Link Dead Www Shot Co Cc Websites
Download Top TV shows and Telly Series from Great Britain, USA, Canada and Australia. All episodes are available in HD 720p, 1080p quality, mp4 avi and mkv for mobile, pc and tablet devices.SearchIf you love to watch TV shows, but can not do so due to the fact that they are shown at time when you are at work, then you can use TellySeries. We have collected the most popular and interesting seasons of currently as well as old television series that you can download.
We don’t have annoying ADS, now you can download TV series quickly, without spending extra time and just in 1 Click. Check out our Calendar for the schedule.
A (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themesWeb 2.0 (also known as Participative (or Participatory) and Social Web ) refers to that emphasize, and (i.e., compatible with other products, systems, and devices) for.The term was invented by in 1999 and later popularized by and at the in late 2004. The Web 2.0 framework specifies only the design and use of websites and does not place any technical demands or specifications on designers. The transition was gradual and, therefore, no precise date for when this change happened has been given. A Web 2.0 website allows users to interact and collaborate with each other through dialogue as creators of in a. This contrasts the first generation of -era websites where people were limited to viewing in a passive manner. Examples of Web 2.0 features include or sites (e.g., ), ('tagging' keywords on websites and links), sites (e.g., ), ('apps'), platforms, and.Whether Web 2.0 is substantially different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor, who describes the term as.
His original vision of the Web was 'a collaborative medium, a place where we could all meet and read and write.' On the other hand, the term (sometimes referred to as Web 3.0) was coined by Berners-Lee to refer to a web of content where the meaning can be processed by machines.
Contents.History Web 1.0 Web 1.0 is a referring to the first stage of the 's evolution. According to Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 'content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content.' Were common, consisting mainly of static pages hosted on -run, or on such as. With Web 2.0, it became common for average web users to have social-networking profiles (on sites such as and ) and personal blogs through either a low-cost or through a dedicated host (like or ). In general, content was generated dynamically, allowing readers to comment directly on pages in a way that was not common previously. Some Web 2.0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1.0, but were implemented differently. For example, a Web 1.0 site may have had a page for visitor comments, instead of a at the end of each page (typical of Web 2.0).
Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a article.Web 2.0 offers almost all users the same freedom to contribute. While this opens the possibility for serious debate and collaboration, it also increases the incidence of, and can even create a venue for racist,. The impossibility of excluding group members who do not contribute to the provision of goods (i.e., to the creation of a user-generated website) from sharing the benefits (of using the website) gives rise to the possibility that serious members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and on the contributions of others. This requires what is sometimes called by the management of the Web site.According to Best, the characteristics of Web 2.0 are rich user experience, user participation,.
Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom, and by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0. Some websites require users to contribute user-generated content to have access to the website, to discourage 'free riding'. A list of ways that people can volunteer to improve Mass Effect Wiki, an example of content generated by users working collaboratively.The key features of Web 2.0 include:. – free classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find information (e.g. Of websites, images, videos or links). Rich – dynamic content that is responsive to user input (e.g., a user can 'click' on an image to enlarge it or find out more information). – information flows two ways between the site owner and site users by means of evaluation, review, and online commenting.
Site users also typically create for others to see (e.g., an online encyclopedia that anyone can write articles for or edit). (SaaS) – Web 2.0 sites developed to allow automated usage, such as by a or a. – near-universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns, from the traditional Internet user base (who tended to be and computer hobbyists) to a wider variety of usersComparison with Web 1.0 In 2005, and held a session to elucidate characteristics and components of the Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 transition and what changed. This section contains of one or more non-free copyrighted sources. Relevant discussion may be found on the. Ideas in this article should be expressed in an original manner. Quality dimensions of web 2.0 portals, andWeb 2.0 can be described in three parts:.
(RIA) — defines the experience brought from desktop to browser, whether it is 'rich' from a graphical point of view or a usability/interactivity or features point of view. (WOA) — defines how Web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set of much richer applications. Examples are,. — defines how Web 2.0 websites tend to interact much more with the end user and make the end user an integral part of the website, either by adding his or her profile, adding comments on content, uploading new content, or adding (e.g., personal ).As such, Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of - and -side software, and the use of.
