I like Firefox because it's the most customizeable! I put the menu right back where it belongs! And the status bar, square tabs, light-on-dark, etc.

Hi!

I don't think the problem was that the Pharisees were looking for signs, I think it was that the Pharisees had already closed their minds to Jesus (By this time Jesus had already performed many miracles, but the Pharisees said it was by the devil's power instead of God's.). Jesus even hinted that "they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead", but even so still gave them that sign (dying and raising from the dead), and they weren't convinced.

Also, Thomas doubted, and Jesus didn't condemn him, but gave him the proof that he needed to believe.

I think for many of the verses you're thinking about, it's not blind faith that's expected, nor wanting proof that's sinful, but that they're rejecting proof -- they've already made up their mind about what's right and won't consider other evidence.

On the other hand, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says: "Test everything. Hold on to the good." I think we can all agree with that.

Actually, at least regarding Christianity, trust and faith and belief are the same thing. They're all translated from the same word "pistis". What you're talking about is "blind faith", or "blind trust" (which many people do have, but my point is just that that's not the only type of faith there is). So while what you say is true for some people, I'd submit that there are also people whose faith is very similar to the trust relationship you've described -- trusting scientists because what they've said/written before has proved true, and trusting God because what he's said/written before has proved true.

What is more trustworthy is another topic altogether, but I think the trust/faith/belief people put in either is often more similar than you've described.

Actually, at least regarding Christianity, trust and faith and belief are the same thing. They're all translated from the same word "pistis". What you're talking about is "blind faith", or "blind trust", which describes the "without verification" part (otherwise the phrase "blind faith" would be redundant).

Of course, nowadays, a lot of people conflate "faith" with "blind faith", (it's one of those changing meaning things) so it's hard to tell what people mean unless you clarify it. I would like to propose we use "blind faith" to be clear, but I feel like that's similar to fighting the "hacker/cracker" battle. Or the "literally-means-literally -- literally!" battle. Sigh.

I understand your feelings toward people who want things removed, but I don't think Sirfrummel is expressing that. It sounded like he's just expressing his reaction to the game, and why others might feel the same way -- without mentioning what he thinks should be done about it. Sounds like he's just adding perspective, which is always good.

I have to disagree that "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are perfectly neutral and descriptive. "Pro-choice" focuses on the choice part. "Pro-life" focuses on the life part. Those things are what they stand for. Just as "Pro-choice" doesn't stand for death or abortion, "Pro-life" doesn't stand for anti-choice.

"Pro-choice" / "Pro-life" may not be perfectly neutral and descriptive, but I would have to say that it's more neutral and descriptive of what they stand for than "Pro-choice" / "Anti-choice".

Skype might be good enough, because you can set it to auto-start, and you can set it to auto-accept calls (so you can initiate the calls from your end) and I think you can set it to auto-start in full-screen. That way, once you have it all set up, the most they'll have to do is turn on the physical power, and you'll be able to initiate the connection from your end.