Gamemaker's the greatest; this is an undeniable, inconvenient truth. You cannot deny. To deny it indicates that you accept it in your heart, but are simply in denial.
Use Gamemaker. It's the only option. You must return to Gamemakerdom.
Nothing is better than Gamemaker. Gamemaker is the absolute greatest. What's greater than Gamemaker? Nothing! Nothing is better than Gamemaker! There will never be anything greater than Gamemaker!
So why not return to Gamemakerdom!? What kind of loser are you!?
Why have you not returned to Gamemakerdom, my friend?
Are you depressed? Are you lonely? Are you contemplating suicide? For you, the answer to all of those is a resounding "yes." That's why you need to switch to Gamemaker. Gamemaker takes programming to the next level, and will bring joy back to your life.
Switch to Gamemaker! Return to Gamemakerdooooooooooom!
Have you ever been chronically depressed to the point where you were contemplating suicide? I was once in that situation; I had a bad habit of beating my wife and two daughters with various objects, couldn't hold down a job, and was about to lose my house.
But I got better. I now have a high-paying job, a beautiful house, a stupendous car, and my family loves me dearly. How did I go from being a depressed loser to an all-around winner? I started using Gamemaker.
That's right. I returned to Gamemakerdom, and my life changed for the better! You should too.
Return, return, return, return, return to Gamemakerdom!
I by nature of government have to entrust government to forcibly move people and put them in captivity. I by the nature of government have to entrust them to kill people and expose Americans to life threatening situation. I by the nature of government have to make them responsible for the safety of our public infrastructure.
Which means what? They should be able to do whatever they please because they do other things, too?
What's the worst that happens
Censorship. Loss of freedom and privacy. A complete disregard for the spirit of the constitution.
A lesser evil is still an evil. The government should not be able to ban a single word simply because they don't like it. Let's say it was a lesser used word. A word many people don't use. The harm itself would be relatively small, but it would still be wrong to ban it.
I can't give you firm proof.
Then I sincerely hope you or people like you don't try to pass any laws.
Instead we have to guess based on similar situations, modeling and analogies. That's the way all laws are argued for.
Many laws are put forth without any evidence. You should not be able to pass laws unless you have a damn good reason to support the fact that they should exist, but you haven't even given me that, let alone actual evidence. Otherwise we end up with a bunch of nonsensical laws. Which is exactly what we have now.
We are down to about a $6b market which is about 2/3rds or more smaller than it likely would have been without digital copying. The effect on mass music and culture has been tremendous.
Because of the lack of DRM? If so, how do you know this? Why should I care?
OTOH I don't question that both are the government doing their job even if I disagree with the particulars.
Their job is to violate our freedom and privacy in exchange for security theater? We're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy; if a law would violate the constitution, it must not be passed.
They took an oath to uphold the constitution, and they're simply not doing that when they support SOPA, the TSA, the Patriot Act, or anything similar.
1) They might not even understand how to pirate to begin with. 2) They might think it's morally wrong, but not because a few websites got shut down.
So, yeah, your "anti piracy is working because most people don't pirate" is a nonsensical assumption. Rather than saying correlation is causation, prove that shutting down a few websites occasionally is responsible for most people not resorting to piracy.
And, you know, you have to be quite ignorant to think that "anti piracy" actions are working. It will literally take me about five seconds to retrieve a torrent file that I can use to pirate the latest game/movie/album. If I was a pirate, that is how easy it would be for me to do so.
Your claims that we're preventing piracy are absolutely removed from reality. It takes about five seconds to see that's not true. As such, the more likely explanation is something completely different (ignorance or the belief that paying the artist is a good thing). This has nothing to do with copyright enforcement. If most people wanted to pirate, you'd be screwed; even more so than you are now.
How is that proof? That's no copyright enforcement at all. How about showing proof that your draconian laws and DRM are good things? What's especially funny is that I never said anything about no copyright enforcement. But if it is to be enforced, it must be done so in a way that doesn't violate people's rights or privacy. And guess what? There is no reason that you cannot enforce copyright in a way that doesn't violate people's privacy and freedom. This is done on a case-by-case basis. How you could ever trust the government with such powers is beyond me.
