What got stolen was the code used in those SecurID tokens. You know those key-fob things that stay in sync based on time and generate a new token every x number of seconds.
But they really should get rid of the "C:\" convention for disks. Sure, you can do some remapping, but it's homage to the floppy-disk days of MS-DOS.
Cutler's previous OS, VMS, got it right, and better than Unix (dare I say it here!). A drive had a physical name that was based on its hardware: DJA1: But that was normally hidden and mapped to a Logical name, which could refer to any node in a directory tree, including a cluster of disks, or just a directory: SYS$SYSTEM: (which might point to DJA1:[SYSTEM] SLASHFILES: (which might point to DJA2:[CMDRTACO.SLASH]
Applications could then use the logical name, and if drives were added or subtracted, nobody worried about things breaking, so long as the logicals were correctly mapped.
Haven't touched a Windows box in almost a decade, then?
You might want to look into drive mappings in, say, XP... where you can mount anything other than the system drive in any directory you wish. You might even have been able to do that in Win2k.
Just because the root of the system is called "C:\" instead of "/" you wanna get all huffy? Whatever. There's a reason most small businesses are using Microsoft software, and it might just be that the Linux zealots are all MS-bashing nutjobs who refuse to pay attention to reality if it doesn't conform to their ideals... quite similar to the Microsoft zealots, mind you, just in the other direction.
I prefer to keep an open mind, and try to be aware of the things that different systems are good at doing... as opposed to hanging my heart from one particular nail.
All this means is that export product produced in wholesale lots for overseas buyers cannot be re-exported for retail sale in the U.S. without the consent of the manufacturer. If you want to stock genuine Omega watches, with genuine Omega logos, product designed by Omega for the American market, you must deal with Omega's U.S. distributors.
I find it interesting that SCOTUS is, in effect, stating that communism is perfectly okay, whereas capitalism is not. If this were a capitalistic decision, it would be argued that the source of the product is not necessary, so long as the product is genuine (advertised product meets expectations). Since it is being argued that the manufacturer has complete control over the pricing of their product, and is able to fix prices for specific markets, SCOTUS just legitimized single-entity cartels, voided the entirety of the RICO act, and advocated a communist-like approach to the market (from each according to the manufacturer, to each according to their local ability to pay).
Personally, I find it objectionable that a retailer found a way to reduce the cost of a product, passed the savings on to their customers, and was slapped in the face for it.
If I buy a car from another person (quite standard), and the company that made the car had to do a recall for something (maybe the brakes would fail), the company must provide support and fix the problem for free....
There is a reason for proof of purchase / receipt requirements for many maintenance calls, which is to solve the issue that you are discussing. I don't know of anyone that would buy a used car and automatically assume that it comes with the manufacturer warranty, unless it was "Certified" and sold by them directly.
I don't see the issue. If a $Year $Car.Manufacturer $Car.Model has a defect that existed from the time of manufacture, why does it matter who it belongs to at the point in time that this is discovered? What difference does it make whether it's still in the showroom, in the garage of the first owner, or being sold in the newspaper by the 6th owner? The original product is recalled, the original manufacturer should fix it, regardless of who it "belongs" to.
More to the point, when I hear about a manufacturer denying in-warranty repair service on their legally-acquired products, I subsequently refuse to have any dealings with that company. Apple, I'm looking at you.
Now, to get back on topic: Copyright being involved in a situation lacking any copying? Ridiculous. As to a company suing anyone for "abusing" pricing differences, regardless of whether they're suing a company or an individual... Please allow me to quote (ok, paraphrase) Dennis Leary:
I must agree, teamwork makes things much more enjoyable. Some of my family and friends will gather at my house every once in a while, and we hook all our systems into the LAN to play WoW. Zero-lag voice communications (ie, leaning over and speaking directly to a person) makes for a truly enjoyable dungeoning experience, and having 6 to 8 people with which to run a 10-man raid (albeit not at full speed) makes for several hours of fun.
Similarly, running a classic raid (designed for 40 players at level 60) with a 5-man group of 80s is absurd fun... especially when someone drops the ball, and we wipe to a group of 35 or 40 "low-level" mobs.
Of course, these are the same people who will come over and whip out Diablo or Diablo2, make new toons, and kill several hours beating the game in the same fashion.
Occasionally, we will even whip out the old NES and have Contra or Zelda races.
