I’ll be attending the BlogHer Conference at the Westin in San Francisco from July 18 - 20 with a few of my colleagues. I was perusing the site this morning and stumbled upon a rather ironic ad being served on their site for WeightWatchers.

Seems odd to me that an event who’s vision includes ‘creat[ing] opportunities for women who blog to pursue exposure, education, community, and economic empowerment’ shouldn’t succumb to serving ads focused on weight loss and doubting one’s self image.

I’m no feminist - seeing this banner ad elicits more of a giggle than blind rage - but I still found it rather sad that the event producers, proponents of female communities, are serving up targeted ads like these.

Working in the social media space, I feel like I sometimes interpret situations differently than my peers. To prove this point, I’d like to share a little MySpace anecdote.

I was walking around downtown near Civic Center a couple of weekends ago, and a young guy, I’d say he was about 17 years old, came up to me and started walking alongside me. He asked me three questions:

1. ‘What’s up with you?’

2. ‘What’s your name?’

3. ‘You’s on MySpace?’

When he delivered the third question, I got the giggles and starting thinking about what a cultural impact social networks are having on young people and mused over how I wanted to incorporate this conversation into a blog post.

He was obviously trying to figure out a way to connect with me, and contact through a social network is a great way to check someone out. You can read their profile, view photos and discern their likes and interests. I found it interesting that he didn’t ask me for my phone number, which is a much more direct point of connection, whereas MySpace provides a softer connection.

I then realized that he was still waiiting for me to answer him.

I smiled and told him I wasn’t on MySpace, and he seemed to take the hint that I wasn’t interested in him. I carried on walking and marveled at the cultural impact the Web is having on the way people communicate with one another.

It’s here! Firefox 3 is available for download. In fact, today has been deemed ‘Download Day’ by Mozilla, and they’ve been encouring users to set the record for the most software downloaded in 24 hours. Hopefully I’ll help put them over the edge.

I like what Mozilla stands for. The open web is a noble thing. They are a self-described global community that’s committed to improving the way people experience the internet. It really gives me the warm fuzzies.

But when I see the Google toolbar hovering in the right hand corner of my slick new browser, I feel a bit puzzled. In the spirit of openness, wouldn’t it be more prudent to opt in for the toolbar? I understand that the Mozilla Foundation’s deal with Google has provided a valuable revenue stream, allowed the organization to hire talent it might not otherwise have afforded, but it still irks me.

Firefox includes Google as the default option for users wanting to search the Web directly. Their default start page is also hosted by Google. This is understandable, but the real bummer is that localized builds can’t change the default search engine. There’s been a lot of rumblings about Google’s recent loss of innocence, and the Federal Trade Commission has raised concerns over a search market monopoly. The DoubleClick acquisition raised lots of eyebrows and barely squeaked by the European Union’s approval.

It’s a shame that my glowing review of Firefox 3 has to be tainted by the Google association.

Here’s to being a public benefit organization.

I always thought that was such a ridiculous descriptor and I’ve been meaning to title a blog post with it for some time. Although it makes me cringe, it’s a pretty apt term. It’s the whole digital enchilada.

Now more than ever, enterprises want a big bite of it. The two primary questions a company should ask themselves are:

1. How do I become digital?

2. How do I become global?

The first issue actually provides guidance on how to solve the second issue. With the advent of technology, SMBs can begin to level the playing field and compete with large enterprise, while keeping costs and resources in check.

Take Facebook for example.

Their infrastructure is running on about 10,000 servers, which is costing them between $7 and 9 million dollars per year. As a company with 500 employees and over 80 million active users, plus revenue projections for 2008 around the $750 million marker, Facebook is a SMB leveraging the Information Super Highway in all the right ways.

Blogs are popular. To start writing a topical web log you are assuming that your voice is worth hearing, your experience and opinion can contribute something valuable and your entry or article is able to spark discussion.

Most people’s favorite topic is themselves. It’s a subject matter one is very familiar with. You are a true expert on you.

And if your experiences include starting a web company, it makes sense to begin writing about the industry you’re a part of. Bloggers are technically a part of the media. An important part for sure.

Following this line of thinking, if you’re writing about the space on a regular basis on a personal or company blog, does that qualify you as a member of the press? Even if you title is CEO? Or CIO? The distinction that separates the press from non-press is blurring.

There are two parallel threads of thought that a tech blogger will come to repeatedly.

1. What am I doing on a personal level within my organization to make that company prosper? What are the challenges associated with that task?

2. As a part of a social industry, what does this contribution make to the bigger conversation? What’s the cultural impact and implication of my efforts?

If you’re exploring these themes in your blog, and if this is general criteria is used to define your job function, a CEO could have a firm leg to stand on and declare his/herself a part of the press.

What is a tipping point? Where is the tipping point? Wikipedia says that the tipping point describes the point at which ‘a slow gradual change becomes irreversible and then proceeds with gathering pace.’

I envision the game of Jenga falling - when someone makes a wrong move and the entire tower comes crashing down.

It’s difficult to pin down the precise moment when an idea or a movement reaches a stage of cultural adoption. Early adopters are considered either brave or stupid, but if the adoption pays off, healthy benefits can be reaped (both financially and for increased/improved work flow).

In the context of cloud computing, a large question marks looms over this tipping point. Have we reached that point? Did it pass? Are we on the cusp?

