Re: How to simulate mouse movements to prevent screen saver activation?
"Sabine Elsner" wrote in
<news:483707a3$0$6615$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>:
> In our office the admins tend to be crazy. They configured the ScreenSaver activation
> after 8 (!) minutes of no mouse movement.
>
> After screen saver activation I have to re-logon and re-type my password. This is very inconvenient.
>
> Unfortunately I cannot change the screen saver activation time because it is managed central by the server
> and not adjustable on my workstation.
>
> So I am thinking about writing a program which simulates mouse movements by a pixel each minute.
>
> Is this possible somehow?
>
> Sabine
NOTE: Inappropriate use of the FollowUp-To header was ignored. Original
list of newsgroups was used for this reply.
If your domain login gives you local admin privileges on your own host,
you can use a .reg (registry) file to change the screensaver idle
timeout. First ask your IT folks if they will permit you to change your
own screensaver timeout. They may not make a per-account change to let
the timeouts vary by account but they may not bar you from altering your
own timeout.
When you logon under a domain account, policies get pushed into your
registry. You can add a .reg file into your Startup group that can
later alter those policies by altering the registry entries, but you
will need to have admin privileges on your own host under that domain
account to do any registry changes. If you don't have admin privileges
on your own host for your domain login then you can't alter the registry
to change the screensaver timeout.
--- Rant on inappropriate use of the FollowUp-To header ---
Don't use the FollowUp-To header. Posting to, say, 3 newsgroups but
moving replies to just 1 of them or to a completely different one means
you disconnect the visitors of those other 2 (or 3) newsgroups from the
rest of the discussion. If a newsgroup is appropriate for your post
then it is also appropriate for the replies. Or, converserly, if the
continued discussion of your post is not appropriate in all the
newsgroups to which you cross-posted then you should not have posted to
those other newsgroups in the first place. You are using the
FollowUp-To header to move replies to YOUR "home" newsgroup but which
the users of the other newsgroups may not visit. After all, if you
cross-post and include your "home" newsgroup then you'll see all those
replies in your home newsgroup and meanwhile all the other users can
still see the replies in their newsgroup where you decided to also
publish your post.
In
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/, it says, "For a
cross-post, you may want to set the Followup-To: header line to the most
suitable group for the rest of the discussion". Read another way, that
means you disconnect the discussion from all the visitors of the other
newsgroups to which you decided to publish your post. Why did you
publish to those other newsgroups if you are going to yank the
discussion away from those users and perhaps even from the respondents
you were attempting to elicit? It is exasperating to post a reply and
never see it in the newsgroup where you read the original post. If your
post was appropriate for all the groups to which you cross-posted then
why wouldn't those same groups be appropriate for the replies? To yank
away the discussion to your "home" group is rude since that is probably
not the "home" group for your respondents. You wanted replies which may
require further replies but now your respondents no longer see the
thread in the newsgroup that they visit to where you published your
post. Also, the respondents may not know if their reply is appropriate
in the "home" group that you happen to choose. In general, malcontents
and spammers use the FollowUp-To header to hide negative replies to
their flame or spam posts, often sending the replies off to a *.test
newsgroup.
There are some cases where FollowUp-To should be used. For example, say
a newsgroup is supposed to only get used for citing the content of a
spam e-mail. Discussions about that spam are not supposed to be
published in that citing newsgroup. Just the exhibits are published
there. If someone wants to discuss that particular spam, their replies
should go into a different newsgroup meant for those discussions. I
believe that is how some of the NANAE newsgroups operate but the
principle may apply elsewhere but it is rare few newsgroups where
FollowUp-To is appropriate. For the vast majority of newsgroups,
FollowUp-To is *not* appropriate. If you do not want continue the
discussion in the other newsgroups then don't cross-post over there (and
then use FollowUp-To to yank away the continued discussion). If the
discussion is not appropriate in those other newsgroups then it seems
you have nominated your post to be spam.
If you do use the FollowUp-To header, you are expected per netiquette to
alert the readers of your post that you used that header. Be polite and
add a note (at the start of your post) saying that you used the header
(ex., "WARNING: FollowUp-To was used and points to <newsgroup>". You
might also want to explain why any further discussion in the other
newsgroups is inappropriate despite your rudeness in posting to those
other newsgroups. Many times respondents wonder where their reply post
went because they expect to see it in the group they visited and where
they read your post. Not all NNTP clients alert the user that the
poster used the FollowUp-To header. Think about it: you post to
multiple newsgroups but yank the replies to a different newsgroup than
where your respondents visited, then you need more help and reply to
those replies but which are now only in your "home" newsgroup, but the
respondents won't see their posts nor will they see your replies to them
asking for more help. FollowUp-To is not required when you cross-post
since your "home" newsgroup should be one those that were specified in
the list of newsgroups. You'll watch the discussion in your home
newsgroup and the respondents or lurkers can watch that same discussion
in their own newsgroup. If you don't want replies to show up in all the
newsgroups to which you cross-posted then don't cross-post over there in
the first place!
When crossposting, there are not multiple copies of your post that
wastes bandwidth for each to get them propagated to other NNTP servers
and there aren't multiple copies of your post consuming disk space. A
single copy gets sent to the other NNTP servers and a single copy
resides on each NNTP server with pointers to it to make it show up in
multiple newsgroups. You aren't saving bandwidth or disk space by
redirecting replies for a cross-posted message to a single newsgroup.
You are just being rude to the visitors of the other newsgroups to which
you cross-posted but tried to yank away the discussion.
--- End of rant ---