How do you 'complete' an MMORPG that's designed to keep you paying the monthly fee for as long as possible?
How do you pay a monthly fee, when it's so easy to come up with the 300-350 million ISK for a PLEX?
Seriously, I played EVE Online for about 10 days, then I realized that it was possible to "win" the game by simply accumulating wealth at an absurd rate and play for free forever. To prove it, I made a brand-new character on a brand-new 14-day trial, bought him a speedy ship, and spent the next 48 hours literally adding digits to my ISK counter. It's actually pretty silly, how easy it is to acquire "money". I estimated that it would take me 5 days from "character creation" to "earning enough ISK to purchase a PLEX", and quit on the spot. Liquidated my 30,000,000 ISK and quit right there.
Yes, 30 million ISK on a 2-day-old character.
No, none of it was given to me; all was earned myself.
On a trial account.
With pitiful combat skills.
On a side note, EVE's in-game voice chat is pretty awesome, and their idea of using the middle mouse button for push-to-talk revolutionized my WoW experience.
Sorry, I guess I should have been more precise in my response.
A "pile of rocks", regardless of whether it is a "naturally-occuring nuclear reactor", is not usable to generate power that is immediately available for use by humans. A "nuclear reactor" is a purpose-built facility designed to do exactly that.
Oh, and Oklo is more of an out-lier than you seem to imply, seeing as it is the only one of its kind (and the reactions occurred 2 billion years ago).
As for Petratherm's Paralana Geothermal Project, you're getting very disingenuous there. Geothermal power != nuclear power, and that particular "pile of rocks" has quite a bit of human interaction before it's ready to supply usable power... Ie, engineering.
I stand by my answer, this is merely clarification.
This is a direct comparison of the "best" Intel desktop chip on newegg.com and the "best" AMD desktop chip on newegg.com. I didn't research this too terribly hard, so I may have missed some uber something or other, but I feel fairly confident that these chips are the best in class for the same class, using newegg as my only source.
I've looked up some reviews and benchmarks online, (here and here - I wanted to find someone who had reviewed both, in order to get a "fair" reviewing process) and I can't claim the AMD is faster, although I suspect that a "fair" test (using software that isn't compiled using anything from Intel (who was proven to have rigged their compiler to give themselves a performance advantage against any other chip manufacturer), and using as many cores simultaneously as is possible) would tell a slightly different story.
Silliness and rumor-mongering aside...
Yes, the Intel chip is slightly faster in single-threaded applications, and even (surprisingly) in the multi-threaded apps.
On the other hand... spending four times the money for a gain of approximately 3-4 fps seems kinda silly.
Oh, and that garbage you're spewing about power consumption (heat output) is an outright fabrication. If you're going to lie, do it in a fashion that is less likely to be easilydisproven. To be perfectly clear, the "under load" numbers are similar (of course), but the AMD chips idle with a much lower power consumption. In other words, the Intel chips actually put off more heat than the AMD chips. Yes, I just called you a liar. To your face.
TL;DR: On the one hand, the Intel chip is slightly better (for many values of "better"). On the other hand, it's 4x the price for roughly 1.04x the performance.
I don't know how you arrived at your pricing figures unless you went with sale prices TBH
I went to newegg.com, and looked at the current pricing. If they were sales, I didn't notice. My current response (the one you're reading, since I appear to have to spell everything out to you twice) is not based on any sale pricing to my knowledge.
I responded to the report. The report speaks for itself. If if didn't adequately describe the events then... What I said was correct.
By "report", do you mean "summary"? If so, I commend you for thinking a summary could have enough information to form an opinion with.
By "report", do you mean "article"? If so, you didn't read it.
The wind pushes the craft forward, same as a sail-powered craft. The tricky part is using the ground's braking effect on the wheels to power a propeller that supplies additional forward motive force.
In effect, the craft is using the difference in speed between the air and the ground, and minimizing as much as possible the friction effects on the craft. In other words, it's not so much using the wind against itself for power, it is more using the difference between groundspeed and airspeed to propel itself.
You're missing the part where there are two surfaces (air and ground) being utilized for energy input.
The sail portion gets it moving, sure. The ground moving underneath the vehicle applies additional motive force, which is used via gearing to turn the propeller faster, which increases the motive force. It works just like an airplane's propeller, except using the ground to spin the wheels which turn the propeller, instead of a combustion engine.
