I sent them an email or two with suggestions and bug reports and some of that stuff did actually find its way into the product. Seemed like excellent customer service to me, back then. So all I have going for myself is experience.

The problem is that you think that just because you said something to them, that was the reason why it was added in the first place. Also, they've been fixing bugs based on bug reports for ages, and are still doing so.

As for being paid for with google searches: that's adware. That's not a product. You know perfectly well how good adware generally is. Opera is just another example of how bad it is for everyone involved.

Yes, it is a product. All free browsers rely on revenue sharing from searches, including Firefox.

And the bottom line is that you did not have more input when you were paying. They're far more open and responsive to user needs now than they were when they charged for it. Also, had it not been free, Opera would have been dead by now.

The best I can tell, they get zero revenue from it. The money comes from the codebase they license to various embedded vendors, like Nintendo, for example.

Nope. Opera gets plenty of revenue from the desktop version. Every time you do a Google search, Opera gets money. Multiply that by tens of millions, and you get a nice amount of cash. How about reading up on Opera's finances instead of speculating?

I really can't fathom what's the use of desktop Opera other than browsing porn or similar image-heavy galleries

It's because it has tons of useful features that other browsers just can't match.

I would only use it as a main browser if there was a paid version available, where the users had some input into the direction the development is taking.

What makes you think paying for it gives you more input into the direction of the development? While Opera was payware you hardly got to give any input at all, and most releases were secret until the final version was out. After they stopped charging they started releasing early public test versions and set up a blog to gather feedback on those.

So where you got the idea that you had more input when paying, I have no idea. It's clearly not true.

They are not controlling anything. They are two of the organizations who have analyzed the proxy data. There are many more.

Eh, the proxy data is showing historical data. It shows what the other guy said: "People suggested it, so they checked a millennium's worth of proxy data, and they showed a marked disconnect between the trends in solar and climate activity that appears in the last 100 years."

Don't try to run away by derailing the discussion.

Scientists controlling interpretation of proxy data? The data is free for anyone to interpret. Of course, it's been done properly and correctly, and the results speak for themselves. See above.

Except that isn't how science works. Science tries to falsify itself not prove itself, so your analogy fails on a very basic level. Furthermore, this is not just about one piece of scientific research, but about thousands of them by thousands of independent scientists. Denying that science is indeed being a denialist.

It is false that there has been no warming the last 15 years. However, much of the warming is currently going into the oceans. If the sun was responsible it would have been getting colder for 40 years since that's what's happened to the sun.

Actually, it does mean it exists. When multiple sources of proxy data show the same thing it's pretty clear what the picture looks like. Only if one insists on denying reality will one come up with stuff like "proxy data sucks."

So in other words, 16:9 displays don't even make sense for movies (consuming content). It's even less understandable why they are trying to force 16:9 on everyone.

Do movies really fit on a 16:9 display? Don't most of them get a black bar at the top and bottom?

If they really did not need them then why did they hire them in the first place?

Didn't they merge different products/companies? If so they will have lots of overlapping positions which doesn't make sense at all.

They hired them because they had different products/teams. When those were merged, some people were no longer needed.

Simple, really.

You keep changing your claims.

You first claimed that all they do is to recompile Chromium, which is wrong since they've made their own UI. You then admitted that you were wrong but now insisted that they were just a UI company. I then pointed out that they are contributing to Webkit/Blink, and you changed your claim to Opera only making a skin, which is obviously wrong again since they coded their own UI.

Now you've moved the goalpost again. This is getting pathetic.

Of course, your latest claim is demonstrably false as well, since they made their own UI and are adding all sorts of features that don't exist in Chrome.

Now, since your claims are mutually exclusive you have really revealed yourself as a liar and a troll.

You also didn't answer the question about removing that option from Opera 12.

You are extremely confused. That it's not the same browser you were using still doesn't mean they stopped making browsers. Are you trolling?

Again: You claimed that all they do is to recompile Chromium, which is wrong since they've made their own UI. You then admitted that you were wrong but now insisted that they were just a UI company. I then pointed out that they are contributing to Webkit/Blink, and now you're just trying to change the subject.

Now you repeat a claim you know is false (that they just add a skin). That's called a lie. Consciously posting a false claim is called lying. You are a liar.

You also didn't answer the question about removing that option from Opera 12.

So if they removed that option from Opera 12, they would no longer be a browser company? That setting is what defines a browser company? Come on... you are making a fool of yourself

Admit it, you messed up. You claimed that all they do is to recompile Chromium, which is wrong since they've made their own UI. You then admitted that you were wrong but now insisted that they were just a UI company. I then pointed out that they are contributing to Webkit/Blink, and now you're just trying to change the subject.

No, they are still a browser company. They are even contributing to Webkit (now Blink). Anyway, you should at least admit that the claim you made turned out to be false.

That AC obviously isn't the same as any of the other ACs. It's just someone trolling or making a joke.