There were over 30 people involved in that production, from designers to artists and programmers. No "new development tool" is going to change that in any meaningful way. How about endorphin development tool? Combine it with genetic algorithms, teach your bots the rules of baseball and leave them running for a week. Come back and import all that into the game.
The truth is that a lot of content in the games is still created completely from the scratch. GTA levels were created in 3D Max as one huge model. Most character models are too created in 3D Max as one huge model. The best you can hope for is that a game would dynamically add some objects (grenades, other equipment) to the model. Of course, with the emphasis on high-quality bumpmapped models the source art must have 1+ million polys and that takes time. But the alternative (a smart, a rational, a forward-thinking one) is to use an automated face generating tool (drag a bunch of sliders and you have a 99% realistic face in 3-30 minutes), add a customizable generic body, touch it up with some other existing tools, add cloth from another tool and you have a Hollywood quality model. Now import some movements/AI from endorphin and you are ready.
Some of these tools exist, but they are sometimes too crude and not used widely enough. Because of that R&D costs go up and profits go down. BTW, piracy is a constant factor and doesn't actually cause the decline in profits.
Like what....? Like pretty much everything. People are wired differently. Some of them can't enjoy learning stuff, creating stuff, thinking about stuff, or can't enjoy it to a sufficient degree. These people rely on outdated programs that they got from their animal ancestors. These people spend their time trying to get laid, eat more, get higher on the social ladder, etc.
I (like many other people here) have tried sex (with a beautiful and smart girl who liked me), and while I enjoyed it to an extent, it doesn't measure up to pleasures of doing something creative, reading something interesting, solving math problems or talking with smart people.
And if we are talking about raw addictiveness, sex doesn't even beat computer games. How much time can you spend enjoying sex? A few hours at most. A Civilization game, on the other hand......
I haven't read the article yet, but the comments by eye-of-the-beholder sound very familiar. Of course, every professional software user has his own very unique needs. Someone needs 16-bit per channel support, others need 24-bit per channel, yet others will never be happy without 32-bit or even 64-bit support. It is, however, impossible to write a program that would satisfy every potential user. Look at the previous version of Photoshop - it is clearly missing some necessary and trivial functionality - that was added in the last version. Does that sound like a reason to blame Adobe for not doing their job the last time? But it isn't.
The only realistic way to make a software used by everyone is either to utilise monopoly tactics or to spend years on incrementally improving it with every subsequent release. There are already thousands of people whose needs are perfectly met by Gimp. With time more features will be added, interface will be improved and more and more users will be converted (because their uniqie needs will be met).
Taking a stance like the critics often do is silly. It's like refusing to play Unreal Tournament until they add a clown player model. OK, they added that, but now I need a model of Kermit the frog.
I can attest that Japanese seriously don't give much shit about Christian symbols. It's just that Christian girls are another stereotype you can use in games - you have tomboy girls, childhood friends, smart chicks with glasses, older (20+) women, cute 15 y.o. girls, etc.:) I remember at least two hentai games I personally played that featured Christian girls (with very noticeable Christian symbols). One of them was even a nun that had sex with the main character in the church.:) And since I played the American version, apparently the publishers didn't see it fit to censor it (though they make sure that all girls are 18+, even if it means replacing "14 y.o." with "18 y.o." in the text without changing the pictures or the story:] ).
It doesn't hurt God, why should it bother And certainly not as much as the original crusifiction did. Seriously, you are absolutely right here. Stars, stripes and crosses are just geometric primitives. To believe that they have any value or meaning besides what we personally ascribe to them is foolish.
Just like words, geometric (and other) symbols can be useful in a limited context, such as in diplomacy, in military service, etc. Hence special rules for setting the flags on the table when you have negotiations, for respecting the flag of the military unit, etc.
But overall, let's not overstate the importance of these symbols, use them as symbols when we want to communicate our ideas to others, and let them be simple geometric shapes otherwise.
Could you explain me why space cooperation necessarily means that American missile defence will be rendered impotent? I thought there are different degrees of cooperation possible and it's not necessary to just give away to Chinese all plans and technical documents...
I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins or any other biology book that talks about "handicap theory" (sadly, Dawkins' book only touches on this subject).
