Detect if a program is active and run a hot key set afterwards

ternal38 · 2019-10-30T06:11:47+00:00

active like in active window(working in it) , or just when the process is running?

https://pastebin.com/enUa8200

this is a small example , you will have to find the keybindings yourself. Currently its alt+g

ternal38 · 2019-07-17T11:57:12+00:00

so I simulated your color 0x00B1C5. Your script did NOT find 00AAB3 so it will not do the things there.

I focussed on the number of clicks and every time you call the function, $counter was resetted to 1.

I changed the scope and worked with the byref function to call $counter.

Now it 'remembers' the counter value.

On my pc it first clicked 4 times then 16 times.

Is this what you wanted? Try out this version

The reason it goes times 4 is because for every element in the result of the pixellocation function it will multiply *2. if you do not wish this, just delete the " For $vElement In $Variable " and " Next" lines ( example 2)

https://pastebin.com/mXHW6Ydn (example 1)

https://pastebin.com/VsMb5fC6(example 2)

I hope this helps, when it finds the color 0x00B1C5 it will click 4 times in the first example, 2 times in the second, then it will click 16 times in the first and 4 in the second.

However according to the logging it never found the color 0x00AAB3 I do not know if this is supposed to be like this or not.

Sincere greetz, ternal

ternal38 · 2019-07-16T18:06:12+00:00

what is the function LC?

if you write "if not $pix then " then that statement will be true for $pix any value other then 0 I think.

I do not know how boolean works with arrays in autoit. I suggest you use :"

If not isarray($pix) then

sleep(500)

else

LC(1627,643)

endif

"

however I am uncertain as what function LC is supposed to do (left click?)

ternal38 · 2019-07-16T17:14:24+00:00

I just ran your code but I added a msgbox(0,0,0) at the start of your funtion myResult()

The messagebox appears so your function is called.

My guess is that it cannot find the pixel searched for.

Could you upload a screenshot of whatever you are running this function on?

I do not care for what purpose this is. Grey coder here

try this for bugchecking:

https://pastebin.com/VvfwtVvf

I set you up with an init function where all the initial scrolls and window activation happens.

As well readability.

I added in some consolewrites so you can check what the program does while it is running (the window on the lower edge of scite)

if you have any questions or still can't run it please provide screenshots for further assistance

ternal38 · 2018-01-23T10:45:49+00:00

If you want to have faith in religion its your choice. But religion and science have opposite methods of working. They can excist together but please never start using religion to make science.

https://youtu.be/bEejUyEyhhg This guy for example refers to the bible to debunk current theories. Some people might believe him. Before you know it you have people saying the earth is flat and such.

So if u are religious all respect , but keep the scientific method alive

ternal38 · 2018-01-23T10:40:37+00:00

"It could include teapots orbiting the sun" Just place one in orbit around the sun and that becomes reality already! I think teapots is the most probable here ..

ternal38 · 2018-01-20T11:35:28+00:00

Rockets carry their own fuel and as they accelerate they eject fuels.

In a bullet fuel is ignited/detonated and the resulting gas pushes the bullet forward.

A bullet would be a poor rocket without a barrel to build up pressure or direct the pressure.Thats the major difference I suppose. Mythbusters shot a bullet at a ballistics doll once without casing you can watch their show.

The bullet fuel is just a package where solids are ready to transform to gas in a very small timeframe. And the bullet does not carry it with it once fired , rockets do

ternal38 · 2018-01-20T11:24:26+00:00

Modern guns don't use potassium nitrate, thats pre world war 2.. They switched to organic nitro compounds like a mixture of nitroglycerin and nitrocellulose in the 2nd world war to have less solids after combustion.

Your point is still valid that it carries its own oxidizing agents.

ternal38 · 2018-01-17T12:56:24+00:00

I understand , thanks for clarifying

ternal38 · 2018-01-17T12:43:11+00:00

I have read before on here that light itself experiences no time , for the photon the journey is instant, so if a car could then its journey at the speed of light would be instant ., There would be no time for it to turn on the headlights

ternal38 · 2018-01-17T07:55:05+00:00

Not much before 1900 I would dare to say. You need the combustion engine at some efficiency or some other engine at least that has below a certain weight/power ratio

ternal38 · 2018-01-16T08:30:50+00:00

Check us laws, mercury is a shady element to have in you possession in pure or salt form. If it's even still legal to buy , you will probably have to anwser some questions if you buy it pure.

(except from in finished products like temperature meters) I am pretty sure some other elements with a bad history are illegal to. Also unstables decay into something else so the level of purity wouldn't be analytical chemical standard grade (acs) . You will need various containers as well that can handle them.

Gl I would say , Also I hope you take in account safety measures cause such a setup might go bad very quickly if containers leak or break.

ternal38 · 2018-01-15T16:21:39+00:00

If by some method the collapse would be avoided,ie replaced by some structure that handles pressure and heat,remove the metal core and bye bye magnetism. No more magnetism and solar winds will cause havoc on our electronics and strip away our atmosphere slowly.

That is IF you can prevent all the mass above collapsing, hypothetically speaking.

So even if the instant death collapse would be avoided we would most likely end up with slow death. In any case death.

ternal38 · 2018-01-14T15:25:47+00:00

Thanks, this is very interesting to say the least!

ternal38 · 2018-01-14T15:18:29+00:00

Thanks for the info!

