search for: 34.19

The data set consists of two sets of matrices, as labelled by the columns, T's and C's. > xy x T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 [1,] 50 0.00 0.00 33.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.76 0.00 35.26 0.00 [2,] 13 34.41 0.00 0.00 36.64 32.86 34.11 35.80 37.74 0.00 0.00 [3,] 14 35.85 0.00 33.88 36.68 34.88 34.58 0.00 32.75 37.45 0.00 [4,] 33 34.56

I have installed two CentOS 4.3 boxes with LVS (from http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/csgfs/ ) but all boxes died withe this error frequently: kernel panic - not syncing: fs/block_dev.c:396: spin_lock (fs/block_dev.c:c0361c0) already locked by fs/block_dev.c/287. I have read from this thread http://threebit.net/mail-archive/centos/msg00243.html that this is an unsolved problem. So i have

Hello, I was wondering if anyone out there is successfully running Asterisk 1.2 svn w/ Centos 4.3. I had an experience over the last two weeks that has me scratching my head and muttering strange things in the wee hours of the morning. I am going to try and be as descriptive as my brain will allow right now, but if there is something that I do not cover, please do not hesitate to ask and

Dear R-devel: I could use some advice about matrix calculations and steps that might make for faster computation of generalized inverses. It appears in some projects there is a bottleneck at the use of svd in calculation of generalized inverses. Here's some Rprof output I need to understand. > summaryRprof("Amelia.out") $by.self self.time self.pct

This is a little success story about the benefits of changing the defaults in config.site when I was building R-1.4.0 for Solaris (on a Sun Sparc that I'm currently using). For previous versions of R, I had just used the default config.site and not given it any thought. Since the Sun machine that I'm using is not getting any faster, I decided I would give config.site a look when building

On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 15:16 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 14:02 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > Ralf, et al., > > > > > > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev > > > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains > >

On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 14:02 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Ralf, et al., > > > > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev > > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains > > additional benchmark results. > > > > First, these are preliminary

Hello, I'm a bit new to the world of R so forgive my ignorance. I'm trying to do a zero-inflated negative binomial regression and have received an error message and i'm not sure what it means. I'm running R 2.5.1 on XP. I have just tried a really simple version of the model to see if it would run before I put all the variables in. I have attached all the variables to the

On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > Ralf, et al., > > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains > additional benchmark results. > > First, these are preliminary results because I did not do the things > necessary to make them real (explicitly quiet the

Ralf, et al., Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains additional benchmark results. First, these are preliminary results because I did not do the things necessary to make them real (explicitly quiet the machine, bind the processes to one cpu, etc.). But they should be good enough for discussion.