Basically, there is some evidence that certain species evolved some traits that reduce their fitness, but are used to demonstrate to females that the individual is so strong otherwise that it managed to survive even with the handicap. Apparently, it worked for some species, even though it looks like it contradicts common sense. It is strangely similar to the diamond scam.
If we assume that the analogy is valid, then the solution is obvious. Just look at Britain (10-20 years ago) or Soviet Union (30-40 years ago). Even though the laws regarding gun ownership were pretty much the same as today, an armed criminal was almost unheard of. Policemen didn't have to carry/use guns, because the society structure itself made using guns practically unthinkable. We need the same with advanced nanotech - the society (global society now) should change in such a way as to make the idea of making black goo unfathomable to even the most wicked individual. Unforunately, western corporations, american politicians, muslim and christian fundamentalists don't make me too optimistic.
Especially since it's not true. It was a media blunder.
Re:Solutions From Statistics
on
Robocones
·
· Score: 1
Backing vehicles 51%: A vehicle can go either forward or backward, so there is a 50% chance of either. The additional 1% is insignificant. Incorrect. From experience, most of the time (i.e. significantly more than 50% of the time) vehicles move forward. Thus the 51% figure indicates a disproportionate danger of backing vehicles. They should therefore be only allowed to move forward.
I have an even better idea (and hereby I place it into the public domain). Make everyone who wants to file a patent application first find valid prior art examples for two patents in the queue (unless there are no patents in the queue, in which case, the person is exempt). Who is more qualified for this work than a patent lawyer?:)
If only there was an online database with filters, that would be easy to use, submit filters to, and vote on them (in case some are malicious). As it is, every Proxomitron user has to block everything himself.
It doesn't matter. You probably have something blocking the User-Agent string alltogether, a proxy, firewall or something.
I tried to access the site with Opera with the same setting (Identify as IE6.0). I was blocked. I asked AtGuard! to totally block the User-Agent string. It worked. Opera still leaves the word "Opera" in the User-Agent string even if you chose IE 6.0
They use Javascript to find out the size of the window and your resolution. If these differ by less than 90 pixels, they assume you run in fullscreen. Apparently the script has a few glitches.
You are just lucky. Not only you need to disable Javascript, but you also need to block User-Agent alltogether and you need Opera version that doesn't support CSS properly.
The content is hidden with display:none and is displayed using JavaScript. The server looks at User-Agent in the HTTP request and adds a redirect to pages served to Opera users.
Here are a few simple filters to enjoy the site using anything, including Opera. First one unhides the body (useful on the first page), second one unhides the content (on all other pages), third one explicitly blocks one of their ad blocks, fourth one removes the name "Opera" from the User-Agent string when Opera tries to spoof it as MSIE. To hide the ads themselves, please use your favourite ad-blocker.
[Patterns] Name = "Retards at EnvChem.com" Active = TRUE URL = "*environmentalchemistry.com*" Bounds = "<style*</style>" Limit = 1024 Match = "\1visibility:hidden\2" Replace = "\1visibility:visible\2"
[Patterns] Name = "Retards at EnvChem.com 4" Active = TRUE URL = "*environmentalchemistry.com*" Bounds = "<style*</style>" Limit = 1024 Match = "\1{display:none}\2" Replace = "\1{display:inline}\2"
[Patterns] Name = "Retards at EnvChem.com 2" Active = TRUE URL = "*environmentalchemistry.com*" Bounds = "<TD*</td>" Limit = 10000 Match = "*class="RightBottom"*"
[HTTP headers] In = FALSE Out = TRUE Key = "User-Agent: IEONLY (out) " Match = "*MSIE*Opera*" Replace = "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)"
Using a little extra traffic to upload the page to me is not too much of a price to pay for giving one more person a chance to read what you have written. It works both ways. I don't see most ads, because I block them. This represents such a tiny drain on their resources, that I don't understand why they decide to block ME. And I am not stealing, since I would not pay - I am too poor and I don't have a credit card - anyway.
Not exactly. If ads were simply not allowed on the Internet (punishable by painful death), the Internet would find the way. News will be published by newspapers to compliment their paper versions, by reuters (delayed by 30 minutes) to promote their paid service, by the state, since the informed population is the key to democracy, by public organisations. Or we could just go to BBC and read the news there (they don't have ads).
Search would be provided on university servers, by the same PhDs that now work for Google. There is plenty of software, some of which is not just free, but Free as well. What software would we miss? Ad-supported Flash games that were written with one purpose only - to show more ads. Thanks, I will pass.
There is no compelling reason for ads to stay. It's just that they are a plague, a cancer that slowly corrupts every surface, every place. They are willing to pay everyone to display images for them and people are weak. There is no reason ads should be allowed to exist. When I become the ruler of the Earth, ad execs will be among the first at the wall. Alternatively, when wearable computers are perfected, I will use mine to block any and all adverts in the meatspace and will happily forget about them.
I tried it in Opera. First time (AtGuard! and Proxomitron were also running) I didn't saw anything at all (just the background). Entering the User mode in Opera showed my the page with less formatting, but with the content intact (and some of the ads too).
Then I disabled filtering in both AtGuard! and Proxomitron and reloaded the page. This time they showed me the following message. One may argue that ads support the site and blah-blah-blah, but this is just retarded. I don't give a shit about hazardous materials information, but even if I did, this site doesn't exist for me at all. I won't even care to try writing a Proxomitron filter or just looking at the HTML code to understand how this works - this is retarded beyond belief and it even tops everything the Real retards have managed to bring us (or may be I will, I am too curious to pass the challenge).
In fact, after examining the code, they were very polite to leave the content intact for Opera. They just added an automatic redirect to a page with the following message (which was blocked the first time by an existing proxomitron script), but hided the page with visibility:hidden for BODY. I don't know how they detect the browser (I am not sure that's the User-Agent string), but frankly I don't care that much.
The message from the retards at environmentalchemistry.com:
Opera 7.5 Detected
You have been brought to this page because you are using Opera 7.5. Unregistered Opera 7.5 typically makes use of Google AdSense ads that are targeted based on the content of the webpage, this is an unauthorized use of our copyrighted material.
While a good faith effort is made to only target unregistered copies of Opera, due to the limitations of the detection routine, there are frequently false positives.
If your copy of Opera is registered, please maximize Opera, and turn off Opera's personal and navigational bars or go into full screen mode [F11]. This should allow you past the Opera redirect script and you should be able to access this site without further interuptions. Opera may also be causing a false positive if your page bar is set to wrap. Why we block Opera
Web Publishers like us provide content. Companies like Opera Software deliver that content. Each has to find a way to make a living. There are many publishers and there are many content delivery companies (e.g. web browsers). In this case, Opera Software has decided that if they are to deliver our content, they are going to use our content to target their ads. We feel that this represents an unauthorized use of our intellectual property and a violation of our copyrights. This also represents a business arrangement that we do not want to be a part of.
Until which point in time Opera gives us a foolproof method to prevent the displaying of content targeted ads in the toolbar of Opera, we will use whatever measures we deem appropriate to make sure that Opera is unable to access our content whenever there is a potential it is displaying its ads.
Our Opera blocking routine cannot perfectly detect when Opera is displaying ads or not. At least, however, it provides a mechanism for Opera users to still be able to access our content under specific conditions (e.g. in full screen mode [F11]). The alternative available to us is to block all Opera users if we are to protect our content from unauthorized uses.
As some Opera users have ineloquently pointed out, you may disagree with our stance. We understand you may be offended and also recognize that there are other websites that provide some of the resources we provide on this site. We will not, however, change our policy in regards to the Opera web browser until Opera Software changes their stance in regards to their use of Google rads.
If you have any questions or concerns about this issue, please contact Opera Software.
you're not really going to ever solve this problem permanently Not exactly. You can write a filtering proxy (can be a plugin/addon for Mozilla) with online access to a database of filters that can be updated in real-time. So once a new ad format enters the Internet, some of the registered antiad power users will see it, write a filter, it will be automatically tested and distributed among the users.
Are you influenced by commercials on the TV? Of course you are. Yes, I am. I am not going to buy something promoted by an annoying ad (or just extensively promoted by non-annoying ads).
If you could choose, would you choose to have the commercials disabled? Of course you would. Yes, I would. But I found out that a mute button works just fine (I don't sit in front of the TV in the kitchen) and the "on/off" button works even better.
With this reasoning advertisers can safely assume that even annoying ads pay off. Yes, they can, but fortunately not because of me. An ad caught my attention in the subway today - Duracell offers a T-shirt for buying 3 packs of batteries and a chance to win a home theatre for 5 packs. I bought two packs today (before seeing the ad), I guess the next ones will be Energizer or some noname ones.
