Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Ethan Jewett
419 followers
419 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
<a class='ot-hashtag' href='https://plus.google.com/s/%23hangoutsonair'>#hangoutsonair</a>Donald Brizendine, Clint Vosloo, and UDDHAV GUPTA
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Ethan Jewett was in a video call with 1 person. <a class='ot-hashtag' href='https://plus.google.com/s/%23hangoutsonair'>#hangoutsonair</a>Clint Vosloo
Add a comment...

Google+ is doing it again. The "You may know" widget displays people who aren't members and then sends them an "invite" email that appears to come from me if I "Add" them. There is no warning that it will send an email.

Talk about user-hostile behavior.

+Chris Messina 
Add a comment...

The recent Warren Buffet brouhaha has really gotten my goat. Or rather, the counter-"arguments" have gotten my goat. The standard is: If Buffett wants the million+ crowd to pay more tax, he can make a donation to the US Treasury.

This is what is called an "ad hominem" argument; an attack against the credibility of the person making the argument rather than against the validity of the argument. This tactic is usually considered the last resort of those who don't have a good counter-argument.

How do you tell that a counter-argument is ad hominem? There is a simple test: Pretend someone else made the original argument and see if the counter-argument still works.

For example, I also might believe that we should raise income tax rates for those making over 1 million dollars per year. (This is only the most basic point that Buffett made, but it is the point at which most counter-arguments are directed.)

So let's try the counter-argument against me: "If Ethan believes the 1 million+ crowd should pay more tax, then Ethan can make a donation to the US Treasury."

Absurd, right? It doesn't even make sense because I only make a small fraction of that amount every year. The rejoinder is completely irrelevant to the original argument. It is only relevant to the specific person (Buffett) who made the argument.

That means it's an argument ad hominem.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Posted a big comment on +Jarret Pazahanick's very interesting blog about Workday and SAP. You can read the blog and excellent comment thread at http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/25357
Add a comment...

I'm starting to think that slightly longer, musing posts that verge on questions are best for G+ while short observations and straight-up questions are best for Twitter.

I'm still pretty torn on links, but I lean towards Twitter as I know that works and there is way more integration of 3rd party tools (Pinboard.in, for example) that harvest links from Twitter.

For pictures and videos, G+ definitely looks superior.

I'm definitely not sure if there is room for two of these sorts of broadcast networks in my life at the moment. I don't feel comfortable sending the same updates to both places since there is so much overlap in followers between the two services.

What are you all finding after a few days on G+?
Add a comment...

Trying out this Google+ thing :-D
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded