search for: exhort

..., mc.cores = detectCores()) ^C Browse[2]> LYG <- mclapply(LYGH[1:2], FUN = arfima, mc.cores = detectCores()) ^C You can see that I am aborting the execution of mclapply. It doesn't finish even if I reduce the elements to be iterated over to 2. Why is it entering an infinite loop? Please exhort me if this is to be posted in HPC list. THanking you, Yours sincerely, ALSHAY M KULKARNI [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

...u have some facts to back up that load of FUD? | By all accounts I've ever seen, Ext. 3 has been | stable for *long* time before it was even included | in the stock Kernel tree. Do you want to say that nobody ever lost any data on ext3-formatted disks? Be realistic. But does it warrant my exhortation to stay away from it? Probably not. It was a joke without a smiley sign. ext3 is probably a solid, though a bit clumsy and slow fs. I appreciate your criticism. I jumped the same way when someone else used the same kind of FUD about reiserfs which I would always recommend over all other....

I've hunted around to try to work this out and cannot find anything aposite, although there are exhortations to read News files and the fine manual in response to similar queries. Hope I haven't missed anything obvious. I want to read in csv files that contain dates, or date times. If I read them in directly: x <- read.csv ("file") the relevant dataframe column is of type string....

...39;ll get patched if an exploit is released but a patch is available. If the risk is that a buggy update might crash the machine, then that has to be weighed against the possibility of *not* getting updates, and getting hacked as a result -- usually the latter being worse. After all, if users are exhorted to log in to their machines and check for updates and apply them, that implies that the risk of getting hosed by a buggy update is outweighed by the risk of getting hacked by not applying updates. If that's true for updates that are applied manually, it ought to be true for updates that are...

...istrator readonly = no writable = yes path = /home/backup ========== Note: Much of my search discovered many posts similar to my own questions that were answered by exhortations to RTFM or "search the list archives!", or (usually) plain silence ... well, I followed the advice and found it wasn't at all easy--but these caveats did at least keep me from making a plea for help until now! For other users struggling to get this done (FreeBSD, Samba, ACLs, c...

|> Do you want to say that nobody ever lost any data on |> ext3-formatted disks? Be realistic. |> |> But does it warrant my exhortation to stay away from |> it? Probably not. It was a joke without a smiley |> sign. ext3 is probably a solid, though a bit clumsy |> and slow fs. |> |> I appreciate your criticism. I jumped the same way |> when someone else used the same kind of FUD about |> reiserfs which I...

...>^C >Browse[2]> LYG <- mclapply(LYGH[1:2], FUN = arfima, mc.cores = detectCores()) >^C > >You can see that I am aborting the execution of mclapply. It doesn't finish even if I reduce the elements to be iterated over to 2. Why is it entering an infinite loop? > >Please exhort me if this is to be posted in HPC list. > >THanking you, >Yours sincerely, >ALSHAY M KULKARNI > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >______________________________________________ >R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see >https:/...

Dear Avi, Thanks for your reply...your exhortations are indeed justified...! But one caveat: I was not complaining about anything...just was curious of the rationale of a particular design....Thanks again... Thanking you, Yours sincerely, AKSHAY M KULKARNI ________________________________ From: R-help <r-help-bounces at r-project.org> o...

...From: akshay kulkarni <akshay_e4 at hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 9:33 AM To: avi.e.gross at gmail.com Cc: 'R help Mailing list' <r-help at r-project.org> Subject: Re: [R] return value of {....} Dear Avi, Thanks for your reply...your exhortations are indeed justified...! But one caveat: I was not complaining about anything...just was curious of the rationale of a particular design....Thanks again... Thanking you, Yours sincerely, AKSHAY M KULKARNI _____ From: R-help <r-help-bounces at r-project.org <mailto:r-help-...

Akshay, Your question seems a tad mysterious to me as you are complaining about NOTHING. R was designed to return single values. The last statement executed in a function body, for example, is the value returned even when not at the end. Scoping is another issue entirely. What is visible is another discussion. So, yes, if you can see ALL the variables, you might see the last one BUT there

This is a test, please disregard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20050111/3b3612cb/attachment.htm

I want to write a validate routine to check to enforce that a position must be unique in a category. (In another category, it doesn''t have to and shouldn''t need to be unique.) I write this code which works happily for new items: def position_in_category_not_unique @items = Item.find( :all, :conditions => [ "category_id = ? AND position = ?", category_id,