Forgot your password?

Comment: DÃf©jÃf vu (Score 1) 275

by Elder Entropist (#47272945) Attached to: Elon Musk: I'll Put a Human On Mars By 2026

Sending them to space is totally not a viable means to compensate for population growth on Earth. The cost for each person is so astronomically high we couldn't afford to send more than a handful of people. The way to get population under control on any planet is to get people to have less kids.

And for the same reason, the only viable way to grow a population on a colony past a bare minimum is to get them to have more kids.

Comment: Re:Hydrogen has more potential to be economic (Score 1) 659

by Elder Entropist (#47003535) Attached to: Future of Cars: Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Or Electric?

You're unlikely to approach 50% efficiency in converting water to hydrogen onboard a car which is done by USING ELECTRICITY. Which would then have to pass through your 50% (real world) efficient fuel cell to turn back into electricity to drive the electric motors that fuel cells drive.

Battery recharge efficiencies are near 90%. Even in a fuel cell car it would be stupid not to use them to store regenerate breaking power.

Comment: Stock Options. (Score 1) 712

by Elder Entropist (#46297327) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

The "salary of $1 a year" is pure B.S. for all the CEOs who employ it. They get compensated in stock options worth millions. They get bonuses worth millions. They get jet planes and other perks given to them by the company. As an added benefit and tax dodge, they only have to pay lower capital gains tax rates on the stock options rather than what they would pay if it was a salary. That's why the real figure that should be reported is TOTAL compensation, not salary.


I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie