search for: q6

...(at least I missed it if it's documented) feature of the reshape function to do numeric variables followed by character? I ask because that seems to be the case below. > str(rcw) 'data.frame': 23 obs. of 21 variables: $ ICU : int 1 18 17 9 22 19 6 16 25 26 ... $ Q6.RC.1 : chr "SM" "JF" "IW" "MS" ... $ Q6.FT.RC.1.years : int 0 8 12 3 9 1 5 16 5 5 ... $ Q6.FT.RC.1.months: int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 ... $ Q6.PT.RC.1.years : int 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 ... $ Q6.PT.RC.1.months: int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... $...

...I have a question about how to obtain the union of several data frame rows. I'm trying to create a common key for several tests composed of different items. Here is a small scale version of the problem. These are keys for 4 different tests, not all mutually exclusive: id q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 1 A C 2 B D 3 A D B 4 C D B D I would like to create a single key all test versions, the "union" of the above: id q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 key A C D B B D Here is what I have (unsuccessfully) tried so far: > key <- + matrix...

...ried the command (8 files only): > > require(foreign) > q1 = read.epiinfo('Dados/Q1.rec') > q2 = read.epiinfo('Dados/Q2.rec') > q3 = read.epiinfo('Dados/Q3.rec') > q4 = read.epiinfo('Dados/Q4.rec') > q5 = read.epiinfo('Dados/Q5.rec') > q6 = read.epiinfo('Dados/Q6.rec') > q7 = read.epiinfo('Dados/Q7.rec') > q8 = read.epiinfo('Dados/Q8.rec') > > juntos = merge(q1,q2,q3,q4,q5,q6,q7,q8) > > But it didn't work. Any suggestions? > > Thank you. > > ----------------------------------...

..." + " subs %[remainder], %[remainder], #4\n" + " vmul.f32 q0, q4, q8\n" + " bne 4f\n" + " b 5f\n" + "1:" + " vld1.32 {q4, q5}, [%[b]]!\n" + " vld1.32 {q8, q9}, [%[a]]!\n" + " vld1.32 {q6, q7}, [%[b]]!\n" + " vld1.32 {q10, q11}, [%[a]]!\n" + " subs %[len], %[len], #16\n" + " vmul.f32 q0, q4, q8\n" + " vmul.f32 q1, q5, q9\n" + " vmul.f32 q2, q6, q10\n" + " vmul.f32 q3, q7, q11\n" + " beq...

Hi All, Let me ask this question of the group: When bit rate peeling becomes available, how will the quality of the peeled Vorbis file compare to a file encoded at the target quality directly from the original? So, for: a.wav --> b.ogg (at q6) --> c.ogg (at q2) a.wav --------------------> d.ogg (at q2) how are c.ogg and d.ogg likely to compare in terms of audio quality? Also a related question (in terms of my proposed use): Are there likely to be any changes to the Vorbis codec which will cause problems doing bit rate p...

...lity for Ogg) should be used to encode and download the files encoded specifically for you. The prices are somewhat low. Either by traffic (0.01$ per Megabyte) or by monthly subscription (15$ per Month), allowing you to download up to 1000 songs that month. I tried it and encoded some songs using Q6 which results in what you can expect from a Vorbis File at this quality. The download speed is also not too bad: I had about 30-40KB/s. Paying is done via VISA or Paypal (or others). I'm not quite sure about how legal it is. The claim to have a contract with the russian artists society (don...

...ut the door, then some attention will be paid to "hinting" to make peeling easier, and peeling tools will finally be written. It is suspected that RC3 or RC4 or 1.0 files may not peel perfectly. That is, if a file is encoded at (for example) q9, and subsequently "peeled" to q6, it may not sound quite as good as the same file originally encoded at q6. So they'll peel, and the bitrate (and filesize) will be right where you want it, but the quality may be sub-optimal. But this depends probably on how "smart" the peeler is. It is also suspected that post-...

Buenas. Abajo pongo la salida de un modelo de cox , dónde he estratificado por una variable de país (Countryb) y por otra (Q6). Además hay interacción entre la variable mobilityPDurG2 (es una variable 0,1, y 0 es la categoría de referencia) país. La categoría de referencia para país es "united kingdom". Mi duda surge si quiero calcular el hazard ratio para los que tienen un 1 en mobilityPDurG2 en los dife...

..., 14, $noreg, implicit-def dead $sp, implicit $sp 80B %3:tgpr = tLDRpci %const.0, 14, $noreg :: (load 4 from constant-pool) 96B $r0 = COPY %0:tgpr 112B $r1 = COPY %1:tgpr 128B $r2 = COPY %2:tgpr 144B tBLXr 14, $noreg, %3:tgpr, <regmask $lr $d8 $d9 $d10 $d11 $d12 $d13 $d14 $d15 $q4 $q5 $q6 $q7 $r4 $r5 $r6 $r7 $r8 $r9 $r10 $r11 $s16 $s17 $s18 $s19 $s20 $s21 $s22 $s23 $s24 $s25 $s26 $s27 and 35 more...>, implicit-def dead $lr, implicit $sp, implicit $r0, implicit $r1, implicit $r2, implicit-def $sp 160B ADJCALLSTACKUP 0, 0, 14, $noreg, implicit-def dead $sp, implicit $sp 176B AD...

