shoneill

QUOTE (lampersberger @ Jun 24 2008, 09:50 AM) Glad to have been able to help. Shane.

This used to work.... Drop the vi as a sub-vi in an untitled block diagram (Put some broken code in if neccessary). Then double click it to open it without running it. Shane.

QUOTE (crelf @ Jun 14 2008, 06:33 PM) Very "Power Rangers" meets "Planet Terror" meets "Army of Darkness". Looks kinda interesting.... :ninja: Shane.

QUOTE (Eugen Graf @ Jun 14 2008, 01:08 AM) If you have a parent class where not ALL of the functionality should be overridden by child classes, the functions which should NOT be overridden are static dispatch. You could, for example, have a group of child classes for manipulating data within a parent class but have a set of VIs for displaying the data which are independent of the child classes. I don't think I'm explaining this very well..... :headbang: A Static dispatch VI DOES have less overhead, but the difference in negligable unless you're calling it tens of thousands of times per second. Shane.

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Jun 13 2008, 06:54 PM) I don't think the math VIs themselves are the issue. Personally, I have had the same idea about using Objects for this kind of operation. You could quite easily mix up Gauss fit objects with other types and simply calculate an array of different individual functions. I was working with multi-gauss peakfits with different base-lines and simultaneous calibration. Think of it as having "model" objects. I think being able to put together a compound function like that would be great and would entail a level between the non-linear curve ft and the math VIs. I never got around to it, but I think it's a quite viable route to go down. Shane.

QUOTE (James N @ Jun 11 2008, 03:26 PM) I've used Ghost4Unix for exactly this task. It can be booted from a CD, backs up the entire drive (Zipped so that empty space gets compressed). It can be used for ANY OS since it doesn't even need to boot into the OS or interpret the file system. My old company has just been able to restore an old NT4 machine to life with a new HD after the old HD crashed. A single file was corrupted and after re-constructing the backup on a new empty partition, they were able to access and fix the problem. There's also Ghost4Linux which the author of Ghost4Unix doesn't seem to like but schieved much faster backup speeds for me. Oh, important note : Both systems backup over FTP, saving the file on a local (or remote if you have patience) server. Shane. PS Silly me, another good point : it's free.

QUOTE (neB @ Jun 10 2008, 03:42 PM) Ben, I feel your pain. I also recently had my "AHA" moment with OOP in LabVIEW (Interchangeable spectrometer drivers). I'm plagued by thoughts of where I can use it since....... :ninja: I think it's a great addition to the LV repertiore. Shane. PS DOesn't LVOOP kind of make IVI redundant?

QUOTE (tcplomp @ May 17 2008, 09:03 PM) Yeah, add me to a list of poeple interested in getting SVN over HTTPS running on a linux machine...... Shane.

QUOTE (crelf @ Jun 9 2008, 03:01 PM) All branches can cause data copies. The only difference is that a LVOOP copy (By reference to its class) includes references to methods. Otherwise no different from any other branches really. Shane.

QUOTE (tcplomp @ Jun 9 2008, 02:08 PM) No, the runtime cannot recompile the code. When a VI is saved, the compiled code is saved with it. It can only be re-compiled using the development environment. This means that if anyone wants to offer "cross-platform" VIs, they still need to provide several versions, even if the source code behind them is identical. It's not a situation which sits well with me regarding NI's multi-platform claims and marketing, but it's just the way it is. There ARE technical reasons for having it that way, so maybe Aristos can shed some more light on it.... Shane.

QUOTE (JDave @ May 27 2008, 06:43 PM) Reading your post, I think this is a fair comment. True enough, you were referring to contradictory statements. I drifted off into general faith. Sorry for that. Shane. PS Does Alfa's wavefunction explain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_wave' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">this?

O M G !!!

