Val Brown

QUOTE (Gavin Burnell @ Jul 30 2008, 01:52 PM) Maybe I'm missing something here but it seems to me that wanting to do that in LV is kind of like wanting to use the Concorde to take the garbage down your driveway to the street.

QUOTE (alfa @ Jul 26 2008, 12:50 AM) Alfa, no it is you who is mistaken. And I will be happy to demonstrate that to you directly with any of these people who claim otherwise. And FWIW, I first began teaching yoga and Chinese Martial Arts in the early 70s.

QUOTE (alfa @ Jul 23 2008, 11:58 PM) Do you really not understand what is happening in that video? These are his students. Those effects that are generated by the synergy/attachment between them. With anyone else it is very different. Again, if you want to have a real demonstration of "what's so", suggest that he confront me in a similar context. The outcome will be quite a bit different from the video that you've seen. Not only have I been using LV for a while (not the greatest level of achievement but at least I've been through the mines and can find my way back out), but I've also studied Chinese martial arts since I was very young -- almost 50 years now. I'm an adopted son and legacy holder in two traditions. What you're seeing is not the real thing ("bu shi zhen fa"). Have you ever actually studied any Chinese martial art, either nei jia or wai jia? I don't think so.

I'll be there from Sunday through Saturday staying at the Courtyard. Not presenting but soaking up as much info as possible during the conference, and as much beer as possible all other times. See you there

QUOTE (crelf @ Jul 23 2008, 07:35 AM) Gives a whole new slant to a "light bulb going on"...

Which part do you want explained? It only happens with his students. If you want a test/validation -- have him try it with me. As the taiji classics would say: Bu shi taiji quan.

QUOTE (Yair @ Jul 21 2008, 10:33 AM) In engineering applications probably not but in direct "end user" applications (aka delivered to the general public) almost undoubtedly yes.

QUOTE (crelf @ Jul 20 2008, 02:36 PM) Yes, it's a nice little tip. Anyone know if this is settable programmatically?

QUOTE (Daklu @ Jul 17 2008, 11:17 AM) This is all correct, except the price has increased a bit in 15 years.

QUOTE (Norm Kirchner @ Jul 16 2008, 10:42 AM) That gives a whole new perspective on being CARful when coding.

QUOTE (Michael_Aivaliotis @ Jul 14 2008, 11:06 AM) Yes, and the references in the "Technical Paper" version that could be downloaded as well.

QUOTE (Tom Bress @ Jul 14 2008, 09:29 AM) I think it's more the "eek" and rather well cultured perspective that "the tedium is the message" when it comes to overuse of PowerPoint, cf: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-...&topic_id=1 But I also think we're seeing some tribal identities emerging here in this thread. Just about everyone I've sent this to fell off their chair laughing and that includes a very large population of definitively non-geek recipients.

QUOTE (BobHamburger @ Jul 13 2008, 04:23 PM) I appreciate what you're saying Bob and I know that many smell smoke when I voice my opinions. Having gone to Georgetown undergraduate I, too, love a good hearty debate. FWI, and just to tweak this a bit, I think it could be said that the more potentially "judgmental" comments thrown at me by some came because of a failure to clarify the Requirements of my situation. It seems that, perhaps, some jumped in and started Developing before really understanding the project... ;-)

QUOTE (Omar Mussa @ Jul 13 2008, 09:08 AM) Yes, one of the best is ever seen. As the saying used to go: "it's finger licken' good". But don't take my word for it -- watch it!

QUOTE (PJM_labview @ Jul 12 2008, 11:29 PM) I do both to increase the overall security for me, my IP and my small company.

QUOTE (BobHamburger @ Jul 12 2008, 07:37 PM) Yes I think you are completely misunderstanding. It's not my customers compelling my behavior in this regard, it's my competition. Patent protection is not relevant because, in my field of application, all patents have been used as blueprints to steal original ideas. To say it another way, filing a patent for software or ideas, has not been sufficient to protect IP. One small change defeats the patent. Intentionally making MY code -- that I alone see and should see at this point -- is my privilege and right. It isn't my BELIEF that what I've developed is unique -- it is unique. Delivering reliable, state of the art software to my customers is my obligation and commitment. Intentionally trying to crack my code (and yours and everyone else's) "is legally unjustifiable and morally indefensible" to borrow a phrase of yours. And to be clear I know that there have been several attempts to do so by those who SHOULD know that those actions were "legally unjustifiable and morally indefensible". It is because others might try -- and in fact HAVE done so -- that I have built in as many protections as I have for my IP. Added note: Perhaps I should clarify something that others may not know. I run my own small company. Except for some sub-projects that I "farm out", I have done all of the code myself. I build the EXE and I (my small company) distributes and supports it. My comments about obscuring code and such are related specifically to THAT context. They are NOT meant as general comments and I thought I had made that clear in my prior posts but perhaps it wasn't as clear as I thought. Since most LAVA members appear to work FOR someone else or WITH someone else, the general comments about clear style and appropriate structure would apply and, again, I thought I had made it clear in a prior post that I did NOT support my extreme means of obscuring code EXCEPT for the exceptional case. Now, since I not only appear to be in the minority here but also to be on the verge of inciting flames, I will refrain from posting any further on this. Apologies for disturbing the peace.

QUOTE (crelf @ Jul 12 2008, 03:25 PM) There is documentation and various backups of all of my code -- all in separate China locations -- but all of the pieces needed to understand the code are functionally separated into "objects" -- like good OO architecture... ;-) If you have them ALL in the "same room" then it becomes far more "doable" for someone else to maintain/extend the current code base. In re: to your second point above, YES, of course, IF I were programming for someone else, on their nickel, or as part of a team, as I said above, most of what is being said here about style and architecture makes sense and I would agree with it. My point is solely that there may really be some occasions -- exceptional though they are -- that actually benefit from as much obfuscation being applied, in as many ways as possible, so as to protect IP or trade secrets REGARDLESS of whatever protections are in place. Practices that make the code clearly understandable and easily maintained by ANYONE actually make it that much easier for someone else to hack. And this is esp true if you keep in mind the cautions JKI raised re: placing too much trust in NI's password protection, etc.

