I'm curious why you seem to have a problem with them running rsync, while you don't seem to have the same (and more) problems with the FTP server.
Why do you think rsync would be a problem?
FTP obviously has its faults, but it is a known, standard way of sharing files with other companies. It's highly likely that a company pushing files to the BBC will send them via FTP, and vice versa (The BBC did a deal with Signiant to handle some external file transfers, but obviously sharing material with some companies will still need an open and common standard like FTP)
I'd be very surprised that any company that is happy to use rsync would be unable to use rsync over ssh. I'm unsure why you'd want to use rsync to transfer a couple of files either, rather than scp.
It's most likely that rsync is used in this case to keep multiple servers synced from a master, in which case blocking access at a firewall level should be happening.
The fewer services exposed to the public, the fewer lines of attack.
Yeah, perhaps some cyber criminal could have written and uploaded a decent script for it!
Day of the doctor - the November 50th special with tennant, was generally acknowledged to be great. As was the Paul McGann night of the doctor YouTube clip.
The Christmas regeneration episode - time of the doctor, was really confusing.
Well a children's bedtime story should have slapstick shouldn't it?
Yes, and it should not be treated like scripture either. Deviating from the letter of the plot when you film the book is not tantamount to heresy;-)
Yes, but surfing two dwarves heads looked more ridiculous than surfing a shield. It was bad as the Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and really pulled you out of the film.
People in the UK pay to see a made-for-TV Doctor Who movie in theaters.
People all over the world pay to see Movies in movie in theatres when they could torrent it and watch it on a crappy TV or a computer monitor.
It's about the quality of the experience, not penny pinching. This is especially the case if you are a big enough fan of Dr Who, Star War, Avatar, The Hobbit, Aliens, Predator.... etc. going to see the movie is actually worth it and watching it on TV, particularly the first time you watch it, is spoiling the experience. I watched the Dr Who movie in 3D and to me it was worth it even though I'm not a hardcore fan.
If it wasn't ruined by 3D I could see the argument, especially when you're watching with a lot of similar minded folks.
I went to see the Hobbit last week (2D, I'd have preferred a 2D HFR but that didn't seem to be available). After paying the £18 for two tickets, we were subjected to uncomfortable seating with about as much leg room as a real theatre, and someone actually yelling at the screen! The first 15 minutes were adverts, then another 15 minutes of trailers. And of course the "you are a criminal" statements and 1984 "report your neighbours" adverts.
Now our normal venue (Trafford Centre) does have comfortable seating, and I've never had someone yelling "watch out for the dragon" and laughing and muttering to themselves in a cinema before, but it didn't help the "cinema experience"
So the question is, what remains. Why would I want to watch a film at the cinema when we could instead watch it at home on the sofa with a glass of wine? Even shared experience films, like comedies, are let down by the number of screenings -- it's been 13 years since I last sat in a packed cinema.
It's the impatience that makes me go to the cinema. It's cheaper to buy (not rent) it on blueray than to go out, and the experience is better.
If you care about the news then the single best thing you can do to help quality journalism thrive is to go buy your local paper (yes, buy; not read for free on their website). Only by giving the journalists in your community a paycheck, some time, and a bit of trust, will you get quality journalism. Otherwise if you aren't paying for your news, you're getting the news that you pay for.
I'm far too lazy for that, I have a subscription. It arrives every morning about 6AM, and I can glance at it over breakfast and read the occasional story. I feel bad that it's so cheap though.
"That's the secret that Upworthy, BuzzFeed, MailOnline, Viral Nova, and their dozens of knockoffs have figured out: You don't need to write anymore—just write a good headline and point."
So, like Slashdot then?
People don't come to slashdot for news that much, we come for the insightful (and inciteful) comments.
If you believe the mumbo-Jumbo, then you know the Sabbath is Friday.
To assume otherwise is to assume that the Jews lost track at some point. Also it denies the history of the Holy Roman Empire redefining the Sabbath to un-jew it.
So how come Israel shuts down on Friday evening rather than 00:01 Friday morning?
im an atheist and I dont find the 10 commandments to be offensive, They are good rules to live by for the most part.
Really? Limiting people to one god is a good rule? Preventing people from worshiping bits of wood is good? Disallowing the term "god damn it" is good? Not working one day a week is good? You shouldn't think "hey Felicity Kendel has a nice bottom?"