QUOTE (crelf @ May 23 2008, 09:35 PM) Oh, me too! Or just accusing the others of being anti-religion just because you disagree with them on some detail of their faith. QUOTE If the topic gets too difficult to explain, then maybe our brains can't comprehend it. Faith is the only answer. But why does there HAVE to be an answer to something our brains can't comprehend..... Can't we just understand the fact that we don't understand? Faith os but one of a multitude of options in this scenario. QUOTE It is TRUE. It can't be modified or dismissed, it just is. In both sceintific and theological circles correct. The wasy to find the truth are quite different though..... Shane. PS My idea of a "Law" in science is anything which would produce scorn if I spoke out against it among a group of my peers. It doesn't neccessarily make it correct, but accepted. Like not using local variables in LV...... :ninja:

QUOTE (JDave @ May 22 2008, 10:41 PM) Of course it does. Anyhting which is based on observations made by people is bound by the ability to understand. The difference with Science is that it's not "True". It's accepted theory. Any theory regarded as correct today will, in 100 years, most likely be laughed at. All Scientists (should) know this, and is the reason why science requires proof. Proof may be faulty sometimes (Again based on our limited understanding) but at least it's a factor. There is no "Faith" or "Belief" in science. Opinion yes, but not more. If the same would apply to theological discussions, I believe I'd be pretty much out of arguments. As an scientist from tha area of instrumentation I need to point out that although instrumental measurements are not bound by our limited understanding, the purpose of the instrument is. We create instruments to measure what we THINK it should measure. Hereby, our minds are possible the weakest link. This is why it's important for scientists to have a good imagination IMO. QUOTE (JDave @ May 22 2008, 10:41 PM) Churches are no worse than any particular man-made group, but they do have great potential for abuse. Does that potential outweigh their potential for good? Does government's potential for abuse outweigh it's potential for good? I don't think it's really a fair comparison. Political leaders are voted in (in most countries at least). They have the purpose to serve the people. The people have a certain amount of control. This is not true of any church I know. I think we're all pretty much agreed that there's quite a lot of corruption in politics. But we at least can keep an eye on it as (ideally) the public holds the power. Whoever makes important decisions within a church doesn't have to answer to their followers. It's also encouraged to check to see if a politician is correct on any given issue. In most cases, the voters are presented with a choice (how big the differences between choices are is a whole different matter). Anyone can try to get voted in. This is in stark contrast to churches. The voter aspect of any democratic government is designed to reduce corruption. The organisation of a church can only be described as the opposite (Irrespective of whether the corruption is there or not). Without meaning to offend, I don't think it's very realistic to try to compare the positive benefit to society achieved through politics (Grounding a state, building roads, setting up health care and so on) to that achieved through the church. If there have been some significant benefits to humanity which have been caused by one church or another, please inform me, maybe I'm just ignorant of the fact. Shane. PS, what's a TALM? PPS, @ TobyD. Braveheart was about Scotland. Although Scots and Irish have lsimilar histories, it's a different matter. PPPS, @crelf. Here's a link about protestantism. It differentiates clearly between different forms of Protestantism (Lutheran, Calvinistic and so on). Isn't Wikipedia great :thumbup:

QUOTE (crelf @ May 22 2008, 12:47 PM) Er, no. Ireland was occupied by england for over 800 years during which time their non-"Church of England" citizens (by far the majority) were systematically prejudiced against. It even went so far as outlawing catholic masses. People found attending catholic mass (it was most often carried out outdoors in a secluded area) lead to one of a multitude of punishments, including death. Non- "Church of England" citizens were barred from owning businesses, occupying public office and so on. All of this while the "Church of England" landlords (Lords over stolen land) reaped the benefits of Ireland's agriculture, sending all produce back to England while Irish people starved to death. After the famine in Ireland during which up to 1.5 million people died of starvation (1.5 Million!), nationalist sentiments became ever more powerful leading up the the forcing of the grounding of the Republic of Ireland as we know it today in the 1920's. The bahaviour of the English rulers at that time bordered on the Genocidal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">Obligitory Wikipedia Link. To this day, many industries in Ireland (Media for one) are dominated by Protestants. Discrimination is still there, but it's no longer life-threatening. Shane.