QUOTE (Omar Mussa @ Jul 12 2008, 10:06 AM) Precisely. Moreover, the point I'm making here is that saying code is BAD implies a perspective from which BAD emerges. The implied perspective of most on this forum -- and reasonably so! -- is for ease of maintenance, ESP for someone else coming along and/or following up. And, in general, that's a very good and useful perspective. However, it seems to me that there are exceptions to this rule just as there are to virtually every other rule. Having BAD code that is "poorly" documented, intricate, obscure style, etc, etc is actually a very effective strategy TO hide its functionality and this, in turn, makes it much more difficult to hack. Mike your comment about "if it takes a long time to understand it then I'll start over" is directly germane here. I actually WANT it to take a long time (perhaps an infinite amount of time) for someone who comes along to understand my code, in the specific case of my particular application. Were I writing code FOR OTHERS then it would be a totally different issue and, in that case, I would agree with most of the other comments here concerning style and architecture.

QUOTE (Omar Mussa @ Jul 11 2008, 05:15 PM) But don't forget, there can be situations in which BAD code (re: style) is actually GOOD. This can be esp the case given a one person shop, with a proprietary algorithm that needs to be obscured precisely so that others can reverse engineer it. Bad style in other situation can be precisely what is needed in other situations.

QUOTE (JiMM @ Jul 6 2008, 02:11 PM) ditto, ditto...you get the point!

QUOTE (Jim Kring @ Jul 3 2008, 01:28 PM) MS doesn't necessarily get paid -- that depends on what programs you need to run and whether something like Wine or Crossover can support your app. But, in general, yes MS gets its "nickel" with every copy of XP/Vista that is installed and that's certainly the way most MBPs are set up these days to support Windows operations. I don't see the MBP as expensive and FWIW you couldn't GIVE me an HP to use. I've had to contend with every "low ball" price pointing strategy in the field for the last 15 years in supporting neurofeedback software. Finally -- FINALLY! -- with the release of XP Pro (not even Home) we had MS enforce the AC97 standard and that was supposed to take effect in, guess what?, 1997. And THAT was supposed to mean the every copy of Windows 98 would run on hardware that would support the AudioComponents standard known as AC97. It took Vista -- ten years later -- for that standard to actually become THE standard for ALL Windows systems. And the reason for those delays were the complaints of Dell, HP, Compaq and all of the denizens of the deep discount "cheap" computer. OK, end of rant and FWIW I really DO feel better.

Yes, the MBP is not "just an expensive IBM clone". First of all, it's not a clone -- literally it's not. Secondly, it comes with Mac OSX and all of its features. Third, because of the Mac side of things, when using VMWare Fusion, Parallels or similar virtualization software you can literally switch transparently because the two OSs, simultaneously deriving benefits from each. For instance, I do all of my LV programming in XP via Fusion while I use the Mac OS under NAT to access the web, using Safari and Entourage (MS Office for Mac Outlook replacement) giving me the extra security/safety of the Mac OS on the web. Whenever I want, I can reboot into "native" XP using Boot Camp, if any specific hardware-related limitations occur during my programming work. It really is an elegant solution, esp if you like the Mac interface and how the Mac (currently at least) works on the web. But, then again, back in the "old days" I used a Mac Power Book and VPC to run both Mac and Windows LV to develop parallel interchangeable code. That was before LV really committed to the Windows platform -- for instance developing the SPT to run ONLY in Windows. It seemed a real shame to me to NOT maintain such cross-platform programming potential but, then again, NI isn't my company, and that's probably a very good thing! I do hope that NI decides to fully implement the various toolkits within the Mac OS. I'd love to deploy a native Mac version of what I've developed but can't until the SPT (and some others) are implemented in Mac OS.

QUOTE (Jim Kring @ Jun 26 2008, 02:01 PM) I stayed at the Courtyard last year (my first NI Week) and will be staying there again this year as I enjoyed it. It was very comfortable, spacious room with a good internet connection and other amenities. I also stay at Courtyards a lot so I have award points to use, which helps with the expense. If I'd KNOWN that everyone who is everyone is staying at the Hilton I might have chosen to be there instead....<sigh>. Actually all of the properties Jim mentioned are close, convenient and IMO good, even though the Driskill is more expensive. BTW does anyone know if reservations/payments are being taken yet for the BarBQ???

QUOTE (crelf @ Jun 24 2008, 07:23 PM) OK but will they wear the NewBalance (because they're Sheilas) or the Redback because they've come there to 'kick arse' Hmmm, maybe I'd better bring some chewing gum just in case....

QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ Jun 23 2008, 02:46 PM) Precisely right about the USB support. I originally used Parallels on my 15" MBP and all was well EXCEPT for USB. It was, quite simply, impossible. I ended up returning to the Windows world reluctantly, with a Vista Premium system and I only did that because Fusion (at that time) did not support multimonitor mode under virtualization. Now with the current Beta, multimonitor mode works rather well and the USB support is useable. I have submitted several CARs (well their equivalent) re: the remaining USB issues and I understand that the next release will include their fixes. The remaining issues that I've found re: USB concern how it interacts with Unity View (Fusion's form of what Parallels calls Coherence) when dynamically plugging and unplugging a USB device. This is what I understand the next release will fix. Keep the settings so as to not Automatically Connect the device and there is no problem. So far so good with Fusion but I too am considering an update to the 17" MBP.