Carnac the Magnificient - sarcastic answers to serious questions/comments

[Hooovahh]

Oh I got one.  So a user had a simple question in 2008 about DAQmx.  Within a couple posts the question is answered. 

Then in 2013 OP replies that he had the same question, and Google brought him to that thread where he found the answer. 

Then in 2014 OP replies that he had the same question, and Google brought him to that thread where he found the answer.

Then in 2018 OP replies that he had the same question, and Google brought him to that thread where he found the answer.

My semi sarcastic reply was asking about when people thought OP would be back.  Still that is better than OP making a new thread every time.

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

---

@JÞB wrote:

Ironic

Frustrated OP needs to find a therapist (or text) because...

He doesn't know how to SEARCH HIMSELF....

---

1. I think Jeff is actually referring to this post: https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Find-a-text-inside-a-project/m-p/3845039#M1088300

---

AFAIC, Turns out to be a pretty serious bug (in LabVIEW, that is)!

[altenbach]

---

@Hooovahh wrote:

Oh I got one.

---

link?

[Hooovahh]

---

@altenbach wrote:

---

@Hooovahh wrote:

Oh I got one.

---

link?

---

Dang forgot it here it is.

[Ben]

Somewhat related...

I logged a SR# with NI support and the AE found and forwarded a link to a discussion forum post ...

Spoiler

by me.

I will have to read it to figure if that was the answer I was looking to find.

Ben

[crossrulz]

Somebody asking why they have to calculate the checksum for a message.  They don't think they need to because "the device that i am sending these commands to already has a checksum calculation in it".

My thought: Because anybody with ANY knowledge in communications knows that you have to follow the protocol.

[Ben]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

Somebody asking why they have to calculate the checksum for a message.  They don't think they need to because "the device that i am sending these commands to already has a checksum calculation in it".

My thought: Because anybody with ANY knowledge in communications knows that you have to follow the protocol.

---

Being my normal oppositional self...

I have written it off as an artifact of when the communications were using a serial interface when I discover a message protocol that uses Ethernet and includes a checksum. Ethernet packets have a checksum built in and if the checksum fails the packets are never passed up the protocol stack.

Ben

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@Ben wrote:

---

@crossrulz wrote:

Somebody asking why they have to calculate the checksum for a message.  They don't think they need to because "the device that i am sending these commands to already has a checksum calculation in it".

My thought: Because anybody with ANY knowledge in communications knows that you have to follow the protocol.

---

Being my normal oppositional self...

I have written it off as an artifact of when the communications were using a serial interface when I discover a message protocol that uses Ethernet and includes a checksum. Ethernet packets have a checksum built in and if the checksum fails the packets are never passed up the protocol stack.

---

That can turn out to be convenient, for instance when the protocol supports multiple physical layers. Like TCP\IP and serial... Just change the visa recourse, and done.

[Ben]

---

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

---

@Ben wrote:

---

@crossrulz wrote:

Somebody asking why they have to calculate the checksum for a message.  They don't think they need to because "the device that i am sending these commands to already has a checksum calculation in it".

My thought: Because anybody with ANY knowledge in communications knows that you have to follow the protocol.

---

Being my normal oppositional self...

I have written it off as an artifact of when the communications were using a serial interface when I discover a message protocol that uses Ethernet and includes a checksum. Ethernet packets have a checksum built in and if the checksum fails the packets are never passed up the protocol stack.

---

That can turn out to be convenient, for instance when the protocol supports multiple physical layers. Like TCP\IP and serial... Just change the visa recourse, and done.

---

But then we have the classic...

If a packet is corrupted but never delivered, can it ever fail the check-sum?

Ben

[JÞB]

---

@Ben wrote:

---

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

---

@Ben wrote:

---

@crossrulz wrote:

Somebody asking why they have to calculate the checksum for a message.  They don't think they need to because "the device that i am sending these commands to already has a checksum calculation in it".

My thought: Because anybody with ANY knowledge in communications knows that you have to follow the protocol.

---

Being my normal oppositional self...

I have written it off as an artifact of when the communications were using a serial interface when I discover a message protocol that uses Ethernet and includes a checksum. Ethernet packets have a checksum built in and if the checksum fails the packets are never passed up the protocol stack.

---

That can turn out to be convenient, for instance when the protocol supports multiple physical layers. Like TCP\IP and serial... Just change the visa recourse, and done.

---

But then we have the classic...

If a packet is corrupted but never delivered, can it ever fail the check-sum?

Ben

---

I'm certain that I addressed that specific case earlier... did you get that response?

Now, who is going to link this reply to the sarcastic answers thread.  😄