Airplanes Cause Accidental Cloud Seeding 151
An anonymous reader writes "A new study by a team of U.S. researchers found that commercial and private jetliners may be contributing to a form of accidental cloud seeding. When an airplane flies through a cloud, its propellers cause the expansion and cooling of the air behind them which can cause water droplets to spontaneously cool and crystals to form. The aircraft sets off a chain reaction in the cloud that can continue on for hours after the plane has passed by. The researchers also discovered that this phenomenon is more common near the poles, where many of Earth's weather monitoring systems are, and it could be skewing data that research teams are gathering in those areas."
Not new news (Score:5, Informative)
Examples: http://bit.ly/lAxNQO [bit.ly]
Also known as "contrails" (Score:1)
Meteorologists have known about this for some time.
The common term for it is "contrails."
Yes, it's well known that contrails sometimes to grow into cloud cover. (High altitude thin clouds, not puffy cumulus ones). This is not news.
Re: (Score:3)
I do believe you did not look at the photos, so from another website, here is some text for you to read.
As a note, because of what ever technical reason stooped you looking a the lint, these clouds can and do look at times look like massive eyes or holes in the clouds, nothing at all like contrails, and in some cases can look like a massive gouge taken out of the clouds, kinda like a revers contrail.
http://www.weatherthings.com/HolePunch.html [weatherthings.com]
"A “Hole Punch” cloud is a non-technical name given t
Not contrails (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe I actually fell for clicking on this... ... good thing it's legit.
How is this news (Score:5, Informative)
I mean seriously, this has been known for decades. There was even a study that looked at the 9-11 shutdown of air-traffic affected climate [cnn.com].
This has been known for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have only flown across the US once (I am an Australian) but I was surprised to see how many contrails we crossed going from New York to Los Angeles. It may be the distributed nature of the US population. Aircraft go all over the place and cross each others paths with surprising frequency.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with what you said, I just want to do some CNN-bashing:
Those damn journalists were trying to be sensational again by saying that the air traffic affects the *climate* while it is obvious that it just affects the *weather*. If the air traffic disappears the *weather* will just roll back to its usual behavior that is dictated by the *climate*. Of course, I am only taking about the condensation wisps that are referred to in the article, not the aircraft emissions, that do have an effect on the *climate
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with what you said, I just want to do some CNN-bashing:
Those damn journalists were trying to be sensational again by saying that the air traffic affects the *climate* while it is obvious that it just affects the *weather*. If the air traffic disappears the *weather* will just roll back to its usual behavior that is dictated by the *climate*. Of course, I am only taking about the condensation wisps that are referred to in the article, not the aircraft emissions, that do have an effect on the *climate*.
But I guess the word weather is out of fashion, and climate sounds so much better... Damned journalists, I hate you guys...
It's a problem with journalists. "Climate" sounds sexier than "Weather" just like "Deficit" is sexier than "Debt". These terms start off being correctly used, but soon fall away and reports gets "sexed up"
Re: (Score:2)
If planes do this all the time, 24/7, 7 days a week, all year around, then what is the difference? It is precisely as if planes changed the climate.
There is a theory that seeding from airplanes was the main cause of the drought in Etiopia back in the 1980s.
I'm not a tin-foil-hat guy, but sometimes weird theories are proven right.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a point, but the difference is the time scale for recovery. As reported in the CNN article, 3 days of grounding were enough to notice a difference. If something changes in the climate it will take much longer than 3 days for things to roll back to their previous state (if ever).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the bees knees, Professor! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Next week when we come by for Slash Dot Mystery Time, can we talk about how steam valves and clock gears work?
That would also be a slide in the ice-house.
arg (Score:2)
Please quit wasting our tax money, seriously the people who did this study should have their funding removed as all they have done is have a "no shit mr 1934" moment over technology that is darn near extinct
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Similar as in they are objects that spin, but otherwise no, not really
hell do us a favour and go stand behind a jet engine and let us know how cool the air feels to you
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't TFA mention something about wings? Don't *they* have a cooling effect?
