Of course, but Chademo isn't designed for a Model S, it's designed for more affordable cars with smaller capacity batteries. The market requirement for both a Leaf and Model S DC fast-charge is the same: charge to roughly 80% capacity in 30 minutes.
As I said elsewhere, the Chademo connector can support higher currents when there is a need. When there are Leafs (and Souls? I think think those are the only two in the US on Chademo) with 200mi range batteries, I'm sure we'll see the existing chargers upgraded to the higher current capability.
You sure about that? When the model s chademo adapter came out Teslas were breaking chademo stations left & right because they weren't engineered to handle 25min @ 45kw.
I'm not aware of and chademos above 60kw today while Tesla has a while infrastructure deployed right now.
> Also there is no currently deployed charging standard that comes closer to SuperCharger. Chademo is 60kW spec but usually 40 or 50 depending on how downrated the charger has been. I've never seen less than 118kW on a Supercharger and had multiple Chademo's that have throttled down to 35kW in some cases.
Chademo deliberately selected 50kW as being optimal given the cars using the charger and the infrastructure available; the connector is designed for up to 200A (up from 125A at present) which would yield 100kW.[0] My understanding is that the CCS connector is being deployed at 200A now. I don't know what you're definition of "close to" is, but I would consider 100kW and 118kW to be close.
Nothing that I could not re-license again later. I lost the patents in progress as I didn’t have the resources to continue with them, but this was actually a blessing in disguise. Rather than protecting the IP by patents I was forced to concentrate on trade secrets which if you have the choice is a much better way to go.
If anyone is interested in learning more I wrote a rather long blog post about the whole experience [1].
I was in a situation where angry clueless investors wanted to keep the software as an asset they were entitled to, but it was close to worthless without the engineering knowledge. They tried to shop the MVP around but got nowhere. If I could have kept it I would have tried to keep it running on the side.
One of the best comments I ever heard was from a Windows engineer talking about a source code leak several years back: "Sure, but how are they going to build it?"
Surely this developer meant that the leaked code had many dependencies on libraries that were proprietary to M$. That would make it difficult to build but this scenario is likely unique to partial code leaks at large companies.
Even a complete code leak can be near unbuildable without knowledge of how to set up a build environment. A number of years back a product i work on was so difficult to build it was a two day effort to set up a new developer workstation with the help of the existing team. Someone with just a full code dump would have taken weeks.
I read (old new thing probably -- a long time ago) that windows had circular dependencies until relatively recently. A large-ish team spent half a decade untangling it. Good luck building 40mm lines of source for a 25 year old project without detailed instructions...
Sure if your investors are going to be idiotic about the situation then this might not be possible, but it is an option worth exploring and in my case it worked out well.
You're making sure that when the gun is handled negligently and shoots someone (i.e. when you didn't realize it was loaded, or when you mistook your neighbor or child for a burglar, or whatever), that the financial consequence is covered.
Keeping guns around is risky, but right now society bears that risk, not the people who insist on keeping guns around.
But aren't criminal acts (i.e., criminal negligence) committed by the insured not covered by insurance?
As far as the comparison to cars, we require insurance for cars operated on public roads. Also with cars, the morbidity and mortality is overwhelmingly associated with accidents; with firearms, it's deliberate acts (either suicides or intentional shootings), neither of which would be covered by insurance.
I'm not sure I see what mandatory liability insurance is supposed to accomplish, since it would rarely seem to be applicable. The cost of the insurance, since it would likely rarely pay out, would seem to be too low to make gun ownership unaffordable (which would seem to be your goal, based on your earlier comment of "Sure, better get ready to buy a big insurance policy!").
I think it would be instructive if you spoke on needing to keep a bound book, dealing with inspections, and the time/money cost of attaining and maintaining your FFL.
I've only used my FFL03 once, to order a Mosin Nagant rifle, but it still worked out cheaper than a single gun transfer in California ($30 for the FFL03 vs. $60+ for a transfer at a gun store)
Part of having a FFL03 is the requirement that you maintain a "bound book" of all transactions done under that license. You can buy these online or print out sheets, but basically you must record who you bought it from, when, for how much, the serial number, etc.
It has not happened to me in 3 years of licensing, but the BATFE may request to inspect your bound book and your firearms to make sure everything's in order.
As for attaining the FFL, I filled out a form (ATF form 7CR) with a bunch of personal information and mailed it off with a $30 check. They did their background checks and after a month or two mailed back my license. You need to renew it every 3 years, but it's basically a matter of making sure the information is correct and sending in a check.
The benefits of having an FFL03:
- Eligible guns can be shipped direct to your door (no handguns shipped in California)
- You can buy C&R eligible guns out-of-state and bring them back with you.
In any case, you must provide the seller with a copy of your license prior to purchase.
> Sure, we'll see a decrease in gun related suicides... but the suicides will still occur, just with an alternate method.
Suicide attempts by any method might be practically constant; alternate methods of suicide tend to be less successful however, so the rate of completed suicides would likely go down.
> alternate methods of suicide tend to be less successful however, so the rate of completed suicides would likely go down
I don't see how that could be measured as a success. You still have mass amounts of people attempting to end their life every year.
Essentially we're all busy trying to treat the obvious symptoms, but we're ignoring the real cause of our problems.
Reducing legal gun ownership merely shifts the problem to another metric, but does not solve it.
Solve our suicide problem in the United States, and we've solved our gun problem (among others). (this hinges on the fact that there is some level of annual deaths that society considers reasonable and acceptable, as-is with any activity)
Legal firearm ownership isn't the real issue, yes. The problem that we just have so god damn many firearms and we continue to crank them out en masse whilst stoking fears of a tyrannical government instilling martial law and rounding people up into concentration camps(and by extension, our firearms are the only thing stopping this from happening). A sizable portion of the population all but worships firearms.
The fact that we are basically overflowing with firearms plays a huge part. Guns routinely go missing from gun stores. One of the rifles used by the Beltway snipers was amongst around 150 guns that went missing from one store in WA. Where do you think the black market guns(that bad guys will get their hands on anyways) come from in the first place? They were produced under legitimate pretenses that they were going to sell.
There's also the concierge-style who do things primarily by appointment and primarily handle transfers/consignments and sell accessories. Kind of splits the difference between a store proper and the "kitchen table" folk.
There is an effective ban on selling any new pistol designs in CA due to a dubious microstamping requirement. Manufacturers are unable to change their current designs that are on the roster (even color!) without triggering a recertification process that cannot be passed. This also means that new, safer designs cannot be sold in CA as things stand now.
That doesn't explain the employment of the word "wanton". I'm much more concerned here with the abuse of the language than with the rights of the people to buy guns.
I suppose it depends on your perspective. To some, passing laws with an overt goal of "making people safer" (but not actually doing so), with the covert goal of regulating a product out of existence, is a wanton act against our democratic system.
"Wanton" means 'deliberate,' but regarding a cruel act. (OED: 1 (of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked: sheer wanton vandalism.) I see this as an expression of ctdonath's opinion that California's actions passing the regulations is cruel, not that the regulations themselves are.
Not only have you missed the point (that passing the law is cruel, not the law itself), you're arguing the opinion on cruelty of the situation with the wrong person: I'm neither supporting nor opposing his opinion on the matter.
Well, license plate "technology" has existed for ~100 years. Microstamping exists as a single parent which has never actually been demonstrated or implemented in a commercial product.
My first thought is a reporting issue. Look at New York and the neighboring states for example: it is hard to believe that drug overdose deaths are so thoughtful that they respect a state border.
