search for: misrepresenting

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 registerin...

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

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?

On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:55, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > >> RFC: GEP as canonical form for pointer addressing >> >> I would like to propose that we designate GEPs as the canonical form for pointer addressing in LLVM IR before CodeGenPrepare. >> >>

...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, either...

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> 2.3) remove the 'laplace rule of succession' which can be very 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 help...

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

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:27, Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote: > A more aesthetic comment 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

..., 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-uses...

On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > 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

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

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate > issue, and to make sure people see it. > > 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

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".

I also support Chris's position of 4.0, 4.1 etc. I don't think "majorness" is that important, and we can sort out the bit code compatibility story some other way. Sent from phone On Jun 24, 2016 4:42 PM, "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >

On 02/17/2014 02:53 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > On Feb 17, 2014, at 2:31 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:55, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >>> >>>> RFC: GEP as canonical form for

On Oct 5, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > > > On 05.10.2015 23:47, Andrew Robinson wrote: >> As a fourth option, I wonder if the first author could fork the package? >> >> Presumably, appropriately cited, a fork is permitted by the license under >> which it was released. Then the original package, by both