It's called context. In the verse you quote, Jesus is quoting something from the old testament. In that particular passage, he neither approves nor disapproves of it; he uses it to point out how the Pharisees are hypocrites.
Nothing on the page you linked encourages Christians to be violent. Most of it speaks of the consequences we face if we choose not to believe in Christ (generally accepted as consequences that happen in the after-life, once you die physically); the rest is taken completely out of context like the verse you quoted.
The churches in the Bible are simply the local community of Christians in the given locale. For example, Ephesians was the letter written to "the Church at Ephesus". In todays terms, that would be like writing a letter to "the Church at Dallas" (as opposed to "The First Baptist Church in Dallas"). There were no organized churches as we know them today, only local gatherings of Christians. Elders, or "bishops" were merely older and/or mature Christians who had kind of a general responsibility to help other Christians mature and grow.
Most religions are. Judaism and Christianity claim to have been created by God.
I, for one, do not believe that the New Testament speaks only Christ's words and teachings, especially considering that considerable portions were written hundreds of years after his death.
Hundreds of years? The latest possible date for *any* of the books is 150AD. The most likely date places the most recent one (Revelation) as being written in 95AD.
This isn't even considering that Jesus, like Luther centuries later, wasn't necessarily seeking to create a new religion, rather he was attempting to modify the existing Hebrew religion.
Pretty much everything Jesus taught in his day flew directly in the face of what Judaism taught at the time. The leaders of Judaism where his biggest opponents. In fact, his blasphemy by their definition was so horrible as to warrant the worst possible sentence they had at their disposal. Not exactly what anyone would (with any seriousness) call a "modification" of an existing religion.
And there aren't many people who would say that the Hebrews were necessarily a completely peaceful people. From the massacre of the worshipers of the golden calf to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, there was plenty of violence to go around.
That is history prior to Christianity. No where in the New Testament will you violence being condoned for the followers of Christianity to participate in. You do however find lots of support for returning good for evil, and non-retaliation for violence received.
Christianity is not about forcing a world view, religion, beliefs, or anything on anyone else. It's about spreading the good news of the Gospel to everyone so they have the choice to be saved or not.
It's fine if you choose not to believe in Christianity but you should at least research the facts before you make claims when you clearly don't know the subject matter.
And could you list all these amazing free games you're talking about? Because last I checked indie games still cost money. Which means they're still relying on the whole "people buying their product" model.
Never said anything about free games. I was talking about cheap games. That being said though, there *have* been tons of free mods for games (basically new games in and of themselves) and yes, even a few free games that are good. That is, of course, besides the myriads of free flash and popcap type games you can find online - which probably accrue more hours played than pay-for games. Then there was the recent indie bundle with the "pay what you want" deal. $.01 isn't quite free, but near enough as makes no difference for the buyer.
Again. Can I get a list? Counterstrike comes to mind but really, beyond that... Flash games? Maybe? I'm pretty sure all of my favourite games were made by companies trying to make a living off selling video games
Really? You need a list? I suppose you also need a list of all the privately-owned restaurants in the US before you'll believe someone can be successful with one?
It didn't use JUST cgi. The CG was one step above photomanipulation, not pure rendering.
Give 'em time to perfect it. In 10-20 years, it'll be pure rendering. And you'll be able to buy a PC at Best Buy capable of doing it.
They had actors do everything models do everything and then they went over it all with CG.
Sure they did. But you're missing the hugely obvious point: when you're displaying models instead of the actors, it doesn't matter what the actual actors look like. You no longer need beautiful, popular people to do your acting. Sure, Zoe Saldana helped sell Avatar, but you know as well as I do there's no reason they couldn't have just as easily replaced her with any of about a billion other females on the planet. All you need is a decent voice actor. Those aren't really all that hard to find.
Might I point out they had a MAKEUP DEPARTMENT.
Sure, you can point that out. I can also point out that you don't need a makeup department when your whole film is rendered or animated. We're not there quite yet, but again, give 'em a decade or two.
Oh, and while we're at it, I'll also go ahead and point out that just because you have a makeup department doesn't mean they have to be grossly overpaid fat cats.
And scroll down the list of 3D artists they needed for that. I won't wait though, it'll take you too long. It's a VERY LONG LIST. No matter how advanced you make the technology you still need a crapton of people. The more art you have the more artists you need.
It's still in the early stages. Of course they needed a lot of people on the first attempt. Like I said, wait a decade or two. By then, I'm willing to wager pretty much all of that work will be done by a handful of people and a computer program.