As I understand it, the trick is using both surfaces - if it became airborne, it wouldn't work.
I think the part you're missing is that the propeller does not drive the wheels; as a matter of fact, there is a ratchet mechanism between the prop and the wheels that prevents this, specifically for the purpose of adhering to the NALSA rules about stored energy usage (the propeller could be considered a flywheel).
The wheels drive the propeller, not the other way 'round.
As far as I can tell (and I'm no physics wiz, so I may be completely wrong), the wind pushes against the prop, causing forward momentum. The wheels turn as the vehicle is pushed forward (essentially sailing, at this point), and the turning wheels turn the prop. The turning prop generates forward momentum by pulling air through itself, as well as creating a pressure front via its rotation.
In other words, it works just like the propeller on an airplane, except using the wheels' interaction with the ground as the motive force for the propeller, rather than an engine.
My big question is, how hard would it be to do the same thing against the wind, rather than running downwind? That is, can this same principle be used to go in an arbitrary direction, as long as there is wind to use for energy? I can think of many places where a "free" transportation service based on the ever-present wind would drastically increase quality of life.
The $300 motherboard wasn't really the kick in the pants... the big deal there was that the Intel chip is more than the AMD system.
By the way, why didn't you manage to read my comment before posting your own? I posted this more than an hour and a half before you asked about the motherboard...
Why are you thinking that you need a $290 motherboard again? AMD may be better bang for your buck but you have only yourself to blame if you want a budget system and then sink that much into a Mobo.
See my reply further back in the same thread. The discussion was about Intel chips being more expensive, without delivering enough additional power to justify the additional expense. Indeed, with the number of AMD chips you could buy for the price of a single Intel chip, you could outperform any multi-threaded process with the AMD chips; If you're building a cluster, AMD wins hands down.
I'm not trying to tweak your nose, here, but I just don't see any reason to buy Intel anymore - they might be the king of performance on a per-core basis, but the AMD chips currently have more cores. And with Intel dropping PCIe support, I'm thinking they might be moving to the server market, and abandoning the consumer market to AMD.
This is bullshit, I'm from Switzerland and we get fined based on how fast we were going. I've never heard of this story or this practices, and I have gotten plenty of speeding tickets (well my g/f, I don't drive but whatever).
My "contrived situation" was simply to go to newegg.com, and look up the highest rated intel chip, then get the highest rated motherboard for that chip, then compare that price to a good gaming system sold as a single, pre-built unit.
The funny thing is, you managed to rant about how I used a six-core chip against the Intel four-core, while completely ignoring that for the money, I would actually get twelve cores with the AMD-based solution. Unless you can argue that it takes 3 AMD cores to equal the performance of a single Intel core, I'm still getting a helluva lot more bang for my buck with the AMD. Even if it did take 3 AMD cores to equal 1 Intel core, I can get more cores for less money with AMD. We're talking about a huge price difference, here.
If you want to get down to brass tacks, the Intel chip I linked to is more expensive all by itself than the AMD-based entire system that I linked - and I'd be willing to bet that you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference in performance between the two, if you spec'd out an system based on that Intel chip with similar amounts of ram, similar hard drive, similar video card, etc.
Sorry if I'm just being dense, but what, exactly, is the difference between "could be used to develop transparent solar panels or even windows that absorb solar energy to generate electricity."
Slashdot Mirror
What got stolen was the code used in those SecurID tokens. You know those key-fob things that stay in sync based on time and generate a new token every x number of seconds.
It's a conspiracy to hack my WoW account!
But they really should get rid of the "C:\" convention for disks. Sure, you can do some remapping, but it's homage to the floppy-disk days of MS-DOS.
Cutler's previous OS, VMS, got it right, and better than Unix (dare I say it here!). A drive had a physical name that was based on its hardware:
DJA1:
But that was normally hidden and mapped to a Logical name, which could refer to any node in a directory tree, including a cluster of disks, or just a directory:
SYS$SYSTEM: (which might point to DJA1:[SYSTEM]
SLASHFILES: (which might point to DJA2:[CMDRTACO.SLASH]
Applications could then use the logical name, and if drives were added or subtracted, nobody worried about things breaking, so long as the logicals were correctly mapped.
Haven't touched a Windows box in almost a decade, then?
You might want to look into drive mappings in, say, XP... where you can mount anything other than the system drive in any directory you wish. You might even have been able to do that in Win2k.
