“(Their) whole brain appears to rewire because of bilingualism. “

OK. No wonder it’s been such slow going.

A year in Berlin, and my progress mit der deutschen Sprache ist leider nicht schnell genug für mich – but according to a recent piece in the New York Times, maybe it’s due not to a lack of time and/or discipline (my two most often-used excuses), but to all those years of ‘monolingualism’ having left my brain less able to handle a second language.

The article claims numerous advantages to having a multilingual brain: increased multitasking ability, reduced risk of Alzheimer’s Disease, and increased problem-solving ability, to name just a few.  So although I could get by here in cosmopolitan Berlin without speaking any German at all, I’m not giving up – I’d like to have me one of them multilingual brains.

According to the New York Times, it’s good for me (and I have to admit, it’s a challenging and interesting process to go through).

Andreas and Christoph are both bilingual.  My wife speaks three languages – fluently.  I’m as smart as these guys, right?   I hope so, because I now find myself in a race against time, a race against my 9 month old German-born niece: will I speak German as well as a 2 year old by next year?

It’s on, my ruthless, diapered rival.  OK, so you’ve got something on me in the cuteness department, that doesn’t scare me.  I’ve got a few tricks of my own up my sleeve, “baby”: I’ve got technology on my side: apps, audio books, google translate,  deutsche welle, and any number of the countless message boards out there.  In the brutal competition to come, I will show you no mercy.

Still, I’ve been trying to transfer all this data, this German language, onto my ‘system’ for about 12 months now – and I can’t help but notice that the transfer rate, the data throughput, has been a bit disappointing.

If the New York Times article is correct, maybe what I really need is a firmware update.

P.S.  Mark Twain (who, it turns out, is a lot funnier than I remember) went through a similar experience over a century ago.   For an idea of just what I’m up against, read his short essay “The Awful German Language“.

An interesting thing happened at the New York Times over the past 10 years as the paper has shifted an ever-increasing amount of focus and resources from its print edition to its web edition in response to the rise of the internet:  America’s newspaper of record, the flagship of a print journalism industry facing arguably the most direct internet-related challenges of any industry you could name, has instead embraced internet technology – not only as a delivery medium, but as a newsworthy subject in and of itself.

And by doing so, the Times has evolved into one of the more important technology news destinations on the web.

Understandably, some of the Times’ technology and media coverage is geared purely towards the casual general reading public  (a recent Andy Rooney-esque lamentation on the demise of the Filofax comes to mind).  If you haven’t noticed, though, there’s also an impressive amount of reliably high-quality technology journalism coming from 8th Avenue these days: the top-level NY Times technology section contains feature articles by the Times’ able stable of tech writers, more informal and interactive coverage can be found in the Bits Blog, and lastly, for coverage of technology for the consumer there’s the “Personal Tech” section (since non-sales driven coverage of new CE products is pretty tough to come by, I find this section particularly refreshing).

It doesn’t stop there, though – the Times is also a reliably discriminating  aggregator of worthwhile tech coverage from external sources such as redwriteweb.com and venturebeat.com.

In short, I find the NY Times technology coverage well-considered, timely, and (maybe most importantly) comparatively hype-free.  It’s a web destination that’s well worth your time (and of course it’s all also available as RSS feeds and/or email newsletters).   So, props/kudos to the NY Times – for not only meeting the challenge of the  internet head-on, but for seeing an opportunity there.

Here are two recent NY Times articles that touch on subjects we’ve written about here as well:

• The privatization of internet We’ve been noticing an unmistakable trend towards the privatization of certain areas of the internet for a while now.  In fact, it’s been one of our favorite topics (we’ve written about it here and herehere).   For both purely technical and business-driven reasons, we’re looking for the trend to continue – and here’s a good NY Times article on one aspect of it: ‘peering’, the shift from public internet backbone routing to private networks:  Scientists Strive to Map the Shape-shifting Net

• Paying via credit card Back in February we wrote about how donating to the Haitian earthquake relief  fund via text message was so utterly painless that we had completely forgotten about it by the time the next phone bill showed up with those several unexpected $10 charges.   Here’s a Times article from a month or two later about more advanced (non-text based) methods : Cellphone Payments Offer an Alternative to Cash

Avid digitalmissive readers know, I have long considered the New York subway my prefered ad-hoc “test tube”, to get a read on the adoption status of the latest available digital devices and services. Turns out, when it comes to eReaders, I am really not seeing much excitement among my fellow straphangers these days.