A thing that burns megajoules can't have a cooling effect overall. It will have heating effect, to the exact amount of energy expended.
All the fuel that an airplane uses up during the flight heats the atmosphere, unless there is a difference in elevation between the origin and the destination airports.
Re: (Score:2)
A thing that burns megajoules can't have a cooling effect overall. It will have heating effect, to the exact amount of energy expended.
The problem with absolute statements is that, even if you mostly knew what you were talking about, the factors you didn't consider will destroy you. If you asked the same thing as a question, as befitting the amount of thought that went into it, then it might have even been a good question. As a bold statement of fact, it leaves a lot to be desired. Mostly, the facty bits.
It doesn't matter that the 2nd Law exists. Nobody said it was being violated. You can easily burn a bunch of fuel, create a huge amount o
Re:arg (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, ferkrissakes, I came here to use up my last two mod points and almost every comment is ignorant, so I'm going to just make one comment and watch a movie and use those two points in the morning.
I know it's not usual for anybody to RTFA and instead just jump to conclusions thinking you know everything without having a clue, so I'm going to clue a few of you guys. This is not about contrails. Of course contrails have been known about forever. I didn't read this particular FA but I saw another FA about this earlier today, and it was damned interesting.
If it was about contrails, most of you guys would still be wrong. Contrails aren't caused by the turbines, they're caused by the air passing the wingtips of the aircraft. If you want to learn more, there's wikipedia for that.
This is about circular holes in clouds, It's about the exact OPPOSITE if contrails. The cause of contrails is well known, the cause of this particular phenomena isn't known. I find it hilarious that you guys think you know more about physics than folks who've been studying physics all their lives.
I'm not a physicist or meteorologist, but at least I know enough to know the limits of my own ignorance, so I READ. Voraciously. The more I read the more I learn, the more I learn the more I understand how ignorant I am. You guys might try reading once in a while. You're ignorant -- we're all ignorant. A physicist doesn't know shit about cosmology, and a cosmologist doesn't know shit about paleontology.
The man who thinks he knows everything cannot learn. Thus endeth the lesson, grasshopper.
Re:arg (Score:5, Informative)
If it was about contrails, most of you guys would still be wrong. Contrails aren't caused by the turbines, they're caused by the air passing the wingtips of the aircraft. If you want to learn more, there's wikipedia for that.
Ironic, considering the tone of your post, but I actually *did* look up (and read) the contrails article on Wikipedia, and you are in fact very wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contrail&oldid=436631379 [wikipedia.org]
Contrails (play /kntrelz/; short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are artificial clouds that are the visible trails of condensed water vapour made by the exhaust of aircraft engines. As the hot exhaust gases cool in the surrounding air they may precipitate a cloud of microscopic water droplets. If the air is cold enough, this trail will be comprised of tiny ice crystals.[1]
The wingtip vortices which trail from the wingtips and wing flaps of aircraft are sometimes partly visible due to condensation in the cores of the vortices. Each vortex is a mass of spinning air and the air pressure at the centre of the vortex is very low. These wingtip vortices are not the same as contrails.
Re: (Score:2)
And you missed the point, in which the GP was saying that the article has nothing to do with contrails, it is about a whole different phenomenon altogether.
You shall be now asked to leave the shaolin temple, and leave your geek card at the exit...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
While the majority of passengers use jets, it wouldn't surprise me if more than half of the planes in the air use that "darn near extinct" technology. You just won't see many of them at a typical international airport for reasons of economy.
(Where are they used: flights that serve smaller communities, short haul flights, transporting goods or doing exploration in remote areas, etc..)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
see how much better that sounds over "propeller jetliner"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very few people will even understand the word "turboprop", so writers end up using terms that their readers will understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is kind of silly, given that the internet is right there to look things up, turboprop is very well defined. Whether turboprop craft are jetliners appears to be ambiguous. It looks like probably not, but I have nothing to be certain.
nope (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They sort of do, in the form of turbofans in their ducted engines.
