1 - WHAT ARE DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS and how to articulate them A network is a collection of nodes connected by many paths (or

a set of vertices connected by many edges). In fact we characterize as the network calls only networks distributed (as opposed to centralized networks and networks decentralized) whose topology is P2P, or in which the nodes are connected point to point and not from a single center (network centralized) or more poles (decentralized network). The novelty of networks refers to the distributed enterprise. See the diagram below - proposed originally by Paul Baran in a document describing the structure of a project that later would become the Internet improved by Rodrigo Araya and published by David de Ugarte (2007):

CENTRALISED DECENTRALISED NETWORK NETWORK DISTRIBUTED In drawing up the three points are the same. What varies is the form of connection between them. Networks themselves are the distributed networks (the third graph in the diagram above). The other two topologies - centralized and decentralized - can be called networks, but only as special cases (in mathematical terms). Both are actually hierarchies. To link networks, firstly, you need to connect people or networks (ie distributed networks). The connection horizontal non-hierarchical institutions generates distributed networks, the two simple reason that the flow can be stopped (controlled, filtered) at each node. If this happens, the topology becomes decentralized (ie, multi-centered). Second, it is necessary to link networks connect people each other and not just an organizer or coordinator center (Even if this center is called the animation team). Suffice it? Yes, indeed it would be enough. But then why initiatives to link networks do not usually work? Well, because, in general, do not do that. Simple as that. In general hierarchical institutions and not connected persons (or networks

distributed people, which is the same thing). Or, when connecting people, instituted - under the guise of doing work animation of the network - a coordinating center, which has, in fact, transitive and a direct connection with each network node, but in practice, ends up functioning as a kind of leadership that decides the what will be done in collective terms. Decides the network. Decides to entire network. Okay, but if we do not, only connect people (Or distributed networks of people), if these people are connected to each other and do not exert too much prominence to title animation as to discourage the emergence of initiatives diverse, it is thus guaranteed that the network will work? Yes, absolutely! But with one caveat: it depends on what we meant by "work"! Works when there is a network, ie, when configuring the morphology of the second network (distributed) and expresses dynamic network. Here one must understand that the networks are not expedient instrumental to catch people and get them to walk a particular path or follow a certain direction. The networks will do things their members want to do, or better, things will only make the joint members of a network that want to do those things. If someone proposes to do something in a network of 100 participants, perhaps 40 accept the proposal, the other 60 will do other things, or will not do nothing. Networking is like this: there is centralism. No vote. No one verification process of the formation of collective will that is totalizing can bind everyone based on the criteria in the majority. 3 Also, say that people are connected to each other, means more than providing each the name and e-mail or address and phone number of others. It is necessary that they really connect (the connection is not a real draw on a graph, how that "source" of Heraclitean Goethe, it "exists only as it flows"). It is also necessary that all people have the means to do this, I mean to get in touch with each other: if want, whenever they want and with whomever they want. Many premature disillusionment with the networks stems from a misunderstanding profound than they really mean. Who wants to use the networks because it's fashionable or because they think that, well, you get expand its power, in general do very well. Even those who want to use the networks to promote changes in the name of a because often get disappointed. Why? Because the network is not an instrument for change. It is already changing. But this change is not a transformation of what exists in a thing that does not exist but for the freedom that already exists can be able to regulate itself. Yes, we are completely unaware the last two or three centuries with the 'transformational model' of change, which presupposes an agent will be able to promote,

organize and lead change. This does not occur in nature and not in any other complex system (and human society is a system complex). In nature and in the market (which are also systems complex), for example, the changes follow a combination of 'Variational model' with a 'model regulacional'. Systems complex adaptive are those who learn to self-regulating (and networks can only do this, why these systems is the human brain or an ecosystem, always structured in network) lucky to be able to adapt to changes (random variation) internal and external. Or so they can 'keep their adaptation' (a good definition of sustainability), making and remaking continuously congruences and multiple interactions with the environment. There is much talk in recent years of digital networks. And one gets the impression that they are the new technologies of information and communications that represent all the new organization. But Not so. As Don Tapscott realized for over 10 years, "This is not of networking technology, but the organization network of human beings through technology. This is not a age of intelligent machines, but human beings who, through networks, they can combine their intelligence, "a intelignciaem-generating network, a new type of collective intelligence (see Tapscott, Don The 4 Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996).. But that collective intelligence is not born as a result of applying engineering that combines planned individual human intelligences. It is an 'intelligence social ', born by emergency, a kind of swarm intelligence that begins to emerge spontaneously when many micromotives are combined in a different way that we can not predict beforehand. Here too we can not pretend to apply a formula, a scheme, to produce this "supercomputer" that is the social network. The most amazing thing is that, in fact, such "Supercomputer" is what we call 'social'. As Emerson said, "We lie in the lap of an immense intelligence" ("we jazemos within a vast intelligence "). Many people still insist that the networks are based on cooperation. This is true, but not for the reasons they usually present. They think that networks are a new form of organization based on cooperative principles, as if it were a a priori condition for someone to connect to a network, adhering to such principles. Thus, the networks would be collaborative because the composing them, people would make a profession of faith in the benefits of cooperation and personally would change their behavior to participate in networks, such as who makes a crucial decision to change life and make a vote on it in order to be accepted in an organization religious. None. Social networks convert, in fact, competition in cooperation, but as a result of its dynamics. They do not convert competitive people, and possessed of strong belligerent mood adversarial, cooperative individuals, peaceful and friendly. To encourage interaction and allow mutual pollination of many standards behavior, the result of "functioning" of a social network is to produce more cooperation, as I discovered (or are discovering) who works with the concept of social capital. The people may still want to compete with each other, however, when connected in a network, that effort does not prevail

general result in that, in the network, they can not prevent other people to do what they want and can not do forcing them to do what they do not. Thus, the network is not a appropriate instrument for someone to get more power (which is always power to block, delete and split). Finally, networks are a "body" whose "metabolism" matching is necessarily democratic (meaning "strong" of 5 concept of democracy) or plurirquico, as suggested by Bard and Sderqvist in 2002 (cf. Bard, Alexander & Sderqvist, Jan. Netocracy: the new power elite and life after capitalism. London: Pearson Education, 2002.). And the more they are distributed, more democracy that is practiced within it will acquire the features of a pluriarquia. Explaining. In a distributed network, as David wrote Ugarte (2007), "though most do not sympathize with a proposal and speaks out against it - can not prevent its realization, "as occurs in the present democratic forms that take on democracy meaning "weak" concept and adopt a way of checking formation of collective political will through processes arithmetic counting of votes, becoming as "a system of scarcity: the community has to choose between one thing and another, between one filter and another, between a representative and another "(cf. The power of networks. Port Alegre: CMDC / ediPUCRS, 2008.). In contrast, in distributed networks, as noted by blogger Enrique Gomes, "there is an abundance of features that tends to infinity. We create as many blogs, aggregators [blogs], collaborative environments, wikis or forums as we want. So what is the point submetermonos the wishes and orders of some ...? (Ibid.).