Some vendors believe that this age is fully upon us, and has been for some time. There are companies out there that can provide completely cloud-based computing solutions, and advocate moving one’s enterprise IT completely over to it. It’s a tall order, but this option is a real one. Amazon Web Services, Salesforce.com and Google are all messaging this point loud and clear.

In the market, a CXO has a lot of diverse options when choosing how they want their IT to function. The vendors I just mentioned are only a handful of companies in this universe of choices. Plus, there are some real objections as to why cloud computing is not a good move. What about custom applications?

Cloud vendors have an answer to this common question. Force.com, Rails and PHP hosting have all demonstrated that the reality of custom cloud-based computing is here with us now.

Enterprises can even handle their transactions in the cloud via PayPal - eBay’s cloud solution. So is there functionality that can’t be found in the cloud?

I believe that this point has been tipped.

As of late, this is a question that has been popping up quite frequently. And with good reason.

How software vendors tackle their position with regard to the cloud is tricky. How many vendors can stand up and say that the future of the enterprise lies completely in the cloud? No doubt, it’s a big statement. Amazon Web Services are there. Google is also there. But the bulk of software vendors are not touting the same message.

Hardware and chip makers don’t advocate all-cloud computing, as their bread and butter has a lot to lose if companies switch over to subscription, web-based apps. Their strategy relating to the cloud has a different spin and message - depending on the vendor:

If you’re Sun Microsystems, your message is ‘use our stuff to access the cloud.’

If you’re IBM, your message is ‘be sure to secure your data center in the cloud with our stuff.’

If you’re Dell, your message is ‘use our stuff if you’re a service provider looking to buy thousands of systems.’

One thing is certain; technology providers know they need to get with this program pretty quick. Jonathan Schwartz, the CEO of Sun has made it very clear that Sun is very focused on powering the data centers that power the cloud.

Time will tell how similar vendors will position themselves, but ensuring that they meet the cloud front head on is a must.

PS: ’stuff’ is my blanket term for technical intricacies I don’t understand.

Motives are silly things. Do they always have to matter? I suppose it depends on what the product or goal of your motivation results in. If it’s for the greater good, I doubt it matters how you arrived there - just that you’re there.

Here is my point: lately it seems that being eco-conscious is cool. If you can put a green spin on an idea, it becomes much more attractive. Are you going to buy some groceries? BYO Tote! Are you commuting to work? Ride your bike!

For the record, I do care about the environment. But I also am a touch cynical when I see these trends emerging. On the flip-side, if folks need to think being green is en vogue in order to start making changes, I’m all for it. Look what Lance Armstrong and his yellow bracelets did - he made charity fashionable. Genius! I’m willing to swallow my sarcastic remarks and feel happy that this green epidemic is taking over.

Cashing in on trends is just smart marketing. The green wave is not the only movement sweeping the globe. Don’t things seem so much cooler when you can ‘2.0-ify’ them? Oh man.

And what if you could classify something as both 2.0 and green? My God that is brilliant. Someone should really think about how to position themselves as ‘Green 2.0′. Actually - it appears that Software-as-a Service ( SaaS) has done just that.

Traditional software relies on energy inefficient, draining and cumbersome hardware. And as technology progresses (which it will do - forever), out-dated pieces of hardware are difficult to recycle. By comparison, SaaS reduces those pesky carbon dioxide emissions, and there’s no new gadget to purchase. The web delivers the software to you without effort.

Centralized SaaS data centers also minimize waste. Instead of individuals operating individual data centers, a large communal SaaS data center is more efficient, leaner and greener.

SaaS is so cool.

When a division within an organization finds a better way to work together, they should be able to implement the tool without IT breathing down their necks. However, in the midst of corporate security, that’s not a very realistic expectation.

Implementation of web 2.0 technologies are being championed by smaller work groups, and IT has to slightly relinquish their control. Security, governance and user admittance are all serious concerns of any smart IT professional. When wikis, RSS and blogs are thrown into the mix, this ‘old guard’ way of thinking poses a lot of ‘what ifs?’ for these work groups to consider.

These raised eyebrows are set to rise even further when attempting to spread these solutions across large enterprise (25,000 employees +). Enterprise-wide scalability is not a light weight job, and my bet is the majority of CTOs from large corporations don’t list RSS feeds as a high priority.

When considering scalability, enterprise-wide case studies are few and far between. As work groups push for adoption, it will be interesting to see which companies take the plunge. These early adopters will be essential not only in forming the learning curve, but will also provide a framework to build upon.

I’m all for social tools that enable folks to connect. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if those networks could empower us to take action and create changes for the better? Yes this is sounding a touch hippie dippie, but there are networks that whose sole purpose is to enable like-minded individuals to affect change.

Change.org is one such platform - their vision is to:

…transform social activism by serving as the central platform that connects likeminded people, whatever their interests, and enables them to exchange information, share ideas, and collectively act to address the issues they care about.

To augment the power of the grassroots networks that develop through Change.org, we help connect these networks to the many nonprofit organizations that are already working to advance worthy causes around the world - over 1 million in total. We facilitate dialogue and collaboration by creating a social network around each nonprofit, thereby allowing people to participate in ways never before possible - by posting ideas and suggestions, engaging in direct dialogue, and organizing communities of donors, volunteer events, and rallies.

By leveraging the power of the web, social movements that originate on the internet not only can be viral and cultish, but actually gain traction and produce real results.

Graphing social patterns is all well and good. But taking those networks back into the real world is what will separate the walkers from the talkers.