Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Collaboration Helps Mumbai Attack Victims

Posted by Soulskill on from the pulling-together dept.

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."

11 of 46 comments (clear)

  1. Geeks Inherit the Earth by retroworks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Gently reply
  2. Helps Mumbai Attack Victims by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

    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?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Helps Mumbai Attack Victims by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  3. Government is completely inept! by parallel_prankster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Government is completely inept! by cavreader · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Government is completely inept! by causality · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Government is completely inept! by kqs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Government is completely inept! by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Government is completely inept! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Name one government who is really prepared for this.

      Israel

  4. All Governments are Pretty Inept at Disasters by haulbag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?