I'm speaking toward the change from the original concept to the application today.

As in, it was dreamed up as a pure thing, but that's no longer the case.

Saying 'science is a method' is like saying 'Christ was a Jew'. True, but it doesn't change what happened.

Science was an idea designed to seek empirical truth. To find things in such a way that those who followed after could find them again. Then people got a hold of it and started using it as a means to control one another.

Christ (even from the atheist point of view, so bear with me) had a simple message of love being service to your fellow man. Then people got a hold of it and we get monstrosities like the Crusades.

That's where the 'HAS become' part of the above phrase kicks in...

The alternative, our status quo, is to surrender all power to the corporate and political aristocracies. If there's sufficient money to keep the powerful in place, then those wielding those funds form the laws out of whole cloth.

In what way is this better?

Again, though:

A) There is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT protecting firearms. No such protection exists for electronics devices. One would expect stricter controls on those devices, should the desire to pass such laws exist.

B) All power is granted to the government through the consent of the governed. They could mandate we all wear purple beards made of play-dough, and theoretically we'd either do it or be imprisoned/killed.

In short, the logic backing your position doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

The concept you're missing is called 'nuance'. Look it up.

And if 'black is black' then what is Tiger Woods? Think about it.

Take firearms, for example. There's quite a market for illegal modifications, such as firing pin mods, that grant considerably more value to modern weapons. They also make them suddenly illegal. Further, flaunting your defiance of the law in this way encourages new, tougher laws. So many, if not most, gun enthusiasts use legal versions of the firearms they want. In public, anyway.

And don't forget that there's an Amendment that says you get to keep your guns. Not so much for the iPhone.

Your mother is either a cow or an elephant. I never said your mother was an elephant.

Except you did. That's what 'or' does as a junction. You didn't say "near or below or above" cost. You omitted 'above' and included only 'near' and 'below'. Anyway, the words you're looking for are more along the lines of:

Just doing my part to make the dot a better place... Have a great day.

Sweet. I should have replied to you instead. Yes, this.

My own son is becoming a gamer, and those patterns you're seeing are exactly, precisely why he plays games at all. He gets in the zone running the same loops over, and over, and over, and over again until he has them nailed down. That precision was honed by countless hours of repetition. (Variety is NOT his thing.) So in that specific skillset, he's going to eventually demonstrate a level of absolute mastery. Popping in another game would put him back to square one, but in his own element, he could really be described as superhuman in his ability.

Personally, I loved 'The Fighter':

Wahlberg: "Say 'hi' to your motha for me."

Bale: [batman]"I ALREADY DID"[/batman]

I agree that it should boil that way, and would even stipulate that this is the design. It does not, however, appear to be the practice. There are at least a few examples of real things, well-published in the expected places, that were removed for not being worthy. They usually get restored, as far as I've heard, but it is still a problem and it hints at a greater issue.

It SHOULD be quite clear that I NEVER SAID THAT. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Observe:

1) If such a band were not noteworthy, there would be no external coverage of it, and therefore no sources to cite.

2) If such a band were noteworthy, someone somewhere would write something reputable about it.

This is immutable.

Again, because you NOT FUCKING LISTENING:

Such a band would not have any sources to cite.

Period, the end.

But if it did have sources, then your opinion that it wasn't as epic as Creed (or whatever your favorite band is) WOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER!

Do you read me now?

On second thought, I don't care. Do not bother to reply - I won't be reading it.

I came to post the exact same thing.

Further, why take the photo at all if you're not going to keep it for more than a limited time?

I'm not missing the point at all, but I do believe you are.

Wikipedia doesn't get to make that call, period. If the sources exist, then notability is determined outside of any other 'worth' as determined by the delete squad. Further, since Wikipedia has no control over whether these other media publish such things, they do not get a vote, and must therefore include it even when they believe it isn't 'cool enough' to be part of the internet chic. Otherwise Wikipedia is arbitrarily excluding data and isn't genuinely the 'sum of all human knowledge' any longer. They're simply the 'sum of stuff select geeks think is cool'...

In this way the 'garage band' angle is entirely, absolutely moot, and the fact that you're dwelling on it means you simply don't get it. Wikipedia doesn't 'decide' what notability means, the presence (or lack) of sources does that all by itself. No further criteria need exist.

I genuinely don't require your approval and/or inclusion. Thanks though for assuming.

So, again, if the reference requirement is met, there is NO NEED for a notability requirement - is there?