27 Apr
2006
27 Apr
'06
1:30 p.m.
Hi all,
This isn't a strict 2001 question (though related). Does anyone know
where I can find ACU scores with ICPSR codes attached? I'd like
incorporate the ACU measure into a dataset I already have, but can't
think of any easy way to merge it in.
Thanks
John
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Gasper, PhD Candidate
Dept: Social & Decision Sciences
Carnegie Mellon University
www.hss.cmu.edu/departments/sds
Spring 2006:
The Institute for Quantitative Social Science
Cambridge, MA 02138
www.iq.harvard.edu
28 Apr
28 Apr
6:15 a.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Checking Balance with Interactions
I have a question about trying to achieve balance on variables and their
interactions as we did on problem set 7, 1d - It seems intuitive to me
that if you have only a few covariates and can achieve balance on all of
the interactions between those you might well create two subsamples via
matching that are more similar to one another than balancing only on the
individual covariates without their interactions. However, if you put in
all the interactions (treat~x1*x2*x3*x4*x5), then calculating standardized
biases and this kind of thing becomes ridiculous - so what is recommended?
Do we put in less, so that the balance can be more easily assessed, or do
we put in more but still only assess the balance on the covariates and
interesting interactions?
6:31 a.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Checking Balance with Interactions
This will vary by application, and I'm not aware of general rules (perhaps
others are?), except that people too often forget to check balance on
interactions entirely. My data-free speculation is that sticking with
squared terms and paired multiplicative interactions is generally playing
it safe. Your point about focusing on the substantively relevant
interactions is key as well.
Best,
Dan
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
I have a question about trying to achieve balance on
variables and their
interactions as we did on problem set 7, 1d - It seems intuitive to me
that if you have only a few covariates and can achieve balance on all of
the interactions between those you might well create two subsamples via
matching that are more similar to one another than balancing only on the
individual covariates without their interactions. However, if you put in
all the interactions (treat~x1*x2*x3*x4*x5), then calculating standardized
biases and this kind of thing becomes ridiculous - so what is recommended?
Do we put in less, so that the balance can be more easily assessed, or do
we put in more but still only assess the balance on the covariates and
interesting interactions?
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
7:55 a.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Several matching issues
Hi All,
I've got a few matching questions.
1) Does anyone know how to add the "addlvariables" option into the matching
summary command? The default is = NULL and I didn't know how to make it NOT
null. I didn't see an example in the MatchIt manual.
2) I was also hoping to hear people's reactions to a curious result in our
efforts to find the best balance. First, we did exact matching on age,
race, educ, and sex. With age in the equation we lose about half of our
observations, but if we take it out, we get this:
#Sample sizes:
# Control Treated
#All 1292 1386
#Matched 1264 1361
#Discarded 28 25
Not bad, but of course, we'd like to have age in the equation, so we decided
to try nearest neighbor matching. The results of the "balance improvements"
outputs suggest that this technique worsened the balance along almost every
dimension. Any idea why this would be? Is it worth trying other matching
techniques (any particular suggestions)?
Percent Balance Improvement:
Mean Diff. eQQ Med eQQ Mean eQQ Max
distance -27.07 -29.32 -27.494 -173.671
age -19.20 0.00 -15.233 0.000
race -37.39 0.00 -36.585 0.000
educ -24.52 -100.00 -23.777 0.000
sex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
distancexdistance -23.54 -18.54 -23.905 -2.871
distancexage -26.02 -46.51 -26.941 -10.801
distancexrace -24.09 -24.54 -25.474 -17.362
distancexeduc -53.80 -40.59 -52.541 -57.572
distancexsex -29.55 -24.65 -30.105 -36.215
agexage -134.28 -24.84 -14.673 -0.193
agexrace -41.12 -20.00 -39.032 -50.000
agexeduc - 21.88 -15.00 -21.094 -25.000
agexsex 42.65 0.00 -6.838 -16.667
racexrace -40.56 0.00 -39.726 0.000
racexeduc -31.69 -50.00 -30.853 -128.571
racexsex - 33.12 0.00 -31.752 0.000
educxeduc -28.55 -33.33 -27.919 -46.053
educxsex -15.49 0.00 -14.887 0.000
sexxsex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
3) Finally, I don't know if anyone else has encountered this, but if I
include the (discard= "hull.both") command in nearest neighbor matching on a
dataset about 3000 observations and 24 variables, a desktop computer has
insufficient memory to do the calculation (even with the max memory command
in R turned on).
m.nearest <- matchit(wave1 ~ age+race+educ+sex, data=GSS8504,
method="nearest", discard= "hull.both")
Many thanks for any suggestions!
