If only they had been a bit more far sighted, if only they had considered the consequences of the digital revolution on the publishing market as well! If only they had, perhaps the major camera manufacturers might have found a better way to fight the invasion of mobile phone cameras with performances and resolution that are, unfortunately for them, increasing all the time. We had to wait until 2007 for Nikon to endow their products adressed to the amateur market (like the Coolpix S51c) with a Wi-Fi system that allows to send pictures via email or share them online. And we got to 2010 before Kodak  put a "share" button on their M series cameras, that allows sharing on Facebook, Flickr and YouTube. However, we are still far from the introduction on a large scale of such accessories as a link cable between professional camera and cell phone in order to send out our best pictures or to share them online. Or a bluetooth antenna. Or a Wi-Fi device, which only now someone is shyly considering. Even worse, witty comparisons are being made between the performance of the iPhone 4, and those of a Canon. This should be more than enough to alert those major companies. If their engineers were really more open minded (not everyone thinks different like Apple) they would have already made thousands of professional photographers and reporters happy all over the world, the same pros who are now complaining about the competition of the so called "occasional reporters" with a cell phone.

iPhone 4 as good as the 7D? No, but it's amazing for what it is. from Take Zero Productions on Vimeo.

What would you do if you could become invisible? Fight the enemy, unseen? Or...?

In the next future the lighting infrastructure could become communication infrastructure. If a "light Economy" is coming, to replace the old and heavy Oil Economy, there is definitely a concrete hope to get out of this dark age.

 What about the New York Times’ latest findings on the dangers of multitasking? The title “Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price” is taken from a Stanford University’s report ten months back. Well, before concluding that it's dangerous, just hold on.  

Social scientists have long assumed that it is impossible to process more than one string of information at a time.  However, we don't elaborate only strings of information. In our cognitive  process we also mix emotions, and other factors  can affect the process itself. And  the more we are aware of these multiple influences, the more we master them, the more we can be multitasking. It is typical of artists (and we should remember that we are not all artists). Generations of baroque composers created complex polyphonic structures taking a cup o tea or doing anything else at the same time. And we could produce a lot of other examples.

Even among multitaskers there are brains that may do better than others, as a recent study from the University of Utah confirmed. Thus, we could argue that a common person is able to concentrate only on one thing (or even on one detail) at a time, while a multitasker apparently manages many things at the same time. There could also be another  point of view that could include even the social scientists’ "one string at a time" theory: a multitasker sees the whole mass of activities he manages as a unique complex object, not as "many" objects. So he really behaves as if he was processing the same task  (yet making the proper distinction for each specifical aspect).

According to our own level of awareness, we can face only one problem at a time (perceiving all the other contemporary events as "interferences"); otherwise, we can play easily with complexity (perceiving the sum of our tasks as a unique task). And we can also switch from approach to approach! From this point of view, working on multiple layers, windows, voices, or schemes, is perfectly natural.

Despite the easy conclusions to which some cognitivist assumption may lead, there is no fixed rule. There are simple tasks and complex tasks. Sometimes we are single minded, sometimes we need to be multitasking. We have different talents and skills, none is better than another. As some researchers affirmed, multitasking can reduce productivity by approximately 40-percent. Yeah, babe (but only for those who give their best with a single minded approach). If someone tries to fix a general theory for productivity that could fit to mankind as a whole, remember this: its' only bullshit.

First: Italy doesn't exist (it never existed). If you plan to visit Italy you must be prepared to a brutal impact with virtual reality (but with a lot of dirt and Italians, too).

Second: in the Italian language words don't mean anything (especially the most innovative ones like "innovation"). You must always interpret them and even if you do, you'll never be sure of their real meaning. Sounds arcane, huh?

Conclusion: thanks to a technological (and even logical) divide, Italy is the best place to observe and to rethink the new cognitive technologies and their development from a certain distance.

Let's start.