So, if I own a "Fahrenheit 451" book, DVD, VHS, etc. I can keep it forever? That'd be great....

Fun.

They tried to hide it, by the spelling; but the idea came from "Terminator Genisys" It would be funny, but I get the feeling the laughing is harder on the other side of the fence.

No, he watched "Terminator Genisys"

It is good that the bug was found and noted. But why on earth would anyone not using that encoder/decoder bother building it into their executable? They probably aren't. This is a non-issue. I've built FFmpeg several times. Its real easy to configure. It is unlikely that google's binaries include built in support for that codec.The issue here has nothing to do with a security threat.

If we're trying to find niche reason for the demise of "modern" 32bit operating systems, there are other more fun ones. But, reducing developer time "waste?" is usually the real reason. NetBSD is more a labor of love, and 32bit support matters there. 32bit will exist on Alpine for awhile, as well; but will probably lose it before NetBSD, ever does. More and more libraries/tool are only being developed with 64bit in mind. So, as a package maintainer, it is up to you to port it (if you're lucky, the original developer with accept your solutions). But, back to the niche, if you follow the trend towards the "Zero Trust" technology path, a bunch of 32bit hardware is a bit too discrete. Again, this is a niche reason. You can look at it two ways, either there isn't enough support for the increased need of hardware encoding/decoding/encryption/decryption, or the potential for actionable fingerprinting and modern hardware vulnerabilities isn't available. To make it more clear, can you imagine hacking into someone's "online" 386/Win4Work3.11 machine vs an "online" PIII/WinXP machine? I'd rather target XP. Both the OS and CPU are more useful for this (in contrast to the other option). Or, would I rather attempt a actionable fingerprint on a machine with really simple BIOS, or one with BIOS that is really an operating system on its own? I mean a basic initiation bios, or a tiny operating system that runs cooperatively with the one you've installed. It may sound like Black Mirror crap, but there is an evolving reality to this. There "will" be more and more "announced" need to have access to your machines kernel/CPU. For example, "You can't be trusted on this network, unless your machine is secure (we have secured your identity and computational intent)", "Otherwise you are a risk to our community/patrons/business/organization". Older hardware is not sufficiently "secured" without some kind of trade off. Looking forward, there are negatives to supporting 32bit hardware that go beyond extra developer time. You should probably image, by now, that there is plenty of automation examining what is out there connecting to the net. There is a security firm in Texas that gets a list of IPs to investigate. Something somewhere out there flags the IPs as curious, and after being relayed to the firm, they do intel retrieval on them. This is one example of many. There is plenty of automation doing very nefarious things. And even though it may be upsetting, modern hardware and operating systems (generally speaking) are presenting a clearer picture of what is going on behind these addresses (profile building). Does this niche 32bit machine reality have a huge impact on Steam's decision to drop 32bit OS support? Nope. Are we moving in a direction where having officially supported backdoors will become the rule? Yep. Does modern support for 32bit OSes hinder "some aspect" of the move to "Zero Trust"? Probably a tiny bit. The hardware was not developed with "Zero Trust" in mind (lack of secure boot, as one example). Keep in mind "Zero Trust" has been on the plate for awhile. We've seen a kind of "Phase One" adoption of it (two phase verification, browser verification). Just now, we seem to be entering into a kind of phase two (needing a solution for pornographic websites, child use of AI, tuition fraud, fraudulent employment, general use of AI, etc.). Probably almost once a day, there is an article on Slashdot presenting an issue "Zero Trust" may solve. I can't say that the prevalence of focus on this kind of news is for the encouragement the public acceptance towards "Zero Trust". It could just be the reality of our situation (aside of backing away from the societal technological merger). But, 97% of major corporations and about the same percent of global governance is extremely supportive in moving this way.

