|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
[OT] Seek 'usage timer' utility to stop Net addiction!
------ There are plenty of timer utilities. But I am looking for a timer which counts only while the PC's keyboard is in use. Then the timer might sound an alarm when it reaches a preset duration of keyboard usage - such as 60 minutes. Can anyone help me locate such a utility? "Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message Which is french for "the OP is an idiot"news:960CCE7CF147871F3M4@130.133.1.4... > This is off-topic. > "Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message On Tue 01 Mar 2005 20:42:54, Noozer wrote:> news:960CCE7CF147871F3M4@130.133.1.4... >> This is off-topic. <news:it4Vd.540640$Xk.481840@pd7tw3no> > I think it is something like ... Some people are too dense to > Which is french for "the OP is an idiot" understand what OT means in the subject line that the poster has kindly repeated it in the first line for these people and even then some people like Noozer will still be too slow off the mark to realise that he does not have to read it and certainly he is not obliged to reply to it! :-)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message So it's OK to smoke in a non-smoking area as long as you announce thatnews:960CDA3FA529E71F3M4@130.133.1.4... > > "Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message > > news:960CCE7CF147871F3M4@130.133.1.4... > >> This is off-topic. > > On Tue 01 Mar 2005 20:42:54, Noozer wrote: > <news:it4Vd.540640$Xk.481840@pd7tw3no> > > > > Which is french for "the OP is an idiot" > > > I think it is something like ... Some people are too dense to > understand what OT means in the subject line that the poster has > kindly repeated it in the first line for these people and even then > some people like Noozer will still be too slow off the mark to > realise that he does not have to read it and certainly he is not > obliged to reply to it! :-) you're going to smoke? It's OK for a man to go into the ladies room to take a leak as long as he announces his intentions? It's OK to drive through a red light just because you're laying on the horn? OT = inconsiderate dumbass. On Tue 01 Mar 2005 22:12:00, Noozer wrote:
<news:QM5Vd.543240$6l.286179@pd7tw2no> Show quoteHide quote >> I think it is something like ... Some people are too dense to OT is a well understood and perfectly acceptable convention.>> understand what OT means in the subject line that the poster >> has kindly repeated it in the first line for these people and >> even then some people like Noozer will still be too slow off >> the mark to realise that he does not have to read it and >> certainly he is not obliged to reply to it! :-) > > So it's OK to smoke in a non-smoking area as long as you > announce that you're going to smoke? > > It's OK for a man to go into the ladies room to take a leak as > long as he announces his intentions? > > It's OK to drive through a red light just because you're laying > on the horn? > > OT = inconsiderate dumbass. Some outraged people may feel that the Usenet was designed for them and theor rules but the rest of us just behave normally. If you don't want to read off-topic posts then ignore those that are mark "OT". There. It's not difficult is it? On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:06:46 GMT, Franklin
<no_tha***@mail.com> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >On Tue 01 Mar 2005 22:12:00, Noozer wrote: Actually, no. Where would it end?><news:QM5Vd.543240$6l.286179@pd7tw2no> > >>> I think it is something like ... Some people are too dense to >>> understand what OT means in the subject line that the poster >>> has kindly repeated it in the first line for these people and >>> even then some people like Noozer will still be too slow off >>> the mark to realise that he does not have to read it and >>> certainly he is not obliged to reply to it! :-) >> >> So it's OK to smoke in a non-smoking area as long as you >> announce that you're going to smoke? >> >> It's OK for a man to go into the ladies room to take a leak as >> long as he announces his intentions? >> >> It's OK to drive through a red light just because you're laying >> on the horn? >> >> OT = inconsiderate dumbass. > > >OT is a well understood and perfectly acceptable convention. You suppose usenet for designed only for you and your rules? Clearly we could not have every topic that isn't on-topic, posted in all groups, else what's the point of separate groups? They'd all be overrun with OT posts and usenet is then useless. That is, unless you feel that only you personally and a select few "like you" should be posting OT while all others shouldn't?! > If you dont' want to post ON-topic, go where your post IS>Some outraged people may feel that the Usenet was designed for them >and theor rules but the rest of us just behave normally. > >If you don't want to read off-topic posts then ignore those that are >mark "OT". There. It's not difficult is it? on-topic. It's not difficult is it? kony wrote:
Show quoteHide quote | On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:06:46 GMT, Franklin How the HEXX can any topic be of topic in a general NG????| <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote: | || On Tue 01 Mar 2005 22:12:00, Noozer wrote: || <news:QM5Vd.543240$6l.286179@pd7tw2no> || |||| I think it is something like ... Some people are too dense to |||| understand what OT means in the subject line that the poster |||| has kindly repeated it in the first line for these people and |||| even then some people like Noozer will still be too slow off |||| the mark to realise that he does not have to read it and |||| certainly he is not obliged to reply to it! :-) ||| ||| So it's OK to smoke in a non-smoking area as long as you ||| announce that you're going to smoke? ||| ||| It's OK for a man to go into the ladies room to take a leak as ||| long as he announces his intentions? ||| ||| It's OK to drive through a red light just because you're laying ||| on the horn? ||| ||| OT = inconsiderate dumbass. || OT is a well understood and perfectly acceptable convention. || Some outraged people may feel that the Usenet was designed for them || and theor rules but the rest of us just behave normally. || || If you don't want to read off-topic posts then ignore those that are || mark "OT". There. It's not difficult is it? | | If you dont' want to post ON-topic, go where your post IS | on-topic. It's not difficult is it? | Actually, no. Where would it end? | You suppose usenet for designed only for you and your rules? | Clearly we could not have every topic that isn't on-topic, | posted in all groups, else what's the point of separate | groups? They'd all be overrun with OT posts and usenet is | then useless. That is, unless you feel that only you | personally and a select few "like you" should be posting OT | while all others shouldn't?!
Show quote
Hide quote
"BBUNNY" <bbu***@bqik.net> wrote in message Beware the dreaded x-poast.news:uRxlBldIFHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > kony wrote: > | On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:06:46 GMT, Franklin > | <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote: > | > || On Tue 01 Mar 2005 22:12:00, Noozer wrote: > || <news:QM5Vd.543240$6l.286179@pd7tw2no> > || > |||| I think it is something like ... Some people are too dense to > |||| understand what OT means in the subject line that the poster > |||| has kindly repeated it in the first line for these people and > |||| even then some people like Noozer will still be too slow off > |||| the mark to realise that he does not have to read it and > |||| certainly he is not obliged to reply to it! :-) > ||| > ||| So it's OK to smoke in a non-smoking area as long as you > ||| announce that you're going to smoke? > ||| > ||| It's OK for a man to go into the ladies room to take a leak as > ||| long as he announces his intentions? > ||| > ||| It's OK to drive through a red light just because you're laying > ||| on the horn? > ||| > ||| OT = inconsiderate dumbass. > || OT is a well understood and perfectly acceptable convention. > > || Some outraged people may feel that the Usenet was designed for them > || and theor rules but the rest of us just behave normally. > || > || If you don't want to read off-topic posts then ignore those that are > || mark "OT". There. It's not difficult is it? > | > | If you dont' want to post ON-topic, go where your post IS > | on-topic. It's not difficult is it? > > > | Actually, no. Where would it end? > | You suppose usenet for designed only for you and your rules? > | Clearly we could not have every topic that isn't on-topic, > | posted in all groups, else what's the point of separate > | groups? They'd all be overrun with