Quote Originally Posted by Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=139587#post13958 7]Also, Vyndree, Synergy could just as easily send absolute mouse positions rather than relative mouse positions. [/quote]

Could, but it isn't (or at least, not the way I first used it back when I first started 'boxing on a ghetto laptops&collegecomputers multiboxing "rig"). If you've tried it, you'll find that when "broadcasting mouse", your mouse will relative to its current position -- never in an exact location on your screen. To "sync" it back up again, you just drag the mouse back to a corner of your screen so all mice end up in the same corner...

At least, that's the only version I'm aware of it having. It's been a while, so for all I know it's been updated -- but that's the Synergy I remember.

I don't think your other comment was directed at me, but just in case it was I'll reiterate -- I don't have a problem (personally) with mouse MULTIPLEXING (that is, how you explained it -- you move the mouse, mouse moves the on all screens at the same time) -- I do have a problem with the precedent of clicking on a specific x,y coordinate PARTICULARLY if any decisions are made about that x,y coordinate (i.e. This window is half the size of the other, therefore the x,y coordinates should be half the size on the other window), not because that in and of itself is inherently wrong, but it opens the door for further decision making about x,y coordinates that might not have such innocent intentions. Again, my opinion doesn't mean that it's Blizzard's opinion, but I figured I'd respond in case you were indeed directing that comment at me as well. :P

In essence, I agree with this part of Reythur's comment:
[quote]While the [b]use of the mouse to click on point A on screen 1 and point A on screen 2 is a little less questionable [/b]than the preceding example, [b]it can still lead to some interesting and questionable uses[/b] of it.

I'd personally avoid it until the technology is 1) more well defined and [b]it's limitations established [/b]and 2) a better understanding of it's specific intended uses are understood fully. [/quote]

Dealing with relative movements is much safer than dealing with pinpoints. Relative movements require constant user intervention in order to move ANYWHERE. Pinpoints have the slippery slope, where the actual decision on where to move to and when to actually click once moving are more ambiguous.

[quote='Souca
The replicator has no knowledge of any software that the clicks are going to.
Neither does this:
Code:
/cast Fireball
DELAY 1.5 SECONDS
/cast Fireball
DELAY 1.5 SECONDS
/cast Fireball
But we all know that delays are considered automation by Blizzard rules. At the same time, delays have no knowledge of any software that the macros/delays are being sent to either. Delays are decisionmaking, and while the decisionmaking doesn't have ANY knowledge of what's going on in the software's memory, it's still making computational decisions (i.e. how long to wait, where to click on the x/y coordinates perhaps?) without DIRECT user intervention (pressing every 1.5 seconds and/or physically moving the mouse 250 pixels to the left on one screen and 500 pixels to the left on another screen).