"Some people who fly sky lanterns are idiots."
Some?
40559 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"The law allows a maximum fine proportional to the company's income (up to 4%)"
It's a little more nuanced than that.
Firstly it's 2% or 4% depending on the offence. There's also what you might call the flat rate limit - 20m or 2% whichever is greater, 40m or 40% whichever is greater.
By setting the initial fine at 50m seems to indicate that they're going straight into "or greater" numbers for a start. And it is for a start; fines are rarely set at anywhere near maximum for a first offence (this is their first offence under GDPR). If there are other Google cases working their way through the system then it seems likely that with a first offence already recorded and a fine of this magnitude issued fines are going to get bigger unless Google shows a willingness to comply.
Any business considering how to react to GDPR should be looking at this as a warning that the fines are going to be orders of magnitude bigger than in the past.
TL;DR It's a shot across the bows.
"Sometimes that is the best way to refuse the terms of service -- by not using the site/company and going elsewhere."
GDPR does not allow excessive data gathering to be tied to use of site. If a cookie is required for the operation of the site, e.g. to maintain state, that's OK. If it's to gather data about behaviour it requires separate explicit permission and service can't be withheld if permission isn't given. Breaching that aspect of GDPR brings fines.
"I wish browser would allow such option automatically, but as long the main one is made bu google itself"
It's only the "main one" because of the numbers of people who use it. Your post suggests you're one of those so it's partially your decision to make it that. You are free to do your bit to change it any time you want.
"I wouldn't be surprised if things were a bit more thorny than that."
He hasn't told you how they've cracked it. The French have actually started already. It'll be done by issuing annual fines for GDPR breaches.
'The manufacturer gets alloted his "prefix", which is the first 24-bits of the address, then every card they make is then given a unique address using the prefix + a serial number from the manufacturer for the second 24-bits of the address'
It might also be possible to change the MAC in S/W.
I discovered that DECNET assumes the prefix will be DEC's own. We had installed DECNET emulator S/W for HP-UX. When we first fired it up it reset the HP server MAC to make it look like a DEC. There could have been a problem if it reset to another VAX on the network but you'd have to be very unlucky to have that happen. No we weren't unlucky like that. What did happen was that the change of MAC invalidated all the connected users' ARP caches. I can't remember how long it took but they did repopulate fairly quickly.
"Motorola workstation....the soldering on the original was terrible with dry joints all over the place"
Motorola H/W problems. That rings a bell.
I had a gig which involved adding some reports to a factory control system that ran on a Motorola server and then involved going to Italy to install them on site. Reports, no problem. Installation, no problem. But then the server kept crashing and what looked like leaving bits of memory dump in files in lost+found after running fsck. The client's client didn't want to let me go until it was all working & I was rapidly running out of Lira. I eventually escaped & heard later it was a hardware memory failure that was responsible.
"Of course this was quite a few years ago"
The Incredible Human Journey? I don't think it was that long ago and it's being repeated on BBC 4. There was a more recent series called "Origins of us". All worth watching, up to the standards of Horizon of long ago instead of the usual Beeb science programme of 15 minutes padded out to 50mins or an hour.
"Never been to Norfolk and seen the Norfolkers then?"
Having heard this so many times I was interested in Leslie et al, 2015, the Nature paper on fine structure of Britain They produced a map in which lowland England came out as homogeneous. The distinct populations were in upland Britain. Norfolk was just part of the amorphous blob. Not distinct from the rest at all.
"Truth is, the multi-species conventional wisdom is looking more and more pants."
Did anyone catch the 2018 Royal Institutional Christmas Lectures (only 3 - there used to be 5, everything goes downhill)? This year it was a two hander, the anatomist Alice Roberts and a geneticist guest lecturer, Aoife McLysaght. Roberts was presenting the usual Neanderthalis vs Sapiens when McLysaght interjected "it's all one species". It's the old splitters versus lumpers all over again.
"Chatbots are a trite example but they're being used because they can improve customer service quite a bit if expectations are correct."
Do you mean if customer expectations are low?
After TT had bought out my old ISP I had the misfortune to have to use their customer "services" (the two events might well be connected) and still have no idea if there was a bot or a human at the other end. All I can say for sure is that if it was a human they'd failed their Turing test.
"I'll click through to read the full story."
This is one thing that tends to be overlooked. I haven't followed the politics of this so I'm not sure just what line the newspapers are taking on this but ISTR that in some instances Google stopped quoting and the newspapers found their site traffic falling off which wasn't at all what they wanted.
"I suspect that what went wrong with the 23andMe samples"
According to the CBC article the 23andMe results agreed to within 0.4%. The substantial differences in interpretation must be down to that 0.4% and/or the possibility that, as someone else posted, each analysis covers a subset of the genome. The 99.6% agreement would then apply to the common sections that were analysed. The differences between the variability of the 23andMe interpretations and the consistency of, say, the Ancestry variations are probably telling us something about the differences in the nature of the combinations of the interpretive algorithms and their underlying data.
"Each test should have returned the same percentages for them."
Not so much each test, more the interpretation of the tests. The 0.4% difference (presumably experimental error in sequencing and/or mutations during development) seems to have thrown the interpretive algorithms of some vendors more than others.
To my mind the differences in interpretation between the other two vendors is interesting. They give very similar results between the twins but pretty substantial differences between the vendors in what these mean. It suggests to me that the real problem in all of this stuff is the data on which the interpretations lie. Any place in Europe has a population whose ancestors got there by a variety of different routes and which swapped elements of the population with other places. The result isn't entirely homogeneous but it's certainly fairly mixed and each of these businesses (and academic investigators also) are taking sub-samples of this mix and characterising them as some sort of type specimens and then using them to interpret subsequent analyses. I doubt the underlying data are really good enough to make proper sense out of this, nor will they be for a few more years.
It all reminds me of the situation back in the '60s/early '70s when we were starting to apply carbon dating to archaeology (and palaeoecology) but without a good enough corpus of dating material to make real sense of it. E.g. having some nicely dated pollen diagrams of the Irish late bronze age and a nice archaeological write-up of the Irish late bronze age which seemed to fit but without a single carbon date for the archaeology to test that fit.
"Frankly, I won't trust an English website on French grammar or literature."
I would, however, trust it on French phrases adopted in English. As far as I can see it makes sense with either verb. The OP version, if my long-ago French classes can be relied on, means "the more things change the more they are the same" which makes the same point, arguably more pithily.
"Coloured text on a coloured screen; colour-blind user."
It's surprising how this can get overlooked. In my area of forensic science we tended to do a lot of colour matching of fibres in microscopy. My initial boss couldn't do that part of the job, he was colour blind*. About 4 years later when I'd got to the level of doing recruiting my office-mate & I decided we really should screen candidates for colour vision.
*He'd come in via a medical lab-tech background where microscopy tended to use red/blue staining.
"Programmers bear some responsibility for this, using unexpected jargon etc., and few companies seem prepared to review all user-facing text for clarity."
They're probably in a cleft stick here. On the one hand you can give a short message and have complaints about jargon or use descriptive terms and have complaints about it being too long to read. A good idea, however it to avoid messages such as "ERROR SJIWEK00000340000SDIJKEW".
On the whole one probably should be able to expect users to understand the basic terminology of whatever it is they're dealing with. Try driving a car if you don't understand "brake" or "starter", or using your TV if you don't understand the word "channel".
"would have expected the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP and PC to have done much better in 2017 election"
The LibDems were still being punished by their erst-while protest-voting supporters for actually taking responsibility and joining a coalition government rather than being ineffective.