Of the Ten Commandments, I see 2 that are acceptable to me - don't kill (that includes warmongering and death penalties), and dont steal.
80% of them are offensive. And I'm not even an atheist.
The pope is always unpopular with the evangelical right, for the same reason Romney was unpopular with the religious right. Remember that when Kennedy we running there was some question as to whether a Catholic could win at all.
I'm confused, I thought the pope was appointed by god and is infallible. How can Catholics not like him?
I have two children, both were born within 10 months of deciding to have them (apparently we are pretty potent). I would say that we, as parents, understand sex as a reproductive instrument pretty well.
That's why he said the word often, rather than always. You made a decision to have children. I did the same thing. Most of my peers were the same.
However a large number of children are unplanned. Not necessarily because the parents didn't know how to prevent conception, but that they didn't want to.
Any site claiming that the tories are bad and labour is the answer is of course allowed. Any site claiming that labour is bad and the tories are the answer is also allowed.
One needs the illusion of choice, and a healthy dose of I'm a celebrity, to keep the masses happy.
You aren't turning the filters on. If they were on, access to non-BT DNS servers would be filtered.
Right, but I thought these filters went on by default? The BT DNS servers were terrible, hence I changed from them. I was expecting them to be stealing UDP53 traffic, but they're not.
So I'm on BT, and like most people I've replaced the terrible "home hub" with a simple 4 router solution, 5G backbone to distribute wired around the house, single 2.4G AP for non-wired devices, OSPF to manage it all.
It's connected upstream to the VDSL via a pppoe (username bthomehub@btbroadband.com, no password), and the central DNS proxy uses either 4.2.2.2 or 8.8.8.8 upstream.
I've spent the morning scientifically browsing lots of porn sites, and haven't found a single one blocked. A google search for "porn" reveals the following sites on the first attempt, all work just fine.
Median household income in the US is somewhere around $52,000.
But median household income for a family with kids at an age to go to uni is higher, as 1) it's not skewed downwards by retirees 2) it's not skewed downwards by people on their first job 3) it's not skewed downwards by single-earner households
it's just a divide and conquer that the truely rich like to put out there.
I'm really sick of people who make more than 10 times as much as me whining about how they're not truly rich. $150K/yr is rich, even if it's not uber-rich.
I suggest you get a job. If you're on $7,500 a year, you're on $4.50 an hour based on a 35 hour week for 48 weeks a year.
$150k for a typical household is $75k each, which is not "rich" in comparision to the rest of the country, or western world. Obviously $7500 a year is rich compared to people in Burundi.
However that median is brought down by young kids who don't have children who go to university.
The typical wage earners in a family that send their kids to university will be arround the 45-55 mark (having had the kids around 25-35)
On top of that the typical parents of a kid at uni will live in a 2-wageearner households, where the median wage will be pulled down by 1 wage earner households.
The 30%. It could well be that 29.9% earn over $1 million, and I wouldn't struggle to believe that, but saying "30%" implies that 70% don't earn more than $150k, and that's where I find it hard to believe given the cost of going to Harvard, and indeed the type of home and schooling environment that allows kids to excel academically to get into Harvard.
backs my figure up, and earning twice what the average earn (pre-tax) doesn't make you rich, it's just a divide and conquer that the truely rich like to put out there.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious why you seem to have a problem with them running rsync, while you don't seem to have the same (and more) problems with the FTP server.
Why do you think rsync would be a problem?
FTP obviously has its faults, but it is a known, standard way of sharing files with other companies. It's highly likely that a company pushing files to the BBC will send them via FTP, and vice versa (The BBC did a deal with Signiant to handle some external file transfers, but obviously sharing material with some companies will still need an open and common standard like FTP)
I'd be very surprised that any company that is happy to use rsync would be unable to use rsync over ssh. I'm unsure why you'd want to use rsync to transfer a couple of files either, rather than scp.
It's most likely that rsync is used in this case to keep multiple servers synced from a master, in which case blocking access at a firewall level should be happening.
The fewer services exposed to the public, the fewer lines of attack.
Yeah, perhaps some cyber criminal could have written and uploaded a decent script for it!
Day of the doctor - the November 50th special with tennant, was generally acknowledged to be great. As was the Paul McGann night of the doctor YouTube clip.
The Christmas regeneration episode - time of the doctor, was really confusing.
If he'd sold early access to the Doctor Who Christmas special to Americans, he would've made a fortune.
