Online Collaboration Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

GillBates0 writes "CNN has a nice story about how online collaboration swiftly helped form a centrally organized online disaster effort during Wednesday's Mumbai attacks. India accounts for almost one-fifth of the world's cell phone subscribers. At a time when chaos reigned, and voice calls were jammed, a loose collaboration of techies, laymen, and good samaritans quickly collaborated online via social media, Wikipedia, Google docs and other online resources to coordinate blood donors, assistance, rides, and other services to help the victims of the attack."

Comments

Geeks Inherit the Earth

[retroworks]

I work internationally with many repairers, refurbishers, and geeks of many tongues and languages. They are respected in their societies in a way that is more like we respect doctors.

Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[Doc Ruby]

The headline says "Online Collaboration Helps Mumbai Attack Victims". I initially read "attack" as a verb, not as an adjective. So it meant that the collaboration helps the city to attack victims. But in context it means that the collaboration helps the victims, who are victims of an attack.

In English, those words are ambiguous, and mean quite opposite things. Does that happen in other languages, too? Would the translation of that sentence into Hindi also have that double meaning, depending on which word was stressed when reading it?

Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[angiasaa]

No, it does not. Translated to Hindi, the words get shuffled up. Roughly, it would turn into something more like "Mumbai's attacked victims online collaboration from helped". :-D It sounds kinda creepy in english, but the nuances of Hindi structure and phraseology would leave a reader/listener with absolutely no doubt as to the intended meaning. :) English is indeed a funny language, but I am pretty sure most languages share similar quirks. As indeed, does Hindi itself. This is just one example that can be sampled into Hindi without the loss of intended meaning. However, it is a semantically lucky sentence and translates well.

Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[Doc Ruby]

No, as I pointed out this is an ambiguity built into the language. Yes, editors could have chosen a wording that's not ambiguous. But the context makes it clear, right in the summary - and in common sense.

I'm not going to reply in this subthread (replies to the current comment), because I'm interested in linguistics here - not in bashing Slashdot's editors. They've got plenty of faults, but that's offtopic to what I'm talking about.

Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks, that's exactly what I was wondering.

I wonder if the "semantically lucky sentence" is due to common Indo-European roots. Which would mean that there's a lot of semantically lucky sentences. Or maybe just lucky this infrequent time.

Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[causality]

No, as I pointed out this is an ambiguity built into the language. Yes, editors could have chosen a wording that's not ambiguous. But the context makes it clear, right in the summary - and in common sense.

I'm not going to reply in this subthread (replies to the current comment), because I'm interested in linguistics here - not in bashing Slashdot's editors. They've got plenty of faults, but that's offtopic to what I'm talking about.

Linguistics are only half of it. How skillfully you manage them (i.e. whether you avoid completely avoidable ambiguity) is the other half. You can pretend that natural languages are totally separate from the humans who use them, if you like. However, consider the vast multitude of words available and the grammatical structures that can be used. It should be self-evident that, from all these vaiables, the final diction that is chosen does boil down to how the language is used by the person using it. The writer is not merely an interchangable part in some industrial process because a different writer would word things differently.

I for one am glad that English makes no attempt to be completely idiot-proof. A language that tries to avoid every single potential ambiguity and misuse is also going to limit its own expressiveness. It is analogous to that Unix saying, that trying to prevent you from doing something stupid would also prevent you from doing something clever.

Also, while the wording of GP was a bit harsh, I cannot fault someone for expecting a paid professional to produce work meeting at least a minimal standard of quality. Would you want your doctor to practice medicine the same way these editors practice copy editing? I seriously doubt it, but if he/she did, maybe you'd enjoy answering a chorous of people who tell you to stop being so picky. The bottom line is that the professional could have acted like a professional and any "bashing" would have been stopped long before it started. Prevention is the very best and most superior way to handle these events. The cause-and-effect of this process is undeniable.

Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[WillDraven]

"I initially read "attack" as a verb, not as an adjective."

That's just as well, because in this instance, "attack" is a NOUN, you moron...

It's a noun being used as an adjective. Also, calling someone a moron isn't a good way to start off if you want to influence their opinion.

