crelf

A couple of points - sure, creating LVOOP classes is time consuming, but so are AEs if you're not used to doing them - plan them out and they'll be easy to implement. Also (and this is not an attack on your colleagues), I know a few CLAs that I wouldn't consider LabVIEW architects per se - just LabVIEW developers that have passed the CLA exam I would be a bit surprised if you had engineers in architect roles that didn't know how to architect OO patterns... I couldn't agree more ...and it's the up-front design time that a lot of people don't want to (or don't know that they should) spend that turns them away from OO. That said, like everything, once you get used to doing it, it becomes much easier!

I'm glad I'm your motivation Get your bum into gear and do it!

I totally agree - and that issue is discussed over on the idea exchange.

Please please please kudos this idea - it's really important if we're going to go forward on making the error handling in LabVIEW better!

Take what's good from it and discard what's not, I say.

Well done mate!

Looks like we're too late: http://atwonline.com...l?storyID=18715

Or like the FBI not releasing all the information it has on me to the public An even older instance of the same joke on youTube: OMG! Now the BBC isn't on board! I just don't know who to beleive anymore! I guess I should believe no-one

So it's not the healthcare system that's the issue per se, it's the lack of doctors. That's a pretty common issue irrespective of what country you're in - areas of low population generally have an even lower percentage of doctors. Often local communities throw together extra money to entice city doctors out to the rural areas, even for a couple of years at a time. I know a few of the more remote areas in my homeland rotate a lot of younger city doctors every few years - it actually works out well for them: they get docs with the latest training (and 5 - 10 yrs experience), and the docs get a taste of the outback. The drawback is that there's less contiguous interaction between doctor and patient, but you can't have everything

I think the gravity of the punishment doesn't lend itself to a gray-type argument: if you're for capital punishment, then how do you define "... beyond any shadow of a doubt, incontrovertibly guilty and beyond social redemption"? I'm sure there are plenty of people that will argue those words in many different ways. I don't think there can be a strict definition of any of that, and, due to the finality of the punishment, I can't see how basing a judgement on the interpretation of those words (or of any, for that matter) can be justified. As an aside, I simply haven't been able to justify killing another person, irrespective of how evil I might consider them (I don't actually believe in "evil", but that's for another day). I think evil is a relative scale, and the decision to enforce capital punishment would require a significant lull in the evilness between what we would consider evil and just plain bad - and I don't think that lull exists. Until someone comes up with an evilometer that outputs a true or false, that is...

Damn it! How can I be beligerent when no one bites? I'm totally good with both of those A colleague of mine once said "God doesn't wnat us to be vegetarians, otherwise He wouldn't have made meat taste so damn good!"

Paraphrasing is the sincerest form of flattery

In my experience, I've felt safer in places with fewer guns on the street. I'm all for people defending themselves, but the collateral damage is usually much more final when guns are involved to when they aren't. At the risk of totally hijacking this thread, I'm also totally against captial punishment, but my point is that I feel that way wether it is applied by the state or the public. Ok, now let's see how many people try to justify murder by calling it by another name...

Right - and even if there's a comment in there that says "fudge factor", if you're just the coder then it might not be your place to question it if your jobe is purely implimentation. Again, I'm not saying that what's happen is right, I'm just saying that there might be more than what we're seeing here.

I have a google wave invite, but I'm far too busy doing real work than to give it the attention a beta of this stature needs. Also, remember it's a beta - and I think actively exclusing parts of the community that could really benefit and/or help with LV topics just because they're not on the latest and greatest beta technology isn't good for anyone. Just because you can doesn't mean you should

depends on who it is important to - I know that the code I write can be considered more important to my customer than it is to me, and maybe that's what's happened here - the coder/scientist(s) invovled were just implimenting alogrithms, and weren't the end-users. I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm just saying that there may be an explination that's not just that the scientisit/programmers invloved are evil. Maybe the scientist and/or developer didn't think it would ever be scrutinized - maybe they thought "okay, we know that this is a fudge factor, and is wrong, but we need it in there to get the software and/or data analysis up and running for now with some dummy data, and we'll go back an fix it later, once we've got the real data in", and then it got lost in the haze. Totally true that a better code review and change tracking system with the appropriate processes to execute them would have caught this. That said, you're right - the CRU we *insane* to release anything to the public without reviewing it first. The fact that there's fudge factors anywhere is inexcusable (especially with the gravity of th results), that they then released the code with the fudge factors in there is (you said it perfectly) either collectively arrogant or extremely naive. Or maybe it was reviewed and someone who wanted to take the CRU down from the inside say the issue and didn't red flag it. Or... actually, there's a bunch of reasons that this could have happened - but none that I can think of that are excusable.