I'm not sure if you have children or not. But if you did, would it be moral of you to turn down a marketing job in a tough economy? Yes. In fact, if you consider annoying people to make money deserving, I don't think you should be allowed to have children.
But the technology was not developed by webmasters, it was dreamed up by evil marketing execs and implemented by evil software engineers. Now that the marketing execs have the technology they only need to persuade the webmasters. Some of them, like those at Yahoo!, don't care about the comfort of their users, because they do provide a useful service (so users agree to be harrassed). Some are just plain retarded, like one graphic artist, who thought it would be a good idea to downsize the images of his works, add his initials in large translucent font (as large as the image) and post the images online. So you will see some place that would use such technology. I don't care much personally, because I block ads using URL-filtering and can also use Proxomitron to filter the HTML itself. What I am more worried about is the proliferation of ads in the meatspace. The only solution seems to be wearable computers with enhanced-reality displays. Steve Mann (if I am not mistaken) apparently already has the technology to block ads in the real world. There are videoclips with ads being replaced by personal reminders (like "you have new messages").
If that is not a "troll" I do not know what is. What if they do come back with pictures, does that automatically make them liars? I guess... We have a guy in Russia (presumably he is a qualified ophthalmologist), who visited Tibet and brought pictures from the caves, where Atlants lie in somati sleep for millions of years. The findings were presented as fact in the largest national newspaper (which happens to be a yellow pulp shit). Before he showed the pictures he could have been considered a crazy retarded nut. By showing them he proved without doubt that he is an immoral liar.
Christians have been discredited often enough that we have reasons to believe Noah's Ark did not really exist and in any case it is not sitting on Ararat. Christians also have a long history of lying. Witness how Russian Orthodox church officially claims that the annual fire in Jerusalem on some religious holiday is miraculous. So if a christian shows some proof of some miracle (or a religious artefact), Mr. Occam tells that the evidence was likely doctored (or just plain fake).
And don't forget the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". Which accidentally would explain why a lot of christians would immediately believe everything he claims he finds.
Slashdot Mirror
There were over 30 people involved in that production, from designers to artists and programmers. No "new development tool" is going to change that in any meaningful way.
How about endorphin development tool? Combine it with genetic algorithms, teach your bots the rules of baseball and leave them running for a week. Come back and import all that into the game.
The truth is that a lot of content in the games is still created completely from the scratch. GTA levels were created in 3D Max as one huge model. Most character models are too created in 3D Max as one huge model. The best you can hope for is that a game would dynamically add some objects (grenades, other equipment) to the model. Of course, with the emphasis on high-quality bumpmapped models the source art must have 1+ million polys and that takes time. But the alternative (a smart, a rational, a forward-thinking one) is to use an automated face generating tool (drag a bunch of sliders and you have a 99% realistic face in 3-30 minutes), add a customizable generic body, touch it up with some other existing tools, add cloth from another tool and you have a Hollywood quality model. Now import some movements/AI from endorphin and you are ready.
Some of these tools exist, but they are sometimes too crude and not used widely enough. Because of that R&D costs go up and profits go down. BTW, piracy is a constant factor and doesn't actually cause the decline in profits.
Like what....?
Like pretty much everything. People are wired differently. Some of them can't enjoy learning stuff, creating stuff, thinking about stuff, or can't enjoy it to a sufficient degree. These people rely on outdated programs that they got from their animal ancestors. These people spend their time trying to get laid, eat more, get higher on the social ladder, etc.
I (like many other people here) have tried sex (with a beautiful and smart girl who liked me), and while I enjoyed it to an extent, it doesn't measure up to pleasures of doing something creative, reading something interesting, solving math problems or talking with smart people.
And if we are talking about raw addictiveness, sex doesn't even beat computer games. How much time can you spend enjoying sex? A few hours at most. A Civilization game, on the other hand......
I haven't read the article yet, but the comments by eye-of-the-beholder sound very familiar. Of course, every professional software user has his own very unique needs. Someone needs 16-bit per channel support, others need 24-bit per channel, yet others will never be happy without 32-bit or even 64-bit support. It is, however, impossible to write a program that would satisfy every potential user. Look at the previous version of Photoshop - it is clearly missing some necessary and trivial functionality - that was added in the last version. Does that sound like a reason to blame Adobe for not doing their job the last time? But it isn't.