All that being said, it's already possible to make good flicks on a shoestring budget with consumer-grade equipment, even without using CG. For some examples, see Blair Witch Project, Primer, Clerks, and El Mariachi.
I am aware of narbacular drop (the original game). However the fact that not many other people do kind of shows my point. It isn't well known and it wasn't nearly as good because while the mechanics were similar and engaging, the graphics and writing was meh.
And yet, somehow we've recently seen lots of indie games on shoestring budges with excellent graphics and writing that were massively successful. Also, there was obviously something good about narbacular, otherwise Valve wouldn't have hired on the team.
A smaller company can't do that sort of thing because they need a product on the market before they all starve to death.
Sure they can. It's called holding a full time job and working on your pet project in your spare time. LOTS of teams have produced great games and mods like that.
Yes special effects will get cheaper, but a movie is more than special effects. You need costumes, you need sets, you need film equipment and most importantly, you need actors. no matter how cheap equipment gets, people don't. Extras, crew, actors etc. For a full scale movie you're probably going to need a significant financial investment. Plus marketing costs (viral will only get you so far) food for the actors your already paying if you need to travel anywhere. Travel costs etc. You can't use JUST cgi. Lucas tried that. It was terrible.
Have you heard of this great new film called Avatar? I've heard it's got some pretty interesting CG tech. You might want to check it out.
I'm all for musicians and other artists being paid what their creative work is worth. The problem is, artistry in general (and music specifically) have a relatively low worth to begin with, and the value drops off so much faster as supply increases than for other more necessary goods. The thing is, at the end of the day music especially is just entertainment. And not only that, it's an amazingly easy form of entertainment to create. Literally, anyone can create music in some form. There's always going to be a very small, very limited number of performers whose work is great enough to be worth any significant amount of money. Right now, there's way more money being pumped into the music "industry" than its actual value, by several orders of magnitude. Making music is not the same as making food, or making furniture. Music is not something anyone has to buy. So, while a burger or a pizza, for example has some inherent minimum value as a food item, (provided it's constructed well enough to be considered "food" and enjoyable to eat) music has no inherent minimum value - regardless of how good it is. Your music (or any other creative work) only has value if someone likes it (or you) well enough to pay you to create it. If you create it first and then expect to be paid for it later, well, that's your problem.
So no, I don't agree that someone should get paid merely because they're in the business of "creating art". I definitely don't agree that there should be some kind of "minimum wage" for creative work. If you want a guaranteed income, get a real job and do some real work. Most of us can't make money doing what we'd most like to do. That's life. Deal with it.
Interesting that you should bring up Portal. The team for that in fact was quite small, (no more than 10 people involved, according to wikipedia) and made a very similar game before Portal on their own - with presumably very little funding. Apparently most of the time and money required in Portal compared to the previous game was to create it in the Half Life universe. And even then, going by the MSRP for the game, it's a pretty safe bet it was in fact fairly cheap to make.
As far as movies go, a lot of things that used to cost a lot of money can already be replicated fairly cheaply with a green screen and CG. And then, take Avatar for example of what things will probably look like in the future. Sure, that tech is expensive now, but only because it's new. Give it a decade or two, and anyone will be able to create their own movie with that tech, with consumer-grade equipment they'll probably be able to purchase for the equivalent of 1-2K in today's US dollars or less. That will basically put the movie industry in the same place the music industry is now: where the only real difference is that the "expensive" stuff is a lot more heavily advertised, and you'll be able to get all you want of just-as-good stuff for [nearly] free from indie sources.
If you want our culture to have a rich music component, full-time musicians need to make a decent middle-class living. Currently the number that can is vanishingly small.
The number of people who have been able to make a living doing nothing but make music has always been vanishingly small. I'd wager the percentage of people able to pull that off today is significantly higher than it has ever been. The reasons that the number of profitable musicians are (and should be) relatively low are so numerous and obvious, I find it a bit dumbfounding why anyone would try to imply that we need more of them. In fact, we have so many "musicians" these days that I'm mostly surprised that anyone is able to make a living in that industry. Supply so far exceeds demand, it's not even funny. It's almost like trying to sell some basic run-of-the-mill air. What's not surprising though is that things are starting to come to a head. Western culture (and the US in particular) have so drastically overvalued IP (and more specifically entertainment) that we have a lot more people "working" in those industries than ever before to make a quick buck. It's a huge bubble waiting to burst. Thankfully, in the music industry that bubble is all but finished.