He broke into an outside ftp server, presumably in a DMZ, that's used for transferring files to and from outside companies.
I'd love to know the details of the breakin, was it an exploit in the previous FTP software?
Currently it's running
220 ProFTPD 1.3.3g Server (ftp.bbc.co.uk) [212.58.252.93]
But has several more ports open to random people on the intarweb (rsync, really?)
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
80/tcp open http
443/tcp open https
444/tcp open snpp
873/tcp open rsync
Well a children's bedtime story should have slapstick shouldn't it?
Yes, and it should not be treated like scripture either. Deviating from the letter of the plot when you film the book is not tantamount to heresy ;-)
Yes, but surfing two dwarves heads looked more ridiculous than surfing a shield. It was bad as the Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and really pulled you out of the film.
People in the UK pay to see a made-for-TV Doctor Who movie in theaters.
People all over the world pay to see Movies in movie in theatres when they could torrent it and watch it on a crappy TV or a computer monitor.
It's about the quality of the experience, not penny pinching. This is especially the case if you are a big enough fan of Dr Who, Star War, Avatar, The Hobbit, Aliens, Predator.... etc. going to see the movie is actually worth it and watching it on TV, particularly the first time you watch it, is spoiling the experience. I watched the Dr Who movie in 3D and to me it was worth it even though I'm not a hardcore fan.
If it wasn't ruined by 3D I could see the argument, especially when you're watching with a lot of similar minded folks.
I went to see the Hobbit last week (2D, I'd have preferred a 2D HFR but that didn't seem to be available). After paying the £18 for two tickets, we were subjected to uncomfortable seating with about as much leg room as a real theatre, and someone actually yelling at the screen! The first 15 minutes were adverts, then another 15 minutes of trailers. And of course the "you are a criminal" statements and 1984 "report your neighbours" adverts.
Now our normal venue (Trafford Centre) does have comfortable seating, and I've never had someone yelling "watch out for the dragon" and laughing and muttering to themselves in a cinema before, but it didn't help the "cinema experience"
So the question is, what remains. Why would I want to watch a film at the cinema when we could instead watch it at home on the sofa with a glass of wine? Even shared experience films, like comedies, are let down by the number of screenings -- it's been 13 years since I last sat in a packed cinema.
It's the impatience that makes me go to the cinema. It's cheaper to buy (not rent) it on blueray than to go out, and the experience is better.
If you care about the news then the single best thing you can do to help quality journalism thrive is to go buy your local paper (yes, buy; not read for free on their website). Only by giving the journalists in your community a paycheck, some time, and a bit of trust, will you get quality journalism. Otherwise if you aren't paying for your news, you're getting the news that you pay for.
I'm far too lazy for that, I have a subscription. It arrives every morning about 6AM, and I can glance at it over breakfast and read the occasional story. I feel bad that it's so cheap though.
"That's the secret that Upworthy, BuzzFeed, MailOnline, Viral Nova, and their dozens of knockoffs have figured out: You don't need to write anymore—just write a good headline and point."
So, like Slashdot then?
People don't come to slashdot for news that much, we come for the insightful (and inciteful) comments.
So then don't you have some tea or Guinness to be drinking then.
(I kid, 'arse' is perfectly acceptable.)
Good idea, Tea is miraculous, very handy when there's zombies or you've been shot by an arrow
If you have to subsidize it, then it ain't culture; it's history.
Like the lord of the rings film? NZ$300 million in subsidies. Iron man 3 got $20m.
If you believe the mumbo-Jumbo, then you know the Sabbath is Friday.
To assume otherwise is to assume that the Jews lost track at some point. Also it denies the history of the Holy Roman Empire redefining the Sabbath to un-jew it.
So how come Israel shuts down on Friday evening rather than 00:01 Friday morning?
Do not make any idols.
Can we ban American Idol? Might be worth it...
Keep the sabbeth holy.
So eat bagels at the weekend?
im an atheist and I dont find the 10 commandments to be offensive, They are good rules to live by for the most part.
Really? Limiting people to one god is a good rule? Preventing people from worshiping bits of wood is good? Disallowing the term "god damn it" is good? Not working one day a week is good? You shouldn't think "hey Felicity Kendel has a nice bottom?"
Of the Ten Commandments, I see 2 that are acceptable to me - don't kill (that includes warmongering and death penalties), and dont steal.
