It doesn't require any action by the owners. The US government (well, DOJ) contacts the registrar, and demands that they point the domain somewhere else. They don't touch the physical hardware (unless they're seizing that too) - the site is still operational, but cannot be accessed by its domain.
Now who's not reading the article? It intercepts all web traffic, not just browser traffic. That includes app-related network traffic, such as Google Maps, which TFA even pictured in a screenshot.
"This is exactly what Wajam is trying to do on iOS — first for Safari and Google Maps, later for Apple’s own maps in iOS 6 and all sorts of other third-party apps"
I don't know much about the subject, but that link doesn't really seem to back what you're saying. It doesn't mention anything about his stance on crime, or censorship, or anonymity. The closest I could find was: "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian,[6][7][8] due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies, Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator,[9] and was a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad." which doesn't seem to describe the anarchic utopia the GP was describing.
And there's no possible way Apple could ever limit or restrict what data it allowed you to enter as proxy settings. Nooooo, it's all "on the internet" and outside Apple's control.
It's amazing how just about every single poster is assuming this was an app.
Yes, such an amazing assumption given that that was specified in the title of the Slashdot story. Reading TFA, I can see it's wrong, but not it's not an unreasonable assumption.
Are you against people being able to install custom configuration profiles? I have used one myself to route traffic from my phone to a debugging HTTP proxy, very handy...
Me? Of course not. Then again, I'm not against people being able to install whatever apps they choose on their phone either. This does seem to run counter to Apples philosophy of "we own the phone, we just let you use it". I'll be interested to see how Apple reacts. I'm pretty sure they won't want a third party messing with the data for their built-in apps, but some popular apps seem to use the same mechanism.
After all, it was downloaded from Apple's walled garden. Isn't the entire raison d'etre for that that Apple's intense scrutiny of all apps presented means that users don't have to think when they're installing software? They can just assume it's all safe, and rely on Apple's checking to keep them secure. That's what Apple fans tell me anyway, when they relate how superior iTunes is to Google's service.
Sort of how you expect your post to be taken - you provide no cites or references, not even any details of the things their bias has prejudiced. Your making claims that you aren't substantiating, and are asking that they be taken on faith.
That's because the OP was nonsensical; it's a perfect example of an excluded middle. It's quite possible for something to be criticized for not having buttons/keys and for not having buttons/keys to be an obvious design.
In contrast you have Apples AppStore, it's a walled garden with all it's problems, but it also comes with a sandbox.
Sandboxing isn't an ability inherent in the "walled-garden" model of AppStores. For example, Android is an "unwalled" garden (you can install apps from any source), but still sandboxes them. You shouldn't have to be restricted to vendor-blessed apps just to get sandboxing.
Funny, until the "anti-American" bit, I could have sworn you were talking about the US government. Amend it to "anti-American people", and you still could be.
Nowhere did I ever say Android will be the Linux flavor people will install on their desktop. Comparing it to Windows 7 is comparing apples to orangutans. Read before replying.
I'm not American. I should be giving Australia back to the Aboriginals, and the British should be un-deporting me. That aside, history can have a valid impact on the attitudes of people. Are you saying that the Red Indians aren't allowed to feel anger towards the Americans for the actions of their ancestors? Because, after all, the people who did it are dead now.
Huckabee suggested charging Assange with treason, and Palin demanded he be hunted down like Osama Bin Laden.
Not being an American myself, I didn't realize that they were at the time they made their comments, ex-elected officials (although, at the time Palin was still considering running in the next Presidential election), so consider my previous post officially ammended to "ex-elected officials and politicians". Regardless of how nutjobby they both may be, they were both (at one time, anyway) elected by the American public, and in positions of power.
Given that our constitution requires that the person charged with treason be a U.S. citizen, it's a particularly unsuited-to-politics politician that's needed to suggest this. (Article III, section 3)
Your constitution also grants the right to a speedy trial (how long has Manning been awaiting trial for now?), the right to due process (Guantanamo Bay? Presidential kill lists?), and limited term copyright (lol). It's pretty safe to say it appears largely irrelevant to how your politicians actually conduct themselves. That said, yes, I'm pretty sure the legal system would have had a hard time pinning a treason charge on him (assuming he was given a trial, and not just summarily executed by presidential decree).
