So it's basically like real life?

Oh, so you've been browsing the internet.

I'm not a fan of FiiO, but it's definitely better than what you could get from onboard audio.

If you're an audiophile, you're probably using USB audio or S/PDIF, which don't need a discrete sound card, paired with an external DAC worth many times the price of a Creative soundcard and without the extraneous bells and whistles. If you're a gamer, you're on a headset, often again USB. If you're an average user, your speakers are too crappy to notice the difference.

As far as I can tell, the only use case that truly benefits from a discrete card is 5.1+ surround systems which support the latest Dolby/DTS techs, as those often aren't supported by onboard sound.

That's a load of horseshit that only a quick perusal would let you figure out. There was no "scientific consensus" that the Earth was flat; back in Ancient Greece it was already well known that the Earth was a globe and its radius was estimated with remarkable accuracy. That's before the term "science" was even coined, those were natural philosophers. The idea that the Sun orbited the Earth was much more religious than it was scientific; people went to great lengths to make up incredibly complex systems so that they could match their religious sensibilities that the Earth was the center of the universe. Science as it is now known has only really existed since the dawn of the Scientific Method, which appeared much later than either of those discoveries.

As for the plum pudding model, it was, key word, a model. Of course people knew it wasn't actually anywhere near a plum pudding! It was just the best representation they could give at the time and which fit the data they had at the time. The important element to note is that all subsequent models were more and more precise, but none invalidated previous data and conclusions. They refined the model, they allowed us to make more predictions and to be more accurate, but they didn't outright rebuke previous results.

Nobody said never to show Scheme, but there's a difference between doing a "Computer Languages" course with Scheme or even a "Functional Languages" course and putting Scheme as the sole language for the introductory course. The latter is completely insane, unless you like a 90+% drop-out ratio.

Humans however don't particularly care if there are three or four spaces before a line. Humans do not care at all whether spaces and tabs are intermingled.

At the rate of growth of Foxconn, I think Foxconn being is a synonym for Chinese.

Two of those aren't scientific doctrines, and there isn't an overwhelming agreement from their respective communities on which side is the correct one. Skepticism on global warming science is just some more bullshit that Republicans feed you, frankly. Armchair scientists are a plague, not healthy.

I'm sorry but that is extremely wrong. Science isn't math: it doesn't prove. The best you can do as a scientist is gather data and construct a model which fits this data. You then attempt to predict things and confirm those predictions with more data. The longer the model holds up, the more likely it is to be "right", but it's always just a model and it always could be shown wrong tomorrow.

When a claim such as "97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming." is given, what it means is that 97% of climate scientists currently accept the model that humans are causing global warming. It means that, according to the data they have available and the models they have analyzed and/or constructed, the notion that humans drive global warming is prevalent in just about every model that accurately fits the data.

The only reason this whole thing is political (or a debate in the first place) is because there are people who stand to lose significantly from environmentally friendly measures and a move away from hydrocarbons.

Maybe they stumbled on the killer-robots.txt control file and thought that, if Google are taking precautions, the menace must be real?

Not to burst your bubble, but there's a reason people download Mario ROMs and other such popular games: they're actually enjoyable. I've seen the open source stuff and it's between average and miserable.

Are you out of your mind, or just completely out of touch? Did you miss the dozens of times the Java plugin was disabled by most web browsers due to vulnerabilities? And you want to have web development be made with THAT?

But then you go on about C++... Like having arbitrary machine code be run by your browser is a good idea. You're well on your way towards designing the most security-averse system thinkable, and that's quite the achievement considering how bad the current system is. In web development, you want simple, relatively fast languages that can be JIT'ed efficiently while always running in a sandbox on a virtual machine. Javascript is far from perfect, but it fits that description much better than Java or C++.

Also, interpreted Javascript stopped being a thing something like a decade ago by now. I'd recommend you catch up on the tech a bit before badmouthing it.

I'm puzzled... Where did you see the E? It's not in either of TFAs and a cursory Google search provides no results either.

The same question can be asked about gas vehicles if you were to remove all the subsidies that come into their operation. The oil industry gets a fair amount of it, many manufacturers got sweet deals for building their factories where they did, etc. You can't selectively remove one subsidy from one end but not do the same to its competitors.