Apart from the occasional Amazon Kindle, Big Apple subway riders don’t seem overly attracted (yet!) to the burgeoning world of portable electronic book and magazine devices.

How come?

Read the rest of this entry »

Comcast has bought a controlling share in NBCU.  Maybe you’ve heard.

Just what this means for hulu is now topic du jour.  For those unfamiliar with the service (are there any left?), hulu is a browser-based premium video website that launched a year and a half ago as a NBC/Fox joint venture and has since became wildly popular (and deservedly so: on a technical level, the streaming is very well implemented, and on a user experience level, the UI is  very cleanly designed).  Since April, when Disney bought into hulu, CBS has been the only major broadcast network left outside of the hulu fold.

More than any other service, Hulu was looking like the future of premium online video.

Then along comes Comcast and makes things interesting: the largest company in the vertical industry most threatened by the advent of online premium (non user-generated) video is now part owner in the nascent medium’s industry leader.

Read the rest of this entry »

No! Not Wayne’s World. Nor The World According to Garp. Instead, your and my world. And this time according to either Thomas L. Friedman, Professor Eli Noam, or Facebook - depending on how you choose to see it.

If you ask long-time New York Times op-ed writer Thomas Friedman, the world is flat, implying that digital communications increasingly ensures everyone everywhere has access to the same growing pool of World Wide Web-provided information. This levels the playing field for all of us, he says, to impact the plethora of socio- and economic-political issues — no matter where and who we are on this globe.

This sounds promising, I thought, if it wasn’t for an off-the-cuff conversation I had with Columbia Business School Professor Eli Noam, about a year past Friedman’s book published.

Read the rest of this entry »

Long-form internet video vs. short-form internet video:  As a recent article in the New York Times noted, online video  program length is starting to increase beyond the short 1- or 2-minute user-generated YouTube clips we’re used to snacking on from the workplace.  The NY Times piece correctly identifies at least one factor behind the trend: increased bandwidth and video quality.

However, like most coverage of internet video, the article labors under the short-sighted assumption that “internet video” is necessarily a function of the  computer and the web browser (evidently under a similar assumption, another New York Times article was recently able to proclaim that “Putting Network TV on the Internet is Not Disruptive”).

Read the rest of this entry »

Check out Mattathias Schwartz’s rather powerful article about the popular online message board /b/ and a subgroup of its netizens, so-called “trolls”, that have turned into serious pranksters both online and off.

While largely unharmful, a number of past troll posts and activities have had serious, even deadly consequences – at least for some of the message boarders.

Think pseudonymous posters publishing violent fantasies about female college students.

Think humiliating details about people’s online dating activities publicly revealed to cause some to loose their job.

Think what seemed to have been the mother of a girlfriend posting unnamed online messages ultimately leading to the suicide of a young girl unable to cope with the public humiliation caused by the claims made online.

My questions: Do any of these troll activities happen because of or despite the Internet’s popular existence? Is the Internet as a “public square” at all capable, let alone intended, to prevent certain social interaction from occurring online.

My take on this: The Web is a ubiquitously public “application” residing on the Internet itself.

As such it was never designed to regulate human behavior. Asking the Web to begin vetting engagement, under the current structure, it wouldn’t work. Not to mention the implications for basic civil liberties such as free speech.

Instead, attempting to curb personal behavior online would be as if anyone taking the railroad or public highway would have to adhere to specific moral, intellectual, or cultural code outside ones own in order to qualify for its regular use.

Ubiquitously available public platforms are just not set out to perform that task.

Good for pranksters everywhere, this is probably why there’s no “thou shalt not humiliate” signs posted anywhere.

Not at one’s local train station, nor shoulder-side down the highway, or anywhere on the World Wide Web.

This is because if such signs existed, they certainly would neither change pranksters’ behavior nor would they make it any easier to catch them after the fact.

Instead, when using any of our shared and (fairly) organized public systems, the large majority agrees to certain ground rules.

Some are rather obvious (such as basic societal laws), other require added sensibility and discretion. Never intended to be foolpoof, that “system” mostly works.

As to the Web, Schwartz, in his article, points to Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others”.

Originally intended as a fundamental ground rule for all of us online, it seems a pretty good guideline for other public platforms as well.