As for the rest of your post, one could make arguments for religion in general being a contributing factor to a large portion of the worlds problems, but singling out Muslims does nothing but make you appear bigoted.

(I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls. I just really have nothing better to do right now.)

Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[Doc Ruby]

As another response points out, "Attack" is an adjective in the headline, modifying "Victims", Anonymous moron Coward. You know nothing about grammar.

Secondly, you're such a moron that you don't see that abuse of religion is the problem. Supported by bigot morons like you. There's far more people in religion who are either no problem, or beneficial by virtue of their religious actions. And practically every religion has crusaders/jihadists and terrorists. America has far more Christian terrorists here than we've got Muslims, but people like you help keep the mass media afraid to come out and say it.

"Everyone knows" that "Muslims and Islam are the problem" just like you know that "Attack" is a noun in that headline. Your certainty is a religious faith you get by praying at Fox News. You're stupid and evil. Shut up - you're polluting the world.

Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[angiasaa]

Hindi is an evolved form of Sanskritized Khari-boli. As a result, when spoken in its true form, it is very hard to cause misinterpretation of sentences. It evolved with the Indo-Aryan languages, or in come cases, Indic. However, there is a fairly good chance that transliteration of sentences from European and African tongues end up conveying a different meaning from what was intended. Translators generally require to be proficient in recognizing contextual nuances in European tongues to correctly translate the meaning into Hindi. However, when translating from Hindi to English, a direct transliteration rarely goes haywire. :)

Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[angiasaa]

Born and brought up in India.. I suppose with time, some interesting things rub off on you while you're growing up. :D Even though I'm Indian by birth, I am considered half-outcast here since I have trouble speaking most of the native tongues. I'm fairly good with Hindi, but that's the pure form of the language. I'm not very comfortable speaking the local dialects (which btw, are many!), enough to fit in.

Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[sysrammer]

"I for one am glad that English makes no attempt to be completely idiot-proof. A language that tries to avoid every single potential ambiguity and misuse is also going to limit its own expressiveness. It is analogous to that Unix saying, that trying to prevent you from doing something stupid would also prevent you from doing something clever. "

Worth quoting. I like this. I too used to worry about all the consistencies of English.

I once asked a Russian teenager once, "What's the hardest thing about English?"

I expected him to say, oh, the inconsistencies of the spelling, or plural agreements, etc. No, it was something that I find so natural.

The "the". An "a". Russian, of course, has no articles. No surprise, really, the stereotypical way to mimic a Russian is to drop all the articles.

Anyways, that's when I started learning not to be so anal about these little inconsistencies. Thanks for the interesting post.

sr

why does mumbai want to attack victims?

[TheGratefulNet]

(also see: eats, shoots and leaves)

Government is completely inept!

[parallel_prankster]

The government of India is pretty ill-prepared and inefficient for such events. The first instinct of most citizens is that they need to take things in their own hands. Within moments of the blasts, the people around the affected areas had immediately started getting help, getting cars to take victims to nearby hospitals, even managing traffic. The police and the ambulances arrived almost 30 mins later followed by a bunch of politicians who started the blame game. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/slideshow_mumbai-blasts-5-most-stupid-things-our-politicians-said_1565822-5#top

Re:Government is completely inept!

[cavreader]

Name one government who is really prepared for this. Everyone has written rules and procedures but when the first bomb explodes those rules and procedures tend to go flying out the window just as fast as the body parts.

Re:Government is completely inept!

[causality]

The government of India is pretty ill-prepared and inefficient for such events. The first instinct of most citizens is that they need to take things in their own hands.

The USA used to be like that. Is there any way we can be like that again?

A minority of us don't deserve the government our fellow countrymen are creating.

Re:Government is completely inept!

[kqs]

Not so many years ago, in many parts of the southern USA, if a crime was committed and it was obvious that the government wasn't bringing anyone to justice fast enough, citizens would take things into their own hands. They'd lynch the person that everyone *knew* was guilty (who, for some reason, usually had dark skin), then pat themselves on the back for being such good citizens.

It's common that during disasters, citizens take things into their own hands by looting anything that they may need or want, hoarding it rather than sharing it with their neighbors in need.

