I realize the conflict with “alarm” is probably unavoidable, but you could set a nickname that would be easier to say than “home security system.” Or set a shortcut with some phrase you’ll remember. “Hey Google — shields up!” would be good and nerdy.
PunditGuy
PunditGuy
The developers damn near read my mind. About the time I was seriously wondering whether Yen even liked me, Vesemir tells me about her throwing that perfectly good bed out the window.
It’s a now a family tradition to see new movies on the first showing Saturday morning. My wife, daughter and I can watch spoiler-free flicks for about $16. Total. With reserved seating. Add in a nice lunch afterward and it’s still cheaper than three full-price tickets for Friday night.
Now playing
Oh yeah — and this shouldn’t, but it gets to me every single time.
Now playing
I was flipping channels some lazy Sunday afternoon and this stopped me cold in my tracks.
You’re empathetic toward the fictional character you’ve created. You’re making assumptions about her drug of choice, her food selection preferences and the motivation of her kids.
Our empathy is for the kids. And if it seems lacking for the parents, it’s because it seems lacking in the parents.
For what it’s worth, I also read that as a pass.
Got to level 42.
From the French, dent de lion (dahn dee leon) — tooth of the lion.
>the same way my brother thinks women shouldn’t pursue Ivy League educations<
Fair point, although I’ll argue that giving specific instructions aimed at getting someone to die, and stopping them from stopping themselves, isn’t a slope away from “go ahead” — it’s a fall off a cliff.
Do the facts in this case seem similar to your scenario?
Better the criminal justice system than nobody. But more importantly, why not the criminal justice system?
I see a lot of people warning about a slippery slope here, but I honestly can’t see the bottom of the hill. What’s your worst-case scenario based on this decision? Because if it’s “now people will be reluctant to encourage vulnerable people to commit suicide” then — I’m okay with that.
You have a First Amendment right to express your feelings about ice cream. You do not have a First Amendment right to ice cream.
You have some kernel of an idea in there somewhere. (There are already several codified legal restrictions on freedom of speech — libel and copyright laws are good examples.) But “you are censoring people who want to censor it” doesn’t make any lick of sense. Nobody is stopping the protestors from expressing the idea…
There’s thinking, and then there’s over thinking. You and the author are going to sprain something.