search for: reasonbale

..._2){ dm<-dim(act_2)[1]-1 for(i in 2:dm){ if(act_2$Rep[i+1]==act_2$Rep[i]){ act_2<-act_2[-(i+1),] }else{ act_2<-act_2 } } return(act_2) } when it moved one row on 1st loop, i should still start 2 but it become 3 at 2nd loop, if I add i<-i-1, then i go to 1 seems not reasonbale. How should I modify it`? Tammy _________________________________________________________________ Drag n’ drop—Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live™ Photos. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

..._2){ dm<-dim(act_2)[1]-1 for(i in 2:dm){ if(act_2$Rep[i+1]==act_2$Rep[i]){ act_2<-act_2[-(i+1),] }else{ act_2<-act_2 } } return(act_2) } when it moved one row on 1st loop, i should still start 2 but it become 3 at 2nd loop, if I add i<-i-1, then i go to 1 seems not reasonbale. How should I modify it`? Tammy _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Phexro <ieure@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us> writes: > chroot()''d processes. So, important system calls could be modified thus: Since there are tons of syscalls and new ones appearing all the time, "Fixing" some of them doesn''t seem like a good idea. It seems more reasonbale to deny access to all of them, except for a few specific ones (that can moreover be modified so as to limit their strength). Still, it would be a big hassle and probably not worth it. > [mod: We thought about this, and always Linus could come up with > another way to break out of the "j...