I had the same experience when shopping for usb sound cards - the market is flooded with cheap crap! However, I can't say enough good things about this product, the Griffin imic: http://www.amazon.com/Griffin-... I needed a solution for recording stereo line in, and most built-in cards no longer offer stereo line in (tin foil hat time: it's because of the riaa!). The imic is cheap compared to a pro audio interface, but has great features like a hardware switch for the mic pre, great linux/alsa support, it's reliable and easy to use, and sounds fine. I'm not an audiophile, and I'd like to echo many other sentiments on this thread that built-in sound cards usually sound 'good enough', however I use it primarily in the 'semi-pro' scenario of recording dj sets, which are primarily unbalanced stereo, and it performs well. I even use it to record live shows off the mixing board. So if you do a little research, there are still high-quality usb sound cards available.
It's unbelievable to me that the most ardent supporters of big business are the most ignorant about basic principles of capitalism like externalities.
This is not anything even remotely close to a hoverboard. Even more shameless than those cars with fold-out wings that people try to pass off as 'flying cars'.
Being purposefully obtuse about the science and motivations behind environmentalism is what's actually anti-reason. And the 'let climate change happen, then sue the oil companies if its bad' plan is a recipe for global disaster, not to mention a joke coming from the biggest proponents of tort reform. Why is it that the one consistent beneficiary of libertarian policies is the bottom line of the biggest corporations? Or do you really believe they're only only big and bad because of the evil government, without which we'd live in a free-market fairy land?
http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/... Here you go. environmentalism is 'anti-reason' according to libertarians. Looks like you're the one misinformed.
And yet, when disgusting glass and steel monstrosities start blighting gentrified neighborhoods, the 'property rights' brigade thinks that's all well and good. I'd call that ruining a cityscape infinitely more than a little paint from someone trying to develop a positive creative outlet. (yes I am aware that some graffitti is gang-related - that type tends to have (much much) lower artistic value) I guess the rights of real estate developers to make money mean more than the rights of people who actually live there to determine what their neighborhood looks like.
We know a dog whistle when we hear one.
It's a search engine though, so I think this case they are much more similar to an ISP than a media company. They're not creating the content, so I don't understand why they deserve 'free speech'. They should just display the search results, similar to how under the principles of net neutrality the ISPs should just deliver the bits. If there's no compelling business interest for them to be filtering out results other than ideology, then there should be legislation to prevent that filtering. And for the record, I give absolutely not one damn about the "rights" of corporations - they're just as corrupt and slimy as the government, and have vastly more power in practical terms.
I'm seeing you get a lot of flack for this, but for the record I totally agree. For a site that generally supports net neutrality and would like to see ISPs regulated as common carriers, I'm surprised by the assumptions other posters are making about the competitiveness of the search engine marketplace. "Use a different search provider" is getting to be as useful a suggestion as "use a different ISP" when your only options are Verizon and Comcast. I would support legislation that regulated search engines in a similar way. Search engines generally aren't there to create content anyways, only display it, so I actually think they are much more similar to an ISP or telecom in that sense instead of a media company or other entity worthy of 'free speech'. Only a lolbertarian thinks that there's a practical difference whether it's the government taking away your rights or a giant corporation anyways. If this was Google censoring results, would these people feel differently?
The "right to own slaves" necessarily infringes on others' right to be free. The right for two consenting adults to marry infringes on noone else's rights. What you're saying can be boiled down to "why won't you be tolerant of my intolerance?"
You have anarchy wrong. Anarchists are not against government regulation. They are against power. If a small amount of government regulation results in a large reduction in corporate power, some anarchists (such as this one) would support that.
/usr is a directory for storing user-level programs and files (bin, lib etc), as opposed to root or kernel level programs and files. The reason it's its own top-level directory is for historical (or contemporary in embedded environments??) purposes. You could boot up linux using only the small number of core programs in the
/bin, /sbin etc directories, then mount /usr to get your user-level stuff. You could also store /usr on its own drive or partition that way for space/performance. Nowadays it's kind of redundant to have BOTH e.g. /usr/bin and /bin. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) /user is the old name for the directory of users' home directories. If your username is myUserName, then ~ would point to /user/myUserName. Nowadays it's called /home (again I could be wrong about /user not being used anymore. Been a linux user for 10 years, but haven't strayed far from debian)
Link to Abe Lincoln was a Democrat question? Also, the percentage of boxes that are shaded when there are no shaded boxes is 0.
It might surprise you that I'm not a fan of the term 'misogyny' or the coopting of the word 'hate' to mean 'bigotry and stuff' (although I support 'hate crime' laws, just wish they were called something else). As for 'patriarchy', sorry bro but men still hold the cards politically, socially, and economically. It's not really relevant who's 'fault' that is - the word just describes the power imbalance, and in this case we're talking specifically about when that power balance is NOT men's fault. But yeah, in general i agree that 'buzzwords from the feminist dictionary' are lame. As for 'all heterosexual sex is rape/ all men are rapists', that's a very outdated viewpoint in feminism that was fringe even when it was the most popular in the 80s. The 3rd wave feminism/intersectionality that's mainstream in feminism now really addresses how ridiculous the black/white feminism from that bygone era was, and looks at things like male-on-male rape, the role racism plays in sexual assault cases, and having respect for women who choose to take on traditionally female roles (or don't).
No, you're wrong. He said that a certain ('the oldest') professor was especially harsh on girls because she wanted to 'drive out' the supposed women "cruising through on their backs". He didn't say that these women actually exist. Then he said 'careful about letting female engineers interview other potential candidates unless they are known to be genuinely fair-minded', implying that this was not a fair-minded assessment, followed by describing what the professor was doing as 'discriminating'. And i mean honestly - have you ever seen someone 'cruising through on their back' in this industry? like ever? I've seen high-performing women get illegally fired by male bosses for getting pregnant, but never someone actually sleeping their way into any kind of professional position in tech.