Standards-oriented Web browsers may use and software extensions to handle the content and user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment known as 'Web 1.0'.Web 2.0 sites include the following features and techniques, referred to as the acronym by Andrew McAfee: Search Finding information through. Links to other websites Connects information sources together using the model of the Web. Authoring The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many authors. Users may extend, undo, redo and edit each other's work. Comment systems allow readers to contribute their viewpoints.
Tags Categorization of content by users adding 'tags' — short, usually one-word or two-word descriptions — to facilitate searching. For example, a user can tag a metal song as '. Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as 'folksonomies' (i.e., ). Extensions Software that makes the Web an as well as a document server. Examples include,. Signals The use of syndication technology, such as feeds to notify users of content changes.While SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not contradict all of the higher level Web 2.0 design patterns and business models.
It includes discussions of self-service IT, the long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of the Web 2.0 era in enterprise uses.Documents of Web 2.0 can be assessed by related to such dimension as, involvement, timeliness, uniqueness and usefulness Usage A third important part of Web 2.0 is the. The social Web consists of a number of online tools and platforms where people share their perspectives, opinions, thoughts and experiences. Web 2.0 applications tend to interact much more with the end user. As such, the end user is not only a user of the application but also a participant by:. with.: orThe popularity of the term Web 2.0, along with the increasing use of blogs, wikis, and social networking technologies, has led many in academia and business to append a flurry of 2.0's to existing concepts and fields of study, including, Social Work 2.0, PR 2.0, Classroom 2.0, Publishing 2.0, Medicine 2.0, Telco 2.0, and even.
Many of these 2.0s refer to Web 2.0 technologies as the source of the new version in their respective disciplines and areas. For example, in the Talis white paper 'Library 2.0: The Challenge of Disruptive Innovation', arguesBlogs, wikis and RSS are often held up as exemplary manifestations of Web 2.0. A reader of a blog or a wiki is provided with tools to add a comment or even, in the case of the wiki, to edit the content. This is what we call the Read/Write web. Talis believes that means harnessing this type of participation so that libraries can benefit from increasingly rich collaborative cataloging efforts, such as including contributions from partner libraries as well as adding rich enhancements, such as book jackets or movie files, to records from publishers and others.Here, Miller links Web 2.0 technologies and the culture of participation that they engender to the field of library science, supporting his claim that there is now a 'Library 2.0'.
Many of the other proponents of new 2.0s mentioned here use similar methods. The meaning of Web 2.0 is role dependent. For example, some use Web 2.0 to establish and maintain relationships through social networks, while some marketing managers might use this promising technology to 'end-run traditionally unresponsive I.T. There is a debate over the use of Web 2.0 technologies in mainstream education. Issues under consideration include the understanding of students' different learning modes; the conflicts between ideas entrenched in informal online communities and educational establishments' views on the production and authentication of 'formal' knowledge; and questions about privacy, plagiarism, shared authorship and the ownership of knowledge and information produced and/or published on line. Marketing Web 2.0 is used by companies, non-profit organisations and governments for interactive. A growing number of marketers are using Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with consumers on product development, enhancement, product or service improvement and promotion.
Companies can use Web 2.0 tools to improve collaboration with both its business partners and consumers. Among other things, company employees have created wikis—Web sites that allow users to add, delete, and edit content — to list answers to frequently asked questions about each product, and consumers have added significant contributions.Another marketing Web 2.0 lure is to make sure consumers can use the online community to network among themselves on topics of their own choosing.
Mainstream media usage of Web 2.0 is increasing. Saturating media hubs—like, and — with links to popular new Web sites and services, is critical to achieving the threshold for mass adoption of those services. User web content can be used to gauge consumer satisfaction. In a recent article for Bank Technology News, Shane Kite describes how Citigroup's Global Transaction Services unit monitors outlets to address customer issues and improve products. Destination Marketing In tourism industries, social media is an effective channel to attract travellers and promote tourism products and services by engaging with customers. The brand of tourist destinations can be built through marketing campaigns on social media and by engaging with customers. For example, the “Snow at First Sight” campaign launched by the aimed to bring brand awareness to Colorado as a winter destination.
