Children Research Center" is a non-profit whos existance depends on there being a perception that children are in grave dangers of suffering at the hands of a violent criminal.
They have an agenda just like the pervs on the other side.
Perhaps we should dismiss them both and come up with our own opinions.:-)
Statistics are a tool. They may not be 100% accurate, but they are a tool which can be used to emphasize a valid point, or to make invalid arguments seem plausible.
A figure that is this grossly wrong results in irrational fear, not learning and teaching. It results in the stripping of freedom in the name of safety and the removal of socially beneficial avenues all whilst sticking your head in the sand screaming THINKOFTHECHILDREN.
The real statistic from those original studies is.... ZERO children in the study were enticed into sexual contact against their will, out of... what... 1500 in 01 and 1500 in 06? Here's a statistic for you. zero percent of children are enticed into sexual contact against their will through the internet. (statistically accurate to around 0.05%).
So the number is greater than zero, yes... but likely less than 0.05%
And the kids who are engaging in risky behaviors like meeting adults from the internet with purposes of having sex..... you may deny them that opportunity to act out, but don't you seriously think the 14 year old who is doing that will just turn to other methods (say, the back room at an arcade, or a friend's basement while smashed drunk) to engage in their silly risky behaviors?
Perhaps the whole issue is...
do we really believe that sex predators are SUCH good manipulators that they can con young teens into doing things they obviously aren't interested in? Well, our study of 3000 young teens says "nope, they can't, in general".
according to what i've read 1 in 4 GIRLS are victims of sexual assault while they're still a child.
That seems almost absurd! Actual FBI numbers put it at like 1 in 45 or 1 in 80 or something like that. 1 in 4 comes from some study in the 70s that collected women from some group who were already having sexual dysfunction issues and then studied them....
but it's trotted out by senators on a daily basis, now isn't it?
Pilots... ESPECIALLY fighter pilots were so arrogant and confident, they had NO DOUBT they were coming home at the end of the day.
It was always shocking to them when they got shot down or even took damage on their plane.
However, the dude sitting in the back of the bomber was the guy who dropped out of flight school, or never had the confidence to get into it.... maybe that's the reason he's more prone to trauma. He sat there the whole time thinking "shit i'm gonna die"
Fighter pilots on the other hand sat there the whole time thinking "i'm gonna shoot down this other fucker!!"
I seem to recall reading about a kibbutz sorta thing in Israel that had a big problem with sexual abuse...
It's not a problem that will go away... however... even the most irrational reaction doesn't make it better... it just makes people more scared and fucked up in the head... without doing ANYTHING to solve the "problem", if it's even a problem........
Your kids are no worse off on the Internet than they are out on the public streets
See, part of the problem is a lot of these people believe that their kids are in grave danger out in public too.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread, I remember reading awhile back (i cant confirm or deny, but it seems plausable) that your kid is more likely to injured or killed by a lightening strike than to be involved in a genuine stranger abduction. More likely to drown in a pool than be abducted and even more likely to perish from sports related accidents than to be abducted at the mall (or anywhere) by a stranger.
When my grandparents were kids (9, 10, 11 years old), they hopped on their bike at 10am and mom said "Be home before dark!" and they rode their bike a few miles to the nearest grocer and spent a few pennies on gum and then jumped in the back of "old man Jenkin's" truck and he dropped them off down at the lake where they went skinny dipping for 3 hours on the side of a highway.
Can you imagine the headlines today if some young boys rode their bike to the store, hopped in some unrelated dudes truck and then were found playing naked on the side of a road? Seriously?
hah!
However, sex crimes and violent crimes in general are actually at lower rates today according to the FBI than they were back then in the 20s.
So were my grandparents actually safer back then than some kids doing that today would be?
Other than the trend of urbanization, which would lead to more risk from traffic accidents and kids being hit by cars, they probably weren't safer... we just didn't have network TV and the Internet to scare our pants off with exotic tales of abductions and random murders on small pacific islands............ (and Nancy Grace's eyebrows... man they scare me)
Slashdot Mirror
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." --Adolph Hiter
Make more sense now?
Lack of empathy caused by a total absense of emotional connections in their youth.
Actually, that's a clinically very valid definition.
Of course, adults seeking emotional connections with kids. SICK FUCKS!
o wait....
I think I found your problem!