JDave, I have to say I enjoy reading your posts. QUOTE (JDave @ May 21 2008, 05:52 PM) However..... I disagree on part of the sentiment of your text above. I refer to Northern Ireland where segregation of religion (Protestant and Catholic - in conjunction with some political issues) lead to many years of troubling events. If you were to ask a "normal" person on the street in Ireland or Northern Ireland what the difference actually IS between the two faiths, most would not even have been able to give a correct answer. Of course there could well have been trouble without the religious difference, but anyone familiar with the history of Ireland knows that religious segregation played a huge role in the development of the country. The usage of the phrase "unique beliefs" i find fairly misleading and not representative of the real world. It suggests that each and every member of a church has the exact same set of beliefs, something which I am unable to accept. OTOH, I DO agree that there are some very "good" people doing very admirable work within churches. But there are also many very "good" people doing admirable work independent of churches. There are good people and bad people within and without churches. I'm not aware of any particular church claiming a monopoly on good people, although most do try to present themselves that way. QUOTE (JDave @ May 21 2008, 05:52 PM) I was saying that religion and church are not inherently bad. Of course religion is not inherently bad. It seems to derive from a more or less universal need to fit our understanding of the universe and nature into something simpler. It takes many different forms in different parts of the world, but it often deals with understanding complex things on a simpler, every-day level. There is really nothing wrong with this per se. I dislike it because it veils the true complexity (and seeming randomness) of the real world. This is purely a personal dislike. Churches, however, are a different story. An idealogical view of churches may see it as an extension of religion, but that's wrong. The reason is that the churches are run by people. People are flawed. Once you are a subject of a church, you're granting people (not a deity) power over you. Assumptions that this power will not be abused is quite naive. That being said, I suppose it's fair to add that the level of corruption (behaviour not motivated by religion or religious belief) within a church is inversely proportional to it's size. There may well be "smaller" churches which retain their theological focus. The idea that people with other beliefs are in some way inferior or "godless" since they worship a "false" God open the door to a whole plethora of very unreligious actions. Maybe part of my "problem" (as I'm sure many would see it ) is the prevalence of people simply using religion, faith or church as an excuse to do something bad. This cannot be avoided I suppose and leads to the possibility that these "bad things" are not directly provoking the actions. Maybe. Most lilkely actually. Many people take the easiest route when looking to vent off anger at something be it homosexuals, other religions, other nations, C++ programmers....... In the end, people are people are people. Anything we implement will be flawed because we too are flawed. Religion, church, LabVIEW, politics included. Pseudo-philosoplical rant ahead: Our minds consistently try to reduce the universe to something the size of our every-day world. We devise incredibly complex systems in order to help us fit the explanation into a space we can imagine. This is the ultimate example of people fooling themselves on a sub-conscious level. We fool ourselves into thinking that the system we have devised is "true" simply because we can understand it and fully ignore the fact that the system isn't even real. In a way our basis of "truth" are based on our interpretations, which again are tainted by our less than complete ability to even observe the reality. Something I find fascinating is the ability of certain Savants to see a building once and then draw an almost perfect replica hours later. In some senses, this "virtual reality" filter in their brain is working differently or not at all. For me, Religion is a direct result of this "virtual reality" filter. The necessity to reduce the complex to something we can physically imagine. Pseudo-philosophical rant finished: I'm done. I have to get some work done..... Shane.

