Slashdot Mirror


Australian Exploration Company Believes It May Have Found MH370 Wreckage

First time accepted submitter NapalmV (1934294) writes "Using technology designed to find nuclear warheads and submarines, an Adelaide-based exploration company believes it may have located the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. 'The company, GeoResonance, says its research has identified elements on the ocean floor consistent with material from a plane. Six weeks have now passed since the plane disappeared and extensive searches in the Indian Ocean have failed to locate any wreckage.'"

293 comments

  1. Does it make me a bad person... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that I simply don't care anymore? After weeks of CNN jumping at every bit of trash in the ocean, I simply do not care about this plane anymore. Toss a couple wreaths into the water and call it done.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by magsol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I didn't stop caring; I just stopped watching CNN.

      Truthfully, I stopped watching CNN years ago.

      --
      "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    2. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by sconeu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      CNN's heyday was the First Gulf War. After that, it was all downhill.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that I simply don't care anymore?

      Nah; heck, if not for the curiosity factor (loss of communications, stories about the 'weird' pilot, et. al), most people wouldn't have paid any more attention to it than any other plane crash.

      If anything, that just shows that you don't have a vested interest in the search, just like 6.999 billion other humans.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm Indian and I don't give a shit.

    5. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by OffTheLip · · Score: 3, Insightful

      About the same time CNN decided the news "reader" was the story rather than what was being read. Just because some guy climbs under a table in his hotel room while continuing to speak in frightened, hushed tones does not a great newsman make. Now they are all personalities.

    6. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It also shows a total lack of empathy and curiosity. Typical of white people.

      Around 154,889 die every day. How much time do you spend on each of them? Or do you lack empathy and curiosity?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    7. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there. The American stations are all still too capitalist. BBC rocks, but in the US, the market is limited. My own carrier refuses to carry it -- likely because they get paid not to. RT is nice, but is too Russia-centric. Also, the American news channels are nothing but spin. I want nothing but news. I don't want what YOU think happened. the BBC does such a great job. I'm saddened I cannot get their TV channel.

    8. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After it became apparent the plane didn't mysteriously land somewhere and the passengers were actually alive, I just didn't want to hear about it anymore. There's enough death and misery in the news. Then the South Korean ferry full of high school kids sank. As a parent of two kids, it makes me sick just thinking about that and I haven't even been reading the news since.

    9. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by lbmouse · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree. A few of them will find their way off the island anyways.

    10. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      After weeks of CNN jumping at every bit of trash in the ocean, I simply do not care

      Yes, the degree to which one TV show has either increased or decreased your concern on the matter, that is an issue you need to work on. It should be entirely irrelevant.

      I plug '370' into Google News every few days and read a brief article on what's new. I'm interested to hear what happened, but systems failures are something of an esoteric interest of mine. I haven't had cable or satellite for years and the CNN live stream doesn't have any value to me. Last time I was at a relative's and they had it on it was all about Nancy Grace spouting self-righteous nonsense about some woman who killed her kids and non-stop ads for some sort of deodorant stick that you're supposed to put on your forehead if you got a headache. This told me to actively avoid CNN, not just casually avoid it.

      Today's news search also had Stephen King spouting off about CNN and abandoning all the searches because of CNN's coverage. I just figured that guys who write horror for a living have to be a bit unhinged in the first place.

      Anyway, nobody should allow themselves to be told what to care about by a television.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. They act like Anderson Cooper is some sort of Doc Savage-ess superhero. It's nauseating, tiresome and profoundly uninformative. CNN sucks, and about the only thing it has going for it is that most network news in the US sucks, so it's more like a competitive contestant on the race to the bottom.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by jimminy_cricket · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are not the sentences "There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there." and "Also, the American news channels are nothing but spin. I want nothing but news." in direct contradiction? Is not the very definition of "left-leaning" (or "right-leaning") equal to "spin"? If you desire spin-free news, you cannot also desire that it lean to the left (or right, or any other direction).

    13. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Jazeera?

    14. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not true, really. By spin, I mean how Fox attacks Obama incessantly rather than report. How MSNBC attacks the right for being right. I'm not a liberal. I'm a leftist. I don't want left spin. I want the news reported for left-leaning people on left ideas, left happenings, left progress, that sort of thing. India has this type of news, for example.

    15. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      What's nice about the Kremlin propaganda channel RT? I find it totally useless since it's Putin's version of Fox News.

    16. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there. The American stations are all still too capitalist. BBC rocks

      I love this. I know the way it's written doesn't necessarily imply that the author believes the BBC is left-leaning, but it does come across that way. From your side of the pond I guess it probably is left-leaning by comparison to the range of news media you have available; the BBC charter, however, requires it to be politically independent, and it is monitored by OFWATCH to ensure neutrality.

    17. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      I check the Wikipedia article every few days, or at least when it bubbles to the top.

      I actually find them to be a great source for ongoing events like MH370.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    18. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why are you here? You should be sobbing over obituaries.

    19. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps your mother cares whether or not you watch CNN, I doubt anyone else does.

    20. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's nice about the Kremlin propaganda channel RT? I find it totally useless since it's Putin's version of Fox News.

      A channel that relentlessly bashes its president? I find that a little hard to believe Putin believes in freedom of speech quite that much.

    21. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also implies there is a good right-leaning channel with that statement.

    22. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1, Troll

      Then you want news with a left spin. That's exactly what you describe.

    23. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Bartles · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not a liberal. I'm a leftist.

      Finally, someone gets it and is now willing to admit it. You do realize that leftism requires a strong element of propaganda? You should just read Pravda and never go anywhere else.

    24. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there"
      you are correct.
      You also can not have a good right-leaning news channel.

      Are you looking for news or propaganda you like?

      Honestly try VOA. It seems to work the hardest to not be right or left leaning.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    25. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that I simply don't care anymore? After weeks of CNN jumping at every bit of trash in the ocean, I simply do not care about this plane anymore. Toss a couple wreaths into the water and call it done.

      While 99.9999% of the rest of the world has the luxury of agreeing with you, those who have lost loved ones pretty much think you're one of the biggest pricks ever.

      This isn't some fucking reality contest. Hundreds of lives were lost. At least try not to be such an insensitive dick about it. I know that's hard to do in our disposable society, but it's pretty fucking sad when we dispose of humans in our mind as quickly as yesterdays tweets.

      I sure as hell hope you don't expect to be remembered after your passing with an attitude like that.

    26. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      I think they Jeff may have meant the "propaganda" property of both those channels.

    27. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

      Compassion Fatigue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) is a very real thing. With saturation media coverage of almost any event, it's very easy to become somewhat jaded about events in the world.

      It doesn't make you a bad person; but recognizing what you are feeling and not taking steps to stop this from happening again (eg. by switching off the 24/7 news and going to play a game with your dog outside in the sun) does mark you as a bit of a tragic. We all know the types who live for the next mass tragedy so they can lament the world. Don't become one of them.

    28. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite recent CNN moment, from a few weeks ago, was them sending a reporter to do a "reader's choice" piece on the plight of the pangolin in Vietnam and Indonesia. After writing an extremely long article reporting on how organized crime rings from China are paying farmers to hunt the pangolins and send them to China for use in traditional medicine, the reporter then started promoting a bunch of pangolin-related causes the readers could donate their money to (one was a public service announcement telling people not to hunt the pangolins, and another was donations to a pangolin refuge in Vietnam). The second of those was where the hilarity started.

      As part of the donations to the pangolin refuge, the readers got to name one of the pangolins there. They picked "Sandshrew" (even though the pokemon of the same name is basically an armadillo) and the people from the refuge attached a tracking collar to the animal so they could provide daily "news" updates about the pangolin's status (PANGOLIN WATCH 2014).

      About two days afterward, the pangolin managed to loosen its tracking collar to the point where it fell off, and apparently escaped into the wild. They never found it, and chances are it became dinner for a rich person in China. I'm pretty sure CNN themselves donated money to this thing and were banking on all the ad revenue that PANGOLIN WATCH 2014 was going to bring in.

    29. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the degree to which one TV show has either increased or decreased your concern on the matter, that is an issue you need to work on. It should be entirely irrelevant.

      But what about the degree to which being constantly bombarded with "we think we found the plane", regardless of source, has either increased or decreased their concern? Because that to me seemed to be the real "issue", with the part about where he was getting the news being completely irrelevant.

    30. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. Otherwise you'd have to wipe it with your hand, as it is traditional, and that would gross us out.

    31. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What bothers me most about the saturation of mass tragedy coverage is how the media makes it seem as if such events are threatening to repeat themselves everywhere. This happens every time there's a school shooting. "Are your children safe?!? Tune it to find out how horribly your children may die AT ANY TIME!" When the fact is, your children are not in danger. If you do the math, there are almost 100,000 public schools in the US. There's an average of about 2 incidents of somebody firing a gun at a K-12 school each year. The average school year is 180 days. That means that 18,999,998 school days each year, the bell will ring in the morning, the bell will ring in the afternoon with not a shot fired. On two terrible, terrible days, a shooting occurs. It's awful. A terrible tragedy. But it's so incredibly, incredibly rare that there's basically nothing that can be done to stop it. Banning guns, arming teachers, mental health screening, whatever, is not going to stop 1-in-9-million events. And yet the "debate" will rage in the media for weeks until the next tragedy strikes.

      It's exhausting.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    32. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they butchered the free US streams. Just when we had some reasonable options...

    33. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      im surprised, With what you are asking for, MSNBC would be great. but like you pointed out, MSNBC doesnt have any real ideas, all they ever do is watch fox, who has about 100X the viewers, and make fun of them and talk about how bad fox is. MSNBC news programing (which of the 3 majors actually has the least "news" programming) is actually pretty good. Fox "news" programming is also very good. CNN dropped the ball years ago and never found it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    34. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Try NPR.

    35. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      After it became apparent the plane didn't mysteriously land somewhere and the passengers were actually alive, I just didn't want to hear about it anymore. There's enough death and misery in the news. Then the South Korean ferry full of high school kids sank. As a parent of two kids, it makes me sick just thinking about that and I haven't even been reading the news since.

      Are you kidding? The plane could easily have been ditched in the sea, the passengers and cargo transferred to a waiting ship and then scuttled and sent to the bottom in one piece leaving no floating wreckage. Use your imagination.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    36. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Kaenneth · · Score: 0

      Reality has a liberal bias.