However, these do not cause cooling. They cause enormous heating. But they cause turbulence in the air behind the plane. This turbulence may constitute enough of a difference in density and pressure to cause water vapor in the air to condense into mist, which is called a contrail.
Airplanes also have wings and control surfaces. Air flowing over these creates vortices. These vortices can constitute enough of a difference in density and pre
Re: (Score:1)
and turboprops are both a jet and a propeller
Mystery Fog formed before airplan crash near Katyn (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Or it was just a fog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog#Characteristics [wikipedia.org]
Fog forms when the difference between temperature and dew point is generally less than 2.5 C or 4 F
"Fog can form suddenly, and can dissipate just as rapidly, depending what side of the dew point the temperature is on. This phenomenon is known as flash fog."
Re: (Score:2)
Mystery? What exactly was mysterious about it? Are all fogs mystery fogs?
Spammy Inhabitat link instead of Science Daily. (Score:5, Informative)
"commercial and private jetliners" "When an airplane flies through a cloud, its propellers"
The number of jetliners with "propellers" is mighty fucking few, though not zero.
Linking to the PARENT Science Daily piece
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630142835.htm [sciencedaily.com]
instead of the pointless Inhabitat bullshit summary would have been nice. There is NO excuse for the Inhabitat link other than SPAM.
AC is anonymous because he/she/it wants page hits for Inhabitat.
Now I know not to visit Inhabitat again. Fuck you too and thanks for nothing.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630142835.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Re:Spammy Inhabitat link instead of Science Daily. (Score:4, Informative)
> The number of jetliners with "propellers" is mighty fucking few, though not zero.
The number of airliners with gas turbine engines that turn propellers is in fact quite large.
The bypass fan of a high-bypass turbofan engine is essentially a propeller as well, although ducted.
So that leaves us with the various 707s, DC-8s, and 727s and their military equivalents flying around out there with straight turbojet engines having no fan-push component, which is not all that many in 2011.
sPh
In any case the results of this study should have been blindingly obvious to anyone living in North America during the no-fly week of 9/11 - 9/18.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically quite correct, but few readers not greatly interested in aircraft will get those differences between a conventional external "prop", turbojets, and turbofans. I'm prior avionics/engines/crew dog (cross-training was fun) but try to keep it simple for layfolk.
These are kinda neat:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/naked-engine-cleaner-flights [popsci.com]
Re: (Score:2)
(I'm avionics. Yes we are smarter than everyone else.)
Teh smartness is portable. Always be ready to exploit the arcane knowledge of swaptronics...
Crosstraining out of Comm/Nav beat the fuck out of staying on Moody AFB in the 1980s! Job was fun (F-4s) but location was a ghastly backwater. They even warned us during inprocessing that Lowndes county had the highest VD rate in Georgia.
Of course I didn't voluntarily crosstrain to nosepicker. I went Engines, then a few years later we were merged with APG by Rivet
Re: (Score:2)
I've never been to inhabitat but holy shit did it want to run a lot of javascript. Like 15 different domains.
Where have I read this before? (Score:3, Funny)
Why has it taken so long for anyone to think... (Score:2)
...of this? I used to wonder about this as a kid at least 15-ish years ago. Even without the stuff about propellers and pressure and such, it seemed obvious that a plane flying through a cloud would set off a reaction from the larger water drops formed from the condensation buildup on the body of it. Said larger drops fall off and through the cloud further causing a reaction.
Of course I never studied it or took it further, so it is quite possible I am wrong, but the point stands that I thought of it long ag
Re: (Score:2)
If decades of “tombstone technology" (when there are enough tombstones the technology gets fixed) was allowed to slip whats a bit of weather changing
Sure... (Score:2)
Yeah, those private jets over the poles, why DO THEY DO IT??? Stop private planes flying over the poles. All zero of them.
