Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Mouse position relative to screen

Reply
Thread Tools

Mouse position relative to screen

 
 
Paul Lutus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2004
Carl Howells wrote:

> MAB wrote:
>
>> its even a better idea to read a post before replying to it. Read the
>> full post. I explained what I had accomplished and what I wanted to do
>> now and why I wanted to do it ( locate the mouse position )

>
> Don't bother arguing with Paul. It's pointless. Once he's made up his
> mind, no amount of evidence, logic, or yelling can change it.


This is false. Examine the evidence, which shows I regularly acknowledge
errors. But there is an important precondition -- I have to have made an
error. In this case, I didn't.

The OP, by contrast, has taken the position that, because he can force a
mouse position without a visual component, therefore he can read a mouse
position without a visual component, and no amount of evidence will even
persuade him that he has taken this position, must less that it is wrong.

What this means is that your view above is entirely misdirected.

> But, his advice is usually correct. And while he's doing more yelling
> at you than pointing out the issue, his advice is correct in this case,
> too. There's no API to get the mouse position without creating a GUI
> component. So, you're going to have to create a GUI component.
>
> And if you're doing that, you might as well just put a "Quit" button on
> it, and forget about reading the mouse position.


--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Carl Howells
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2004
Paul Lutus wrote:
> Carl Howells wrote:
>
>>Don't bother arguing with Paul. It's pointless. Once he's made up his
>>mind, no amount of evidence, logic, or yelling can change it.

>
>
> This is false. Examine the evidence, which shows I regularly acknowledge
> errors. But there is an important precondition -- I have to have made an
> error. In this case, I didn't.
>
> The OP, by contrast, has taken the position that, because he can force a
> mouse position without a visual component, therefore he can read a mouse
> position without a visual component, and no amount of evidence will even
> persuade him that he has taken this position, must less that it is wrong.
>
> What this means is that your view above is entirely misdirected.


My view isn't based on this thread. This thread just reinforced it. I
formed my view after another thread, several years ago.

If you care, it was a thread in which you claimed everything on the
internet was copyrighted, and I pointed out that there were a small
number of exceptions, literary works available online for which the
copyright had long since expired.

Anyway, I'm as unlikely to change my mind as you are, and arguing will
get us nowhere. As such, any further participation in this thread on my
part will be strictly on-topic.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Lutus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2004
Carl Howells wrote:

/ ...

> My view isn't based on this thread. This thread just reinforced it. I
> formed my view after another thread, several years ago.


The crowd waits, breathless, for the evidence.

> If you care, it was a thread in which you claimed everything on the
> internet was copyrighted,


It is. You just don't understand copyright law. Under current law, the act
of publishing confers a copyright to any work not already copyrighted. The
former and the latter are therefore both copyrighted.

Source:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Quote:

"Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is
'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time."

You are entirely, completely, wrong.

> and I pointed out that there were a small
> number of exceptions,


Yes, there are exceptions, none posted on the Internet, and not the case you
suggested, and my original point was all Internet content is copyrighted
automatically by virtue of its posting.

> literary works available online for which the
> copyright had long since expired.


An expired copyright is a copyright! My God, this is your example? Works
that are in the public domain are still copyrighted, that is the basis of
their being in the public domain. The way you establish that a work is in
the public domain is by looking up the copyright. In fact, that is the only
way.

Q. "Can I copy this document without permission"?
A. "First, you must be sure it is in the public domain."
Q. "How do I do that?"
A. "Look up the copyright."
Q. "What if there is no copyright?"
A. "Then by publishing it, you create one."

All. Published. Works. Are. Copyrighted.

There are two possibilities for Internet content:

1. A work that is already copyrighted when it is posted. Such a work is
copyrighted in advance of its posting.

2. A work that is not already copyrighted when it is posted. Such a work is
copyrighted through being posted.

> Anyway, I'm as unlikely to change my mind as you are,


I just proved you wrong again, and no, your chances to argue me out of a
trivial legal fact are slight.

> and arguing will get us nowhere.


No, but evidence works wonders. You were and are wrong about copyrights,
your only evidentiary example.

> As such, any further participation in this thread on my
> part will be strictly on-topic.


Too late for that. But an opportunity to educate yourself about copyright
law waits, dormant, as it has for years.

I cannot imagine you have spent years fuming about this imagined slight when
you could instead have done a 30-second Google search.