Also, think of the application of this in lieu of split-screen for multiplayer gaming. Here's betting the next XBox will incorporate this feature. I can't wait.
how is it even possible for Apple to be anticompetitive in this case?
I thought under US law, being anticompetitive means either forming a collusion with most of the other major players in the same market or leveraging a [near] monopoly to lock in another market.
it's a lot more profitable to copy somebody's code, make it your own, and slap a bunch of protection on it to prevent somebody else using it than it is to share it
Because protecting your code and preventing anyone else from ever seeing and using it works perfectly right?
The problem is that no one can actually focus on more than one thing at a time. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what "focus" means: to pay attention to only one thing. People who are good multi-taskers are merely better at switching focus from one thing to another. The premise of the article is that as you increase your ability in switching focus quickly between many things, you lose your ability to maintain focus on one thing.
While it may be debatable whether or not that's good or bad, I tend to agree with the article that it definitely is the case. The human brain, while very complex, is still quite limited in capacity. In my own personal experience I've found that trying to go beyond capacity generally ends badly.
If only it were that simple. The problem is that Blizzard's argument has nothing to do with what they provide as a service, but exactly what you're allowed to do with the actual copy of the software you bought and exactly what entails copyright infringement.
In a nutshell, it seems their argument is that the glider bot makes a copy of the software in RAM, which is copyright infringement because that copy is not necessary to use the software.
Hopefully I don't need to attempt to explain why setting this kind of precedent would be a very bad thing. Or if you need an explanation, hopefully someone can do a better job of providing one than I could.
Good for both of you. I tried quitting WoW myself a number of times, and finally succeeded about 4 months ago. Along with that, I've stayed away from video games in general as much as possible. It's amazing how much better you feel about yourself when you realize that it IS possible to have a life outside of video games as a geek, no matter what the mockers tell you.
Because public use of social pressure is very much like hundreds of lemmings running off a cliff. The main difference is, the damage in the former is generally far greater.
So they start making drivers give consent in order to get a drivers license. That's assuming, of course, that they haven't already slipped in something to that effect in the fine print.
And sometimes there's some pretty good reasons for it. Like in this particular instance the article is a great read and perfectly fine to do so anywhere you please. The forums with the original post, on the other hand, not so much.
"You don't read textbooks in the same linear way as a novel," said Roesner, 23, a graduate student in computer science and engineering. "You have to flip back and forth between pages, and the Kindle is too slow for that."
That rings very true to my own educational experience. Also, based on my own experience and from watching other students in the past, when you're looking for something specific in a textbook you're most likely going to flip through looking for a picture, diagram, or a certain page layout. You may even remember approximately how far in from the front or back of the book the section is you're looking for (ie. you may remember it's about half an inch or one finger's thickness from the back of the book). None of these visual cues would work as well with an ebook reader, and as Roesner said, would be a lot slower.
If I'm being held responsible for the charges after disputing them in both cases? Then obviously it would be more trouble for ME if the thief is spending the bank's money. I have to pay interest on that. Therefore I'm out more of MY money than if they had just spent my money to begin with.
Except it doesn't work that way.
1. You have at least a few weeks to get it worked out before the charge would incur interest in the first place. 2. It's generally pretty easy with a credit card to put a stop payment on a fraudulent charge, and when everything gets sorted out you're not out any money. 3. Worst case scenario, if your credit card company happens to be the worst one on the planet and tries to leave you hanging (but honestly, I've never heard of a credit card company doing that) you can simply refuse to pay the fraudulent charges. Yeah, it might effect your credit rating in the short term, but once it all gets worked out, that gets fixed too. If it *never* gets worked out, (even more unlikely) well, at least you just took a hit on your credit rating and you're not actually missing any of your own money.
Also, if they overdraft your bank account with your debit card, you're potentially on the hook for an overdraft fee that is enough to cover quite a bit of interest on a credit card.
Not to mention, in the meantime you've no choice but to wait on your bank to replace your money. If you have a great bank, that might happen within a few days. If you have a bad bank, you might be out for several months.
All the protections in the world don't help you if your bank account just got drained and you needed that money RIGHT NOW.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called context. In the verse you quote, Jesus is quoting something from the old testament. In that particular passage, he neither approves nor disapproves of it; he uses it to point out how the Pharisees are hypocrites.
Nothing on the page you linked encourages Christians to be violent. Most of it speaks of the consequences we face if we choose not to believe in Christ (generally accepted as consequences that happen in the after-life, once you die physically); the rest is taken completely out of context like the verse you quoted.