Best,
Abby
11:14 a.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Discard=hull.both
Just to second Abby's email, Amy and I aren't able to get
discard="hull.both" to
work either - I'm on the server, not on a desktop computer - It loads the
WhatIf package and then I get an error that says, "alloc of 787124 bytes
failed, Process R segmentation fault at...date/time" and then my R stops
processing.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Abby Williamson wrote:
Hi All,
I've got a few matching questions.
1) Does anyone know how to add the "addlvariables" option into the matching
summary command? The default is = NULL and I didn't know how to make it NOT
null. I didn't see an example in the MatchIt manual.
2) I was also hoping to hear people's reactions to a curious result in our
efforts to find the best balance. First, we did exact matching on age,
race, educ, and sex. With age in the equation we lose about half of our
observations, but if we take it out, we get this:
#Sample sizes:
# Control Treated
#All 1292 1386
#Matched 1264 1361
#Discarded 28 25
Not bad, but of course, we'd like to have age in the equation, so we decided
to try nearest neighbor matching. The results of the "balance improvements"
outputs suggest that this technique worsened the balance along almost every
dimension. Any idea why this would be? Is it worth trying other matching
techniques (any particular suggestions)?
Percent Balance Improvement:
Mean Diff. eQQ Med eQQ Mean eQQ Max
distance -27.07 -29.32 -27.494 -173.671
age -19.20 0.00 -15.233 0.000
race -37.39 0.00 -36.585 0.000
educ -24.52 -100.00 -23.777 0.000
sex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
distancexdistance -23.54 -18.54 -23.905 -2.871
distancexage -26.02 -46.51 -26.941 -10.801
distancexrace -24.09 -24.54 -25.474 -17.362
distancexeduc -53.80 -40.59 -52.541 -57.572
distancexsex -29.55 -24.65 -30.105 -36.215
agexage -134.28 -24.84 -14.673 -0.193
agexrace -41.12 -20.00 -39.032 -50.000
agexeduc - 21.88 -15.00 -21.094 -25.000
agexsex 42.65 0.00 -6.838 -16.667
racexrace -40.56 0.00 -39.726 0.000
racexeduc -31.69 -50.00 -30.853 -128.571
racexsex - 33.12 0.00 -31.752 0.000
educxeduc -28.55 -33.33 -27.919 -46.053
educxsex -15.49 0.00 -14.887 0.000
sexxsex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
3) Finally, I don't know if anyone else has encountered this, but if I
include the (discard= "hull.both") command in nearest neighbor matching on a
dataset about 3000 observations and 24 variables, a desktop computer has
insufficient memory to do the calculation (even with the max memory command
in R turned on).
m.nearest <- matchit(wave1 ~ age+race+educ+sex, data=GSS8504,
method="nearest", discard= "hull.both")
Many thanks for any suggestions!
Best,
Abby
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
12:16 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Discard=hull.both
Hi Suzanna,
We haven't been able to figure out the memory allocation on the icegov
servers. The old ice (ice1, ice2, ice3, ice4) seem to handle these issues
somewhat better, so in a pinch, you might try running on one of those.
Best,
Ian
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
Just to second Abby's email, Amy and I
aren't able to get
discard="hull.both" to
work either - I'm on the server, not on a desktop computer - It loads the
WhatIf package and then I get an error that says, "alloc of 787124 bytes
failed, Process R segmentation fault at...date/time" and then my R stops
processing.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Abby Williamson wrote:
Hi All,
I've got a few matching questions.
1) Does anyone know how to add the "addlvariables" option into the matching
summary command? The default is = NULL and I didn't know how to make it NOT
null. I didn't see an example in the MatchIt manual.
2) I was also hoping to hear people's reactions to a curious result in our
efforts to find the best balance. First, we did exact matching on age,
race, educ, and sex. With age in the equation we lose about half of our
observations, but if we take it out, we get this:
#Sample sizes:
# Control Treated
#All 1292 1386
#Matched 1264 1361
#Discarded 28 25
Not bad, but of course, we'd like to have age in the equation, so we decided
to try nearest neighbor matching. The results of the "balance improvements"
outputs suggest that this technique worsened the balance along almost every
dimension. Any idea why this would be? Is it worth trying other matching
techniques (any particular suggestions)?
