"This is a human issue, not an American, democracy, or a freedom issue." This site is intelligent & amusing, usually, but this critique is just plain wrong. It is
uniquely an American issue, as the crime has been perpetrated upon our nation solely for our American values, beliefs, and principles.
This is not an attack on Jason, but rather an attempt to demonstrate the true nature of this evil. The strike at the symbolic center of capitalism and the financial heart of the world, coupled with the attack on the headquarters of our nation's ability to defend itself, directly point to terrorists who want to hurt us BECAUSE of the very values & principles that make this America.
BTW - I love that Jason & MeFi are performing the valuable services that they are, providing links to sites where NYC folks & friends can post "I'm OK" messages.
posted by davidmsc
on Sep 11, 2001 -
36 comments
Jason put up a link to the
New Yorker article that mentions himself, Meg, Pyra, EV, etc. It also mentions MetaFilter and myself. I find this funny in a way, all of of these people that never would have known anything about each other are all interconnected. Why? Because Ev and Meg started Pyra. Because I read an article about the original Pyra app. Which led me to Blogger. Which led to Ev, Meg, Pb, MetaFilter... whcih led to Kottke, Haughey, etc. Ahhh the good old days
posted by monkeyboy
on Nov 21, 2000 -
36 comments
Jason found a pretty cool javascript/CSS hack so I took a stab creating a
bizarro kottke one (bookmark and try it at kottke.org). I think it improves the page :). This might be a killer hack for usability tweaking. If you set your backgrounds dark with light, 28px text for easy reading, few web pages follow that convention. Here's your chance to see things your way. Can anyone think of any other uses for this?
posted by mathowie
on Aug 28, 2000 -
24 comments
Jason's got a real noodle scratcher at his site. I'd say the first gunman and second gunman should take their first shots at the third gunman, but they're likely to miss, then the third gunman would kill number 2, the first one gets another shot, but it's again only 1/3 likely to hit #3. #3 then shoots #1 and it's over. I bet the correct answer is for #1 to shoot at himself or something, but that makes no sense either.
What do you think?
posted by mathowie
on Feb 5, 2000 -
8 comments
Jason posted some thoughts on the growing popularity of MetaFilter, and how we might be able to handle it. I'd like everyone's opinions on several key points. Read my first comment to see the questions posed to the group.
posted by mathowie
on Jan 26, 2000 -
13 comments
