search for: mf1

Dear expeRts, I came across the following error in using model.frame: # make a data.frame jet=data.frame(y=rnorm(10),x1=rnorm(10),x2=rnorm(10),rvar=rnorm(10)) # spec of formula mf1=y~x1+x2 # make the model.frame mf=model.frame(formula=mf1,data=jet,weights=rvar) Which gives the desired output: > mf y x1 x2 (weights) 1 0.8041254 0.1815366 0.4999551 1.4957814 2 -0.2546224 1.9368141 -2.2373186 0.7579341 3 0.8627935 -0.6690416 1.3948077...

...Join is OK [root@linux04 root]# net ads info LDAP server: 172.16.100.202 LDAP server name: p69ms101 Realm: PORTSEATTLE.ORG Bind Path: dc=PORTSEATTLE,dc=ORG LDAP port: 389 Server time: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:32:31 GMT KDC server: 172.16.100.202 Server time offset: 0 [root@linux04 root]# getent passwd mf1 mf1:x:15975:10003:Foster, Mark:/users/home/mf1:/bin/bash [root@linux04 root]# wbinfo -u | grep mf1 mf1 [root@linux04 root]# wbinfo -a mf1%therealpwd plaintext password authentication failed error code was NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED (0xc0000022) error messsage was: Access denied Could not authenticat...

...src/library/stats/R/models.R#L578-L603 > > The following code shows the problem: a plain-vanilla model.matrix() > call with no contrasts argument, followed by two wrong contrasts > arguments, followed by a correct contrasts argument. > > data(cbpp, package="lme4") > mf1 <- model.matrix(~period, data=cbpp) > mf2 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg="contr.sum", data=cbpp) > all.equal(mf1,mf2) ## TRUE > mf3 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg=contr.sum, data=cbpp) > all.equal(mf1,mf3) ## TRUE > mf4 <- model.matrix(~period,...

...code shows the problem: a plain-vanilla model.matrix() >> > call with no contrasts argument, followed by two wrong contrasts >> > arguments, followed by a correct contrasts argument. >> > >> > data(cbpp, package="lme4") >> > mf1 <- model.matrix(~period, data=cbpp) >> > mf2 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg="contr.sum", data=cbpp) >> > all.equal(mf1,mf2) ## TRUE >> > mf3 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg=contr.sum, data=cbpp) >> > all.equal(mf1...

...vanilla model.matrix() >> > call with no contrasts >> argument, followed by two wrong contrasts >> > arguments, >> followed by a correct contrasts argument. >> >> > >> >> > data(cbpp, package="lme4") >> > mf1 <- >> model.matrix(~period, data=cbpp) >> > mf2 <- >> model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg="contr.sum", >> data=cbpp) >> > all.equal(mf1,mf2) ## TRUE >> > mf3 <- >> model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg=contr.sum, da...

...github.com/wch/r-source/blob/trunk/src/library/stats/R/models.R#L578-L603 The following code shows the problem: a plain-vanilla model.matrix() call with no contrasts argument, followed by two wrong contrasts arguments, followed by a correct contrasts argument. data(cbpp, package="lme4") mf1 <- model.matrix(~period, data=cbpp) mf2 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg="contr.sum", data=cbpp) all.equal(mf1,mf2) ## TRUE mf3 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg=contr.sum, data=cbpp) all.equal(mf1,mf3) ## TRUE mf4 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg=list(period...

...-L603 > > > > The following code shows the problem: a plain-vanilla model.matrix() > > call with no contrasts argument, followed by two wrong contrasts > > arguments, followed by a correct contrasts argument. > > > > data(cbpp, package="lme4") > > mf1 <- model.matrix(~period, data=cbpp) > > mf2 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg="contr.sum", data=cbpp) > > all.equal(mf1,mf2) ## TRUE > > mf3 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg=contr.sum, data=cbpp) > > all.equal(mf1,mf3) ## TRUE > > mf4 &lt...

...plain-vanilla model.matrix() > >> > call with no contrasts argument, followed by two wrong contrasts > >> > arguments, followed by a correct contrasts argument. > >> > > >> > data(cbpp, package="lme4") > >> > mf1 <- model.matrix(~period, data=cbpp) > >> > mf2 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg="contr.sum", data=cbpp) > >> > all.equal(mf1,mf2) ## TRUE > >> > mf3 <- model.matrix(~period, contrasts.arg=contr.sum, data=cbpp) > >&gt...

...oving methods one by one from Surv; I had just added some new ones so they were my suspects. test <- data.frame(time=1:8, status=rep(0:1, 4), age=60:67) row.names(test) <- letters[1:8] Durv <- function(...) { ??? temp <- cbind(...) ??? class(temp) <- "Durv" ??? temp } mf1 <- model.frame(Durv(time, status) ~ age, data=test) names(model.response(mf1)) #? NULL length.Durv <- function(x) nrow(x) names(model.response(mf1)) #? [1] "a" "b" "c" "d" "e" "f" "g" "h" NA? NA? NA? NA? NA? NA N...

...o see if the file-time of the lock is different. Since we use nfs there might be a time-difference on the file creation and time() when our nfs gets "busy". This happens a lot when the indexes are created for multiple users at the same time resulting in a lot of: May 12 08:57:44 mf1 dovecot[3763]: imap(user at domain.tld): Our dotlock file /var/mail/mounted/d/do/domain.tld/user/Maildir/.INBOX/ dovecot.index.log.lock was modified (1084345063 vs 1084345062), assuming it wasn't overridden I am not completely sure if this interrupts imap traffic. I think this MIGHT...

Hi List, While testing with dovecot-1.0-test8 on our platform, I get al lot of these: May 11 11:42:50 mf1 dovecot: imap(user at domain.tld): Our dotlock file /var/mail/mounted/d/do/domain.tld/user/Maildir/.INBOX/ dovecot.index.log.lock was modified (1084268570 vs 1084268875), assuming it wasn't overridden This is probably due to some time-issues on our platform, and the load the backend has...

Hello list. I'm trying to rebuild the 2.6.9.67.0.20.EL kernel, but it fails even without modifications. How did I try it? Created a (non-root) build environment (not a mock ) Installed the kernel.scr.rpm and did a rpmbuild -ba --target=`uname -m` kernel-2.6.spec 2> prep-err.log | tee prep-out.log The build failed at the end: Processing files: kernel-xenU-devel-2.6.9-67.0.20.EL Checking