ShaunR

Is anyone able to save this to a previous version other than 8.6 for the OP? Both LV x32 and x64 crash if I try to save below 8.6.

Ooooh. I'm getting confused between this thread and the axis one Have a look at this A little bit of thought and it can be extended to acheive what you require.

Well. Getting the length of an array and wiring that to the "N" terminal (I think the LV equivelent would be an array of clusters or objects) isn't that inefficient. But labview arrays are "self indexing". If you wire an array through a for loop and don't wire anything to the "N" terminal, it will iterate for the number of elements that are in it.

Well. If you can't spell "peeling" then why not?

I knocked up a quick version of what I was talking about earlier about creating "views" of logged data. If you were to use it you would still need to figure out how to get "Month" data in properly and slide the scale (don't want to do all your work ) But should give you an idea.

ทุกเวลา

This usually happens if you have the "New" or "New or existing" checked in the "Selection Mode" of the browse options and try to access a read-only, existing file. Try changing it to "Existing". I've always thought that "New or exisitng" shouldn't behave this way. But just got on and worked around it.

There is a property node under "Application>>Display" called "Primary Workspace". It will give you the Top,Left,Right and bottom of the screen.

I don't get what your saying here. They both seem ok to me If you want only certain things to scale then right click on the control or indicator and choose "scale object with pane".

A simpler way (and easier) is to use a good old fashioned data pool. Your UI is completely separated from the data therefore you can not only bolt on new user interfaces, but create different views of the same data.

Nope

I'd use FETS. Easy and cheap. http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-32.pdf

Well. The terminology is clear. The licence says "computer" ( NI Licences ). I haven't read the full licence recently but based on that, I would be prepared to argue the case.

A named user licence allows intallation on up to 3 business computers (hardware) and one home computer. There's no limit on installtion and activation on any one computer (and therefore "technically" you could have a million virtual machines on the one PC) but I imagine the activation would be problematic since the hardware is probably identified as different and manual activation it is done by secretaries looking at a checklist.

Isn't that the pinacle of evolution? A creature that goes around trashing its environment

There are 10 types of software engineer that have a sense of humour. Those that do and those that don't.

Some LV code I saw today would have taken 1 monkey a couple of minutes

Devious I like it

Computers only understand 1's and 0's

Theres a lot of bugs from 2007 and 2008 that are still unresolved.

Wrong answer. "What do you mean "seem"? is the right answer. Wrong answer. He works here? is the right answer. Does anyone else find it a bit strange that a) The wife is at work. b) Shes very confrontational.

I thought about something similar a while back (in a different langauge with a compiler). I don't think you really need batch files and projects, you can do just fine with a "clone" vi. A slight modification to your premis means that you can "grow" more and more complex "creatrures" and see evolution (in theory at least). Rather than "spawn" the children and hope that one of them may survive, you can use your DNA program (Prime Mover?) to create a vi that has the DNA code + 1 random function. It continues to do that UNTIL something compiles and runs. Now you have DNA and DNA+1 in the primeordial computer soup and each continues to try and create a better "self" until it runs out of functions to try. At which point it becomes "Extinct". Of course. If nothing compiles and runs then it proves you are a crap God And, by the way, we all know the answer for a computer is not 42......it 10

The Campanalgits?

Were "Motley Morris" the full contact morris dancers the supporting act?