The only realistic way to make a software used by everyone is either to utilise monopoly tactics or to spend years on incrementally improving it with every subsequent release. There are already thousands of people whose needs are perfectly met by Gimp. With time more features will be added, interface will be improved and more and more users will be converted (because their uniqie needs will be met).
Taking a stance like the critics often do is silly. It's like refusing to play Unreal Tournament until they add a clown player model. OK, they added that, but now I need a model of Kermit the frog.
I can attest that Japanese seriously don't give much shit about Christian symbols. It's just that Christian girls are another stereotype you can use in games - you have tomboy girls, childhood friends, smart chicks with glasses, older (20+) women, cute 15 y.o. girls, etc. :) I remember at least two hentai games I personally played that featured Christian girls (with very noticeable Christian symbols). One of them was even a nun that had sex with the main character in the church. :) And since I played the American version, apparently the publishers didn't see it fit to censor it (though they make sure that all girls are 18+, even if it means replacing "14 y.o." with "18 y.o." in the text without changing the pictures or the story :] ).
Just my two yen.
It doesn't hurt God, why should it bother
And certainly not as much as the original crusifiction did. Seriously, you are absolutely right here. Stars, stripes and crosses are just geometric primitives. To believe that they have any value or meaning besides what we personally ascribe to them is foolish.
Just like words, geometric (and other) symbols can be useful in a limited context, such as in diplomacy, in military service, etc. Hence special rules for setting the flags on the table when you have negotiations, for respecting the flag of the military unit, etc.
But overall, let's not overstate the importance of these symbols, use them as symbols when we want to communicate our ideas to others, and let them be simple geometric shapes otherwise.
Could you explain me why space cooperation necessarily means that American missile defence will be rendered impotent? I thought there are different degrees of cooperation possible and it's not necessary to just give away to Chinese all plans and technical documents...
I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins or any other biology book that talks about "handicap theory" (sadly, Dawkins' book only touches on this subject).
Basically, there is some evidence that certain species evolved some traits that reduce their fitness, but are used to demonstrate to females that the individual is so strong otherwise that it managed to survive even with the handicap. Apparently, it worked for some species, even though it looks like it contradicts common sense. It is strangely similar to the diamond scam.
If we assume that the analogy is valid, then the solution is obvious. Just look at Britain (10-20 years ago) or Soviet Union (30-40 years ago). Even though the laws regarding gun ownership were pretty much the same as today, an armed criminal was almost unheard of. Policemen didn't have to carry/use guns, because the society structure itself made using guns practically unthinkable. We need the same with advanced nanotech - the society (global society now) should change in such a way as to make the idea of making black goo unfathomable to even the most wicked individual. Unforunately, western corporations, american politicians, muslim and christian fundamentalists don't make me too optimistic.
Especially since it's not true. It was a media blunder.
Backing vehicles 51%: A vehicle can go either forward or backward, so there is a 50% chance of either. The additional 1% is insignificant.
Incorrect. From experience, most of the time (i.e. significantly more than 50% of the time) vehicles move forward. Thus the 51% figure indicates a disproportionate danger of backing vehicles. They should therefore be only allowed to move forward.
I have an even better idea (and hereby I place it into the public domain). Make everyone who wants to file a patent application first find valid prior art examples for two patents in the queue (unless there are no patents in the queue, in which case, the person is exempt). Who is more qualified for this work than a patent lawyer? :)
Am I not evil?
If only there was an online database with filters, that would be easy to use, submit filters to, and vote on them (in case some are malicious). As it is, every Proxomitron user has to block everything himself.
It doesn't matter. You probably have something blocking the User-Agent string alltogether, a proxy, firewall or something.
I tried to access the site with Opera with the same setting (Identify as IE6.0). I was blocked. I asked AtGuard! to totally block the User-Agent string. It worked. Opera still leaves the word "Opera" in the User-Agent string even if you chose IE 6.0
They use Javascript to find out the size of the window and your resolution. If these differ by less than 90 pixels, they assume you run in fullscreen. Apparently the script has a few glitches.
You are just lucky. Not only you need to disable Javascript, but you also need to block User-Agent alltogether and you need Opera version that doesn't support CSS properly.
