“A distributed social network traditionally refers to an Internet social network that is decentralized and distributed across different providers, with emphasis on portability and interoperability.” --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_network
TRANSLATED FROM THE GEEK:
Dude walks into a bar and orders a draft. Bartender says, “Hey, Joe, how you doin'?” Dude asks how the bartender knows him, and the bartender replies, “Your friends from Bob's Pub on 52nd come in here all the time. You want me to let the guys at the office know you're here?” “Uh, no, thanks.” Joe replies. “No problem, Joe.” says the bartender, “Here, try this new draft we have on tap - your buddy Pete raved about it!”
Most sites that allow you to share information, post comments, review stuff, etc., require you to log in to do so. These sites may already know who you are when you get there if you are already logged in somewhere else like Facebook or Google, or have what is called a universal ID like OpenID.
Say you are visiting a site that supports distributed social networking. If you have an OpenID, the site already knows certain things about you – things you allow any site to know about you, like your name or email address. You can then share the site or site content with other people in your network. You can also see how other people within your network have interacted with the site by reading their reviews, comments, and so forth – just as they will be able to see how you have interacted if they visit the same site later on.
Scrabulous feels like a social game to me, qualitatively different from multiplayer games on the web. But what is it that makes Scrabulous on Facebook a social game, but Chess at Pogo simply a multiplayer game? I think the difference is that social context has an impact on the game play and enjoyment.
Social games are a structured activity which has contextual rules through which users can engage with one another. Social games must be multiplayer and have one or more of the following features: turn-based, are based on social platforms for providing users with an identity and are casual.
Nick O'Neill's definition is abstract enough, yet 'social platforms' seems almost too broad, as these days that can be almost anything. Still, the definition hints at the area where most innovations in social games might come from: Innovations on how the contextual rules, and their consequences to social play, are designed - and monetized.
After making this video, I made the Select Structure command work a little better on if structures where the then is on the next line. See what you think.
Also, if you try to put a go to command in a button's Raptor Handler, you'll find it will not provide you with a link. That command only becomes a link when you're editing a stack or a card. Same principle holds with toplevel...it won't become a link (and thus work) in anything but a stack object's code.
This is a component update that will give you a couple new agents, a new broker and a new editor. Just click the Updates Available link at lower left of editor or select Check for Updates from your Help menu to get the update.
This update is compatible with tRevbuild 110. This build has been available for some time. If your tRev about box does not have the words build 110 in the title, then you will need to download a new tRev application from this site. Links for both platforms are on the right side when viewing the main page.
NOTE: because there is a new broker component, you will need to restart tRev, but not Revolution.
Open government advocates outside the technology community stress that new applications such as wikis, which are Web pages that any user can edit, are one tool for creating transparency in government, but "wiki government" is not the solution, they argue.
Some people will no doubt interpret this to mean that Government 2.0 isn't about the technology. But I think this is a huge trap that the whole two do oh meme crowd is falling into. I don't just mean in relation to Government 2.0, but including Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 and all the rest that have adopted it. I mean that there is more to understanding human society than Web 2.0, there is more to management than Enterprise 2.0, and there is more to Open Government than Government 2.0.
Personally, if I was one of those Open Government advocates outside of the technology community, I would be concerned too about my agenda being hijacked.
But while Open Government might not be about the technology, Government 2.0 *is* about using technology to do 'Government' in ways that were never possible before.
You get the idea, right?
Two do oh isn't the theory of everything that some claim it to be. Its just a useful label. A flag that we can gather around for a moment to explore the possibilities new technology presents, understand how it affects others aspects of society, and try out new methods. And then we move on, because one day this will just be business as usual.
So, shake hands and make friends. Both sides have something to teach the other.
Right now, I'm searching, digging, far and near for any definitions, visualizations, expressions, opinions of social media.
My primary audience is someone that may use social media but doesn't even know it. Or someone that "doesn't have time for it" or doesn't care to have time for it. Or better said, I'm really investigating ways to bring social media down to earth.
Right now the idea called web 2.0, social media, whatever you want to call it... it's on a pedestal, as it should be. You may have heard that it is a fundamental shift in the way we communicate - it is. You may have heard that it is changing the way we do business - it is. You may have heard that it is a social revolution - it is. And you just may have even heard that it's a fad - it's not.
But here's a key point for me with the new participatory web - it is much easier for an individual to launch themselves full-throttle into the social media opportunities with very little barriers, and dirt cheap.
Like anything else, when you start adding groups of people... it gets sticky. The bigger the group, the stickier it gets. So what do we do? How can we get people to get it? Talk about the million dollar question. Ask me tomorrow, and I may have a different answer. But today my answer is that you can't, you cannot make people "get it" that fall into one of the primary audience categories I listed above.
Hear me out. Now there are some gifted folks out there who can articulate what social media means in myriad of ways to just about anyone. Those geniuses, the books, the conferences - all good! But until they actually do it for themselves, they will never truly "get it." They will just be impostors in a new world of communication where transparency is currency.
Enter the presentation, "Social Media is..." a conversation. And you know what? If you had to pick one word, just one word, I'm pretty sure many in the field would agree - social media is a conversation. Take away the "social media candy," take away the technologies - what do you have? People. People talking to other people. People expressing themselves to the world, to other people, to groups, to organizations...
And how are they expressing themselves? For every person that has a distinct personality and specific interest, there is a unique place and way for that person to communicate what they are passionate about. And it's their preference how they want to do that and what online tools make sense for them.
Does it really matter which platform, whether it is this blog software or that one? Microblogs or full-out blogs? Photos or videos? For organizations, marketers, strategists - yes, to some degree it does matter and for varying reasons.
But in general, for your everyday person just trying to figure out their own version of the definition of social media, I really don't think it matters all that much. So going back to the conversation analogy... if you are expressing yourself online in our days, whether through comments, posts, photos, videos - WHATEVER! And you are exchanging information with people, discussing, you know having a conversation.... then you know what social media is.... to you. So if social media is a conversation, then it just might be one things that means something different to everyone?
A thriving, expanding, or very profitable concern or volume of trade. For example, After the storm they did a land-office business in snow shovels and rock salt. This term, dating from the 1830s, alludes to the throng of applicants to government land offices through which Western lands were sold. It has been used for other booming business since the mid-1800s.
Looking up the difference between "configurable" and "customizable". They seem the same to me. But it's interesting that "configurable", by Dictionary.com's definition, specifically came from software which makes it fairly recent.
