Here's a couple of ideas how long:
0.5% battery loss after >30K miles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
93% after 75K miles:
I'd be happy going down to say 50% (assuming 200 mile range). I do around 10,000 miles each year, so doing the math, it'll take me over 500 years before I replace the battery. Okay, the sheer lifetime degrades the battery too, but I doubt it will kill it before say, 50 years.
An MOT is just something in the UK we need to have yearly so that a car is legal to drive on the road.
I hope you will now consider that batteries really have improved greatly, and can only better.
You're right there, but they will care about fuel cost - could be up to 5x cheaper to go with electricity for the same mileage.
> you know what people do care about? range and convenience time.
I agree. It's just as well then that Tesla's Model S can do 200-300 miles, and their cheaper $35,000 Model 3 (due out 2017) will do around 200 miles.
You want convenience? How about an MOT every 5 years instead of every year? EVs are incredibly simple, and have very few moving parts. They're as close to a solid state device as you're gonna get. Wouldn't surprise me to see the Teslas going for more than 50 years with very little servicing to speak of (apart from tyre changes, and window wipers).
But then going back to my original point, if it takes the same energy to accelerate... *in space*
I don't want spartan overly minimalist buttons, windows and dropdowns that hinder more than they help. I want delineated areas that indicate boundaries with beveled widgets that say "click me". I also don't want white-washed backgrounds that strain the eyes when I'm trying to work productively - I want various shades so I can see that the menu, taskbar or URL bar is not part of the main page.
1: Anti-aliasing may look smoother but it also looks more blurred than non-antialiasing. That's why I based my test on no anti-aliasing.
2: If Apple isn't do it, then it must be at least somewhat inherently tricky to get right. And at the least it breeds bugs. Kludges usually breed bugs somewhere down the line as a rule of thumb.
3: Anti-aliasing complicates the OS (such as using Cleartype which has to be adjusted for every monitor it comes across etc.). Taking a screenshot and zooming in on the anti-aliased bits produces colour fringing.
4: Anti-aliasing complicates paint and word-processing software which has to take into account the techniques necessary for smooth line and curve drawing. Additionally, try filling in an area in paint software; anti-aliasing is not your friend.
5: Certain pictures with anti-aliasing use more colours, and eat up more memory as a result, especially when compressed in PNG format. A black and white picture uses 256 colours when it should use two. A colour picture..... well, the sky is the limit.
6: Scaling is much faster/simpler when you can do it the easy, and not to have worry about averaging neighbour pixels. Need I go on?
300? 600? 1200? 2400 or more?
so if you buy a new camera/scanner/mouse/keyboard/whatever, you can't plug it in to your current USB socket, and need to pay another $100 to get the new socket
Microsoft have done a lot to support backwards compatibility. Most software which works on WinXP will work on Win 8 and vice versa.
I don't think the price MS charges for Windows is amazingly extortionate, but I get your point.
As you semi-pointed out, if MS opened up Windows I fear we'd get the same fragmentation Linux/Unix has. That's the last thing we need. Standards are good, fragmentation is not. (As long as the product is mature/good quality, and competition isn't needed as much).
I don't see standards as a bad thing, if they're done well.
To simplify, let's assume it's in space. To go from 0 to 10mph (relative to a stationary object, say a satellite near Earth) surely requires as much thrust, as going from 90mph to 100mph. In fact relative to the position of the sun, it's like comparing 67,000 mph to 67,010 mph with 67,090 to 67,100, which works out about the same in energy requirements. But relative to the Earth's satellite, and according to your kinetic energy equation, that'd be a massive difference in energy required (0-10mph versus 90-100mph).