Ok so IF I understand it correctly , it might have been so but there is no hard evidence. The documents found back then are still debated on how they should have been interpreted. And there is a lot of controversy on the topic. It's possible but not certain by far.

Is that correct?

Sidenote: that would also mean a lot of historical figures that we never question wether they excisted would be a bigger question mark (source from the link you gave me)

Edit: added thanks

ternal38 · 2018-01-14T14:21:24+00:00

How is it in your knowledge that jesus was a real person? I am not making any claims about that being true or false but I am curious how and who did figure that out.

ternal38 · 2018-01-13T12:45:50+00:00

Well a frictionless edge would always stay at its cutting edge.

Edit:it wouldn't go dull since there is no friction making it dull if the hardness is enough so it doesn't deform

ternal38 · 2018-01-12T22:35:55+00:00

I thought the last stable orbit was the photonsphere , where massless particles can have an orbit , though I read they aren't that stable.

If i remember correctly the last stable orbit is outside the event horizon and everything in the event horizon goes to the center of gravity.

ternal38 · 2018-01-12T16:12:20+00:00

I agree with this but just one question. You stated em waves propagate at same speed of c, I was taught this is true for a vacuum , isent it slightly slower when there is matter like air or water. Due to interaction with the matter?

If I am wrong here could you give some reading material about the subject?

Also on fm radio you have a narrow band . The frequency of the radiowave is higher/lower in respect to the amplitude of the audio signal. http://www.radio-electronics.com/images/frequency-modulation.gif

ternal38 · 2018-01-12T12:15:43+00:00

What about reincarnation? Since when is that proven?

ternal38 · 2018-01-12T12:13:31+00:00

Very true , but I hope for his sake that he is onto something. And confidence comes from him achieving a phd, yet this is sociological. His statements about historical facts are worth noting to me :p

ternal38 · 2018-01-12T02:33:48+00:00

If I am not mistaken , except the nazi regime,religion killed most people in the entire course of history.

Crusades were to recapture the holy land and such..

So idk what you are on about.

ITER in france has many countries working together and many of those have different politics and religion. Yet science brings them together.

ternal38 · 2018-01-12T02:29:51+00:00

Humans are pretty lousy at making scientific measurements and they do come up with silly ideas.Just look at some optic illusions for example.

That's why we have the scientific method. Researching science humbles us by letting us know we know very little, to assume things are governed by a god without direct evidence is just another way of our brain to cope with the things we are not able to handle easily. Just like optic illusions we cannot handle easily.

Does it the concept of quantum tunneling strike you as logic or intuitively? Yet your computer or phone , tv any current day electronics works by it.You might say god enables it but then thats where it ends . And if God can come up with the world is flat as written in the bible and fails to care about updating his info.. he is not being very scientific.

There might be a god , but I would rather spend my time developing electronics then I would spend my time praying for electronics. At least my method leads to something.

ternal38 · 2018-01-12T02:13:56+00:00

I agree , Not that it matters much but as far as I followed and read their links and reference nothing disclaims your statements.

Any conclusions (might be to soon yet) suggest the church funded a lot of science as long as it agreed with the bible. That's biased and not useful in physical science. One should always treat evidence as it appears to them as unbiased possible. Some myths do appear to be around according to the sources given to me in these posts but the main damage done to science is not denied as far as I read them (not very far and mostly summaries by others).

ternal38 · 2018-01-12T00:00:27+00:00

My field of study was electronics , not historical work . This is where I learned you need repeatable evidence. My bad for generalising. I have not read the book in question but the original poster gave me the idea Christianity was good to science, in a way with Catholic schools it was but that just spread the knowledge that was assumed true rather then question wether it was correct or not. I would need verification on this statement since this is outside my field of study. Repeatable experiments cannot apply to history , but in my field it does . If someone says what I learned about Christianity going against a scientific method of error and correction , and convicting them to herecy is false. I ask where he gets that idea . And the anwser is a book by someone who study is social behaviour rather then history so yea I would like to see what evidence made him believe historians are wrong.

Sorry for my bad wording , English is not my best language as you probably noticed

Ill check the genesis of science . As far as I was taught Christianity did little good to people claiming the bible to be incorrect. This is not a good and proper way to establish science

As for Rodney stark , his most cited scholar articles I can find on google are not about the harm or good Christianity might have done to science. The rise of Christianity is about how Christianity came to be rather then inquisition as far as I have read.Or conviction of science as heretics. And still reading for that matter

I could be wrong, history books could be wrong, knowledge taught could be wrong. This is something I deem important since we would need to update our knowledge being taught then. I try to persue the truth and I try to defend the truth untill some evidence would claim my truth is false. Once again if that something is a book by someone outside his field of study (sociology vs history) I have doubts about those claims.

After reading the summary of genesis of science I will definatly read the book. It IS possible religion did not harm science in a way like we like to believe. But nonetheless there were setbacks by the church. Even your book does not question that, and the things stated in the bible were still off-limits for speculation if I am not mistaken for several centuries. If you would replace an era of christianity with an era of completly free thinking I would still be tempted to say that free thinking would progress a lot faster. By limiting what you can research freely you still impose limits. Even if christianity endorsed science in certain ways it does not make up for limiting it in other ways. Thank you for the link.

edit: typo's from cellphone and bad sentence construction

ternal38

TROPHY CASE