    37. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      more like normal human behavior. With 7 billion people on the planet, Id wager somewhere between 100 and 200K people die daily, (without major disasters), I am not going to get all upset over people ive never met, living in places ive never been dying in general. If that makes me selfish and self absorbed, show me someone who says a prayer for each human on earth who dies every second of every day, and ill show you a liar

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    38. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      and im sure that 99.999% of those 99.999% if face to face with a family member or loved one they would not tell them that they dont care. This is the internet, people speak freely here. you must be new

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    39. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by cusco · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but WTF??? Voice Of America??? The network which is funded 100% from the US Intel community? The network which was **conceived** as a US government propaganda source? I stopped listening when I heard them telling Cubans that anyone arriving in Florida would automatically get a good job and an apartment (late '80s).

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    40. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by blagooly · · Score: 1

      The element that bothers me is the anyone who owns a GM car can call On Star to find out where the heck am I? Or where is my damn car? "Well Mr GM owner, you evidently parked on the other side of the Mall. It is beside the blue Subaru with all the bumper stickers on it"

      But we can't find an airplane? Nobody has mentioned this, asked about it, never mind demanded it. This in the context of this multi trillion dollar War Over Buildings that Got Crashed Into by Airplanes.

      I have clicked into Fox/CNN/MSNBC, none of them ask this. Equal opportunity stupid.

      Why is it still not part of any conversation? Why aren't there some demands for someone's head? Really, trillions on this thing, and nobody thought of it? How about now, lets do that? Call GM. They could use the business.

    41. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was CNN's heyday? Seriously? Charles Jaco and his faked Gulf War I broadcasts. 'Nuf said.

    42. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by pisces22 · · Score: 0

      Anderson Cooper is great, IMHO. Just not as a news person since he is on a shitty news network. His New Year's Eve show is great and I thought he did a good job as host of "The Mole".

    43. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there.
      Now I feel double racist because I can't read the previous 2 comments without chuckling.
      And that's not what makes me a bad person, it's many other things according to my ex.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    44. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I suggest you look again. That was about 30 years ago and since then I think the government has forgotten that it is even there. I also doubt that you are remembering VOA but instead Radio Marti.
      However the simple truth is most people are dumb. They will feel that any news source that does not reflect their world view is biased. One should really pick a news service that does not reflect their views because the person will then doubt everything they say and will check the facts for themselves.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    45. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      No, you are meaning "spin" to mean viewpoint. He means left-leaning to mean issues important to left-leaning people, not "spun" in any direction. He seems quite clear on that point, and insistence on arguing makes the arguer look dumb for not understanding.

    46. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you include that one, you might as well include CCTV.

    47. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      You don't understand the difference between "leaning" and "biased". A left-leaning news channel might have more coverage of electric cars and windmills, but unbiased reporting of each. You don't need a "spin" or bias to better address some ideology. You just get more stories they are interested in.

      I want an unbiased horse-leaning channel. Horse have issues too. That doesn't mean it has to have some pro-horse agenda and spin, but that the coverage is things interesting to horses and fans of horses, whatever that is.

    48. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      "Reality has a liberal bias" : 373,000 results
      "Reality has a conservative bias" : 171,000 results

    49. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by gtall · · Score: 1

      I've listened to and watched BBC news (radio, TV, and web). My own impression is that they have a problem in covering anything in depth. Important facts are left out, obvious questions go unanswered. I still listen and watch them, but I never rely on them for the full story. American news isn't all that different but they do drop the ball in different areas, and they are much more slanted when they aren't doing one-on-one interviews. The BBC one-on-one interviewers are much too enamored with themselves, and that translates into a sort of snarky slant that the interviewee must be lying because it isn't confirming the interviewer's oversized ego.

    50. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      And if they did not put electric cars in the most positive light you would say that it was right winged biased.
      Learning is bias

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    51. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also shows a total lack of empathy and curiosity.
      Typical of white people.

      Take out the work 'white' in that sentence and substitute some other group.
      How does that sound?

      eg.
      Typical of minority people.

      Doing it back to the people you feel are repressing you is no better than they are..

    52. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you desire spin-free news

      Then you better go places and see for yourself. You can't get spin-free news on electronic media. Quantum physics 101!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    53. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Organized leftism? Yes. (But does it really require more propaganda than the American rightism?) Personal leftism? I'm not sure about that. Also, if he wants news, he shouldn't be reading Pravda, he should be reading Izvestia. There's no news in Pravda.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    54. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It pretty much requires state owned and controlled media. There is no freedom of speech or the press.

    55. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      There was a lot of leftism going on in the 19th century without state-owned and controlled media - at least not owned and controlled by any leftist government. If it "pretty much requires" that, you're left with a bootstrapping conundrum. Also, you're apparently confusing leftism and Stalinism. A common mistake, but still an unfortunate one.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    56. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by schlachter · · Score: 1

      news media sucks. they worked my mom up so much that she couldn't sleep out of anxiety for the passengers. i was curious about what went wrong and amazed that they could lose it, but generally didn't give a fuck...as i think most well adapted people should feel.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    57. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by rbrander · · Score: 2

      That's not consistent with the statement (not one you made; your post is internally consistent) that "America is a center-right nation" - a statement that gets broad agreement from all news outlets, I think. Certainly Fox reminds its viewers of that fact (or claim) whenever the R party has a bad day at the polls, and you can find the sentiment in CNN and MSNBC reportage (and many papers) as well.

      If America is a "centre-right nation" - certainly it has a Gini number (measure of inequality) out of step with the rest of the developed West, a military budget that stands out as way different, and tax structures on high incomes that are different -- then reportage that most American news outlets would describe as "left leaning" would be "dead centre" in (almost all) other Western developed nations....which have a total population comfortably in excess of America's.

      I mention other nations because the original post praised the BBC; this also clarifies the one respondent's complaint that the BBC is hardly "left leaning" but takes pains to be neutral. (I *can* get BBC here in Canada, where I would also say that the CBC, CTV, and Global networks here would all be described as "left leaning coverage" by most Americans...but we don't see it that way. I saw Paul Krugman worked over politely but very critically by a panel of three commentators on the BBC, who were all pretty skeptical of his negative views on Austerity; he gave as good as he got, but nobody would call it a lefty spin session.)

      And I have to add that the almost universally recognized as "right-leaning" channel, Fox News, describes itself, not as right-leaning, but as Fair and Balanced - with pretty explicit statements by many of their staff that ALL other outlets are left-leaning so they have to step in an provide a truly factual, neutral viewpoint to serve the public better...but in a few cases (Jon Stewart I think?) their staff have been gotcha'd in conversation stating that they really are quite right-leaning...as a necessary counter-balance, of course, to all that leftism on every other channel.

      Some other posters here seem to be attempting a discrimination between "leaning" as in editorial statements and as in their choice of WHAT topics to cover, purely factually. That is, you can be strictly factual about stories of "voter fraud" or "racist comments by old white men", while giving what many would call extreme amounts of airtime to a given topic, given its impact on the world.

      I'm sure many would call me "left leaning" for stating my opinion that the "Democracy Now" program by Amy Goodman et all is pretty good at sticking to facts - it's their list of topic choices that differs from most other media. It's hard to call the Annenberg School for Communications a biased source, they're very highly respected (and the Annenberg's were the Reagan's best friends), and their dean remarked: "She's not an editorialist. She sticks to the facts... She provides points of view that make you think, and she comes at it by saying: 'Who are we not hearing from in the traditional media?"

      I would say that BOTH editorial positions and choice of topics are both ways to lean; and indeed the news-topic way of leaning is more insidious than outright opinion, because people have their guard up more when opinion is clearly rather than implicitly the source of the content.

    58. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there.

      This is a sad state of affairs, not that there are too many right leaning news outlets - nor that the left leaning ones are not up to muster, but rater, that the news leans at all.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    59. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      No, I wouldn't. Understanding actual limitations is necessary to properly using them and speeding adoption. Complaints of temperature related issues were justified because they were backed by science. Then we got enough information to understand that hybrids are hit harder by cold than EVs. EVs generally spend more engineering time on the battery pack. The temperature normalization in EVs is superior to hybrids. So report on that, and pressure hybrid makers to better treat the battery packs so that we get better performance for all battery-powered cars.

      I don't want bias. I want clarity and honesty.

      Learning is bias

      "Spiders eat flies" is learning and unbiased. "Evil spiders eat innocent flies" is biased (opinion), as is "Spiders eat flies, like mosquitos, that spread disease" (factually correct, but pro-spider bias). You can learn without bias. Even if you only teach with bias.

    60. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      It costs a lot of money.
      Planes rarely go missing like this.

      It's really just a matter of economics. You'd have to shell out $100 grand per plane (some possibly mis-heard quote from NPR weeks back so take this number with large grains of sale), and it would cost a lot more upgrading infrastructures around the world to work with the new systems.

      Then factor in the idea that some countries may not want to put in some better security/tracking of planes in the light of NSA reveals - let alone an american company spearheading this conversion like GM or Boeing; you start to see that for the most part people are willing to put up with a few missing planes a decade (awful, isn't it?) in order to save a couple bucks this quarter.

    61. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't think onstar can find your car if the battery is dead or it is on the bottom of an ocean.

    62. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Indian and I don't give a shit.

      Because you just take a shit in the middle of the street. Can't even be bothered to squat or stop walking.

    63. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I gave up on CNN once and for all when the gyrodynes failed on Mir and they kept claiming the station was spinning wildly out of control (their actual words!). Even when the science reporter pointed out to the anchor man that it was actually only rotating relative to Earth and just once every 90 minutes. The anchor couldn't resist re-iterating that it was "spinning wildly out of control" one more time before they moved on.

      It was perfectly clear that they were not just pushing sensationalism first, but that facts would be ignored as necessary to do it.

    64. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by sjames · · Score: 2

      It does not require propaganda any more than any other political orientation. You're just accustomed to the U.S. propaganda.

    65. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Jazeera is very neutral. No spin, no right-wing bias.

      I believe they transmit in America, if not the websites carry a lot of video.

    66. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there. BBC rocks

      I don't believe the BBC is left-leaning. It's interesting that it is accused of being so from time to time, often by the current UK government. I think that says a hell of a lot more about them and their position on the political spectrum than the BBC.

    67. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that didn't stop you from posting.

    68. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by blagooly · · Score: 1

      Well, with basic GPS and a plane ID, we would know at least where the plane went down, and when. This losing airplanes gag is not acceptable. It is outrageous that there is no solution. As I say above, it does not have to be expensive, or integrate into current systems, just a couple of extra bits of info.

      Those old Nokia phones lasted for weeks at a time. Though, getting a signal from 15,000 feet to the negative is likely problematic.

