crelf

I'm not sure that would work - it looks like it's cPCI. Do they have a PXIe version?

Unfortunately no. Although VIE gave away some Ardhuinos

I concur - I've used it a few times, mostly for iterating over multiple UUT simulations (eg: I have 1,000 images that are of UUTs, and a custom vision alogrithm that makes some measurements on them. I write an autoIT script that acts like an operator: enter a serial number that identifies the UUT image, maybe populates some other test specs, hits "GO!", waits until the status indicator turns green or red (and maybe branch here for some additional stuff it the UUT fails, switch to Excel, add a tab, fill some stuff out, switch back to my app, then rinse and repeat. I can make a minor mod to the algorithm, run the script, and let it hum away in a virtual machine while I work on other things. The scripting language is very capable, and I agree that it's simple to learn. You can even distribute a "script" as a stand-alone exe (I've done this for customers that want to do their own testing).

A gopher?

I haven't had an issue like this for many years - back in the olden days cards didn't have good "insulation" between forward-facing DAQ connectors and PC-side bus chips, so sometimes a bad hook-up, too much voltage/current in my test rig, etc, would fry the card. These days, it usually just fries a channel, but if it's really bad, it could take down a card. So, first check your wiring, signals, etc, and make sure they're all well within the operating ranges of the card. Next, talk to NI and have them review what you're doing - there may be an issue with the card's design, but the PCI-DIO-96 has been around for a loooong time and has been used in a lot of applications, so that seems unlikely. It's possible that NI has recently changed something in the production process, so there might be a bad batch?

To be honest, I think that's what happen with the one I shared too - I like to think, based on the whitespace around it, there was once some uber difficult logix going on there. At least, that's what I have to beleive.

No way!

I'd seen it before, but the file name was a giveaway

Resolves host name? Things like that don't have a tangible effect on GOB counts, thankfully

How about this gem?

Make that 6 weeks for me.

Seen Idocracy? For a double dose of distribution, you might enjoy this url: http://jki.net/vipm/upgrayedd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaf5rS8WDFQ Also, if you've ever been to NIWeek and haven't seen Idiocracy, this is how I feel at the registration desk every year.

So I want to open by thanking Stephen for being part of the catalyst for this thread, and sticking with it - you rock man! It looks like we're back to square one - let me summarize (please correct me if I'm wrong): Stephen has been advised that he can use code that's been posted to ni.com, and nothing else. Irrespecitve of the subtleties of software licensing, there's nothing that the NI lawyers will tell him or us to make this happen. Anyone from NI care to make a definitive statement representing NIC legally?

That's a really good point - and having code distrubted outside of those structures could mean even faster turn-arounds. There's, of course, no gaurentee that code you put on ni.com will ever end up in LabVIEW, nor that it won't be mangled outside of your original use case, nor that NI will keep the code in LabVIEW in future versions - they could add it in, then drop it completely the next version - although, as AQ said, it'll still be on ni.com (not that he can gaurentee that ).

So while I follw and partially agree with waht you've said here, I do want to highlight a couple of things: It's not necessarily about recognition, it's about ownership. You work for NI - you're part of the personified corporation, so that last example isn't quite analogous. Let's take a look at the word you chose here: "valuable". Valuable to you? NI? The community? Possibly all three? You gave up your ownership of your IP to further NI and the community. But you gave up your direct ability to profit from your IP's value. You can profit indirectly, of course, but continued employment by the company you gave it to, and by the ability to use the IP more easily, but I don't see a tangible profit disconnected from that. So what you're saying is that, if we want to increase the exposure of our IP, we should give it to NI. That makes sense, as long as we're willing to give up our IP - and I'm totally on board with people giving up their IP if they want to. BUT I don't think that posting it to a particular website that's owned (literally) by NI should be the only avenue to do that. Otherwise, so why the hell does LAVA exist? With repect - I understand that posting code to ni.com currently gives you the easiest path to get it into LabVIEW. But, I go back to my original question: what can we do here at LAVA to help you? Until you can answer that question, I think we should shelve the whole conversation about why it's better to post at ni.com. We're bending over backwards here to help - to be compliant - to make everyone's life easier - not just NI's, so how about some co-operation from NIC to make everyone's life better? Thank you Emilie - glad you popped into the conversation here. As I said, we all want to make LabVIEW better, and if we can inspire LabVIEW R&D with our posts and code, then that's great. Help us to help you... ...to help us I can't argue with that The English language is open to interpretation - and that's why "lawyer-speak" documents are so, er, "lawyer-speak" - because they're trying to define things in a way that is less open to interpretation (although sometimes that leads to them being less open to understanding too ) Well, I would too - but let's be honest: it's not "a couple", it's "all". If it's distributed with LabVIEW, then everyone gets it. I'm not convinced that's true, but if it is, then tell us: how can we do it without posting it to ni.com that will make your lawyers happy? Wait a second: that's a little personal, and I think misguided: I don't think Stephen is arguing that NI should won it, I think he's arging that, with the current limitations he has, NI *has* to own it for it to roll into LabVIEW. That said, based on the licenses Mike found, I don't think that's true - NI already includes BSD-licensed components with LabVIEW. So what gives?

As an aside, have you looked at EasyXML? It's awesome.

LabVIEW Amazon Machine Instance (LAMI) is a Windows Server 2003 R2 virtual machine running in Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) with LabVIEW 2012 Profesional Development System installed - read more here: https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-24872