The Australian government considered treason charges against him, but since he's a citizen that's perfectly within their right.
That one I can speak more knowledgeably on, being an Australian. The Government asked the Federal Police to provide a list of crimes involving unauthorised disclosure of information, and treason was included on that list. There was never any actual consideration of invoking it, as the Federal Police themselves said that Assange hadn't violated any Australian law (source).
Well, he wasn't in custody then. Technically, if the US had issued an extradition request, he could have been extradited while they held him before his bail hearing. But there was no real reason to. As far as everyone else was concerned, things were progressing nicely. Arrest, bail hearing, extradition - it was only when he successfully sought asylum that a spanner was thrown into the works.
Uh, reality check: it wasn't illegal to publish all that confidential material, nor is Assange under US law, as he is neither resident in, nor a citizen of the US.
And you're a whiny douchebag who hasn't contributed a fraction of things Assange has towards freedom and the rights of citizens, smearing everyone you can while pretending to be superior.
So what you're saying is no, there are no guarantees that Sweden will not extradite him to the US if he's in their custody, and they cannot make that guarantee. Sounds like keeping away from Sweden is a wise move for Assange.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't require any action by the owners. The US government (well, DOJ) contacts the registrar, and demands that they point the domain somewhere else. They don't touch the physical hardware (unless they're seizing that too) - the site is still operational, but cannot be accessed by its domain.
ts;dr "Instead of assuming our systems will never ever fail, we will fall back to unregulated foreign services if they do"
Now who's not reading the article? It intercepts all web traffic, not just browser traffic. That includes app-related network traffic, such as Google Maps, which TFA even pictured in a screenshot.
"This is exactly what Wajam is trying to do on iOS — first for Safari and Google Maps, later for Apple’s own maps in iOS 6 and all sorts of other third-party apps"
I don't know much about the subject, but that link doesn't really seem to back what you're saying. It doesn't mention anything about his stance on crime, or censorship, or anonymity. The closest I could find was: "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian,[6][7][8] due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies, Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator,[9] and was a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad." which doesn't seem to describe the anarchic utopia the GP was describing.
Since US Law does not recognize nobility rights
Sure it does. It recognizes two classes of citizens: people and corporations, and different rules apply to each.
And there's no possible way Apple could ever limit or restrict what data it allowed you to enter as proxy settings. Nooooo, it's all "on the internet" and outside Apple's control.
And your proxy settings, are they on the internet too?
It's amazing how just about every single poster is assuming this was an app.
Yes, such an amazing assumption given that that was specified in the title of the Slashdot story. Reading TFA, I can see it's wrong, but not it's not an unreasonable assumption.
Are you against people being able to install custom configuration profiles? I have used one myself to route traffic from my phone to a debugging HTTP proxy, very handy...
Me? Of course not. Then again, I'm not against people being able to install whatever apps they choose on their phone either. This does seem to run counter to Apples philosophy of "we own the phone, we just let you use it". I'll be interested to see how Apple reacts. I'm pretty sure they won't want a third party messing with the data for their built-in apps, but some popular apps seem to use the same mechanism.
After all, it was downloaded from Apple's walled garden. Isn't the entire raison d'etre for that that Apple's intense scrutiny of all apps presented means that users don't have to think when they're installing software? They can just assume it's all safe, and rely on Apple's checking to keep them secure. That's what Apple fans tell me anyway, when they relate how superior iTunes is to Google's service.
they have been accepted pretty much uncritically.
Sort of how you expect your post to be taken - you provide no cites or references, not even any details of the things their bias has prejudiced. Your making claims that you aren't substantiating, and are asking that they be taken on faith.
That's because the OP was nonsensical; it's a perfect example of an excluded middle. It's quite possible for something to be criticized for not having buttons/keys and for not having buttons/keys to be an obvious design.