      Heh.

      "The sound is garbled".

    69. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Ambient+Sheep · · Score: 1

      the BBC does such a great job. I'm saddened I cannot get their TV channel.

      iPlayer and a UK proxy should do you just fine.

      Although the Beeb is far from perfect... but probably far better than what you get at the moment.

    70. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Maybe its a timezone thing, but everytime I've tuned into CNN to get the latest on MH370 for the past few weeks, they've been on live coverage of the Oscar Pistorius trial. Both CNN and BBC seem to be competing neck and neck with the Parliament channel for the most mind-numbingly boring television award lately, and I've ended up coming to appreciate Al Jazeera for continuing to cover real news while the rest are stuck on their single issue gossip-rag stories.

    71. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man!

    72. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Well he isn't wrong. If you are an ultraconservative republican then FOX and CNN both have your interests at heart. Citation: FOX has millions of viewers. They must be entertaining someone.

    73. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even that sucked.

    74. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't conflate reporting and spin. They're not the same thing, even if the encumbent newscasters want you to believe they are.

    75. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how the implications of what you've just said will be totally lost on most Americans.

      TFW the middleground is 'too far to the left'.

    76. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      The 19th century spanned 100 years. It is difficult to understand what region or time period you happen to be referring to. Leftism and Stalinism are both leftist. I suppose an anarchist government would not have state owned and controlled media, but that supposes that the political spectrum is linear.

    77. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Odds alone don't decide whether preventative action is worthwhile. Your odds of being struck by lightning are about 1 in 10 million, and the worst impact is exactly one death, but you're still taught what to do in a thunderstorm, because the cost is low relative to the benefit.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    78. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that I simply don't care anymore?

      Nah; heck, if not for the curiosity factor (loss of communications, stories about the 'weird' pilot, et. al), most people wouldn't have paid any more attention to it than any other plane crash.

      If anything, that just shows that you don't have a vested interest in the search, just like 6.999 billion other humans.

      Yep. I was never any more invested in the emotional drama part of things than I was for any number of other disasters of similar magnitude - that is, a sort of partially-numb-in-a-self-preservatory-way "that's bad, glad I'm not involved, now moving on" response. The search on the other hand, and the tech involved, I find extremely interesting.

    79. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      ...

      They turned the equipment that sends out the GPS coordinates and plane id OFF.

      Do you understand that? The plane DID have a way to tell us where it was ... and it was disabled in flight.

      You can't make it impossible to disable in case it does something like starts causing shorts or fires, which are FAR more likely than a pilot turning it off so he can take the plane down.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    80. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also shows a total lack of empathy and curiosity.
      Typical of white people.

      The minority-on-minority homicide rate is higher than the white-on-white homicide rate, per capita and across the world.

      Think about the implications of those numbers the empathy and curiosity for non-whites.

    81. Re: Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBC world is online along with an app for it. As well, there is the CBC And CTV in Canada with apps for them, then there is Australia's news also available online. It os not a problem to find out the truth of the world if one goes off US cable. All are far superior to the crap that pretends is news in the US.

    82. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      This is an extremely rare case. Usually there is no problem finding the planes. If onstar system lost 1 car out of millions, we wouldn't necessarily need to rethink the whole system, especially when knowing where the plane/car is doesn't necessarily mean you get to save anybody.

      How much money would you be willing to spend per plane

      to upgrade tracking systems to increase the chances of finding some potential lost plane in the future knowing how rare it is to actually lose a plane right now.

      Given that air travel is already one of the safest modes of transportation, I would probably spend that money on something more worthwhile. I would rather save a $1 on the price of my ticket than fly on a plane that allows them to find my dead body more quickly in the extremely unlikely event of a crash.

      There's a reason I don't spend money on tornado insurance on my house. As terrible as a tornado destroying my house would be, the chances are so unlikely that it is not even worth spending the modest amount that it would cost.

    83. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That should have been leaning is biase. Autocorrect strikes again.
      The issue is that if you pick your news source based it it reinforcing your worldview you will never challenge your worldview.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    84. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by blagooly · · Score: 1

      9/11 was only a couple of airplanes.

      Turns out 406 Mhz distress radiobeacon ELT's can have GPS built-in. Also "In addition to standard ACARS messages, airlines can install a system sold by Boeing called Airplane Health Management which provides real-time troubleshooting and allows Boeing to monitor the flight as well as the airline."

      The situation is not acceptable. Especially in light of two trillion spent on the WoT, the swatification of every department of this government, the abandonnment of civil rights, vacuuming up of data, the treatment of folks at airports, drone strikes on wedding celebrations?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... http://www.boeing.com/boeing/c...

    85. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So how would you word it to indicate you want to learn your news from sources that are unbiased on how they report stories, but biased in how they select them to select ones that are interesting to you? You don't want biased reporting, but a biased story selection. I don't care to see reports on the conditions of ants in Africa, and the effects of drought on their diet. I don't care to hear about things that don't affect me and I can't do anything about (lives of celebrities being high on that list). So yes, I want biased story selection. Everyone does. But we don't want biased stories. I get it that you seem to equate any thought in story selection means deliberate manipulation of the content of all stories, but I don't agree.

    86. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there. The American stations are all still too capitalist.

      You don't want news. You want talking heads to tell you that your currently held notions are correct.

      If you honestly want news, then actually, the best places to go are the financial sources such as the Wall Street Journal and The Economist. (Used to also be the New York Times.) These are what people read to make money. They buy them because they need real news, not people telling them they are right, because if they make a judgement on "news" that is wrong, then people lose lots of money and they will then find a place to get real news.

    87. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      No, you are meaning "spin" to mean viewpoint. He means left-leaning to mean issues important to left-leaning people, not "spun" in any direction. He seems quite clear on that point, and insistence on arguing makes the arguer look dumb for not understanding.

      Still not buying it. A station can still vet the news and spin it by showing its watchers only what they want to see. It's a lot of what Fox does. If a left news channel tells nothing but stories on police brutality, even if all true, then the watchers are shown that police brutality is out of control and growing, even if it is actually getting less and less common.

    88. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I really don't see what this has to do with 9/11. Had the hijackers blown up a bunch of buses instead of crashing airplanes, would we be talking about installing bomb detectors in every bus?

      This is a numbers game. The question that needs to be asked is whether the expenditure of money worth the benefit that is gained. "Tell that to the families!" you may cry. If we had unlimited money then sure let's buy everything. The fact is that money represents limited resources in raw materials and human time and effort. It is better if we spend that money in the way that creates the greatest benefit.

      Emotionally over-reacting to every tragedy is not the best way forward.

    89. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by blagooly · · Score: 1

      It is not about the 250 lost, though that is significant enough. I am ticked over the emotional over reacting and incoherence that lead to Iraq, Afghanistan, Homeland Security, TSA, sacrificing civil rights, sacrificing privacy, militarizing the police, endless drone strikes, dramatically changing the character of this country.

      Instead of getting a proper handle on the one thing that was the source of the problem, we have expanded to this fiasco of trying to control and know everything, everywhere, and are now enmeshed in an endless war.

      Cost? We have paid, and will continue to pay orders of magnitude beyond what it would have been required to know precisely what is in the sky, where, and who is flying it. Control, knowledge that we still do not have.

      Not acceptable

    90. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I think the idea that some cheap device installed on a plane is going to completely mitigate the possibility of terrorism is naive.

      Our proclivity for starting wars when we are attacked can be mitigated by either stopping 100% of terrorist attacks or changing our attitude about when it is appropriate to start wars. One of these is hard and the other is impossible.

      Terrorism and crashes in aircraft is already exceedingly rare. Just how well are you expecting this device to work (i.e. how much of an improvement will it be over what we already have)?

    91. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's a lot of what Fox does.

      No, what Fox does is fraud. It has (mostly) unbiased news. But it has lots of opinion shows called "news" that are very very biased, in content and selection. If they had separate channels for Fox news and Fox opinion, they'd be one of the better news channels. But they have their opinion shows passed as news.

      If a left news channel tells nothing but stories on police brutality, even if all true, then the watchers are shown that police brutality is out of control and growing, even if it is actually getting less and less common.

      Not if the content was unbiased. How could you (unbiasedly) cover a falling statistic without ever once mentioning it's a falling statistic? You couldn't. But you presume bias when it suits your opinion.

    92. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by blagooly · · Score: 1

      No, we cannot stop determined individuals. This is a key part of what I am saying. We can never get this %100 security. But what we now have is an effort to have %100 knowledge and control. I am dead set against all of it. So instead of trying to remove every threat, remove all risk and in the process become what we thought we were fighting...

      I do not know how specifically it could be done, but we got beat because planes got grabbed, and nobody knew. The US was ready to shoot down commercial jets. We did not know what was in the sky, who was flying, what was up. Literally. Now we still don't. It should have been the first priority to close that hole. Some means of real time ID and location of the planes, and who is flying them. The military must have something like this already?

      We limit the freedoms of the airlines to the extent that we are going to know who you are, where you are, and where you are going. Everyone else goes along as before. Instead? We are under this secretive microscope, everything they have will be used against us. We have effectively suspended the rule of law, all of us routinely searched and inspected, probable cause, the need for warrants out the window. This big brother virus, born from stupid, feeds on this idea that we can control it, if we just have some more information. It is the road to hell. We are fast becoming what we swore to fight, in the previous 10 trillion dollar cold war escapade.

      And we still have no real time data on the planes in the sky. It is upside down. Going to take a lot of work to turn it back. Unfortunately, It will take obvious abuses I think to get the momentum to do it. Unless we decide to vote for someone who promises to find the crap, and unplug it.

    93. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      And we still have no real time data on the planes in the sky

      We do, we just don't have a sensor that can tell if the human at the controls is a Muslim extremist intending to get his 72 virgins.

      The other problem is that even if we did have such a sensor, we would not know for sure if it was working properly. We can have the ATC ask the pilot if he is a Muslim extremist who intends to crash the plane into a building, but he could just lie and say no. We still have to decide if it is the right decision to blow up an airplane full of passengers using partial information, regardless.

      Given that there are about 87,000 flights in the US per day, how many terrorist hijackings/crashes are you willing to tolerate where we don't necessarily need to react by installing a bunch of new equipment? You said you don't expect 100% safety, so your answer can't be 0.

    94. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Figuring out why a 777 crashed is pretty important for international air travel.

    95. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The element that bothers me is the anyone who owns a GM car can call On Star to find out where the heck am I?[...]

      But we can't find an airplane?