Percent Balance Improvement:
Mean Diff. eQQ Med eQQ Mean eQQ Max
distance -27.07 -29.32 -27.494 -173.671
age -19.20 0.00 -15.233 0.000
race -37.39 0.00 -36.585 0.000
educ -24.52 -100.00 -23.777 0.000
sex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
distancexdistance -23.54 -18.54 -23.905 -2.871
distancexage -26.02 -46.51 -26.941 -10.801
distancexrace -24.09 -24.54 -25.474 -17.362
distancexeduc -53.80 -40.59 -52.541 -57.572
distancexsex -29.55 -24.65 -30.105 -36.215
agexage -134.28 -24.84 -14.673 -0.193
agexrace -41.12 -20.00 -39.032 -50.000
agexeduc - 21.88 -15.00 -21.094 -25.000
agexsex 42.65 0.00 -6.838 -16.667
racexrace -40.56 0.00 -39.726 0.000
racexeduc -31.69 -50.00 -30.853 -128.571
racexsex - 33.12 0.00 -31.752 0.000
educxeduc -28.55 -33.33 -27.919 -46.053
educxsex -15.49 0.00 -14.887 0.000
sexxsex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
3) Finally, I don't know if anyone else has encountered this, but if I
include the (discard= "hull.both") command in nearest neighbor matching on a
dataset about 3000 observations and 24 variables, a desktop computer has
insufficient memory to do the calculation (even with the max memory command
in R turned on).
m.nearest <- matchit(wave1 ~ age+race+educ+sex, data=GSS8504,
method="nearest", discard= "hull.both")
Many thanks for any suggestions!
Best,
Abby
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
3:12 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] prob. density plots - 2 on one axis
does anyone have code for ploting 2 probability densities on one plot?
3:33 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] prob. density plots - 2 on one axis
Hi Suzanna,
See to code below for an example from a normal density:
x <- seq(-4,4,.01)
#solid line for first density
plot(x, dnorm(x,0,1), type="l")
#dashed for second
lines(x, dnorm(x,.5,1), lty=2)
Best,
Ian
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
does anyone have code for ploting 2 probability densities on one plot?
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
4:18 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Discard=hull.both
To add to the suggestions, if you can get a G5 from one of the
computer labs ( I believe the gov lab has some, they run R locally
much more reliably than the Windows PC from my personal experience.
regards,
Sheldon
On 4/28/06, Ian Brett Yohai <yohai(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
Hi Suzanna,
We haven't been able to figure out the memory allocation on the icegov
servers. The old ice (ice1, ice2, ice3, ice4) seem to handle these issues
somewhat better, so in a pinch, you might try running on one of those.
Best,
Ian
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
Just to second Abby's email, Amy and I
aren't able to get
discard="hull.both" to
work either - I'm on the server, not on a desktop computer - It loads the
WhatIf package and then I get an error that says, "alloc of 787124 bytes
failed, Process R segmentation fault at...date/time" and then my R stops
processing.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Abby Williamson wrote:
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
Hi All,
I've got a few matching questions.
1) Does anyone know how to add the "addlvariables" option into the matching
summary command? The default is = NULL and I didn't know how to make it NOT
null. I didn't see an example in the MatchIt manual.
2) I was also hoping to hear people's reactions to a curious result in our
efforts to find the best balance. First, we did exact matching on age,
race, educ, and sex. With age in the equation we lose about half of our
observations, but if we take it out, we get this:
#Sample sizes:
# Control Treated
#All 1292 1386
#Matched 1264 1361
#Discarded 28 25
Not bad, but of course, we'd like to have age in the equation, so we decided
to try nearest neighbor matching. The results of the "balance improvements"
outputs suggest that this technique worsened the balance along almost every
dimension. Any idea why this would be? Is it worth trying other matching
techniques (any particular suggestions)?