OT posts and usenet is > | then useless. That is, unless you feel that only you > | personally and a select few "like you" should be posting OT > | while all others shouldn't?! > > How the HEXX can any topic be of topic in a general NG???? > > "Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in news:QM5Vd.543240$6l.286179@pd7tw2no: Show quoteHide quote > Again OT, but if the gent's is occupied, since when is it not OK to use the > "Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message > news:960CDA3FA529E71F3M4@130.133.1.4... >> > "Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message >> > news:960CCE7CF147871F3M4@130.133.1.4... >> >> This is off-topic. >> >> On Tue 01 Mar 2005 20:42:54, Noozer wrote: >> <news:it4Vd.540640$Xk.481840@pd7tw3no> >> > >> > Which is french for "the OP is an idiot" >> >> >> I think it is something like ... Some people are too dense to >> understand what OT means in the subject line that the poster has >> kindly repeated it in the first line for these people and even then >> some people like Noozer will still be too slow off the mark to >> realise that he does not have to read it and certainly he is not >> obliged to reply to it! :-) > > So it's OK to smoke in a non-smoking area as long as you announce that > you're going to smoke? > > It's OK for a man to go into the ladies room to take a leak as long as > he announces his intentions? ladies room to take a leek? Even without anouncing intentions? Are you american perhaps? Ikke
Show quote
Hide quote
"Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message Why X-No-Archive ? troll.?news:960CCE7CF147871F3M4@130.133.1.4... > This is off-topic. > > ------ > > There are plenty of timer utilities. > > But I am looking for a timer which counts only while the PC's > keyboard is in use. > > Then the timer might sound an alarm when it reaches a preset duration > of keyboard usage - such as 60 minutes. > > Can anyone help me locate such a utility? > On Tue 01 Mar 2005 20:51:43, recursor wrote:
Show quoteHide quote <news:qJadnXHXnphCSLnfRVn***@eclipse.net.uk> All my posts are XNA. It is effectively a perfectly legitimate > "Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message > news:960CCE7CF147871F3M4@130.133.1.4... >> This is off-topic. >> >> ------ >> >> There are plenty of timer utilities. >> >> But I am looking for a timer which counts only while the PC's >> keyboard is in use. >> >> Then the timer might sound an alarm when it reaches a preset >> duration of keyboard usage - such as 60 minutes. >> >> Can anyone help me locate such a utility? >> > Why X-No-Archive ? troll.? > request for search engines not to log me for longer than 7 days. Why waste your time asking?
Show quote
Hide quote
"Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message Time isn't in short supply round here, my point was that you *seem* from the the news:960CDA8E8CF7471F3M4@130.133.1.4... > On Tue 01 Mar 2005 20:51:43, recursor wrote: > <news:qJadnXHXnphCSLnfRVn***@eclipse.net.uk> > >> "Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message >> news:960CCE7CF147871F3M4@130.133.1.4... >>> This is off-topic. >>> >>> ------ >>> >>> There are plenty of timer utilities. >>> >>> But I am looking for a timer which counts only while the PC's >>> keyboard is in use. >>> >>> Then the timer might sound an alarm when it reaches a preset >>> duration of keyboard usage - such as 60 minutes. >>> >>> Can anyone help me locate such a utility? >>> >> Why X-No-Archive ? troll.? >> > > All my posts are XNA. It is effectively a perfectly legitimate > request for search engines not to log me for longer than 7 days. > > Why waste your time asking? > XNA and the post above to be more savvy than your silly original post suggests, so I thought maybe you were a smurf. If it was a real question I suggest you use your watch and your brain to achieve the end you wanted. On Tue 01 Mar 2005 22:11:51, recursor wrote:
<news:6PudnbfT0Yc6dbnfRVn***@eclipse.net.uk> Tried that! Doesn't work!> Time isn't in short supply round here, my point was that you > *seem* from the the XNA and the post above to be more savvy than > your silly original post suggests, so I thought maybe you were a > smurf. If it was a real question I suggest you use your watch > and your brain to achieve the end you wanted.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message