80% of them are offensive. And I'm not even an atheist.
The pope is always unpopular with the evangelical right, for the same reason Romney was unpopular with the religious right. Remember that when Kennedy we running there was some question as to whether a Catholic could win at all.
I'm confused, I thought the pope was appointed by god and is infallible. How can Catholics not like him?
No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.
So are you saying adultery should be illegal? Or sodomy? Neither is, nor should it be.
As a parent, I resent this comment.
I have two children, both were born within 10 months of deciding to have them (apparently we are pretty potent). I would say that we, as parents, understand sex as a reproductive instrument pretty well.
That's why he said the word often, rather than always. You made a decision to have children. I did the same thing. Most of my peers were the same.
However a large number of children are unplanned. Not necessarily because the parents didn't know how to prevent conception, but that they didn't want to.
Since when is 6" x 4" x 4" a cube?
When you're travelling near the speed of light?
Care to expand?
Any site claiming that the tories are bad and labour is the answer is of course allowed.
Any site claiming that labour is bad and the tories are the answer is also allowed.
One needs the illusion of choice, and a healthy dose of I'm a celebrity, to keep the masses happy.
You aren't turning the filters on. If they were on, access to non-BT DNS servers would be filtered.
Right, but I thought these filters went on by default? The BT DNS servers were terrible, hence I changed from them. I was expecting them to be stealing UDP53 traffic, but they're not.
"but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested"
that's 4.76 websites it failed to block (?)
It blocked 5 out of 76 websites, which is 7.35294..%
This was then correctly rounded to 7%
So I'm on BT, and like most people I've replaced the terrible "home hub" with a simple 4 router solution, 5G backbone to distribute wired around the house, single 2.4G AP for non-wired devices, OSPF to manage it all.
It's connected upstream to the VDSL via a pppoe (username bthomehub@btbroadband.com, no password), and the central DNS proxy uses either 4.2.2.2 or 8.8.8.8 upstream.
I've spent the morning scientifically browsing lots of porn sites, and haven't found a single one blocked. A google search for "porn" reveals the following sites on the first attempt, all work just fine.
http://www.pornhub.com/
http://www.youporn.com/
http://www.redtube.com/
http://www.porn.com/
http://www.xnxx.com/
http://www.perfectgirls.net/
The search also brings up the following site
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Which is blocked as being morally unwelcome in my house.
What am I doing wrong?
Median household income in the US is somewhere around $52,000.
But median household income for a family with kids at an age to go to uni is higher, as
1) it's not skewed downwards by retirees
2) it's not skewed downwards by people on their first job
3) it's not skewed downwards by single-earner households
it's just a divide and conquer that the truely rich like to put out there.
I'm really sick of people who make more than 10 times as much as me whining about how they're not truly rich. $150K/yr is rich, even if it's not uber-rich.
I suggest you get a job. If you're on $7,500 a year, you're on $4.50 an hour based on a 35 hour week for 48 weeks a year.
$150k for a typical household is $75k each, which is not "rich" in comparision to the rest of the country, or western world. Obviously $7500 a year is rich compared to people in Burundi.
Close.. but not exactly.
Try a median of 51k.
However that median is brought down by young kids who don't have children who go to university.
The typical wage earners in a family that send their kids to university will be arround the 45-55 mark (having had the kids around 25-35)
On top of that the typical parents of a kid at uni will live in a 2-wageearner households, where the median wage will be pulled down by 1 wage earner households.
"I'm amazed it's that low."
The 30% or the 150k?
The 30%. It could well be that 29.9% earn over $1 million, and I wouldn't struggle to believe that, but saying "30%" implies that 70% don't earn more than $150k, and that's where I find it hard to believe given the cost of going to Harvard, and indeed the type of home and schooling environment that allows kids to excel academically to get into Harvard.
Close.. but not exactly.
Try a median of 51k.
However that median is brought down by young kids who don't have children who go to university.
The typical wage earners in a family that send their kids to university will be arround the 45-55 mark (having had the kids around 25-35)
http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Incomes-by-Age-Brackets.php
backs my figure up, and earning twice what the average earn (pre-tax) doesn't make you rich, it's just a divide and conquer that the truely rich like to put out there.
$150k a year for your household means you can afford a hosue about $400-450k, something like http://www.trulia.com/property/3029951135-8514-S-124th-St-Seattle-WA-98178, sure a nice house, but not rich by a long shot.