You notice a silly character such as that wasn't needed in the first or third movie and they were much funner to watch.
I guess you forgot about Sean Connery.
And don't even get me started on what they did to Marcus Brody and Sallah in the third movie! They turned them into comic-relief buffoons!
So please, while most of us believe that Temple of Doom was the low point of the series, let's not kid ourselves by saying that there were no comic-relief characters in the third movie. It's just not true.
That's your mistake. Sometimes, you can really love a song, but not care about the artist. I could provide you with about a thousand examples, but I'm sure you can think of a few.
...you're going to get sick of those 3-4 songs eventually...
And there's your other mistake. Why do you think that people will get sick of songs eventually? History shows that that's not the case. How many times have you heard your favorite songs? 10? 100? 1000? How many people are still listening to American Pie after all these years? How many people bought "Like A Rolling Stone" from the Apple music store? In general, if you love a song, you'll love it for a long, long time. That's the reason the Apple music store is going to be so successful.
Its funny to me how when Microsoft wants to design digital rights management into its products, people complain how it is unjust and how Microsoft is just plain evil. However, when Apple releases their new system of distributing music, it is considered revolutionary and ground breaking.
Big difference here. When Microsoft designs a DRM system that only plays on Windows machines, the chances of them allowing those files to be played on a Mac are slim to none. But when Apple designs a DRM system, they immediately state that they are working on a version for Windows. Microsoft has the luxury of not having to worry about the second-place software platform, because their market share is so large. Apple doesn't have the marketshare, so they can't afford to make a Mac-only solution for something that is so immensely desirable.
The Hurting is one of the best, most understated albums of all time IMHO. You really should give it a listen. It's timeless.
Good point. I actually think that the iTunes music service gives users a little more security to be able to buy an album without feeling like they're wasting their money. If you wanted to, you could preview every track off of The Hurting before deciding to buy.
Or another example: I've always wanted to get some of the bigger Tears for Fears hits, but never enough to actually pony up for Songs from the Big Chair. In the CD store, it looks like I'm paying a lot for some tracks that I'm not sure that I want.
But in iTunes, I have the per-track price as an option for comparison. I would definitely want 8 of the tracks, which would be $8. Or I could buy the entire album for $10. At that point, I just have to decide whether those extra 7 tracks are worth $2 to me. I eventually decided that they were, and bought the entire album. Yes, I could have done this with the CD, but I paid less at the iTunes store, and I felt more in control of the entire process. For that reason alone, I think that the iTunes store is fantastic.
From the Alternative list, it seems like they're definitely catering the people who have that one gotta-have hit song, but otherwise wouldn't buy much else by the group. I also think it's interesting that TMBG is so popular, since anyone who was familiar with Napster back in the day would know that they had no shortage of TMBG songs, and Instanbul (Not Constantinople) has always been a favorite among file traders. It's not like there's any shortage of it floating around the internet. Looks like there are a lot of people willing to pay for a legal copy. Interesting.
How about $0.15 per song? I would get the "Napster Satisfaction" out of $0.15 per song.
What about the "ownership satisfaction"? Call me crazy, but I never would have gotten that from Napster. At least with iTunes, you feel like you've actually paid for something, it's yours, and you can use it however you want, for as long as you want, legally. To me, that's worth $0.99.
It seems like you're set out to argue with others, thinking that you're absolutely right, and they're wrong.
Not at all. I think that the online store may not be the best fit for his buying needs. However, the reasons he gave seem to be largely superficial (oh no, there's too many choices!). I was simply suggesting that if he gives it a chance, he might find some advantages to the online service.
Try going down to tower, and finding Rush's *entire* catalog.
Bad example. You won't find Rush's entire catalog on the Apple music store either, only the albums up to the point where they switched labels (1989?). If you want the most recent six albums, you'll have to make a run down to Tower.
I've never had them turn me down. But that might be because they know that if you listen to something, you probably want to buy it:)
Thanks for proving my point. If you're just listening to something as a sanity-check because you've pretty much decided to buy it, then you're not really getting to listen to anything in the store. Sure, you could listen to anything in the store, in theory. But in practice, it doesn't work, because there's the added pressure to buy. So instead, you only listen to things that you're pretty sure you want to buy, and then rationalize the conclusion, "Hey, they'll let me listen to anything I want," when that's not really the case.
It's not that I can't browse the online stores, it just that it's so daunting. Netflix and Amazon have so much stuff, I find myself not knowing where to start.