The campaign used social media platforms, for example, Facebook and Twitter, to promote this competition, and requested the participants to share experiences, pictures and videos on social media platforms. As a result, Colorado enhanced their image as a winter destination and created a campaign worth about $2.9 million.The tourism organisation can earn brand royalty from interactive marketing campaigns on social media with engaging passive communication tactics. For example, “Moms” advisors of the are responsible for offering suggestions and replying to questions about the family trips at Walt Disney World. Due to its characteristic of expertise in Disney, “Moms” was chosen to represent the campaign. Social networking sites, such as Facebook, can be used as a platform for providing detailed information about the marketing campaign, as well as real-time online communication with customers. Korean Airline Tour created and maintained a relationship with customers by using Facebook for individual communication purposes.Travel 2.0 refers a model of Web 2.0 on tourism industries which provides virtual travel communities.
The travel 2.0 model allows users to create their own content and exchange their words through globally interactive features on websites. The users also can contribute their experiences, images and suggestions regarding their trips through online travel communities. For example, is an online travel community which enables user to rate and share autonomously their reviews and feedback on hotels and tourist destinations. Non pre-associate users can interact socially and communicate through discussion forums on TripAdvisor.Social media, especially Travel 2.0 websites, plays a crucial role in decision-making behaviors of travelers. The user-generated content on social media tools have a significant impact on travelers choices and organisation preferences.
Travel 2.0 sparked radical change in receiving information methods for travelers, from business-to-customer marketing into peer-to-peer reviews. User-generated content became a vital tool for helping a number of travelers manage their international travels, especially for first time visitors. The travellers tend to trust and rely on peer-to-peer reviews and virtual communications on social media rather than the information provided by travel suppliers.In addition, an autonomous review feature on social media would help travelers reduce risks and uncertainties before the purchasing stages.
Social media is also a channel for customer complaints and negative feedback which can damage images and reputations of organisations and destinations. For example, a majority of UK travellers read customer reviews before booking hotels, these hotels receiving negative feedback would be refrained by half of customers.Therefore, the organisations should develop strategic plans to handle and manage the negative feedback on social media. Although the user-generated content and rating systems on social media are out of a businesses controls, the business can monitor those conversations and participate in communities to enhance customer loyalty and maintain customer relationships. Education Web 2.0 could allow for more collaborative education. For example, blogs give students a public space to interact with one another and the content of the class. Some studies suggest that Web 2.0 can increase the public's understanding of science, which could improve governments' policy decisions.
A 2012 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that '.the internet could be a crucial tool in increasing the general public’s level of science literacy. This increase could then lead to better communication between researchers and the public, more substantive discussion, and more informed policy decision.'
Link Dead Www Shot Co Cc Websites Online
Web-based applications and desktops has prompted the development of Web sites that mimic desktop applications, such as, the,. And sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications. Several browser-based services have emerged, including and.(No longer active.) Although named, many of these services are application platforms. They mimic the user experience of desktop operating systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC environment, and are able to run within any modern browser. However, these so-called 'operating systems' do not directly control the hardware on the client's computer. Numerous web-based application services appeared during the of 1997–2001 and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers.Distribution of media XML and RSS Many regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature.
Syndication uses standardized protocols to permit end-users to make use of a site's data in another context (such as another Web site, a, or a separate desktop application). Protocols permitting syndication include (really simple syndication, also known as Web syndication), (as in RSS 1.1), and, all of which are -based formats. Observers have started to refer to these technologies as.
Specialized protocols such as and (both for social networking) extend the functionality of sites and permit end-users to interact without centralized Web sites.Web APIs. Main article:Web 2.0 often uses machine-based interactions such as. Servers often expose proprietary (API), but standard APIs (for example, for posting to a blog or notifying a blog update) have also come into use. Most communications through APIs involve XML or payloads. REST APIs, through their use of self-descriptive messages and, should be self-describing once an entry is known. (WSDL) is the standard way of publishing a SOAP Application programming interface and there are.Criticism Critics of the term claim that 'Web 2.0' does not represent a new version of the at all, but merely continues to use so-called 'Web 1.0' technologies and concepts.