The churches in the Bible are simply the local community of Christians in the given locale. For example, Ephesians was the letter written to "the Church at Ephesus". In todays terms, that would be like writing a letter to "the Church at Dallas" (as opposed to "The First Baptist Church in Dallas"). There were no organized churches as we know them today, only local gatherings of Christians. Elders, or "bishops" were merely older and/or mature Christians who had kind of a general responsibility to help other Christians mature and grow.
How? Religion is created by people.
Most religions are. Judaism and Christianity claim to have been created by God.
I, for one, do not believe that the New Testament speaks only Christ's words and teachings, especially considering that considerable portions were written hundreds of years after his death.
Hundreds of years? The latest possible date for *any* of the books is 150AD. The most likely date places the most recent one (Revelation) as being written in 95AD.
This isn't even considering that Jesus, like Luther centuries later, wasn't necessarily seeking to create a new religion, rather he was attempting to modify the existing Hebrew religion.
Pretty much everything Jesus taught in his day flew directly in the face of what Judaism taught at the time. The leaders of Judaism where his biggest opponents. In fact, his blasphemy by their definition was so horrible as to warrant the worst possible sentence they had at their disposal. Not exactly what anyone would (with any seriousness) call a "modification" of an existing religion.
And there aren't many people who would say that the Hebrews were necessarily a completely peaceful people. From the massacre of the worshipers of the golden calf to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, there was plenty of violence to go around.
That is history prior to Christianity. No where in the New Testament will you violence being condoned for the followers of Christianity to participate in. You do however find lots of support for returning good for evil, and non-retaliation for violence received.
Christianity is not about forcing a world view, religion, beliefs, or anything on anyone else. It's about spreading the good news of the Gospel to everyone so they have the choice to be saved or not.
It's fine if you choose not to believe in Christianity but you should at least research the facts before you make claims when you clearly don't know the subject matter.
Parent should be modded insightful.
And could you list all these amazing free games you're talking about? Because last I checked indie games still cost money. Which means they're still relying on the whole "people buying their product" model.
Never said anything about free games. I was talking about cheap games. That being said though, there *have* been tons of free mods for games (basically new games in and of themselves) and yes, even a few free games that are good. That is, of course, besides the myriads of free flash and popcap type games you can find online - which probably accrue more hours played than pay-for games. Then there was the recent indie bundle with the "pay what you want" deal. $.01 isn't quite free, but near enough as makes no difference for the buyer.
Again. Can I get a list? Counterstrike comes to mind but really, beyond that... Flash games? Maybe? I'm pretty sure all of my favourite games were made by companies trying to make a living off selling video games
Really? You need a list? I suppose you also need a list of all the privately-owned restaurants in the US before you'll believe someone can be successful with one?
It didn't use JUST cgi. The CG was one step above photomanipulation, not pure rendering.
Give 'em time to perfect it. In 10-20 years, it'll be pure rendering. And you'll be able to buy a PC at Best Buy capable of doing it.
They had actors do everything models do everything and then they went over it all with CG.
Sure they did. But you're missing the hugely obvious point: when you're displaying models instead of the actors, it doesn't matter what the actual actors look like. You no longer need beautiful, popular people to do your acting. Sure, Zoe Saldana helped sell Avatar, but you know as well as I do there's no reason they couldn't have just as easily replaced her with any of about a billion other females on the planet. All you need is a decent voice actor. Those aren't really all that hard to find.
Might I point out they had a MAKEUP DEPARTMENT.
Sure, you can point that out. I can also point out that you don't need a makeup department when your whole film is rendered or animated. We're not there quite yet, but again, give 'em a decade or two.
Oh, and while we're at it, I'll also go ahead and point out that just because you have a makeup department doesn't mean they have to be grossly overpaid fat cats.
And scroll down the list of 3D artists they needed for that. I won't wait though, it'll take you too long. It's a VERY LONG LIST. No matter how advanced you make the technology you still need a crapton of people. The more art you have the more artists you need.
It's still in the early stages. Of course they needed a lot of people on the first attempt. Like I said, wait a decade or two. By then, I'm willing to wager pretty much all of that work will be done by a handful of people and a computer program.
All that being said, it's already possible to make good flicks on a shoestring budget with consumer-grade equipment, even without using CG. For some examples, see Blair Witch Project, Primer, Clerks, and El Mariachi.
