blessingx

Let us know Crappy. From Super Soul Sunday... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/dr-eben-alexander-oprah-heaven-afterlife_n_2206219.html

2012 Year in Pictures: Part I

History "Bamazon" and "Cajun Pawn Stars" Channel & Animal "Pit Bulls & Parolees" and "My Extreme Animal Phobia" Planet?

Two others to give a try... http://code.google.com/p/tunesremote-se/ http://code.google.com/p/tunesremote-plus/ (your Android phone - I believe you have one and if closer than your iPad).

http://www.katemacdowell.com/portfolio.html

Edit: Actually my solution won't work in your case. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Randy Newman interview compilation on Fresh Air.

Wayne, we need more pics!

With trepidation, I want to make one more point and then will move to bystander status. I think there's this mistaken tone in this thread there are two immovable sides on this issue and we just need to sit down and chat. I don't believe that. Although Grawk is certainly correct neither side is 100% stedfast with its compatriots, even in this thread one side views this issue often as all guns v. none, American Liberties v. statistically insignificant safety, core reasons v. band-aids, mental health v. firearms, past freedom v. current police state, etc. The other side rarely speaks in these dichotomies. They as a whole don't lobby for all guns to be removed from society, nor use the lens that all weapons removal to be necessary to have a desired effect. They don't list Franklin's famous liberty quote, because there are already restrictions and if every restriction (food, driving, healthcare, phosphorus grenades, etc.) is an assault on liberty there seems higher battles to save the country/world. They tend to target specific weapons and address possible misuse and safety. They are already trying to engage in a conversion on practical solutions (right or yes, wrong). And in response as a whole (again see Grawk's comment) the other side jumps to the framed dichotomy stance (coupled with 'it's a slippery slope'). That's not a two-way conversion in my book. See difference between: assault rifles X,Y,Z and kill rates versus American Freedom. Okay, a few have given their backgrounds. Here's mine - grew up in rural Ohio including hunting. Was a Gunner's Mate in the Navy. Was a pretty good shot then. Have lived in urban areas (in CA) most of the last 20 years, but I don't forget what it was like to grow up in small town with nearest law enforcement 40+ minutes away. Father and Grandfather were avid collectors (Dad has gone on buying sprees twice based on elections). I've never owned a gun. From my perspective it's not both sides unwilling to have 'a conversation.' One is already trying to. The other is remaining absolute. It reminds me of driving through Ohio before the last election. As you can imagine there were a ton of Obama and Romney lawn signs. About a quarter of the homes participating had a "Save the Republic" sign too. They were always followed by the same candidate (wild guess?). There was no equivalent for the other candidate. Taken for their word, if those individuals really believed we were on the edge of our Republic collapse, do you think they were as prepared as others for a rational conversation with opposing opinions on new solutions? As willing to sit down and chat?

^ Chromebook FTW. If I could figure out the rMBP v. MBA choice I'd own one.

I'm more a minimize the pain while treating the underlying cause kinda guy, but to each their own.

Has anyone here recommended against looking at the root cause(s)? What I don't understand is why some view any other but root cause treatment has inherently off the table. Simply can not be part of the solution. I'm being silly, but if you, your boss, your local law enforcement/fire department/mental and physical facilities, etc. only treated root causes and nothing else starting tomorrow, how well would that work out for all of us?

Lookin' good! Amish Party Gets Wild

Its seems pretty obvious some here think it's part of the solution, no? We certainly don't treat all problems solely at their root(s).

Serious question I've always wanted to ask - if the second amendment (in its more popular interpretation) is a right (and all future inventions were considered by the framers) and uses and practicalities of said firearms are of far lesser importance than that right, why are only handguns and rifles the specific firearms protected? Why isn't there a sizable population fighting for escalating this coverage to shoulder mounted missiles, neighborhood cannon lines, etc.? They're firearms, right? Likely used by a future militia? There are certainly situations where greatly outnumbered, even an automatic rifle isn't isn't enough to hold the farm. And if it's about protection against governments (foreign and domestic), it seems a missile is more useful than a pistol.

In Public 'Conversation' on Guns, a Rhetorical Shift http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/in-public-conversation-on-guns-a-rhetorical-shift/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Another deletion. Fuck, I can't even comment on that without feeling guilty afterward.

Delete. Why did I bother? Sleep well HPA.

Speaking of scary. Speakers for sale over at Fab.

I've bought an Airport Express and Apple wireless keyboard from them without problems, but I'm not sure of greater public satisfaction.

If you're looking for a larger version of a used iPad mini for $270... http://dealmac.com/iphone/deals/647072.html

And a review... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/technology/personaltech/google-maps-app-for-iphone-goes-in-the-right-direction-review.html

Google Maps app is out. http://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/12/google-maps-now-available-on-app-store/