BadgeIsBack

So...at the moment, as reported, we don't know where the plane is but some people who have more experience than us are looking and some people are investigating. It's called concurrent activity and it's not like Crime Scene Investigation where a bloke has a Pc attached to a satellite and a joystick. News agencies and airline are telling us stuff. That is all.

BadgeIsBack

They are looking for the plane! We are speculating because the agencies have been speculating and releasing info as it comes to light, as Gerry says.

People want answers but they have to wait or be prepared to get ones that seem to confuse, as the situation develops: until we know and we might not know for years...

BadgeIsBack

It's all been done for me mate! I am hoping that all this info is going to the Chief Investigator...(I am hoping a joint agency to control this has been set up...)

I am not conflating what comes out of the Malaysian PR machine and what gets into the media with the activities of the investigation.

All the things that come out in the media are just the sum total of the things that have been discovered and have been reported on so far. It is just leads. You don't have to watch TV to know that!

koalakim

The age we live in we always want instant answers to everything. Can you imagine the WWI with mobiles and internet? It used to take days for news to get through back then, people had to be patient. We're not patient these days, some stuff takes time.

With air incidences it's a mystery unravelling, there is usually a chain of events which leads to the accident/incident at the end. It takes time to put these pieces together and of course this particular situation has become quite unique. Airliners have gone missing in the past never to be found but not in say recent times, partly because we have technology these days.

When I worked on a magazine, when an incident happened the rest of the press were hungry for advice and "what is it?" but the guys there could only go on the rest of the info every one else had but could put into context and say what the scenario might be based on the info available. For instance, Lockerbie...no distress signal, aircraft explosion reasonably obvious it was a bomb as so instant. With MH370, goes off radar, first thoughts crash but no distress call, no wreckage but then no distress call could be lack of oxygen like Helios. So no wreckage, mmm what else and it's like any detective or forensics you have to look at the facts you have and then start from there using the Ockhams Razor theory.

What started out as a seemingly simple possible air crash has become something way more complicated. Maybe the Malays are having trouble handling it but they are probably as baffled as everyone else.

The worrying thing that if it is terrorism and not the crew then this takes it to a new level. Unless there was someone or something on board that plane that is valuable.

BadgeIsBack

+1

I accept that ipso facto, that the Malaysian machine might seem incompetent with the benefit of a round 24-48 hrs of hindsight. But anyone can be made to look incompetent with the advent of the 24 continual news cycle. This business of change of course - they were clearly on to this before it was reported - but unfortunately after the first wave of resources were tasked (as per some sort of pre-plan even where people search the last know point of contact and remember people use binoculars to search not google Maps). And there is a delay when switching resources/tasks over multi-agencies. They don't show this in the movies.

As for the loved ones - as I have said - I would be taking some solace - some solace - in the fact that they might still be alive. A better outcome - and hope! than when wreckage is found within 24 hours.

The best scenario I would be praying for is that the pilot and plane is on the tarmac somewhere with a team of people getting ready to storm a terroist camp before rescuing the people onboard...

I would hope that the Special Forces/joint CSI 'crack' team of superheroes have googled a picture of a weapon so that they know exactly how it works...because everyone else has!

GarryP

Actually I have an interest in this, and similar, because of a hat I used to wear. Bear with me:

A point I tried to make to some senior types is their approach to 'news' and their view of 'public' were going to run headlong into the changes the internet was bringing.

From the 'government/establishment' standpoint there was, not to put too fine a point on it, an incredibly paternalistic viewpoint. The talk was of only releasing information after everything was done and dusted, telling people 'what they needed to know' and 'not spooking the prols'. It was very much the idea of crafting a story 'in the fullness of time'. As such they looked with ire on 'news' outlets - who would run with 'speculation' and wouldn't necessarily follow the approved line. They were told, pretty bluntly, that they should 'play by the rules'.

The news reporters however were looking over their shoulders at the internet, and their declining circulations and viewerships, and seeing irrelevance coming for them. It wasn't just the need to fill the available space (they'd been doing that for ages), but that it was only the old, dumb and out of touch that were prepared to wait for an approved story, or believe it. Everyone else wanted the details and to make up their own minds. The news types saw the establishment as hopelessly out of touch with where society had got to - and being blindsided. You'll notice that by now that battle has been won - the reporters basically copy what they internet is saying, usually after dumbing it down.

The internet has created a pretty sizeable percentage of 'connected' types. You get the occasional ill informed comment about 'geeks', but the reality is and was that it connected a whole bunch of sharp cookies, with subject matter experts, and every public data source out there - the future movers and shakers, born in the age of ubiquitous information.

