Val Brown

QUOTE (shoneill @ Apr 7 2009, 12:00 AM) Hmmm, sounds like another "contest" may be birthing....Who wants to be the first to demonstrate or refute this? And, perhaps more importantly, why would you REALLY want to do it?

QUOTE (Mark Yedinak @ Apr 7 2009, 09:22 AM) Yes, many of us have our own hacker history. For me it involved PDP-11, IBM 360 and a lot of early TTY-networks. It's one of the many reasons that I really no longer like working directly with devices, networks and esp not serial com. I certainly applaud and support ingenuity and curiosity but respect for legal limits is also of fundamental importance.

QUOTE (normandinf @ Apr 6 2009, 12:38 PM) Yes, precisely so even though some (here) might not LIKE it, that's how it is legally. And, FWIW, it's the same situation with Microsoft and Windows, etc and, if I'm not mistaken, almost every distributed, commercial OS out there. Just look at the EULA that, of course, no one seems to ever really read...

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Apr 6 2009, 01:56 AM) At many different times, in many different threads we return to this fundamental paradigm issue. Some are just very committed to open source and seem to believe that the world would be a far, far better place, in all kinds of ways, if ONLY all code were open source. First of all I don't have that kind of belief but, perhaps more importantly (because after all who am I?) NI doesn't have that belief, not does Microsoft. And IMO there are very good reasons for them to not have that belief. As the saying goes: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. So, if your really don't like the ethics of non-open source software, shift all of your code away from ANY form of software from NI.

QUOTE (BobHamburger @ Apr 5 2009, 05:12 PM) Ah, let's make certain to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. LabVIEW is a product, made by a single company, released under certain conditions. C/C++ is a standard, used by many companies to produce many different compilers. The product doesn't produce itself, it is produced. The standard is self-replicating/implementing. Now should/could LabVIEW actually be released as "G" perhaps both a product and a standard? That's an interesting question and one that, I'm sure, NI has discussed internally. At this point we all know there answer. If I'm not mistaken, the standard of "can you write X in X?" really only applies to standards, not to products.

QUOTE (Jim Kring @ Apr 5 2009, 10:58 AM) And that's the difference between American and most of the rest of the civilized world. In America you can ONLY ski in the "approved" areas because, otherwise, the management of the ski resort can be held liable EVEN IF you trespass in defiance of posted signs and ski in declared "unsafe" r "out of bounds" areas. In other parts of the world you are on your own lookout and are expected to ask responsibly -- eg not throw the toaster into the bathtub to have toast while taking a bath. The extent of that way of thinking would be to presume that ALL potential features had to be exhaustively discovered, fully documented, as well as recommendations for/against their use detailed (esp in unpredictable fashions). It's really pretty absurd to think that ANY product could be so controlled in its development, esp when it's software. But, then again, all of this is really being driven by the US legal system and its culture. And, as the "joke" goes, American justice is the best that money can buy.

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Apr 4 2009, 03:35 PM) I agree with all of what you're saying here AQ except that I have, well, over 25 years of active software development behind me. No wonder I've got grey hair! Flarn2006 may I suggest that you take a moment, take a breath and then see if you can express what you're really meaning here and what your real intention is with all of your attempts to hack LV. And I'm not opposed to hacking -- been there done that -- esp in looking for undocumented features, "hidden" functionality, etc. If you want to break software, give it to me. I'll find the problems. So I understand that part of what's going on here but I don't think that's the real motivation of what you're doing. And maybe I'm completely wrong on this so I too would really like to hear what you have to say about it.

QUOTE (flarn2006 @ Apr 3 2009, 02:07 PM) Isn't this kind of like your other hacking question? What is motivating you to try so many hacks of LV?

QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ Mar 30 2009, 01:13 PM) You'd probably have to get that dress tailored a bit though to fit.... :laugh:

QUOTE (RAJKU @ Mar 22 2009, 10:37 AM) Can you post code or at least a screen capture of code?

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Mar 21 2009, 02:51 PM) I agree with everything you're saying here it's just that now, having been on both sides of that kind of fence and with MANY years under my belt, I guess I feel like I need to be a bit of an "old guy" saying be mindful of the realistic limits and reasons for those attempts at protection of the hard work and property of others. And of course it's cool to figure out...

QUOTE (flarn2006 @ Mar 21 2009, 01:29 PM) In other words, you're wanting to hack their security and bypass it. I understand curiosity but, from where I sit, that's not just curiosity, it's tresspass.

QUOTE (flarn2006 @ Mar 20 2009, 05:32 PM) Why exactly do you want to do this?

QUOTE (Michael Aivaliotis @ Mar 11 2009, 03:41 PM) The first time I saw it was as a preview/accompaniment to a Star Trek bloopers reel.

YES!

QUOTE (Jorge Moreno @ Mar 10 2009, 10:13 AM) Good detective work! This is the biggest problem with using ActiveX objects: it's the Wild West out there and anything that is not explicitly forbidden, is allowed. And there ain't a whole lot that's forbidden!

QUOTE (Jorge Moreno @ Mar 9 2009, 02:20 PM) Do make certain that the relevant ActiveX objects are on the distro computer and are correctly registered there.

QUOTE (crelf @ Mar 7 2009, 11:52 AM) Thanks. I knew it had to be there...somewhere. Either too many margaritas or not enough. I'll have to experiment a bit more to find out which.

OK, I'm stumped -- not too difficult to do but there it is. LV 8.6 in XP/Vista (makes no difference), I drop a subpanel container on the FP and try to remove the frame. Right Click on the control, select Properties but, no such Property is to be found. Even try the transparency "color" on the edge/frame of the subpanel. No go. So, what do I do now?

QUOTE (crelf @ Mar 6 2009, 11:35 AM) Absolutely!

QUOTE (Adam Kemp @ Feb 26 2009, 03:52 PM) Understood and both are what I've seen over the years (ie since LV5). I'm asking -- a bit clumsily -- whether benchmarks will be done on the toolkit as well.

QUOTE (Adam Kemp @ Feb 26 2009, 10:45 AM) Does that apply to the Signal Processing Toolkit as well? For me performance there is critical. And FWIW, compile and release it for Mac, please. As I understand it, the issue really is just a compile...

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Feb 25 2009, 06:06 PM) I'm a bit of an outlier here as I always upgrade to the latest release ASAP. Being on SSP, Premium Support, there really isn't any good reason (at least for me) to NOT do that. But, in terms of comparisons, I actually think FFT, JTFA, Wavelet and Matrix operations are a good start. Picture Control operations as well and then the list specified above as well are all good starts IMO.

QUOTE (crelf @ Feb 25 2009, 05:45 PM) Layers would be good esp if the error wire could come to the top of the z-order IF an error or warning is being propagated.

QUOTE (crelf @ Feb 25 2009, 05:45 PM) Layers would be good esp if the error wire could come to the top of the z-order IF an error or warning is being propagated.