depends... onboard sound has a distinct "whine".. you can hear a hiss over the audio channel... other issues... if that doesn't bother you, then its probably fine.
It is easy to make good DACs these days. Basically any DAC, barring a messed up implementation, is likely to sound sonically transparent to any other in a normal system. When you look at the other limiting factors (amp, noise in the room, speaker response, room reflections, etc) you find that their noise and distortion are just way below audibility. Ya, maybe if you have a really nice setup with a quiet treated room, good amps, and have it set for reference (105dB peak) levels you start to need something better than normal, but that isn't very common. Even then you usually don't have to go that high up the chain to get something where again the DAC is way better than other components.
Now that said, there can be a reason to get a soundcard given certain uses. For example you don't always want to go to an external unit, maybe you use headphones. In that case, having a good headphone amp matters and onboard sound is often remiss in that respect (then again, so are some soundcards). Also even if you do use an external setup, you might wish to have the soundcard do processing of some kind. Not so useful these days, but some games like to have hardware accelerated OpenAL.
Regardless, not a big deal in most cases. Certainly not the first thing to spend money on. If you have $50 speakers, don't go and buy a $100 soundcard. If you have a $5000 setup, ok maybe a soundcard could be useful, but only in certain circumstances.
As a side note, the noise in a PC isn't a big issue. Properly grounding/shielding the card deals with it. A simple example is the professional LynxTWO, which is all internal yet has top notch specs, even by today's standards. http://audio.rightmark.org/tes...
Well, that's because globalization was the choice these days
The US was doing globalization since before there was a US.
I'm not ragging against globalization. I'm just pointing out the cause and effect.
And what is the connection between your alleged cause and your alleged effect? This doesn't explain the US's incompetent and expensive social programs, their intrusive spying, or humongous military-industrial complex. Other countries do globalization without those things.
We only have semiconductors because of space.
Well, yea. But that stuff came from supernovae many billion years ago. We don't need space now to have semiconductors since that stuff, particular silicon won't go anywhere.
I suspect however that you are thinking that the US space program is responsible for semiconductors. That is nonsense. We would have them anyway even in the absence of contributions from any agency of the US including the Department of Defense (who was a far bigger contributor to IC R&D than NASA was by at least an order of magnitude). And the incentives to develop integrated circuits and CPUs would have resulted in pretty much what we have now, perhaps even further along since so the careers of so many intelligence,educated people were squandered on various white elephants between NASA and the US military.
naw - read TFS again; xie's devving for Solaris. Good luck getting Solaris running on a pi/bone/whatever.
Maybe you should read TFS again instead since the submitter clearly states that they want a dedicated *Linux* based dev platform. There's no mention of running Solaris on it.
The machine's designers must not be able to explain how their original code led to this new program
That is a flatly ludicrous requirement
Why do you think that? I guess we need actual examples.
Note that this is not a blind endorsement of government power. The number one tool my neighbors could use to oppress me (or I could use to oppress them), is the state government.
The federal government is the tool of choice these days. I don't go off of history when federal government power is at unprecedented levels of power and degree of intrusiveness. After all, it's not the state of California which is running the NSA (my example from before) or taking your coworker's money.
So you're arguing that, under a pro-corporate Constitutional reform, private for-profit corporations would be able to get police into using their powers to advance the interests of said private, for-profit corporations, and that this would be a good thing, because at least it wouldn;t be the FEDERAL government harassing people?
No. You made a claim about the Pinkertons. I showed how that claim was incorrect.
And how often have you heard of a Congressperson actually winning a dispute like that?
Not very much either way.
Your ignorance of how tax refunds work is showing.
The IRS won't send you your refund if any agency from a fairly long list (child support, Social Security, student loans, some state tax agencies, etc.) claims you owe them money. Disputing the matter with the IRS doesn't help because the IRS can't order these other agencies around.
I guess you just don't get it. Why should anything be on that list? I don't get to take your money in that way, why should anyone else get to via the agency of the IRS? As a US citizen, the federal government is in a unique position to control and seize your wealth.
I was responding to this post:
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2014 @04:26PM (#47411267)
And your current phone product portfolio is to be found where? - BB have had a reasonable success in the business compared to the Karmashockphone
Which you defended indifferent to whether you made the post yourself. You personally challenged me to cite the logical fallacy.
I then did so... and now instead of admit I was correct you're attempting to cloud the issue.
It is a fallacy and you current line of reasoning is also a fallacy in that you're attempting to discredit the whole discussion itself... which is a bit like flipping the checkers board over and pissing on the scattered pieces just because someone beat you by the rules.
Its a fallacy. I cited it as such and it is... end of story.
Therein lies the problem. The governments have agreed on what scientific basis that this is the most cost-effective solution?
Meanwhile I suggest you google "geoengineering" and "contraception". You will find a lot of pros and cons. Myself, I am agnostic. But a proper evaluation is needed before we do something stupid.
and when the oil runs out they will have a nice place to park their camels.
Or, they can install the solar everyone else is spending a fortune developing in the plentiful sunlight they have.
Someone sounds jealous...
Someone is well-informed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMh-vlQwrmU
Which has nothing to do with a dome, and everything to do with Dubai... The reaction to the dome is unfounded panic. Dubai will separate the people because Dubai separates the people. Dome, or no dome.
Being the largest climate controlled dome of its kind, perhaps the engineering "lessons learned" could be applicable to creating a self-sustaining space colony -- one of the chief challenges being climate control.
here's your options:
--total freedom eventually leading to extinction
--some very mild controls that will improve health, boost the economy, create jobs, and possibly prevent extinction as well.
I see you're exercising your own freedom to be stupid. There is no "extinction" to be had from global warming. It doesn't follow from the actual climate research done (which predicts things such as modest increases in global mean temperature and sea levels) or the geological record (which records more extreme climate changes than what we see now and which we could survive readily though perhaps at a small fraction of our current population).
Now, I suppose climate changes could trigger a war using some novel technology which could drive the human race to extinction, but so could just existing (pretexts for war when you have superior firepower can be notoriously flimsy).
Finally, I think it's absurd to claim that the "controls" are "very mild". You're screwing with the energy infrastructure of the world and you'll have to force a bunch of unwilling people to go along (OPEC for starters). I also notice your last claim:
And I could build a decent case that that freedom (to be stupid) should be stricken because of hte burden you then place on everyone else.
What sort of "very mild controls" results in the "freedom to be stupid" getting stricken? That sounds more like totalitarian suppression of dissenting thought. But maybe getting jailed for having the wrong opinion is just a minor imposition. What do I know?