They were used to running, connecting and communicating at a pace that leaves both the other two in their wake. And both the other two, to the degree they understood this, were kind of fearful at being sidelined. So both tended to hang on to their 'privileged sources' mentality as hard as possible.

And part of the reason for this is when you see the organisation, planning and making sense of these 'events' from the inside - you see how 'not good' they are. 50 year olds who have risen to the top levels in their organisations get to be 'in charge'. But they have rings run around them by one of your 'geeks' in a bedroom, connected to 1000s of others and able to deal with the complexity - having grown up with it.

That all matters for two reasons - the amount of data that those 'geeks' can call on, even with the roadblocks put in place by the establishment and news sets is increasing - fast. It can and will flow past the roadblocks - and uncover just how poor, slow and process driven most of the decision making is. And second, eventually that hierarchical, slow, 50 year olds structure is going to come up against 'bad guys' who are of the 20 year old connected generation, have access to all this data, and have a plan. In real time situations - they will win.

Maybe you should do less dismissive 'wondering about this internet generation', and more wondering at the significant generational shift that's taking place under the surface. As those connected types grow older, and have more experience, they will shape the world - and it will be a very different shape to the one we had in the 1990s.

BadgeIsBack

Actually I sort of have an interest too - and agree with you - but also disagree. I also work in an area where knowledge is connected. It's called IT and has been around along time!!! And it is a good thing as you say.

Unfortunately high-connected work still needs to understand the human condition - and I notice we are losing this. There are not a lot of people who do both - actually. The people who provide the connectivity are too focused often to see the big picture. It is people who understand people, and the human condition and can use, direct and understand all this connectivity that will be
valuable - not the geeks who won't perhaps inherit the world after all!! It is an interesting one and it is all playing out now. In any case, and I cite one example: I see that the people doing some of the hard work don't even speak the language of the people directing it or using it - globalisation - so infact we are not improving : we are going backwards in some ways.

The fact message boards are alive with speculation tells me that even in a connected age people don't understand people and organic processes. IT has never solved that one and we spend a lot of time trying to. The people who will inherit the world will be articulate individuals with vision who can harness stuff - there is infact, in my opinion, no change there! All that has changed is that people with vision are also now connected. It's a win win.

To go back to your example :those 20 year old in bedrooms are connected and fast - but don't have experience and they have a habit of showing this.

GarryP

I think maybe you are confusing my reference to 'connected' to imply IT types alone. I'm not, I'm referring to the totality of those connected and happy to live/work/etc. in that world - which includes every type under the sun (arty, social types most certainly included). The gestalt of these people is where things are - able to integrate across these types of people/geographical boundaries/etc. when needed.

And the 'geeks', or more accurately, those who are happy and confident in that mindset, are already grabbing their share of world.

Oh, and when was the last time you picked up a newspaper? Or trusted a politician to speak the truth? As I said earlier, one of the things this and similar events points up is the gulf in perceptions between those who think they should wait and be told what they need to know; and those that wouldn't even dream of doing so.

Oh, and those 20 year olds was 10 years ago. They are now 30 year olds, more experience, more guile, and more of them as they begin to crowd out the geriatrics.

BadgeIsBack

Garry - BTW - reporting - I agree that the battle has been won and that reporters are a dying breed. We all know that! But someone still has to dessiminate and distribute to channels. But we still need commentators and analysts and that is why I still buy a newspaper once a week. Some of these commentators have years of experience and learned skill which you can't google.

As for the 'them and us' theme I see you develop from time to time - (and I see it in the UK press and it fascinates me in ways I did not previously realise) in a final twist of irony - I don't see the elite or the establishment, or controllers, dying for precisely this reason:

the masses have been given so much information and playtime that they are in danger of succumbing to it - and being mindless consumers. In a final twist - yes - the elite and the establishment will continue to control because they can continue to use their power- because history shows us a few do things better than the rest - or can maintain it via funding or relatively closed networks. This hasn't changed - it's getting worse! And China is copying that model.

Marx used to talk about religion being the opium of the masses - and people now talk about how everyone is so enabled now, globalised and richer: I don't think we are richer - we are increasingly just happy consumers - if you subscribe to a them and us view of the world - it is precisely what the 'controllers' needed after all. If we are obsessed with the latest version of a DVD player or a TV show we are kept away from real debate... even though we are supposedly connected.

Happy to debate!

BadgeIsBack

I pick up a newspaper by choice once a week. I see your point about it not just being IT - but IT supplies the connectivity, I suppose.

As for the old - of course they will be replaced. Industries do evolve. But I am not as cynical about the old as you are. Remember that the old, or older might add value where the young bring the connection - it's the age-old value proposition. Remember the young have a habit of showing their immaturity - I see this all the time in the workplace. Hours of work is undone by a silly comment. We can't completely discount experience and I still think that a combination of the two is a potent application. Also remember the older also have the same access to tech as the youngest - it has somewhat levelled the field.