Percent Balance Improvement:
Mean Diff. eQQ Med eQQ Mean eQQ Max
distance -27.07 -29.32 -27.494 -173.671
age -19.20 0.00 -15.233 0.000
race -37.39 0.00 -36.585 0.000
educ -24.52 -100.00 -23.777 0.000
sex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
distancexdistance -23.54 -18.54 -23.905 -2.871
distancexage -26.02 -46.51 -26.941 -10.801
distancexrace -24.09 -24.54 -25.474 -17.362
distancexeduc -53.80 -40.59 -52.541 -57.572
distancexsex -29.55 -24.65 -30.105 -36.215
agexage -134.28 -24.84 -14.673 -0.193
agexrace -41.12 -20.00 -39.032 -50.000
agexeduc - 21.88 -15.00 -21.094 -25.000
agexsex 42.65 0.00 -6.838 -16.667
racexrace -40.56 0.00 -39.726 0.000
racexeduc -31.69 -50.00 -30.853 -128.571
racexsex - 33.12 0.00 -31.752 0.000
educxeduc -28.55 -33.33 -27.919 -46.053
educxsex -15.49 0.00 -14.887 0.000
sexxsex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
3) Finally, I don't know if anyone else has encountered this, but if I
include the (discard= "hull.both") command in nearest neighbor matching on a
dataset about 3000 observations and 24 variables, a desktop computer has
insufficient memory to do the calculation (even with the max memory command
in R turned on).
m.nearest <- matchit(wave1 ~ age+race+educ+sex, data=GSS8504,
method="nearest", discard= "hull.both")
Many thanks for any suggestions!
Best,
Abby
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
11:25 a.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Several matching issues
Hi Abby,
I can only speak to the second question. Here, it sounds like a very good
case to match exactly on some covariates and then within some boundary for
age. Both MatchIt and Matching allow you to do this, although I'm not
sure of the syntax off the top of my head.
Best,
Dan
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Abby Williamson wrote:
Hi All,
I've got a few matching questions.
1) Does anyone know how to add the "addlvariables" option into the matching
summary command? The default is = NULL and I didn't know how to make it NOT
null. I didn't see an example in the MatchIt manual.
2) I was also hoping to hear people's reactions to a curious result in our
efforts to find the best balance. First, we did exact matching on age,
race, educ, and sex. With age in the equation we lose about half of our
observations, but if we take it out, we get this:
#Sample sizes:
# Control Treated
#All 1292 1386
#Matched 1264 1361
#Discarded 28 25
Not bad, but of course, we'd like to have age in the equation, so we decided
to try nearest neighbor matching. The results of the "balance improvements"
outputs suggest that this technique worsened the balance along almost every
dimension. Any idea why this would be? Is it worth trying other matching
techniques (any particular suggestions)?
Percent Balance Improvement:
Mean Diff. eQQ Med eQQ Mean eQQ Max
distance -27.07 -29.32 -27.494 -173.671
age -19.20 0.00 -15.233 0.000
race -37.39 0.00 -36.585 0.000
educ -24.52 -100.00 -23.777 0.000
sex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
distancexdistance -23.54 -18.54 -23.905 -2.871
distancexage -26.02 -46.51 -26.941 -10.801
distancexrace -24.09 -24.54 -25.474 -17.362
distancexeduc -53.80 -40.59 -52.541 -57.572
distancexsex -29.55 -24.65 -30.105 -36.215
agexage -134.28 -24.84 -14.673 -0.193
agexrace -41.12 -20.00 -39.032 -50.000
agexeduc - 21.88 -15.00 -21.094 -25.000
agexsex 42.65 0.00 -6.838 -16.667
racexrace -40.56 0.00 -39.726 0.000
racexeduc -31.69 -50.00 -30.853 -128.571
racexsex - 33.12 0.00 -31.752 0.000
educxeduc -28.55 -33.33 -27.919 -46.053
educxsex -15.49 0.00 -14.887 0.000
sexxsex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
3) Finally, I don't know if anyone else has encountered this, but if I
include the (discard= "hull.both") command in nearest neighbor matching on a
dataset about 3000 observations and 24 variables, a desktop computer has
insufficient memory to do the calculation (even with the max memory command
in R turned on).
m.nearest <- matchit(wave1 ~ age+race+educ+sex, data=GSS8504,
method="nearest", discard= "hull.both")
Many thanks for any suggestions!
Best,
Abby
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
12:04 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Several matching issues
One thing that might help on the convex hull matching question is to do it
manually on the matched data:
z.out<-zelig(treatment~X, data=match.out, model="logit")
x.out<-setx(z.out, fn=NULL)
library(WhatIf)
summary(whatif(data=z.out, cfact=x.out))
This tells you if the counterfactual for the observations in the mathched
dataset are inside the convex hull one by one...
