Justin Goeres

QUOTE(Graeme @ Dec 14 2007, 01:37 PM) It's because at some point a couple versions of LabVIEW ago (LV8.0, as I recall), the LabVIEW compiler got slightly smarter and more helpful. Now, when the compiler sees that you've got a constant wired to a multi-frame case structure, it only compiles the code in the structure frame that will execute. As far as the compiler is concerned, at runtime the ClusterValueShifter.vi doesn't exist. This eliminates one of the popular tricks of yesteryear to guarantee a dynamic VI was in memory: you'd put it in an unused frame of a case structure. That's why when you open code in LV8.0 or later that was written in LV7.1 or earlier, one of the warnings you sometimes see is along the lines of "a constant wired to a case structure was converted to a hidden boolean to maintain compatibility with LV7.1." That preserves the old behavior when the code is recompiled for LV8.0+. NOTE: You would see the complementary behavior from the Callers' Names property in ClusterValueShifter.vi if you were, for instance, calling it from more than one VI; Untitled 2.vi wouldn't show up in the list.

QUOTE(eaolson @ Dec 14 2007, 03:11 PM) The 8.2.1 upgrade is free. I'd say that a critical bug in a basic comparison function would be a pretty good argument for applying that update . While you're at it (if it's a political issue) just tell the person holding the purse strings that it's only really fixed in 8.5 -- 8.2.1 was just a patch .

QUOTE(pdc @ Dec 14 2007, 12:23 PM) That's rather bizarre. I get the same results as gleichman (that is, the behavior is correct) in both LV8.2.1 and LV8.5, under WinXP. Maybe it's an issue in LV8.2.0 -- I don't have that on my machine. I'm not aware of any LabVIEW.ini setting such as MakeInRangeCoerceNotWork=TRUE .

You can already get 90% of the way there with a subVI. OR Mode: Download File:post-2992-1197654380.vi AND Mode: Download File:post-2992-1197654385.vi Adapting these for the "Continue" side of things and/or bundling them into a polymorphic VI is left as an exercise to the reader . As a side note, something like this might make a good OpenG VI.

QUOTE(Yen @ Dec 13 2007, 02:11 PM) Me too.

QUOTE(alfa @ Dec 13 2007, 02:21 AM) See, I think that statement is probably where you're going to lose your audience . Maybe everything else you're saying follows from there, but you certainly haven't convinced anybody around here that "our thoughts are quantum systems" or even what this "aura" is and whether it exists. I suppose 97.7% of us will just never get it. But checking the current Registered Users count there should be about 183 people that do understand you... QUOTE I consider a wave function with n=7 states from our aura. In the spirit of trying to understand your research and its implications for all of our lives... Why n=7?

QUOTE(neB @ Dec 12 2007, 12:05 PM) I, for one, hope this thread never dies.

QUOTE(frentzen @ Dec 12 2007, 06:24 AM) I think I already gave you all that information in the previous post, no? If you need to explain step-by-step what each node in the VI does, I suggest you consult the LabVIEW Help. For that matter, you could probably just open the Context Help window (Ctrl+H), point to each node in the VI, and read the text in the help window.

QUOTE(eaolson @ Dec 11 2007, 02:49 PM) I actually disagree a little (and only a little) with part of the above. There's no reason that dreams can't be "quantized" any more than there was a reason that matter couldn't be "quantized" 150 years ago. We just lack an experimental framework (and, for most of us, a reason) to describe them as such. What's more, there's a huge difference between saying dreams (or other brainial processes) are quantized in some way, versus saying they obey the laws of quantum mechanics, and can be described by the same theories. To refuse to even open the discussion seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, opening the discussion implicitly means weeding through the crackpots. But personally, I kind of enjoy that part . QUOTE It's like asking someone to take the logarithm of a pineapple. Nah, that's just a units mismatch .

QUOTE(crelf @ Dec 7 2007, 03:21 PM) Wow, that's wild. FYI, it's buggy as hell on WindowsXP, at least for the example you showed above (Calculator embedded in Notepad). Lots of weird redraw problems. Still a cool trick, and I know you didn't exactly promise the moon and the stars .