Now, folks, watch Mr. Howells fail to acknowledge his error.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2004
Carl Howells <(E-Mail Removed)> coughed up the following:
> Paul Lutus wrote:
>> Carl Howells wrote:
>>
>>> Don't bother arguing with Paul. It's pointless. Once he's made up
>>> his mind, no amount of evidence, logic, or yelling can change it.

>>
>>
>> This is false. Examine the evidence, which shows I regularly
>> acknowledge errors. But there is an important precondition -- I have
>> to have made an error. In this case, I didn't.
>>
>> The OP, by contrast, has taken the position that, because he can
>> force a mouse position without a visual component, therefore he can
>> read a mouse position without a visual component, and no amount of
>> evidence will even persuade him that he has taken this position,
>> must less that it is wrong.
>>
>> What this means is that your view above is entirely misdirected.

>
> My view isn't based on this thread. This thread just reinforced it.
> I formed my view after another thread, several years ago.
>
> If you care, it was a thread in which you claimed everything on the
> internet was copyrighted, and I pointed out that there were a small
> number of exceptions, literary works available online for which the
> copyright had long since expired.
>
> Anyway, I'm as unlikely to change my mind as you are, and arguing will
> get us nowhere. As such, any further participation in this thread on
> my part will be strictly on-topic.


For what it's worth, I agree. Paul has trouble "playing with others".


--
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaseletterto startclassnames....


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Lutus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2004
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

>> Anyway, I'm as unlikely to change my mind as you are, and arguing will
>> get us nowhere. As such, any further participation in this thread on
>> my part will be strictly on-topic.

>
> For what it's worth, I agree. Paul has trouble "playing with others".


No, I have trouble with people who don't know how to think or do research.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Lutus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2004
Paul Lutus wrote:

> Now, folks, watch Mr. Howells fail to acknowledge his error.


As I expected, instead of posting his acknowledgment, Mr. Howells has
contacted me by e-mail and assured me he will not confess his error in
public.

The irony, which will not be lost on the readers of this newsgroup, is this
is what Mr. Howells earlier tried to accuse me of doing.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Uppal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2004
Paul Lutus wrote:

> > If you care, it was a thread in which you claimed everything on the
> > internet was copyrighted,

>
> It is. You just don't understand copyright law. Under current law, the act
> of publishing confers a copyright to any work not already copyrighted. The
> former and the latter are therefore both copyrighted.


Is there actually any point to all this ?

-- chris


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Lutus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2004
Chris Uppal wrote:

> Paul Lutus wrote:
>
>> > If you care, it was a thread in which you claimed everything on the
>> > internet was copyrighted,

>>
>> It is. You just don't understand copyright law. Under current law, the
>> act of publishing confers a copyright to any work not already
>> copyrighted. The former and the latter are therefore both copyrighted.

>
> Is there actually any point to all this ?


Certainly. It just has nothing whatever to do with this newsgroup's topic.
Please note that I didn't create the digression, although I am guilty of
prolonging it.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2004
Chris Uppal <(E-Mail Removed)-THIS.org> coughed up the
following:
> Paul Lutus wrote:
>


....and then Carl Howells said...

>>> If you care, it was a thread in which you claimed everything on the
>>> internet was copyrighted,

>>
>> It is. You just don't understand copyright law. Under current law,
>> the act of publishing confers a copyright to any work not already
>> copyrighted. The former and the latter are therefore both
>> copyrighted.

>
> Is there actually any point to all this ?
>
> -- chris


No, probably not, but in fairness to paul, (if there is such a thing ),
you dropped the attribution to Carl Howells, which IMO makes paul look a
smidgeon worse.

Whatever. {shrug}

--
http://www.allexperts.com is a nifty way to get an answer to just about
/anything/.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Uppal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2004
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

> No, probably not, but in fairness to paul, (if there is such a thing ),
> you dropped the attribution to Carl Howells, which IMO makes paul look a
> smidgeon worse.


My policy is normally to trim ruthlessly, and never to include more than the
top-level attribution, but in this case I can see that that resulted in an
unfair distribution of credit.

Apologies to both gents.

;-^

-- chris




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mouse position in both fixed and relative positioning Nikolai Prokoschenko Javascript 2 05-18-2011 11:25 AM
Screen Capture With Mouse , Mouse Position Capture Max Java 7 08-08-2009 11:51 PM
Zoom relative to mouse position Amir Kouchekinia Java 6 05-23-2008 03:28 AM
Where is Form Relative Position and Absolute Position in VS.Net 2005 ? Luqman ASP .Net 1 02-07-2006 10:27 AM
iframe relative mouse position madmike Javascript 2 07-17-2003 06:58 PM



Advertisments