similar to: Nested design and GLM: ....continue

Dear list members, First of all thank you for your helpful advices. After your answeres to my firt mail I studied a lot (R-News n?5) and I tried to perform my analysis: First, to fit a GLM with a nested design I decided to use the function "lmer" in package "lme4" as suggested by Spencer Graves and Filippo Piro. I remember to you that my data were: land use classes, 3 levels

Dear list members, I'd like to perform a glm analysis with a hierarchically nested design. In particular, I have one fixed factor ("Land Use Classes") with three levels and a random factor ("quadrat") nested within Land Use Classes with different levels per classes (class artificial = 1 quadrat; class crops = 67 quadrats; and class seminatural = 30 quadrats). I have four

Dear list members, I have a data.frame so shaped: Sector Quadrants Plot Sic Time Species1 Species2 Species3 .. Species-n 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 1 . 0 2 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 1 34 0 1 0 . 0 4 1 1 1 23 1 1 0 . 0 5 2 1 1 22 1 1 1 . 1 6 2 1 1 10 1 1 1 . 1 7 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 . 0 8 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 . 0 9 3 1 1 12 0 0 0 . 1 . . . . . . . . . .

I'm a week-old R user, and have become stuck trying to create usable CSV outputs for post-processing. I am using the package Rioja, which provides small datasets of results. I am running several analyses in a loop and iteratively adding the results to a *list* ("combined"). Within each iteration I use the following: > combined[[i]] <- performance(fit) With two iterations I

I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of a slight change we''ve made to the process for open source contributions. For *trivial* contributions, we are no longer requiring a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). Note that for most contributions a CLA signature is still required. I''m also working on making the overall CLA process easier, but that will take a little more time

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 19.10.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Daniel Berlin: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev: >>>> >>>>

On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >>> >>> To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms. >> >> Please explain: why? > > First part for me is that switching the code to a different license > doesn't

> > Hi All, > > Can you please guide us in solving this issue. > > Version used : libvirt-1.0.6 > # rpm -qa | egrep "libvirt|qemu" > qemu-kvm-0.14.1-1_WR4.3.x86_64_XXX.x86_64 > libvirt-1.0.6-1_WR4.3.x86_64_XXX.2.x86_64 > > Problem : > > # virsh cpu-stats CLA-0 > error: Failed to retrieve CPU statistics for domain 'CLA-0' > *error:

On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided >>> that

> > > > I’m still not completely convinced by this argument, given that the > majority of patent lawsuits come from NPEs. That is not necessarily where the majority of patent lawsuit *danger* comes from, and i'd argue, pretty strongly, it's not the most likely case for LLVM. > We’d still be in the situation where a malicious contributor could: > > 1. Spin up a

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev: >> >> Unfortunately, adding the Apache CLA also has several disadvantages >> as well: >> >> - It adds new barriers for new contributors to LLVM. We don’t >> currently have a process where you

Hello to all, That is my situation: I am trying to use dovecot as LDA with postfix, mysql e postfixadmin. So, all the users are stored in mysql, with quota password and all other things. All works properly, except for quota. I am trying to do some tests, but is not clear to me how to debug that problem. Scenario: user with 15 Mb of quota. That is my dovecot.conf (dovecot version 1.1.3 on

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:54:30PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >> >>> >>

> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >> I don’t have a link off hand. Two major points: >> >> 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces contributions. > > Yes, that is the cost I mention in the

[global] server max protocol = SMB2 # Line above added by lbarone - March 30, 2016 name resolve order = host wins lmhosts bcast write list = @domainadmins passwd chat = *new*password* %n\n *new*password* %n\n *updated* admin users = machine,add,lbarone, at domainadmins smb ports = 139 lock directory = /var/cache/samba preserve case =

OK, I've tried commenting the line out. Ran /etc/init.d/samba reload, but no change. Should I try a full server reboot then? On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Rowland penny <rpenny at samba.org> wrote: > On 02/04/16 17:37, Luke Barone wrote: > >> [global] >> server max protocol = SMB2 >> # Line above added by lbarone - March 30, 2016 >> name

Dear list members, I'd like to perform a glm analysis with a hierarchically nested design. In particular, I have one fixed factor ("Land Use Classes") with three levels and a random factor ("quadrat") nested within Land Use Classes with different levels per classes (class artificial = 1 quadrat; class crops = 67 quadrats; and class seminatural = 30 quadrats). I have four

Hi Everyone, I’d like to start a discussion about how to improve some important issues we have in the LLVM community, regarding our license and patent policy. Before we get started, I’d like to emphasize that *this is an RFC*, intended for discussion. There is no time pressure to do something fast here -- we want to do the right long-term thing for the community (though we also don’t want

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:16:47AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> The goals of this effort are outlined in the previous email but, in short, we aim to: >> - encourage ongoing contributions to LLVM by preserving low barrier to entry for contributors.

OK, I'm rebooting the server now. Removed that line first. SELinux and App Armour are not installed on the servers. Tested with the firewall down (iptables), ulimit is not being reached, still lots of memory and hard drive space available... Since it's the weekend, no one else is in the building except for me. On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Rowland penny <rpenny at samba.org>