Interesting article about how trying to use telephone to warn of the tsunami was the wrong strategy:-
Then there's the other half of the problem: critical information getting stuck in bureaucratic, 20th-century back channels. With plenty of time to save thousands of lives, seismologists working in Hawaii, Harvard University, Australia and Thailand had some inkling about the destructive tsunamis moving across the Indian Ocean. Those scientists wanted to get warnings out. They tried calling officials in affected countries but didn't have the right phone numbers, or no one picked up.
Charles McCreery, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's center in Honolulu, told Reuters: "We don't have contacts in our address book for anybody in that part of the world." Phone calls! Address books! How sad is that? Even if somebody answers, telephones are one-to-one communication — a terrible waste of time in an emergency.
The Net has brought one-to-many communication to everyday life: blogs, Web pages, bulletin boards like Slashdot, even e-mail lists. Any Net user can post so millions of others can see it.
Other Net users who see the post might e-mail it around to people who, in turn, post it other places. In that viral way, a piece of vital information can reach millions in the time it takes to hard-boil an egg.
If seismologists had flung their warnings to the Web when the phone calls failed, some kind of alert might have reached the beaches of Phuket or Tangara — or perhaps the CNN newsroom, where a reporter might have put the story on a channel that was probably being watched in a number of resort hotel rooms.
The downside of such open communication is the possibility of fraud. Someone clever could, perhaps, send panic up and down a coastline. But the upside of using 21st-century communication for emergencies is too great to ignore.
But even if the internet was used, it wouldnt have been quick enough.
Posted by: James at January 7, 2005 08:07 PMInteresting article, but I think the real problem was dissipating the message locally. How many people would have been lounging around watching CNN in their luxurious hotel rooms anyway? Or reading reports on the net? Certainly none of the locals out doing their daily business.
Posted by: Adam at January 9, 2005 03:49 AMYou only need one or two people to be on line or whatever to get the message out.
It'd certainly have worked in say Phuket, but even outling areas of Indonesia often have internet nowdays. And since computers are a valuable commodity there's always likely to be someone on line.
Posted by: Giles at January 10, 2005 12:26 PMhydroxycut hydroxycut
Posted by: hydroxycut at July 28, 2006 06:58 PMalprazolam alprazolam
Posted by: alprazolam at August 2, 2006 08:36 AMi c
Posted by: Restaurants at November 10, 2006 11:45 AMgood one
Posted by: Prepaid Mobiles at November 18, 2006 12:10 PMU never try it before --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]
U never try it before --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]
Info about all!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy generic biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy generic biagra[/url]