search for: thornhill

...I don't know why. I hope to get direct effect, indirect effect and total effects for every variable. However, I don't figure out how to do with sem package. It there any other package that can do it? Any suggestion or hint will be greatly appreciated. Regards, Jinsong [1] Huang, B., Thornhill, N., Shah, S. and Shook, D. (2002). Path analysis for process troubleshooting. Proceedings of Advanced Control of Industrial Processes, Kumamoto, Japan, 10?12 June, 149?154. url: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/494/1/HuangEtAl_AdConIP_2002.pdf

...tor size Rs is the reserved sectors before the FAT's Re is the entries in the root-directory Ds is the size of a entry (=32 bytes) (...) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, even though this is a FAT16 computation, I think I was able to work out how Tom Thornhill of Ridgecrop got his FAT32 equivalent, which was probably as follows: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Assume: To is the total amount of sectors, Fo is the amount of free sectors for data Fs is the size of one FAT in sectors Cs is the cluster size Ss is the...

...the domain members reveals nothing at all as a master browser. Doing 'smbclient -L' to the samba server lists all of the workgroup members in the "server" section and lists itself as the master browser (no domain members are listed). Any insight is much appreciated. Jeremy Thornhill jeremy@etherized.com

...I have now tested the new computation against a 320GB and 1TB drive, and > found that the original minfatsize check of Syslinux is no longer an issue. > > This being said, and to address Ady's subsequent point: > > While I can now address the issue in Rufus (and will contact Tom Thornhill > of Ridgecrop to let him know about both the issue & fix), I suspect there > are users out there who are using and will continue to use fat32format.exe > with the bad computation algorithm, as well as other developers who might > lift the existing Large FAT32 format code without re...

...before the FAT's > Re is the entries in the root-directory > Ds is the size of a entry (=32 bytes) > (...) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Now, even though this is a FAT16 computation, I think I was able to work > out how Tom Thornhill of Ridgecrop got his FAT32 equivalent, which was > probably as follows: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Assume: > To is the total amount of sectors, > Fo is the amount of free sectors for data > Fs is the size of one FAT in sector...

On 02/26/16 09:54, Gene Cumm via Syslinux wrote: >> >> I'm not exactly sure how that would work (how would you mark those clusters >> as wasted when my understanding is that the FAT's can't provide any >> knowledge about them in the first place?) and unless it is automatically >> integrated and ran during the Syslinux installation, it sounds quite >>

Hi Ady, On 2016.02.25 02:08, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > There is an "extra" sector, in comparison to... what exactly? Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I implied that the Large FAT32 fat size had an extra sector compared to minfatsize, when of course I meant the opposite (the Large FAT32 has one less sector than the minfatsize computed by the unpatched code, hence the check