QUOTE (JDave @ May 21 2008, 01:12 AM) Since I'm the one who brought Truth into things, I just want to say that I have difficulty distinguishing Belief and Faith. In your example, belief and faith in the bridge is equivalent. The only thing making you cross the bridge is whatever is on the other side. My problem with "Truth" is the sheer inability to consider flaws in the underlying theory. Coupled with the iterative nature of religions (refined over generations - The Vatican has not stated that they cannot rule out aliens somewhere who were created by God ) makes it pretty much a self-conflicting argument. QUOTE (JDave @ May 21 2008, 01:12 AM) This was a fascinating read. Don't have much time to comment on it, but the section on Identity did seem a bit weak. If I tell my child they are a part of my family, that is a true statement. Being a part of a group is not inherently a lie. And to assume that groups inherently believe falsehoods to distinguish themselves is a bit of a stretch. Not a stretch at all. People often blinker themselves, sometimes unconsciously, in order to increase their "comfort" factor. QUOTE (JDave @ May 21 2008, 01:12 AM) Religion and Church are just a group of people with similar beliefs. Just like Republicans and Democrats, people tend to group themselves. I don't think the phenomenon itself is bad, but certainly there are some results of this that are undesirable. Uh Oh, now we have politics involved.......... Just look at how Obama and Clinton are trying to ddistance themselves from each other, yet they are both "Demorats". My point exactly. The grouping is only a very vague one. With fuzzy borders. Otherwise the parallels are really striking between church and political party.

QUOTE (rolfk @ May 20 2008, 07:11 AM) Exactly. The whole things revolves around the differences between Belief (which I have no problem with) and Religion and Church (Both of which I dislike). I don't think there'll ever be a church of Atheism. Although his noodly Appendage comes kind of close..... :worship: As to atheism being a squishy word.... What then should be understood by "Christian". I see a whole bandwidth of very different beliefs which all fall under the big old umbrella of Christianity. Everything which remotely touches on religion is squishy. It has to be. It's the only way people can re-define it over the years and still regard it as TRUTH. If I would try to explain that to my 4-year old son, he'd look funny at me and say "Huh?". That kind of says it all for me. QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ May 19 2008, 06:42 PM) Religion, at its core, is a way for people to share a framework for understanding things that seem bigger than themselves, and for understanding their individual and collective place in that framework. It provides a lot of psycho-social benefits, such as a feeling of belonging and nicely-formatted answers to many questions, like "Where did I come from?" and "Why am I here?" Very true. It's comforting aspect. But it's only comforting in a scenario where you're feeling scared of overwhelmed to begin with. QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ May 19 2008, 06:42 PM) So to say that "Churches (for the most part) are about acquiring and controlling power" as a blanket statement is something I'd disagree with. But you're right in the sense that the issue of power & control over the people is something that all religions deal with in their own way. Some (many of the fundamentalist Christian organizations in the US, currently) deal with it, as you pointed out, by wrapping things up "in nice scripture quotes" and using those as a way to dissuade anyone (true believer or otherwise) from even having a well-reasoned discussion about Belief (or Faith ). I've yet to come across a church which hadn't got control and retention of it's "flock" as a central theme. Perhaps there are some, but I'm unaware of them. I have some very religious members of my family who are strongly involved in a church. They're well-intending people, but when you listen in on their discussions about church administration, it's just like listening to politicians. And I don't mean that in a positive way. QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ May 19 2008, 06:42 PM) But the problem is that, depending on what religion you're talking about, that choice can be explicitly not optional. It's obvious for people who are able to look at the issue from an outside perspective, but if someone's entire world-view is informed by, "Jesus said, 'Bring me all the little children,'" and "The Bible is the Holy and Everlasting Perfect Word of God," it's hard to find a place to even begin the discussion. True. Such people are, for me, lost. There are some cases (Im my family also) where people just realise that the whole lot is so absurdly improbable that it's statistically inseperable from the flying spaghetti monster. Then they start asking questions. One of the few things I find encouraging in the Bible is that Jesus spent a lot of time asking questions of the religious leaders of the time. The idea that a religion cannot be questioned if, IMO, very dangerous. OTOH, Allowing religion to be open to question kind of undermines the TRUTH aspect. This paradox may require faith to understand, but for me it's just wrong. I very much enjoyed reading Richard Dawkings "The GOD Delusion". I felt some of his arguments were weak, but the overall tenor of his writings I found to be really interesting. Shane PS I am not intended to offend anyone who may have strong religious ties. I'm just giving my opinion. :2cents:

QUOTE (crelf @ May 19 2008, 01:10 PM) Crelf, I'm not aware of distinctions between different forms of buddhism, but I would have to say that it would probably be one of the religions I would feel the least aversion to (That's meant to be a positive statement ). It seems to me to be very much based on tolarance and understanding whereas most other religions are based on my previously-mentioned "us" and "them" approach. As to the difference between faith and belief, I'm not sure myself, but I certainly refuse to accept any unproven supernatural being as "Truth". That would mean closing off part of my logical brain. That's something I don't like doing, unless Beer is involved....... :thumbup: Shane.

QUOTE (JDave @ May 15 2008, 05:50 PM) I personally don't see why anyone should choose any single religion. If you ask most people about their beliefs, and the answer honestly, I think the vast majority of people will hold beliefs which do not fit nicely into any single religion. The idea of karma is something which a lot of people do actually believe in, even without perhaps attributing anything religious to it. I prefer to think of it as a statistical approach to communal survival instincts, but to each their own. I suppose my root problem is the bundling of religion and belief and chuch. Why these three should build a unit is truly beyond my comprehension. Churches (for the most part) are about acquiring and controlling power, wrapped up in nice scripture quotes. Religion is simply a mechanism provided for worship. Bleief is where it's at. Everyone's belief is unique. Regardless of how many christians, muslims buddhists or whatever you have in a room, they may all be part of the sam church, they may even share the same "religion" but I'm pretty sure their "beliefs" will show a significant spread. This need to group things together is a very basic one. It's (ironically enough) something we have acquired by evolution in order to enhance the survival of our species. The "Us" versus "Them" syndrome can, when misused, be extremely harmful and I believe it should be avoided wherever possible. As to teaching a child what you believe, there's not really any other choice for a parent. But the child's entry int o a chuirch should NEVER be taken for granted. It should always be optional. Shane. PS Athiesm is a belief. It's not (as Justin has pointed out) a lack of belief. It's a belief that there is NO god. Even the idea that believing in NO god does not qualify as a belief is something which atheists have fought against for years. "What do you believe in" in a belief sense is never moot. Of course, if you assume there can be no religion without God(s) then of course in a religious sense it's moot. PPS A lack of belief in any deity is much closer to Agnosticism, not atheism. Agnostics may choose to believe in the existence of a deity, but they refuse the absolute truth of their belief, saying they can never be certain. In short, belief without faith.

QUOTE (neB @ May 15 2008, 01:49 PM) Well I'd love to try that at home, but you didn't actually say what it WAS...... Tune in next week? Shane.

QUOTE (tcplomp @ May 15 2008, 11:02 AM) It's written "uzi". I think Michaels Greek background is mixing it up woth Ouzo..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">Here. Shane.

QUOTE (alfa @ May 15 2008, 06:07 AM) Unfortunately, not everyone has the mental fortitude of Einstein. I prefer Richard Dawkin's approach where he goes almost as far as to say that the indoctrination of children into one belief or another is bordering on a human rights violation. There is no such thing as a christian child, a jewish child or a muslin child. There are only children of people who have those beliefs. Precisely because of this "believe what you're told" effect is why I personally believe "teaching" religion to minors should be outlawed unless it is done in a pluralist sense. And that includes athiesm. Shane.

QUOTE (tengels @ May 14 2008, 01:52 PM) I think MAX defaults to the windows default settings. I never use MAX to configure a serial port. I always do it in code. YOu never know what state a port was left in from a previous "owner". You should set all neccessary serial port options in code, and this should work. MAX is, IMHO, not very useful when testing serial ports. What are you trying to get a reply back from? You only mention your program. What yre you communicating with? Shane.

You know, posts like that are really detrimental to my motivation....... Please stop. Shane.