search for: egregi

...> (remember, it's *still* a draft), would having Daniel's new proposal > more comfortable? > > "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in > rare cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when > the conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the community's > social standard." Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text. I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is qualitative) helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come under the policy. As a...

...uld be perfect and better than anyone else's ;) Just a heads-up, then. A regular FAQ on the SA-Talk list is how to integrate SA into someone's IMAP/POP3 server, and once Dovecot gets popular, you'll start seeing that question here. I run SA from sendmail via MIMEDefang (to reject the egregious stuff), and from procmail on delivery (to tag and quarantine the borderline stuff). I'm not sure why people would use it in the IMAP server, but the question does come up.

so last night all my servers were severely probed and they tried to violate me (lol) the attack was so egregious I decided to contact the isp for that ip. Telepacific. The ip has some google searches that point to a few spam and a few attacks...So i assume a compromised server. So I sent them the info and said it must be a hacked server (the ip is on their business network) they responded ' you a...

Egregious, look what just happened few minutes ago while opening up my program and running the scripts > A<-read.table("C:\\Documents and Settings\\ + me\\Desktop\\TESI\\generale.txt",head=T) Errore: non trovo la funzione "read.table" #CAN'T FIND read.table FUNTION...

...39;m really not sure what you mean here. > > > > > > > > | I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside > these spaces may, in rare > > cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the > conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social > standard." > > > > If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way? > > > > What do you believe that explains that the older version did not? > > No matter how you write it, it will not prec...

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Scot P. Floess <sfloess at nc.rr.com> wrote: > > I'd expect better behavior and conduct from someone who holds such a > title... <request for a learning moment> Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder(s), please select my most egregious post(s) and let me know said post(s) so that I have the opportunity to better modify my behavior with the result that we can focus on the business at hand. </request for a learning moment> kind regards/ldv/vaden at texoma.net

Hi listizens, Complete tc newbie here. I''m in a pinch because of a mail assault on a server. I''ve firewalled away many of the most egregious offenders but non-smtp services are still being DOS''ed because of all the mail traffic. Here is what I''ve tried. (I did say newbie ;) ----------------- #!/bin/sh # # policing parent tc qdisc add dev eth0 handle ffff: ingress # # filter should slow tcp smtpd traffic to 64k m...

...h have a status column. The problem is that the conditional statement above won''t work. There isn''t a cogs table. And I have to qualify the column name since it exists in blurfls and employees. Rails seems to have all the information it needs to do this translation. I find it egregious that I''d have to refer to "employees.status" instead of "cogs.status" in that conditional. Is there a way around this? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Ra...

Fixes some of the more egregious problems with v1, and also applies properly to the head of git without needing any other patches. Rich.

Hi All, While trying to put together an MC-based assembler the other day, I again encountered MC's non-obvious memory ownership rules. The most egregious example of these is MCObjectStreamer's destructor: MCObjectStreamer::~MCObjectStreamer() { delete &Assembler->getBackend(); delete &Assembler->getEmitter(); delete &Assembler->getWriter(); delete Assembler; } In the depths of a fever from a head-cold, I snapped...

...ear enough.) > I'm really not sure what you mean here. > > > | I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside > these spaces may, in rare > > cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the > conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social > standard." > > > > If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way? > What do you believe that explains that the older version did not? No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct...

...:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev ><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Glad to see this landing! It's been a long time coming. >> >> Once this is in, please do not turn it on by default immediately. Let's >> call for volunteers to find some of the most egregious miscompiles, fix >> them, and then turn this on by default. >> >There are no immediate plans to enable NewGVN by default (at least, >not in the near future). In fact, the mail that I originally wrote >doesn't at all mention the switch, neither any follow-ups from me or &...

Looking over the contents of various packages, including my own, it is clear that lots of things end up 'hidden away' in packages where they don't belong. My gregmisc package is a particularly egregious example, containing something from almost every functional category. I propose that from time to time the R community go through the complete set of packages and 'refactor' the functions and data sets into packages that have clearly defined goals. This should make it easier to ensur...

On 6 July 2017 at 11:02, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Grang, Mandeep Singh wrote: >> I would like to hear the community's thoughts on these proposals. >From the perspective of the recent focused effort on reproducible builds, I think this is excellent. >> We ideally want to compare rel vs >> rel+asserts vs debug with Linux vs

...ging, then yes, >> they let you change the message, but it's very easy to forget to do >> that. > > That's what I meant, yes. "Easy to forget" generally goes away when you repeat it enough times. Also, occasionally forgetting to edit the commit message is not an egregious thing. It's not like the default message is wrong or anything. You could even remember, but GitHub's web application (at least when used > with Firefox) could, after failing due to transient connection problems, > revert your message changes. This is in addition to the annoyance o...

...gether. Rich. > Thanks, > Piotr > > [1] > https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/blob/master/manifests/release/demo-content.yaml.in > > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > Fixes some of the more egregious problems with v1, and also > > applies properly to the head of git without needing any other > > patches. > > > > Rich. > > > > -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http...

...just the expected presence/absence of the debug info?) > > Adding -g does have codegen effects, the most common reason being > that it adds IR instructions, some of which have uses of variables, > and sometimes passes don't ignore those things properly. I think > all the really egregious cases have been fixed by now (at one point > they were counted in inlining costs, which meant that -g affected > inlining decisions!), but we see it now and again. > > There can also be minor instruction-ordering effects because -g wants > to emit unwind info, which appears in the...

...es. Our bin files are up to 10x their fully optimized gcc equivalent (1.5k vs 16k). This is for a bare metal ARM based system so this is significant. We're using lld for linking and the following dead code elimination techniques seem to be dead ends: 1) whole program optimization on our most egregious space waster (-fwhole-program not supported by clang) 2) link time optimization (looks like this is only supported by lld for the COFF path not the ELF path) 3) using a linker plugin like gold (-fuse-linker-plugin doesn't seem to be supported by clang) We have control over the whole codebas...

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I've been looking at the regressions Quentin mentioned, and filed a PR > for the most egregious one: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22377 > > As for the others, I'm working on reducing them, but for now, here are > some raw observations, in case any of it rings a bell: > Very cool, and thanks for the analysis! > > > Another problem I'm seeing is that i...

This message is about a curious difference in timing between two ways of computing the same function. One uses expm, so is expected to be a bit slower, but "a bit" turned out to be a factor of >1000. The code is below. We would be grateful if anyone can point out any egregious bad practice in our code, or enlighten us on why one approach is so much slower than the other. The problem arose in an activity to develop guidelines for nonlinear modeling in ecology (at NCEAS, Santa Barbara, with worldwide participants), and we will be trying to include suggestions of how to...