I don't know anything about that rumor.
Regardless of whether Google can "start its own TWTR", the argument could be made for any property they've bought. That 40% premium you mention could be justified in terms of eliminating the competition.
How many people do you see running to Google Hangouts?
Except school getting out - summer jobs, time off... I think one of the biggest problem to date is a lack of killer apps. Games still seem to be relatively thin as far as offerings go. Not a whole lot of compelling gaming. That's not really on GameStop, and certainly not because of digital downloading, either.
Good enough - thanks, I appreciate the answer. Haven't been able to find the original post, but it seemed to indicate a view that online fraud would fall on the seller - and that's where I can't seem to find any "concrete" rulemaking.
Still waiting for an answer on liability. As noted - I'm long but need facts. I have not found anything backing up what you're talking about as it pertains specifically to online sales of data.
Please provide info in the other thread. Not that it matters to you, but if you don't post some credible information to back up the discussion, or continue to avoid the discussion, I'm bouncing you off my radar post-haste, into the company of beefstu and whoever the other guy was.
You didn't respond, and I never found it. This makes me question your assertion more than I did initially, especially in terms of harming electronic-only transactions in some way.
I'm long, but need facts.
I know what EMV chips are. I'm looking for info on what you've mentioned – whatever changes are taking place that alter the way fraud is currently handled, specifically, as you note, changing the burden and responsibility.
Understood. Links please. I still haven't found the info on the changes.
I'm not saying you're incorrect - just want to do my homework before commenting further.
I'd like to read more about it. Any link appreciated. Searched around a bit but didn't find anything.