Leaderboard

Well said Chris (BTW - calumniative - thanks for the addition to my vocabulary ) I must agree with those who are not sure about the data on the increasing global temperature, and who are EXTREMELY apprehensive of those who claim certainty that it is anthropogenic. How well have we characterized the effect of the varying radiance of that big ball of burning hydrogen in the sky? How much of the snow melting in the Arctic and North America is due to increased soot deposits on the snow due to the increased coal burning in China rather than CO2 in the atmosphere? Let us follow the "money trail" of those who are pushing these ideas. Are they concerned for the planet and our progeny, or have they found a new and profitable gig? How many of the suggestions pushed by the IPCC and others lead to nothing more than bureaucracies funded by the UN to transfer money to lesser developed nations? How many of those pushing these ideologies live lifestyles that are in conflict with them. Al Gore won a Nobel prize for his championship of THE CAUSE. The IPCC calls global meat production the greatest threat to the earth because of the greenhouse gasses that it produces, yet he is still a self described "steak-aholic". He flies around the world in a private jet rather than with the "great unwashed" in a mass transit jet while telling us that we should ride our bikes to work. I completely agree that we need to reduce the crap that we send into the ecosystem. I don't need data to tell me this is detrimental, and a bad idea. The question is: How much of the furor is about the people who have a monetary stake in the "Green" process, and how much of it is really about anthropogenic global warming? Al has found hisself a VERY profitable cause, and so have many in others. And they are profiting on evidence that is very disputable. What exactly is the ideal temperature for the Earth? It has varied greatly over the millenia, and I am curious how we determined what the best one was. Which increases were natural and which were man made? And when did we find the thermostat? Is it controlled with LabVIEW? I'd like to checkout THAT VI! Dismount from soapbox. Cheers Jim

I've heard there is a link between drinking homogenized milk and heart disease...although admittedly I have done no research on the topic. Just thought I'd throw it out there so you can look it up if you are a big milk drinker. I probably should do some research because I drink quite a bit of milk myself.

Sure, but the NRA and "climate-change" deniers might stand in your way!

After reading through several documents I'll have to disagree with you. The headline is exagerated, but it's not complete horse manure. The potential clearly exists for gun-ban advocates to use this as a way to implement policies in the US that effectively restrict or eliminate citizens from owning and using guns. Hmm... what's the Programme of Action? Adequate laws? Who decides what's adequate? Regulating the transit or retransfer of weapons? Do I have to get permission from the government to buy a handgun from my neighbor or have a rifle in my trunk when I drive to a neighboring state? This is completely circular and makes no sense. By definition the "illegal manufacture, possession, stockpiling and trade of small arms" is, well... illegal. Suppose in the nation-state of Dakluland there are no laws whatsoever regarding the manufacturing, possession, stockpiling, and trade of small arms. Am I in compliance? This is an open ended clause that can be used to justify any imaginable restriction on gun owners. A national database of all gun owners? No. I'm sure this comes across as a rabidly right wing stance to take. Up until about a year and a half ago I held the opinion that having that information on record is not harmful. After all, it can help solve crimes and the government isn't going to go around and confiscate all our guns. Then I discovered this. My opinion changed that day. "Authenticated end-user certificates?" What exactly does that mean? I have to be "certified" to own a firearm? If I have to get permission and certified to do something, that doesn't sound like a right. Their wishes aside, the actions they are promoting (increased legislation, more restrictions, etc.) can be used to do just that. Do I believe there's an overriding UN conspiracy with the goal of disarming American citizens? Not really. But most European nations have vastly more restrictive gun laws than the US and personally I'm not interested in conforming to their idea of what's necessary and appropriate. ------------------------ There's a lot more I found that I haven't posted simply because of time constraints. The measures promoted may not (or may, I don't really know) be intended to be a global ban on guns, but they clearly provide an easy avenue of attack for anti-gun proponents to pursue their agenda. I see the NRA's activities in this matter as a proactive defense.

Or in the case of gun control, the Brady Campaign. I think the right side gets called out on it more, but I'm not convinced they do more of it. Why? This is pure speculation on my part but in general, people with more education tend to drift to the left and in general, they tend to be more politically active. That means more smart people are looking critically at the claims made by conservative organizations. ----------- Full disclosure: Politically I'm almost dead-nuts in the middle on any of the typical online quizzes. My left-leaning friends think I'm a conservative nut job, my right-leaning family thinks I'm a liberal moonbat. (Love that word ) Over the last 5 presidential elections I've voted for the 'D' twice, the 'R' twice, and the 'I' once. At heart I'm probably mostly libertarian but practically speaking I don't believe there's any way we can there from here.

If you look at the Code Capture Tool, you will see that the OpenG VIs are packed inside a support folder where all the files are renamed, this renaming is important and I think this is what Michael means. On the other side you see that the Code Capture Tool has a dependencie to the oglib_appcontrol library. This is only valid for the OGP file where I use some VIs from the oglib_appcontrol library in the post-install wizard. Ton