If I'm understanding what's going on in this test correctly, what's happening is: * ARMTargetLowering::LowerCall prefers indirect calls when a function is called at least 3 times in minsize * In thumb 1 (without -fno-omit-frame-pointer) we have effectively only 3 callee-saved registers (r4-r6) * The function has three arguments, so those three plus the register we need to hold the

...d Error z value Pr(>|z|) param1 0.78 0.073 10.7 0.0e+00 Q1 <--- G param2 0.79 0.065 12.1 0.0e+00 Q2 <--- G param3 0.63 0.073 8.5 0.0e+00 Q3 <--- G param4 0.74 0.066 11.2 0.0e+00 Q4 <--- G param6 0.81 0.068 11.9 0.0e+00 Q6 <--- G param7 0.65 0.060 11.0 0.0e+00 Q7 <--- G param9 0.60 0.059 10.1 0.0e+00 Q9 <--- G param10 0.64 0.065 9.9 0.0e+00 Q10 <--- G param11 0.72 0.054 13.3 0.0e+00 Q11 <--- G param12 0.59 0.063 9.3 0.0e+00 Q12 <--- G p...

..., 14, $noreg, implicit-def dead $sp, implicit $sp 80B %3:tgpr = tLDRpci %const.0, 14, $noreg :: (load 4 from constant-pool) 96B $r0 = COPY %0:tgpr 112B $r1 = COPY %1:tgpr 128B $r2 = COPY %2:tgpr 144B tBLXr 14, $noreg, %3:tgpr, <regmask $lr $d8 $d9 $d10 $d11 $d12 $d13 $d14 $d15 $q4 $q5 $q6 $q7 $r4 $r5 $r6 $r7 $r8 $r9 $r10 $r11 $s16 $s17 $s18 $s19 $s20 $s21 $s22 $s23 $s24 $s25 $s26 $s27 and 35 more...>, implicit-def dead $lr, implicit $sp, implicit $r0, implicit $r1, implicit $r2, implicit-def $sp 160B ADJCALLSTACKUP 0, 0, 14, $noreg, implicit-def dead $sp, implicit $sp 176B AD...

...ts sum in q7, q8, q9, q10 lanes */ + "vshll.s16 q7, d0, %[SIGSHIFT];\n" + "vshll.s16 q8, d1, %[SIGSHIFT];\n" + "vshll.s16 q9, d2, %[SIGSHIFT];\n" + "vshll.s16 q10, d3, %[SIGSHIFT];\n" + + /* Make previous samples vector for MAC in q5, q6 lanes */ + "vext.16 q5, q5, q0, #7;\n" + "vext.16 q6, q0, q1, #7;\n" + + /* Doing 16 samples filtering at a time */ + "vmlal.s16 q7, d8, d10;\n" + "vmlal.s16 q8, d8, d11;\n" + "vmlal.s16 q9, d8, d12;\n" + "vml...

From: Jyri Sarha <jsarha at ti.com> I optimized Speex resampler for NEON capable ARM CPUs. The first patch should speed up resampling on any platform that can spare the increased memory usage. It would be nice to have these merged to the master branch. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help the the merge. The patches have been rebased on top of master branch in

Hello, I have a table (1) of the form q1 q3 q4 q8 q9 A 5 2 0 1 3 B 2 0 2 4 4 I have another table (2): q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 C 10 7 4 2 6 9 3 1 2 I would like to divide the numbers in table (1) by the number of the appropriate column in table (2): q1 q3 q4 q8 q9 A 5/10 2/4 0/2 1/1 3/2 B 2/10 0/4 2/2 4/1 4/2 The result would look lie this: q1 q3 q4...

...ts sum in q7, q8, q9, q10 lanes */ + "vshll.s16 q7, d0, %[SIGSHIFT];\n" + "vshll.s16 q8, d1, %[SIGSHIFT];\n" + "vshll.s16 q9, d2, %[SIGSHIFT];\n" + "vshll.s16 q10, d3, %[SIGSHIFT];\n" + + /* Make previous samples vector for MAC in q5, q6 lanes */ + "vext.16 q5, q5, q0, #7;\n" + "vext.16 q6, q0, q1, #7;\n" + + /* Doing 16 samples filtering at a time */ + "vmlal.s16 q7, d8, d10;\n" + "vmlal.s16 q8, d8, d11;\n" + "vmlal.s16 q9, d8, d12;\n" + "vml...

Dear all, I like the way the Rcmdr package computes reliability. E.g reliability(cov(d[,c("q1", "q2", "q3", "q4", "q5", "q6")], use="complete.obs")) will not only give me the alpha score, but also for each variable, alpha.score if deleted. However - when writing scripts it's very tiresome to load the whole Rcmdr GUI just for this purpose. So I'm looking for an another package that delivers the sa...

...the student, as shown below: Lastname Firstname CATALOG_NBR Email StudentID EMPLID Start 1 alastname afirstname 1213 *@uark.edu 10295236 # 12/2/2008 2 anotherlastname anotherfirstname 1213 **@uark.edu ## 10295236 9/3/2008 Xattempts Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 Score Form CRSE_GRADE_OFF 1 0 0...

Hello! First of all, 100x thanks to Monty and colleagues: you have done an excellent job! I just didn't believe my ears when I first tested Oggenc 1.0 at q0 to q1 - it sounds AMAZINGLY GOOD !!! But as HDD drives are getting larger and cheaper, most of us move toward higher quality settings ......... I use q8, because: - I was able to ABX some test samples up to q4.99 - at q8 Ogg is still

> So this really looks like the current state of the art as far as Vorbis > is concerned. I remember hearing that there was a sound quality issue which boosted high frequencies by 1 or 2dB in Vorbis files at less than q6 or so. Does anyone know if this still the case? -- Graham Mitchell - computer science teacher, Leander High School "I come into His presence simply. No illusions, no masks, no excuses. He knows me piercingly, and nothing is hidden. Yet He loves me without condition or explanation. To k...