crelf

Well done Cat - you made me literally LOL

Ahhh - I see the point now. Nice!

We don't necessarily answer all reports to the Moderator Report Center, but be assured that everything in there is watched closely.

I like the site - thanks for posting the link. Is there anything there that isn't on msdn.com? Although I like that it's a wiki...

Cats are awesome... ...with a side of mashed potatoes and coleslaw.

We do this a lot in automated executions of acceptance test proceedures, but we use an external application and subsequently manually parse its logs. This new offering looks really interesting - especially if it works with the LabVIEW Unit Test framework...

Bzzzt - paying someone to complete your assignment is, IMHO, unethical. I think you'll find it difficult to find someone here to do it for you. That said, as jcarmody said, if you post your code and are open to learning a little, we'll do it for free

I'll do it for $US125/hour. Just so you know, this is a community forum, so it's more about people helping other people, but contracting opporunities are also welcome - just make it clear that you're looking for a contractor when you post.

LAVA is hosted by a professional IPB.Board company, so I don't think we'd be able to sub-host anything.

I know that embedded google search into your site costs $, but I wonder if we can do something that passes through the search term directly to such a google search?

I don't agree - shared variables have error terminals, and they look fine...

Quick thought: although this idea was floated as a replacement to error.llb, it could just as easily work alongside it (as long as a different namespace was used, of course).

I do pretty much the same as you in some applications, but I don't have the issue you're having. That said, try the RedrawWindow function. Also, have you thought about using subpanels?

Any plans on releasing this as a VIPM package?

I so totally came up against this issue today - I have an app that can be built with different security modules in it (DSC, TestStand, Active Directory, etc), some of which require different run time licenses (eg: if a project is going to use the TestStand security module, I don't want the DSC code in the build, otherwise it'll get upset when it runs and doesn't find a DSC license). Having different build specs with conditional disable strucutres would fix this issue.

That's a really good observation, although I'm not sure how NI would implmement different behaviour...

Show us what you've already tried and we'll try to help. Also tell us what the problem is.

What??!! It's not like you're at work with anything else to do! Anyway, since you're my alter ego then I guess you *did* watch it all

Amazing Rube Goldberg Music Video:

I've got some National Instruments Hardware for sale (DAQ, GPIB, Vision, DSA): http://shop.ebay.com/crelfprofessional/m.html

Exactly. Bottom line: go with VISA.

Yep - it works great. They do have an evaluation version: the UML modeller is part of the Endevo GOOP®Development Suite which can be downloaded here: http://www.flander.com/English/Endevo/Products/tabid/7430/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Ok, a buddy of mine in a Quality department just gave me the skinny: quality = perceived as good Quality = the same as the last one Notice the capitalization there? I sure hope someone in a marketing department somewhere made a buttload of money off of that!

Speaking of which, can anyone remember when the definition of the word "quality" changed from "it's a good product" to "it's an exact duplicate of the previous one"? The ISO quality standard is about that something is guaranteed to be made to a spec and a process, not about whether it's something that is function or will last. It seems that there's more concentration these days on verification, yet little on validation. Or, at least, some companies seem to interpret validation only as it applies to verification. So when a car company spouts about how their quality is high, they're not saying that their cars are good or that they will last a long time - they're saying that they're all made to spec. So, if that spec has a flaw in it (eg: accelerator pedals sticking), as long as they all have that fault, then it's still a high quality product. Yet I'd suggest that the common person that their advertising is aimed at doesn't understand this subtlety. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%26V Meh, maybe it's just me.

Well... yes and no. I find it interesting that the Toyota issue is being made much more of an issue here in the US than anywhere else in the world. Maybe it's because I'm in Detroit and it seems that Toyota pretty much all the local media can talk about right now. Perhaps a nod to the big three? But you can't have one without the other