      I'm not sure quite how well this "OnStar" thing would indicate your car's location if it were at the bottom of a few kilometres of water. Have you tried some experiments?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    96. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It's not Fox News. That's what's nice about it.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    97. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    98. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    99. Re:Does it make me a bad person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  2. jim stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is absolutely no doubt that flight 370 was electronically hijacked and flown through the Maldives and on to Diego Garcia. There is also no doubt that there was a plan to use at least the image of flight 370 to crash the nuclear summit in Belgium and blame it on Iran, and that the Dutch intercepted the crash craft before it arrived. This report is documented accurate. There will be a lot here, briefly discussed that you have not seen before. If you were looking for a concise report that will give a clear picture, this sums it all up.

    1. Re:jim stone by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your analysis intrigues me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:jim stone by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      You have a very different standard of "absolutely no doubt" than do I.

      Other than that, I'm sure Tom Clancy would have digged your story.

    3. Re:jim stone by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe this is what they've found?

    4. Re:jim stone by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You'd better learn the secret handshake, then. Otherwise they'll think your a New World Order mole preparing to sell them out to the United Nations and the Illuminati.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:jim stone by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The real question is why did the airline let Waldo and Carmen Sandiego on the plane!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:jim stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they had fake passports, duh!

    7. Re:jim stone by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Other than that, I'm sure Tom Clancy would have digged your story.

      I'm curious - what's your native language? I've not seen "digged" in place of "dug" before....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:jim stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The got in via the wheel wells

    9. Re:jim stone by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It is impossible to post anything on the internet that is so crazy that nobody believe it.
      David's first law of the Internet.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:jim stone by Cragen · · Score: 1

      I am guessing "Boston Bean".

    11. Re:jim stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darn reptoids are everywhere.

    12. Re:jim stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course it's possible! you just need to post it using the government's mind-control array with its polarity reversed!

    13. Re:jim stone by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      > This report is documented accurate.

      Oh, it's DOCUMENTED accurate. That changes everything. Forgive me for doubting you.

    14. Re:jim stone by pisces22 · · Score: 2

      Is that you, McAfee?

    15. Re:jim stone by cusco · · Score: 1

      And it's even CLINICALLY TESTED as well!!

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    16. Re:jim stone by umghhh · · Score: 1

      digged seems to be archaic past tense of dig so maybe GP digged himself in for a few centuries. Alternatively it is used in slang (not mine - englisyshsg is not my primery language anywahhh).

    17. Re:jim stone by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Thank you for sharing our interesting theory. Unfortunately, without incorporating the Knights Templar in some fashion, it simply does not account for all of the facts. Also, trying to incorporate the Dutch simply is a non-starter. If you feel the need for some Benelux connection, you would be better off alleging involvement of a hidden branch of the Illuminati that has been operating sub rosa as part of the royal family of Liechtenstein.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    18. Re:jim stone by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Don't forget UL Listed and CE approved!

    19. Re:jim stone by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      My native language is Norwegian, but I also speak English (which is also my working language), learned a bit of German in school (which is usefull from time to time as I'm working in Switzerland + tons of German colleagues), and I'm currently living in France so I'm trying to learn enough of that to get through daily life. Us Scandinavians are probably somewhat over-represented on english-language internet forums, which I believe is due to being a small and somewhat fractured language group, meaning that we have relatively few forums in our own languages, and a generally high proficciency in English. I think it's quite hard to find someone in Scandinavia who isn't comfortable communicating in English. Unfortunately, that isn't true for France...

      I realized just after hitting "post" that "digged" was probably a strange choice of words - it was a borked translation of "digget" which is slang for something like "really liked". But I never found any edit button on ./, so I just let it be, figuring that people would understand what I meant.

    20. Re:jim stone by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Where can I buy your book and subscribe to your YouTube channel?

  3. For real this time? by ketomax · · Score: 2

    What about the pings they received near the current search area? It was said to be consistent with that of a black box. With all the contradictory news around, I don't think I can believe this until they have proof for sure.

    1. Re:For real this time? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      error of location a couple hundred kilometers off or more is possible with complex thermocline conditions

    2. Re:For real this time? by OneAhead · · Score: 5, Informative

      The pings are relatively hard evidence because nothing else could have made them (except, for the conspiracy theorists among us, a submarine deliberately spoofing the signal emitted by black boxes). Also, they are consistent with the satellite data. Finding chemical elements that are used in the construction of airplanes off the coast of Bangladesh, which is very polluted and in a general area where ships are being scrapped on the beaches? Neither hard evidence nor consistent. Free advertisement for GeoResonance, that's all what this is.

    3. Re:For real this time? by PPH · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes. The next step I'd take is to dip a 37 kHz pinger down to the bottom at a number of locations, measure the received audio signature and build an acoustic model of the area. Then run the actual pinger data back through the model and generate a probability map of where it might be located.

      Only problem with this approach: thermoclines change. And we don't have good models for how they do.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:For real this time? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If the "elements" are iron and aluminum, in addition to the usual assortment of C, H etc. in plastics, then we're thoroughly screwed.

      And they found the comparatively puny airplane in the Bay of Bengal's average depth of 2.6 km? Why the hell aren't we using this super-advanced sensing technology to locate (massive) enemy submarines?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:For real this time? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      You are overlooking the interesting bit, though:

      The team then verified its findings by analysing images from the same area on March 5, three days before the plane disappeared.

      "The wreckage wasn't there prior to the disappearance of MH370," Mr Pope said.

    6. Re:For real this time? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      A better method would have been to use an ROV that had multiple hydrophones and home in on the pings like a missile rather than a towed detector with a single hydrophone and hope you can grid in on the pinger.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:For real this time? by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      OK, if we're going to zoom in to the details, here are some more: the remains of planes that crash into the ocean are normally scattered over a square mile or so; the pictures are completely against expectations. In the unlikely case it did a controlled landing on water (which should be made virtually impossible by ocean waves), it should have been able to emit some distress signal. Not to mention that that area has a lot of radar activity; it shouldn't have been able to get there undetected in the fist place.

      There are plenty of strong reasons to believe it's not it (again, it conflicts with the satellite data and with the pings from the black boxes), so their evidence would need to be pretty hard to be credible. Which it isn't. Ocean waters can be turbulent and chemical traces can pop up and disappear in unintuitive ways. I would even be willing to believe someone scuttled an old airplane there that was destined for scrap - just not MH370.

    8. Re:For real this time? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Aluminium used in aircraft is alloyed with zinc, silicon, copper, magnesium, manganese iron and chromium. It is not a naturally occurring alloy.
      Same goes with the steel they use.

    9. Re:For real this time? by daw · · Score: 1

      You are overlooking the interesting bit, though:

      The team then verified its findings by analysing images from the same area on March 5, three days before the plane disappeared.

      "The wreckage wasn't there prior to the disappearance of MH370," Mr Pope said.

      Um yeah, I think this is easy to explain

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

    10. Re:For real this time? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And they habitually detect that in tiny amounts on the bottom of the sea through remote sensing with aircraft-sized spatial resolution? Not to mention that there tends to be a lot of silicon, manganese, and magnesium in the oceans anyway.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:For real this time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pings are relatively hard evidence because nothing else could have made them (except, for the conspiracy theorists among us, a submarine deliberately spoofing the signal emitted by black boxes).

      "I'll bite..

      Not necessarily untrue. Could there be a more deliberate excersize to analyze the world's sub-marine detection capabilities? Maybe, flight MH370 never existed in the first place. Maybe China is getting in on the f&lse flag thingy now. A f&lse flag operation of this scale is becoming very impressive and still no less unlikely than Sandy Hook Elementary School and the high levels of disinformation we all stomached. All you need is an agenda [emaciating the playing field], a fairly well thought out plan with willing participants and the public funds to carry it out. Oh, if you own your own super computers to analyze errors, false positives and public distrust.. what the hell? "Hey, is that chopper one of ours? Well, get that media out of here NOW!" Who are we fooling here?

      Wars and rumors of wars? Get the ffffffront door.. "

    12. Re:For real this time? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Even better would have been a Los Angeles class attack submarine towing its passive sonar array through the search area.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    13. Re:For real this time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    14. Re:For real this time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  4. What is this, the tenth time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Australian companies have proven themselves to be complete assholes. One after another keeps spouting the lie that they found the plane. Every one of them so far has been proven a fraud. The people here are no better since I’ve never heard a single one of my friends demand that these dishonest business men be put in prison. I am ashamed of my country. We are an embarrassment.

    1. Re:What is this, the tenth time? by FirstNoel · · Score: 2

      Don't be. Australia is an awesome country. Assholes are everywhere. Anytime there is a disaster, the snake-oil salesmen will be out in force to huck their miracle cures.

      --
      "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
    2. Re:What is this, the tenth time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be. Australia is an awesome country. Assholes are everywhere. Anytime there is a disaster, the snake-oil salesmen will be out in force to huck their miracle cures.

      I agree! I will add 2 words, Ivan Browning!

      This is the guy who stepped up after one of the California earthquakes and said "I predicted that" , which he would have actually had to have published or recorded that prediction BEFORE the actual event for it to be a "prediction" per the definition. It is sad that some integrity challenged individuals prey on human suffering, but it happens.

    3. Re:What is this, the tenth time? by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Of all the things this country could (should) be ashamed of you chose that? +10 Imagination Failure

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  5. I'll believe it when I see them bring up something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll believe it when I see them bring up something. Until then I think people with divining rods have just as much credibility.

  6. In Bay of Bengal. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    So it is not going to be Amelia Earhart either. Dang it.

    CNN is hoping against hope it aint true. It would not know how to fight the withdrawal symptoms if "370 vanishes" story vanishes.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  7. So what? by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    Big deal. Courtney love says she found it, too. I think her diagram might be even better.

    1. Re:So what? by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      Courtney Love did indeed spot wreckage. But she was looking in a mirror.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:So what? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      She may have had her moments, but right now you're the one being an ass.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She may have had her moments, but right now you're the one being an ass.

      Most people's "moments" don't last decades.

      He's not being an ass as much as you're delusional about her former or current mental state.

    4. Re:So what? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Yes, decades, five minutes at a time. Exaggerate much? Let's see, there's five minutes of Courtney throwing a shoe at Madonna, another five minutes of her on Letterman, another five minutes of her at Pam's roast... but you might find it challenging to find 87600 hours of Courney footage that portrays her in a questionable mental state.

