Perhaps, but they've been here for over a decade now I think, and the level of service has been similar all throughout. I don't quite understand what they're even doing here if they aren't going to expand their network.
Forget Rogers in Newfoundland. Their coverage is in exactly two places - Most parts of St. John's, and I believe some of Clarenville or Gander. Bell's network, on the other hand, is comprehensive here, and the other mobile providers here use Bell's towers (Fido excepted, because Rogers owns Fido).
In that case, say hello to TrueCrypt hidden volumes.
Pfft. Just working harder doesn't suddenly make things any easier. Take a look at the war on terrorism: It'll never truly 'end', no matter how hard anyone tries. Terrorism is an idea, and ideas exist as long as people are around to have them. Frankly, I think Lulzsec/Anon's antisec movement is similar in scope, particularly since there are participants from everywhere in the world, not just in the UK and US.
Over a decade ago, when our cell phones were still rocking monochrome displays and just then getting into WAP browsing? Yeah. That's a great comparison, actually, and points out where the concept would have begun in the 'modern' era. Remember, that was about the extent of what our technology of the era could bring to bear without HUGE cost, which incidentally I imagine will be a very present issue with the Wii u's main controller.
Operating costs are irrelevant; They exist for any other transaction in the business. As for buying the used game back, they don't do that with real currency, just store credit.
I should note that with the Halo 3 example, I was offered a used copy of the game on launch day when I was going to pick it up.
True, but EB/Gamestop have huge incentives to bring new games back for trade value. When The Godfather was released, there actually was a promotion that if you could beat the game within a certain period of time (I think it was either a few days or a week), you'd trade it back in and it was 'free'. Nowadays, they have their "Most Wanted" lists, with new releases fetching the biggest bounties, and new releases tend to have a "trade 3 and it's free" promotion as well. In other words, EB/Gamestop have put HUGE amounts of effort into making people part with new releases in order to get other games, in a rather turnstile fashion. If you've ever been into an EB or Gamestop, you'll probably notice that there actually are a surprising number of new releases with used stickers on.
It's true that on day 0, there shouldn't be many used copies, but I have witnessed it, in particular with Halo 3. Within less than a week's time, used copies lined the shelves for $5 less than new.
I don't believe that it's fair for a product to have to compete with itself on the same shelves that it's on. Recently used copies are very likely to not have any damage or defects, and EB/Gamestop warrant them as working for a certain period of time, anyway, so there isn't any incentive to pay the extra to buy a full retail copy. This is part of the reason why multiplayer is becoming such a huge cornerstone of game development - Multiplayer communities generally mean that people who play online will continue to do so, rather than trading the game in. It's also why EA and others have been bundling one-use DLC with their games, and why it could very well be possible that in order to combat both piracy and used game sales, one-use (or limited-use) serial keys for console games might be in our future. With that in mind, it would be a LOT better to come to an agreement with publishers over street dates rather than having the bottom taken out from under the entire used game industry in the name of anti-piracy (which is exactly how it would be spun).
Per-sale of used game, it is pure profit. I never said there wasn't any risk in taking on the inventory, but then again, most games they take in will go for about $5-10 or so worth of store credit, ensuring that no raw currency leaves the door one way or another.
No, but that argument is also flawed; DVD (or Blu-ray, I'll refer to both as DVD for random, arbitrary reasons) sales aren't the sole revenue generator for a film that had a theatrical release, and you seldom see used DVD's on the same shelves as new ones, to boot. In fact, most retailers that DO sell DVD's don't bother stocking used DVD's.
It IS bad for developers because retailers like Gamestop and EB will put used copies on the shelf immediately on launch whenever they get them in, and for a few bucks less. They get a 100% profit, with none of the proceeds going to the developer (which is fine, but it's important to remember that you're not their customer by buying a used copy of a game). It cannibalizes initial sales during the most important time of a game's release, especially when you consider that frequent used game buyers will opt into things like Gamestop/EB's Edge card system, getting an additional 10% off the sticker price.
If the motion picture industry let retailers rent/sell copies of movies at the same time as theatrical release, then the financial bottom would be eaten out from under the theatrical aspect of the industry, which is usually the most important and most profitable portion of a film's release. This is the reason why the motion picture industry delays home video releases of new films, and this is what should be done with games, too.
I've heard arguments against that, people saying "Oh, well, I should be able to sell it if I want to", and that's fine, really; What needs to be regulated is not people selling games back or trading them in, but the amount of time needed before used copies start showing up on retail shelves alongside new copies. The only problem is, retailers are unlikely to agree to something like that unless forced to, since they can sell a $70 game for $65 for 100% profit. Waiting until later gains them less. Which is sort of why the game industry almost needs a standards board for this kind of thing... Something, though I shudder to say it, like the RIAA/MPAA (because, besides suing people for downloading media, that's part of what they do).
i5 2500K is a quad-core processor just like the X4 980 BE, and typically runs around $200 CAD (like the 980). You can pay around $230 if you don't shop around for sales. (Just a few days ago, it was priced at $199 on NCIX)
By benchmarks I've been seeing and by the article itself, the i5 2500K is overall a faster CPU than the 980 for any task. The Phenom II series processors aren't up to task as far as competing with Sandy Bridge at its price point is concerned.
Totally agreed really. But I'm sure someone out there is going to benefit from this.
It doesn't keep up with the Sandy 2500K, which can be had for around $200, depending on where you look. Then again, as the article suggests, it's better for an upgrade than a new system, so existing AMD users should be able to appreciate some tangible gains. Too late for me, though, I recently jumped ship from an Athlon X2 6000+ to the Sandy 2500K and I'm blown away by the performance.
Headaches from viewing 3D videos are caused by flickering on the screen.
Not entirely. It's also a result of your eyes focusing in ways that they don't naturally focus, sort of how you're supposed to focus in a strange way to view a magic eye puzzle.
Just like with computer monitors, upping the refresh rate results in less flicker
Except refresh rate != Frame rate. While I'm not exactly up on industry projectors, I'm fairly sure that 3D projectors are much faster in terms of refresh rate, particularly since 24Hz would be far too slow and flickering would be severe (far worse so than an old CRT set on the default 60Hz). In contrast, the recommended refresh rate for TV's to display 3D content is 200Hz+, though 120Hz is usable. I realize that there are differences between projectors and LCD's, I can't imagine that 3D films are projected at 2x24Hz.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android
