search for: hominem

HI I'm a student in chemical engineering, and i have to implement an algoritm about FIVE PARAMETERS INTERPOLATION for a calibration curve (dose, optical density) y = a + (c - a) /(1+ e[-b(x-m]) where x = ln(analyte dose + 1) y = the optical absorbance data a = the curves top asymptote b = the slope of the curve c = the curves bottom asymptote m = the curve X intercept Have you never seen

...or attempt to coddle those who think it's necessary is >> a waste of time. #dictator > > > Christopher, > > AFAICT, you haven't explained *why* it is the wrong problem. Mind > elaborating on that? > > > Jon > > p.s: edicts, appeals to authority, and ad hominems are not useful for > discussion. Doing that, and following up with "#dictator" further solidifies > that you know your own argument is b-s.... please stop. > > -- > Jon Roelofs > jonathan at codesourcery.com > CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded > > ________________...

...to shouting and insults then don't post. Just delete the email or wait until you're less tired and consider again. LLVMdev is a friendly place. Let's keep it that way. If a newcomer crops up with questions and comments you don't understand then explain so nicely without using ad hominem attacks, or let someone else reply. Cheers, Ralph.

...manners: Remember that customs differ. Some people are very direct. Others surround everything they say with hedges and apologies. Be tolerant. Rudeness is never warranted, but sometimes `read the manual' is the appropriate response. Don't waste time discussing such matters on the list. Ad hominem comments are absolutely out of place. It appears IMHO, that some posters are exempted from following the guidelines. I can cite the specific email if anyone cares. It shouldn't matter how important the person is, if they fail to follow the guidelines. -Roy M. ********************** &quo...

Monolithic is trying to solve the wrong problem - it's that simple. Any discussion or attempt to coddle those who think it's necessary is a waste of time. #dictator As part of any potential migration, everyone involved must start to accept certain changes, (large or small) to the workflow. The big challenge here isn't technical, it's mindset. It's convincing any group of

> From: "Wilfred L. Guerin" <wilfredguerin at gmail.com> > Subject: [LLVMdev] LLVM Expansions > > It is very relevant that LLVM look into handeling HDL and other binary > and analogue operation modeling capbilities, as well as expand this what is binary? you mean digital right? > Without confirming the true characteristics of the lower structure > types and

...>>> >>> >>> Christopher, >>> >>> AFAICT, you haven't explained *why* it is the wrong problem. Mind >>> elaborating on that? >>> >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> p.s: edicts, appeals to authority, and ad hominems are not useful for >>> discussion. Doing that, and following up with "#dictator" further solidifies >>> that you know your own argument is b-s.... please stop. >>> >>> -- >>> Jon Roelofs >>> jonathan at codesourcery.com >>>...

On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev .... > I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the > design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems. Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ? It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL

...i-year development effort to produce RHEL7 was done in some sort of drunken haze by untrained interns with no scrutiny by experienced linux developers. I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument other than ad hominem and "change = bad". -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>

...pecific proposal. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Michael Gottesman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I agree with Renato here. From someone who is just beginning to participate in this thread, the sheer amount of ad hominem argument thrown about is disappointing and unhelpful. What we need is a specific proposal to center the discussion and then line by line review that breaks out into (potentially) more specific discussion on individual points if they are contentious. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >>...

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > From: "Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > > Some back story here. I have gotten many requests through email and > > at the developer meetings about having a Code of Conduct and > > specifically having one for LLVM Developer Meetings. It has been

I agree with Renato here. From someone who is just beginning to participate in this thread, the sheer amount of ad hominem argument thrown about is disappointing and unhelpful. What we need is a specific proposal to center the discussion and then line by line review that breaks out into (potentially) more specific discussion on individual points if they are contentious. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 29, 2016, at 7:...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at llvm.org> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 6:08:08 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct > ... > >

...ple, rather than just the specific proposal. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Michael Gottesman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I agree with Renato here. From someone who is just beginning to participate in this thread, the sheer amount of ad hominem argument thrown about is disappointing and unhelpful. What we need is a specific proposal to center the discussion and then line by line review that breaks out into (potentially) more specific discussion on individual points if they are contentious. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On...

I'm running 1.0.13 If I run dovecot for a while, I see a /var/run/dotvecot folder created with the following: drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 2008-05-18 13:30 dotvecot drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 2008-05-18 13:47 . drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 2008-05-18 13:47 .. srw------- 1 root root 0 2008-05-18 13:47 auth-worker.15138 srwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0

What do you think about adding a "No RTFM" policy to the R mailing lists? Per, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM": The Ubuntu Forums and LinuxQuestions.org, for instance, have instituted "no RTFM" policies to promote a welcoming atmosphere.[8][9]. RTFM [and] "Go look on google" are two inappropriate responses to a question. If you don't know the

On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev wrote: >>> Say what you want about the Linux kernel community, but you can't >>> call >>> it immature. You can call the behaviour of some of its people >>> immature, but the community itself is not by a long shot. >> But there are reasonable people who will not interact with that community because

I started rebalancing my volume after updating from 3.2.7 to 3.3.1. After a few hours, I noticed a large number of failures in the rebalance status: > Node Rebalanced-files size scanned failures > status > --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- > ------------ > localhost 0 0Bytes 4288805

What is wrong with this? # chmod -R A+user:webservd:add_file/write_data/execute:allow /var/apache chmod: invalid mode: `A+user:webservd:add_file/write_data/execute:allow'' Try `chmod --help'' for more information. This works in a zone, works on S10u5, does not work on OpenSolaris2008.11. CT

I was trying to convert a vector of POSIXct into a list of POSIXct, However, I had a problem that I wanted to share with you. Works fine with, say, numeric: > v = c(1, 2, 3) > v [1] 1 2 3 > str(v) ?num [1:3] 1 2 3 > l = as.vector(v, mode="list") > l [[1]] [1] 1 [[2]] [1] 2 [[3]] [1] 3 > str(l) List of 3 ?$ : num 1 ?$ : num 2 ?$ : num 3 If you try it with POSIXct,