search for: ellaborate

I have a site in development where I only want specific users to access specific items that uses belongs_to and has_many. Say we have this kind of structure. Person <belongs_to + has_many> Items When person logged in they only have access to items that belongs to him/her. I''m using auth_generator but only seem to put an auth inside controllers and dont know how to go any

> -----Original Message----- > From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch > [mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch]On Behalf Of B??kony Veronika > Sent: 18 June 2005 14:00 > To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: [R] how 'stepAIC' selects? > > > Dear all, > Could anyone please tell me how 'step' or 'stepAIC' works? Does it >

> From: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> > To: ramasamy at cancer.org.uk > Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:33:09 -0500 > Subject: Re: [R] To improve my understanding of workspaces > Other than Emacs, I use the same work habits as Adai. An advantage of > this workflow is that almost everything is stored in text format, so it > is easy to compare different versions to

Hmmm...any chance that you can ellaborate on what updates will be included with 5.1. Not sure if it will be of practical interest anymore (I have 4 new network cards...non-Intel..on the way) since I have spent far more time on this problem than I should have. But, from a curiousity perspective, I am curious. If I could resolve thi...

Hi everyone another documented feature that was a bit unexpected for me: R> x <- 19 R> f <- function(t){t+x} R> f(100) [1] 119 --as expected: x is visible from within f() ..but... R> g <- function(a){x <- 1e99 ; return(f(a))} R> g(4) [1] 23 --the "x" that is visible from within g() is just 19, which is not the one I expected it to find. R> rm(x)

My system configuration: ASUS M2A-VM motherboard AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2 GHz 4x A-DATA 1GB DDR2 800 memory 2x Intel 10/100/1000 Pro/1000 GT Desktop Network Adapter 2x Seagate Barracuda 250GB HD (RAID 1, software RAID) CentOS 5 x86_64; Kernel 2.6.23 (custom built); Version 7.6.9.2 e1000 driver The symptoms of this problem are outlined at: http://e1000.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Issues[1]

The current project that I''m currently worked on has a requirement for Ruby on Rails and the migration facility provided by it to keep databases in sync. And, I''m completely new to this technology. Here''s my scene : 1) Ruby 1.8.7 patch level 302 2) Rails 2.3.8 3) MYSql (dnt know version) 4) OS : Windows 7 I installed the 1st via the online ruby installer; and, the next

I'm a first time wine user, though long time Linux user, so excuse me if my question is documented somewhere. I've searched, here and google without success thus far. Looking through AppDB, I noticed that EE2 (Empire Earth 2) seems to work well with wine, so I decided to try this as my first attempt to use wine. Unfortunately, I get the following errors: "Failed to create Direct3D

My CentOS 5.4 box has a single HBA card with 2 ports connected to my Storage. 2 Luns are assigned to my HBA card. Under /dev instead of seeing 4 devices I can see 12 devices from sdb to sdm. I am using qlogic driver that is bulitin to the OS. Has any one seen this kind of situation? Paras -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...3.4", "1.2.3.5,1.2.3.4") == 1); assert(addr_match_list("1.2.3.4", "!1.2.3.5,!1.2.3.4") == -1); I believe that this change can be potentially regression, but I would like you to review this issue and attached patch. If you wish, I can also create some unit test or ellaborate on this topic more. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.

Hello, I''m quite interested in ZFS, like everybody else I suppose, and am about to install FBSD with ZFS. On that note, i have a different first question to start with. I personally am a Linux fanboy, and would love to see/use ZFS on linux. I assume that I can use those ZFS disks later with any os that can work/recognizes ZFS correct? e.g. I can install/setup ZFS in FBSD, and later use

First, I hope that this message is not considered flame bait. As someone who has used FreeBSD for for 5+ years now, I have a genuine interest in the integrity of our source code. Second, I hope that this message is not taken as any form of insult or finger pointing. Software without bugs does not exist, and I think we all know that. Acknowledging that point and working to mitigate the risks