If you're going to propose laws, the burden of proof is on you.
In terms of copying being less serious than jaywalking. Media represents hundreds of billions of dollars combined.
That's comical. The act of copyright infringement is an act which may or may not cause a loss of potential profit. That's all it is.
But I suppose all that matters is money...
Anti piracy is working if most consumers are buying not stealing their content.
Alternate reasons:
1) They might not even understand how to pirate to begin with. 2) They might think it's morally wrong, but not because a few websites got shut down.
So, yeah, your "anti piracy is working because most people don't pirate" is a nonsensical assumption. Rather than saying correlation is causation, prove that shutting down a few websites occasionally is responsible for most people not resorting to piracy.
What I said was that the desire is to control the who.
You're playing word games. You cannot control the "who" without controlling the "what." After all, you do not know who the "who" is, and you don't know what they're planning to do. There is no magical way to determine this.
ebooks, movies or music today
I don't know what kind of garbage DRM is in ebooks or movies, but music? I heard plenty of music is 100% DRM free. I guess the industry is dead, huh?
This BTW is what I mean by absolutist and extreme.
"extreme" is subjective to begin with. As I said, I think you're taking an extreme stance when you constantly go on and on about compromise.
But, I say again: "extreme" doesn't mean "wrong." Furthermore, if it's extreme to want to control the data you bought, then so be it. I'm an "extremist" according to you. I love freedom, privacy, and the ability to have control over my own property. To me, it's clear that you don't. It seems to me that you're one of those people who would support the TSA or the Patriot Act because they claim to protect us from all the big, evil terrorists. But in this case, at least in my opinion, it's even worse. I mean, at least terrorism actually takes lives. All that's at stake here is potential profit.
It is possible to have some restrictions or a few restrictions and that is different than total lockdown.
If it restricts what I can do with my own property, I'm not going to buy that garbage.
Cracking it is only necessary to share to change the who.
No, it's not. If you have, say, music on one device and DRM that restricts it to that one device, cracking it could allow you to play it on all of your devices. That is just one example.
Please tell me more about this magical DRM that places absolutely no restrictions upon the paying customer; I'd love to know more.
I see a thriving movie business, a thriving television business, a thriving e-book business, a thriving digital magazine business, and even the music business is starting to recover.
That has nothing to do with stopping piracy. Most people just don't pirate, either due to ignorance or because they simply don't want to. You're assuming it's because they've shut down a few websites, and that's simply removed from reality.
As for the rest that's what fighting all crime is like
Not quite. Internet piracy is special since it doesn't have any noticeable effects on anyone (other than a loss of potential profit) and is mostly completely untraceable. It's also quite widespread (although most probably don't engage in it).
Normal people have a threshold of quality vs. price vs. willingness to copy.
I didn't say otherwise. You're just putting words into my mouth. I stated a fact: piracy is fairly widespread and difficult to stop. That doesn't mean all or even most people do it.
Most people value content far more than minor changes to privacy
[citation needed]
Not that it matters how many people believe that, but I'm interested to know how you know that.
and understand that law enforcement in many areas often involves collateral damage and collateral damage far worse than anything the DRM debate will ever produce.
No collateral damage is difficult to avoid, but DRM is arbitrary collateral damage. It isn't necessary at all. For one thing, its entire point is to stop unwanted copying: a 'crime' that can hardly be considered on the level of jaywalking. Yet people treat it as if it's a national security emergency.
They can use DRM all they want, but I'll never buy their garbage.
For Americans broadly, we want privacy, we want freedom
Doubt it, honestly. Probably the same ones who have a "nothing to hide nothing to fear" mentality.
we want a thriving content creation industry which is customer supported.
DRM and draconian copyright laws aren't necessary for that. But even if they were, I'll have none of that. I will never buy anything with DRM.
You are free to assert an extreme position but that's not meaningfully addressing the complexity of balancing competing interests which is how societies really do make policy.