You just start somewhere. Again, how is having a large selection a bad thing? And how is it any different than the in-store experience? You just see something, check it out, listen to it, and see if you like it. No pressure.
The record store is still more efficient for me.
It sounds like you've already decided that beforehand, without really giving the online experience a fair chance. If you really believe that the record store is more efficient, then why let reality change your mind? Really, your arguments as to why the brick-and-mortar store is more efficient seem like rationalization. The online store has too many titles to choose from (despite the ease of searching and cross-referencing). The brick-and-mortar store will let me listen to anything I want (since I generally only ask to listen to what I'm already going to buy). I don't know, but the complaints just ring false to me.
yes they will let me listen to anything. Most good records stores will. they just re- shrink wrap it if I decide not to buy it.
Sorry, but I seriously doubt this. Most new CDs have a security sticker on them showing that they haven't been opened; you're saying that I may be buying a new CD from one of these "good record stores" that may have already been handled over and over again? No thanks.
And besides, how many CDs do you think they'll let you listen to this way? Five? Ten? 100? Will they leave you alone so you can spend as much time as you want, or are they always looking over your shoulder? Sorry, but I've never seen a "good record store" that let you listen to any track on any CDs in their collection with no hassle whatsoever.
For instance I never browse amazon or netflix looking for stuff.
So you're saying that you don't take full advantage of the system, and somehow it's the fault of the online store? There are numerous options for finding artists, songs, albums, as well as semi-random links between one artist and another. If you don't take the opportunity to browse, then I don't see how that's a failing of the system. That's like saying, "I don't like touching CDs that other people might have picked up. Therefore, brick-and-mortar stores are bad."
The only systems I've seen like this are like what they have at amazon.
Well, then maybe you should take a look at it.
And I've very rarely had it recomend me anything I've wanted. It usually recomends me buy cd's that I already have.
Then you're not using it right. Every time it recommends something you already have, just mark it "I already own this." Eventually, it will start recommending things you don't own.
I'm more interested in finding new bands that I've never heard of and I think all online stores have failed to help me with that.
Well, if you "never browse looking for stuff," what else do you expect? Browse around for a while! You can hear a clip of any song by any artist, and you don't have to ask a clerk to open the package for you! How is that not a good thing?
But you weren't talking about albums, were you? You said that $0.99 per 128kb/sec song is "massively overcharging." So I want to know where you can buy a single song for less than $.99. What? You can't buy a single song at Best Buy? My point exactly.
...though their service as through Best Buy...
Why do you think that? Compare the prices. The price for an album of songs on the Apple music service is generally cheaper than what you would pay at Best Buy. Price is really not the issue.
The point I was trying to make is that I went into the store only to buy one album. Because I heard an album in the background, I asked what it was....Plus since those two bands are on entirely different record labels, one a major and one an indie, I doubt any online experince would link those two albums.
Well, it sounds like the only "link" between those two albums that you got at the brick-and-mortar store was essentially random. So, why don't you think that an online store will also have random "New Albums" lists that you mught see in passing?
The upside to the clerk is that they're much better at suggesting stuff.
Better than whom? There are people on the Apple music store site who recommend music, and it also tracks most popular songs by a particular artist. So, for example, if you say, "Hey, what was that New Order song I remember from way back?", you can look up New Order, and chances are it will be one of the more popular downloads. Or, you can just click on each of the songs until you figure out which one it is. Easy, and something that you can't do in a brick-and-mortar store.
If I ask about a CD they can tell me what it sounds like etc.
Let's see...I could have a clerk tell me what a song sounds like...or I could listen to a 30-second clip of the song myself....
And thankfully I only shop at indie record stores that have clerks who know something, and will let me listen to any CD.
Really? They'll open an unopened CD for you, just so you can listen? And they'll do that for hundreds of CDs?
For example I was in my local record store, sonic boom [sonicboomrecords.com], to pick up the newest flaming lips EP. I found it a good deal 8 tracks for 8.99 plus a trailer for their movie and a music video. While I was there I also noticed that the newest yo la tengo album had also been released on that day (it was playing in the store), so I picked that up for 11.99. A very good experience that I just don't see online shopping able to replicate.
