A little over a month ago, I said I was going to learn French. Well, I took longer than I expected to prepare, started later than I expected, postponed it more than I should have, and changed my strategy too often.

But that's ok. I have certainly learned more French than I ever have before. I am still slowly working on it but, what with traveling and preparing for interviews and their presentations, plus other work I have to get done, I have reduced my efforts to learn La Belle Langue quite a bit. And the workload will only get worse. What I need is some touch of formal pressure to keep up with it. Maybe a language partner, or a regular tv show or vodcast to understand, something like that. My other issue is my efforts to retain what I have tried to learn each day... with my other responsibilities and projects, I need some easy way to insert repetition of key lessons into the following 24 hours, whether it's a vocab list to carry around or a phrase to go over in my head. Something to drill something into my head until it sticks.

Learning a new language is hard. Or maybe it's just me? Anyone else have issues with this kind of thing? Any tips on making it easier?

Labels: aboutCommunication, aboutEducation, aboutHumanNature, aboutProductivity, aboutWork

 

I like Twitter. It's another easy way to get to know what's happening in other people's heads, what they're reading, what they think is interesting. And I get to share those things with the world too: special events, what I think is important, what I want to share with people. And it certainly doesn't hurt to be in the middle of all those swirling ideas and communications. I may even get a new idea myself one day! lol

But one twitter related phenomenon disturbs me: over-following. I guess all tools get taken into the realm of spam, misuse, commercialization, et cetera, but when supposedly "real" people using Twitter are following literally thousands of feeds... I mean, what do they think the "following" function is for? Well, maybe I've got it wrong. I think it's to read the tweets of those whose opinion you respect or are interested in in some way, those feeds that are going to inform you of something like an institution's upcoming events. You're populating a list of things to theoretically read. You may skip a few but the idea is to read a good portion of them. But when someone's following 2747 Twitter feeds, what good is that? Unless these are all very rare Tweeters, that's a lot of material even to ignore regularly.

The first thing that I think when I see that is that they are playing some sort of game. "I really need a lot of followers so I'm going to follow others so they feel like they should follow me!" I'm following 25 right now and I even consider weeding out a few now and then.

Again, maybe I'm all turned around on this. Maybe there's some Twitter tool (Twool? Gawd, I've gone over to the dark side. lol) that helps weed through the piles of Tweets that must build up. Anyone know anything about this? Hmmm...

Labels: aboutCommunication, aboutEthics, aboutHumanNature, aboutInformation, aboutOnlineTools, aboutProductivity, aboutReading, aboutReason, aboutSociety, aboutTechnology, aboutWeb2.0

 

There was a recent article in the Library Journal about the dismissal of the head of the public library system in Lexington, Kentucky. Without much information, which is kind of the point of this article, it's hard to really take sides but there are two points that jump out at me when discussing something like this.

Firstly, the CEO makes some pretty strongly negative claims about the behaviour of the local newspaper and their role in all this. As I've said before, I've never been too impressed with most "professional" journalists. They seem more interested in selling papers than disseminating information. Honestly, if it comes down to a librarian's word versus a journalist's word, all else being held equal, I'd have to pick the side of the librarian, despite my obvious bias.

Also, one of the criticisms of the article and the CEO is that she was fired with no explanation. What on earth is that? What kind of open and transparent government runs things like that (rhetorical question, thank you)? I've always thought that very few, at least in an official sense and regarding important issues, decisions should be made without a specified and sufficient reason. Voting? You should have to write at least a couple paragraphs as to why you think this party or this candidate is better than the other(s). Government decisions? Whole reports could be provided explaining the reasoning and the consideration of other possibilities and options. Ethical beliefs? Well, its certainly got to include something more than, "it seems like the right thing to do." Without some clarification of our actions that will affect others to a meaningful degree, we're just animals (which is exactly what we are but nonetheless), which is not what we WANT to be. We seem to like to consider ourselves somewhat more advanced, somewhat more conscious, somewhat more enlightened. Setting aside any arguments as to whether we are or not, we should at least act like what we want to appear as.

What do you think? Am I being too hard on journalism? And should we really be held to account for our actions in some "literal" way?

[ From Lexington PL CEO Imhoff Fired; Threatens Suit, Criticizes Newspaper Coverage by Norman Oder at Library Journal ]

Labels: aboutEvents, aboutHumanNature, aboutInformation, aboutLibrarianship, aboutReason, aboutWork

 

Although it seems to be going in that direction whether we want it to or not, it certainly can't hurt to get a little push in the direction of thinking about our big problems on a global scale and to work together to solve them. That's basically the point of a recent talk UK prime minister Gordon Brown made at the always-fascinating TED conference. He starts out talking about the power of the Internet, connecting us all with communication, enabling us to develop a global ethic, then listing some of the major problems we have had to deal with and those we still are, and the tools needed to solve them.

Do you think that global institutions will save the day? Do you think we can manage to work together in the way that it looks like we must? Add you comments, please.

[ From "Gordon Brown: Wiring a web for global good" at TED ]

Labels: aboutCommunication, aboutGlobalization, aboutHumanNature, aboutSociety

 

This is a rather atemporal story of a Jewish man grieving the death of his wife and son from the April 1989 issue of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction magazine. I say "rather atemporal" because there are a series of what seem to be flashbacks that possibly turn out to be actually time loops or some kind of spiritual (for lack of a better word) bifurcation and release. To make up your own mind, you'd better read it yourself. You can read it in one of his latest collections, Jubilee.

One of my problems with the story is that I am not Jewish and therefore didn't understand many of the terms used: kaddish, Shekhinah, tallit, phylacteries, Akeidah, Shema, etc. I could have looked them up while I was reading but that would have been a break in the reading every time. In the end, however, this was not a huge barrier to enjoying the story, although looking at the definitions now suggests that another level of appreciation would have been potentially possible.

In the end, despite a story of desperation, near insanity, and frightening hallucinations/miracles, the main character is no worse for wear. Perhaps the story is a description of the turmoil and confusion of grief. All in all, a worthwhile read given how atypically science-fiction-like it is.

Labels: aboutHumanNature, reviews, shortstories