Twitter in Mumbai

Micro-blogging is starting to come of age as a legitimate communication mechanism. The question  is whether it would have been better or worse? Had more folks received warnings, would more have escaped? Or would terrorist had known or utilized, would their attacks have become more potent?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/28/mumbai-terror-attacks-india-internet-technology-twitter

Somali Pirates - A Question of Synchronization

This is  a hard issue with many ships trying to stop small boat attacks against big targets. The problem is that there are too many types of countries with warships trying to do the right thing in the same area. How do warships that don't normally trust each other share information to fight a common enemy?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=af9WnV_oByg8&refer=worldwide

What if there was no email?

Mr. McAfee proposes the mental simulation of what organizations would go through if blogs, wikis, and other "platform" based communications were created before "channel" (email, instant messaging, texting) were invented. 

http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/a_technology_flip_test_introducing_channels_in_a_world_of_platforms/

The thought that stuck in my mind: 

If this was the case, why would organizations want email? If not, will the end result (where email is understood the same as other, newer mediums) be minimal email? 

The first problem with fighting as a network is becoming a network. Obviously, emails are a little more point to point, rather than typically hub and spokes. What would happen if an organization turned off it's email? How we would we fight? Would a hierarchical organization survive inside such sharing?