I'm unsure why the part of your brain that figures I shower infrequently (evidently deduced from the weekly total that I cited) can't figure out that I usually only spend 4 or 5 minutes to take a shower in the first place.

I have a waterproof watch and it wouldn't be harmed by the shower, but if I wore it in the shower all the time, then I couldn't effectively wash my skin under the watchstrap. Since I don't tend to take my watch off otherwise, dead skin would build up underneath it, and it would get rather disgusting in short order.

Not everyone takes their watch off at night. I don't. It comes off my wrist for what is probably about 30 to 40 minutes or so cumulatively a week, which is about how much time I spend in the shower.

IMO, of course.

At the lineup going into the area where the gates are, you have to demonstrate that you can turn on any electronic devices so that they know it's not just a case containing something else. This has been in place for at least the past 10 years.

What I'm wondering, however, is if they charge people whose non-working electronics that they might confiscate any fees for proper disposal/recycling? If not, then a positive spin on this could be that someone could exploit this to utilize as a free electronics recycling facility.

In a pre-release phase, what other demand with there be?

Other dev studios.

If it's being ordered online, why would he need to hire anyone else to buy it for him?

Wouldn't limiting supply involve limiting the *total* number sold, not just the number that they are allowing per customer?

Actually, during the pre-release phase, they can and often will limit things to one per development shop until they have actually satisfied the other demand... only afterwards can a development shop make a request to get a second one. Also, in my experience, such development devices can differ in some significant way from the commercial product, and will thus remain property of the supplier... and the development studio has to return the device when they are no longer doing development for the product.

As long as you know for sure that the person you are paying doesn't intend to just keep the thing that they bought for you.... which, since you paid them to scalp it for you, and scalping tends to be discourage by the law, you aren't terribly likely to succeed in any sort of legal claim for it. All you will have successfully done is subsidize their own purchase.

That system doesn't scale very well when there is a limit of *ONE* per customer. That's not generally the case with event tickets, where one person may entirely reasonably be buying tickets for a themselves and anyone else that he or she specifically intends to go with so that they can all sit together. Regardless, the limit is large enough that its just practical to hire people to stand in line to buy tickets for you if you want a really large number.

How many eugenics programs were based on scientific rigor or even half-assed logic?

Very few, if any... admittedly.

Historically speaking, however, that's how eugenics has been practiced when it has been applied to human beings. Off hand, historically, I can think of cases where they've tried to remove undesirable traits by executing people who had those traits were with homosexuals, believers in jesus, to the poor, to people who are left handed, and to even people who needed corrective lenses (I personally know someone who, during WW2, narrowly escaped being executed for that last reason).

So yeah... not very scientific.

But that still doesn't mean there's ever been a scientific study performed to conclude that it would work.

Why they failed is not as significant as the point THAT they failed... A cornerstone of science is repeatability, but if something hasn't even ever been recorded to happen *ONCE*, how can you call it repeatable? How can you call it science? Even if it *IS* politics that's getting in the way... there's still no repeatable scientific study to substantiate the claim.

What does how many people there are have to with scalping? If they don't want to sell in China because there are too many people trying to order one in just that one country to both satisfy the demand there while meeting the demand anywhere else, then why don't they just say that instead of blaming it on people who are scalping dev kits?

One would assume that if scalping were a problem, limiting to one per customer would, as I said, make scalping prohibitively inconvenient... but all that you are saying is that they can't produce enough supply to meet the demand. They are two very different things, I trust that you realizes.

Because to the best of my knowledge, any effort that has ever been made in history to "limit undesirable traits" in humanity has always failed, quite abysmally. Whether this is because of the politics involved or not is irrelevant to the point that no actual successfully completed studies have occurred in recorded history to verify the notion.

Are you suggesting that they'd get a billion different people ordering one from a single country?