The whole point of the chip is that it isn't copyable. That's not the delay.
Everybody's said it already, but here's another vote for Anker. I've bought batteries from them for three phones and they've all been great, and if you read Amazon reviews, you'll find their customer service in the rare event of problems is second to none.
Okay, that is a valid point. I wasn't thinking one level higher about the difference.
Except that in my example (which is my real life), water is not billed by consumption. My water comes with my rent, no matter how much I use. But I'm sure it's still "unlimited" just as "unlimited" net connections are. However, the leasing company doesn't tell me that I can use water to bathe, but not to make tea, so that's really where my comparison falls apart.
Regardless, the point was more about the renter of a property having some rights, even if unwise to exercise, to control the use of resources that are provided as an extra feature in a tenant's rent. In OP's situation, I think it would be unwise of the rental company to attempt to wield that power, but there's nothing legally to prevent them doing so.
If you provide network access as part of your rent, you provide network access as part of your rent, period.
It's not really that simple. My apartment provides water as part of my rent. If I start filling swimming pools, they're going to get upset. I realize this is more akin to data caps on internet access rather than net neutrality, but the point is that "providing network access" isn't completely cut and dry. If some service is provided with a property rental, and not billed separately by consumption, the renter does have some rights to restrict the use of said service, especially in cases where the tenant has other options to receive the same service himself, at his own expense.
However, blocking access to certain sites unless said sites pay up is akin to extortion, so I think it's a very bad idea. The points made by CrankyFool are exactly right. Big companies like Amazon and Netflix don't care if 35,000 people can't access them because of some apartment company's attempts at extortion. They will ignore the situation, accepting that those 35,000 people can't access them, and many of those 35,000 people will get pissed off at the property rental company and rebel in one way or another. It wouldn't be pretty, and in the end would only harm the property rental company, whose reputation would be damaged when they are painted by their own tenants as censors at the same time as those tenants circumvent or move.
I'm going to go with "he thinks he looks k00l if he can use words like 'telnet' and 'GET' on a Slashdot post".
They are definitely trying to make a profit, just not in the short term. Bezos has always had a very long term outlook when it comes to profit, and apparently his shareholders are okay with that.
Okay, maybe your post (if it was yours) wasn't a complaint, but I have seen this complaint time and again when it comes to companies like Amazon, as if we should expect big companies not to try to make a profit for their shareholders (which would be considered negligent). I think there are many more important things to be worried about (privacy being the most obvious) before people are concerned about capitalism being capitalist.
I am glad to see companies and individuals succeed, be it monetarily or otherwise, and I don't think we should let their success, or perhaps our own avarice, get in the way of asking the actually important questions about things like ethics, morals, and integrity.
Of course Amazon wants your money. They're a business trying to make a profit. There are plenty of things people can complain about when it comes to Amazon or to any of their competitors in this arena, so why do people keep complaining that Amazon is trying to make a profit for itself and its shareholders?
Sorry I don't have votes to give you. This needs voted up. It's almost certainly what happened.
buying your way into a carpool lay seems quite WRONG to me, but its how its done, now. the rich aren't like us; they really hate to wait....
The object of the carpool lane is to reduce greenhouse gas emission per capita. Carpools accomplish this. So do electric cars. (This could potentially be argued due to manufacturing- and charging-related emissions, but the electric car generally still comes out "cleaner".) I don't see a problem with allowing cars with lower per capita emissions to use the special lanes, no matter what the source of the reduction in emissions.
Things that do bug me about carpool lanes: Seeing two people riding in a Hummer in the carpool lane while a single guy in a non-plugin hybrid can't be there, and places that actually sell stickers allowing single drivers of otherwise ineligible vehicles to drive in the carpool lane (yes, this does happen some places).
I saw that in TFA, but it specifically says "leaky peanut oil", not "leaking". It was unclear to me whether this meant the jars were actually leaking oil, which is certainly indicative of a problem or if it meant that the oil was leaking out of the peanut butter but remaining inside the jar, which isn't a problem and is typical of peanut butter that's been sitting for a while. If that's the case, it just needs a stir.
That I don't know about. Just commenting about the likely production date. Peanut butter jars don't last very long in my kitchen, but that's just me.
The company shut down in 2012. These were produced prior to the company's closure. This is probably not safe for human consumption at this point.
According to TFA, the plant shut down in 2012 after the salmonella outbreak, but then reopened, closing again in October 2013. Presumably the peanut butter being landfilled will have been produced in late 2013, which leaves it well within reasonable shelf life.