lotusleaf1987

60 Minutes had a special on companies that refuse to hire smokers, eventually some of the examples like police departments had to give it up as they weren't able to hire the best employees. In 44 states you can be fired without reason/cause.

I could understand if it was something that had tons of duplicates, but it's not that big of a deal when a company is still relatively unknown.

I didn't catch the other article, not everyone logs in within a 24 hour period. I found the article useful despite it being a resubmission and I otherwise wouldn't have heard about the company--apparently 37 other people agree.

I doubt a majority of HNers saw the original submission.

Edit: To the pedantic downvoters, do you have to be completely hostile all the time? This is exactly the crap that is making HN a worse community-- a bunch of egotistical trolls chasing superiority highs. The problem is the trolls are more motivated to downvote than the normal people are willing to upvote, so eventually all interaction will be suppressed other than the few voiced the hive-mind accepts and agrees with.

If you go to a University of California, it costs at least $10,000 in tuition a year alone,definitely more now, that's what it was two years ago. Plus books and rent for most people.

An iPhone costs $50-$199 on contract, same as Android phones like Nexus S or Galaxy S. iPods don't cost more than Zunes. And iPads are cheaper than their competitors.

No, a phone company doesn't scale. A national phone company doesn't help Apple globally.

Submitted earlier, clever way to get around the filter though: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2568900

FUD.

"[Bott] cited an internal document titled "About 'Mac Defender' Malware," which was last updated on May 16 and says that the trojan, which surfaced earlier this month and masquerades as legitimate security software for the OS X platform"

I find it ironic that Bott's fear mongering is leading the naive to download shady anti-virus software that is actually adware. These articles are really just contributing to the problem by misinforming people. Ed Bott is the equivalent of Glen Beck.

Woof: http://daringfireball.net/2011/05/wolf

"According to a third article penned by Bott, AppleCare reps are seeing a four- to five-fold increase in the number of calls requesting support for rogue antivirus scams targeting the Mac"

So now a handful of incidents is cause for uproar?

"Porn sites just started popping up on my MacBook Pro," one user wrote. "Is this a virus? I have never had a virus on a Mac before and I have been using Macs for years. Please help!"

So it's just adware then? Oh no!

Fair and Balanced. Did Fox News write the headline?

What a POS article-- all speculation, no facts. And who in their right mind thinks Thunderbolt costs anymore than a single digit?

I agree, a better way to describe it is loyalty beyond reason.

I can see why you might say Yankees don't count, but I think sports teams do count as brands.

There are others--Leica cameras, Rolex, Starbucks, Linux, Vans, Star Trek/Wars.

I don't think it's something you set out to attain, look at the airline Song for an example of how this backfires. I think being a cult brand is a status you attain after reaping several generations of loyal customers.

It's not unique to Apple. Nike, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Yankees, and many others do the same thing. It's known as cult branding. There's a good book on it called" The Power of Cult Branding" by Mathew Ragas.

Woof: http://daringfireball.net/2011/05/wolf

That's cool, I have check out CMYK and a few other magazines and there's usually quite a bit from CCA in there. Good luck! I'm sure you'll create some really fun stuff.

Great we can expect Student, Home, Media, and Professional Editions that no one knows what the difference is.

This strategy is going to fail--the tablet market has been consistent and uniformed since the iPad, none of this gimmicktry that works in the PC/phone markets by released dozens of SKUs with only slight changes. People won't fall for this when they can just buy an iPad that will be current for a year or more.

Great comment and very true, you need to be able to take criticism to get better. I'm curious, which school is considered the top design school? Thanks.

It sounds like you're saying you have to accept all or none of Chomsky's ideas. Just because I quoted him doesn't mean I believe everything he's written, in fact quite to the contrary.

However... I do feel the quote above accurately reflects the sentiments of your first comment, which is why I posted it. It wasn't meant to reflect the entirety of Chomsky's work.

Chomsky has a great quote about this: In the U.S. there is basically one party - The Business Party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations of the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies, as is most of the population.

I'm not against business, but it shouldn't be our singular goal as a society.

| If you allow passage for all, you can't restrict it arbitrarily.

I know more about private property in regards to the 4th Amendment, but in those situations anything that is accessible to the public, like a walkway to your front door, driveway, etc those are all legally permissible areas for a police officer to be, even though they haven't been invited onto your property. I'd imagine they'd make a similar argument that you can't have a part of your property open to the public but then only restrict people passing out phonebooks/flyers/etc.

Exactly, but if I was the lawyer defending the phonebooks, that's exactly the argument I'd make--that the PO was no different and that paying a government employee to deliver the document* shouldn't make the act any more legitimate than paying your own employee to do so. You could argue it's anti-competitive or that it's essentially a bribe to the government as well.

*Document meaning any letter, junk mail, leaflet, flyer, or phonebook.

Leave aye?

What took you so long to presenting an actual argument? The reason I replied to your dubious claim at best, "In other words, you are paying for the brand, not the product" is because you offered no proof or evidence, you just made some random accusation.

How do you separate what profits are due to the successful product and those which are due to the brand? AdAge did say Apple is the most valuable consumer brand, but I'm pretty sure you weren't referring to that. You're saying any % more that Apple makes over x, x being the industry standard is due to Apple's brand, but Apple's products are commodities so it's not a fair comparison. Apple's OS/UI is usually where the added value comes from. It's a virtuous cycle, Apple makes good products, people trust them, so they can charge more than say Acer who doesn't have the same track record.

I'm not a fanboy, I use a Dell and a Blackberry, maybe you should stop making assumptions. I just prefer to have discussions, not flame wars, which is what you tried to instigate in your initial comment.

I really don't know, I'm a paralegal not a lawyer yet. Everyone in this thread is bringing up interesting points.

It depends though, private property that is open to the public is different than private property that is protected.

|No one wants to ban passing them out. It's just they want to ban passing out advertising without consent.

This may be the one sticking point they have around it. However, I wonder how this is any different than junk mail? Junk mail just pays the Post Office, how is that better/worse than paying an employee to pass out the flyer/phonebook/etc?

I think this is an interesting case and I'm looking forward to the outcome.

Printing the books isn't the act that constitutes speech, it's the act of passing them out to others. To ban their 'dump[ing]' and spamming is unfortunately tantamount to banning their speech altogether.

I'm don't disagree with the law, I actually support it, but I think it's very likely it will ultimately be repealed.

While I wholeheartedly agree with conserving our natural resources, I'm pretty sure this law is going to be overturned on the basis that it is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech. It's been a long time since my Constitutional Law class, but IIRC there are many precedents, several involving Jehova's witnesses (they were a persecuted minority at the time), passing out leaflets and flyers and having similar laws passed and overturned.

Here's a similar situation in Texas in 2005: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/federal-judge-texas-man-...

U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo ruled earlier this month that the law violates the Constitution because it gives state officials too much discretion in determining when to issue permits and prohibits religious exhibits. Castillo also faulted the law for banning people who want to distribute leaflets from approaching the public without providing an exception in cases where people consent to being approached.

“The judge reaffirmed the First Amendment principles and showed that the First Amendment rights are valued in Chicago,” said Elizabeth Murray, whose client Kevin Cantrell filed the lawsuit in April 2004 against officials at the Thompson Center and the state Department of Central Management Services. The center is the state's main government building in Chicago.

“This also protects more than just religious leafletters. It protects all who want to leaflet, so it is of great value to the citizens of Illinois,” said Murray, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented Cantrell.

I count 6-7 paragraphs of 'scholarly writing.' Scholarly: concerned with academic learning and research: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholarly

You sir, in the kindest way possible, are 100% wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.