Mass transit won't ever be 100% self supporting on the fares it collects. This is a fact that everybody needs to be aware of. Mass transit always requires some kind of additional funding to keep the wheels rolling. This funding usually comes from public coffers, though taxes, fees and the like.
HOWEVER, I'm also saying that there ARE justifications for the funding of mass transit from public funds to subsidize the fares.
How do I know these things? If providing Mass Transit was able to be supported by fares, companies would be making profits doing it and the government wouldn't need to. But as it stands, mass transit systems that go enough places often enough to be useable, are not profitable on fares alone, so if you have to have such a system, you need government paying a significant part of the costs.
You assume I don't understand where parts come from.... Cute..
I was saying I don't care where a Volvo is built because I don't own or want one... At this point on this little rabbit trail, I'm just pointing out that it's not ALL bad here. There might actually be a benefit or two to consider if you think about it.
A trade war with China, might have some other good affects on the global economic and geopolitical worlds too. Such as applying pressure on China to force North Korea to the table, harming China's trade surplus with us... But it will also have negative affects.. Thinking folks understand this..
A focus? LOL... Yea, they said that about a year ago, right after they changed their "we are moving the focus plant to Mexico" plan. My guess is that Ford's plans may be a changin' again soon...
In the mean time, the plant in Michigan keeps building the Focus... Maybe they will just give up the attempted move and set up a NEW plant for the new Ranger someplace? Seems more likely now doesn't it?
Mass transit should be able to pay for itself via the tolls paid by its users;
NEVER going to happen... Mass transit is absolutely not self supporting, never has been, never will. It will ALWAYS require taxpayer support. Even the best financial option, the City Bus, simply cannot charge enough to cover it's operating costs. Don't get me started on light rail and subways... IF we charged enough to cover costs, nobody who actually uses mass transit could afford it, and those who could afford it don't use it anyway.
But... To be fare (pun intended) that's not the point of mass transit now is it...
Such "secure" solid state drives exist... But the way they work is that they require a decryption key be erased, rendering the data not immediately recoverable (you have to find the key first) followed by a full erase of all the storage done by the controller which will continue until it completes, even if the power is interrupted. It just restarts the wipe anytime the power is restored.
If this tool doesn't understand the programming language of the code, Then... It's pretty much worthless compared to LINT. Shall we send all our code to a group of English grammar experts for their comments before we allow it to be committed too? What's the point of that?
In any programming language there are commonly used sequences which are prone to errors, which are syntactically correct, but likely wrong. Your AI based search would produce lots of useless garbage if it cannot tell the difference between a comment and actual code.
I'm going to say it only one more time. Static code analysis (looking at the source code) is what LINT did and does. Your brand "new" AI program, does the same thing. If it works as you claim, it likely also produces a lot of false positives OR if the thresholds are set high, misses a lot of common mistakes and you'd be better off tossing the AI part out and just hard code it, like LINT did....
No, it is not a static code analyzer.
You seem to old to grasp new concepts.
Why don't you read the article instead of continuing to make an idiot out of your self?
From the Article above:
"It's all about comparing the lines of code we've created in the past"
That sure sounds like "static code analysis" to me. Perhaps you don't understand that that term means?
Static Analysis of source code is looking at the source code for interesting patterns, in most cases looking for common programming errors. LINT did this, this "new" program does the same thing. It looks at the source code for patterns right? Then it's doing static analysis.
I like you analogy, but consider this small addition...
Let's say I tell you that we discovered a whole pile of rules for designing cars. Don't try to stamp metal into this kind of shape, mount your glass in ways the flexing of the body doesn't break it, don't use plastic for this kind of part or that, don't use 6V lamps or non-rechargeable batteries, don't put the gas tank too close to the bumper or put electrical wires and exhaust manifolds near it either.... We use these "rules of the road" to validate our design changes as we make them.
You, invented an AI way to look for this same list in your vehicle designs....
The concept of that Tesla isn't new, a battery operated car you can drive on the roads.. Only the implementation is new. Tesla didn't invent the electric car, they just implemented one.
This 'new' program was invented back in the days of LINT, this is just a new implementation of one. It's not even better than LINT if you ask me, but being AI based, there's no way to prove that objectively.
Oh, grasshopper... This is not new. It's doing static code analysis and flags parts that may have issues based on where trouble has been seen in the past. This is EXACTLY what LINT is, advice from experience. It's basically saying "Um, you *might* not want to do this kind of thing because it's often a mistake. Are you sure?"
Of course you somehow think that because it's some fuzzy AI technique used it's somehow different? Cute....If anything, it's less effective being AI, but that's another debate you won't understand.
Yea, I used to say that kind of thing when I was young too. Hubris lives on in the young. We had all the good ideas then too, we where better educated, fresh out of school and full of promise. But we where as stupid as those who came before us. Wisdom is hard won though experience and I've personally learned the grey beards of my day where right, there is really nothing new. Programming remains the same problem, though the names and faces have changed.
