Leaderboard

So, to me this type of QSM is really just a huge function library where 1) the function calls are the case names 2) the queue becomes the "script" that defines what function is called The problems here are that 1) There may not be any explicit arguments (or there may be, if the queue contains variant data or such) but there are probably many implicit arguments to each function (case) and they're often hard to track down 2) There are probably no explicit return values to the function calls (if you're luck there's at least error handling) but there's lot of data generated or changed 3) The script is not immutable - the queue (script) could be changed at any point in the run sequence (at runtime) and you can't usually tell what might or did change the queue by examining the queue itself. Self-programming applications can be kind of cool but they're not typically suited to reproducible, reliable test and measurement software. So, I think the most one could do in documentation is treat this "state machine" like a function library and document what each function (case or "state") does - as you've already realized, you can't possibly document every flow thru the "states" since one could easily write code that puts functions on the queue in an endless, random loop. If that's not adequate (you have to know what the sequences will be) then throw away the code and start over. And don't let those guys use QSMs again! If you need a test sequencer, try TestStand or if you want to script your applications (which I prefer) LuaVIEW is great. Mark

This question illustrates why I don't use a QSM. All but the simplest can become impossible to diagram. But to help you... I'd start but putting names on the pseudo-sequences that are possible. By pseudo-seq, I am thinking about the string of state that get queued up. Draw them up as flow diagrams ("a little Mealey a little Moore" Head of software Engineering at a lage company). To help flesh what I am trying to get at... In some ways a QSM almost reads like text language, where the developers code up states that are called like sub-routines and the order is as queued with parameter passing being implied through the common SRs'. Done thinking, I hope that gives you some ideas. Ben PS Just noticed the sub-heading and No, i am not a SD expert. I have just been using them for 30 years and I feel very comfortabel with them.

OK, I picked up some gloves thrown in this topic and here is Weird Wires RCF Edition: And little video. Rounding corners was quite challenging... This is for you, Jim License for this code is DWYL (do whatever you like). Weird Wires RCF Plugin.zip

Understanding the scientific method and being a scientist are two very different things. When they say 31k "scientists," the impression is that these are PhD's, researchers, etc., who have some level of expertise in the area being discussed, not a bunch of reasonable intelligent people whose knowledge is based on second and third hand information gathered off the internet. Having an opinion requires no qualification whatsoever, other than perhaps a pulse. But the question isn't whether I'm qualified to have an opinion, it's whether I'm qualified to sign the petition. The petition specifically says, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..." I cannot, in good conscious, sign that petition because I don't have the expertise, background, or understanding of the body of climate research to make that claim. In my opinion, people who have signed the petition without a full understanding of the science and research aren't much different than the scientists at the CRU. Both are using disingenuous methods to pursue political goals. So to answer your question, I get to say whether or not I'm qualified to sign the petition. By the standards I set for myself, I'm not. If you feel you have done the research and have enough knowledge to sign the petition, I am happy for you. I wish I had the time to delve into the subject enough to satisfy myself. My comments were not intended to be a slight against you or anyone else.

Noooooooooooooooo!!! Sweet! That tag seems special as once you type it you cannot change its name! You have to delete that item to get rid of it.

The report was derived from research at the University of East Anglia, NASA and the British Met Office, which is responsible for weather forecasts in the United Kingdom. All three organizations have refused to release all or part of their raw data. The public only has access to "value added" data that have been corrected and massaged.

We are drifting from the topic but I'm game to wonder. I don't think there is a world wide conspirency but I would not be supporised if many people are scamming the system with the agregate effect appearing to be a conspiracy. My opion as it stand today (subject to change when i learn more) is/are Sara Palin is scary because she is completely unpredctable (did you see her resigning as governer coming?). Her face book update about "death Panels" set the news organization off to deal with that. Her book set new record for numbers of printings prior to release. I suspect this is due to many people lossing confidence in the leader we have and want to find someon outside the Washington belt-way to setp up. Her backing of the independant candidate in the 23 district of NY state almost helped him win (counting of absentee balots were getting him close). I beileve it was the 17th ammendment that changed the slection of senators from an appointment by the governor of the sates to direct election. That ammendment combined with the rules of seniority in the senate means that "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" just can't happen. THe only way to get anything done in either house is to get the party in power to run with it. I still hold out hope that a new constitutional congress will be called for so that the monopoly of powers held by the two parties in the US can be broken. There are other factors that play into what gets covered. The most imporatant being sponsor $$$s. They have to fill that screen with something that keep people watching through te commercials. One of the easiest things to present is "the talking heads" since no writters or fancy expensive graphics involved. So if the News programs want to maintain the source of cheap air-filling stuff, they don't want to piss-off the talking heads. So running off to cover a story that could upset those that keep the air filled, may be a prudent approach. FOX on the other hand is burning up the ratings and agian I can only specualte that is for the same reason that Sarah is ggeting coverage, people are looking for someone to tell them what they can accept as being the truth, nad FOX seems to be the next best thing. Re: FOX being singled out I really have to give a shout-ou to the White House press crew (proper name escapes me, association of all networks that cover the White house) refused to interview X if FOX was not included. Again thank you for the inteligent exchange. Ben

That sounds like you are coming around to the point I was was making earlier, Scientist and Engineers fill the societal gap previously filled by clergy. "The numbers" are our "bones", "entrails" etc. We are looked too by society to help them decide what is truth and what is fiction. If this is goes on too long and is never closed with a definative answer, the religion of "science" will be called into question. Quoting from Winston Churchill ( The Second World War Vol 4 "The Hinge of Fate" pg 53) where he wrote; "There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away." So the earlier we get this over with the better off the science types will be. Ben

Exactly. 2 different issues. You took my response to one issue and applied it to the other completely changing what I said. have a nice day.

You took the "intelligent programmers" (that I didn't write in the first place, just agreed with the OP's point) thing out of context and used it in response to a different issue. We could sit here all day long and post contradicting links without changing each others minds. Believe what you want, i'll do the same.

Thank you very much for that post! You expressed my thought better than I could. Going forward... 1) As Scieintist and engineers our collective integrety may be has been threatened. 2) I only see self-governance of our actions as a readily available mechanism to prevent further potential incidents. 3) We can urge our counter-parts to "come clean" and let them expose their errors. 4) We can do a better job of teaching what are the limitaions of our science. 5) We can speak out to those around us to help the general public come to understand that our works are subject to question and change over time (as we learn more) so SCIENCE can not be viewed as an absolute by which we can develop rules and and laws tht govern us. Paul, I want to thank you for breaking the ice on this topic. YOU are a better man than me. Ben