The content is hidden with display:none and is displayed using JavaScript. The server looks at User-Agent in the HTTP request and adds a redirect to pages served to Opera users.
Here are a few simple filters to enjoy the site using anything, including Opera. First one unhides the body (useful on the first page), second one unhides the content (on all other pages), third one explicitly blocks one of their ad blocks, fourth one removes the name "Opera" from the User-Agent string when Opera tries to spoof it as MSIE. To hide the ads themselves, please use your favourite ad-blocker.
[Patterns]
Name = "Retards at EnvChem.com"
Active = TRUE
URL = "*environmentalchemistry.com*"
Bounds = "<style*</style>"
Limit = 1024
Match = "\1visibility:hidden\2"
Replace = "\1visibility:visible\2"
[Patterns]
Name = "Retards at EnvChem.com 4"
Active = TRUE
URL = "*environmentalchemistry.com*"
Bounds = "<style*</style>"
Limit = 1024
Match = "\1{display:none}\2"
Replace = "\1{display:inline}\2"
[Patterns]
Name = "Retards at EnvChem.com 2"
Active = TRUE
URL = "*environmentalchemistry.com*"
Bounds = "<TD*</td>"
Limit = 10000
Match = "*class="RightBottom"*"
[HTTP headers]
In = FALSE
Out = TRUE
Key = "User-Agent: IEONLY (out) "
Match = "*MSIE*Opera*"
Replace = "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)"
Using a little extra traffic to upload the page to me is not too much of a price to pay for giving one more person a chance to read what you have written. It works both ways. I don't see most ads, because I block them. This represents such a tiny drain on their resources, that I don't understand why they decide to block ME. And I am not stealing, since I would not pay - I am too poor and I don't have a credit card - anyway.
Not exactly. If ads were simply not allowed on the Internet (punishable by painful death), the Internet would find the way. News will be published by newspapers to compliment their paper versions, by reuters (delayed by 30 minutes) to promote their paid service, by the state, since the informed population is the key to democracy, by public organisations. Or we could just go to BBC and read the news there (they don't have ads).
Search would be provided on university servers, by the same PhDs that now work for Google. There is plenty of software, some of which is not just free, but Free as well. What software would we miss? Ad-supported Flash games that were written with one purpose only - to show more ads. Thanks, I will pass.
There is no compelling reason for ads to stay. It's just that they are a plague, a cancer that slowly corrupts every surface, every place. They are willing to pay everyone to display images for them and people are weak. There is no reason ads should be allowed to exist. When I become the ruler of the Earth, ad execs will be among the first at the wall. Alternatively, when wearable computers are perfected, I will use mine to block any and all adverts in the meatspace and will happily forget about them.
I tried it in Opera. First time (AtGuard! and Proxomitron were also running) I didn't saw anything at all (just the background). Entering the User mode in Opera showed my the page with less formatting, but with the content intact (and some of the ads too).
Then I disabled filtering in both AtGuard! and Proxomitron and reloaded the page. This time they showed me the following message. One may argue that ads support the site and blah-blah-blah, but this is just retarded. I don't give a shit about hazardous materials information, but even if I did, this site doesn't exist for me at all. I won't even care to try writing a Proxomitron filter or just looking at the HTML code to understand how this works - this is retarded beyond belief and it even tops everything the Real retards have managed to bring us (or may be I will, I am too curious to pass the challenge).
In fact, after examining the code, they were very polite to leave the content intact for Opera. They just added an automatic redirect to a page with the following message (which was blocked the first time by an existing proxomitron script), but hided the page with visibility:hidden for BODY. I don't know how they detect the browser (I am not sure that's the User-Agent string), but frankly I don't care that much.
The message from the retards at environmentalchemistry.com:
Opera 7.5 Detected
You have been brought to this page because you are using Opera 7.5. Unregistered Opera 7.5 typically makes use of Google AdSense ads that are targeted based on the content of the webpage, this is an unauthorized use of our copyrighted material.
While a good faith effort is made to only target unregistered copies of Opera, due to the limitations of the detection routine, there are frequently false positives.
If your copy of Opera is registered, please maximize Opera, and turn off Opera's personal and navigational bars or go into full screen mode [F11]. This should allow you past the Opera redirect script and you should be able to access this site without further interuptions. Opera may also be causing a false positive if your page bar is set to wrap.