Really? You don't see online shopping able to replicate this experience? How about this: You go online to pick up the new Flaming Lips EP for $9.99 (if EPs are still $9.99), and you can see their music video online, as well as links to their web page. While you're browsing, you see the new Yo La Tengo album listed in New Releases. You don't have to rely on whatever album is playing in the store, or in the listening stations, because you can preview any of the songs on the album, or any other album you see, instantly. Then you decide to buy it, also for $9.99. You have the same net experience, except you remove the time to go to the store, the time to ask a clerk to let you sample a CD (if they will allow that for any arbitrary CD), and you saved yourself a buck.
So, how does the online experience suffer by comparison?
If you want all of those, then you pay the extra $6-8 premium that they cost you. If not, you buy the album from Apple for $9.99 and save yourself some time and money. It's a tradeoff. Having one option doesn't make the other option unavailable.
And yet they still want us to pay about the same price when we aren't getting the physical media...
Okay, I'll bite: Where exactly can I buy any single song that I want on CD for $.99? Until you show me that I can do this, don't complain that they "want us to pay the same price." Apple is filling a void in the market that is not currently being satisfied, precisely because of all of the physical costs.
The exception to this rule would be Frank Miller's possible future Batman. That guy, he really doesn't give a damn.
Have you guys actually ever read The Dark Knight Returns? Batman never, ever killed a single person in that book. That was the whole point! Even the Joker said (paraphrasing), "Broken back huh? You still couldn't bring yourself to kill me, could you?" Sure, Batman wounds a lot of people pretty badly, but he doesn't kill anyone, even in Frank Miller's Batman.
Haven't tried it myself, but it looks good on the web at least
Are you serious?? Ugh! It looks awful! Besides the varied perspectives (i.e. overhead for queen bee, sideways for others), all of the pictures just look like clip-art pictures downloaded off of the web, with a few basic Photoshop effects added. Couldn't imagine actually playing with that, sorry. Those tiles are in serious need of some style.
I find that the original, color IBM PC text interface for nethack is the one I'm best at.
Me too, probably because it's the one I started on. So, for us Mac guys, does anyone know of a good font out there that mimics the IBM PC DOS font? I would love to play on my Mac with that font.
What isn't understandable is why a slashdot editor wouldn't have seen the GLARINGLY PAINFUL grammatical error and simply changed "don't" to something proper.
If you're using British English, then "Apple don't" is completely correct. The British (and indeed, many other countries) treat a singular noun as plural, if it describes a group of individuals. For example, "The committee are voting this week," "The crew have set a new course," and so on.
So in this case, the person is saying, "Apple doesn't list what the update addresses," but since Apple is a group of individuals, the correct British English phrasing would be, "Apple don't list what the update addresses," or if you prefer, "[The people at] Apple don't list what the update addresses." No problem.
Wrong, they get EOL'd with every major upgrade to OSX.
Uh, no. Can you name a single iApp that stopped working when the new version of the OS was released? Didn't think so. Someone mentioned a new iApp version (iTunes, maybe) that only worked with 10.2, but that's a case of a new version of an iApp not working with the older OS. So far, I have seen no examples of an older version of an iApp not working with the newer OS.
As for bait and switch they baited me with a free product, then switched and started charging for that product. To me thats a bait and switch....
That's great. However, your personal definition is wrong. They "baited" you with a free product, and you get the free product. The fact that they "switched" to charging for that product has nothing to do with it. You were offered a free product, and you received it. End of story.
His new tax plan would give a rebate of 36% if you make over 300 thousand a year (and we wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer).
Well, to accurately evaluate that 36% claim, we would also have to know what percentage those people were paying before the tax cut. If Bill is paying 5% of their salary, and Joe is paying 50% of his salary, then Joe will still be paying a larger share of the tax burden, even after a 36% tax decrease.
Plus, people seem to forget the fact that the top 10% of taxpayers still pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes. Believe it or not, it is possible for the "rich" to get a bigger tax cut than the "poor," and still end up paying a larger percentage of the overall tax burden. That "the rich get richer" claim just doesn't hold water.
What keychain bug was fixed? Is this the one where it keeps asking you, "Mail wants access to your keychain. Please enter your password.", even though you clicked "Always Allow"? That one's been bugging me.
Slashdot Mirror
You notice a silly character such as that wasn't needed in the first or third movie and they were much funner to watch.
I guess you forgot about Sean Connery.
And don't even get me started on what they did to Marcus Brody and Sallah in the third movie! They turned them into comic-relief buffoons!
So please, while most of us believe that Temple of Doom was the low point of the series, let's not kid ourselves by saying that there were no comic-relief characters in the third movie. It's just not true.