2:55 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Several matching issues
You might try using rpart matching.
Quoting Dan Hopkins <dhopkins(a)fas.harvard.edu>du>:
Hi Abby,
I can only speak to the second question. Here, it sounds like a very good
case to match exactly on some covariates and then within some boundary for
age. Both MatchIt and Matching allow you to do this, although I'm not
sure of the syntax off the top of my head.
Best,
Dan
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Abby Williamson wrote:
Hi All,
I've got a few matching questions.
1) Does anyone know how to add the "addlvariables" option into the matching
summary command? The default is = NULL and I didn't know how to make it
NOT
null. I didn't see an example in the
MatchIt manual.
2) I was also hoping to hear people's reactions to a curious result in our
efforts to find the best balance. First, we did exact matching on age,
race, educ, and sex. With age in the equation we lose about half of our
observations, but if we take it out, we get this:
#Sample sizes:
# Control Treated
#All 1292 1386
#Matched 1264 1361
#Discarded 28 25
Not bad, but of course, we'd like to have age in the equation, so we
decided
to try nearest neighbor matching. The results of
the "balance
improvements"
outputs suggest that this technique worsened the
balance along almost every
dimension. Any idea why this would be? Is it worth trying other matching
techniques (any particular suggestions)?
Percent Balance Improvement:
Mean Diff. eQQ Med eQQ Mean eQQ Max
distance -27.07 -29.32 -27.494 -173.671
age -19.20 0.00 -15.233 0.000
race -37.39 0.00 -36.585 0.000
educ -24.52 -100.00 -23.777 0.000
sex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
distancexdistance -23.54 -18.54 -23.905 -2.871
distancexage -26.02 -46.51 -26.941 -10.801
distancexrace -24.09 -24.54 -25.474 -17.362
distancexeduc -53.80 -40.59 -52.541 -57.572
distancexsex -29.55 -24.65 -30.105 -36.215
agexage -134.28 -24.84 -14.673 -0.193
agexrace -41.12 -20.00 -39.032 -50.000
agexeduc - 21.88 -15.00 -21.094 -25.000
agexsex 42.65 0.00 -6.838 -16.667
racexrace -40.56 0.00 -39.726 0.000
racexeduc -31.69 -50.00 -30.853 -128.571
racexsex - 33.12 0.00 -31.752 0.000
educxeduc -28.55 -33.33 -27.919 -46.053
educxsex -15.49 0.00 -14.887 0.000
sexxsex 64.63 0.00 66.667 0.000
3) Finally, I don't know if anyone else has encountered this, but if I
include the (discard= "hull.both") command in nearest neighbor matching on
a
dataset about 3000 observations and 24 variables,
a desktop computer has
insufficient memory to do the calculation (even with the max memory command
in R turned on).
m.nearest <- matchit(wave1 ~ age+race+educ+sex, data=GSS8504,
method="nearest", discard= "hull.both")
Many thanks for any suggestions!
Best,
Abby
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
3:15 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] frozen xemacs windows
I have had my window freeze because of problems running things in R
several times and it will not let me close the window on these frozen
windows - even when I try "kill" and all of these commands - or clicking
the x in the corner, or any of these things - so I've moved them all to my
second workspace for now - but is there some way to remove these frozen
xemacs windows entirely?
3:37 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] frozen xemacs windows
Hi Suzanna,
You've tried killing them individually? That is:
ps -u yohai (lists all my current processes)
Then kill and then PID number, e.g.:
kill 14091
That should kill each process. Occasionally you might have to run the
kill command more than once but it should work.
Best,
Ian
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
I have had my window freeze because of problems
running things in R
several times and it will not let me close the window on these frozen
windows - even when I try "kill" and all of these commands - or clicking
the x in the corner, or any of these things - so I've moved them all to my
second workspace for now - but is there some way to remove these frozen
xemacs windows entirely?
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
4:47 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] frozen xemacs windows
Well, it's not processes running, because there are only three listed when
I do that code - but it's basically an open xemacs screen that is frozen -
I can't move between buffers, can't close it, etc - any advice for getting
rid of them?
