search for: equivocally

RPvs> The wiki (and Microsoft) is very vocal that you shouldn't use the RPvs> '.local' TLD Not to start a flame war - but Microsoft is the *source* of using .local in Active directory domains - from past practices. And, even now, they are somewhat equivocal in saying it shouldn't be used. [No source given, but it's something I've looked at in the last year and there

...value=3 date: field=date date=yyyymmdd index=D value=1 body : indexnopos The data file : url='/phil/aristotle-categories-79.txt' author=Aristotle translator=E. M. Edghill date=20041204 body=350 BC =CATEGORIES =by Aristotle =translated by E. M. Edghill =1 =Things are said to be named 'equivocally' when, though they have a =common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for =each. Thus, a real man and a figure in a picture can both lay claim to =the name 'animal'; yet these are equivocally so named, for, though* Thank you by advance for your answers Stephane

In response to a thread where a statistical question unrelated to R was asked, Uwe Ligges wrote: > PLEASE do read the posting guide! > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > Please ask a local statistical consultant for help. > > Uwe Ligges Perhaps Uwe's admonition to "do read the posting guide" was just a knee jerk reaction to an unrecognized

Well, the mystery is solved. It WAS Avahi, in a way... Eventhough it was disabled as a daemon, it still haunted the system by the means of nsswitch.conf In the 'hosts' line, the Debian default entry 'mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return]' does exactly what we don't want - for .local domains it asks Avahi and if it dosen't know, it never asks the other services, such as dns etc.

Sean, Many thanks for taking the time to respond. I didn’t make myself clear, I will try to be brief... > On Jun 28, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Peter Lawrence via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Chandler, >

I can''t think of a good reason, other than it''s legacy code which hasn''t gotten around to being changed to RoR. http://rubyonrails.org/?=PHPE9568F36-D428-11d2-A769-00AA001ACF42 http://37signals.com/?=PHPE9568F36-D428-11d2-A769-00AA001ACF42 http://basecamphq.com/?=PHPE9568F36-D428-11d2-A769-00AA001ACF42 http://backpackit.com/?=PHPE9568F36-D428-11d2-A769-00AA001ACF42

Chandler, where we disagree is in whether the current project is moving the issue forward. It is not. It is making the compiler more complex for no additional value. The current project is not based in evidence, I have asked for any SPEC benchmark that shows performance gain by the compiler taking advantage of “undefined behavior” and no one can show that. The current project

Hi Everyone, This is off-topic, so please feel free to disregard it, but I'm sending it to this list in the hope that it will reach a largish number of users. I am currently looking at updating some of our advocacy material (which advertises exciting new features like SMP support), and before I do I'd like to get a better feel for why the rest of you are using FreeBSD. If you had to