If you truely like the artist...
...you're going to get sick of those 3-4 songs eventually...
That's your mistake. Sometimes, you can really love a song, but not care about the artist. I could provide you with about a thousand examples, but I'm sure you can think of a few.
And there's your other mistake. Why do you think that people will get sick of songs eventually? History shows that that's not the case. How many times have you heard your favorite songs? 10? 100? 1000? How many people are still listening to American Pie after all these years? How many people bought "Like A Rolling Stone" from the Apple music store? In general, if you love a song, you'll love it for a long, long time. That's the reason the Apple music store is going to be so successful.
Its funny to me how when Microsoft wants to design digital rights management into its products, people complain how it is unjust and how Microsoft is just plain evil. However, when Apple releases their new system of distributing music, it is considered revolutionary and ground breaking.
Big difference here. When Microsoft designs a DRM system that only plays on Windows machines, the chances of them allowing those files to be played on a Mac are slim to none. But when Apple designs a DRM system, they immediately state that they are working on a version for Windows. Microsoft has the luxury of not having to worry about the second-place software platform, because their market share is so large. Apple doesn't have the marketshare, so they can't afford to make a Mac-only solution for something that is so immensely desirable.
The Hurting is one of the best, most understated albums of all time IMHO. You really should give it a listen. It's timeless.
Good point. I actually think that the iTunes music service gives users a little more security to be able to buy an album without feeling like they're wasting their money. If you wanted to, you could preview every track off of The Hurting before deciding to buy.
Or another example: I've always wanted to get some of the bigger Tears for Fears hits, but never enough to actually pony up for Songs from the Big Chair. In the CD store, it looks like I'm paying a lot for some tracks that I'm not sure that I want.
But in iTunes, I have the per-track price as an option for comparison. I would definitely want 8 of the tracks, which would be $8. Or I could buy the entire album for $10. At that point, I just have to decide whether those extra 7 tracks are worth $2 to me. I eventually decided that they were, and bought the entire album. Yes, I could have done this with the CD, but I paid less at the iTunes store, and I felt more in control of the entire process. For that reason alone, I think that the iTunes store is fantastic.
From the Alternative list, it seems like they're definitely catering the people who have that one gotta-have hit song, but otherwise wouldn't buy much else by the group. I also think it's interesting that TMBG is so popular, since anyone who was familiar with Napster back in the day would know that they had no shortage of TMBG songs, and Instanbul (Not Constantinople) has always been a favorite among file traders. It's not like there's any shortage of it floating around the internet. Looks like there are a lot of people willing to pay for a legal copy. Interesting.
How about $0.15 per song? I would get the "Napster Satisfaction" out of $0.15 per song.
What about the "ownership satisfaction"? Call me crazy, but I never would have gotten that from Napster. At least with iTunes, you feel like you've actually paid for something, it's yours, and you can use it however you want, for as long as you want, legally. To me, that's worth $0.99.
Not that low of an investmet at all, actually.
I think he meant the low investment on the part of the buyer, not on the part of Apple.
It seems like you're set out to argue with others, thinking that you're absolutely right, and they're wrong.
Not at all. I think that the online store may not be the best fit for his buying needs. However, the reasons he gave seem to be largely superficial (oh no, there's too many choices!). I was simply suggesting that if he gives it a chance, he might find some advantages to the online service.
Try going down to tower, and finding Rush's *entire* catalog.
Bad example. You won't find Rush's entire catalog on the Apple music store either, only the albums up to the point where they switched labels (1989?). If you want the most recent six albums, you'll have to make a run down to Tower.
I've never had them turn me down. But that might be because they know that if you listen to something, you probably want to buy it :)
Thanks for proving my point. If you're just listening to something as a sanity-check because you've pretty much decided to buy it, then you're not really getting to listen to anything in the store. Sure, you could listen to anything in the store, in theory. But in practice, it doesn't work, because there's the added pressure to buy. So instead, you only listen to things that you're pretty sure you want to buy, and then rationalize the conclusion, "Hey, they'll let me listen to anything I want," when that's not really the case.
It's not that I can't browse the online stores, it just that it's so daunting. Netflix and Amazon have so much stuff, I find myself not knowing where to start.
You just start somewhere. Again, how is having a large selection a bad thing? And how is it any different than the in-store experience? You just see something, check it out, listen to it, and see if you like it. No pressure.
