PaulG.

Will it improve the reception on the iPhone 4?

(You KNEW somebody was going to ask this. You KNEW it.)

I am pretty sure NI reserve the right to do what they like!

Anyways, this is software, not maths or science.

I don't know if the term is defined for software, but from looking at wiki the general definition seems to be a like-minded grouping of 'things'.

I can't see why those 'things' can't be constants or variables.

But it wouldn't be the first time there is differing terminology wrt to other languages, and this has come up before on the forums.

Software is science. At least I hope most of us think so. I certainly like to think so. At least my brain feels like it at the end of the day.

The wiki article talks about clusters. I'm not talking about clusters. I'm talking about constants. From the Wiki on constants: " Constant (programming), a name for a value that, unlike a variable, cannot be reassociated with a different value".

I thought in LV at least, a constant was something that was fixed at compile time - with a cluster constant is. The constant does not ever change, only the data you take from it to other parts of your application can change it (to me it's the wire that is the "variable", not the elements of the cluster)

OK. Makes sense. Sort of.

A cluster is a collection of variables. A collection of variables is not a "constant". Is it within the rights of NI and the LV community at large to assign a different (and contradictory) meaning to a term that has already been well defined in the field of math and sciences for centuries? I would have thought someone at NI would have had a similar concern.

New Cluster Constant

I've needed this so often and for so long I've become quite the expert in making my own.

I hope NI ships 2010 without the need later for a costly "Service Pack".

Regardless, I just started using 2009 a month ago. It's been out for a year. Long enough for me to feel comfortable using it to write code for customers.

maybe pick up a used napkin as a souvenior?? I

I don't know how many of us watch the sitcom Big Bang Theory, but this reminds me of an episode. Neighbor Penny gets nerd-geek Sheldon a napkin from her restaurant for Christmas. He looks at it, unimpressed and she says "turn it over". It's signed "Sheldon - live long and prosper - Leonard Nimoy". She apologized that it was dirty because Nimoy wiped his mouth on it. Sheldon nearly passes out from hysterics, nearly crying with joy, lips quivering ... "I possess the DNA of Leonard Nimoy!!! Do you know what this means?! With a viable ovum I could grow my own Leonard Nimoy!!!"

One of the funniest things I have ever seen. I was in tears the first time I saw it.

It's on YouTube under "Penny's Christmas gift to Sheldon".

"With a viable ovum I could grow my own Jim Kring!"

I've been on Android since early 2009 and love it. I am tempted to give this a spin. We'll see if they accept me.

I just signed up and anxiously waiting for a reply. If someone can make an ap that does nothing more than makes sounds of flatulence (not that there is anything wrong with that) I could probably come up with something a little more useful.

Why do I feel like I'm waiting for a bunch of nerds to pick me for a game of dodge ball?

I'll have to give this a look. I just got a Droid and words cannot describe how awesome it is.

How about a LabView classified forum? Anyone think there is benifits to having one? (thinking older rev s/w for the financially challenged... college students etc...)

just a thought.

If you can't get what you want from eBay or Craigslist it doesn't exist.

I am looking for a special type of snap on connector. Please follow the link to see the picture. I need the "electrode female button".

They are normally use as EMG, EKG electrode connectors. Does anyone know the "engineering" name of those connector and where I can buy them?

Thanks

They are called "snap" (female) and "stud" (male) connectors.

I passed the CLAD, CLD and CPI (Certified Professional Instructor) in less than one year without taking any NI training courses. You can, too.

You're freakin' awesome.

(I saw Toy Story 3 today. First thing that came to mind. "Ooooo. The Claw!")

Define "green".

I used to use invoke node Ctrl Val.Set but Francios' warning about it not scaling well makes a lot of sense. I would lean more towards the functional global.

FWIW, NI folks generally seem to poo-poo "Anxious Deallocation" as I've seen it be called. I still throw it in occasionally where it might theoretically have some effect, but I personally haven't seen it help too much myself.

I have tried using the request deallocation on a number of high data rate applications and found it to be utterly worthless. It actually made things worse on occasion. I had better luck with the dead chicken.

Congrats!

And thanks for all your help here.