Just because the root of the system is called "C:\" instead of "/" you wanna get all huffy? Whatever. There's a reason most small businesses are using Microsoft software, and it might just be that the Linux zealots are all MS-bashing nutjobs who refuse to pay attention to reality if it doesn't conform to their ideals... quite similar to the Microsoft zealots, mind you, just in the other direction.
I prefer to keep an open mind, and try to be aware of the things that different systems are good at doing... as opposed to hanging my heart from one particular nail.
All this means is that export product produced in wholesale lots for overseas buyers cannot be re-exported for retail sale in the U.S. without the consent of the manufacturer. If you want to stock genuine Omega watches, with genuine Omega logos, product designed by Omega for the American market, you must deal with Omega's U.S. distributors.
I find it interesting that SCOTUS is, in effect, stating that communism is perfectly okay, whereas capitalism is not. If this were a capitalistic decision, it would be argued that the source of the product is not necessary, so long as the product is genuine (advertised product meets expectations). Since it is being argued that the manufacturer has complete control over the pricing of their product, and is able to fix prices for specific markets, SCOTUS just legitimized single-entity cartels, voided the entirety of the RICO act, and advocated a communist-like approach to the market (from each according to the manufacturer, to each according to their local ability to pay).
Personally, I find it objectionable that a retailer found a way to reduce the cost of a product, passed the savings on to their customers, and was slapped in the face for it.
...you might have a slim point but the humor is otherwise trite and inflammatory.
Actually, I'm thinking the topic of discussion (the SCOTUS ruling, or lack thereof) is the "trite and inflammatory" portion of this thread.
If I buy a car from another person (quite standard), and the company that made the car had to do a recall for something (maybe the brakes would fail), the company must provide support and fix the problem for free. ...
There is a reason for proof of purchase / receipt requirements for many maintenance calls, which is to solve the issue that you are discussing. I don't know of anyone that would buy a used car and automatically assume that it comes with the manufacturer warranty, unless it was "Certified" and sold by them directly.
I don't see the issue. If a $Year $Car.Manufacturer $Car.Model has a defect that existed from the time of manufacture, why does it matter who it belongs to at the point in time that this is discovered? What difference does it make whether it's still in the showroom, in the garage of the first owner, or being sold in the newspaper by the 6th owner? The original product is recalled, the original manufacturer should fix it, regardless of who it "belongs" to.
More to the point, when I hear about a manufacturer denying in-warranty repair service on their legally-acquired products, I subsequently refuse to have any dealings with that company.
Apple, I'm looking at you.
Now, to get back on topic:
Copyright being involved in a situation lacking any copying? Ridiculous.
As to a company suing anyone for "abusing" pricing differences, regardless of whether they're suing a company or an individual... Please allow me to quote (ok, paraphrase) Dennis Leary:
"Life is rough. Get a helmet."
I rebut:
If the corporation is both funding and directing the state, then the corporation, for all intents and purposes, *is* the state.
Yeah, you are totally right, it is not a cliché, it is a fact : http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity
The Guardian says you Euro guys are fatter than those American guys. Got any other retarded copypasta you wanna spew?
I must agree, teamwork makes things much more enjoyable. Some of my family and friends will gather at my house every once in a while, and we hook all our systems into the LAN to play WoW. Zero-lag voice communications (ie, leaning over and speaking directly to a person) makes for a truly enjoyable dungeoning experience, and having 6 to 8 people with which to run a 10-man raid (albeit not at full speed) makes for several hours of fun.
Similarly, running a classic raid (designed for 40 players at level 60) with a 5-man group of 80s is absurd fun... especially when someone drops the ball, and we wipe to a group of 35 or 40 "low-level" mobs.
Of course, these are the same people who will come over and whip out Diablo or Diablo2, make new toons, and kill several hours beating the game in the same fashion.
Occasionally, we will even whip out the old NES and have Contra or Zelda races.
Hmm... maybe my friends and I are just weird.
How do you 'complete' an MMORPG that's designed to keep you paying the monthly fee for as long as possible?
How do you pay a monthly fee, when it's so easy to come up with the 300-350 million ISK for a PLEX?
