You do realize that Gmail was one of the pioneering web applications of the recent AJAX movement, right? Id say it was one of the first "rich AJAX webmail" client.
That's beside my point, though. MS was using AJAX years and years ago in their web Outlook application (that had drag and drop!) and nobody really took much notice. Because it was slow, bloated and not real user friendly. Replicating a desktop environment on the web isn't automatically innovative and technology isn't quite at the point where doig so lends itself to a superior user experience. To each there own, etc., but I have yet to hear a convincing argument against Gmail and for its competitors, namely MS and Yahoo.
Now I can't give a time or date when it will happen, but this guy's words will be eaten. His reasons given for Yahoo's superiority simply don't have any basis in the real world . "You can drag and drop!", "AJAX OMG!", "it looks like Outlook!". While he lambasts Google for innovation labeling (no pun intended) it at arrogance, he praises Yahoo for doing the same old same old. "It's just like a desktop application!" Web applications and desktop applications are very different beasts. There have been leaps and bounds in the past few years to close the gap between web and desktop apps, but until things in key areas such as standardization, latency and security are brought up to speed so to speak, they will continue to have very different requirements and user experiences. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Gmail is simple, fast and user-friendly. With the limitations of the internet, these qualities lend themselves to a well designed web application. I can get almost instantaneous feedback from gmail no matter where I am, even with a real spotty connection, and can work with my email quickly and intuitively. There are just the right amount of options and controls to give a power user reign over their email while allowing the less tech savvy to use the service almost as easily. Yahoo's motto has always seemed to be "lets throw in absolutely everthing we can fit on the screen. The user's bound to like something." Needless to say, that doesn't quite work out for a fantastic web experience. It creates lag, confusion, unresponsiveness and genereral user-unfriendliness. The new Yahoo mail doesn't look like it's going to be an exception to that rule, so while they can probably lure enough users in with their smoke and mirrors, there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority that give gmail a shot will stick with it. There are more reasons beyond the user experience that this is so, but because this was pretty much all this guy targetted as Gmail's great pitfall and Yahoo's grand superiority I'll leave those alone.
Negative.
If passing by a soldier (within about 3 feet or so) it will probably rip a limb off, but impact will only cause significant splash if it hits metal. Unless the developers implemented HEAT rounds (which cause big explosions) instead of Sabot in which case it would obliterate a soldier on impact within I'd say 15 feet. But judging by the round's trajectory, they are Sabot rounds which are only intended to penetrate armor and kill by the energy created from the pressure created on impact and the vacuum created inside penetrated armor. So no, they would not kill soldiers within 30 feet.
I am not too educated in this field, but how do scientists know that life cannot be sustained in an environment without water? Is it that the definition of life requires water or at least some form of it? How are they to rule out that life could exist on a planet consisting entirely of gases or some other "uninhabitable" condition? Just curious. =)
-Harrison
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken plainly as one who doesn't understand the job market.
The heart of most Computer Science *jobs* is in "painting forms" and "playing with DB rows".
You do realize that Gmail was one of the pioneering web applications of the recent AJAX movement, right? Id say it was one of the first "rich AJAX webmail" client.
That's beside my point, though. MS was using AJAX years and years ago in their web Outlook application (that had drag and drop!) and nobody really took much notice. Because it was slow, bloated and not real user friendly. Replicating a desktop environment on the web isn't automatically innovative and technology isn't quite at the point where doig so lends itself to a superior user experience. To each there own, etc., but I have yet to hear a convincing argument against Gmail and for its competitors, namely MS and Yahoo.
Now I can't give a time or date when it will happen, but this guy's words will be eaten. His reasons given for Yahoo's superiority simply don't have any basis in the real world . "You can drag and drop!", "AJAX OMG!", "it looks like Outlook!". While he lambasts Google for innovation labeling (no pun intended) it at arrogance, he praises Yahoo for doing the same old same old. "It's just like a desktop application!" Web applications and desktop applications are very different beasts. There have been leaps and bounds in the past few years to close the gap between web and desktop apps, but until things in key areas such as standardization, latency and security are brought up to speed so to speak, they will continue to have very different requirements and user experiences. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Gmail is simple, fast and user-friendly. With the limitations of the internet, these qualities lend themselves to a well designed web application. I can get almost instantaneous feedback from gmail no matter where I am, even with a real spotty connection, and can work with my email quickly and intuitively. There are just the right amount of options and controls to give a power user reign over their email while allowing the less tech savvy to use the service almost as easily. Yahoo's motto has always seemed to be "lets throw in absolutely everthing we can fit on the screen. The user's bound to like something." Needless to say, that doesn't quite work out for a fantastic web experience. It creates lag, confusion, unresponsiveness and genereral user-unfriendliness. The new Yahoo mail doesn't look like it's going to be an exception to that rule, so while they can probably lure enough users in with their smoke and mirrors, there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority that give gmail a shot will stick with it. There are more reasons beyond the user experience that this is so, but because this was pretty much all this guy targetted as Gmail's great pitfall and Yahoo's grand superiority I'll leave those alone.
Negative. If passing by a soldier (within about 3 feet or so) it will probably rip a limb off, but impact will only cause significant splash if it hits metal. Unless the developers implemented HEAT rounds (which cause big explosions) instead of Sabot in which case it would obliterate a soldier on impact within I'd say 15 feet. But judging by the round's trajectory, they are Sabot rounds which are only intended to penetrate armor and kill by the energy created from the pressure created on impact and the vacuum created inside penetrated armor. So no, they would not kill soldiers within 30 feet.
I am not too educated in this field, but how do scientists know that life cannot be sustained in an environment without water? Is it that the definition of life requires water or at least some form of it? How are they to rule out that life could exist on a planet consisting entirely of gases or some other "uninhabitable" condition? Just curious. =) -Harrison