similar to: The internet filter coming to the US — with barely any dissent

I'm having trouble with coplot. I have two conditioning variables, and when I try to specify two sets of given.values, no matter what I do I get the message, Error: Object "b.levels" not found. Here is the section of code: c.ranges <- co.intervals(schses, number=4, overlap=0) a.ranges <- co.intervals(as.factor(aa94), number=2, overlap=0) PredAA <- as.factor(aa94)

Rpvs> On 14/07/2020 16:51, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: >> Yeah, I could setup an extra XCP box - but at smaller setups, it really seems like overkill. >> So, it sounds like restores of the VM work "fine." >> How often do machine accounts reset their passwords? Rpvs> Every 30 days, though this is adjustable, but not recommended >> [This is the one that is

On 14/07/2020 17:25, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: > > Rpvs> On 14/07/2020 16:51, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: >>> Yeah, I could setup an extra XCP box - but at smaller setups, it really seems like overkill. >>> So, it sounds like restores of the VM work "fine." >>> How often do machine accounts reset their passwords? > Rpvs> Every 30 days,

Crikey. I can't get this to work! Allegedly, you can press 0 while in the voicemail greeting and be dropped to the 'o' extension. For some reason, I can't get it to work. The 'docs' aren't clear about what context the o extension should be in. The voip wiki says "the context for the voicemail box that we're looking for in the dialplan for the jump to the

Rpvs> On 14/07/2020 17:25, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: >> Rpvs> On 14/07/2020 16:51, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: >>>> Yeah, I could setup an extra XCP box - but at smaller setups, it really seems like overkill. >>>> So, it sounds like restores of the VM work "fine." >>>> How often do machine accounts reset their passwords? >>

Scott Ritchie wrote: > So, briefly: > > Over the past few months, users have added an average of between 12 and > 14 bugs every day. > > Since June 1st: > - 412 total bugs filed > - 87 bugs resolved invalid > - 227 bugs resolved fixed > - 133 bugs confirmed but not resolved (status new) > - 292 bugs created but unconfirmed > > Doing some subtraction that

I''m using god* to monitor my mongrels. God looks at pid files to know the status of the cluster. It seems as though mongrel does not write a pid file until it has loaded the entire rails/project environment, which in my case, takes upwards of 90 seconds. Meanwhile, god is freaking out because it thinks that there aren''t mongrels running, and it tries to start them. Thankfully I

i was just lo0king at the winamp3 forums . there's a wish list , and i was the very first pers0n to request OGG ! but there's h0pe .. -- We're Counting We are now counting individual requests so see what should be high on the priority list. So, if you have a feature you want, add it here. Better yet though, use the Search feature at the bottom. If you see a thread that matches

On Thu, April 9, 2015 13:12, zep wrote: > frankly, this blows my mind. not long ago there was a huge kerfuffle > over the change to only allow (as someone defined it 'secure') certain > passwords, requiring numbers, special characters, some minimum length > and that -had to be done- because people didn't use proper passwords > and couldn't be trusted to just use

> On May 9, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > 2017-05-09 9:03 GMT-07:00 David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk <mailto:David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>>: > On 9 May 2017, at 16:59, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I'm not

>>> strongly disagree. I'm appalled to see that sentence here. >> > >> > Come on! >> > >>> >> The overhead is significant for any large vector and it is in particular unnecessary since in .C you have to allocate*and copy* space even for results (twice!). Also it is very error-prone, because you have no information about the length of

On 27 July 2016 at 17:47, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > First and foremost please don’t consider lack of dissent on the thread as > presence of consensus. Hi Chris, First things first: I give you my word that I will be yelling louder than others if this ever happens. (I can be *very* loud! :) People can push and yell all they want, changes like

On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 09:07 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: > On Thu, April 9, 2015 13:12, zep wrote: > > > frankly, this blows my mind. not long ago there was a huge kerfuffle > > over the change to only allow (as someone defined it 'secure') certain > > passwords, requiring numbers, special characters, some minimum length > > and that -had to be done-

hm ., as i was typing this msg, i got a reply fr0m the forums . ogg is now supported in winamp3 ?! i hadn't realized ., great great , but sorry for the added posts ., a:/, On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Adon Irani wrote: > > i was just lo0king at the winamp3 forums . there's a wish list , and i > was the very first pers0n to request OGG ! > > but there's h0pe .. > > --

I’m just now catching up on this massive thread after being on vacation last week, and I have a few thoughts I’d like to share. First and foremost please don’t consider lack of dissent on the thread as presence of consensus. The various git-related threads on LLVM-dev lately have been so active and contentious that I think a lot of people are zoning out on the conversations. As supporting

Hi Chris, On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 1:37 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The thing I use normally only shows the first N lines by default (I don’t > know off hand what N is). Honestly, I don’t feel very strongly about the > specific order, but it’s not useful when somebody proposes something on the > list, and nobody voices any dissent

I agree with Renato here. From someone who is just beginning to participate in this thread, the sheer amount of ad hominem argument thrown about is disappointing and unhelpful. What we need is a specific proposal to center the discussion and then line by line review that breaks out into (potentially) more specific discussion on individual points if they are contentious. Sent from my iPhone >

On 29 July 2016 at 15:26, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I believe David Chisnall up-thread cited a difference in checkout times > on the order of a handful of seconds versus a couple of minutes. While > naively it might seem not a big deal, over time and depending on what you > are trying to do yes it can be a big burden. TL;DR: This thread

Additionally we should reach out to individual stakeholders and get real data about: 1. Given the current workflow, what would it take to change to this different workflow. Whether or not it is easy or hard should be left out. Just specific details. 2. Once the workflow has been changed, how does this workflow change day by day living for their users? Again this should be specific and a

I talked with Majnemer/Mehdi about developing this proposal on github. They said that this was ok (after all we are moving to github). We can add facts to the specific proposal via PRs which we can use to center the discussion. I created a straw man repo and a scaffolding hacked from the swift-evolution process for just this purpose. I hacked some words from jlebar's initial email as just a