Seriously, I played EVE Online for about 10 days, then I realized that it was possible to "win" the game by simply accumulating wealth at an absurd rate and play for free forever. To prove it, I made a brand-new character on a brand-new 14-day trial, bought him a speedy ship, and spent the next 48 hours literally adding digits to my ISK counter. It's actually pretty silly, how easy it is to acquire "money". I estimated that it would take me 5 days from "character creation" to "earning enough ISK to purchase a PLEX", and quit on the spot. Liquidated my 30,000,000 ISK and quit right there.
Yes, 30 million ISK on a 2-day-old character.
No, none of it was given to me; all was earned myself.
On a trial account.
With pitiful combat skills.
On a side note, EVE's in-game voice chat is pretty awesome, and their idea of using the middle mouse button for push-to-talk revolutionized my WoW experience.
Amen.
No, really, that is all.
Sorry, I guess I should have been more precise in my response.
A "pile of rocks", regardless of whether it is a "naturally-occuring nuclear reactor", is not usable to generate power that is immediately available for use by humans. A "nuclear reactor" is a purpose-built facility designed to do exactly that.
Oh, and Oklo is more of an out-lier than you seem to imply, seeing as it is the only one of its kind (and the reactions occurred 2 billion years ago).
As for Petratherm's Paralana Geothermal Project, you're getting very disingenuous there. Geothermal power != nuclear power, and that particular "pile of rocks" has quite a bit of human interaction before it's ready to supply usable power... Ie, engineering.
I stand by my answer, this is merely clarification.
Let's take this to an individual chip level, so my point comes through crystal clear.
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33GHz 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor BX80601975 - $1,039.99
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz 6 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDT90ZFBGRBOX $229.00
This is a direct comparison of the "best" Intel desktop chip on newegg.com and the "best" AMD desktop chip on newegg.com. I didn't research this too terribly hard, so I may have missed some uber something or other, but I feel fairly confident that these chips are the best in class for the same class, using newegg as my only source.
I've looked up some reviews and benchmarks online, (here and here - I wanted to find someone who had reviewed both, in order to get a "fair" reviewing process) and I can't claim the AMD is faster, although I suspect that a "fair" test (using software that isn't compiled using anything from Intel (who was proven to have rigged their compiler to give themselves a performance advantage against any other chip manufacturer), and using as many cores simultaneously as is possible) would tell a slightly different story.
Silliness and rumor-mongering aside...
Yes, the Intel chip is slightly faster in single-threaded applications, and even (surprisingly) in the multi-threaded apps.
On the other hand... spending four times the money for a gain of approximately 3-4 fps seems kinda silly.
Oh, and that garbage you're spewing about power consumption (heat output) is an outright fabrication. If you're going to lie, do it in a fashion that is less likely to be easily disproven. To be perfectly clear, the "under load" numbers are similar (of course), but the AMD chips idle with a much lower power consumption. In other words, the Intel chips actually put off more heat than the AMD chips. Yes, I just called you a liar. To your face.
TL;DR:
On the one hand, the Intel chip is slightly better (for many values of "better").
On the other hand, it's 4x the price for roughly 1.04x the performance.
I don't know how you arrived at your pricing figures unless you went with sale prices TBH
I went to newegg.com, and looked at the current pricing. If they were sales, I didn't notice. My current response (the one you're reading, since I appear to have to spell everything out to you twice) is not based on any sale pricing to my knowledge.
Gah, I'm an idiot. I just realized you were answering my closing question, not attempting to agree with my point in a braindead manner.
Sorry.
And again, you're reversing the concept. Twice, actually.
A: The wind is coming from behind, and pushing the vehicle (ie, wind resistance), not coming from in front of it.
B: The propeller uses the wheels as a motive force. That is, the wheels' rotation causes the propeller to rotate.
Your example of driving a windmill-on-a-cart into the wind is completely and precisely perpendicular to the concept being described.
I responded to the report. The report speaks for itself. If if didn't adequately describe the events then... What I said was correct.
By "report", do you mean "summary"?
If so, I commend you for thinking a summary could have enough information to form an opinion with.
By "report", do you mean "article"?
If so, you didn't read it.
The wind pushes the craft forward, same as a sail-powered craft. The tricky part is using the ground's braking effect on the wheels to power a propeller that supplies additional forward motive force.
In effect, the craft is using the difference in speed between the air and the ground, and minimizing as much as possible the friction effects on the craft. In other words, it's not so much using the wind against itself for power, it is more using the difference between groundspeed and airspeed to propel itself.
