One mouse click, 2 PC's

Eminently reasonable questions, which got no answers. Indeed, the OP hasn't posted again.

I suspect a troll.

Sylvia.

It could possibly be a CRT deflection coil.

PHIL WROTE:

IT IS ACUTALLY VERY SIMPLE PHIL JUST WIRE THE MOUSE BUTTON OVER THE MAINS, AND BOTH PCS WIL DO A POWER DOWN AT THE SAME TIME.

OSAMA

The degree of precision of the start event WAS discussed, liar.

The sequence that gets started is of no consequence and is therefore NOT a 'reasonable question', it is an unrelated question.

Your capacity to assess a Usenet post hovers somewhere very close to nil.

You could possibly be autistic, but I doubt it. More likely just plain dumb.

Yet one more reason to filter all posts from aoie retards.

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.

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).

The OP made no statement to the effect that the sequence that gets stared is of no consequence.

What has that to do with the question at hand?

Sylvia.

Or a dog whistle far away.

YOU SAID "which got no answers". Plenty of folks addressed that aspect of it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It was a true statement about my state of mind. Where's the problem?

Sylvia.

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.

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.

That inkling of logic was missing in your previous craptography.

Absolutely not. All the OP wants is the start event to be at exactly the same time. Without anything regarding subsequent actions or events, you should be able to answer the question without ANY further info related to any subsequent toggles.

You do not know that, and have you ever heard of reflective memory? Do you know how it gets written or how it gets passed from the machine the memory is on to the machine the reflective memory is on, despite the distance between them?

I cannot even be sure that you are even aware of that.

It seemed unecessary to state that an effect will follow its cause. No counter-examples have ever been observed.

And what does "exactly the same time" mean? The events received by the two computers will be at differet locations in space. The resulting separation may be time like or spacelike. If they're time-like, they won't even have a defined order. Exactly the same time is a problematic concept. The OP needs to qualify "exactly the same time" for his question even to have a meaning.

Without anything regarding subsequent actions or events,

They are PCs. They can, in the absence of statements to the contrary, be assumed to have ordinary memory.

I've stated it - why wouldn't I be unaware of it?

Sylvia.

"Nigh impossible" is not "only in ordinary memory", AND my observation involves machines separated, so the problem should be worse, according to you. It is not, however.

I think your logic is flawed.