Not intending to Godwin this but:
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." -Adolph Hitler
Uhm. TFA said they DID NOT check the referrer.
That would be.... well..... uhm.....
nothing to see here, move along.
Hmmm... from a purely legal perspective, that's all well and good.
:-)
But if you're the innocent dude with the open wireless, TOR proxy, pre-fetching browser, crawler-bot software or are a clicker of random unsolicited email links and ALL of your equipment (including all of your utility bills? and mail? apparently?) are taken by the Feds.
Do you feel justice was served?
That's ironic because what the FBI is doing COULD (using the same analogy) be akin to raiding your house and taking all your stuff for some robber breaking into your house and molesting a child while he's there.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
And all your electronics gets seized...
thinkofthechildren
I disagree.
The concept of a "panopticon" society has been tried in places like orphanages. Despite the fact that you know who is watching you, the whole concept of being CONSTANTLY watched and NEVER having a private moment is extremely disruptive and destructive to the human psyche.
Children raised in soviet orphanages arranged in this way almost always had massive psychological problems, attachment disorders, psychosis and were pretty generally regarded as sociopaths when released on society.
That's not the world I want MY kids raised in... frankly.
SI
Your lack of fear of the government is disturbing.
:-)
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said "when people fear the government, that is tyrrany; when government fears the people, that is liberty."
Your crime-and-punishment viewpoint is interesting. I might point out that the United States currently has almost 20 times the incarceration rate of most other developed country, however; they actually ALSO have the highest violent crime rates.
Countries with the lowest incarceration rates have the lowest crime rates.
This is not necssarily a causation in either direction, but I can't help but point out the correlation. And that makes the concept of "catching criminals reduces crime" very suspect.
In fact, I subscribe to the "making people feel constantly supervised leads to huge social problems" (and hence, more crime)
Maybe I'm wrong... but I think it's an equally valid opinion that tends to balance the argument.
And the final straw for me is the fact that governments have PROVEN over and over and over again throughout millenia, that they cannot be trusted. Power corrupts. The fact that we've had 150-some years with relative political stability amongst most developed nations is absolutely remarkable in the scheme of history and has to (I think) with the principals of "checks and balances" introduced through things like the American Revolution, French Revolution, Magna Carta, etc.
Keep telling yourself "power corrupts" whenever you view a political power struggle, or new sweeping law enforcement powers and then you might see the historical context that tends to cause knee-jerk reactions from people here.
THe fact that 5% of the UK population is already in the system doesn't make it right. It just means that we've already become desensitized to it. It's the frog-in-boiling-water parable. Toss a frog in and it jumps out, but slowly warm the water and the frog will allow itself to be boiled alive.
And always remember... Most persons are smart. Most people are panicky and stupid.
SI
Well, the fact that the UK is ahead of the US on privacy violations doesn't excuse the US from it's gross privacy violations.
:-)
In comparison to other developed nations, BOTH the US and the UK are leaps ahead of the rest in cataloging and methodically destroying personal privacy and governmental sanity.
Ahh yes, but I want a 40ft+ cat. Those tend to be pricey unless you want one of the "box on floats" made in the 80s.
:-)
:-) I've been sailing since I was 6. I singlehanded halfway across Lake Superior when I was 12 and dad was nasty sick for a few days. I know it's not the North Atlantic, but the principals are generally the same.
:-)
:-)
And the same goes for airplanes. You can get a neglected old Cesssna 172 for like $40k if you have lots of time to repair and renovate it.
However, if you want a turbocharged mooney with integrated GPS, you're going to spend $250k.
I wish i lived on the coast... I might have already bought the boat and just used it as a liveaboard.
As for being rescued.. good advice.
Because of where I live, I just race my Hobie Tiger, but I'd like to get back on the ocean someday.
Uhm... so how about those TSA officers? eh?
Aha, one of the situations where it might be economical to fly.
:-)
If you live near a small airport, frequently travel to another location with a small airport, own your own airplane, would normally have to fight traffic to get to a big airport, have transportation when you arrive...
Yes, if ALL of those things fit, then it's a great idea.
I know of a guy who lived in Rural Wisconson and travelled to Minneapolis, Green Bay, Madison and Chicago for work. Had a deal where he paid a guy at the airstrip like $15 to haul the plane out, warm it up and he would just roll up, toss his bags in and go...
Fly to Chicago in like 3 hours, outside Minneapolis in 1 hour...
