similar to: Stream metadata settings

to add to Mike's comments.... At 11:42 AM 11/27/2003 +1100, you wrote: > > My newest series of patches provides the following: > > > > - time limited access to streams > >This might be useful, a patch would be welcome. I guess it would depend on how it was implemented...to me it doesn't seem useful for 99% of the icecast users out there (I could be wrong), I

On Tuesday 02 December 2003 20:43, Melanie wrote: > Hi, > > I've split it into three patches now and also made it fit to current CVS, > with, I believe, Karl's changes for the double free bug. > > Order for the patches is: > > icecast-multilevel-fallback.patch > icecast-timewindow.patch > icecast-yp-override.patch > > As for docs: How? What format? Any

> My newest series of patches provides the following: > > - time limited access to streams This might be useful, a patch would be welcome. > - streams that can be used by souces, but not by listeners, but can be > fallbacks This is problematic. What constitutes a 'source' as opposed to a 'listener' from the point of view of the protocol? Currently, nothing.

On 2003.11.30 06:07 oddsock wrote: >> > - time limited access to streams >> >> This might be useful, a patch would be welcome. > > I guess it would depend on how it was implemented...to me it doesn't seem > useful for 99% of the icecast users out there (I could be wrong), I think > the implementation or net effect becomes pretty complicated, sure you can

On Tuesday 02 December 2003 01:23, Melanie wrote: > Hello, > > this is the first patch, it implements some basic multilevel fallback > handling logic, the time window and the no mount option. > > New options are possible within an <mount> section: > > <fallback-override>1</fallback-override> > > This will allow a source connecting to a mount point to

On Tuesday 13 January 2004 17:15, Melanie wrote: > Hi, > > On 2004.01.13 02:32 Michael Smith wrote: > > Since we've now (finally!) got 2.0 out the door, I'm now coming back to > > these > > patches - hoping to actually get the functionality incorporated. > > > > I've got a few questions, though: > > 1) Documentation: did you ever manage to

Hi, On 2004.01.13 02:32 Michael Smith wrote: > Since we've now (finally!) got 2.0 out the door, I'm now coming back to > these > patches - hoping to actually get the functionality incorporated. > > I've got a few questions, though: > 1) Documentation: did you ever manage to write any? The options > you added are > fairly straightforward for the most part, so

Hello, this is the first patch, it implements some basic multilevel fallback handling logic, the time window and the no mount option. New options are possible within an <mount> section: <fallback-override>1</fallback-override> This will allow a source connecting to a mount point to steal the clients from it's fallback mount. All clients of the fallback are transferred

> IMHO, a system like Icecast should be made so highly configurable that it > would fit everyone's needs, but I get the impression that only the needs of > the principal developers are of interest here. It makes me sad to see this, > Icecast could be great instead of just being good. > Melanie, As one of the 'principal developers', I don't think this is fair. Of

Hi, I've split it into three patches now and also made it fit to current CVS, with, I believe, Karl's changes for the double free bug. Order for the patches is: icecast-multilevel-fallback.patch icecast-timewindow.patch icecast-yp-override.patch As for docs: How? What format? Any specific layout? Melanie -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed...

At 11:57 AM 12/2/2003 +1100, you wrote: >On Tuesday 02 December 2003 01:23, Melanie wrote: > > Hello, > > > > this is the first patch, it implements some basic multilevel fallback > > handling logic, the time window and the no mount option. > > > > New options are possible within an <mount> section: > > > >

It is not a pure R question,but I hope some one can give me advices. I want to use analysis my data with the multilevel model.The data has 2 levels---- the second level has 52 units and each second level unit has 19-23 units.I think the sample size is quite small,but just now I can't make the sample size much bigger.So I want to ask if I use the multilevel model to analysis the data set,will

Hi Sir I am very new user of R for the research project on multilevel logistic regression. There is confusion about bugs() function in R and BUGS software. Is there any relation between these two? Is there any comprehensive package for Multilevel Logistic modelling in R? Please guide in this regard. Thank You RAZA --------------------------------- Boardwalk for

Goodmorning everybody, i'm an italian statistician and i'm using R for research. Could someone tell me some indices to see the goodness of fit in multilevel modelling? I'm using the lmer function, and I want to know if my model fit well my data. I actually want to justify the use of multilevel model instead the classical one. Hope someone can help me. Thank you. Greetings

Perhaps I am not looking in the right place, but I am looking for a way to use lmer() to run a multilevel model that incorporates sampling weights. I have used the Lumley survey package to use sampling weights in the past, but according to post I found online from Thomas Lumley in mid-2012, R is currently not equipped to be able to do this. His post is here:

Dear all, I am struggling with a problem which I have been reading on the forums about and it did not seem to me that there is a precise answer to my question. However, I still hope there is one. I am working with http://timss.bc.edu/ PIRLS data and trying to conduct multilevel analysis. There are different weights for each level of analysis in the PIRLS dataset (e.g. there is a school

Hi List, I have the following problem: I am using the multilevel package and make.univ function for available in the package and then xyplot from lattice and I want to know how could I be able to use the ?coefficient? for the straight line that passes the data ? Example from help: library(multilevel) data(univbct) #a data set already in univariate or stacked form for job satisfaction

Hello, I am using R to analyze a large multilevel data set, using lmer() to model my data, and using anova() to compare the fit of various models. When I run two models, the output of each model is generated correctly as far as I can tell (e.g. summary(f1) and summary(f2) for the multilevel model output look perfectly reasonable), and in this case (see below) predictor.1 explains vastly more

Hi, I'm trying to reshape my data set from wide to tall format for multilevel modeling. Unfortunately, the function I typically use (make.univ from the multilevel package) does not appear to work with unbalanced data frames, which is what I'm dealing with. Below is an example of the columns of a data frame similar to what I'm working with: ID a1 a2 a4 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 Below

Dear R experts, I had a question which may not be directly relevant to R but I will be grateful if you can give me some advices. I ran a two-level multilevel model for data with repeated measurements over time, i.e. level-1 the repeated measures and level-2 subjects. I could not get convergence using lme(), so I tried MLwiN, which eventually showed the level-2 variances (random effects for