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Ian Brett Yohai wrote:
Hi Suzanna,
You've tried killing them individually? That is:
ps -u yohai (lists all my current processes)
Then kill and then PID number, e.g.:
kill 14091
That should kill each process. Occasionally you might have to run the
kill command more than once but it should work.
Best,
Ian
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
I have had my window freeze because of problems
running things in R
several times and it will not let me close the window on these frozen
windows - even when I try "kill" and all of these commands - or clicking
the x in the corner, or any of these things - so I've moved them all to my
second workspace for now - but is there some way to remove these frozen
xemacs windows entirely?
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
4:48 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] frozen xemacs windows
if what Ian says doesn't work, do kill -9
Gary
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
Well, it's not processes running, because there
are only three listed when I
do that code - but it's basically an open xemacs screen that is frozen - I
can't move between buffers, can't close it, etc - any advice for getting rid
of them?
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Ian Brett Yohai wrote:
Hi Suzanna,
You've tried killing them individually? That is:
ps -u yohai (lists all my current processes)
Then kill and then PID number, e.g.:
kill 14091
That should kill each process. Occasionally you might have to run the
kill command more than once but it should work.
Best,
Ian
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
I have had my window freeze because of problems
running things in R
several times and it will not let me close the window on these frozen
windows - even when I try "kill" and all of these commands - or clicking
the x in the corner, or any of these things - so I've moved them all to my
second workspace for now - but is there some way to remove these frozen
xemacs windows entirely?
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
4:55 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] frozen xemacs windows
neither has worked - any other suggestions? This is the kind of thing
that you would do control alt delete and end program in task manager if it
were windows - that is what I mean by frozen window... not so much that R
is running still. I don't think it is actually.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Gary King wrote:
if what Ian says doesn't work, do kill -9
Gary
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
Well, it's not processes running, because
there are only three listed when
I do that code - but it's basically an open xemacs screen that is frozen -
I can't move between buffers, can't close it, etc - any advice for getting
rid of them?
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Ian Brett Yohai wrote:
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
Hi Suzanna,
You've tried killing them individually? That is:
ps -u yohai (lists all my current processes)
Then kill and then PID number, e.g.:
kill 14091
That should kill each process. Occasionally you might have to run the
kill command more than once but it should work.
Best,
Ian
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
I have had my window freeze because of problems
running things in R
several times and it will not let me close the window on these frozen
windows - even when I try "kill" and all of these commands - or
clicking
the x in the corner, or any of these things - so I've moved them all
to my
second workspace for now - but is there some way to remove these
frozen
xemacs windows entirely?
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
4:58 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] frozen xemacs windows
kill -9 is the same as the killing it from the task manager in windows.
i've not seen this fail before, but if it really has, then you can always
kill -9 your vnc session and restart it. that's like rebooting in
windows.
Gary
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
neither has worked - any other suggestions? This is
the kind of thing that
you would do control alt delete and end program in task manager if it were
windows - that is what I mean by frozen window... not so much that R is
running still. I don't think it is actually.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Gary King wrote:
if what Ian says doesn't work, do kill -9
Gary
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
Well, it's not processes running, because
there are only three listed
when
I do that code - but it's basically an open xemacs screen that is frozen
-
I can't move between buffers, can't close it, etc - any advice for
getting
rid of them?
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Ian Brett Yohai wrote:
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
Hi Suzanna,
> You've tried killing them individually? That is:
> ps -u yohai (lists all my current processes)
> Then kill and then PID number, e.g.:
kill 14091
> That should kill each process. Occasionally you might have to run
the
kill command more than once but it should work.
> Best,
Ian
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Suzanna Chapman wrote:
> > I have had my window freeze because of problems running things in R
> several times and it will not let me close the window on these frozen
> windows - even when I try "kill" and all of these commands - or > >
clicking
> the x in the corner, or any of these things
- so I've moved them all
> to my
> second workspace for now - but is there some way to remove these > >
frozen
> xemacs windows entirely?
>
> _______________________________________________
> gov2001-l mailing list
> gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
> http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
>
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
6576
days inactive
6577
days old
gov2001@lists.gking.harvard.edu
17 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
abby.williamson＠gmail.com -
dhopkins＠fas.harvard.edu -
ghumphr＠fas.harvard.edu -
jtgasper＠gmail.com -
king＠harvard.edu -
schapman＠fas.harvard.edu -
sheldon.bond＠gmail.com -
yohai＠fas.harvard.edu