You are a fool. Probably a developer or so.
Labels are not superior to folders. Yes technically they offer more possibilities than folders. No that's not necessarily a good thing.
Having a predefined structure that you thought about, that is always visualised, and which fits for you to place all your mail in, is far better usabilty than being forced to attach zero, one, up to infinite criteria to each mail each time you receive one; It costs more time, your set of criteria will grow to infinity over time, you will get double labels meaning the same, you will not label emails in the same class with the same labels over time. In the end you are left with a bizarre pile of puke that has become usable only by searching it. And for searching a pile of puke you do not need labels.
Labels are very much inferior to folders.
And by the way, dargging in gmail sucks mightily, just like any other functionality. Both Yahoo mail and even Live Mail (sic!) are enourmously better, go figure what that means :(.

Maybe that will give them time to finally build and support a 64 bit version.
32 Bit should be the exception nowadays, but apparently they decided to drop (!) any further 64 bit effort...
Yeah, i also still play 8 bit Commodore 64 games on my computer, perfectly normal :)
If somebody understands that 64 bit killoff please explain to me...

During my study I thoroughly enjoyed this leisurely paced introduction to Lie groups:
http://books.google.co.id/books/about/Representations_of_Compact_Lie_Groups.html?id=AfBzWL5bIIQC&redir_esc=y

This law is for music (and I believe movies) only. Not for software.
Further: There is a semi-government institution that collects the money and gives as little as possible of it to actual artists, while keeping millions with themselves and "rewarding" their directors big time.

Yes, I have noticed. No, it is not what I want.

It's a matter of definition; Priority in its normal sense should be interpreted as the order of importance for /all projects/.
However you, as is customary (to be able to present primary-colours-only pie charts to dim-lighted management) do /not/ order all projects, but instead make a very limited number of classes (low, normal, high), and allow an increasing share of the projects to "migrate" to the "high" class.
That way you yourself are defeating the very concept of prioritizing.
Either prioritize each project in the full set (so for 100 projects, you have priorities 1-100), or only allow a maximum number of projects in each class.

You mean bumfuck USA?

After reading only the title, I was too shocked already to read the rest.
Developers, lowly-intelligent and lowly-educated as almost all of them are, are themselves amongst the people that deliver the worst imaginable bug reports. Give me a normal "user" anyday; their lack of developer arrogance makes them a functional partner in getting the report right. Developers on the other hand tend to mistakenly concentrate on technicalities, their own warped view of "what users want", or even already on what they "know is the solution".
Have a nice day! :)

"Hello, compuuuu-terrrr!"

Hmmm, interesting. Would that indicate that skipping version numbers is somehow connected to producing non-standard, totally crappy user interfaces? :p

I feel skipping version numbers is only one step removed from the absolute worst versioning system of using random, not necessarily increasing numbers for each new update. Were these guys drunk or so?

I have 3.1.10 and thought I was quite up to date :s. Did I miss a whole version?

When will people stop calling engineers scientists. Engineering is not science, but craft, not unlike woodworking or cooking.
I might agree with calling typical engineering a "craft+" or so, but again, engineering has nothing to do with science.

I almost cried of happiness when I saw they fixed the position of the URL info.
It is behavioiur that is in stark contrast with that of e.g. Gnome, which never listens to "user uprisings", or Ubuntu, which moved the 3 window title buttons to the wrong location and, despite fully justified comments on this, never even thought of correcting that bug.
Good to see there are still development teams that listen to reason.

On my system, the tabs ONLY go to the title bar when the whole window is maximized. Possibily because some drunk developer thought we would only need the extra vertical space if we indicated we would need extra spcae by maximizing the whole window?
Another bad choice.
Far worse is that I always have my browser vertically maximized only, because I'm specifically missing VERTICAL space. But this braindead behaviour only gives me the extra vertical space if I also horizontally maximize my window (so the result is total maximalization).