The record store is still more efficient for me.
It sounds like you've already decided that beforehand, without really giving the online experience a fair chance. If you really believe that the record store is more efficient, then why let reality change your mind? Really, your arguments as to why the brick-and-mortar store is more efficient seem like rationalization. The online store has too many titles to choose from (despite the ease of searching and cross-referencing). The brick-and-mortar store will let me listen to anything I want (since I generally only ask to listen to what I'm already going to buy). I don't know, but the complaints just ring false to me.
yes they will let me listen to anything. Most good records stores will. they just re- shrink wrap it if I decide not to buy it.
Sorry, but I seriously doubt this. Most new CDs have a security sticker on them showing that they haven't been opened; you're saying that I may be buying a new CD from one of these "good record stores" that may have already been handled over and over again? No thanks.
And besides, how many CDs do you think they'll let you listen to this way? Five? Ten? 100? Will they leave you alone so you can spend as much time as you want, or are they always looking over your shoulder? Sorry, but I've never seen a "good record store" that let you listen to any track on any CDs in their collection with no hassle whatsoever.
For instance I never browse amazon or netflix looking for stuff.
So you're saying that you don't take full advantage of the system, and somehow it's the fault of the online store? There are numerous options for finding artists, songs, albums, as well as semi-random links between one artist and another. If you don't take the opportunity to browse, then I don't see how that's a failing of the system. That's like saying, "I don't like touching CDs that other people might have picked up. Therefore, brick-and-mortar stores are bad."
The only systems I've seen like this are like what they have at amazon.
Well, then maybe you should take a look at it.
And I've very rarely had it recomend me anything I've wanted. It usually recomends me buy cd's that I already have.
Then you're not using it right. Every time it recommends something you already have, just mark it "I already own this." Eventually, it will start recommending things you don't own.
I'm more interested in finding new bands that I've never heard of and I think all online stores have failed to help me with that.
Well, if you "never browse looking for stuff," what else do you expect? Browse around for a while! You can hear a clip of any song by any artist, and you don't have to ask a clerk to open the package for you! How is that not a good thing?
But if I have to pay the same for an album...
...though their service as through Best Buy...
But you weren't talking about albums, were you? You said that $0.99 per 128kb/sec song is "massively overcharging." So I want to know where you can buy a single song for less than $.99. What? You can't buy a single song at Best Buy? My point exactly.
Why do you think that? Compare the prices. The price for an album of songs on the Apple music service is generally cheaper than what you would pay at Best Buy. Price is really not the issue.
The point I was trying to make is that I went into the store only to buy one album. Because I heard an album in the background, I asked what it was....Plus since those two bands are on entirely different record labels, one a major and one an indie, I doubt any online experince would link those two albums.
Well, it sounds like the only "link" between those two albums that you got at the brick-and-mortar store was essentially random. So, why don't you think that an online store will also have random "New Albums" lists that you mught see in passing?
The upside to the clerk is that they're much better at suggesting stuff.
Better than whom? There are people on the Apple music store site who recommend music, and it also tracks most popular songs by a particular artist. So, for example, if you say, "Hey, what was that New Order song I remember from way back?", you can look up New Order, and chances are it will be one of the more popular downloads. Or, you can just click on each of the songs until you figure out which one it is. Easy, and something that you can't do in a brick-and-mortar store.
If I ask about a CD they can tell me what it sounds like etc.
Let's see...I could have a clerk tell me what a song sounds like...or I could listen to a 30-second clip of the song myself....
And thankfully I only shop at indie record stores that have clerks who know something, and will let me listen to any CD.
Really? They'll open an unopened CD for you, just so you can listen? And they'll do that for hundreds of CDs?
For example I was in my local record store, sonic boom [sonicboomrecords.com], to pick up the newest flaming lips EP. I found it a good deal 8 tracks for 8.99 plus a trailer for their movie and a music video. While I was there I also noticed that the newest yo la tengo album had also been released on that day (it was playing in the store), so I picked that up for 11.99. A very good experience that I just don't see online shopping able to replicate.
Really? You don't see online shopping able to replicate this experience? How about this: You go online to pick up the new Flaming Lips EP for $9.99 (if EPs are still $9.99), and you can see their music video online, as well as links to their web page. While you're browsing, you see the new Yo La Tengo album listed in New Releases. You don't have to rely on whatever album is playing in the store, or in the listening stations, because you can preview any of the songs on the album, or any other album you see, instantly. Then you decide to buy it, also for $9.99. You have the same net experience, except you remove the time to go to the store, the time to ask a clerk to let you sample a CD (if they will allow that for any arbitrary CD), and you saved yourself a buck.