I'm a great fan of self-sufficient citizens, don't get me wrong. But one of the things I fear more than the government is my fellow citizens happily defining "the right thing" using their prejudices and religions. I think that the government should have a strong role in the aftermath of a disaster.

Re:Government is completely inept!

[causality]

It's common that during disasters, citizens take things into their own hands by looting anything that they may need or want, hoarding it rather than sharing it with their neighbors in need.

If you are actually prepared and have stored the essentials you need, you'll find yourself far less tempted to loot or steal anything from anyone. You may, in fact, have excess you are able to share with family, friends, and neighbors.

That is what self-sufficiency means. It doesn't mean lynching black people or busting store windows and stealing TVs, stereos, jewelry, gold, guns, and food. How you conflate these things is hard for me to understand. It leads me to suppose you already made up your mind that there is something wrong with preparedness and self-sufficiency (the real kind) and are clutching at straws to portray it in a negative light.

Especially the whole lynching deal... the founding fathers were clear about their belief that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly punished. That's why they set up a system in which police work is genuinely hard and those "pesky" civil rights make it hard. No matter what their citizenship or nationality I have a hard time considering someone a real American if they would reject this principle. They might technically be a citizen of the USA but they are devoid of any understanding of what this country is supposed to be about.

Re:Government is completely inept!

[causality]

And they all had amusing moustaches. Makes them look really professional and worthy of respect.

Yes, facial hair is endlessly amusing. Of course.

Re:Government is completely inept!

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one government who is really prepared for this.

Israel

Humanity...

[jeremiahstanley]

Just goes to show what people can do with a network designed to deliver pictures of Ceiling Cat watching you masturbate. Such a clever hack!

Re:do they make these titles tricky on purpose

[jcombel]

city* damnit
 
oh god, now the post spam cooldown

All Governments are Pretty Inept at Disasters

[haulbag]

Even here in the US, you shouldn't count on the government to get there in the nick of time to save you. There are also times when it is too dangerous for first responders to do much, since it might place them in just as great danger. It pays to be cautious and well prepared for disasters and emergencies. How many of us have 72 hour kits available? How many of us have a one-year supply of food, or even a 2 week supply of food? What about firearms and ammo (no flamebait or trolling intended). How many people know how to start a camp fire and cook all of your meals over it?

Re:All Governments are Pretty Inept at Disasters

[causality]

It pays to be cautious and well prepared for disasters and emergencies. How many of us have 72 hour kits available? How many of us have a one-year supply of food, or even a 2 week supply of food? What about firearms and ammo (no flamebait or trolling intended). How many people know how to start a camp fire and cook all of your meals over it?

Not many. For the rest, government tends to stand between them and natural selection. It's in government's interests to do that since they still pay taxes. The rest of us pay an untold social and financial cost for this, but the politicians are secluded and cloistered so they rarely feel it themselves.

You talk about no flamebait or trolling intended... I definitely know what you mean. It's an ugly truth but that's the truth. The thing is, we have modeled needless dependency and appalling lack of planning and preparation for so long that people no longer understand this. If something does happen, they are at the mercy of the likes of FEMA or equivalent. If you recall Hurricane Katrina, how'd that work out for them? Do we need multiple tragedies for people to get it, or is one sufficient? If people refuse to understand the fable of the ant and the grasshopper, why shouldn't we respect their decision? Any compassion you feel would be better put towards helping those who are at least trying to help themselves; the rest are quite incorrigible.

Disasters can happen anywhere. They absolutely do happen somewhere from time to time. To be completely unprepared for them is to assume a risk. Real adults -- by that I mean the kind who have enough personal responsibility that they don't cling to an image of victimhood -- understand that if you assume a major risk you just might get screwed. The rest wait passively for someone to rescue them and tell them what to do. When it comes to failing to look after themselves, failing to look after their families, and providing excuses to grow government, they are Satan's little helpers, cute and well-meaning though they may be.

Re:All Governments are Pretty Inept at Disasters

[causality]

Spoken like an idiot who wasted a lot of resources on redundant protections against things that he's already paid taxes to protect himself against.