First, techniques such as do not replace underlying protocols like, but add a layer of abstraction on top of them. Second, many of the ideas of Web 2.0 were already featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term 'Web 2.0' emerged., for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002. Previous developments also came from research in and (CSCW) and from established products like and, all phenomena that preceded Web 2.0., who developed the initial technologies of the Web, has been an outspoken critic of the term, while supporting many of the elements associated with it. In, each workstation had a and always-on connection to the Internet. Sharing a file or publishing a web page was as simple as moving the file into a shared folder.Perhaps the most common criticism is that the term is unclear or simply a.
For many people who work in software, version numbers like 2.0 and 3.0 are for or hardware versioning only, and to assign 2.0 arbitrarily to many technologies with a variety of real version numbers has no meaning. The web does not have a version number. For example, in a 2006 interview with podcast editor Scott Laningham, Tim Berners-Lee described the term 'Web 2.0' as a jargon:'Nobody really knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people.
But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along. Web 2.0, for some people, it means moving some of the thinking to the client side, so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be.
A collaborative space where people can interact.' Other critics labeled Web 2.0 'a second bubble' (referring to the of 1997–2000), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of. For example, has dubbed the mid- to late-2000s focus on Web companies as 'Bubble 2.0'.In terms of Web 2.0's social impact, critics such as argue that Web 2.0 has created a cult of digital and amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise by allowing anybody, anywhere to share and place undue value upon their own opinions about any subject and post any kind of content, regardless of their actual talent, knowledge, credentials, biases or possible hidden agendas.
Keen's 2007 book, argues that the core assumption of Web 2.0, that all opinions and user-generated content are equally valuable and relevant, is misguided. Additionally, reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web 2.0 as 'creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary, unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and novels. and that Wikipedia is full of mistakes, half-truths and misunderstandings'. In a 1994 interview, forecasting the future development of the web for personal publishing, said 'The Web is great because that person can't foist anything on you-you have to go get it. They can make themselves available, but if nobody wants to look at their site, that's fine.
To be honest, most people who have something to say get published now.' Michael Gorman, former president of the has been vocal about his opposition to Web 2.0 due to the lack of expertise that it outwardly claims, though he believes that there is hope for the future.' The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print'.There is also a growing body of critique of Web 2.0 from the perspective of. Since, as Tim O'Reilly and John Batelle put it, Web 2.0 is based on the 'customers.
Building your business for you,' critics have argued that sites such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are exploiting the 'free labor' of user-created content. Web 2.0 sites use Terms of Service agreements to claim perpetual licenses to user-generated content, and they use that content to create profiles of users to sell to marketers. This is part of increased surveillance of user activity happening within Web 2.0 sites. Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society argues that such data can be used by governments who want to monitor dissident citizens. The rise of -driven web sites where much of the content must be rendered on the client has meant that users of older hardware are given worse performance versus a site purely composed of HTML, where the processing takes place on the server. For disabled or impaired users may also suffer in a Web 2.0 site.Others have noted that Web 2.0 technologies are tied to particular political ideologies.
'Web 2.0 discourse is a conduit for the materialization of neoliberal ideology.' The technologies of Web 2.0 may also 'function as a disciplining technology within the framework of a neoliberal political economy.' When looking at Web 2.0 from a cultural convergence view, according to Henry Jenkins, it can be problematic because the consumers are doing more and more work in order to entertain themselves. For instance, Twitter offers online tools for users to create their own tweet, in a way the users are doing all the work when it comes to producing media content.
At the heart of Web 2.0's participatory culture is an inherent disregard for privacy, although it was not much of an issue for giant platforms like Facebook and Google, as users are discovering and exploring the internet because they want users to participate and create more content. More importantly, because user participation creates fresh content and profile data that are useful for third parties such as advertising corporates and national security.
Therefore, suppression of privacy is built into the business model of Web 2.0 and one should not be too tied up to the optimistic notion of Web 2.0 being the next evolutionary step for digital media.Trademark In November 2004, applied to the for a on the use of the term 'WEB 2.0' for live events. On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a demand to the Irish non-profit organisation IT@Cork on May 24, 2006, but retracted it two days later. The 'WEB 2.0' service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006. The application (which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland) was declined on May 23, 2007.See also.