crelf

QUOTE (AnalogKid2DigitalMan @ May 28 2008, 05:10 PM) Not that there's anything wrong with that... http://lavag.org/old_files/monthly_05_2008/post-181-1212035171.gif' target="_blank">

QUOTE (Michael_Aivaliotis @ May 2 2008, 03:26 AM) So what's up with that?

QUOTE (neB @ May 28 2008, 08:34 AM) Thanks Ben - I really enjoyed writing it QUOTE (neB @ May 28 2008, 08:34 AM) Where does he find the time? Two words: no kids QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ May 28 2008, 04:02 PM) Dual cores, and by leveraging the power of LabVIEW's inherently parallel processing capability. Pfffft!

QUOTE (markoni @ May 27 2008, 01:16 PM) Generally speaking, we are more equiped to help you with specific things, especially when you've already tried to make a start. I really hate saying this, but I'm going to have to go with a RTFM on this one. If you've already had some good training like you say you have then you should have at least an idea on how you'd like to start. I suggest you let us know some of your ideas and we can try to point you in the right direction based on our experience. Your question is more like asking us to architect your solution without any starting point. If you are really struggling to get something put together, I strongly suggest you contract a http://www.ni.com/alliance/find_partners.htm' target="_blank">NI Alliance Partner to help you get going - a lot of them can provide a consulting role to work with you.

QUOTE (Yen @ May 26 2008, 01:22 PM) I'm not judging (that's why it's a PS and there's a "?" after it). I just figured the formatting of the post suggested a HH.

QUOTE (jgcode @ May 26 2008, 11:11 AM) Right. I suggest you also check out your "Data Neighborhood" - you can define more user-friendly names for individual channels, as well as define tasks (grouping similar channels into groups that share timing information).

QUOTE (markoni @ May 26 2008, 10:14 AM) Which one do you have? Lookout or DSC? Note: LabVIEW DSC is not just LabVIEW - it's a SCADA extension to LabVIEW.

QUOTE (SharkM @ May 26 2008, 05:27 AM) It'll be a lot easier to help you if you post your code so we can see what you're doing. PS: HH?

QUOTE (markoni @ May 26 2008, 06:30 AM) Great - now take a look at Lookout and/or LabVIEW DSC.

QUOTE (markoni @ May 25 2008, 11:53 AM) Get some training - it sounds like you're new to LabVIEW, and LabVIEW, like any language (programming or otherwise) requires knowledge. If you try to set up a SCADA system without any training you're almost certain to fail. Once you've got some training, then come back here and ask specific questions about parts of your system. Hint: although I have very little idea about what you're doing (you sure didn't give us much info in your post) check out Lookout and/or LabVIEW DSC .

QUOTE (exoteric @ May 24 2008, 03:16 AM) You bloody ripper - great to see Aussies finally staging a LAVA coup G'Day mate, and welcome to the list. I'm a NSW native, but live in the US now.

:thumbup: Love it!

QUOTE (eaolson @ May 23 2008, 01:52 PM) I'd agree with that sentiment.

QUOTE (eaolson @ May 23 2008, 10:48 AM) ...and that's why almost all Einsteinian and Newtonian conclusions are theories, not laws. They haven't been prooved, so they remain theories. I actually think that we agree, just on different levels QUOTE (Gary Rubin @ May 23 2008, 11:40 AM) (How do you do the secret physicist handshake via text? :ninja: ) Are you sure you're a physicist? If you were, then the secret infinity signal would have come up on your monitor

QUOTE (Gary Rubin @ May 23 2008, 10:49 AM) Yeah, you poor buggers

QUOTE (Gary Rubin @ May 23 2008, 08:47 AM) Thanks so much for the clarification Gary - I sometimes forget that not everyone thinks like me Test HypothesisIF Test = Fail THEN alter Hypothesis GOTO Test Hypothesis ELSE Promote Hypothesis to Theory Proove Theory IF Proof = Fail THEN alter Hypothesis GOTO Test Hypothesis ELSE Promote Theory -> Law

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 23 2008, 03:02 AM) I think I know what you're saying, but I don't agree with the way you're saying it. Scientific theories are exactly that - theories. Scientific proofs are indeed true: they started out as theories and were, by their very definition, prooved to be true, and that's why they're not theories anymore - they're proofs. In summary, there is a big difference between accepted theories and proofs - they are two very distinct things and should not be confused. QUOTE (shoneill @ May 23 2008, 03:02 AM) PS, what's a TALM? Totally Awesome LAVA Member QUOTE (shoneill @ May 23 2008, 03:02 AM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">Here's a link about protestantism . It differentiates clearly between different forms of Protestantism (Lutheran, Calvinistic and so on). Isn't Wikipedia great :thumbup: It sure is! OK - that confirmed what I was thinking: whilst the troubles in Ireland are often referred to being between the catholics and the protestants, saying they are/were between the catholics and the church of England is more accurate - is that right?

QUOTE (JDave @ May 22 2008, 05:41 PM) I sure can't argue with that!

QUOTE (Michael_Aivaliotis @ May 20 2008, 07:40 PM)

QUOTE (NI Vision Guy @ May 22 2008, 11:09 AM) :thumbup: Great stuff to know - thanks Matt!

From "The IT Crowd":

QUOTE (orko @ May 22 2008, 10:14 AM) That's fracking brilliant!

OK, I think we can consider this thread hijacked now QUOTE (rolfk @ May 22 2008, 10:17 AM) Ahhhhhh - I see. So it theoretically might be possible, but one would need to get their own license from Acresso...

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 22 2008, 09:51 AM) Okay - I *think* that was what I was trying to get at without being anywhere near as eloquent: English overlords (church of England) = bad, Irish citizens (catholics) = good. I'm also interested to hear the differences between the protestant church and the church of England - I always thought that the church of England was one protestant church of many, or does protestant by definition = church of England?