This gulf about who wants to know is irrelevant if noone does. And if the stuff that people do know is taken from tabloid sources with little depth of understanding. And these are the things we want to get faster solving - and we have come along way in 50 years.

GarryP

I know, but particularly in news, years of experience is only useful if you can usefully bring it to bear immediately when needed. Frankly the analysis I've seen in the last 5 years has been poor - partly because these 'experts' are toeing that establishment line, and partly because many of the real experts have been either sacked or dumbed down in the rush for ratings. Most of the real connected journalist experts have become lobbyists or PR people it seems.

My view of the establishment is coloured by actually dealing with them ;-)

And whilst you are right, they are grasping at power more and more firmly, in the end it all collapses because they aren't changing, they are trying to stand still.

It's an implicit, abstract thing, but I get the feeling we are moving to effectively compartmentalise and ignore them. They get bypassed, people don't bother voting, don't listen to them, they certainly don't respect them. Eventually (and this is the bit I don't think they understand) those people simply say "no". That's particular true if the wheels come off; you can have all the CCTV cameras you like - it's nothing compared to 'trust'.

That's very much the Adam Curtis view - but I feel that even this is past history now. Its a mindset shift.

Again, it's mindset. Understanding, not data. Hell I try to keep up with the front of the wave, but I see behaviours that make me go "huh?". Its an emergent thing.

Oh, and I've seen weeks of work undone by a stupid comment or behaviour of the unconnected. In fact it's probably something of a rule - the type that goes "I don't like that, how can we get it removed from the internet..."

BadgeIsBack

You are right about these highly experienced lobbyists - that is how I see them too. When I read an editorial or a column in a newspaper, I don't read it to get the answers - I read it to get the context and get the questions...so even if I disagree or have allowed for bias, I still get some value from their work. If you don't read the right stuff, you can't frame the questions or never get past the lay stuff. The layperson tends to make a lot of noise and ask a lot of questions but they don't get the questions right and then jump up and down when they do get one answer. (Perhaps this ties in with my motive here?) It never ceases to amaze me how much noise the masses make about not much.

I believe we can ignore all silly comments - but my main point is: do not forget the 'organic' factor. This is where the 'controllers' do well - that's my life experience. Remember that the controllers are quite happy for the workers to do the work and provide the connections. This hasn't changed. In fact controllers are good at adding value and will continue to be good at this. Where perhaps we disagree is that I feel the people providing the connections will get busier and busier doing that. (More specific and less generalised- I have seen IT get more complex not easier). Where perhaps we disagree is that I still see a place for the controllers.

Where the meek/geek inherit the world is when they can do it all, and influence (and/or be) a controller (get Venture Capital etc). Where perhaps we disagree is that I like the establishment and feel comfortable with them. But the secret is to talk to them in their language or be one yourself. A member of the establishment can smell fear or 'chippiness' - and essentially laugh - and that's a big mistake the non-establishment make. You can have it all. I'm getting very philosophical here!

ozzieeagle

One thing occurs to me with you two chatting above.... This crime/event/situation seems inscrutably Asian... Wont T'net have a far more Asian flavour to the point of dominance over the next few decades. ?

If this crime is Asian, could it be merely a case of showing the Malays up with "Bad Face" ? Political motivation being the Key ?

BadgeIsBack

The controlled showing up the controllers!
Maybe...it's an extension of demonstration...

With an Asian twist.

BTW this whole 'simulator in a back room' is a red flag for me and er anyone who I believe to work and operate safely in a similar line of work....my brother in law spends his time off duty resting and recuperating before captaining for his airline...
Before his flight he sits down in the garden and goes through simple notes...

a blog I saw today had a typical Generation Y counter response: doesn't a simulator at home show diligence: hard work? Ie We all need to constantly refine and work and go at it constantly...no letup...Go Go Go

I say to an airline captain: go home and rest. We want you to manage the plane not exhaust yourself....it's the organic factor!

GarryP

I think you are thinking of it a the greasy pole, with the meek clawing their way to the top. I'm not sure that's that way of it. More the indian rope trick erecting itself to the side, and then cutting the greasy pole off and putting it in a museum, complete with climbers.

How's that for an abstract picture.

(Oh, and PS, the simulator at home is a very common thing for pilots - they are the type that are there for the love of flying - its not for the wages, that's certain).

Yes and no. The bit I was getting round to is the connected have more commonality within themselves than they do with the original culture. They are by default global in nature - and to get on they need a fairly compatible cultural set. Think of it like bankers or vulture capitalists - even though they come from different cultures, and live in different countries, they are much more banker first; citizen second.