To me, the hate on Rust, is about irrevocable change. Once accepted, even if later rejected, you can never go back to what was before. At best, you can start something new, in the spirit of what was. After so much change "what was" hasn't kept up, while not being maintained. You don't see many development choices willing to sacrifice progress, to dust of obsolescence. You could distill this further, to forecasting the direction a change will bring. The change "before you" may not be so bad; but the aftermath(s) of that change is/are systemic. This is more an issue in large opensouce code bases. Otherwise, who cares? Object-Oriented-Programming was an issue, too. But it easily benefit large commercial code bases. A single person just didn't need to know as much, to provide their part. Along with other benefits, it was much easier to compartmentalize. We may not realize it today, but there were losses; not all good losses. No one should really hold issue with OOP or Rust, as much as they do (or did). Both are thoughtful (well thought out) approaches, to a decided solution. Both "may be" the best solutions. But, even if you are using them where they shine, it doesn't mean they are the solution everyone else wants. I guess C++ also had its time with this. Some people are probably just hopping on a "complaining" bandwagon, or fear that it is a shift to clear out the old and invigorate the young. There is likely a substantial body of people seeing Rust as a Project Management dream, for progress and promotion; having no clue what will still be required. I still prefer ASM, Pascal, Oberon, and Scheme. But only one of those is "a little" useful, career wise. Those that "hate on Rust" aren't missing the direction of Computing I would have preferred. LOL

There is value associated to knowing what your country has done. But unless races are actually not equal, then any race (or grouping of people, for that matter) in the place of another is likely to have acted the same. You could "potentially" blame this on culture, more than race. There are some I.Q. statistics (not sure how accurate) that suggest the Jewish community contains people of the highest I.Q. ranges. I'm sure some people would be convinced this is genetics (eugenic like philosophy). I'd wager it is conditioning and culture. I can't deny the "possibility" that victimized races would somehow be more benevolent, if (having had the same conditioning and culture, as their oppressors) been on the other side of the table. But, I find it difficult to verify. So.... In point of fact, blaming any person of a race for past acts of that same race (when they themselves did not do the acts) is "Racist". If you call a German responsible for NAZI genocide, how are you not being Racist? Its not dis-similar to calling any race or group degenerates, because one person of that group raped a small child. Certainly the numbers of perpetrators are higher, in the historical atrocities we all know of; but it doesn't change this fact. There is also merit in acknowledging that the bad behaviors of a culture won't change, unless blame is placed at some point. But in this regard, every available history (and even myth) can teach all peoples. We are all capable of repeating the mistakes of others (again, only if we are all of equal capacity). We cannot eliminate (or "White" wash) the truth, that some people will choose a prejudice based on skin, faith, politics, sex, orientation, etc. We also cannot judge directly the affect receivers of these prejudices endure, compared to any other. A person not getting a job (in fact) because of their race, may not be injured the same as another. In point of fact, it is always some kind of prejudice that results in an interview not tuning into employment. Race is a very poor prejudice, for this. And if a majority is using it against you, it is unfair. Especially, since its often very hard to simply change/fake your race, to get a job. But, this does not mean that a person becomes a victim. By legal definition, I am wrong here. But the choice to "be" a victim is each persons decision. As well is the choice to assume you are a victim, for a certain prejudice, when really it was because of another (sometimes you will never "really" know). The absolute acceptance of racism against white people as being inherently racist, is hurting other races. They must be prepared for such morons, that happen to be white and stupid. But you can't let "racism" become your assumption, lest you become racist yourself. Adding damage to the wound, you may end up neglecting to see your own opportunities, for personal improvement. It is very easy and natural for "anyone" to assume a responsibility liberating prejudice, rather then look at one's own potential for growth (keeping in mind the danger of being "unreasonably" self-critical). Allowing the filthy concepts of "sacism" to infiltrate you persona, destroys your perspective more then it helps it. Many whites are not the ones responsible for the slavery and prejudice of the past; just the same, many blacks are not the victims of slavery and prejudices of the past. These prejudices (on both sides) exist anew, only being connected to the past, by the "fact" that people have always and may always carry poor prejudice. And we need to start being more realistic about this, in order to salvage our own intelligence. First, we often ignore that a person can carry a personal prejudice, while at the same time capable of being reasonable. You can believe that red heads are hot headed, and realize that this personal prejudice is no usable metric for the hiring/firing of a red head. You are not being paid to uses that personal prejudice. You can choose not to accept Lutheranism as a true/real religion, but that doesn't mean you can't be friends with a Lutheran; otherwise we'd all have to be exactly the same to get along. I've worked with a racist black man. It was a physical job, and he respected that I carried my weight. As a co-worker, he didn't have to suffer from any laziness, on my part. He fully admitted that he liked working with me, but that he didn't like me and I would never eat at his dinner table. I also enjoyed working with him. I have no problem admitting that I respected his racism. I did not think his racism was wise or correct. I did not respect his racism, in this way. But, I did not try to convince him he was wrong about me. I respected his choice, and he respected me as far as he needed to. He may have been racist, but he was a good man. I especially respected that he didn't hold him opinion of me, against me (in the work place). That man was/is an anomaly. Because racism is the subject of his behavior, some my carry bad opinions about him. But when we examine that a gay man may not choose to date/sleep with the females that surround him, we don't suddenly believe he isn't going to hire females, after an interview. This man has a "right" to his prejudice. The real issues is acting beyond your rights, based on a personal prejudice. This is not going away. We need to address that, not as victims, but as adults of things as they are. The only true/fair alternative, is the complete absence of all prejudice. In some cases we do have something like this, for certain prejudices. I've worked at a company, in the south, that would not fire an African America, once hired. This man was also a friend of mine. He was very open about the fact he wasn't gonna work any harder then he wanted to, and that it was gonna be very little. His theory was that a black man doesn't often get an opportunity like his, and he was okay soaking it up from these hillbillies for as long as he could. He was a funny guy, and I liked him. I don't agree with his moral compass, but those were his choices. In point of fact, that company was racist against African Americans, for allowing an "unspoken" policy like that, while using it as an example of their inclusion. I'm not a fan of making policy, in an attempt to prevent prejudice. The example above is just one example, and not every policy attempt will be equal to it's repugnance. And anti-prejudice policy, evokes prejudice. And, this is the "true" nature of the filth that is racism. I a man act differently towards another, because he does not want him this think his is racist, be has now become one. Likewise, be we act different around a man, because we don't know if he is racist or not, we also become racist. In both cases, you are treating a man different, because of the color of his skin. If we are not careful, we will end up being required to sleep with just about anyone that wants to sleep with us, lest be be prejudiced against them. This may be the plan, if you consider that Aldous huxley's "A Brave New World" was promoted to college students (of the era) as the world they would be the architects for. Some may see the book as a warning, but is was not presented in that way. I understand that this isn't immediately clear. It is hard to choke down, with any kind of acceptance. But if you can be honest with yourself, you can see how petty we have really become. I'm pretty sure most people are too far on either side to give these ideals any credit. I'm hoping that someone finds them broadening, if not somewhat correct. For everyone else, "Don't Call Me White" - NOFX