      Perhaps other celebrity train wrecks have prevented you from keeping up with Courtney. She's actually doing fine, having overcome her addiction problems and stayed clean since 2007. I understand it can be quite satisfying for some people to make fun of drug addiction, or to single out and shame individuals based on harmless yet abnormal or deviant behavior. I just expect more from the slashdot crowd.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    5. Re:So what? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Okay, so my question is...

      Why on God's Green Earth should I care about Courtney Love? Or any other celebrity that makes the news?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:So what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Interpolation. If every clip of her for a month is nothing but questionable mental state, why are you insisting she's "normal" between all the outbursts that happen to be caught on film? That seems the less likely explanation.

    7. Re:So what? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      That's a question that only you can answer for yourself.

      Personally, I care about Courtney Love because she's a human being, to the same extent that I care about other human beings. That's why I don't arbitrarily single her out as the butt of jokes, and take offense when others do.

      I suppose that since her music sold a few albums and she married a famous musician, you don't think she's worthy of the same respect that you'd offer any other person in this world? That a handful of her widely publicized intoxicated outbursts entitle the rest of us to belittle her for the remainder of her life? That it's best for us all to dwell on the youthful indiscretions of others instead of recognizing the potential for people to grow up as they grow old?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    8. Re:So what? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Bad sampling.

      If you honestly think video of Courtney that makes it to MTV constitutes a random sample of her life, you're either terrible at statistics or ignorant of how television programming works.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    9. Re:So what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Not just MTV. If every clip of her taken in that time period shows consistency, why would you assume it to be the opposite? That's illogical.

    10. Re:So what? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Let me break it down for you. Uneventful footage of Courtney Love (or anyone else that's not doing anything noteworthy) doesn't make for good television programming, and is therefore unlikely to be aired. It is more logical to assume that all public displays of hysteria on Courtney's part were broadcast, and that any part of her life that wasn't on TV was either not public or not hysterical. Since she was living a public life during the majority of that time period, and the celebrity-chasing subset of the media was not taking a sabbatical, the logical assumption is that her life during this period was for the most part rather normal and uneventful.

      That being said, let's say you're right and that she's indeed suffering from some debilitating mental illness. Does that mean we should all line up to take turns laughing at her? Is that the society we should be striving to build?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    11. Re:So what? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I suppose that since her music sold a few albums and she married a famous musician, you don't think she's worthy of the same respect that you'd offer any other person in this world?

      No, because she sold a few albums and married a famous musician, I don't think she's worthy of any MORE respect than I'd offer any other person in this world.

      No, I don't really care that Courtney got over her addictions. No more than I care that whoever lives at 985-867-5309 did the same (assuming that that person did, in fact, get over his/her/its addictions).

      No, I don't really believe that she's newsworthy by virtue of being the wife of Curt Cobain, nor do I think she's newsworthy by virtue of selling a few albums.

      Which doesn't imply I'd be rude to her if I ever chanced to meet her. Nor does it imply I'd be especially deferential to her if I ever met her. Until and unless she introduced herself, I doubt I'd even recognize her (but that's true for all but a few hundred people on the planet).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:So what? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you're telling me all of this. If you look back on this thread, you notice that I'm not the one that brought her up, nor am I saying that she's deserving of any more respect than anyone else. I'm merely pointing out that making fun of an arbitrary person for their [past] addiction problems makes one an ass. I think referring to her as wreckage is indisputably being "rude". Additionally, I think alleging that she lacked mental stability for "decades" based solely on three moments of televised [intoxicated] hysteria is both rude and unreasonable.

      I also find it sad that slashdot is collectively laughing at her (5, Funny; really?) but overall dismissing my argument that it's not right to kick someone when they're down or to mock those who fall prey to addiction. You're not the first person to take issue with my posts in this thread, but I have yet to see someone else chime in to defend general decency.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    13. Re:So what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that if she was invited on Letterman, and is a normal, rational, uninteresting person,they'd cancel Letterman for that day, rather than show her?

      I think you are insane. The spread of the coverage may be less, but there isn't a giant conspiracy to hide uninteresting footage of Courtney Love.

  8. hasn't the recent focus shifted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To that boat that sorta, but not completely, sank near south Korea or China?

    Cause I forgot all about that plane.

    1. Re:hasn't the recent focus shifted... by dugancent · · Score: 1

      It's on the seafloor now.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    2. Re: hasn't the recent focus shifted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I hadn't heard that. I saw a few stories on it and it was rotated in the water and they said near 200 people died.

    3. Re:hasn't the recent focus shifted... by Cley+Faye · · Score: 1

      You got it all wrong; it's not a sunken boat. It's a failed rescue mission for the plane.

  9. Tech used? by Alsee · · Score: 2

    Does anyone have any info on what sort of tech this company is using? From the little info in the article I get the impression they are using satellite images? I'm rather skeptical that surface images can pick up elemental signals from the sea floor at substantial depth.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    1. Re:Tech used? by fremsley471 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are using a vary basic form of technology called bullshit. 100%, unrefined. It's impossible to do what they say from 'satellite images'. If they had a large fleet of low-flying aircraft with extraordinarily sensitive magnetometers, it may just be possible. From orbit? Complete and utter bollocks.

    2. Re:Tech used? by IronChef · · Score: 1

      I took a look at their site, and it seems like their technology is too good to be true... it's Star Trek class.

      http://georesonance.com/

    3. Re:Tech used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see that the Images that GeoResonace presents depict what seems to be an "aircraft" in its integrity, which is very odd. Search teams were supposed to find debris.n

    4. Re:Tech used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same technology that would allow them to use satellites to find sunken ships full of gold and other treasure, find nuclear submarines cruising beneath the seas of the world, and find valuable subsea mineral deposits.

      i.e. it's obviously utter BS.

    5. Re:Tech used? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I took a look at their site, and it seems like their technology is too good to be true... it's Star Trek class.

      Well, why else do you think Russia would invade their country?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Tech used? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm not even sure you can use a magnetometer to find a lost aircraft. The permeability of aluminum is very close to that of a vacuum, and almost the same as wood. A quick google search says the permeability of titanium (used primarily in the engines) is about the same.

    7. Re:Tech used? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Their only previous web coverage was related to a scheme to find oil and gas, ostensibly using former Soviet military technology. I think that the investors been taken in by a quack or a con man.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  10. So close to the shore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the Bay of Bengal? One of the most polluted areas of ocean imaginable? The area where ships and planes are scrapped? My money is on a false positive.

  11. Reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight, the company is called Georesonance, their technology is called large-scale remote sensing, and their specialty is locating nuclear warheads? Could they possibly cram any more hoaxy-sounding buzzwords in there? To top that off, if the technology was real, you'd think we'd heard of them before and they'd have loads of imitators. You can hardly blame the official searchers if they don't follow up on this lead, although I guess looking there and finding nothing would be quite public humiliation for the company. On the other hand you've got the whole "We're not saying it's there, we're just saying there's something there" and that they can always tell them to look harder...

    1. Re:Reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In fact, I went and looked on their references, the closest to this task seems to be their claim of finding the sunken hospital ship Armenia in the Black Sea in 2005. A quick Googling on it turns out a 2013 interview of archeologists STILL seeking the ship Armenia. So I think we can safely call this hoax debunked.

    2. Re:Reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They must be crap, they haven't found the metric fuckton of nuclear warheads I keep in my basement against the event of a mutant alien zombie apocalypse. So-called preppers, I mock you :)

    3. Re:Reality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2
      Not only that, note this juicy bit:

      Scientists focused their efforts north of the flight’s last known location, using over 20 technologies to analyse the data including a nuclear reactor.

      How exactly do you use a nuclear reactor in precision remote sensing of metals through two kilometers of water is a mystery to me. Oh, did they say analyze? They must have some kind of nucleonic computer to process the data instead of our ordinary electronic ones, I presume. That would make sense, of course you'd need a nuclear reactor for that, right?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Reality? by Megane · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you use a nuclear reactor in precision remote sensing of metals through two kilometers of water is a mystery to me.

      It's probably got something to do with homeopathy.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:Reality? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you use a nuclear reactor in precision remote sensing of metals through two kilometers of water is a mystery to me.

      With electricity generated by the nuclear reactor, of course! Come on, that wasn't even hard.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    6. Re:Reality? by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Nah, everyone who believes in homeopathy knew the truth right away: you just have to wait a while for the plane to diffuse around, and then even a teaspoon of ocean water will contain enough black box information to solve the mystery. That the "disappearance" hasn't been solved yet is just continuing evidence of the establishment's biases against reality.

    7. Re:Reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because nuclear warheads being lost at sea is such a common occurrence that there are private companies out there that specialize in finding them...

    8. Re:Reality? by Cragen · · Score: 1

      Well, if you gotta use "over 20 technologies", that's just overkill. Less than 5 would be very cool, though.

    9. Re:Reality? by mikael · · Score: 1

      From their website it says they do everything from analysis of geomagnetic fields to multi-spectral imaging and spectroscopy. So I guess they have a satellite or plane that can take photos at different electromagnetic wavelengths (infra-red, visible light, UV, X-Rays) and then match the values at each pixel to known elements. Any change before and after the time of the crash would be worth investigating.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:Reality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So I guess they have a satellite or plane that can take photos at different electromagnetic wavelengths (infra-red, visible light, UV, X-Rays) and then match the values at each pixel to known elements.

      Except that's not how the physics works. Certainly not when the elements you're looking for are separated from you by a thousand meters of water.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Reality? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, you fool! A teaspoon of sea water will make everyone invulnerable to plane accidents. Every homeopath worth his/her salt knows that.

    12. Re:Reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    13. Re:Reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  12. Oops. Our bad... by funwithBSD · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was just some guy and his lady in a 30's prop job on the bottom of the ocean.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    1. Re:Oops. Our bad... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL, Only if Noonan and Earhart both manged to fly west when they should have been going east.. Then there is the matter of the Itasca actually receiving voice signals from Earhart... But hey, we can dream.

      This company is about as credible here as if they made your claim..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Oops. Our bad... by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      hey they could have been carried by currents by now...

      Anyway, there is good evidence where they did end up landing and likely dying already.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Oops. Our bad... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Anyway, there is good evidence where they did end up landing and likely dying already.

      Not necessarily in that order, but I agree. What goes up, comes down. Aircraft that run out of fuel, do not fly very long or far. In this case it is at the bottom of the ocean north and west of Perth.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Oops. Our bad... by funwithBSD · · Score: 1
      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Oops. Our bad... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Earhart likely sank with her aircraft someplace near Howard island. No way she and Noonan where castaways on Gardner island. That was 2+ hours of flying time beyond Howard where their fuel was "low" already. That one is easy...