In contrast you have Apples AppStore, it's a walled garden with all it's problems, but it also comes with a sandbox.
Sandboxing isn't an ability inherent in the "walled-garden" model of AppStores. For example, Android is an "unwalled" garden (you can install apps from any source), but still sandboxes them. You shouldn't have to be restricted to vendor-blessed apps just to get sandboxing.
rather than nuances of user experience.
By which you mean a corporate logo.
Funny, until the "anti-American" bit, I could have sworn you were talking about the US government. Amend it to "anti-American people", and you still could be.
The broad, rectangular wall displays.
Little known fact - not only did Apple invent rounded rectangles, they invented the regular kind too
The airy, spartan layout and open floor plan
And open plan architecture
dedicated customer support desk
And customer service
A group demonstration area.
...demonstrations
Clean lines.
...cleanliness
Blue T-shirts for all store employees.
...and the colour blue.
Nowhere did I ever say Android will be the Linux flavor people will install on their desktop. Comparing it to Windows 7 is comparing apples to orangutans. Read before replying.
I'm not American. I should be giving Australia back to the Aboriginals, and the British should be un-deporting me. That aside, history can have a valid impact on the attitudes of people. Are you saying that the Red Indians aren't allowed to feel anger towards the Americans for the actions of their ancestors? Because, after all, the people who did it are dead now.
So any statement issued by an elected official means the government is in total agreement?
No, but its a good reason to be wary of that government.
first raising stuff that happened hundreds of years ago to no one in living memory
So history is irrelevant
then claiming some irrelevant current affairs come into it
As is the present. So what does that leave us with - the future?
and then claiming that not liking racism against your fellow countrymen is "nationalism"
Despite the fact that, broadly speaking, white Britons and white Americans are from the same racial stock.
it's US nationalism that causes them to believe that *all* countries are inherently inferior (which does at least explain US foreign policy).
Well, ok, one out of four I guess.
Huckabee suggested charging Assange with treason, and Palin demanded he be hunted down like Osama Bin Laden.
Not being an American myself, I didn't realize that they were at the time they made their comments, ex-elected officials (although, at the time Palin was still considering running in the next Presidential election), so consider my previous post officially ammended to "ex-elected officials and politicians". Regardless of how nutjobby they both may be, they were both (at one time, anyway) elected by the American public, and in positions of power.
Given that our constitution requires that the person charged with treason be a U.S. citizen, it's a particularly unsuited-to-politics politician that's needed to suggest this. (Article III, section 3)
Your constitution also grants the right to a speedy trial (how long has Manning been awaiting trial for now?), the right to due process (Guantanamo Bay? Presidential kill lists?), and limited term copyright (lol). It's pretty safe to say it appears largely irrelevant to how your politicians actually conduct themselves. That said, yes, I'm pretty sure the legal system would have had a hard time pinning a treason charge on him (assuming he was given a trial, and not just summarily executed by presidential decree).
The Australian government considered treason charges against him, but since he's a citizen that's perfectly within their right.
That one I can speak more knowledgeably on, being an Australian. The Government asked the Federal Police to provide a list of crimes involving unauthorised disclosure of information, and treason was included on that list. There was never any actual consideration of invoking it, as the Federal Police themselves said that Assange hadn't violated any Australian law (source).
Well, he wasn't in custody then. Technically, if the US had issued an extradition request, he could have been extradited while they held him before his bail hearing. But there was no real reason to. As far as everyone else was concerned, things were progressing nicely. Arrest, bail hearing, extradition - it was only when he successfully sought asylum that a spanner was thrown into the works.
*cough*
Uh, reality check: it wasn't illegal to publish all that confidential material, nor is Assange under US law, as he is neither resident in, nor a citizen of the US.
And you're a whiny douchebag who hasn't contributed a fraction of things Assange has towards freedom and the rights of citizens, smearing everyone you can while pretending to be superior.
So what you're saying is no, there are no guarantees that Sweden will not extradite him to the US if he's in their custody, and they cannot make that guarantee. Sounds like keeping away from Sweden is a wise move for Assange.