A better title would be "Games portray the gender and ethnicity of their creators". Which should be completely obvious. "Write what you know", as the adage goes.

I don't understand why Christians resort to such histrionics to combat science on science's terms.

Want a retort to evolution? Here's one: God created it. He created earth, made it look 4+ billion years old, added fossils, plate tectonics, bosons, whatever you want. Why does this discussion always require God to start the game at the beginning? He started in the middle. He's all powerful.

Now, this "answer" doesn't advance our understanding of the world any. But maybe it will give us some peace and quiet.

I don't think most folks can push tiny, tightly packed hardware keyboard buttons easily or accurately with gloves on.

Remember, these are the same companies that will probably never find a cure for anything because there is no money in a cure. If they can research how to cure your cancer for a one time charge, or keep you alive for an extra 10-20 years on expensive treatments which do you think they will pick?

I disagree. If Big Bad Parmacorp A bilks people with a non-cure treatment spread over 20 years, then Big Bad Pharmacorp B is incented to trump that "treatment" with a cure. Competition should take care of this.

Parent's got it right. In terms of subscriber numbers:

In 2005, US market was about 200M phones, so 1% is 2M phones. AT&T (then Cingular) had 61M subscribers. Thus, 2/61 = 3.3% of AT&T subscribers.

Also, roughly 1/3 of all mobile phones in the US are replaced each year, so 20M AT&T subscribers would be expected to upgrade this year, even in the absence of the iPhone as enticement. So 10% of this more motivated group would also net the desired 1%.

As parent mentioned, this doesn't account for carrier hoppers.