please provide a credible citation stating that no one has been killed due to you writing above comment.

so whenever you buy something it is right after the first time you looked at it? i don't know how you shop but that's not how it works for me. if i see something i like i might bookmark it and check it out again a week after to see if i was just weird that day or if i really want it. maybe i don't feel like i have the money right now and wait another month until i finally buy it. other times i might see something but think it's not quite right and not even bookmark it. if i now stumble upon it via an ad (not gonna happen since they're all blocked) i might reconsider my earlier decision or at least take another look at the site, because who knows.

neither a product nor an ad has to convince you in the first look. if it does it's amazing marketing, but people don't buy many things after a single look.

only in the context of her answer. she is arguing against the assignment as you can clearly see (shocked, offended, blabla). the over and over quoted phrase from her point of view means that there is a difference between learning about terrorism (your teacher tells you what it's all about, why it happens, where it happened, etc) and being a terrorist (planning a terrorist attack). she equates the planning of a terrorist attack (thinking like a terrorist) with being a terrorist. now if you don't agree you're quite welcome to explain how she means with the last sentence, in context of her previous outrage of course.

that is the original quote from the student. the problem is that she actually implies that thinking like a terrorist makes you a terrorist which is why this sentence is actually against the assignment. of course if this sentence were just standing there alone, any reasonable person would be thinking otherwise because clearly thinking like a terrorist does in no way make you one and this student did miss most of the lesson. just like everyone else who is outraged.

exactly, because as we all know if two variables correlate, one has to be the cause of the other. anything else would be far too complicated for our tiny human minds!

they thought of flying cars... and we still don't have them.

no.

yes, exactly! don't we all know this scenario where the management talks to the it head and is all like:

well they pulled out in the sense that they are no longer censoring things. i don't think they ever announced that the will fully pull out, their hope always (well, after they stopped complying with censorship at least) was to continue the full service without censoring. weirdly enough they now seem to have a deal that accomplishes exactly what they want. i say weirdly because you can practically click any where on the google.cn page and you will be sent to the hong kong one, where you can actually search. this makes chinas censorship look like a joke, providing that the com.hk address isn't blocked by them (but i guess it isn't).

it's not like germany is buying footballers from all over the world for their team, that's what wealthy football clubs are for. all of those players of polish/turkish/nigerian/tunisian descent were either born in germany or immigrated at a very early age. they have been living their whole lives in germany, they learned to play football there and were cultivated by german teams. of course wealthy first world countries have a lot of players from other poorer countries, there simply aren't many people migrating from rich countries to poorer ones. the french team has a lot of players of north african descent, our swiss team has lots of different descents as well (but we still suck at football).

the original quote goes like this:

majority, age of majority. and it's 18 in china, so not really sure what's going on here, maybe it's treated as a mental disorder and they have a legal guardian?

first off: no, not even the article suggests this. the article is about tapping social networking skills. yes there's a difference... like an enormously huge one.

and as other people already pointed out, this has nothing to do with social networking skills either. they are typing information into (military) chat rooms, my god, how difficult! clearly i need my leet social networking skillz for this, come fucking on!

facebook generation, pleeeeease... internet generation maybe.

i would clearly argue against your point that the fear of dying is only caused by the anticipation of that point in time where your life is taken away. most people want to live on because they have plans for their future, that they actually care about and are afraid they're taken from them. additionally people are afraid of the state of death, which is why practically every religion has some kind of afterlife and most people shudder if you try to convince them that there is simply nothing after you die.

naturally in a mock execution these fears play a far lesser role than in everyday life and the anticipation of "the kill" is your foremost fear. but a mock execution is an utterly artificial example to extract death fears from. if i am on the verge of cutting off your legs you'll be really really afraid of the pain it will cause and not the fact that you won't be walking again. on the other hand if you're thinking about losing your legs when not under any danger, your fear would be that you can't walk/run/dance ever again and you'd be afraid of losing your legs because of the loss of life quality.

also the reason there is no fear of not being born is because as far as we know there is no consciousness before you're born. if we suddenly invent a time machine and someone would threaten you that he's gonna kill your parents before you're received (let's not think about time mechanics here, they do not matter), you will be afraid.

the harm in killing someone is not the action of killing, it's not the slicing, shooting or chocking (well it is partly, but it's minor like assault or something), it's the destroying of that beings potential future. now whether you need to be conscious to give your potential future value is for another discussion.

one last remark: the most horrible thing about rape is not the pain, it's the loss of control.

it's not the same with an insurance, your analogy would be the equivalent to someone having an open wifi and shared directories open to everyone and trying to get insurance money if those get deleted. having an open wifi does not mean you open up a private area it means you give access to publicly available communication and everyone else is able to get the exact same access, just from a different point of entry. you are in principle getting fined because you make it more difficult for them to identify the person acting from ip w.x.y.z at time a.