Why, somehow, do you think I didn't struggle, or that I enjoyed a life that was particularly well off?

When things go wrong, and you fall short of your goals, and unfortunately, we all experience failures then you take whatever it is that you *DO* have, and you do what you can with it.. That should *NEVER* mean giving up on what you love to do... it might mean you can't do it for a living right now... but that doesn't mean it's permanent, and one should not ever settle on striving for less than what they love, because while following your passion doesn't make you necessarily rich, it at has the best chance of not leaving you with any real regrets in your life. And being happy with how you've lived your life, especially as you grow older and reflect upon it, is something that no amount of money or material success can ever hope to compensate for.

My kids are all grown up now, and some are married with little ones of their own now... but this is the advice that I gave them. There's no promise of great wealth in it, certainly I am not overwhelmingly successful by most wordly standards, and unless you are very very very lucky, you will have to settle sometimes or maybe even a lot of times on doing jobs that you dislike just to survive, but you get only one chance at living... and by gosh, if you don't do everything in your own ability to try and make that life as happy as you possibly can, then there will always be some part of you that resents the compromises that you made to get to wherever it is that you are.

Do what you love.

Period.

*EVERYTHING* else is secondary to that. I won't sugar-coat it... society doesn't owe you any fortune or any success, but you *do* owe yourself the chance to be as happy as you can... and you will have nobody to blame but yourself if you don't do everything you can to achieve that end.

You're the second person who's responded to my comment without actually reading what I said. I'm honestly not sure why, because I tried to be very explicit about the point I was making.

Allow me to reiterate:

I'm offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, because even though he explicitly states that it is only in his own experience... he presents such anecdotal evidence as if it were a generalization of reality.

In other words, the political correctness or incorrectness of his statement is wholly irrellevant. What the real problem is that somebody that is supposedly a recognized scientist is trying to pass off anecdotal evidence as if it were a reflection of a universal truth. He draws what is actually an invalid conclusion because his sample data set is biased, and any scientist worthy to be called such would realize that.

It's perfectly fine to say that something your experiences have been a certain way... what is invalid is to assume that your own experiences are necessarily going to be true for everyone else, particularly when there's no shortage of people who are prepared to say that such experiences are not shared by everyone.

The things that he claims about happening in a lab with mixed genders only even have the smallest chance of happening if the people who were working in the lab are utterly incapable of conducting themselves maturely and professionally, and such behavior, while possibly not uncommon, should be viewed as the exception among professionals in any real-world industry, and not the rule.

My offense is not at the political incorrectness of his statements, it is at his gross abuse of his position as a recognized scientist to make what he appears to present as objective claims about reality, specifically that what are by his own admission his own personal experiences should somehow be a taken as a reflection of a universal scientific truth. It's called anecdotal evidence, and is not anything even remotely resembling a basis for making scientifically valid conclusions.

If you are offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, it says more about ridiculous you are, than he is. Political Correctness is a disease, not the cure for what ails us.

I'm offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, because even though he explicitly states that it is only in his own experience...

, "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

... he presents such anecdotal evidence as if it were a generalization of reality.

And this is somebody that the world sees as a scientist?

Our planet is doomed.

Facts exist... plenty of them, for that matter. For example, it is a fact that pigs do not possess the ability to fly, insomuch as flying is considered an act of volition that is considered distinct from being launched from a stationary position relative to the ground as a projectile, or else simply "falling".

... of vowing something when you aren't going to be held accountable for it?

In 85 years, I could all but guarantee that practically everyone will have forgotten that they ever "vowed" to do this, and in reality, this so-called promise is a just a whole lot of hot air.

While it's true that he might not have had any explicit permission to publish their source code on the web, I think an argument could be made that such permission was implicit.... since the company was already pushing the source code to every single person that used the serviice anyways (being javascript, and it needing to run in the client's web browser).... and it's not like he was publishing something that he was never entitled to access to, nor had any obligation to keep confidential.

That the name of a method may be an english verb does not change the fact that it is still a name and therefore a noun in that context.

Although designing the API requires creativity, what an API really amounts to when complete is a collection of factual statements of the form "such-and-such exists", which is a task that even a mindless computer can carry out.

Names are a subject for trademarks, not copyright.

Instead, they imitated Java so that it would be easier for programmers to adapt to.

Kind of like how as children when we are learning how to talk, we copy what we hear other people say so that they understand us.

Because only literary works and works with sentences having proper grammar can be copyrighted?

I didn't suggest that was the case... I only said it would take more than just reciting nouns. The nouns would actually need to be *USED* in some kind of creative fashion, and facts (such as saying that a particular noun exists, which is what the human-readable form of an API is) are not creative.

Except those words, because they are only *names*, are not collectively an expression of any kind of creative idea.. Alien languages such as what was presented in the ST:TNG episode "Darmok" notwithstanding, one generally needs to use far more than just nouns or proper nouns to produce a copyrightable creative work.

First, foremost, always and finally, API's are ultimately a collection of names. Names are not copyrightable entities.

The only way you can infringe on somebody's IP for copying a name of something is if that name was trademarked.... but trademark and copyright are two different things. Java may be trademarked, but that's not what Google copied... they copied the

NAMES

of the functions that are in Java. Unless Oracle can show they've trademarked the names that Google copied, I can't see how they can really win this one. There are also pretty strict rules on what is even allowed to be trademarked in the first place, and I would dare say that even *IF* Oracle tries to use that tactic, they would probably find that virtually none of the alleged infringements are actually trademarkable.