Check this out:

Just watching the video was bad enough. If I had to work with a system that bogged down I would be insane by now.

Global warming

"Climate change"

Plan C

"You don't need to know if I'm wearing Superman Underoos, WalMart Tighty-Whities, or going commando. You just need to know that everything is taken care of and none of my private methods will be exposed."

Going commando?

I like your explanation of abstraction. I guess it's what we do but I never thought of creating sub-VI's as creating layers of abstraction. I'll certainly be thinking a little differently about my code when I create my next sub-VI. Thanks for your opinion.

I would say no.

My first introduction to the term "Abstraction Layer" happened when I was introduced to the OSI seven Layer Model for network communications.

THe TCP/IP functions in LV are an Abstraction Layer for the network stack.

Underneath that layer (the only layer we can touch using the built-in functions) the TCP functions in turn use the Abstraction offered by the IP layer (note: Windows is fuzzy here, when last I paid attention) which in turn uses the hardware which is abstracted through the hardware driver.

The under lying layers are handling the dirty work of making sure the packets are broken up into parts that will travel over the wire and make sure the get reassembled in the correct order etc.

If you have evern looked at what an Ethernet Sniffer that uses the Promiscuous mode of the ethernet interface, you will see that to understand what is traveling over the wire requires you to parse the ethernet packet header (Source Destination and protocol) and then use the proper rule for THAT protocol etc.

THe TCP/IP abstraction offered with LV turns this complicated stack of protocol etc. into what is virtuallly abstracted a virtual wire.

THe same thing applies to file I/O and for that matter the INI files and TDMS are also abstractions.

If I got any of that wrong please feel free to correct me.

Ben

This is my understanding of an abstraction layer as well.

Not bad, but I think you might be making this WAY TOO COMPLICATED than it needs to be.

To me, abstraction layers are clearly defined operations from bare-bones hardware up to the user interface.

I don't see LV code having very many "layers of abstraction".

To me, layers of abstraction are logical and simple:

* Hardware. You have an electro-mechanical device that senses and provides data.

* Driver. You have software that translates this data into a form that can be used by software.

*Software. You access that data from LV code.

*User Interface. The data are displayed to a user in a way that is meaningful and useful to the user.

Four simple steps, i.e. "abstraction layers" as far as I can see. Anyone else?

A developer in info-LabVIEW said that whenever I put code into a sub-VI I am creating a layer of abstraction. I don't know if I agree or disagree. I just don't want to think we are going to over-use the term ... like we do with the term "elegant". I mean, do I create another layer of abstraction when I put my pants on over my skivvies?

Here's an example of one of my current applications.

VIs in the Highest layer is only allowed to call VIs located in the same layer or one layer below,

i.e. not call VIs in the lowest layer.

VIs in the second layer is only allowed to call VIs located in the same layer or one layer below,

i.e. not call VIs in the top layer.

//Mikael

Not bad, but I think you might be making this WAY TOO COMPLICATED than it needs to be.

To me, abstraction layers are clearly defined operations from bare-bones hardware up to the user interface.

I don't see LV code having very many "layers of abstraction".

To me, layers of abstraction are logical and simple:

* Hardware. You have an electro-mechanical device that senses and provides data.

* Driver. You have software that translates this data into a form that can be used by software.

*Software. You access that data from LV code.

*User Interface. The data are displayed to a user in a way that is meaningful and useful to the user.

Four simple steps, i.e. "abstraction layers" as far as I can see. Anyone else?

We are in a little bit of discussion in info-LabVIEW concerning someone's idea of wanting shift registers available in stacked sequences. Yes. You read correctly. I don't need to start that discussion here because I already know how >90% already feel about that.

However, a comment stirred up a question in me:

Define "abstraction layers" as they pertain to Global warming/"climate change" LabVIEW applications.

Thank you.

There is no way my company would pay for me to go.

I'm still trying to get my managers to appreciate why it's better for me to have a quite place to work.

My turn to feed the bears...

http://science.slash...c-Research-Unit

From the CRU press release: "Another area for suggested improvement is in the archiving of data and algorithms, and in recording exactly what was done."

So they admit they threw out the raw data. Am I the only one who still thinks this smells like a SCAM? Un frackin' believable.