But the cost was very high. I think a plane like a Mooney costs around $200,000 up front, more for the faster turbocharged versions. Annual maintinance runs a big and aviation fuel is like $7/gal right now. Those turbocharged prop engines aren't exactly efficient, especially if you're not willing to take it slow.
for primarily city-to-city travel, private planes are a joke. For rural-to-rural, it's a cool idea and *sometimes* for rural-to-suburban...
*shrugs*
still... I'd rather buy a sailboat and actually have time and space to enjoy my $250k investment.
YES!!!!
:-)
You must appreciate the IT Director who demands (and I mean vehemently demands) that all 5000 computers deployed MUST HAVE FEET.
He almost fired some poor helpdesk lackey for deploying a computer that didn't have little feet on the bottom.
He says the carpet static will zap the computer. He says the feet must be made out of rubber or metal or they're no good.
I think he forgot that the case is made out of metal... and grounded.... doh!!!
See.... "private craft" is all well and good, but unless you can afford a Gulfstream or some other such ridiculousness, you're stuck in a Cessna 172 doing about 140knots. After paying for the aviation fuel and spending and hour dicking around getting it out of the hangar, checklists, etc, then worrying about where to put it when you arrive... and what to drive...
Your break-even distance is almost 8 hours... in other words... if you aren't expecting to have to drive 8 hours, use your car or take a bus.
If you're going further than 8 hours by car, it's going to be like 5+ hours by Cessna and just suck up the 45 minutes to get through security (and the $500 in fuel) and take Southwest Airlines for $99.
I've only ever heard of about 3 situations where it was actually ECONOMICAL (both time and money) to take a private plane, unless you're god-awful rich and can afford a pilot to handle the checklists before you arrive.
SI
This exact restriction already applies to registered sex offenders in many states.
Since it IS impossible to enforce, I can't see any purpose to it other than "security theater" (handwavium) or using it as the "case study" from which to base broader restrictions on everyone.
After all, people met those anti-offender online anonymity laws with cheering and parties... they can't be all bad, right?
Keep in mind this ALREADY PASSED as it applies to registered sex offenders, in many states.
And yet again, they use the pervs as the fine point of the wedge to meddle in our freedoms.
If I recall, THAT law was met with cheering and parties... despite the fact it does NOTHING to protect ANYONE because it's patently impossible to enforce, therefore... it's ONLY PURPOSE is to make people buy into the erosion of freedoms for insert noble purpose here
SI
You know what cost a ton of money but took 20+ years to develop into something profitable?
The Integrated Circuit.
So I imagine... we should have just gave up when it was in theory labs "too small, not practical, too expensive to produce" and continued with the discreet electronics approach right?
And we'd all be typing on 80 pound computers that wouldn't run DOS6.
Sweet. Good idea!
You're so smart!
There are numerous examples of DAs who managed to hide or submarine important evidence of innocence in order to get another conviction on their record.
Even when faced with obvious and clear evidence the guy is innocent (such as recent DNA testing), many (most) will fight and scrap to ensure he doesn't receive another trial. Most of the time they fail and the guy gets a new trial in the case of DNA evidence, but I can recall a documentary I saw awhile back about some guys who hired a private DNA lab to run the evidence. The lab pulled hard DNA evidence that he was innocent, but the DA managed to keep it out of court, essentially guaranteeing an innocent man staying in jail... simply because it would look bad on his resume...
That's standard behavior as far as I'm aware...
See, IP isn't a thing. Bob won't treasure his IP like it's an old car. Maybe he's proud of the idea, but if he's not charging licensing fees from it, does it matter whether he wants it or not?
If he seriously TREASURES it for non-monitary reasons and doesn't want to let it fall into the hands (and he wants to be able to freely use it), all he has to do is announce that it's now public domain.
Taxes, gone. Mega corp gets their IP for free and poor $70k Bob gets to use his IP all he wants.
The ONLY REASON to keep IP exclusive, is for monitary gain, isn't it? Make it public domain if you value it for the esoteric social benefit it provides...
Your "vintage car" analogy is odd as IP isn't a thing that can be "taken away" when you have the option to make it public domain where the result is "everyone in the world who cares to have one gets their own, with my name stenciled on the bumper".
*shrugs*
SI
You now owe 5% property tax on ONE HUNDRED BILLION TRILLION ZOMG BBQ DOLLARS.
