search for: 0.0296

Hello R-users, I have been trying to fit what I think is a simple mixed-effects model using lmer (from lme4), but I've run into some difficulty that I have not been able to resolve using the existing archives or Pinheiro and Bates (2000). I am measuring populations (of birds) which change with time at a number of different sites. These sites are grouped into regions. Sites are not measured

Dear WizaRds, A run of nls produces the following concise summary: > summary(cs.wt) Formula: 0 ~ wt.MM(conc, time, A1, a1, A2, a2) Parameters: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) A1 4.814e+02 2.240e+01 21.495 0.0296 * a1 7.401e-01 7.435e-02 9.956 0.0637 . A2 1.613e+02 1.738e+01 9.280 0.0683 . a2 1.770e-02 7.324e-03 2.417 0.2497

Hi, Can anyone explain how the standard error in arima() is calculated? Also, how can I extract it from the Arima object? I don't see it in there. > x <- rnorm(1000) > a <- arima(x, order = c(4, 0, 0)) > a Call: arima(x = x, order = c(4, 0, 0)) Coefficients: ar1 ar2 ar3 ar4 intercept -0.0451 0.0448 0.0139 -0.0688 0.0010 s.e.

Hi: I am working on a new system with a TDM-400P card with three FXO modules and one FXS module. The system has been in place for a week. Users are complaining of echo problems. I have noticed this echo myself. It varies in severity. It is sometimes bad enough to make it difficult to converse, but the users find it generally unacceptable. They miss their old phones, which just worked. As you can

Just giving the survey package a spin... I'm accustomed to stata, and it seems very similar in many respects. One thing is throwing me, however. I've gotten my data in, and specified the design. Looks like the weighting is right (based on published population estimates from these data), but now I'd like to check my "marginal means" for proportions against those that have

samples % lib function 4 0.0525 libdovecot.so.0.0.0 sha1_result_libmysqlcli(..) 7 0.0919 libdovecot.so.0.0.0 io_loop_handler_run 36 0.4729 libdovecot.so.0.0.0 imap_parser_reset 227 2.9817 libdovecot.so.0.0.0 pool_alloconly_unref 7339 96.4009 libdovecot.so.0.0.0 pool_alloconly_clear 7710 3.2463

Hi List ;-) I consider my question to be rather simple one ... nevertheless I could not find an answer to it up to now. I have an OpenLDAP-server which is the user-db for an samba3-server. I want to use TLS for secure communication, so I created a ca for this as well as keys/certificates for my LDAP and samba-server. Informing the LDAP-server about its certificate/key is easy ... but how do I

Hi, Below you can see the updated benchmark results for the new SLP-vectorizer. As you can see, there is a small number of compile time regressions, a single major runtime *regression, and many performance gains. There is a tiny increase in code size: 30k for the whole test-suite. Based on the numbers below I would like to enable the SLP-vectorizer by default for -O3. Please let me know if you

I have two assignment problems... I have written this small code for regression with two regressors . n <- 50 x1 <- runif(n,1,10) x2 <- x1 + rnorm(n,0,0.5) plot(x1,x2) # x1 and x2 strongly correlated cor(x1,x2) y <- 3 + 0.5*x1 + 1.1*x2 + rnorm(n,0,2) intact.lm <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2) summary(intact.lm) anova(intact.lm) the questions are 1.The function summary() is convenient since

I have two assignment problems... I have written this small code for regression with two regressors . n <- 50 x1 <- runif(n,1,10) x2 <- x1 + rnorm(n,0,0.5) plot(x1,x2) # x1 and x2 strongly correlated cor(x1,x2) y <- 3 + 0.5*x1 + 1.1*x2 + rnorm(n,0,2) intact.lm <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2) summary(intact.lm) anova(intact.lm) the questions are 1.The function summary() is convenient since

I have been attempting to use cph models to get better calibration of my models for which I had originally used logistic regression. I tried running with 40 repetitions and got an error. I then tried 500 repetitions (thinking that the NaNs in the output below might be caused by that choice) and then let my computer crunch for several hours and got only the same error message and

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release

Are these 225 compile time regressions real? It sure looks bad! Ciao, Duncan. On 01/12/11 09:39, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/380/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 380

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download