And as others have mentioned, yeah "propellers" on the "jetliners". LOL! Sure.
I would rather blame rich guys with long noses who were originally made of wood.
Sure, it's Pinnochio. Just as real.
Looks like Slashdot let another potsmoker start a thread.
E
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like Slashdot let another potsmoker start a thread.
It looks more like "let another potsmoker comment on the article" to me. Planes fly quite far north when they fly e.g. between Europe and North America, and practically all jet planes have fans -- propellers with many blades.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those private jets over the poles, why DO THEY DO IT??? Stop private planes flying over the poles. All zero of them.
Actually, since the end of the cold war (and with the development of aircraft which can do VERY long non-stops like the A340) several commercial passenger flights operate every day which directly cross the North Pole. Particularly these are the very long East Coast US to Asia routes, eg EWR-HKG, JFK-HKG, JFK-PEK, ORD-PEK etc. In the opposite direction it's not usually done as it's more efficient to use the jet stream over the North Pacific.
Re: (Score:2)
Most routes between Europe and northern Asia (Japan, Korea etc.) go over the North Pole. Many make a short stop in Alaska. The routes may look weird on a flat map, but not so much on a globe.
Explain California droughts then (Score:2)
The question i always have, and never get the answer to, when I see articles about these "studies" is: explain droughts in California over the past 30 years. California has a whole lot of air traffic all over the state and yet it goes multiple years on end with very little rain. If this happens so consistently to conclude there's a correlation why does California have droughts...like ever...?
Re: (Score:2)
or to rephrase things a bit its like in a game where you roll 5d20 (rolling for 60) to cause an event if you get a bonus of 2 points for every plane in the cloud its going to take a lot if your actual roll is 20 (and its worse if you have say a penalty of 12 to fight)
so if you have an area where there are mostly clouds with a minimum of water (barely enough to be called a cloud at all) then yes it is possible that Cali could have a bunch of flights and still have a drought (plus Cali has a whole lot of hexe
Y'all be going on vacation? Beep Delta. (Score:2)
Interestingly enough (Score:2)
correlates w/ noctilucent clouds ? (Score:2)
interesting. noctilucent clouds [spaceweather.com] have also been on the rise during the period of modern aircraft, and are also seen primarily towards polar latitudes.
Drought induction downwind ; cooling. (Score:2)
There's only one comment on the source website (and I'm not minded to sign up to the site to comment there) :
lazyreader says:
Would that be so much of a problem in drought prone areas?
Which is a perfectly good question, but begs the follow-up question of "what about the marginal or drought-prone areas downwind of your seeded area, where your seeding accidentally or deliberately wrings the water out of the clouds, so these areas get tipped into full-blown drought?"
I'm also somew
Re: (Score:1)
They're those things that spin around on a motor. They're quite useful, because they behave differently than jet engines in certain conditions.
Re: (Score:1)
oh we know what they are, but when was the last time you saw a commercial plane with them? let alone a propeller powered commercial jetliner...
this entire thing stinks of stupid
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss that first sentence of the summary where it clearly said " private and commercial"?
I didn't miss it but apparently you missed the part about 'over the poles'. And they didn't mean poles as in Polish people.
The only prop aircraft over the poles is the (very) occasional TU95 Bear bomber.
Re:"Propellors"? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The article specifies private and commercial jetlines.
Military, prop, or turboprops don't fall into those categories.
Though the research may be valid, the summary article is a disaster, which is becoming quite common in the media today.
The "journalists" in science based reporting often have NO CLUE on basic scientific stats, ie odds ratios are routinely wrongly reported or commented on. But I've noticed even more basic factual errors aind inferences being drawn.
I've pretty much given up on media reports of
Re: (Score:2)
The article specifies private and commercial jetlines. Military, prop, or turboprops don't fall into those categories.