Aww, Chris... do you have to go? I only just came out to play and so enjoy healthy debate! What do you consider "reputable?" I'd hate to take the time to link sources only to have you dismiss them out of hand as not reputable enough. Unfortunately, "climate change" (and "global warming") is an ambiguous phrase. The precise meaning--is the climate changing?--is largely meaningless without constraints on the timeframe. Is the climate today different than it was 3 million years ago? Not really. 300 years ago? Yep. 30 years ago? Maybe. 3 years ago? No. On the other hand, the political meaning and common understanding of "climate change" generally refers to climate change caused by human activities, or more specifically, by human production of CO2. This is what Climategate is about and I believe this is what Paul is referring to as the scam. (That's what I'm referring to anyway...) So although I'd love to discuss this with you I need to know which definition you're working with. If you restate that as '10 years is a pretty short time to reach conclusions in this instance,' I'll agree with you. Data is, after all, information in itself and doesn't need to be turned into it. Your professor was wrong. Data can be bad. For example, a faulty sensor that continuously outputs a single value produces bad data. I don't see how any interpretation or corrections can make anything useful out of it. (Although I suppose you could claim that wouldn't be "data.") I do agree with what I believe the idea behind his statement is. Namely, statistics don't lie. They can't--they are simply math. The lie comes in manipulating data and analysis to produce an interpretation that supports your preconceived views. I have to admit I find this argument unconvincing on several counts: The data and processes used to reach the conclusions arrived at by the CRU has never been made available for objective scientists to review, much less the general public and commentators. Sometimes commentators DO have a personal stake in interpreting data a certain, less than honest, way. However, in your earlier posts you seem to completely discount the notion that a scientist may also have a personal stake in a certain interpretation. (i.e. How does one provide a reference to show that additional research grants generally depend on the research bearing fruit? Are grant decisions completely random?) Scientists are human too and subject to same desires as everyone else: Money, power, prestige, pride, etc. Why should we take it as a given that commentators can succumb to those influences while scientists are above reproach? This issue is more than just a few scientists fiddling with some numbers. On the whole it's about deliberate, considered, and unethical actions taken by prominent scientists to ramrod a political agenda down the throats of governments. I disagree the issue is that both sides spin data. Extremists at either end of any issue will spin data the way that makes their cause look the most favorable. That, while extremely frustrating to me, is to be expected. The issue here is that in this particular instance the extremists (defined as so by their willingness to spin the information) have obtained very prominent positions with the ability to influence economics on a global scale. (Hmm... in rereading perhaps the "issue here" you are referring to was more narrowly referring to Daryl's comment on 10-year cooling rather than the larger topic of climategate in general. If so, I withdraw my disagreement, though I stand by the rest of the statement.) Naw... then there would just be arguments about what to do about it. Or whose fault it is.

If it was in a package when you got it, then (as long as it's license allows) you should distribute it the same way (ie: don't just copy out three VIs from the OpenG array package, include the whole package instead). Not very efficient, but it's generally what the packaged components' license agreements require. As for "not unpackaged" packages referring strictly to vip and ogp - I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean VIs that you got from someone else but they didn't come as VIPM-compatible packages? If so, then sure - include them as dependant subVIs (again, if the licensing allows you to). I'm not sure if that's what you're asking - can you please elaborate a bit on what you're trying to do? Personally, I'd create a vipc with external dependencies for anything that's available naively through the VIPM network (eg: OpenG, public JKISoft packages), and include internal dependencies for those that aren't (this keeps your submission size down, and our servers' HD requirements down, and makes everything available to everyone with an internet connection).

People have been going through the code found in the hacked files and have found numerous examples of "tricks" to manipulate the data. Granted the people looking over the files are climate change "deniers" but if you look at the examples they present from a programming standpoint something smells fishy. http://www.americant...mategate_r.html Example 2 In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you. Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement): yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930. And the former apparently wasn't a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface. Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart: IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures. Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning: NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).

I say this from a standpoint of that I have never heard of anything that ensures that they will be ordered properly. There is most likely a high likelihood that they will, but this only highlights that people write programs that assume this. If AQ or someone in R&D pipes up and says that it is ensured, then I'll fully retract that. But I will never recommend that anyone write a program that depends on having multiple Val(signl) strung together to execute the events in that order for all those reasons above. San, As a point of information, what is your skill/experience level in LV?

Paul, I think it's a big leap to think that because a few scientists have deleted data (if these affirmations have not been taken out of context), that all the climate scientists are covering the truth. You find a rotten apple, you expose it and take it out of the basket. You certainly don't throw the whole basket away. Francois, I think you're missing a key point. From what I have read, it appears (though I am not certain) these scientists may have provided much of the data the climate science community based their findings on. It's not simply a matter of removing a bad apple, it's that the bad apple is held up as a model of what "good" apples should look like. At the very least their papers have had a major impact on public policy, both within the US and in the IPCC. The economic impact of the proposed solutions based on their research is huge, both in monetary and geographical terms. In that context, I have to agree that this may be the biggest scam in history. I'm not saying human-induced global warming isn't happening or that those who believe it is happening are enganged in a huge conspiracy. (Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Having spent time reading through various arguments and critiques from both sides I personally haven't seen any compelling evidence that it is.) I am saying these scientists let their personal/political motivations influence their work to the extent the results can no longer be accurate labelled "scientific." Yet they published and promoted their work as through it was, and successfully influenced public policy with it. The more I read, the more disgusted I get. This is the religion of science at it's worst, and religious ideology of any sort should not form the basis of governmental action.

I know that this can happen if you have both dynamic events and static events fire at the same time because they go into two queues and the order is only determined by the millisecond timer. See here. As far as I know, this should NOT apply to val(sgnl) events you string together. I believe they should execute in order.

QUOTE (km4hr @ Nov 20 2008, 09:58 AM) You can customize each controls. Replace the recessed panel with a nice system frame (or chiseled frame) to have it automatically adjust to your graph: