similar to: How to use lmer function and multicomp package?

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 you that my data were: land use classes, 3 levels

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

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 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 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

> > 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 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

> 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.

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

> > > > 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 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

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 02/04/16 17:37, Luke Barone wrote: > [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

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:25:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> 1) We could introduce a novel legal solution. > > Please, no. > >> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. > > To me, this is the most acceptable

On 02/04/16 18:06, Luke Barone wrote: > 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 > <mailto:rpenny at samba.org>> wrote: > > On 02/04/16 17:37, Luke Barone wrote: > > [global] >

I am using R for a class which uses S. Often I can not find functions that in S but not in R, example, multicomp(). What is your advise. Thanks. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body",

Dear R people, I have heard rumors of a function called (I believe) multicomp in S+ for doing multiple comparisons for linear models. It doesn't seem to be in the version of R I am using, 0.90.0. Is there something equivalent to this in R, or does it simply not exist? I see there is are more recent versions of R. For my platform, SuSE Linux, the most recent rpm available appears to be

Hello, My package has passed all the R CMD CHECK steps except one. There is an object which I placed in a sysdata.rda file (located in the 'R' directory of the source package). Even though users have no need to access this object, which is a character vector of parameters fed to Fortran code, R CMD CHECK produces a warning that it needs documentation. So I made an .Rd file for it. However,