First, I'm sure there's lots of Open Source being used in Google's implementation - just not where we can see.
There is a speech recognizer from CMU that might be a good starting point. I haven't heard about plain-language software, though. There is additional rocket science to be done. Not insurmountable given things we've already done.
Training with millions of people? Actually, that's the part that community development is good at.
Apart from the obvious-but-snarky ("Install Linux! hoho I'm so clever!"), you can indefinitely postpone all Windows updates on all versions of Windows 10 by stopping (and disabling if you find a way) the Windows Update service.
Of course, you lose the security updates if you do that too. Whether that's massively important to you depends on how often you run executables downloaded from the Internet, and what TCP/IP services you run on your computer.
Obviously "No security updates" is a bad thing, but if Windows insists on installing an update that actually breaks your PC in some way, no security updates might be the better of two evils, especially if you don't use IE or Edge, run any externally accessible services, and don't run every executable you download from the Internet.
It's a shame the Cisco blog is linked second, because it's a great (yet short) read.
Since the end of last month one of my very low volume email accounts has been on the receiving end of a new spam campaign trying to give me malware. The emails I've received exactly match the emails in Cisco's graph So it's neat to see what's behind it - in this case the Necurs botnet running at full tilt.
Considering this account was receiving virtually zero spam before, it's definitely a major uptick in spam.
Interesting. Do you know how long ago that study was done? I"m curious if smaller manufacturing geometries have made newer processors more vulnerable.
Happens all the time. If a person commits a crime against country A and they are in country B, country A may well ask country B to hand them over. If it happens or the details of it vary based off of the specific countries and their treaties, called extradition treaties. For example the US and North Korea? Ya not happening. There are no extradition treaties between those two, and the governments hate each other. so nobody is getting handed over. However EU nations? Extremely strong extradition treaties. If you commit a crime against Germany from France, Germany will have France arrest you and ship you over to stand trial.
The majority of nations have extradition treaties of some level with each other since they don't want criminals able to run off and hide from justice. It has been a thing for a long time.
I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:
If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.
There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.
That's a really good point. This service sure isn't going to throw someone off for being attacked too much. I'll ask someone at Google to expedite the process.
Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.
With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.
The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.