Face it.. At the very best, this is just an extension of LINT and just static code analyzer like LINT was/is. They've been doing this kind of thing long before I came into this field fresh out of school and when you are old and grey, the newbies will "invent" the same thing AGAIN, and you can dig up this post and quote it.
But it is the same concept as LINT.... It may be different from LINT but this really isn't a new idea, and it IS LIKE LINT...
There have been static code analysis tools in use for decades now, LINT was among the first of these tools to find wide spread use and many have followed in its foot prints. This is NOT a new idea, even if the implementation method varies from the C program the initial LINT was/is.
Read the Mythical Man Month.... There is nothing new... Each generation thinks their stuff is better, that they found the way, the silver bullet. I've watched a couple of generations of new programmers go though the same "Eureka! I've got it!" claims, only to discover the hard way what I discovered, the devil is in the details and there is no magic bullet.
The more things change, the more they stay the same....
Anybody else remember LINT? I used to work a project that required that all compiler warnings be dealt with and anything reported by LINT was documented and explained IN THE CODE. It certainly didn't catch everything but it sure kept the code consistent and common logical issues from appearing too often.
Neural nets can be only as good as the data used to train them. Outside of the training data, they are pretty much a wild guess. Which points to the real problem with Neural networks. If your training data doesn't cover the actual real world data very well, your network will not be good at all those unique edge cases. Over training (using too much specific training data) is as much of an issue as bad training data too. Over trained networks jump to conclusions based on the wrong things and are just as bad.
However, Neural Nets are very fast and can use very few resources to come up with reasonably good answers when properly trained and when the problem domain is simple enough.. The issue is knowing when to trust them, and when they are off in the weeds.
Slashdot Mirror
A lie runs around the world before truth even has its boots on.
Quoting Mark Twain? I though Samuel Clemons died a long time ago... LOL (and yes, I know there is debate about if he said this).
Just goes to show, There is nothing really new..
Oh, And I like his other quote: "If you don't read the news paper, you are uninformed. If you do read it, you are misinformed. "
Mass transit won't ever be 100% self supporting on the fares it collects. This is a fact that everybody needs to be aware of. Mass transit always requires some kind of additional funding to keep the wheels rolling. This funding usually comes from public coffers, though taxes, fees and the like.
HOWEVER, I'm also saying that there ARE justifications for the funding of mass transit from public funds to subsidize the fares.
How do I know these things? If providing Mass Transit was able to be supported by fares, companies would be making profits doing it and the government wouldn't need to. But as it stands, mass transit systems that go enough places often enough to be useable, are not profitable on fares alone, so if you have to have such a system, you need government paying a significant part of the costs.
You assume I don't understand where parts come from.... Cute..
I was saying I don't care where a Volvo is built because I don't own or want one... At this point on this little rabbit trail, I'm just pointing out that it's not ALL bad here. There might actually be a benefit or two to consider if you think about it.
A trade war with China, might have some other good affects on the global economic and geopolitical worlds too. Such as applying pressure on China to force North Korea to the table, harming China's trade surplus with us... But it will also have negative affects.. Thinking folks understand this..
A focus? LOL... Yea, they said that about a year ago, right after they changed their "we are moving the focus plant to Mexico" plan. My guess is that Ford's plans may be a changin' again soon...
In the mean time, the plant in Michigan keeps building the Focus... Maybe they will just give up the attempted move and set up a NEW plant for the new Ranger someplace? Seems more likely now doesn't it?
Where do you think the Volvo XC90 is being made? Sweden? How cute!
Who cares where a Volvo is made? Not I. I drive a Ford and I'm not interested in a Volvo...
Just what the Bay Area needs, more cars on the road.
"The road"? LOL, maybe if they built another one it wouldn't be as bad....
You *want* another Civil War? Not me...
I know not many of them are armed but some are. I'd rather not have another Civil War. The last one took a huge toll on this country.
Mass transit should be able to pay for itself via the tolls paid by its users;
NEVER going to happen... Mass transit is absolutely not self supporting, never has been, never will. It will ALWAYS require taxpayer support. Even the best financial option, the City Bus, simply cannot charge enough to cover it's operating costs. Don't get me started on light rail and subways... IF we charged enough to cover costs, nobody who actually uses mass transit could afford it, and those who could afford it don't use it anyway.
But... To be fare (pun intended) that's not the point of mass transit now is it...
This only allows user level access to the system, not administrative access. So this isn't good, but it's not an open barn door either.
In order to get root access using this method you are going to need some other exploit to elevate your privileges.
Somebody got lazy.. They will get this fixed..
No.. We don't carry AR's around all that much... Now a M1911 variant? Yea, we got that covered. But the end results are the same.
Home of fruits, nuts and flakes..
Not everybody there is crazy of course, but they have more than their fair share of that part of the gene pool...
Attacking driverless cars? Really guys? Who exactly are you trying to communicate with?
But subject to government regulations none the less....
Image that... LOL
Such "secure" solid state drives exist... But the way they work is that they require a decryption key be erased, rendering the data not immediately recoverable (you have to find the key first) followed by a full erase of all the storage done by the controller which will continue until it completes, even if the power is interrupted. It just restarts the wipe anytime the power is restored.