      But until we find the Electra on the ocean floor, we won't know.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Oops. Our bad... by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      I read it on Slashdot, it must be true!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    7. Re:Oops. Our bad... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I read it on Slashdot, it must be true!

      Yea, I love that one.. Which is just slightly less irritating than the folks that find something on the internet... Slasdot has a bit higher ratio of good information than most websites out there (including ABCNews, MSNBC, Yahoo News etc.. )

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Oops. Our bad... by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows Amelia Earhart is on a planet on the other side of the galaxy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... And the plane is probably on a desert planet with a bunch of metal flying stingrays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

  13. I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage. I mean, none has been found. With the technology we have on the ocean currents something should have been found. Makes me think it wasn't a full fledged crash maybe they landed and then sunk. At any rate i feel for the familys they would like closure as i would.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it had gone down at speed, there'd at least be enough floating debris to have been spotted by now (guessing). Which makes me wonder if a distraught pilot pulled a Sully Sullenberger and landed it safely on the water - and then let it sink intact. Or nosed it into a mountainside. All options make me wonder why a transponder has an "off" switch.

    2. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage. I mean, none has been found. With the technology we have

      To horrendously misquote Douglas Adams:

      The ocean is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to the ocean.

    3. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      But not wonder enough to actually take five minutes to find out why?

    4. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the Vogons destroyed Flight 370?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage. I mean, none has been found. With the technology we have on the ocean currents something should have been found. Makes me think it wasn't a full fledged crash maybe they landed and then sunk. At any rate i feel for the familys they would like closure as i would.

      As light as airplanes are, they are generally really bad at floating for long periods, especially if they have not been properly ditched and didn't stay structurally intact. If you can keep the pressure hull from being breached, they are generally airtight, but if break off the tail or something, you will leave gaping holes and it will sink pretty quick.

      IMHO, This aircraft hit the water, generally stayed together, but was structurally damaged enough to sink quickly. When they find it (and I'm fairly sure they will eventually) it will be in two or more large pieces but largely together. The pieces will be scattered on the ocean floor, perhaps miles apart. It is a total shame the Malaysian government and the airline wasted so much time looking in the wrong places. Now the batteries are gone and it's going to take a LOT of effort to find this thing. But like the Titanic, they will eventually find it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      If this plane was flying without human intervention, it may very well have taken a nosedive once the fuel ran out and the autopilot disconnected. If so, it would probably be crushed in a lot of quite small (~meter size) pieces, like the Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic.

    7. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've got an infinite improbability generator up and running, yeah, that could happen.

    8. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Alomex · · Score: 1

      The posted a clear no-fly warning on the corkboard of their interplanetary local office.

    9. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the Vogons destroyed Flight 370?

      No, just that the radios and beacons were turned off to avoid accidentally retransmitting Vogon poetry.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    10. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      My theory is that the Pilot wanted to go out famous.

      Incapacitated the co-pilot (or just locked him out of the cockpit with the post 9/11 doors) avoid radar while the co-pilot tries his cell phone as a last ditch effort.
      Take out the passengers by climbing too high, and venting the cabin (I don't know if it's possible to vent the cabin from the cockpit like that...)
      Land in the water as intact as possible over a trench, and let it slowly sink, to minimize random debris.

    11. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by bobbied · · Score: 1

      If this plane was flying without human intervention, it may very well have taken a nosedive once the fuel ran out and the autopilot disconnected. If so, it would probably be crushed in a lot of quite small (~meter size) pieces, like the Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic.

      Possibly, but the Air France flight wasn't exclusively in tinny pieces. It was also stalled 13 degrees nose up from about 38,000 feet all the way down to impact which was VERY hard at over 150 Knots (That's almost 200 MPH).

      It is totally unknown at this point how 370 impacted, but the total lack of derbies indicates to me that it didn't hit that hard. Just shutting off the engine and disengaging the auto pilot does not mean it just falls out of the sky. Airplanes glide, some better than others, but they will continue to fly at the speed they where trimmed for. If the autopilot tried to hold altitude then disconnected when the angle of attack went up too high, the aircraft would have been trimmed fairly slow (auto pilots usually work by adjusting the trim tabs). So it's possible it hit the water at a fairly slow speed, not a slow as it would with full flaps, but it could have been near the clean stall speed.

      But this is all conjecture at this point... Got to find the plane and dump the black boxes to find out..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0

      Take out the passengers by climbing too high, and venting the cabin (I don't know if it's possible to vent the cabin from the cockpit like that...)

      It's not.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree. However, as you say, how stable a 777 would as a glider without a pilot in the loop, we don't know. Also, I've always heard that the autopilot disconnects if the engines go out (as it doesn't get power from the ram air generator).

      Also, the AF crash wasn't exacly 1 or 2 big pieces - google and you'll find the images.

    14. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by cusco · · Score: 1

      The aircraft itself actually suicided when a Vogon computer dumped its owner's poetry collection into the flight control computer's data storage.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    15. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      if break off the tail or something, you will leave gaping holes and it will sink pretty quick.

      And the seats and luggage float. So if you did break open the airplane, chances are *something* will be on the surface.

      My conspracy theory is that the plane was hijacked by the Russians to distract from Crimea. They made a black box transmitter (actually, more than one) and scattered them around to help indicate a crash, while making it impossible to locate. All to "invade" the Ukraine with less world resistance.

    16. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yea the AF flight was pretty small pieces, but it essentially hit at a 150Knot vertical speed... But there are some things in the cabin that simply will not sink unless they are contained. I would have thought if you had small pieces like AF, there would have been a lot of stuff floating someplace. Now they didn't start looking in the right place for nearly 20 days, so I suppose it may have dispersed enough to make it very hard to find, but we've not had any confirmed reports of even a seat flotation device.

      I can imagine reasons for an aircraft that is trimmed to slow speed to be going pretty slow when it impacts the water and staying largely together. Properly trimmed, the stall speed could be way below 150 knots horizontal component and if it hit with a similar vertical component as the 777 that landed short in SanFran, it would stay together fairly well like that aircraft did. If you had a nose up oscillation just as the aircraft in the ground effect area, I could see where it impacts the water with a low vertical speed, skipped a bit like the ditching on the Hudson river did. That aircraft was in one piece.

      But this is all just a thought experiment. We won't know until we find it and get the data from the flight recorder.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by bobbied · · Score: 1

      That's quite a theory.... LOL. I sure hope you are joking.

      What's Occam's razor? It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

      Your solution to this problem assumes a LOT of complexity... I think they had an inflight emergency that incapacitated the crew and passengers sometime after the course changed but before they passed their last way point in the flight director. Likely the problem was related to a problem in the forward avionics bay, likely a fire that disabled their communications either directly or indirectly when they started pulling all the breakers to stop the fire. What happened then, is the aircraft flew until it ran out of fuel, then came down.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Transponders have an off switch because there is no need for a transponder while the plane is on the tarmac.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    19. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I had heard a number of Russian hijacking theories when it was in its first weeks, and extending those to fit the facts amuses me. I share what amuses me.

      My personal theory is closer to yours. Climbing is standard to put out fires, and they did that. With all communications and navigation gone, they were going last known heading, hoping to sight something to land on, but never did. Perhaps they managed a near-controlled landing on the ocean, which explains the lack of lots of little debris. It's possible that there were a number of little mistakes that led to a big one. We may never know, but likely we'll know eventually. Only the families really care when.

    20. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One theory is that the pilot tried to hijack the plane (switching off or reprogramming the autopilot), it was taken over by remote control, he tried to shut down all the systems to regain control and the plane glided onto the water. But then there were reports of an air explosion and a plane on the surface of the water.

    21. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is a chemist? Was this Adams guy a meth head?

    22. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by FireFury03 · · Score: 2

      WTF is a chemist? Was this Adams guy a meth head?

      English... learn it some time.

    23. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      He was a Brit. Thus his books, instead of having trucks and drugstores, were populated with bizarre science fiction constructs like "lorries" and "chemists".

    24. Re:I am just amazed at the total lack of wreckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could be automated.

  14. Physics Rules! by BoRegardless · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Using sensors which can pick signatures over time (bother before and after the crash) of various metals, like aluminum, titanium and steel (radiation as in spectrophotomry), sounds like the type of info you need. Getting it out of satellite info from orbit is a bit of a surprise to me.

    What this indicated, from the article, to me is that the military has far higher capabilities than I ever thought.

    1. Re:Physics Rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What this indicated, from the article, to me is that the military has far higher capabilities than I ever thought.

      Turns out tracking metals is a handy way of tracking enemy armed forces.

  15. What I don't get... by jeffy210 · · Score: 1

    is all of those people who are saying that people are searching in the wrong area using uncorroborated data. Is this a last ditch want of hope from people, or is there something seriously scientifically missed? And if the latter, why are they searching where they are?

    --
    ------
    "And may your days be long upon the earth."
  16. *I* may have found MH370 wreckage by T.E.D. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just looked in my trashcan here at work, an I may have found MH370 wreckage. Almost certainly I have not, but still I may have.

    Until confirmed one way or the other, CNN should really send a team over to my office to report on the movements of the neighborhood dogs.

  17. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    CNN's heyday was the First Gulf War

    Agreed. The way they laughed off the overwhelming probability that it was all about oil (i.e. profit) was just brilliant.

  18. HEY! Watch This! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Anybody can die. The trick is to die in an interesting way. Maybe your purpose in life it to serve as a warning to others.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  19. Here's the news story I want to see.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    In light of MH 370, all aircraft are required to stream their black box and GPS data into the cloud. It's amazing how in this day and technological age that this can actually happen.

    1. Re:Here's the news story I want to see.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Technically, it is certainly possible to do.

      Practically, it's too expensive to justify. It isn't like planes drop from the sky all of the time. You would need a number of expensive satellites, additional expensive equipment in the aircraft, computers and other bits and pieces to put it all together. You will probably see some politician suggest this ('think of the children...") but it won't go anywhere.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Here's the news story I want to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cannot a stream all the flight data information for all the aircraft in flight through the existing satellites. It would be nice if they just streamed their location at all times, but I know how this goes. "They" will argue for the next 14 years over what data is critical and not critical, then the year 2038 clock bug will hit and all the planes will fall out of the sky at the same time.

    3. Re:Here's the news story I want to see.... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Well, in this case, much of this information WOULD have been uploaded, had the airline coughed up the yearly fee of about 15K per aircraft. Air France pays the fees, but Malaysian airlines apparently doesn't.