Though the research may be valid, the summary article is a disaster, which is becoming quite common in the media today.
The "journalists" in science based reporting often have NO CLUE on basic scientific stats, ie odds ratios are routinely wrongly reported or commented on. But I've noticed even more basic factual errors aind inferences being drawn. I've pretty much given up on media reports of science, I simply find the source article if it's at all interesting.
Can't blame journalists for quoting the scientists though: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6038/77 [sciencemag.org]
Formation and Spread of Aircraft-Induced Holes in Clouds
Andrew J. Heymsfield1,*, Gregory Thompson1, Hugh Morrison1, Aaron Bansemer1, Roy M. Rasmussen1, Patrick Minnis2, Zhien Wang3, Damao Zhang3
1National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO 80301, USA. 2NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681, USA. 3Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: heyms1@ncar.ucar.edu ABSTRACT
Hole-punch and canal clouds have been observed for more than 50 years, but the mechanisms of formation, development, duration, and thus the extent of their effect have largely been ignored. The holes have been associated with inadvertent seeding of clouds with ice particles generated by aircraft, produced through spontaneous freezing of cloud droplets in air cooled as it flows around aircraft propeller tips or over jet aircraft wings. Model simulations indicate that the growth of the ice particles can induce vertical motions with a duration of 1 hour or more, a process that expands the holes and canals in clouds. Global effects are minimal, but regionally near major airports, additional precipitation can be induced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Propellors"? (Score:4, Informative)
I saw some yesterday, Dash-8s and there a lot of other propeller commercial aircraft out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8 [wikipedia.org] - turboprop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beech_1900 [wikipedia.org] - turboprop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_406 [wikipedia.org] - turboprop
We even have one of these flying out of Anchorage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-100_Hercules [wikipedia.org] along with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-3 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-6 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_360 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, we get loads of commercial props around here. The Dash-8s hold about 40 passengers so they use them on routes where they can't fill Airbuses. I've been on quite a few of them, they fly pretty good and aren't noisy when you're inside them. Only problem is the top speed which is less than a jet.
Re: (Score:2)
Dash-8s are everywhere here in Australia, I live under the flight path for both Tullamarine & Essendon airports here in Melbourne. Lot more prop traffic than jet traffic.
Anything from small Pipers/Cessnas through to DC-3s and other larger prop planes go over all day.
Add to this that, technically a turbofan (jet) engine is essentially an inside out turboprop with a higher blade density... well, the bullshit about not seeing aircraft with propellers is just someone wanting to look smart on /.
If you actual
Re: (Score:3)
.. but when was the last time you saw a commercial plane with them?
Actually, just before the sun set - a DeHavilland/Bombardier Dash-8 of US Airways Express.
Re: (Score:2)
last time you saw a commercial plane with them?
Must have been a few days ago, I don't usually bother to look at every plane that goes by, but if I want I'll see a commercial propeller plane go by within the hour, I just have to go out and point my nose up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this entire thing stinks of stupid
You stink of stupid.
Domestic airports in relatively-major cities (relative to their surrounding area... think Bakersfield, Billings, etc) don't usually have big enough runways to support large jets, so they use regional jets and turboprops. The big airlines usually don't run their own small planes. Rather, they use a different banner (United Express, Ted, Delta Connections, etc) for their regional services and usually contract that out to smaller airlines. I used to fly from California to South Dakota for a
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding? Thems some pretty short runways. Perhaps they're only flying small planes in and out of there nowadays because "Who the hell would want to fly to Sioux Falls?"
Re: (Score:2)
propeller powered commercial jetliner
Turbo props are used for short distance commercial transport, especially between small airports and where demand is low. They use turbojet engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Smaller commercial planes are sometimes turboprop powered. I last flew on one 10 years ago, but I am sure they are still in service on small city to city routes of 300 miles or less.
Re: (Score:2)
"oh we know what they are, but when was the last time you saw a commercial plane with them?"
