One mouse click, 2 PC's
in [Design]
|
From: Greegor on 16 Jun 2010 21:52 Or a dog whistle far away.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 16 Jun 2010 22:01 On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:42:45 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >On 17/06/2010 2:52 AM, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:31:32 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> On 14/06/2010 1:42 PM, D Yuniskis wrote: >>>> Hi Ken, >>>> >>>> Ken Ingram wrote: >>>>> Is there any practical way that would enable me to use a single mouse >>>>> click in order to start a sequence at exactly the same time on two >>>>> separate PC's (identical units)? >>>> >>>> What do you consider "exactly" to mean? >>>> >>>> What do you consider that "sequence" to be? >>>> >>> >>> Eminently reasonable questions, which got no answers. Indeed, the OP >>> hasn't posted again. >>> >>> I suspect a troll. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> The degree of precision of the start event WAS discussed, > >Not by the OP it wasn't, and since the OP is the only one who knows the >requirement (if one actually exists), the OP's question cannot be >answered in a concrete way without that information. > >> liar. > >You know, going round calling people liars is a particular low approach >to debate. It's the kind of thing politicians get up to (though in >Australia and the UK, at least, they're not meant to do it in parliament). YOU SAID "which got no answers". Plenty of folks addressed that aspect of it. > >> >> The sequence that gets started is of no consequence and is therefore >> NOT a 'reasonable question', it is an unrelated question. > >The OP made no statement to the effect that the sequence that gets >stared is of no consequence. Sure he did. He mentioned wanting to start the TO at the same time. He made NO mention of what the sequence was, NOR does he need to, since it has NOTHING to do with getting a single mouse event to enact two machine events simultaneously. SO again, NO, it does NOT have a goddamned thing to do with it. Use some common sense. >> Your capacity to assess a Usenet post hovers somewhere very close to >> nil. > >What has that to do with the question at hand? Learn to read the goddamned entire thread instead of the half assed approach. That and the "I suspect a troll" was another pretty immature, unnecessary move.
From: Sylvia Else on 17 Jun 2010 04:35 On 17/06/2010 12:01 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:42:45 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> > wrote: > >> On 17/06/2010 2:52 AM, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:31:32 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/06/2010 1:42 PM, D Yuniskis wrote: >>>>> Hi Ken, >>>>> >>>>> Ken Ingram wrote: >>>>>> Is there any practical way that would enable me to use a single mouse >>>>>> click in order to start a sequence at exactly the same time on two >>>>>> separate PC's (identical units)? >>>>> >>>>> What do you consider "exactly" to mean? >>>>> >>>>> What do you consider that "sequence" to be? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Eminently reasonable questions, which got no answers. Indeed, the OP >>>> hasn't posted again. >>>> >>>> I suspect a troll. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The degree of precision of the start event WAS discussed, >> >> Not by the OP it wasn't, and since the OP is the only one who knows the >> requirement (if one actually exists), the OP's question cannot be >> answered in a concrete way without that information. >> >>> liar. >> >> You know, going round calling people liars is a particular low approach >> to debate. It's the kind of thing politicians get up to (though in >> Australia and the UK, at least, they're not meant to do it in parliament). > > YOU SAID "which got no answers". Plenty of folks addressed that aspect > of it. Said folk could only have views on the ramifications of different meanings of "exactly". Only the OP could know which particular meaning he or she had in mind, and there was no answer forthcoming from the OP about which meaning was intended. >> >>> >>> The sequence that gets started is of no consequence and is therefore >>> NOT a 'reasonable question', it is an unrelated question. >> >> The OP made no statement to the effect that the sequence that gets >> stared is of no consequence. > > Sure he did. > > He mentioned wanting to start the TO at the same time. He made NO > mention of what the sequence was, NOR does he need to, since it has > NOTHING to do with getting a single mouse event to enact two machine > events simultaneously. He mentioned a sequence, but provided no indication of its nature. Sequences of different kinds occur at various levels in a computer system, from the sequence of read/writes to memory at one end, to the sequence in which programs are invoked at the other. So to answer the OP's question one needs to know what he or she meant by sequence. > > SO again, NO, it does NOT have a goddamned thing to do with it. Use > some common sense. Common sense has often been found wanting. Where possible it's best to get definitive information rather than trying to divine it by common sense. > >>> Your capacity to assess a Usenet post hovers somewhere very close to >>> nil. >> >> What has that to do with the question at hand? > > Learn to read the goddamned entire thread instead of the half assed > approach. I don't have to read an entire thread to determine that the OP has not answered specific questions. I only need to read the OP's subsequence postings. In this case, there were none. > > That and the "I suspect a troll" was another pretty immature, > unnecessary move. It was a true statement about my state of mind. Where's the problem? Sylvia.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 17 Jun 2010 04:43 On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:35:40 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >He mentioned a sequence, but provided no indication of its nature. Wrong! He stated that it was AFTER the mouse start event, which is why it is of ZERO significance. Learn to read, the learn about what you read.
From: Sylvia Else on 17 Jun 2010 05:36
On 17/06/2010 6:43 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:35:40 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> He mentioned a sequence, but provided no indication of its nature. > > > Wrong! He stated that it was AFTER the mouse start event, which is why > it is of ZERO significance. It would be surprising if it was before. But as to its significance, of course it's significant. Starting a particular sequence of memory reads and writes would be well nigh impossible. Starting a particular sequence of program executions would be quite easy. Sylvia. |