      Everything but the law is already here.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Here's the news story I want to see.... by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      In light of MH 370, all aircraft are required to stream their black box and GPS data into the cloud. It's amazing how in this day and technological age that this can actually happen.

      It exists, and is not terribly expensive. The company I work for uses SkyTrac to track our small fleet of planes and helicopters. It would be more expensive for the larger airlines, since they could have hundreds of aircraft to track.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    5. Re:Here's the news story I want to see.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      A summary of flight data would be sufficient. What's the recording density of a black box? That's generally the standard for "all". A single satellite (designed to this purpose) can handle about 100 Gbps. 3 of them for global coverage (possibly some polar gaps, perhaps Iridium as a backup), and you could handle quite a few flights. How many international commercial passenger jets are in the air at any one time? I think it would be doable.

    6. Re:Here's the news story I want to see.... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      That recommendation is in the report for the AF 447 crash. I'm not confident that anything will change until satellite providers are forced to implement net neutrality instead of using price discrimination to make safety related data cost thousands of times more per byte than in-flight WiFi.

    7. Re:Here's the news story I want to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malaysian didn't pay for having it on this route, at least. The flight was supposed to be within range of ATC all the time and nobody could predict the need to have satellite ACARS on the flight. AF447 was outside ATC range for probably half the flight so it made sense to have it.

  20. Hmmm. On the edge of possibility... by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

    That is close to the northernmost one of the two arcs that Inmarsat deduced the last ping must have come from, so I guess it's not entirely implausible.

    It doesn't seem likely to me that the plane would still be completely intact though, which seems to be implicit in this article. If it fell out of the sky due to lack of fuel, which currently seems the most likely scenario, it would have impacted the water at high speed and would surely have broken up.

    1. Re:Hmmm. On the edge of possibility... by burni2 · · Score: 1

      If you draw a line between the last civilian radar contact and the
      last military contact

      CIVIL 6Â 55â 15â N, 103Â 34â 43â E
      MIL 5Â 40â 50â N, 98Â 56â 27â E

      You would extrapolate to the bay of bengal.

      But: Airplanes when they are out of fuel do not "fall" out of the sky.

      Like airgliders these aircraft have the ability to enter a glide path, if you don't stall the aircraft. Also a water landing where the hull mostly remains intact is possible however as soon as an engine nacelle hits the surface and gets submerged the aircraft would capsize (there is a video from a big passenger airplane crashed in the mid 90s you can find it on youtube)

      I'm not familiar with the autonomous systems of the 777 but for a modern autopilot to enter a glide path as a last option as a failover would be a better idea other than to stall the aircraft and falling out of the sky.

    2. Re:Hmmm. On the edge of possibility... by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      I think that crash you've seen on video was made much worse by one of the hijackers deciding to start a wrestling fight with the pilot just before touchdown.

    3. Re:Hmmm. On the edge of possibility... by burni2 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction checked it out:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    4. Re:Hmmm. On the edge of possibility... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not familiar with the autonomous systems of the 777 but for a modern autopilot to enter a glide path as a last option as a failover would be a better idea other than to stall the aircraft and falling out of the sky.

      Does anyone know how the 777 auto pilot reacts in case of no fuel? I tried in a C172 and P28A, and in both cases, the auto pilot pulled happily until stall.

    5. Re:Hmmm. On the edge of possibility... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      But: Airplanes when they are out of fuel do not "fall" out of the sky.

      Actually, they do. The autopilot strives to maintain a flight level. As the engines fail, the airspeed drops and the plane starts to sink. The autopilot pitches the plane up in order to maintain the flight level. This drops the airspeed further, which causes the plane to sink more, which causes the autopilot to pitch the nose up even more. Positive feedback loop. The plane eventually stalls and falls out of the sky. They demonstrated this on CNN in the flight simulator.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Hmmm. On the edge of possibility... by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with the autonomous systems of the 777 but for a modern autopilot to enter a glide path as a last option as a failover would be a better idea other than to stall the aircraft and falling out of the sky.

      I'm not so sure. I know that the Boeing design philosophy differs from the Airbus design philosophy in that it gives more autonomy to the pilots and has fewer automatic protections. In the case where there are no pilots that might backfire (although I guess ultimately it wouldn't make much difference). In addition I wouldn't expect that a modern autopilot has a reaction built in for a complete engine failure, since it's never supposed to happen.

      My guess is that it would just try to maintain altitude, pitching up further and further as the plane slows down, possibly until it stalled and dropped like a brick, or possibly pitching down at some point to avoid stalling, which would still cause it to fly into the ocean at high speed and a steep angle. At some point the autopilot would probably disengage, since most autopilots are programmed to do so automatically when the plane's attitude becomes too erratic, after which there's no telling what the plane would do but it seems very unlikely that it would calmly glide towards the water (and hit it so evenly that it wouldn't break up).

  21. silly troll, there was no flight 370 by swschrad · · Score: 2

    it's all a made-for-TV movie. you are not an extra, no $100.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  22. Simple solution: Call India for Help! by burni2 · · Score: 1

    From the images I saw the grid they use is pretty fine,
    if shape and grid do really conform each other, then the resolution is approx 100mx100m so the position in this grid is also very detailed. WikiP-tells me The water depth is "4694 " at max and
    2600m average.

    This is not so challenging, also the Indian Navy(submarine+sub hunters) operates in these waters so the best address to transfer the coordinates to is India. If they could check the deep sea surface there with sonar imaging.

    hard Result: Positive or Negative

    1. Re:Simple solution: Call India for Help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of military intelligence organizations didn't have some useful data but cannot disclose it to keep their capabilities a secret. A precise location could perhaps make on of their own search vessels "very lucky" but an information dump for synthesizing with other sources can probably not be made.

      For instance, if all the militaries with sonar networks listening for submarines in the area would combine their data from the time period, distinct sounds from the time period could perhaps be used to triangulate a position - an aircraft crashing into the ocean can hardly go unnoticed by networks listening for submarine propellers. But nobody can disclose what their networks can and cannot hear and where.

  23. Pseudoscience? by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 2

    I'm not convinced about the scientific integrity of this company. What they claim to be able to do sounds very vague, shady and too good to be true and there's a telling lack of concrete facts about how their technique works. The "learn more about GeoResonance technology" page is conveniently "under construction". The brief summary states they use:

    • Earth Remote Sensing.
    • Multispectral imaging.
    • Gamma irradiation.
    • Radiation chemistry.
    • NMR spectroscopy.
    • Proprietary know-how.

    Sounds a lot like pseudoscientific technobabble to me, absent more details. I'm getting a hint of Steorn here...

    1. Re:Pseudoscience? by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      I came here to say the same - the homepage of GeoResonance is *extremely* light on the technology they use, which mostly sounds like some kind of remote NMR. But how do they excite a signal, and how do they detect it? Also, most of the images they show seems to be super-coarse spatial resolution, useful for finding oil and minerals, but not so much a plane on the oceanfloor.

      Finally, even if they had the data, how would they find a tiny signal in their apparently huge dataset which just accidentally happened to cover the area of interest?

      I also found this thread:
      https://www.metabunk.org/threa...

      I also think this smells like pseudoscience.

    2. Re:Pseudoscience? by burni2 · · Score: 1

      Earth Remote Sensing = using sattellite sensors (different sensors)

      Multispectral imaging = common you combine data from sensors that have different spectra, like overlaying an RGB CCC with data from a thermal imaging sensor .. (Predator)

      Gamma irradiation = yes possible, during cold war the US sent satelites into the orbit search for gamma ray bursts (which you would expect from a nuclear test) and they found many because the REDS tested their nukes in far away galaxies, just kidding extra terrestrial Quasaroids were the source

      I cannot however say if you can detect the small amount of primary or secondary gamma radiation from an enclosed nuclear warhead especially when submerged under water.

      Radiation Chemistry = common, C14, isotope analysis etc..

      NMR spectroscopy = exists, however it is ment to analyse
      for molecules

    3. Re:Pseudoscience? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      you left out inverting the power feed to the deflector dish

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    4. Re:Pseudoscience? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Yeah and I may not be a geography whiz but I doubt the bay of Bengal is off Australia

    5. Re:Pseudoscience? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I came here to say the same - the homepage of GeoResonance is *extremely* light on the technology they use, which mostly sounds like some kind of remote NMR. But how do they excite a signal, and how do they detect it?

      The earth carries a huge magnetic field. Much bigger than the magnets in a NMR. As for the exciter - what do you think HAARP is for?

      Heck, it you would have stayed awake in your marketing classes, you'd know this already.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Pseudoscience? by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 2

      Decades ago, my uncle who spent his life chasing one get-rich-quick scheme or another was telling me of his latest investment opportunity.

      He had invested with a man who had built a device that could be pointed at a hillside and provide a readout of the proportions of the various elements within. Considering the possibilities of magnetic resonance, I was ready to grant his story a bit of credence. When he then told me you could take a photograph of a hillside and the same device could make the same analysis, he lost me entirely.

      On a side note, they never did locate the Lost Dutchman mine.

      Now let's spice it up a bit with secret Soviet era technology and a little multi-spectral satellite imagery. Would you like to buy a few shares?

    7. Re:Pseudoscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NMR spectroscopy and some of the non-specified technologies have been used to develop technologies for detecting IED's & non-metallic landmines. That this could be done from orbit is far-fetched, but from low flying aircraft is not outside the realm of possibility. This technology has great potential for mineral exploration. Also what is important to know, what is the depth of ocean in that region.

      It is possible they picked up a sunken ship and/or lost military aircraft.

    8. Re:Pseudoscience? by feedayeen · · Score: 1

      If you put an old photograph in a NMR machine it might just tell you there's silver in them hills.

    9. Re:Pseudoscience? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like they are using satellite sensors to detect elements on the ocean surface, perhaps using spectroscopy and nuclear physics.

    10. Re:Pseudoscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steorn!! Exactly. Same thing I felt when visiting the website. It even has the same feel and layout as the Steorn (Orbo) site. Glad to see I wasn't the only one who felt that connection.

  24. "spin" implies falsehood, or at least bias by Chirs · · Score: 2

    While I agree that it would be best for everyone to get unbiased news across the political spectrum, there is a difference between leftist (or rightist) "news" and "spin".

    To me, "spin" implies falsehood, or at least heavily biased reporting. On the other hand, it would be possible do completely unbiased reporting of news that is of interest to those on the left (or right).