news:960FB86649D9E71F3M4@130.133.1.4... > On Tue 01 Mar 2005 22:11:51, recursor wrote: > <news:6PudnbfT0Yc6dbnfRVn***@eclipse.net.uk> > >> Time isn't in short supply round here, my point was that you >> *seem* from the the XNA and the post above to be more savvy than >> your silly original post suggests, so I thought maybe you were a >> smurf. If it was a real question I suggest you use your watch >> and your brain to achieve the end you wanted. > > Tried that! Doesn't work! > > LOL Franklin wrote:
> On Tue 01 Mar 2005 20:51:43, recursor wrote: <rant>>> "Franklin" <no_tha***@mail.com> wrote in message >> .... snip ... >>> >>> Can anyone help me locate such a utility? >>> >> Why X-No-Archive ? troll.? > > All my posts are XNA. It is effectively a perfectly legitimate > request for search engines not to log me for longer than 7 days. > > Why waste your time asking? It is also a signal, if I notice it, not to bother giving you any help. If you are so inconsiderate as to hide your articles from anyone wanting similar help in the future, and thus generally anti-social, I (and many others) have no interest in helping you. Which reminds me - I must request that Mozilla and Thunderbird be organized to expose such a hidden X-Noarchive flag. It just takes a little indicator. F'ups set, in a vain hope of quashing the lack of them in the original post. Another sign of anti-social behaviour by the OP. </rant> -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson On Wed 02 Mar 2005 03:03:06, CBFalconer wrote:
Show quoteHide quote <news:4224FF7A.A8477***@yahoo.com> Falconer, thanks for the rant. I do know what you mean. Thing is > <rant> > It is also a signal, if I notice it, not to bother giving you any > help. If you are so inconsiderate as to hide your articles from > anyone wanting similar help in the future, and thus generally > anti-social, I (and many others) have no interest in helping you. > > Which reminds me - I must request that Mozilla and Thunderbird be > organized to expose such a hidden X-Noarchive flag. It just takes > a little indicator. > > F'ups set, in a vain hope of quashing the lack of them in the > original post. Another sign of anti-social behaviour by the OP. > </rant> that not long ago I had a stalker who used my posts on the Usenet to satisfy his highly developed sense of coercion. It wasn't pretty. Now I XNA by default. It will offend some. Apologies if some are upset. "Franklin" wrote in message
> Can anyone help me locate such a utility? self discipline?-- No66y© Those who find they're touched by madness Sit down next to me Reply to address is a spam trap. Use no66y [at] breathe [dot] com Franklin wrote:
> There are plenty of timer utilities. This one-hour timer may equally be suitable as a reminder that one should> But I am looking for a timer which counts only while the PC's > keyboard is in use. Then the timer might sound an alarm when > it reaches a preset duration of keyboard usage - such as 60 minutes. leave the computer for a while, stretch one's legs and, perhaps, make a cup of tea to avoid getting deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism and, in the rare occasions, cardiac arrest. If there is no ready application software specifically for this timer function, you may consider writing your own, using a macro language programme. There are some free ones on the web. The algorithm is pretty straight forward (basically a timer to be started by a key stroke and finished with a machine turnoff), apart from the decision making part of the timer's deciding on the lapsed time (since the last key stroke) to be part of a continuous keyboard use or of unused, idle time. But when you really think about it, the solution is obvious. If you do decide to 'roll your own', please publish it here for the benefit of the community! <g> -- Lin Chung. [The Water Margins of Liang Shan Po were at the time of the Sung dynasty. Replace that with "ntlworld" for emails.] 
Other interesting topics
To buy tigerdirect or not to buy tigerdirect?
Find Out What Causes IRQ Conflict, Sticky Mouse, and Stuttering Video What to look for in a case? Pentium 4 or AMD Althon ? NTFS - external drive Is it OK to have an AGP graphics card AND a PCI one? What's the *most recommended* way to backup an image of a system? Netgear ME102 Wireless AP Trouble with PCI graphics card. Urgent: My MOBO is dead |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
