And in retrospect, they succeeded in proving there was one such group indeed: the Sad Puppies.

My comment was not about the cost structure of creating an ISP access. My comment was about comparing the cost of the access for its user and the income of that same user, and that this user's income was not necessarily related to the average 'local' income . Today, some trades just need an Internet access to be able to work for customers from anywhere in the world. One could live in Romania and work for, and be paid by the standards of, say, France.

Actually, when Gbps rates finally hit my area, it will be because my *older*, DSL, ISP will upgrade me to Gbps fiber at no cost (yes, that's their actual, proven, policy). And until *that* upgrade happens (word has it that it might take one or two years), my newer, fiber, (incumbant) ISP won't give me Gbps -- they don't even have it in their current customer plans.

You're assuming:

• 1. That your salary would necessarily equal the average salary times the same constant wherever you work. You should compare average salaries for your line of work, not general average salaries;
• 2. That living in a country necessarily means working within this country's job market. While this is generally true, at least for nerds to whom this site's news matter there are opportunities to live in one country and work outside this country's job market (although most probably within this country's job market revenue taxation system). Hey, that's one actual individual benefit of globalisation, although it will falter over time as regional job markets merge into a world job market (which I personally don't see coming for many decades anyway).

... one I have since Oct. 2002, and one I have since March 2015. Go figure.

None that its Wikipedia page knows of, and this page is the object of much updating right now, both from goodwill and less good will editors, so any reliable source about outside financing would certainly be mentioned right now.

Charlie is not hateful a single bit, they're simply very offensive, which is different; but one may be mistaken anout it when one happens to be on the receiving end of their offensiveness. Besides, they don't switch targets over (long periods of) time: they are equally offsensive to all targets, without a discernable bias except based on what the current news gave them as the week's targets (side note: the remaining staff held an editorial meeting on Friday for next wednesday's issue. In Liberation's report of the meeting was this gem: one of the Charlie staff said "so, let's make this issue. What do we put in it?" to which another one answered "Dunno... what's in the news right now?" -- typical Charlie humor, like it or not).

Wrong. Charlie Hebdo is one of the rare newspapers in France (another example is le Canard Enchaîné) with zero ads, and which survive only from their readership.

Your example is biaised: the media *did*, and still *do*, give Chirac and Sarkozy the same leeway as they gave Mitterrand. Think fictive employments (concerning Chirac) and more than dubious election campaign fundings (Sarkozy), both of which were and are still duly underexposed except in a minority of the press -- and that's only two examples among several.

I've lived in France for fifty year, I /am/ French, and here people 'left of Che Guevarra' are a tiny minority, in the general population as well as among journalists. So either you are mistaken in believing you live in France, or you are deluded about the France you are living in, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the truth to pass your opinion as fact.

Ok, parent comment was quite certainly intended as second degree, possibly bait even. Still, it raises a point.

From anyone else's viewpoint, you are [perceived as] all that you do. People perceive you through your code... and through your attitude about your code... and through your attitude about your attitude... and so on.

But that's how they perceive you, not necessarily how they evaluate you.

Now, it is quite understandable to be affected by others' opinion of your code, there's no question about this: that's your work, and people usually do something with the intent that it be well done, so criticism can of course be resented as it points at a failure, and we are taught that failure is bad (which is a mistaken approach IMO, and possibly the reason why many people mistake their own worth with the immediate, first degree, worth of what they do).

You should make the difference between a criticism of the result of one of your actions and a criticism of your own person (or even a criticism of the way you do things). Heck, if there was no difference, no one on Earth would love, or even like, anyone else, since that would require loving, or at least liking, absolutely everything (s)he does [of course, I am assuming here that most people on Earth actually do like, or even love, someone else; that could be a misperception on my part].

The difference is that you cannot undo an action of yours, but you can change the way you do things, thus affecting your future actions, and even your future reaction to things, including, yes, criticisms. In coderspeak, this could be expressed as "agile development of your own self". :)

Long point short: you are not what you code, you are a coder. Keep this difference in mind.

Well, if you RTFP, Linus is abusing the *compiler*'s behavior. At no point does he abuse the compiler authors.

Er... Indeed. But I don't think anyone here said this right was granted by a government. We do have separation of powers here too. :)

You mean everywhere in the U.S., right? Because otherwise, it would be a case of trying to apply the US law beyond the borders of the US, which, I think, is the exact mirror of a (rightful) criticism in another comment about the EU supposedly trying to reach beyon the EU borders [actually, the question was misunderstood by the commenter, but that's another point].

Or even what these rights are exactly. However, concerning your fear about restricting rights to those expressed: this is pretty much handled in article 4 of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen (the highest French law in terms of precedence), which (roughly translated) states that one's rights should only be limited when their exercise deprives someone else from their own rights, and that these limitations should be expressed in the law. IOW, our rights start unlimited, and law only limits them -- what is not prohibited is allowed.

Nor do these arrogants "USA and other countries" (merrily forgetting there is something else in the world than Europe and the USA plus its satellites) who think there is no second chance ever, and no right to ensure one's personal data are correct, and no rigth to privacy either -- to mention only some of the personal-data-related rights that are given to me by my own European country (note that, as some have said, other European countries may have these rights in a less formal way, as a result of case law) and that I can successfully use to deter French spammers while I still have to suffer US ones. :/

(amusingly, if you take one step back on this "those arrogant whatevers" ping-pong game, you'll get a pretty good case of some one (one region of the world)'s freedom (to define the Right Way) stopping where it harms someone else (nother region of the world)'s freedom (to do exactly likewise). Now, let's go read article 4 of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. See the irony? No? Too bad.)