The Nexus 7, like the Nook, has a 'special' charging USB cable that can carry more current. The plug-in part is slightly longer. When i use normal phone chargers on my Nexus 7 it takes a lot longer to charge.
The tip of the cable being slightly longer is to accommodate the curve on the edge of the N7. A cable being able to carry more current makes no difference if the power source is the same (ie. a USB port on your PC).
Everyone else seems to always forget that cable used to advertise itself as one of the advantages is that there were no commericials. Now the cable companies rape you for more money than ever and all the channels have tons of commercials...
When I was growing up in Texas, when cable was first taking off, I remember commercials for Rogers Cable where they would pose the question "Why would anyone PAY for TV?!?" and the big answer to that question was "No commercials".
I pay quite enough for Cable TV that I consider it my prerogative to switch channels during commercials, or skip them on the DVR. I'm sorry that the OTA channels are feeling like they're being ripped off, but most of them are owned in whole or part by large media groups, who make quite enough money from the premium channel packages I pay for.
I suspect they have a great deal of the digital market. I made a realization the other day that the vast majority of games I purchase are from 2 sources: Steam or Amazon. I haven't made a conscious effort to use those 2 exclusively, they just happen to be the most convenient and have very frequent sales.
I think the most startling thing for me is that 2 years ago, I didn't buy games from Amazon at all, but since then, they have managed to become my #2 go-to game shop, and I didn't even realize it.
In the case of Skyrim, the game didn't work AT ALL with Crossfire on my system when it was first released. Had to disable Crossfire at first, then ATI released a profile that finally got it working, but it wasn't a performance boost, it was a bug fix.
I'm not saying Crossfire/SLI didn't give any performance boosts, what I'm saying is that for most models of graphics cards, it is a marketing gimmick to get you to pay twice for something that might average out to a 10% performance boost across all your games. In some cases, it was buggy and causes games to crash, in some other cases, the games didn't even support it.
Yes, at the bleeding edge, with super high resolution, you probably require SLI or Crossfire, but for those of us not in that 1%, who build our PC's within a budget, SLI and Crossfire are a waste of that budget
Bear in mind, this is just my experience. It's purely anecdotal, take it with a grain of salt. It's possible that newer cards may have gotten a lot more efficient at SLI/Crossfire, but given my experience last time with video cards, I can't justify paying for something twice when I can't see any real noticeable improvement.
I discovered this about a year ago, when i wanted to add a 3rd monitor to my system, and discovered I couldn't do it in Crossfire mode with my dual 4850s, but COULD do it if i turned it off. Productivity being slightly more important to me than game performance, I turned it off and hooked up my 3rd monitor.
A few days later I decided to fire up Skyrim, and didn't notice any discernible drop in performance at all. My settings were all on medium, just because the cards were a few years old, but still, I expected to see *some* performance hit going from 2 GPUs to 1.
I have since upgraded to a 7950 that supports 3 monitors, but I'm never doing that SLI/Crossfire shit again.