Not unless you are part of the internet (eg. are an ISP).
The IP address that is commonly reported to web site logs is the IP address of the ISP's router you are connected to - not the one assigned to your box. The web site admin could probably request it if they wanted their logs to be blooming huge - but most don't.
Not true. An good deal of info goes with each request (more or less depending on your browser), including IP, referring page (if any) and browser name/version. However, many browsers will allow you to fake the last, as many brain-dead sites refuse to answer to anything except MSIE. In fact, if you let your Opera browser self identify, microsoft.com will add tabs at the beginning of the lines to make the display look like crap, allegedly because Opera requires this massaging. In fact, if you tell Opera to identify as MSIE, you get a perfectly readable page back.
For the simplest proof that your IP is passed, look at
formatting link
-- it reflects your IP back to you. Google for something like "browser parameters passed" and you'll find other sites which will reflect back all that your browser passes. There are perhaps twenty items.
Thanks for the detail - it's very interesting... but the statement I was responding to was "Every time you hit a web site, your IP address is recorded in their *logs*." (emphasis added).
I do realise that all kinds of information is passed to the browser for use if required, but unless the site uses scripting of some kind (including cookies) to record the data for their own use, it is *not* recorded in their web site logs by default. If they did, the logs would be enormous and contain large amounts of duplicate data.
Your squirming below, with its attendant equivocation and straw men fails to save the face that you undoubtedly lost by your assertion that e^(-jwt) decreases with increasing time.
Your attempt to misinterpret as below fails miserably, because the size, or magnitude, remains as unity. The angle changes, and at PI radians, the direction is negative, but the size remains as unity, as always.
Your rather silly squirming does show one interesting thing, and that is the true value of the M3/CB Fools' Licence. If all the lead instructors make such appalling gaffes as you have done, and then squirm and twist the truth as you continue to do below, then it raises serious questions as to the tuition that the M3/CB Fools' Licence candidate is receiving.
It is important that in any technical training that the truth be told. Perhaps it is no wonder that your protégés take so long to go through the mill to get to the RAE when otherwise-unqualified self-taught
14-year-olds have been tackling and then passing the RAE with facility for years. Being self-taught they will not have been misled by technical nonsense and diversionary tactics such as you employ below?
Did you yourself not hold one of these Fools' Licences? Perhaps this explains your inability to grasp the truth on technical matters and your tendency to twist the truth in order to save face? Hardly the sort of behaviour to engender confidence in those who are your pupils, is it, OM?
As to your comment below that, "If the angle is pi radians, it isn't rotating." are you speaking in support of my criticism of your behaviour and attitude or against it? Surely your joint degrees in electronics and mathematics will have taught you that a rotating thing will be instantaneously at specified angles? Unless of course your OU degree was only about Cookery?
I am sorry, OM, but the increasingly bizarre things that you have come out with recently, coupled with the gratuitous emotional remarks below, and considering your boast about your two degrees and your position as a lead instructor, lead me to be concerned that you may be losing your marbles. If so, then I won't discuss with you further. There is nothing to be gained by seeming to argue with those who are mentally ill. Perhaps you could let us all know on this point?
"Airy R. Bean, village idiot" made a fool of himself again in message news:brp3mp$5qh5l$ snipped-for-privacy@ID-217727.news.uni-berlin.de... < crap snipped >>
What is there to be gained by using sock puppet anagrams of his name then, retard? ...(_!_)...
It is less moronic than the boring, repetitive crap that you keep posting in response and which we all have to pay for. Shame on you for keeping up this paranoid obsession. Killfile the bugger and give us all a rest from your stupid responses. BTW I havent seen the naff words 'nugatory' and 'exemplar' in your posts recently. Interspersing your posts with useless words seems to be another of your paranoid obsessions. Do you think you will ever grow up?
results.aspx?ps=ba%3d(0..15)0........%26co%3d(0..15)6.3.200.2.5.10.1.3. %26pn%3d1%26rd%3d0%26&q =little+virgins+bbs&ck_sc=1&ck_af=1" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)"
So hostname a065163.dialin.hansenet.de went to the search engine search.msn.de looking for the "little virgins bbs"
query=what+i+want+is+virgins&location=uk&isinit=true&submit.x=33& submit.y=14""Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 8.0; Windows 98)"
The AOL user who was making use of cache-loh-ac05.proxy.aol.com on 23rd Oct at 19:43:06 went to aolsearch.aol.co.uk using as the search term "what i want is virgins"
If the IP address does not resolve to a hostname, then the dotted quad address is substituted instead !
DarkMatter wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
But computer data processing can very rapidly strip unwanted and duplicate data from the processed logs - funny, that is what computers are very good at :-)
Now exactly how do the spam harvesters get your addresses - lots of ways of course - but one way is from the logs of suspect web sites.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.