Yesterday, the day before and all the other days before.
Luxair De Havilland Canada DHC-8-402Q Dash 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLOSQ6bk8cM&feature=related [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's about a 350 mile each way trip to the Shetlands for work. But there are also commercial (if subsidized) air ferries in the area that use prop craft. And in some cases, don't even have runways, but land on the beach.
I'd be fairly surprised if there weren't other remote and/ or thinly settled regions where prop craft are still dominant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"Propellors"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not on my first/last/only flight 5 years ago.
Twin prop engine, only 4 seats wide, out of a small town airport on behalf of Delta. Not everything is a jumbojet out of LAX/Seatac/ect...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, fer chrissake...google "Beech 1900" or "ATR-72" or "Embraer Bandeirante", among others.
rj
Re: (Score:2)
Avion de Transport Regional 42, 72
Saab 340, 2000
Beech 1900D
Shorts 330, 360 [I remember when American Eagle flew these]
Dornier 228
Fairchild Metro
BAe Jetstream 31s, 41s
DC-3 [A couple of tourist companies use them, I think 1 in Canada, use a couple of DC-3s still]
etc etc, hard to believe that people don't know that turboprops were, and are still [relatively] widely used.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never once seen a privately owned turboprop. They are basically workhorses for middle range airlines and commercial operations which need to carry a lot of stuff with short strip capability. Air ambulances for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Less common here in Australia. The price of fuel may be a factor. People who can afford their own aircraft may get a vari-eze or a sailplane. There are a few helicopters in private ownership, I suppose they count as turboprops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most jet engines, these days, are high bypass turbofan engines. In many respects, not that much different from a Turboprop. The bulk of the thrust comes from the driven element, ie. the fan or prop, rather than the thrust from the turbine itself.
Re: (Score:2)
A turbine is just a propeller with a hell of a lot more blades...it would logically have the same effect, if not more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Contrails are real. Jet exhaust contains chemicals. Those chemicals are pollutants. They can cause respiratory problems and maybe birth defects. But they can't cause mind control, other than the ability to twist some people into a knot when their brain power meets their ignorance in a paranoid delusion and motivates them to make fools of themselves and enemies of everyone sane.
Re: (Score:2)
weather its real or not.... its not only real but mentioned in weather modification and other paperwork from the US government.
I agree that whether modification its real weather people agree with it or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Abject, horrific bullshit, spread by idiots who don't have a fucking clue about meteorology, basic physics, and more importantly that a few documents mentioning cloud seeding do not instantly mean that even one single witnessed contrail is anything other than a contrail.
Snicker snort. I bet you're attacking the non-arguments from the fringe of the fringe. It's a long jump from reality, where the military continually talks about ongoing plans and goals to "own the weather" with new papers published talking about how it can be done regularly, to "a few documents mentioning cloud seeding". I'm sure you think this is totally normal [hyperlogos.org] for example.
Critical thinking - it works, bitches.
though not for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide evidence as to how they are not normal?
Aircraft don't normally change direction over my house, and they double-extra don't normally come into the region from multiple different directions and then change direction as you can clearly see in-frame. After this picture was taken the trails spread out to cover the sky from horizon to horizon, even when I stand on the rise on my property from which I have a fairly amazing view.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically you don't have evidence, you just have your opinion of what's normal and what isn't, all of which is based on your own personal experience and nothing more.
Planes change course for many different reasons. Engine difficulty, being re-routed, problems on board, weather patterns changing, or even military action, just to name a few. You have to show how none of those was responsible for the change in course of the plane that caused that contrail, before you can start attributing weird and exotic
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There is no going back (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversely, there are fundemental limitations of what this muddy dirtball can handle, and limits to what technology can accomplish.
The ideal course is to understand both, and proceed accordingly.
To do otherwise is to invite disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, we must conquer more muddy dirtballs!
Re: (Score:2)