    1. Re:"spin" implies falsehood, or at least bias by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Completely unbiased news is impossible, how do you decide which words to use, or which stories to report in a limited time frame? Look at 'demonstrator' versus 'rioter'. While both might be accurate, the choice of which to use has some bias in it. Some stories will get reported and others will get dropped, this choice will reflect the chooser's bias regarding what is important and what is not. And so on. As the reader/viewer, it is up to us to understand the bias of the news source and consider accordingly.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:"spin" implies falsehood, or at least bias by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 0

      Like how Fox News reported nothing but Benghazi stuff for a while? The right really seemed to care about all the ways Benghazi was bad for democrats?

      I would think that reporting on the same tired shit like exactly what day the president referred the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack) for political reasons, while not necessarily false information, it is misleading people as far as what news actually matters, especially given the amount of actually important news that they never cover.

      I don't think it's possible to report unbiased news especially when you are catering to one side, and especially when you are actually engaged in deciding what is of interest to people.

    3. Re:"spin" implies falsehood, or at least bias by mikael · · Score: 1

      I wish they wouldn't use words like groundbreaking vs. controversial when describing protest marches (Million Moms march = groundbreaking, Million veterans march = controversial). Even the stories that are dropped and reported also have biases. One particular shooting can have a swarm of news channel helicopters circling like vultures. Another shooting will just be as eventful as cricks chirruping around a pool at night.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  25. There's a reason for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there. "

    Because left-leaning thought is essentially intellectually bankrupt. It generally is poorly thought out, and the arguments boil down to an undefinable "fairness" issue. No facts or figures, just feelings and emotions.

    Might as well put religious people in charge of the government. They are at least are honest that their thought process comes from faith, not reason.

    1. Re:There's a reason for this by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like the right-leaning news for 10 years couldn't go 5 minutes without blaming Nancy Pelosi for autism, cancer, and global warming (which doesn't exist, but if it did, it would be her fault). I worked in a place where everyone around me listened to talk radio. It was like the Nancy Pelosi hour (only it lasted all day).

  26. Well, that's one way by xednieht · · Score: 1

    To get some free publicity.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  27. The most interesting point - Different area by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    This is really interesting from the standpoint of, if it is true it's nowhere at all near where they are currently searching - where a ping was detected.

    So if this new position turns out to be correct, what was that ping?

    Also very interesting this information was discovered two weeks before the batter on the pinger ran out, but it doesn't seem to have been followed up on.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The most interesting point - Different area by jrumney · · Score: 2

      So if this new position turns out to be correct, what was that ping?

      The Chinese saving face after they'd announced a few days earlier that they'd detected a ping, and noone else that looked in the same area had found it.

  28. E&C App needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Around 154,889 die every day. How much time do you spend on each of them? Or do you lack empathy and curiosity?"

    I lack an Empathy and Curiosity Management App to efficiently direct my empathy and intellectual assets while integrating efficient informational web searches, so I

    respond viscerally to the emotionally evocative clickbait proffered by infotainment merchants such as Dicedot.

  29. Wars, Today's Technology and Flight MH370 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two world wars, and countless other land to sea to air battles have littered the oceans with thousands of aircraft, debris and wreckage consistent with what they are calling an airliner. If they've found it, go get it by all means. Its incredible that this aircraft went missing in broad daylight with today's technology to begin with. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that man isn't as smart as he thinks he is or maybe we just aren't used to using all this technology for peaceable endeavors.

  30. Pretty sure I snipe from it on BF4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just load up BF4, Naval Strike. It's sitting in the middle. Can't miss it. Right next to th _____ {You have been killed by UrMaMa}

  31. Terms by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    As someone from the GIS and remote sensing community either their terminology is weird, or whatever specialized focus they have is significantly different.

    Remote Sensing as I know it usually revolved around satellite imagery or aerial photography. "Earth" Remote sensing? Isn't it all unless you are looking through a telescope at space :) Seriously could be something to do with seismic or magnetic sensing, but I am pretty sure there are actually terms for both of those things that are not called "Earth" Remote Sensing, but it could be they are trying to dumb it down for a public website.

    Nothing too exotic about multispectral imaging. From my experience it is usually used in satellite imagery using false colours to try to illuminate something. Usually like vegetation, lack of vegetation, or water (Or really anything a certain wavelength of detection bounces off of that other wavelengths do not).

    Gamma irradiation? Hulk Smash? I know it is used in a passive sense for some astronomy type detectors, though I think usually the idea is to avoid it as interference in the collider sense. irradiation sound active, which doesn't really seem reasonable to me, then again maybe they are just being cute. When I look it up, seems to be used to kill organics, typically to sterilize medical equipment and food.

    Radiation Chemistry? Is that a thing? I thought radiation was energy, not an element. Only context I can see is the study of the effect of radiation on chemistry, like radiation sickness. The only likely thing I can think of would be something like carbon dating which relies upon measuring the ambient radiation content and has something to do with when we first introduced radiation in the form of nuclear testing to the world. Perhaps they are just trying to have "fancy" carbon dating.
    Edit: Also apparently a thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
    Not sure how it applies to this situation, but it could be it is just a diverse company that does many things.

    NMR spectroscopy? Apparently it is a thing, because I looked it up. The Internets say:
    http://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/...
    Which looks awfully complicated.

    Proprietary know-how. Which is my personal favorite. Sounds like something you put on a shitty resume. Might as well said "Street Smarts!"

    1. Re:Terms by PPH · · Score: 1

      Could be something like neutron activation analysis. But from space? And through that much sea water?

      That is one technology that can reveal the existence of nuclear materials (as in nuclear warheads and submarines, like the summary says). But if someone actually has this technology working this well and at that range, my guess is that it would be classified beyond all belief and wholly controlled by various defense departments. The impact that leaking tracking capabilities of this sort to various operators of nuclear submarines would be a strategic game changer.

      If this sort of thing does exist, I'd expect a defense department to manufacture an alternate story for how the wreckage was located.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Terms by jythie · · Score: 1

      Considering they are using commercially available satellite images from other companies and 'processing' them to make these finds, I suspect they do not actually have the technological capability they claim to. I would go further and suspect they do not have the level of sensing technology that we already know about. It is more likely they are some small shop using existing images to try to scam money out of investors and other companies with just another dowsing rod dressed up with fancy science sounding words.

  32. The Obsession with Death by Sanians · · Score: 1

    There's enough death and misery in the news.

    It's not just the news, it's television in general. The most disgusting are the shows that detail real-life murders, complete with actual crime scene photographs, as if when someone is murdered, their unfortunate death should become some corporation's profits and everyone else's entertainment.

  33. Images same as Shroud of Turin by kencurry · · Score: 1

    Look at them carefully; if you stand back and squint a little you can make out Jesus' face in the image.

    These guys are definitely onto something...

    --
    sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  34. "capabilities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "military has far higher capabilities than I ever thought."

    Or some subcontractor is trying to scam their way into a lucrative military contract with some magical "technology" that can spin straw (low resolution satellite data) into gold (missing aircraft no one else can find). Kind of reminds me of those cheap novelty golf ball finders that someone repackaged into "bomb detectors" and sold to the UK for millions.

    1. Re:"capabilities" by Xest · · Score: 1

      They didn't sell them to the UK, they sold them to Iraq. The guy was from the UK.

  35. Free Speech TV? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1
    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  36. ironic by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    "Using technology designed to find nuclear warheads and submarines..."
    Using technology designed to check in at Denny's on Four Square, they could have known where the plane is more than once per hour or whatever the hell.

  37. wat by Dak_Peoples · · Score: 1

    The location doesnt "agree" with the Inmarsat satellite pings.

    --
    This is my signature.
    1. Re:wat by joh · · Score: 1

      These pings (including an unscheduled "incomplete" one that Inmarsat says is consistent with the hardware rebooting after a short power cut, which is to be expected when the fuel runs out on an airliner) as well as the few signals of the blackboxes are the ONLY hard evidence we have. It's far better than nothing though and we would have nothing if the Inmarsat hardware on that plane wouldn't have pinged the satellite with a data-less handshake every hour despite the airline not subscribing to the engine monitoring program (in which case we would have detailed data).

      Everyone with the slightest scientific inkling should know which trail to follow here. And everyone with the slightest commercial inkling should know how to use that golden opportunity to get you into the news. And everyone with an axe to grind will know how to use that plane to further his case, whatever it may be.

      Sometimes I think if the pilot of that plane cunningly vanished it along with the crew and the passengers and his own live just to spite his government and create a mystery he nearly perfectly succeeded. And without this tiny technical detail of the satellite handshakes we would have not the tiniest chance to ever find out what happened. Just imagine that. The perfect meme bomb.

    2. Re:wat by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Maybe the aircraft is on the bottom of the Indian ocean, but not totally flooded. It might move around with the current, so the pings would be picked up in different locations, but the aircraft would have moved by the time the ROV went down.

  38. -1, Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is there any lean...in a NEWS channel FFS?

  39. Don't assume that "caring" about this is "good" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you mean is that you - just like the rest of us - aren't all that fascinated by this anymore. We in the West sleep just fine if our personal lives are OK even though whilst we sleep, more people than were on that flight will have suffered a worse death than those passengers - burnt as witches, stoned due to sexual orientation, died from starvation, from snakebite with no medical care, from diseases that were eradicated here long ago, fighting as child soldiers...

    And many of those are causes we actually could "care" about since there are a few organizations like Doctors Without Borders worth donating to since they actually do a decent job of helping those people. Watching the news - let alone speculating about MH370 on Internet forums - does nothing to improve the chances of actually finding that flight (even the crowd-sourced satellite image analysis is of questionable use it seems) and the benefit of finding it would just make it a little bit easier for the loved ones of the passengers to find closure. The only people actually doing anything about finding it are the professionals doing the searching. In the third world "finding closure" is an unfamiliar luxury when your own survival forces you to just go on living.

    I'm not criticizing anyone but just trying to inject some rationality into an emotional reaction. Oh, and I have probably been more guilty than most of being fascinated with this since I've always been fascinated with aviation and hence both good news (such as successful test flights) and bad news like this result in me absorbing all the information I can get (and facepalming at most of the mainstream reporting).

  40. Scam ! Definitely a scammy hoax... by advid.net · · Score: 1

    A search on their patent refs leads nowhere except to their site.

    This remind me the Great Oil Sniffer Hoax

  41. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft

  42. Simple really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They used a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o

  43. And by NewYork · · Score: 1

    We earthlings found that there was water in Jupiter 300,000 years ago

  44. If true... by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    If this is true it has vast implications for surveillance. ...and more

    No longer will a camouflage net hid anything.

    Deep water will be less valuable for hiding submarines.

    I doubt the jump media has made but we do need
    better deep water survey and exploration tools.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.