search for: exhorted

Dear members, I am using arfima in an mclapply construction (from the parallel package): Browse[2]> LYG <- mclapply(LYGH, FUN = arfima, mc.cores = detectCores()) ^C Browse[2]> LYG <- mclapply(LYGH[1:10], FUN = arfima, mc.cores = detectCores()) ^C Browse[2]> LYG <- mclapply(LYGH[1:2], FUN = arfima, mc.cores = detectCores()) ^C You can see that I am

|> mtime being changed is beyond the pale. I suspect |> ext3 is the problem. I heard some people losing all |> of their data on ext3-formatted disks. Stay away |> from it. | | Do you 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

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

...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 do...

Hello: I've been working for a few days on getting a FreeBSD 5.3 server up and running as a samba data backup server. My goal is to schedule periodic backups of our file server. After reading recommendations (e.g. by Mr. Terpstra) I've focused my attempts aroung robocopy, xxcopy, net rpc share migrate shares. However, I'm running into stumbling blocks that seem to involve a problem

|> 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

Dear Jeff, There was a problem in LYGH and lapply threw an error, but mclapply got stuck in an infinite loop. The doc for mclapply says that mclapply runs under try() with silent = TRUE. So that means mclapply should run properly, i.e output a try class object and exit. But it didn't. Can you shed some light on why this happened? THanking you, Yours sincerely, AKSHAY M

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> on behalf of avi.e.gross at gmail.com

Fair enough, Akshay. Wondering why a design was chosen is reasonable. There are languages like python that allow unpacking multiple values and it is not uncommon to return multiple things from some constructs as in this: >>> a,b,c = { 4, 5, 6 } >>> a 4 >>> b 5 >>> c 6 But that is a bit of an illusion as the thing in curly braces is a very

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,