Like he explains, and the video clearly shows, when the rock flew past him both the plane and all of the other divers were below him. At the start of the video you can see the plane basically dive past all of the divers and descend below them. He points out where the other divers are, other than one person who enters his airspace about 4 seconds after the rock flies past. It wasn't on the plane, and it wasn't from another diver. They have had 2 years to think about those possibilities. I understand that being an amateur internet detective is fun, but at least watch the evidence.

No. I didn't say anything of the sort. I just guessed what the hypothetical outcome would be to the hypothetical situation you brought up. My guess was based on what actually happened to the racist parts of the US. They are in fact on the bottom of the list for poverty, education, and health, and their region is not known as an area where you go if you want to hire intelligent, highly skilled workers. Those people have left the area and gone to the areas where companies looking for those workers are based.

Do you notice how the situation we're actually dealing with is the exact opposite of the situation you're suggesting? What do you seriously think would happen if a homophobic group but pressure on a company to fire a homosexual employee? Here in 2014, in the age of instant communication, what do you think would actually happen? You've seen the stories about waiters or waitresses being stiffed on tips by people expression their disapproval of various lifestyle choices, and how the internet responds to that, correct?

This is the situation: something that should be obviously and objectively wrong (suppression of rights of tens of millions of people) is being condemned by a vocal group, and you are equating that to something that is not wrong being condemned by a vocal group. No one cares when loud idiots protest things that don't need to be protested. See the Westboro Baptist Church for proof. They had a picket yesterday, and another one today. You heard about those, right?

What's the difference? Boycotts are usually publicized.

My guess would be that the ex employee would move somewhere else and the community in question would end up at the bottom of the list for things like poverty, education, and health.

Isn't a boycott free speech?

I didn't hear anyone attempting to silence Eich. They were disagreeing with what he did and saying they didn't want to work for him, not outright telling him that he should stop expressing his opinion. He is absolutely free to express his opinion, and likewise people are free to react to his opinion.

Just to be clear, if Sergey Brin and Larry Page donated a few billion dollars each to North Korea or Bashar Al-Assad, you would oppose any sort of backlash against them for doing so, correct?

We know it's you, Wil.

That's not how the telco official described it. He seemed to say that they were treating Svalbard as a small version of mainland Norway, where they could try new things and get quick feedback to make sure they're doing it right. He claimed that Svalbard was 10 years ahead of mainland Norway. He also suggested that they were seeing substantially lower maintenance costs with fiber, and were looking into removing all of the phone lines and coax and just using fiber. He seemed to imply that all of this was in preparation for rollout across mainland Norway.

I'm sure the military benefits from the improved connectivity, but there are several benefits of treating the archipelago as a microcosm of the mainland. It sounds like he's trying to line up his company to implement this across Norway as efficiently as possible, military or not.

I'm not talking about carrying weight, I'm talking about what a person actually believes. Obama could have said and done the things he did even while believing the opposite, because he thought that's what people wanted to see and hear. In fact, doing so would fit perfectly into what I know about Obama's personality. Someone doesn't donate their own money to a political campaign because he thinks it's what people want to see, they do it because they believe in that campaign.

Considering that Prop 8 passed, I don't agree with that claim. Prop 8 eliminated the rights of homosexual couples to marry. That sounds rather anti-homosexual to me.

Please enlighten me on the reasons why a person who has no opinion of homosexuality would oppose rights for homosexuals, marriage in particular.

Using Javascript does not enrich Brendan Eich in any way, and boycotting it would have zero effect on him. It would accomplish nothing.

If gay marriages are not recognized in California, then what's to stop them from passing a law banning homosexual activity? Is one of those things ok, and one of them not? Isn't it the same thinking?

There's no point in analyzing what politicians claim to believe or support. They say what they think people want to hear. Obama did not go out and donate to campaigns seeking to restrict gay rights. He didn't help the matter much with his public stance, but there's a huge difference between a politician saying something, and someone donating. Only in the second case can you can be sure of the person's opinion.

There are some excellent treatments for schitzophrenia, but unfortunately none for psychopathy.