search for: misrepresent

Actually, Sorry guys, I just want to say the below paragraph is misrepresenting. You can stream music without "paying the piper" without being in copyright hell. And as a long time icecast user/admin/client/server/whatever, that below paragraph just makes me really sad to see on this list. ...I'll lurk now. --Stauf > When people run icecast without registe...

On 11/2/2012 11:53 AM, Michael Ilseman wrote: > > > I think Dan was making two points with his example. Dan, correct me if I misrepresent your example, but image a situation where a target has two instructions to choose between in order to perform the operation. The first is IEEE compliant, but the second isn't compliant in how it operates over NaNs (quiet or otherwise). For whatever reason, the second is preferred when we know i...

Right on the top of http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Virtualization/chap-Virtualization-Managing_guests_with_virsh.html, it seems to imply you can load/send scripts to the vm guest using virsh. Is that possible? How and what are the limitations? Can you query the vm guest?

...tain inttoptr instructions (before CodeGenPrepare.) >> >> I've spoken with Nick Lewycky & Owen Anderson offline at the last social. On first reflection, both were okay with the proposal, but I'd like broader buy-in and discussion. Nick & Owen, if I've accidentally misrepresented our discussion or you've had second thoughts since, please speak up. > > FWIW, I think it would be nice if standard optimization passes have this property of being well behaved with respect to pointer types, and I don’t see a good reason for canonical IR passes to lose pointer types. I...

...because some developers who usually help users on this ml would not subscribe to -users, or would not monitor it so frequently as -dev. Plus, IIRC on the past such -users ml was suggested and rejected by Chris on the grounds of not creating a wall separating developers and users (sorry if I'm misrepresenting something, it was lots of years ago). When you run an open source project where most users have the same profile as the developers, this makes so much sense that I think it is unnecessary to list those reasons. Finally, it seems that nowadays most development discussions happens elsewhere, eith...

...d briefly about this on IRC. I'm going to > experiment with only applying laplace smoothing if any scaled weights > are 0. AFAIU, usage of this rule is really just trying to avoid having > downstream users deal with 0 weights. Duncan, please whack me with a > clue stick if I totally misrepresented our conclusions. Zero is the extreme case, but it’s also important for other small counts. I’d like to see some specific examples of why you think the current behavior is harmful.

...d the RPC stuff probably works with Python3. > AFAICT, it's not officially supported yet, right? No, these are part of the APIs we support > i.e. it's in major flux. There isn't major flux, and existing scripts should keep working with the Python3 work. > But I could be misrepresenting the current state of python API/bindings for samba. Please take a look again. In terms of how to use it, there are some good examples now in the traffic_runner tool and the tests for auth_audit. While the particular interface you want is probably not previously used, other examples should h...

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:36 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 15:56 -0400, pisymbol wrote: > > I have a binary based off of rpclient that prints out the raw share > > SD as a binary stream instead of trying to parse it into human > > readable format (the default behavior). That is what I'm after. > > > >

...this. Also, how can i avoid r automatically rescaling my data - my data points are not evenly clustered and I want the scalings on the x and y axes to be the same, so that they represent a true picture of the spatial scattering. R rescales the data to fit the best "square" in each case - misrepresenting the scaling of my data. I have looked at all the options within par() and axis() and nothing here appears appropriate. Thanks in advance.. Laura

...t I have is that personally, I would prefer a > single option with a default percentage (say 0%) rather than having to > specify two options. > 0% doesn't mean "don't do it", just means "only do that to functions I didn't see running at all", which could be misrepresented in the profiling run. If we agree this should be *always* enabled, then only one option is needed. Otherwise, we'd need negative percentages to mean "don't do that" and that would be weird. :) > Also, it might be useful to add an option to dump the names of functions >...

..., and changing it would mean breaking ABI compatibility with older clang versions. On the other hand, not changing it would mean continued ABI incompatibility with GCC. (This only applies to _m128 and _m256. Making the _m512 behavior GCC-compatible should be painless). Reid (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting him here) suggested leaving the behavior as-is on platforms where clang is the system compiler (Darwin and BSD) and changing it elsewhere. However, I'm afraid interpreting the calling convention differently (compatible / incompatible with GCC) on different platforms may be confusing to end-u...

...I still don't understand Dan's concerns, but a target that traps on a quiet NaN is not IEEE compliant. IEEE754 requires that quiet NaNs get propagated through operands to the results without causing exceptions. > I think Dan was making two points with his example. Dan, correct me if I misrepresent your example, but image a situation where a target has two instructions to choose between in order to perform the operation. The first is IEEE compliant, but the second isn't compliant in how it operates over NaNs (quiet or otherwise). For whatever reason, the second is preferred when we know i...

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek < kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 11/2/2012 11:53 AM, Michael Ilseman wrote: > >> >> >> I think Dan was making two points with his example. Dan, correct me if I >> misrepresent your example, but image a situation where a target has two >> instructions to choose between in order to perform the operation. The first >> is IEEE compliant, but the second isn't compliant in how it operates over >> NaNs (quiet or otherwise). For whatever reason, the second...

...If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally > surprised by both. Thanks everyone for chiming in. Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion here, but I need to try and summarize this thread for my own sanity: The thread started out with lots of support for 3.10, the reasoning being roughly that we shouldn't bump the major version number unless we want to signify major change (Mehdi, Hal, Blaikie, Saleem, Chandler, Ant...

Adrian, I am not on the CRAN or R-core teams, so the following is my own view, but... > library(QCA) > > Users are encouraged to cite this package as: > > Dusa, Adrian (2015). QCA: Qualitative Comparative Analysis. R Package > Version 1.2-0, > URL: http://cran.r-project.org/package=QCA > > This is just an encouragement, not a requirement, and the official citation

A lot of people are going for the "VOIP only" approach, but SBC says you have to have an active analog voice circuit before they will sell you DSL. Does anybody know which DSL providers will sell you DSL without making you pay for a voice circuit? Thanks in advance, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Edwards sedwards@sedwards.com

On 11/1/2012 6:38 PM, Michael Ilseman wrote: > > On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com > <mailto:dan433584 at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> If the "optimizer" may truly ignore the possibility of NaNs under the >> N flag, this would seem to be ok. However, a trap is outside the >> boundaries of "undefined result".

...ease chime in. I'd like to collect as > > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main > > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally > > surprised by both. > > Thanks everyone for chiming in. > > Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion here, but I need to > try and summarize this thread for my own sanity: > > The thread started out with lots of support for 3.10, the reasoning > being roughly that we shouldn't bump the major version number unless > we want to signify major change (Mehdi, Hal, Blaiki...

...nstructions (before CodeGenPrepare.) >>>> >>>> I've spoken with Nick Lewycky & Owen Anderson offline at the last social. On first reflection, both were okay with the proposal, but I'd like broader buy-in and discussion. Nick & Owen, if I've accidentally misrepresented our discussion or you've had second thoughts since, please speak up. >>> FWIW, I think it would be nice if standard optimization passes have this property of being well behaved with respect to pointer types, and I don’t see a good reason for canonical IR passes to lose pointer types....

...wise you have all the rights as anyone else granted by the license. However, CRAN policies go beyond that and say "Where code is copied (or derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship is not misrepresented. Preferably, an ?Authors at R? would be used with ?ctb? roles for the authors of such code. Alternatively, the ?Author? field should list these authors as contributors. Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors, this should preferably be indicated via ?cph? roles in th...