No, what makes one an idiot is to adamantly insist that I must be mistaken and then have zero ability to articulate where I have made an error in my reasoning. None of my argument rests on what taxes I pay or the purpose to which they are applied. In the usual wrong-headed knee-jerk format, you are addressing arguments I never made and then declaring yourself the victor. In your imagination perhaps you are, but nowhere else. Everyone else just sees the emotional volatility of an impotent fool who cannot make his case.

Address my observation about the horrible fashion in which FEMA handled Hurricane Katrina. There you will find my answer to your worship of tax money. Of course you have already had opportunity to do that. You won't address it because you can't. You know it contradicts what you just said so you don't want to contend with me, you coward.

Having cleared that up, I have a revelation for you: your feelings about something do not determine the truth of that thing. When you accept this, you will be one step closer to real adulthood. Until such time, you can get as angry as you like and call me as many names as you like. In fact, I take it as a compliment that I affected you so much without even trying. I could only do that if my words rang true and that's what you really can't stand.

This is beneath you.

Re:All Governments are Pretty Inept at Disasters

[haulbag]

Thank you for your response. I totally agree with the sentiment that the US government response to disasters is perhaps not the finest. We're saying the same thing. Lots of people think that since the US government seems so powerful that we must have a good reason to feel secure and not worry about preparing for disaster. We US-ians do tend to think we are the top of everything. We often feel invincible. It is hubris, plain and simple. You are correct.

My main point is that you cannot depend on the government -- any government -- to fully protect you from harm. How long did it take the Japanese government to respond to people on the ground in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake/tsunami? I'll bet a million dollars that people died because the government couldn't get there fast enough.

Taking the Japanese disaster as an example, there are also lots of people that are still sleeping on the floors of school gymnasiums. They are still waiting for emergency shelter to be built for them, but they are lower on the priority list than the very young or the very old.

For lots of them, perhaps there was nothing that they could have done to prepare more, but perhaps there was something they could have done. I lived in Japan for two years, and I'll attest to the fact that the Japanese use a lot of their disposable income to buy new material possessions. Americans would be astonished at the waste. It seems like everyone must have the latest electronic gadgets. On daigomi no hi (big garbage day), you can walk down the street and see right and left that people have thrown away what appear to be brand new couches and other furniture, TV sets, stereos, refrigerators, and so forth. Then they just go buy new stuff. What if they had saved more of that disposable income and put it into the bank? If they had, would as many of them still be sleeping on the floor of a gymnasium? Perhaps not.

So perhaps all of us should look around -- or in the mirror -- and see what we can do to be more prepared. Our families and the families of others depend on it.

Yes, people can think for themselves

[BitZtream]

Really, here is an example, when their phones broke down, they found other methods to accomplish the same thing ... interestingly enough, and entirely missed in the summary is the fact that most of the work arounds were traditional, not internet related methods.

English Verbs Nouns And Adjectives

[Iskender]

This is just more of the usual from Slashdot: errors and ambiguities that even an unskilled editor would have corrected prior to submitting it to a large audience. The headline should have read "Online Collaboration Helps Victims of the Mumbai Attack". It does not take much mastery of the English language to understand that.

I don't understand myself how they can edit so badly, but this is not an example of that. This is what happens in English. It's probably down to the way adjectives, nouns and verbs change roles in all ways possible.

If you want PLENTY of examples from much more reputable ("Oxford English") sources than Slashdot then do a search on "British Left Waffles On Falklands". Oh and the rule of capitalizing every word in headlines can't help either.

I'm interested in languages but I have yet to find similar lists of ambiguous headlines for my native Swedish and Finnish. So it's most likely down to how English is, and you can't blame Slashdot for that.

Online Collaboration Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

[Tooke]

why would anyone want to help mumbai attack the victims? if anything, they should be trying to stop mumbai from attacking!

Re:Chill out! Its nothing.

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

The government does not need to prepare because we are used to events like these. Before you had 9/11 we have had our partition, kashmir pandit situation, mumbai blasts(version 0.01), babari mosque riots, more bombs. So chill out, we are used to this, since the time USA fully supported jihadis and ISI (well that hasn't ended yet).

Your comments are wise indeed.

God Bless you!

Re:Obsession with Kashmir is burning India

[BangaIorean]

STFU, Pakroach! Take your slimy Paki views over to some Jihad-terror forum.