Please, like this kinda thing isn't expected. Security issues makes space for powerful providers (and co-conspirators ). Wait! Conspiracy tin-foil-hat thinking! You don't have to be a bad/evil company. You just have to follow the course(s) of action that prevent you from failing. Anyone that has a hold on the Internet, will want to keep it (and take more). If you want to hang on, you follow suite. You just do your best to cover the fact that you know your helping the bad companies. Otherwise, you seem almost as bad. But, this is only "bad" if conquering the Internet isn't considered "good". Will those that think it's bad still use it? When the greater evils are the only way to use it (likely the eventual case), did we support it on its way to getting there? I don't know if that even matters. There is always going to be enough people, who just use without observing or questioning. The rest of the hamsters stay away from the new food dish, until they get hungry enough. We were sold the Internet, misguidedly thinking it was ours. This whole thing is like getting upset, because your favorite series killed off a likable character. I get that the Internet is more than entertainment. Everyday its going to become more and more of a civil utility. We're gonna end up letting Caesar have that which is Caesar's (it was probably always his). For now, we can still do other things on it. Maybe we should look at finding other ways to network tons of PCs? Although, you'd probably look like someone who supports a shady communications network. Isn't that what we're looking at, with this type of thing? Maybe it isn't, "If you don't expose enough of your users identity, you are a insecure browser". But seems like that is the goal. Doesn't it? You are "probably" secure from others looking at your traffic. But, those you interact will need to know exactly who you are. That way you can be held responsible for your online actions, instead of them. The term, I believe, is "No Trust Security". The idea is that you get no access, unless you are trusted. But, to be trusted, you must be authenticated. That is what Digital ID is. It shouldn't be a surprise that companies are slowing taking it that way. Those that hinder progress, in that direction, will obviously face some turbulence. This issue we're face here isn't Digital ID, yet. But it is no conspiracy, that this is where we are going. I can't blame anyone for not liking it. But I don't know if points can be awarded, for ignoring it. Just look around, a little.