Please write us a check for TWENTY MILLION TRILLION ZOMG BBQ DOLLARS due April 15th.
Thanks much.
It might be worth pointing out that the "Crimes Against Children Research Center" is a non-profit whos existance depends on there being a perception that children are in grave dangers of suffering at the hands of a violent criminal.
:-)
They have an agenda just like the pervs on the other side.
Perhaps we should dismiss them both and come up with our own opinions.
Really? The world isn't perfect?
Since when!!!!
Statistics are a tool. They may not be 100% accurate, but they are a tool which can be used to emphasize a valid point, or to make invalid arguments seem plausible.
A figure that is this grossly wrong results in irrational fear, not learning and teaching. It results in the stripping of freedom in the name of safety and the removal of socially beneficial avenues all whilst sticking your head in the sand screaming THINKOFTHECHILDREN.
The real statistic from those original studies is.... ZERO children in the study were enticed into sexual contact against their will, out of... what... 1500 in 01 and 1500 in 06? Here's a statistic for you. zero percent of children are enticed into sexual contact against their will through the internet. (statistically accurate to around 0.05%).
So the number is greater than zero, yes... but likely less than 0.05%
And the kids who are engaging in risky behaviors like meeting adults from the internet with purposes of having sex..... you may deny them that opportunity to act out, but don't you seriously think the 14 year old who is doing that will just turn to other methods (say, the back room at an arcade, or a friend's basement while smashed drunk) to engage in their silly risky behaviors?
Perhaps the whole issue is...
do we really believe that sex predators are SUCH good manipulators that they can con young teens into doing things they obviously aren't interested in? Well, our study of 3000 young teens says "nope, they can't, in general".
Maybe that's what we should focus on!
according to what i've read 1 in 4 GIRLS are victims of sexual assault while they're still a child.
That seems almost absurd! Actual FBI numbers put it at like 1 in 45 or 1 in 80 or something like that. 1 in 4 comes from some study in the 70s that collected women from some group who were already having sexual dysfunction issues and then studied them....
but it's trotted out by senators on a daily basis, now isn't it?
Maybe it's more about the type of person.
:-)
Pilots... ESPECIALLY fighter pilots were so arrogant and confident, they had NO DOUBT they were coming home at the end of the day.
It was always shocking to them when they got shot down or even took damage on their plane.
However, the dude sitting in the back of the bomber was the guy who dropped out of flight school, or never had the confidence to get into it.... maybe that's the reason he's more prone to trauma. He sat there the whole time thinking "shit i'm gonna die"
Fighter pilots on the other hand sat there the whole time thinking "i'm gonna shoot down this other fucker!!"
Some of both?
I seem to recall reading about a kibbutz sorta thing in Israel that had a big problem with sexual abuse...
It's not a problem that will go away... however... even the most irrational reaction doesn't make it better... it just makes people more scared and fucked up in the head... without doing ANYTHING to solve the "problem", if it's even a problem........
Your kids are no worse off on the Internet than they are out on the public streets
See, part of the problem is a lot of these people believe that their kids are in grave danger out in public too.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread, I remember reading awhile back (i cant confirm or deny, but it seems plausable) that your kid is more likely to injured or killed by a lightening strike than to be involved in a genuine stranger abduction. More likely to drown in a pool than be abducted and even more likely to perish from sports related accidents than to be abducted at the mall (or anywhere) by a stranger.
When my grandparents were kids (9, 10, 11 years old), they hopped on their bike at 10am and mom said "Be home before dark!" and they rode their bike a few miles to the nearest grocer and spent a few pennies on gum and then jumped in the back of "old man Jenkin's" truck and he dropped them off down at the lake where they went skinny dipping for 3 hours on the side of a highway.
Can you imagine the headlines today if some young boys rode their bike to the store, hopped in some unrelated dudes truck and then were found playing naked on the side of a road? Seriously?
hah!
However, sex crimes and violent crimes in general are actually at lower rates today according to the FBI than they were back then in the 20s.
So were my grandparents actually safer back then than some kids doing that today would be?
Other than the trend of urbanization, which would lead to more risk from traffic accidents and kids being hit by cars, they probably weren't safer... we just didn't have network TV and the Internet to scare our pants off with exotic tales of abductions and random murders on small pacific islands............ (and Nancy Grace's eyebrows... man they scare me)