So, how does the online experience suffer by comparison?
If you want all of those, then you pay the extra $6-8 premium that they cost you. If not, you buy the album from Apple for $9.99 and save yourself some time and money. It's a tradeoff. Having one option doesn't make the other option unavailable.
Actually, now that I know albums are $10 (about .60$/song on average), my original point is kinda moot. :)
Exactly. Next time, you may want to try actually knowing something about what you're talking about before you spout off.
And yet they still want us to pay about the same price when we aren't getting the physical media...
Okay, I'll bite: Where exactly can I buy any single song that I want on CD for $.99? Until you show me that I can do this, don't complain that they "want us to pay the same price." Apple is filling a void in the market that is not currently being satisfied, precisely because of all of the physical costs.
Have you guys actually ever read The Dark Knight Returns? Batman never, ever killed a single person in that book. That was the whole point! Even the Joker said (paraphrasing), "Broken back huh? You still couldn't bring yourself to kill me, could you?" Sure, Batman wounds a lot of people pretty badly, but he doesn't kill anyone, even in Frank Miller's Batman.
Tried it, got the following: touch ../src/config.h-t
cc -O -I../include -c monst.c
cc -O -I../include -c objects.c
cc -O -I../include -c -o makedefs.o makedefs.c
cc -o makedefs makedefs.o ../src/monst.o ../src/objects.o /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/libSystem.dylib load command 9 unknown cmd field
make[1]: *** [makedefs] Error 1
make: *** [../util/makedefs] Error 2
Suggestions?
Haven't tried it myself, but it looks good on the web at least
Are you serious?? Ugh! It looks awful! Besides the varied perspectives (i.e. overhead for queen bee, sideways for others), all of the pictures just look like clip-art pictures downloaded off of the web, with a few basic Photoshop effects added. Couldn't imagine actually playing with that, sorry. Those tiles are in serious need of some style.
I find that the original, color IBM PC text interface for nethack is the one I'm best at.
Me too, probably because it's the one I started on. So, for us Mac guys, does anyone know of a good font out there that mimics the IBM PC DOS font? I would love to play on my Mac with that font.
What isn't understandable is why a slashdot editor wouldn't have seen the GLARINGLY PAINFUL grammatical error and simply changed "don't" to something proper.
If you're using British English, then "Apple don't" is completely correct. The British (and indeed, many other countries) treat a singular noun as plural, if it describes a group of individuals. For example, "The committee are voting this week," "The crew have set a new course," and so on.
So in this case, the person is saying, "Apple doesn't list what the update addresses," but since Apple is a group of individuals, the correct British English phrasing would be, "Apple don't list what the update addresses," or if you prefer, "[The people at] Apple don't list what the update addresses." No problem.
Wrong, they get EOL'd with every major upgrade to OSX.
Uh, no. Can you name a single iApp that stopped working when the new version of the OS was released? Didn't think so. Someone mentioned a new iApp version (iTunes, maybe) that only worked with 10.2, but that's a case of a new version of an iApp not working with the older OS. So far, I have seen no examples of an older version of an iApp not working with the newer OS.
As for bait and switch they baited me with a free product, then switched and started charging for that product. To me thats a bait and switch....
That's great. However, your personal definition is wrong. They "baited" you with a free product, and you get the free product. The fact that they "switched" to charging for that product has nothing to do with it. You were offered a free product, and you received it. End of story.
His new tax plan would give a rebate of 36% if you make over 300 thousand a year (and we wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer).
Well, to accurately evaluate that 36% claim, we would also have to know what percentage those people were paying before the tax cut. If Bill is paying 5% of their salary, and Joe is paying 50% of his salary, then Joe will still be paying a larger share of the tax burden, even after a 36% tax decrease.
Plus, people seem to forget the fact that the top 10% of taxpayers still pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes. Believe it or not, it is possible for the "rich" to get a bigger tax cut than the "poor," and still end up paying a larger percentage of the overall tax burden. That "the rich get richer" claim just doesn't hold water.
What keychain bug was fixed? Is this the one where it keeps asking you, "Mail wants access to your keychain. Please enter your password.", even though you clicked "Always Allow"? That one's been bugging me.