search for: perceives

Hi all, I used to use centos 4.5 on an AMD 4800+ with 2GIG ram. Now I use centos 5.1 on AMD 6400+ with 4GIG RAM. The system responsiveness is different between the two. I noticed that centos 5.1 seems to be swapping programs out of memory at times resulting in slowness (perceived by me). I played with swappiness (/proc/sys/vm/) setting to 10, then 1 then 0. Still resulted in the same perceived

Hi, I am trying to connect two Asterisk servers using IAX2. Everything works fine when I couple them within a LAN segment, but not when I connect them using WAN connections. I made sure that the routers' ports are mapped properly and checked this with additional ssh rules. ServerA is a Raspberry box with the vendor's Asterisk version 1.8.13.1 and ServerB is normal CentOS 7 box with

So I had my feet entirely covered in peanut butter and jelly .. wait ... Wrong mailing list. Couple weeks ago I mailed the list with a perceived problem of Mongrels hanging. Luis and others were very kind in suggesting solutions. I suspected my application anyway and went on a quest. I was using RMagick at the time so felt that should be my first target. Long story short: after days of

Hello, I am new to R and hope I will not seem ignorant in this post. I am currently using the plspm package by Gaston Sanchez accompanied by his text book. I have attempted to create a square matrix, which has seemed successful. I used the following code: > "Attitude" = c(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) > "Normative Beliefs" = c(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) > "Subjective

Both vector query's can select the values from the data.frame as written, however in the first form assigning a value to said selected numbers fails. Can you explain the reason this fails? dat <- data.frame(index = 1:10, Value = c(1:4, NA, 6, NA, 8:10)) dat$Value[dat$Value == "NA"] <- 1 #Why does this fails to work, dat$Value[dat$Value %in% NA] <- 1 #While this does

In a system connected to a verizon T1, Digium TE411P (quad T1 echo cancellation), client is complaining it is "too quiet". The complaint regards calls over the T1, not in house SIP only calls. Their description indicates they want some earpiece feedback of themselves speaking. Also, they complain that it takes several seconds (3-4) for the other party to respond. That is kind of

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 17 May 2016 at 22:41, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> If you are interested in volunteering for this position OR if you are >> interested in writing a blog post, please send me an email. > > Why don't we communicate the releases,

Hooray! I'm thinking that getting unit tests for the classes in ADT should be an early goal. I also wanted to mention a point about the general philosophy of unit testing, which is that the presence of such tests alters the calculation of risk when making changes to a code base. Programmers have various rules of thumb for estimating risk - for example, a change which affects a large

...onfigure the FXO port on a Sipura-3000 for use with Asterisk. When I connect to the Sipura to dial out on the PSTN line connected to the Sipura's FXO port, it gives me the dialtone of the PSTN line and then I can hear the DTMF for the number I dialled beforehand. It does work but the customer perceives this delayed second DTMF feedback as "unprofessional" and the sipura as a "toy". I wonder if there is anything that can be done to keep the channel to the caller silent until after the Sipura has sent the DTMF out on the PSTN line. Any hints appreciated. thanks rgds benjk --...

This mail depends upon the fact that I don't have a couple of good earphones ;-) I read in the site that q=6 is a very high quality, but does it contain perceivable differencies from the original? (for 95% of people, of course). I also found q=6 to produce files slightly bigger (1/10 bigger) than those produced with lame VBR q=2 (about 192 bps on average). I always thought LAME VBR q=2

Hello, Please allways cc the list, don't answer just to me. Now I'm getting a different error. I had noticed that you have no reference to 'TPBDATA' before the call to plspm but I forgot to mention it in my first e-mail. TPB_pls1 = plspm(TPBDATA, TPB_path, TPB_blocks, modes = TPB_modes) Error in is_tabular(x) : object 'TPBDATA' not found So we need to know what

G'day list, I am getting a lot[1] of traffic on my Internet link, ICMP messages from 69.73.19.178 telling me UDP port 5036 is unreachable (this IP address belongs to iaxtel.org). I see from the wiki that IAXtel supports only IAX2 from December 2003. Fine, however it looks like my * still wants to try and register using IAX1, and I can't find how to turn this off. This situation is

Here's the problem: > 2) Encoding with rate control as in single pass "Bitrate > control" will not > lead to better quality than fixed quant (with the right value > of the fixed > quant). Ratecontrol doens't know anything about "quality". It > will try to > reach more-or-less CBR. > > But somehow this is not a fair comparison, because

A friend of mine passed me this[1] cause I'm recommending him Dovecot. My personal experience is very different to the one in that benchmark. I will appreciate similar links from those of you who had benchmarked Dovecot against other IMAP servers. I'm conscious that my personal experience is far to be a objetive comparison. I switched from UW-Imap/Mbox to Dovecot/Maildir a box with 45k

Hello, All of the Opus quality studies that I've seen focused on human-perceived quality. I'm interested to know of any experience with machined "perceived" quality, particularly related to speech recognition or biometrics. I'm also interested in folks thoughts on optimizing Opus for ASR. For example, removing certain classes of comfort noise, filtering non-speech bands,

Hi, I am checking out the quality at a few vendors, and althought I know it doesn`t totally reflect call quality I am using ping as a cheap subsitute to having a real VoIP testing system The question I have is this one: given that one service gives me a 80ms ping (pretty consistantly) and another one gives me 30ms (again very consistently), is this 50ms difference enough to impact perceived call

On Thu, October 22, 2015 17:25, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > . . . Still, disregarding the part some of us dislike personally > (plus often reboots necessary to install some vital updates > - which all Linuxes are prone to beginning somewhere around > 2.6 kernel) . . . I am glad to discover that I am not losing my mind. I too have been rather dismayed at the perceived increase in

I blogged about some of the problems with aaf in production (http://www.jroller.com/BrightCandle) yesterday but inspired by the poitive response I thought I would share the perceived problems and discuss some of the potential solutions to help newcomers and make aaf work as if by magic just like Rails does. All of these problems boil down to one simple problem, running acts as ferret in a

Dear Friends, I had performed anova test on certain data frame (Health Care Management) and got results [summary(aov)]. I am new to R and also some extent to Statistics. Can somebody help me how should I interpret these figures. I feel difficulty in interpreting values and respective rows and columns. The following is the result to which I request interpretation: > anova.stress$effects

> On Jun 19, 2020, at 15:38, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'm interested to hear more about the actual problem Matt perceives with respect to the release actually: why should the release have any impact with the development branch? > That was just an example of a concrete time. Other transitions requiring wide coordination have had some release-associated timeframe (like minimum toolchain/cmake upgrades), so I though...