You're missing the part where there are two surfaces (air and ground) being utilized for energy input.
The sail portion gets it moving, sure. The ground moving underneath the vehicle applies additional motive force, which is used via gearing to turn the propeller faster, which increases the motive force. It works just like an airplane's propeller, except using the ground to spin the wheels which turn the propeller, instead of a combustion engine.
As I understand it, the trick is using both surfaces - if it became airborne, it wouldn't work.
I think the part you're missing is that the propeller does not drive the wheels; as a matter of fact, there is a ratchet mechanism between the prop and the wheels that prevents this, specifically for the purpose of adhering to the NALSA rules about stored energy usage (the propeller could be considered a flywheel).
The wheels drive the propeller, not the other way 'round.
As far as I can tell (and I'm no physics wiz, so I may be completely wrong), the wind pushes against the prop, causing forward momentum. The wheels turn as the vehicle is pushed forward (essentially sailing, at this point), and the turning wheels turn the prop. The turning prop generates forward momentum by pulling air through itself, as well as creating a pressure front via its rotation.
In other words, it works just like the propeller on an airplane, except using the wheels' interaction with the ground as the motive force for the propeller, rather than an engine.
My big question is, how hard would it be to do the same thing against the wind, rather than running downwind? That is, can this same principle be used to go in an arbitrary direction, as long as there is wind to use for energy? I can think of many places where a "free" transportation service based on the ever-present wind would drastically increase quality of life.
You'd also tell the difference if you had an orangutan beating you with a stick. What does that have to do with performance, again?
Please don't argue just for the sake of argument.
The $300 motherboard wasn't really the kick in the pants... the big deal there was that the Intel chip is more than the AMD system.
By the way, why didn't you manage to read my comment before posting your own? I posted this more than an hour and a half before you asked about the motherboard...
Why are you thinking that you need a $290 motherboard again? AMD may be better bang for your buck but you have only yourself to blame if you want a budget system and then sink that much into a Mobo.
See my reply further back in the same thread. The discussion was about Intel chips being more expensive, without delivering enough additional power to justify the additional expense. Indeed, with the number of AMD chips you could buy for the price of a single Intel chip, you could outperform any multi-threaded process with the AMD chips; If you're building a cluster, AMD wins hands down.
I'm not trying to tweak your nose, here, but I just don't see any reason to buy Intel anymore - they might be the king of performance on a per-core basis, but the AMD chips currently have more cores. And with Intel dropping PCIe support, I'm thinking they might be moving to the server market, and abandoning the consumer market to AMD.
This is bullshit, I'm from Switzerland and we get fined based on how fast we were going. I've never heard of this story or this practices, and I have gotten plenty of speeding tickets (well my g/f, I don't drive but whatever).
Time Magazine disagrees with you, as do the BBC News, Huliq and 0-60 Magazine.
Not much, obviously. But, then again, what's the difference between a pile of dirt and rocks and a nuclear reactor?
Engineering :)
Well, that and the fact that one of them generates gobs of power, while the other just kinda sits there.
My "contrived situation" was simply to go to newegg.com, and look up the highest rated intel chip, then get the highest rated motherboard for that chip, then compare that price to a good gaming system sold as a single, pre-built unit.
The funny thing is, you managed to rant about how I used a six-core chip against the Intel four-core, while completely ignoring that for the money, I would actually get twelve cores with the AMD-based solution. Unless you can argue that it takes 3 AMD cores to equal the performance of a single Intel core, I'm still getting a helluva lot more bang for my buck with the AMD. Even if it did take 3 AMD cores to equal 1 Intel core, I can get more cores for less money with AMD. We're talking about a huge price difference, here.
If you want to get down to brass tacks, the Intel chip I linked to is more expensive all by itself than the AMD-based entire system that I linked - and I'd be willing to bet that you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference in performance between the two, if you spec'd out an system based on that Intel chip with similar amounts of ram, similar hard drive, similar video card, etc.
Some links that have more information, without having to give money to the Chemistry of Materials:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/material-could-collect-sunlight-from-roof-and-windows.html
http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/scientists_produce_transparent_light-harvesting_material.html
Oh, and one more thing:
Buckminster Fuller strikes again! AHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha... hah.
--
I want my Dymaxion
Sorry if I'm just being dense, but what, exactly, is the difference between "could be used to develop transparent solar panels or even windows that absorb solar energy to generate electricity."