I wonder this too! I guess it's a class... From Christina Rogers's site: http://www.eyesonvis.com (you should subscribe to her blog too!)

I've used Parker motors and amplifiers before, and they worked great. We even had a special motor wound for a project that required higher speed + high torque and I remember the rates being quite reasonable. You can control the amps with NI motion cards, as well as plenty of other means - the amps have serial (RS232 + RS485), USB, analog 0 to +10V, digital pulse train... and more! As I recall, the last time I used them I talked to them through a Parker controller - but I'd sworn that I'd never do that again. The controllers work great, but they're not compatible with NI-Motion, and we had to write drivers (well, a driver layer) - there's no sense in reinventing the wheel, and I've found NI-Motion to be pretty good in the past. Lots of motion component vendors will try to tell you that their brand of motors only really work well with their brand of controllers, but in my experience that's been sales talk. If a sales person tries that on you, tell them that if you can't get their motors and amps without their controllers, then you'll go get them from someone else - they'll change their tune pretty quickly. That said, if you're not experienced in motion and you can't get something to work, you might find it an uphill battle with the motor + amp vendor blaming the NI controller, and vice versa...

From the BBC article: Graham-Cumming said... "If you look at (the code) -- what's done here by these alleged CRU files - it's not the thing you'd expect to see in certainly a commercial industry. You would not see this sort of source code because it's not clearly documented. There's not audit history of what's happened to it. So it would be below the standard in any commercial software." Ha! I can point to many many apps (some very old ones that I've written myself) that aren't well documented nor contain an audit history that are still commerical Point is: the CRU code *isn't* commercial software. That doesn't excuse it from good standards, but let's not try to suggest it's common practise to apply the standards of on industry segment to another.

My understanding is that the public option that most people are getting their knickers in a twist over is just a non-profit, no-cost competitor in the health insurance pool. It's not the government controlled healthcare, and it's not socialist (if it were socialsit, the government would own and control all the hospitals, doctors, nurses, drug companies, etc). We have universal free healtcare in Australia, and we also have a parallel competitive private healthcare system. If you want to use the free healtcare system, you might need to wait longer for an elective proceedure (emergency proceedures are taken care of immediately of course). If you don't want to wait for an elective proceedure, or you want to choose your own doctor, or you want a private room in a hospital, you can take out private health insurance. It costs employees between 0% and 2% (depending on thier salary level) of their salaries ot fund the public system - and if you private health insurance (and are therefore not a burden on the public system) you pay 0% to support the public system. One thing that amazed me when I came to the USA is how low taxes are here - I pay less than half the prorata tax here in the US than what I paid back home. I'm not surprised that the level of service and number of programs offered per captia is lower here - it's because you're paying less into them. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just pointing out the way it is. USPS deliver (pun intended) far more services than letter envelope delivery. I'd like to see you electronically deliver a package to someone I may have misinterpreted Bob's post, but I don't thin khe's feeling guilty. Also, I don't think healthcare is a "right" if you only qualify to that right by paying for it. Firstly, what's being proposed (as far as I can tell) isn't socialist (see my socialism comment above). It's been branded socialist be a lot of media that are politically backed to try to not get the current flavor of healthcare reform through. Secondly, the Australian piblic healthcare system works pretty well - sure, like every system, public and private, there are inefficiences and yucky stories, but in general it's served millions of people well over the years - there's your one program, any country, any time in history. I'm sure there are examples of others. Oh, I'm toally for that! I *think* that the current system being suggested *could* achieve that if it's implemented properly. My understanding is that the pubdits in Washigton could choos ethe public option if they wanted to. That said, some republicans are trying to introduce a limitation on the public option in that it only be available where private options aren't competitive - if that gets in there, then I don't expect your wish to come true.

I suggest you mention the issue here: http://forums.jkisoft.com

Have you thought of using the multi-up process model in TestStand? It's pretty good at helping you configure and execute parallel stuff where there's shared components.

Bloody oath - she's one of the wisest people I know, and mostly because she subscribes to the "take a step back and re-evaluate" model. She's also a hippie. Ruth and I were a little surprised when she wore shoes to our wedding

My mum sent this to me this morning, and I thought it appropriate to share in our current times