The tradition in my country is that a marriage is whatever the public servant according to the current law performs as marriage.

Churches and other religious affiliations are not allowed to perform marriages in general. They can perform a church wedding afterwards, but that's a private decision of the couple and has nothing to do with the legal marriage.

If your business is "open to the public", then you have to serve the public. Period. It's a matter of contract. You as a business make an offer to the public to serve them, and if someone accepts that offer, the contract is finalised. You can't reopen the negotiations afterwards by claiming that you don't like the person for whatever reason. That would be culpa in contrahendo.

If you don't want to serve some groups of people for whatever reasons, you aren't open to the public. And then you have to say that first, e.g. by calling you a club or a closed society.

I didn't mean to imply it was all learned... though I was actually refering more to what is considered "acceptable behavior" vs. what they are actually interested in. e.g., learning that flowers are okay to like as a girl but not as a boy, or that building stuff is a boy thing and not a girl thing.

That said, I agree that people are inherently and intrinsically different, not simply products of society/social pressures/whatever. But views of what is "normal" behavior for a girl or boy certainly is something that is significantly learned from surroundings/society, isn't it? And that can certainly serve to form or at least encourage development or non-development of interests. If I thought programming was something that "real boys" don't do, I might not have been so inclined to do it, even though I was inherently interested in it.

There are lots of different good responses to this ... based on what the relationship of the one responding is - parents, schools, peers, friends, society, government, etc. My response as a parent will be different than what I want society, friends, schools, or the government to do. e.g., I would like society to accept female engineers just as readily as male engineers, but not push my daughter to be an engineer or to somehow imply that to be an empowered woman, she HAS to do things that used to be considered "man stuff." However, as a parent, I want to encourage interests and let them explore and find out what they like, get them to try things they don't want to because of various reasons (fear, social pressures, advertising, whatever it is) but let them not continue if they don't like it, etc.

But pushing society towards equally accepting an engineer, a mother, a secretary, and an athlete as a "real woman" is important, I think. It seems similar to pushing society to accept a both blacks and whites as equally human. Yes, I can deal with that as a parent, but I think we should deal with it as a society, too.

Of course they have a phobia -- an irrational fear that that person will have some unwanted influence upon them.

Otherwise why would they care about the sexual orientation of someone else? As long as they don't actively look for a mating partner, the sexual orientation of everyone else is none of their business, the same that it's none of their business what type of wallpaper that person has in his bedroom.

Lets make it interesting ... how about an employer running a wedding photography business, who has an employee who suddenly finds religion but who knew at the time of his hiring what he was getting into when signing his contract.

Can that employer fire him with cause? Maybe, maybe not ... depends on how courts will interpret "but not limited to".

For civil servants though things are a lot more clear cut ... have fun with civil servants turning orthodox jew refusing to do a ton of shit and working with women and becoming even more useless than your average civil servant.

Actually, you can "extend" a C-style string just fine in C - just replace the NULL byte with another byte. It's a common error in C programs to miss the NULL byte.

This works because C doesn't do boundary checks and will gladly let you overwrite your stack or heap.

Unlike Java, C doesn't try to protect you from yourself.

I assumed each entire string could be read or written in one operation, that's why I used O(n). But that certainly may have been a faulty assumption, considering memory/disk paging and such things that I rarely deal with at my day job.

I stand corrected. And I assert that a professor of CS from Calgary or BC should know better than me, anyhow.

And this is why we should not teach CS101 in Java or Python. If they'd been forced to use C this whole experiment would have turned out differently. Even the professors are getting lazy, now.

1. Eyup.
2. They actually did flush.
3. Absolutely.

Specifically, the time measured to write to memory uses the following code:

  for (int i=0; i < numIter; i++) {
          concatString += addString;
  }

The time measured to write to disk uses the following code:

  for (int i=0; i < numIter; i++) {
          writer.write(addString);
  }
  writer.flush();
  writer.close();

In Java, strings are immutable. Each string concatenation produces a new string on the heap, and the old string is unchanged. So there are numIter strings created in memory, and I assume garbage collection will probably happen at some point once enough memory is used. O(n) reads and O(n) writes to the heap with O(n^2) memory usage plus an unknown number of garbage collections. This can cause considerable slowing of the in-memory algorithm.

That algorithm is then compared with one that does numIter writes to a buffer, which is then flushed to disk at the end. O(n) writes to memory buffer (no need to re-read memory) using O(n) memory space, followed by O(1) writes to disk and O(n) disk space used.

Granted, it's been over a decade since I took algorithms so I wouldn't doubt that someone can show how I am off, but this kind of thing should be simple to spot for anyone who has an undergrad CS degree.

PS - I love how the paper makes this aside as if it doesn't matter tremendously:

Um, what? Are you seriously suggesting that this entire mobile revolution/craze is all about 99-cent and freemium apps made by independent developers?

My experience is different; I only have a couple of apps that aren't made by huge companies. But mainly I use a phone because it is convenient. I have plenty of desktop and laptop screens at my house, but I don't have those in my pocket.

When your GUI doesn't come up correctly, what do you do? In Windows, it's reinstalling the whole OS, taking about one workday until most of the important patches are also installed, not withstanding reinstalling a lot of software. In UNIX, it's a few minutes of editing the config files, and then restarting the GUI. But how do you edit the config files? Be glad someone made a buggy whip!

I know the buggy whip maker is some nice metaphor, but some people don't think it through.

Most security systems have several layers of defense. To assess how much a break of one line influences the other lines you have to know what new attack vectors are open.

Lets say you have two systems A and B. System A has very important data, and it is important not only that the data is protected from access, it is also important that if it is accessed unauthorizedly, to know at least, if any data was sent to the outside. System B is less important and in a DMZ. If system B is compromised, you just power it off and reinstall it from a known good backup, but normally you don't do a thorough forensic analysis, you might not even have the right monitoring in place as there is no important data on system B (maybe it's just a web server serving static content like pictures for your corporate website, data that is known to the world anyway).

With this attack you can tunnel data from System A to the outside without the attacked being aware. Even if the victim does a thorough analysis of system A and all paths from and to system A known to the victim, it will be not aware of the actual data leak.

Granted... from a "real security" standpoint, this is probably amongst the most difficult situations to exploit effectively. Heat transfer isn't exactly broadband. I imagine you'd be doing well to get 1 bpm (bit per minute) communications. The exploit code would probably need to include a sophisticated AI just to figure out what is important enough to transmit.