Even the archaic Pentium III has plenty of useful "Modern" functionality. Rather you are using Linux on it or WinXP (perhaps with something like One-Care-Api), many modern applications can be ran. Granted, there are less and less Windows applications and Linux distros supporting 32bit systems, or the lack of PAE. But, even without modern software, lots of aging software is still very useful. The fact that no one (in the majority) wants these machines, if they aren't useful on the Internet, shows that the value of the "PC" has almost completely shifted towards a kind of "extroverted computing". Essentially, that the device isn't useful unless it possesses dependency on capacities beyond its own. To me, this say an awful lot about the "majority" user. I can't 100% blanket this statement on "majority" user; because there is an efficiency only needing one device, for all processing activities. Also, the large supply of aging devices and the logistics to supply them to those whom would use them just isn't there. You can probably add to that, that many are ignorant to the capacities of older devices. For example, there are likely plenty of artists and musicians that lack the competency to understand that these machines could meet their needs. Since many may not economically feel like they can purchase a new (or recently new) machine, they go without any machine. A Pentium M device, from 2005, can run a fairly built-out version Guitarix (or a free Windows application of a similar nature) providing the OS isn't itself configured or compiled resource heavy. There are plenty of machines well suited to run Krita. Any person significantly advanced in music or illustration will quickly snub their noise at such "perceivably" under-powered machines. Despite these arguments against my claim, I think "overall" this is a trend more related to us depreciating our own abilities and enhancing/increasing our external dependencies. I guess that probably seems like a well known fact. I think we should watch this trend of Corporations and Linux distros (with the difference between the two getting less every year) slowly deciding that the hardware itself can't be supported. The claim will eventually be, that the hardware itself is a security issue. Actually, if you look at it, that ground work is already there. You combine this with many online services not being available to you, unless you use a fairly recent (and recourse hungry) browser, and the mounting growth of legal liability for online activity, we may see ourselves "one day" being legally bound to using specific "secured" devices for any online activity. As if you hadn't already noticed, the cloud was/is intended to be where users will one day store all of their data. I imagine forcing reliance on remote computing and storage, could only increase "Surveillance" precision. Sorry, I meant "Internet Security" not "Surveillance". What am I even saying? Clearly, I've over exaggerated all of this. Introversion, of any kind, is obviously not healthy. Having the ability to mold and form your internal life is a disease. Making the connection between e-waste and the maturation of a good and properly articulated society is likely the out come of spending too much time exploring personal potentials, outside of the appropriate prescribed norms. That or else it is is blatantly taking advantage of the subject matter, to inject a kind of paranoia propaganda, to satiate some personal agenda. What the heck. Its like I was saying having too much functional e-waste has something to do with us "as a people" reaching a near irrecoverable agentic state. I guess I don't really see the connection, now. Sorry about that.

You are not safe on Christmas, without completely accepting that we need to have total access to private conversations. Everytime you enforce privacy, a terrorist has a Christmas gift waiting for you.-- While the common person views "Whatsapp" as a pyramid of privacy, what good terrorist would believe the same? So What kind of terrorist are we talking about here? One that trusts Facebook and Whatsapp? If this is the case, there are likely tons of bread crumbs for tracking this fool.-- Love me some good old propaganda once in a while.-- If anything, this is just an attempt to get below average wrong doers convinced that whatsapp isn't already totally open to higher level law enforcement. Maybe not even all that high of level law enforcement.