I am aware of narbacular drop (the original game). However the fact that not many other people do kind of shows my point. It isn't well known and it wasn't nearly as good because while the mechanics were similar and engaging, the graphics and writing was meh.
And yet, somehow we've recently seen lots of indie games on shoestring budges with excellent graphics and writing that were massively successful. Also, there was obviously something good about narbacular, otherwise Valve wouldn't have hired on the team.
A smaller company can't do that sort of thing because they need a product on the market before they all starve to death.
Sure they can. It's called holding a full time job and working on your pet project in your spare time. LOTS of teams have produced great games and mods like that.
Yes special effects will get cheaper, but a movie is more than special effects. You need costumes, you need sets, you need film equipment and most importantly, you need actors. no matter how cheap equipment gets, people don't. Extras, crew, actors etc. For a full scale movie you're probably going to need a significant financial investment. Plus marketing costs (viral will only get you so far) food for the actors your already paying if you need to travel anywhere. Travel costs etc. You can't use JUST cgi. Lucas tried that. It was terrible.
Have you heard of this great new film called Avatar? I've heard it's got some pretty interesting CG tech. You might want to check it out.
I'm all for musicians and other artists being paid what their creative work is worth. The problem is, artistry in general (and music specifically) have a relatively low worth to begin with, and the value drops off so much faster as supply increases than for other more necessary goods. The thing is, at the end of the day music especially is just entertainment. And not only that, it's an amazingly easy form of entertainment to create. Literally, anyone can create music in some form. There's always going to be a very small, very limited number of performers whose work is great enough to be worth any significant amount of money. Right now, there's way more money being pumped into the music "industry" than its actual value, by several orders of magnitude. Making music is not the same as making food, or making furniture. Music is not something anyone has to buy. So, while a burger or a pizza, for example has some inherent minimum value as a food item, (provided it's constructed well enough to be considered "food" and enjoyable to eat) music has no inherent minimum value - regardless of how good it is. Your music (or any other creative work) only has value if someone likes it (or you) well enough to pay you to create it. If you create it first and then expect to be paid for it later, well, that's your problem.
So no, I don't agree that someone should get paid merely because they're in the business of "creating art". I definitely don't agree that there should be some kind of "minimum wage" for creative work. If you want a guaranteed income, get a real job and do some real work. Most of us can't make money doing what we'd most like to do. That's life. Deal with it.
Very interesting, relating the current state of IP as a "bubble," perhaps analogous to an economics (e.g. housing) bubble.
That's exactly what I had in mind when I posted that.
Interesting that you should bring up Portal. The team for that in fact was quite small, (no more than 10 people involved, according to wikipedia) and made a very similar game before Portal on their own - with presumably very little funding. Apparently most of the time and money required in Portal compared to the previous game was to create it in the Half Life universe. And even then, going by the MSRP for the game, it's a pretty safe bet it was in fact fairly cheap to make.
As far as movies go, a lot of things that used to cost a lot of money can already be replicated fairly cheaply with a green screen and CG. And then, take Avatar for example of what things will probably look like in the future. Sure, that tech is expensive now, but only because it's new. Give it a decade or two, and anyone will be able to create their own movie with that tech, with consumer-grade equipment they'll probably be able to purchase for the equivalent of 1-2K in today's US dollars or less. That will basically put the movie industry in the same place the music industry is now: where the only real difference is that the "expensive" stuff is a lot more heavily advertised, and you'll be able to get all you want of just-as-good stuff for [nearly] free from indie sources.
If you want our culture to have a rich music component, full-time musicians need to make a decent middle-class living. Currently the number that can is vanishingly small.
The number of people who have been able to make a living doing nothing but make music has always been vanishingly small. I'd wager the percentage of people able to pull that off today is significantly higher than it has ever been. The reasons that the number of profitable musicians are (and should be) relatively low are so numerous and obvious, I find it a bit dumbfounding why anyone would try to imply that we need more of them. In fact, we have so many "musicians" these days that I'm mostly surprised that anyone is able to make a living in that industry. Supply so far exceeds demand, it's not even funny. It's almost like trying to sell some basic run-of-the-mill air. What's not surprising though is that things are starting to come to a head. Western culture (and the US in particular) have so drastically overvalued IP (and more specifically entertainment) that we have a lot more people "working" in those industries than ever before to make a quick buck. It's a huge bubble waiting to burst. Thankfully, in the music industry that bubble is all but finished.
