And another thing, being American, can't you just order the playboy or hustler channels or something?
I haven't had cable in years, but I'm sure such channels exist, and i doubt they censor out all the good parts on those particular channels, so how exactly is this censorship interfering with your right to watch whatever you want? just because they don't broadcast hardcore porn on NBC During Primetime doesn't mean that you're being somehow oppressed.

Ok, I deserved that, I honestly didn't mean that Television should be more heavily censored, just that there's already borderline porngraphy on basic cable, I dont see censorship as really being an issue, what is it that you'd like to see/hear more of on TV that you don't already? When was the last time you said "Man, that episode of Everybody loves Raymond would have been so much better if there was some nice big tits in it... and people saying fuck a lot... yeah.. that'd be cool"
you already have the right to download/purchase/rent whatever the hell you want, do you really need more sex drugs and violence coming through basic cable?

ok, I'm Canadian, so maybe I'm missing something here, but "Draconian Censorship Laws" Doesn't really seem to apply, at least up here... I see all kinds of nudity, drugs, booze and swearing on TV . I think it could use a little more censorship to be honest.

Just curious, but what gives you the impression that HDMI Will be around in 16 years?
I dont think its all that unlikely, but I also dont see any reason to believe it wont be gone in 5 years.

How would you intend to find a solid piece of evidence stating that? Enough time hasn't passed to say for sure, but intelligent people can make estimates, and you'd be much better off trusting their answers and not taking the risk in the first place.

In other words, you'd have to be a complete moron to expect a Thumbdrive to hold your data for 17 years. There may not be evidence that the data WILL degrade/disappear, but there also is no evidence that your data will be in tact either. so why would you choose to err on the side of stupidity?

and what benefit could that possibly have? that means developers will be going through all the work of packaging and testing these 32-bit apps, and then for no real reason, choosing not to make them available to half of their users.

really?
seriously?

*sigh*

I think you're making some very wrong assumptions... firstly, ubuntu is not a "Leading Edge" Distro, whatever that means, its goal is to bring linux closer to the masses, they chose debian as their base partly because of the broad range of architectures it supports. dropping support for 32-bits goes against that goal.

You're also completely off base in implying that ubuntu is unfit for older computers, it runs as well as most linux distros on older hardware. Yes ubuntu offers the latest eye-candy features, but many of its users disable them, I use ubuntu because it's a breeze to maintain, it stays out of my way, and its very popular and well supported, so I know I'll be able to find help when I need it.

I think requiring 64 bits is a completely unreasonable requirement, and would affect WAY more people than you realize. Sure there are other distros that will support 32 bit, but tbh, I dont want to run them, I've tried many of them and none are as pleasant as ubuntu, I'm not about to give that up because of your dim-witted notion that 32 bit computers are obsolete.

On top of that, the whole idea dropping support for an architecture seems downright stupid unless you're totally sure there are only a handful of them in existence. that is clearly not the case with 32-bit x86 cpu's, and it wont be for a VERY long time.

TL;DR you can pry my 32-bit CPU's from my cold dead hands.

I dont know about this "Chrome for linux" thing, but Chromium is not a windows app with any kind of compatibility layer, or wrapper. Its a native linux browser that actually works REALLY well (unlike all of the other apps that google
'ported' to linux)

of course I meant to say "If ubuntu stopped supporting 32-bit..."

i think you might be jumping the gun a little, I have 3 computers in this house, none of which is more than 4 years old, and none of which are 64-bit. if ubuntu stopped supporting 64-bit any time in the next 4 or 5 years, I would be forced to stop using it.

He said "for a fee" not "for free"

15 I think. still a pretty small number to qualify as a study.

"Just to clarify, I am a Linux guy."

I call BS. A "Linux Guy" would know that 8.9 is not a valid ubuntu version number.

I wont need to run a VM and 2 shit proprietary apps just to put a ring-tone on my phone. thats a plus in my book.