similar to: Asterisk unable to receive iax or sip calls

Can anyone recommend some phone sets that are adsi compliant and work well with asterisk?

Hi, Currently using voiptalk.org and the quality is getting really bad. I would like a second provider preferably in UK, anyone got any suggestions? Ta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20040421/3d91c7f6/attachment.htm

-----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-admin@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-admin@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of asterisk-users-request@lists.digium.com Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:30 AM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: Asterisk-Users digest, Vol 1 #3891 - 8 msgs Send Asterisk-Users mailing list submissions to asterisk-users@lists.digium.com To subscribe or

Any Asterisk people going to Cebit ? Let's meet! If you go and would like to go for a drink and meet some others from the voip business, please add your name to the list below Joachim Vanheuverzwijn (zoachien AT securax.org) - Attractel.com - wednesday / thursday. Tan Aksoy - Telappliant - wednesday / thursday skyler??? - Digium [add name here:P]

So far these people let me know there are going to be there, who else is going and wants to do some networking ==== Joachim Vanheuverzwijn (zoachien AT securax.org) - Attractel.com - wednesday / thursday. Tan Aksoy - Telappliant - wednesday / thursday Antoine Megalla - SAND - wednesday / thursday loic didelot - wednesday / thursday Olle E. Johansson - edvina - wednesday / thursday Marius

Hi! Dale Johannesen schrieb: > > On Jun 16, 2007, at 12:35 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > >>> Result compiled with llvm-g++ 2.0: >>> tan float: -2.18504 >>> tan double: 0.309336 >> >> This may be due to bug 1505. > > It fails on x86 using x87 floating point, with the inliner not run, > because of 1505, yes. Gonsolo, is that your situation? >

If pi were stored and computed to infinite precision then yes we would expect tan(pi/2) to be NaN, but computers in general and R specifically don't store to infinite precision (some packages allow arbitrary (but still finite) precision) and irrational numbers cannot be stored exactly. So you take the value of the built in variable pi, which is close to the theoretical value, but not exactly

Hi! <tangens_bug.cc> #include <iostream> #include <cmath> int main() { float a = 0.3; double b = 0.3; float result_a = std::tan( a ); float result_b = std::tan( b ); std::cout << "tan float: " << result_a << std::endl; std::cout << "tan double: " << result_b << std::endl; }

Hello, I am not entirely sure the subject line captures what I am trying to do, but hopefully this description of the problem will help folks to see my challenge and hopefully offer constructive assistance. I have an experimental setup where I measure the decrease in oxygen in small vials as an organism, such as an oyster, consumes the oxygen. Each vial is calibrated before the experiment and

On Jun 16, 2007, at 12:35 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Result compiled with llvm-g++ 2.0: >> tan float: -2.18504 >> tan double: 0.309336 > > This may be due to bug 1505. It fails on x86 using x87 floating point, with the inliner not run, because of 1505, yes. Gonsolo, is that your situation? (What happens is, there is a wrapper in the header file for std::tan (float),

I have question (curiosity) regarding returned values of R's qcauchy () function, for nonexceedance probability (F). It seems the ideal returned range of cauchy distribution should be [-Inf,Inf]. For F=0 > qcauchy(0) [1] -Inf but for F=1 > qcauchy(1) [1] 8.16562e+15 It seems to me that the proper return value should be Inf??? For default (location=0,scale=1) quantile function of

This works: my.compose <- function(f, ...) { if (missing(f)) identity else function(x) f(my.compose(...)(x)) } my.compose(sin, cos, tan)(pi/4) ## [1] 0.5143953 sin(cos(tan(pi/4))) ## [1] 0.5143953 But replacing my.compose with Recall in the else causes it to fail: my.compose2 <- function(f, ...) { if (missing(f)) identity else function(x) f(Recall(...)(x))

The same argument would hold for tan(pi/2). I don't say the result 'NaN' is wrong, but I thought, tan(pi*x) and tanpi(x) should give the same result. Hans Werner On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:44 PM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote: > It should be the case that tan(pi*x) != tanpi(x) in many cases - that is why > it was added. The limits from below and below of the

Hi, i try sin, cos, and tan. > sapply(c(cos,sin,tan),function(x,y)x(y),1.23e45*pi) [1] 0.5444181 0.8388140 1.5407532 However, *pi results the following > sapply(c(cospi,sinpi,tanpi),function(x,y)x(y),1.23e45) [1] 1 0 0 Please try whether the following becomes all right. diff -ruN R-3.3.2.orig/src/nmath/cospi.c R-3.3.2/src/nmath/cospi.c --- R-3.3.2.orig/src/nmath/cospi.c 2016-09-15

I have been looking at some 'table' examples in Peter Dalgaard's ISwR book, and I am confused by how to get right justification of my table headings when I use the tables() command. Compare the following: # Produces right justfified column names caff.marital=matrix(c(652,1537,598,242,36,46,38,21,218,327,106,67),nrow=3,byrow=T)

Hello, Code: int f1(int a, int b) { return sqrt(a) > sqrt(b); } int f2(int a, int b) { return a > b; } Possibly, under -ffast-math (to ignore NaNs), f1 could be transformed to f2 variant. Also a transformation could support sin and tan, and reverse comparison for cos. Suggestions? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Please note that you need to report your platforms (as per the posting guide), as the C function starts #ifdef HAVE_COSPI #elif defined HAVE___COSPI double cospi(double x) { return __cospi(x); } And AFAICS the system versions on Solaris and OS X behave the same way as R's substitute. On 01/12/2016 09:12, Martin Maechler wrote: >>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler

I really want to do this: abline( a=tan(-kT*pi/180), b=kY-tan(-kT*pi/180)*kX ) where kX,kY and kT are vectors of equal length. But I can't do that with abline unless I use a loop, and I haven't figured out the least unelegant way of writing the loop yet. So is there a way to do this without a loop? Or if I am to resort to the loop, what's the best way of doing it considering that I

Hi Folks, I am interested in extending the repertoire of link functions in glm(Y~X, family=binomial(link=...)) to include a "tan" link: eta = (4/pi)*tan(mu) i.e. this link bears the same relation to the Cauchy distribution as the probit link bears to the Gaussian. I'm interested in sage advice about this from people who know their way aroung glm. >From the surface, it looks

Renato, The result of running 'llvm-lit $LLVM/TEST/MC" is: Expected Passes : 330 Expected Failures : 20 Actually it passed "make check", no unexpected result. On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at arm.com> wrote: > On 13 May 2011 06:42, Koan-Sin Tan <koansin.tan at gmail.com> wrote: >> With that attached patch, we can compile