Also, think of the application of this in lieu of split-screen for multiplayer gaming. Here's betting the next XBox will incorporate this feature. I can't wait.
how is it even possible for Apple to be anticompetitive in this case?
I thought under US law, being anticompetitive means either forming a collusion with most of the other major players in the same market or leveraging a [near] monopoly to lock in another market.
it's a lot more profitable to copy somebody's code, make it your own, and slap a bunch of protection on it to prevent somebody else using it than it is to share it
Because protecting your code and preventing anyone else from ever seeing and using it works perfectly right?
There's a reason he's modded up and you're not.
This is the best day of my life!!!
The problem is that no one can actually focus on more than one thing at a time. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what "focus" means: to pay attention to only one thing. People who are good multi-taskers are merely better at switching focus from one thing to another. The premise of the article is that as you increase your ability in switching focus quickly between many things, you lose your ability to maintain focus on one thing.
While it may be debatable whether or not that's good or bad, I tend to agree with the article that it definitely is the case. The human brain, while very complex, is still quite limited in capacity. In my own personal experience I've found that trying to go beyond capacity generally ends badly.
If only it were that simple. The problem is that Blizzard's argument has nothing to do with what they provide as a service, but exactly what you're allowed to do with the actual copy of the software you bought and exactly what entails copyright infringement.
In a nutshell, it seems their argument is that the glider bot makes a copy of the software in RAM, which is copyright infringement because that copy is not necessary to use the software.
Hopefully I don't need to attempt to explain why setting this kind of precedent would be a very bad thing. Or if you need an explanation, hopefully someone can do a better job of providing one than I could.
Good for both of you. I tried quitting WoW myself a number of times, and finally succeeded about 4 months ago. Along with that, I've stayed away from video games in general as much as possible. It's amazing how much better you feel about yourself when you realize that it IS possible to have a life outside of video games as a geek, no matter what the mockers tell you.
I would mod you up if I hadn't already posted. Your comments here are some of the most insightful comments I've seen on /. in a long while.
Because public use of social pressure is very much like hundreds of lemmings running off a cliff. The main difference is, the damage in the former is generally far greater.
So they start making drivers give consent in order to get a drivers license. That's assuming, of course, that they haven't already slipped in something to that effect in the fine print.
And sometimes there's some pretty good reasons for it. Like in this particular instance the article is a great read and perfectly fine to do so anywhere you please. The forums with the original post, on the other hand, not so much.
Lots of reasons, but one of the biggest is because they're often not 100% stable at higher frequencies without increasing the voltage.
Let me include a bit more of that quote...
"You don't read textbooks in the same linear way as a novel," said Roesner, 23, a graduate student in computer science and engineering. "You have to flip back and forth between pages, and the Kindle is too slow for that."
That rings very true to my own educational experience. Also, based on my own experience and from watching other students in the past, when you're looking for something specific in a textbook you're most likely going to flip through looking for a picture, diagram, or a certain page layout. You may even remember approximately how far in from the front or back of the book the section is you're looking for (ie. you may remember it's about half an inch or one finger's thickness from the back of the book). None of these visual cues would work as well with an ebook reader, and as Roesner said, would be a lot slower.
It also doesn't appear to be working in Chrome 4 on WinXP.
If I'm being held responsible for the charges after disputing them in both cases? Then obviously it would be more trouble for ME if the thief is spending the bank's money. I have to pay interest on that. Therefore I'm out more of MY money than if they had just spent my money to begin with.
Except it doesn't work that way.
1. You have at least a few weeks to get it worked out before the charge would incur interest in the first place.
2. It's generally pretty easy with a credit card to put a stop payment on a fraudulent charge, and when everything gets sorted out you're not out any money.
3. Worst case scenario, if your credit card company happens to be the worst one on the planet and tries to leave you hanging (but honestly, I've never heard of a credit card company doing that) you can simply refuse to pay the fraudulent charges. Yeah, it might effect your credit rating in the short term, but once it all gets worked out, that gets fixed too. If it *never* gets worked out, (even more unlikely) well, at least you just took a hit on your credit rating and you're not actually missing any of your own money.
Also, if they overdraft your bank account with your debit card, you're potentially on the hook for an overdraft fee that is enough to cover quite a bit of interest on a credit card.
Not to mention, in the meantime you've no choice but to wait on your bank to replace your money. If you have a great bank, that might happen within a few days. If you have a bad bank, you might be out for several months.
All the protections in the world don't help you if your bank account just got drained and you needed that money RIGHT NOW.