Two decimal is just 10 in binary... So you will write all bits on and leave all but the first bit off (assuming the overflow goes back to the start).
I thought initially this would be about the ability to properly wipe the device's storage. Now that would have been useful...
Would not Bleach Bit serve both purposes?
"Just wipe it with a cloth and Bleach Bit!" (tm)...
If this tool doesn't understand the programming language of the code, Then... It's pretty much worthless compared to LINT. Shall we send all our code to a group of English grammar experts for their comments before we allow it to be committed too? What's the point of that?
In any programming language there are commonly used sequences which are prone to errors, which are syntactically correct, but likely wrong. Your AI based search would produce lots of useless garbage if it cannot tell the difference between a comment and actual code.
I'm going to say it only one more time. Static code analysis (looking at the source code) is what LINT did and does. Your brand "new" AI program, does the same thing. If it works as you claim, it likely also produces a lot of false positives OR if the thresholds are set high, misses a lot of common mistakes and you'd be better off tossing the AI part out and just hard code it, like LINT did....
No, it is not a static code analyzer. You seem to old to grasp new concepts. Why don't you read the article instead of continuing to make an idiot out of your self?
From the Article above:
"It's all about comparing the lines of code we've created in the past"
That sure sounds like "static code analysis" to me. Perhaps you don't understand that that term means?
Static Analysis of source code is looking at the source code for interesting patterns, in most cases looking for common programming errors. LINT did this, this "new" program does the same thing. It looks at the source code for patterns right? Then it's doing static analysis.
Carefully, I use them carefully...
Ok, idiot. It does not do static code analysis.
From the above article I shall quote:
"It's all about comparing the lines of code we've created in the past"
Um... "Static code analysis" is looking at the source code for probable errors. This program does that.
You may have read the articles in question, but you obviously don't understand what you saw there.
I like you analogy, but consider this small addition...
Let's say I tell you that we discovered a whole pile of rules for designing cars. Don't try to stamp metal into this kind of shape, mount your glass in ways the flexing of the body doesn't break it, don't use plastic for this kind of part or that, don't use 6V lamps or non-rechargeable batteries, don't put the gas tank too close to the bumper or put electrical wires and exhaust manifolds near it either.... We use these "rules of the road" to validate our design changes as we make them.
You, invented an AI way to look for this same list in your vehicle designs....
The concept of that Tesla isn't new, a battery operated car you can drive on the roads.. Only the implementation is new. Tesla didn't invent the electric car, they just implemented one.
This 'new' program was invented back in the days of LINT, this is just a new implementation of one. It's not even better than LINT if you ask me, but being AI based, there's no way to prove that objectively.
Oh, grasshopper... This is not new. It's doing static code analysis and flags parts that may have issues based on where trouble has been seen in the past. This is EXACTLY what LINT is, advice from experience. It's basically saying "Um, you *might* not want to do this kind of thing because it's often a mistake. Are you sure?"
Of course you somehow think that because it's some fuzzy AI technique used it's somehow different? Cute....If anything, it's less effective being AI, but that's another debate you won't understand.
Yea, I used to say that kind of thing when I was young too. Hubris lives on in the young. We had all the good ideas then too, we where better educated, fresh out of school and full of promise. But we where as stupid as those who came before us. Wisdom is hard won though experience and I've personally learned the grey beards of my day where right, there is really nothing new. Programming remains the same problem, though the names and faces have changed.
Face it.. At the very best, this is just an extension of LINT and just static code analyzer like LINT was/is. They've been doing this kind of thing long before I came into this field fresh out of school and when you are old and grey, the newbies will "invent" the same thing AGAIN, and you can dig up this post and quote it.
But it is the same concept as LINT.... It may be different from LINT but this really isn't a new idea, and it IS LIKE LINT...
There have been static code analysis tools in use for decades now, LINT was among the first of these tools to find wide spread use and many have followed in its foot prints. This is NOT a new idea, even if the implementation method varies from the C program the initial LINT was/is.
Read the Mythical Man Month.... There is nothing new... Each generation thinks their stuff is better, that they found the way, the silver bullet. I've watched a couple of generations of new programmers go though the same "Eureka! I've got it!" claims, only to discover the hard way what I discovered, the devil is in the details and there is no magic bullet.
The more things change, the more they stay the same....
Anybody else remember LINT? I used to work a project that required that all compiler warnings be dealt with and anything reported by LINT was documented and explained IN THE CODE. It certainly didn't catch everything but it sure kept the code consistent and common logical issues from appearing too often.
Now off my lawn....(snicker)
Neural nets can be only as good as the data used to train them. Outside of the training data, they are pretty much a wild guess. Which points to the real problem with Neural networks. If your training data doesn't cover the actual real world data very well, your network will not be good at all those unique edge cases. Over training (using too much specific training data) is as much of an issue as bad training data too. Over trained networks jump to conclusions based on the wrong things and are just as bad.
However, Neural Nets are very fast and can use very few resources to come up with reasonably good answers when properly trained and when the problem domain is simple enough.. The issue is knowing when to trust them, and when they are off in the weeds.