A good place for people to start is Bash, Zsh, Yash, or Powershell. Notepad, Nano, and Vi are often pre-installed.

One large difference is the complexity and undocumented nature of the hardware.

What might be more interesting is a system not much more complex than a Amiga or AtariST (and they are complex enough), but only a good bit faster. That way you can do some useful things with it. There are projects like the Standalone Vampire Amiga like systems. And the Atari has the Firebee. The Vampire v4 is said to have H264 playback. And these machines are very compatabile with their dated origins.

For C64 there is the Mega64, which can use a pie zero for more power and memory. There is the ZX Spectrum Next too.

I personally would like to see Vampire make something for the Atari systems. It has plenty of opensource tools, like a bootable multitasking OS.

It all depends on the type of programmer you are looking to breed.

To me, it looks like we are heading in the direction of extreme compartmentalized programming. You only need to know how your code relates to the other parts of the project. You learn more and more about what your specific role as a developer is. Then you are used to duplicate that role from project to project. Understanding the detailed ins and outs of the entire system, would then be kind of a distraction. That was one of the goals behind OOP. We are not totally there right now. But unless you are blind, you can see that this is where we will be going. For the sake of "security" systems programming will become a very esoteric art, and not what we commonly refer to when we say programmer. If you look at the closed nature of most devices used today, you see that the average user is very seperated from the OS. For all intents and purposes most UIs are not much different than a webbrowser. Soon that difference will not exist. The system will present the use with a UI that connects them to a cloud stored userspace. You will have that same userspace from device to device, and will not have access to that userspace without a network connection (network based workstations basically). Your device will have a high powered GUI and the cpu crunches local JIT code like javascript or python does now. But all of that code comes from a cloud like service. So development in large, will manly take place in very high level programming environments. Essentially programmers will be basically writing scripts. There will still be people writting compiled code. But more and more we are going to see scripting as the default meaning behind porgrammer.

So to understand how to write scripts, you just need a very limited knowledge on the systax used to write in the scripting language you are using, and the commands relevant to the task you are performing. So you could walk in knowing almost nothing about programming, and write a simple GUI or task, and what you need to know most is how to access the information that provides you with the commands you need. In a more specific and complex senario, you'll need to know how to work with a database or utilized a graphics engine.

I totally agree with the article. But that is because I mean something less modern when I say programmer. I'd like to see systems where you still have the freedom to poke and peek memory. But I'd also like "user" to mean someone that can compile their system to their specific CPU in an architecture family, and administer what running services they do and do not need running in the background of their system.

So you download it and start sifting through it all to find that O.B.L. era terrorist malware, only to find advanced backdoor contagions that exploit specific vulnerabilities in only Windows 10. I see what you did there, CIA! The malware warning was a good way to give the hacker a nice laugh. One of those inside jokes.

Your right. It isn't very interesting. Just more interesting than temporary hosting, which has been around for quite some time now. There has been a ton of sites offering this service free. I even hosted a node.js site that did it. The niche audience doesn't need a web browser that can do what netcat and socat can do. We already have netcat and socat. But we also don't need our web browser with a built in video player. If you made netcat as easy to use as in browsers videos, the niche would probably just complain about browser bloat. I think Opera tried some interesting things like that anyway. It never took off because the average user doesn't even imagine something like it can be done, and doesn't look for it. Especially today. Everyone is used to a man in the middle, doing for you what your computer could already do without him. I don't think it would take a whole lot of investment either. Its not new technology. Its the basics of the Internet, that have been there since Netscape (with the exception of upnp). One thing I have noticed, is that people do not understand the difference between hosting a file somewhere and sharing it direct IP to IP. It did the same thing right? I know any lightly seasoned user knows the difference. And most people could pick out the difference right away, if they thought about it. But as for Mozilla putting effort into a temp host site, if you're gonna do that why not do something interesting in that comparable range of not very interesting things?