Just fyi, and you may be aware of this as you are getting mails both with & without the period. Gmail essentially ignores them so you can send a mail to yourname@gmail.com, your.name@gmail.com or y.ourna.m....e@gmail.com and they will all work just fine :)

I too have this gmail phenomenon. There are some instances where I have received e-mails from multiple sources, all to the same 'other me' (A little more ambiguous in my case as it's first initial then surname).

Some people just assume they have this e-mail.

And in true spirit of 'there's an XKCD of this', this one was always pretty relevant for me lol... http://xkcd.com/1279/

Yeah this, lol. My employer just finished with the Win7 rollout last year!

And on my personal device, I have not had any desire to leave Win7 as of yet. I skipped over Vista so I will likely do the same with 8.

Firstly, that sentence doesn't parse. You can't "not believe if something exists or not", it's like saying "I don't believe if the light is on or off" - you can only KNOW (or not know) if the light is on or off. You can believe it is on, or not believe it is on, or believe it is off, but you cannot believe that it's both on or off (ignoring Schroedingers experiments for now :) )

I think what you mean is - "That's because I don't know if a god(s) exists or not" - In this case, it is a statement of knowledge, not belief - i.e. Agnosticism.

Or maybe you mean "That's because I don't have an opinion on whether or not a god exists or not" (Not meaning to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you mean). If this is what you mean, then would I be correct in assuming that you have no belief that a god exists? If so then you are not a theist. If so, then you are by definition an atheist.

You may counter with "Yes, I have no belief that a god exists, but I also have no belief that a god does not exist", but this would still leave you as an atheist due to the first part of your sentence "I have no belief that a god exists". If there was a word for 'belief that a god does not exist' (maybe there is one, I do not know) then you would be an a-that as well.

Yes, and you'd be a theist. However, without contradicting oneself, can you pray to a god without believing that one exists?

I mean, sure, you could say the words of prayer, but if you don't believe there is a god, you aren't *really* praying.

You didn't specify if you believe if a god(s) exist or not. Do you pray? If not, according to the parent definitions, you are an agnostic atheist.

You have a cat that you call "The Lord"? I think some people would like to have a word with you about some stuff that went down. Now get back in your shack!

Surely by starting the tweet as he did - "On this day long ago, a child was born" - it automatically dismisses any chance of it being about Jesus because, as discussed further up, every true Christian knows that the 25th is a celebration of Jesus' birth and not an anniversary.

If people wish to claim that the opening was an obvious misdirection, then they need to accept that Jesus was in fact born on that day. However, it seems to be the generally accepted stance that he was not...

Weird, what versions of those browsers? I have IE9 here and it's pre-installed.

I have been using it, hassle free (with the CA cert pre-installed on Chrome,FF & IE) since 2011 now...

Something must have been afoot with your testing - I'm not blaming you - I just can't see how it wouldn't have worked a year ago based on my experience with default browsers...

StartSSL *does* have a pre-installed CA cert on any browser I have tried. I'll be curious to know which browsers do not have it.

You know they actually do, right?
(On any browser I have tried in the last few years)

Just use a free TLS cert from StartSSL

You know you can get free SSL certificates, right?

Or Jibbers!

It's the only place I can get decent reception. Relocate your router and I'll gladly get off your lawn.

In the meantime, can you please give it a quick mow? It's getting long and tickly.

Unless your company/vendor forces you to use it externally, or will not provide said VM for internal sites.

I'm not agreeing that it's OK to use such a browser, just saying that it's not necessarily the users own fault. Companies can be idiots too when it comes to IT security.