rapala

I think the system is pretty good. The only problem it has, that I know of, is the price. The user of the service has to pay for every single authentication. Couple of years ago the price was 14 cents per authentication. That was enough for a one government project to second guess their choice of authentication.

First, the users need to be authenticated, as in you are the person you claim to be authenticated. Almost no other web service actually needs to know that. Banks are an other exception and for example here in Finland they provide authentication for other private and government web services. Finland also has those secure chip ID cards the author briefly mentioned. The problem with those is that, at least here in Finland, nobody has them. And most of those who have one, don't own a reader needed to use the chip.

The second problem is about logging and archiving. Governments are subject to very strict laws and regulations about how certain cases need to be handled. The are processes to follow. Who did which step when has to be recorded. When the case is finally closed, every piece of paper about the case needs to be archived. Was something denied because a letter from the applicant did not have the necessary information? That letter needs to be archived. All this is manageable when the case is handled in paper.

If the case is handled using a web service, things get more complicated. The system has to log all actions done in the case. It has to archive documents in proper ways. That's not impossible. But it is harder than stamping and signing papers for those whose jobs have been about stamping and signing papers for years. It's also harder for those implementing the web service, as most of the strict regulations don't apply in other projects. All this means that big money needs to used for creating something that adds complexity and is not strictly necessary, and oh boy the government likes to skimp on those kind of projects.

My first argument was that the order of statements is part of the lexical representation of code, and thus should effect the lexical scoping.

The level of scope (global, block, ...) interact with the type of scoping in many ways, so I would not say that they are orthogonal. This example would behave very differently under dynamic and lexical scoping.

  function foo() {
    var i = 1;
    function bar() {
        var a = i;
        var i = 2;
        return a + i;
    }
    return bar;
  }
  foo()() // => ?

systemd has some cron-like features: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.time...

  struct tun_struct *tun = __tun_get(tfile);
  struct sock *sk = tun->sk;
  unsigned int mask = 0;
  
  if (!tun)
    return POLLERR;

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRA_law

The weakest link of security is always the human factor.

Because logging in was associated with Facebook, the log out got associated as well? As you said, context scramble. I think this was the point of the author; it's a bit too easy to mix up logging in and logging in with.

Also, would the people even know better? Who even knows what the director of the FBI really does, what is the concrete executive power that he or she wields?

A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with an origin server--usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 (Unauthorized) --

implying, imo, that no prior 401 response is needed. On the other hand, the spec also says

A client SHOULD assume that all paths at or deeper than the depth of the last symbolic element in the path field of the Request-URI also are within the protection space specified by the Basic realm value of the current challenge. A client MAY preemptively send the corresponding Authorization header with requests for resources in that space without receipt of another challenge from the server.

which would imply that at least one 401 response should be received before sending credentials.

Of course the most important part of the spec is this:

The Basic authentication scheme is not a secure method of user authentication, nor does it in any way protect the entity, which is transmitted in cleartext across the physical network used as the carrier.

  (print a; print b;)print c;

  print a; (print b; print c;)

In some other language one could implement this with a function returning a function and it would be about the same as declaring the fields in your example final:

  (defn publisher [repository clock]
    (fn [id]
      (publish repository id (now clock))))

"Collecting all the guns in the US won't be an easy task."

Definitely not, but I would think that to be something an oppressive government would try to do. In that case, the police might not ask nicely.

Um...yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_invasion_of_Denmark_(194... The number of privately owned guns had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Season not sold.

Watch something else.

Season not sold.

Play cards.

Season not sold.

It's not just about illegal downloading, it's about content providers not even trying to meet temporal demand.

By the way, I don't even have a TV. Liked your ad hominem though.

Legitimate content providers have failed in a game called free market. Last time I heard free market was quite popular in the USA.

Using someones password without permission is as illegal whether you shoulder surfed it, cracked it or red it from a post-it note.