Ever ask yourself why the merchant would spend money on this? I mean there's no risk to the merchant. If stuff is bought with a stolen credit card then the credit card company or the bank bears the risk.
No, it's the merchant who bears all the risk. If someone disputes a charge, the merchant's acquiring bank writes a friendly letter asking for proof of the card-holder's authorization, eg a signed receipt. If you can't offer evidence that it was authorized, then you get a chargeback (ie they deduct the purchase amount from your account) and you are out of the value of whatever you mailed out to the customer.
When we sold stuff online, obviously we don't get physical signatures, but normally we could convince the customer that they had made the purchase (normally they forgot, or didn't recognise our name on their credit card bill) and the customer cancelled the dispute.
Why would the bank voluntarily eat the loss for fraud/disputes?
I understood that the high mortality is because most pancreatic cancers are not detected until the cancer has already spread. At which point it usually has already mutated enough to pick up a number of tricks that make it harder to kill, and thus less responsive to chemotherapy.
most solid tumours in organs are like that... they are asymptomatic until they get to an advanced stage.
But in this case, 95% of pancreatic cancers are in the tissue around the pancreatic duct. The other 5% are in a different type of pancreatic tissue and aren't as aggressive, so if they are detected and removed then most patients survive.
That would seem to be the new HP tablet that looks like a BlackBerry PlayBook but with a worse display and camera. What has that got to do with Harvard seeming to have forgotten the difference between a university and a corporation?
Some years ago, HP's board of directors approved spying on some of their own top executives to try to find the source of a leak. "Playbook" was supposed to be a metaphor for "game plan", not a product name
The photo tour has one of the worst interfaces I've seen for viewing photos. Hiding half of the photo caption by default? Who comes up with this idiocy?
One small redeeming feature is that they haven't hijacked the right-click with a bloody Lightbox script.
it feels like the interface was designed to work on both big monitors and hand-held devices. Can't blame them for trying.
I presume that's related to this caption from the tape library photo:
"Unlike a real library, you can't check out anything, but if you try, we have a security team standing by"
On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.