I wish LabVIEW would show the little (current size) popup in terms of elements in addition to pixels when resizing an array on the front panel or block diagram. The fact is that when I'm resizing an array I almost never care what size it is in pixels, especially given that the pixel size is constrained to a set of values relative to the sizes of the array elements anyway. I frequently care how many elements will be displayed. E.g. (449,29 / 21 elements)

QUOTE(neB @ Dec 7 2007, 08:03 AM) Well, you've gotten my attention. Here's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda' target="_blank">wikipedia article about him.

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Dec 6 2007, 11:03 PM) AQ needs food badly!

QUOTE(MikaelH @ Dec 6 2007, 09:26 PM) I think I have it around here somewhere. I will look tomorrow morning and see what I come up with.

QUOTE(MikaelH @ Dec 6 2007, 08:14 PM) If this is happening to you in LV8.5, it's probably the same situation described in this thread. An engineer from NI provided a fix that has solved the problem for me. You can find it in this other thread. Hope that helps!

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Dec 6 2007, 11:32 AM) Not easily. You can do things like transfer video off of it to a computer, though, and then the sky's the limit. EDIT: Behold! http://lavag.org/old_files/monthly_12_2007/post-2992-1196978472.png' target="_blank">

QUOTE(Norm Kirchner @ Dec 6 2007, 06:51 AM) Yeah, and I had hoped they were actually going to do something with it, but they really didn't. It looks like the lab they were at just uses it to collect data, and then does the analysis offline with a different piece of software.

QUOTE(alfa @ Dec 6 2007, 02:47 AM) Illumination by Gogol Bordello() Don't believe them for a moment For a second, do not believe, my friend When you are down, them are not coming With a helping hand Of course there is no us and them But them they do not think the same It's them who do not think They never step on spiritual path They paint their faces so differently from ours And if you listen closely That war it never stops Be them new Romans Don't envy them my friend Be their lives longer Their longer lives are spent Without a love or faithful friend All those things they have to rent But we who see our destiny In sound of this same old punk song Let rest originality for sake of passing it around Illuminating realization number one: You are the only light there is For yourself my friend There'll be no saviors any soon coming down And anyway illuminations Never come from the crowned Illuminating realization number one: You are the only light there is For yourself my friend

LabVIEW made an appearance on last night's (5 Dec 07) new episode of Mythbusters!!! The main show topic was Confederate Steam Gun. The secondary plot (the one with Kari , Grant, & Tory) involved trying to fool a lie detector. They visited the Medical University of South Carolina to learn about lie-detecting fMRI technologies. Anyway, they showed a screenshot of a data collection program running on one of the lab PCs, and the LabVIEW front panel of the DAQ app was clearly visible. The first shot of it (according to my TiVo) is 39 minutes in, but they show it several more times after that. :thumbup: The UI could use a bit of work .

QUOTE(wily medina @ Dec 5 2007, 06:06 PM) Look in the examples included with LabVIEW. If you can't solve the problem, show us what you tried and we will help you understand what's wrong.

QUOTE(frentzen @ Dec 5 2007, 07:00 AM) It looks like it loads a javascript file called xml.js and executes some functions defined in that file to extract information from a data file, called Mean[1].20061013_123043.xml. The results look like some kind of summary info about the data file, and also some raw data stored in it. Without the two files in bold above, it's impossible to tell exactly what it does. However, since it looks like the data file (Mean[1].20061013_123043.xml) is in XML, you could probably parse it from scratch without using xml.js if you have to. Also, you should wire the Error Out terminal of the last IScriptControl node to at least an error cluster indicator. It's good coding practice, and it will let you know if anything goes wrong upstream.

QUOTE(crelf @ Dec 4 2007, 08:42 AM) Yes, but if you don't like it you can change it back. And also, they have to tell you where they found the ingredients.

Apparently you can get it in Beijing. Or, if you prefer barbecue, you can get that in Dalian, Liaoning. In either case, though, try it with bread.

QUOTE(tcplomp @ Dec 3 2007, 07:33 AM) When I clicked the Report! button I mentioned that in the description .

Reported as spam.