Why we block Opera
Web Publishers like us provide content. Companies like Opera Software deliver that content. Each has to find a way to make a living. There are many publishers and there are many content delivery companies (e.g. web browsers). In this case, Opera Software has decided that if they are to deliver our content, they are going to use our content to target their ads. We feel that this represents an unauthorized use of our intellectual property and a violation of our copyrights. This also represents a business arrangement that we do not want to be a part of.
Until which point in time Opera gives us a foolproof method to prevent the displaying of content targeted ads in the toolbar of Opera, we will use whatever measures we deem appropriate to make sure that Opera is unable to access our content whenever there is a potential it is displaying its ads.
Our Opera blocking routine cannot perfectly detect when Opera is displaying ads or not. At least, however, it provides a mechanism for Opera users to still be able to access our content under specific conditions (e.g. in full screen mode [F11]). The alternative available to us is to block all Opera users if we are to protect our content from unauthorized uses.
As some Opera users have ineloquently pointed out, you may disagree with our stance. We understand you may be offended and also recognize that there are other websites that provide some of the resources we provide on this site. We will not, however, change our policy in regards to the Opera web browser until Opera Software changes their stance in regards to their use of Google rads.
If you have any questions or concerns about this issue, please contact Opera Software.
Why should I care about weater underground? It's not where I spend most of my time.
you're not really going to ever solve this problem permanently
Not exactly. You can write a filtering proxy (can be a plugin/addon for Mozilla) with online access to a database of filters that can be updated in real-time. So once a new ad format enters the Internet, some of the registered antiad power users will see it, write a filter, it will be automatically tested and distributed among the users.
Are you influenced by commercials on the TV? Of course you are.
Yes, I am. I am not going to buy something promoted by an annoying ad (or just extensively promoted by non-annoying ads).
If you could choose, would you choose to have the commercials disabled? Of course you would.
Yes, I would. But I found out that a mute button works just fine (I don't sit in front of the TV in the kitchen) and the "on/off" button works even better.
With this reasoning advertisers can safely assume that even annoying ads pay off.
Yes, they can, but fortunately not because of me. An ad caught my attention in the subway today - Duracell offers a T-shirt for buying 3 packs of batteries and a chance to win a home theatre for 5 packs. I bought two packs today (before seeing the ad), I guess the next ones will be Energizer or some noname ones.
I'm not sure if you have children or not. But if you did, would it be moral of you to turn down a marketing job in a tough economy?
Yes. In fact, if you consider annoying people to make money deserving, I don't think you should be allowed to have children.
But the technology was not developed by webmasters, it was dreamed up by evil marketing execs and implemented by evil software engineers. Now that the marketing execs have the technology they only need to persuade the webmasters. Some of them, like those at Yahoo!, don't care about the comfort of their users, because they do provide a useful service (so users agree to be harrassed). Some are just plain retarded, like one graphic artist, who thought it would be a good idea to downsize the images of his works, add his initials in large translucent font (as large as the image) and post the images online. So you will see some place that would use such technology. I don't care much personally, because I block ads using URL-filtering and can also use Proxomitron to filter the HTML itself. What I am more worried about is the proliferation of ads in the meatspace. The only solution seems to be wearable computers with enhanced-reality displays. Steve Mann (if I am not mistaken) apparently already has the technology to block ads in the real world. There are videoclips with ads being replaced by personal reminders (like "you have new messages").
If that is not a "troll" I do not know what is. What if they do come back with pictures, does that automatically make them liars?
I guess... We have a guy in Russia (presumably he is a qualified ophthalmologist), who visited Tibet and brought pictures from the caves, where Atlants lie in somati sleep for millions of years. The findings were presented as fact in the largest national newspaper (which happens to be a yellow pulp shit). Before he showed the pictures he could have been considered a crazy retarded nut. By showing them he proved without doubt that he is an immoral liar.
Christians have been discredited often enough that we have reasons to believe Noah's Ark did not really exist and in any case it is not sitting on Ararat. Christians also have a long history of lying. Witness how Russian Orthodox church officially claims that the annual fire in Jerusalem on some religious holiday is miraculous. So if a christian shows some proof of some miracle (or a religious artefact), Mr. Occam tells that the evidence was likely doctored (or just plain fake).
And don't forget the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". Which accidentally would explain why a lot of christians would immediately believe everything he claims he finds.