There's no need to address that due to it being nonsense. Sometimes extreme positions are correct. I'm not saying that mine is, but it happens.
And if desiring freedom is considered "extreme," then I don't want to live in this country any longer.
absolutism on privacy and freedom
I didn't mention anything about absolutism.
in exchange for a return to the dismal content
Non sequitur. Please tell me how you reached the conclusion that the absence of draconian laws and DRM would bring only "dismal content." And then prove it, please.
In my opinion, your stance on DRM, laws, and freedom are simply broken and completely incompatible with mine. In fact, just as you seem to find my views extreme, I find yours extreme. Not that that makes them wrong, of course.
So I don't think it is accurate to say they want to control "what", they are interested in controlling "who" and what is just a mechanism.
But in the end, DRM always controls you, the customer, and what you can do with your own data. This is a fact. If it did not, cracking it wouldn't even be necessary.
Right now publishers believe they can beat pirates and the media world has continued to function.
And they obviously can't. We've seen them try, but they've failed. It takes ridiculous amounts of money just to shut down a single website, and pirates just move on to the next. In fact, sometimes they even waste taxpayer money on this nonsense. And for what? To stop a few people from copying data? Sorry if I don't think they're national heroes.
It continues to function not because they believe they can stop it, but because some (most, probably) people are still buying the media.
We are doing it now and we have been doing it for centuries.
And we've failed time and time again. It's much more simple to catch commercial copyright infringement. However, when you have normal people all over the world infringing upon copyright, that is much, much more difficult to prevent. No, it's just impossible. Especially if they start using encryption/VPNs.
There are failures but the fact are that most content is bought from publishers not from pirates.
Bought? You don't even need to buy it; it's available for free. As I said, commercial copyright infringement is a bit more simple to stop.
You have to look at places where there is much less enforcement and balance out plusses and minuses which IMHO comes down clearly on the side of plusses.
Sorry, but if any of the "minuses" happen to be a loss of privacy or collateral damage, I would much rather have no copyright enforcement.
Freedom is absolutely more important to me than copyright, and I don't think there's anything you could say that would change my mind. Any defense of DRM will just fall on deaf ears.
However, if you have a solution that doesn't involve violating people's privacy, opening the internet up to dangerous censorship, or causing collateral damage, feel free to chime in. If you know of a single piece of DRM that doesn't restrict the customer in some way, please tell me. I know of none.
All DRM is restrictive. That is by design. If it wasn't, then you could freely do whatever you wanted with the data. In which case, it wouldn't really stop unwanted copying, now would it (not that it does anyway)?
Even Steam is a form of DRM. I've often wondered why you even need Steam to run the games rather than it just being a platform to download the games on.
What we need are good quality DRM that protects that publishers and the consumers balancing the two.
And the pirates will just get rid of that, too. What a waste of time. I know of no DRM that protects publishers or customers. That concept sounds like pure unadulterated nonsense to me.
In short, this is far, far easier said than done.
Which is the sort of thing best handled by legislation.
Legislation? You mean like SOPA and the DMCA? Enforcing copyright is nigh impossible, and worst of all, the damage the legislation does to innocents is often even worse than the damage DRM does.
but rather the problem of how to transmit a copyrighted work without creating a new copy inadvertently.
How would this be possible without a locked-down platform? DRM hurts everyone, including paying customers. Actually, it doesn't even stop the pirates at all.
What they need to do is to stop getting innocents caught in the crossfire when they're trying to stop the 'enemy'. This means no nonsensical DRM.
You're clearly incorrect simply because you commented in a way that indicates you think you're correct. You're not allowed to disagree with people! It shows that your conclusions themselves are wrong!
they are far and away better than most homeschoolers.
[citation needed]
It can be done well and with those people I have no complaint, but, in my experience, those parents are less concerned with quality education that with isolating children from "corrupting influences" or more thoroughly impressing religious doctrine in the guise of education.
Honestly? With the focus on rote memorization and teaching to the test so prevalent in public schools, just about anything is better.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a mere piece of garbage!
Gamemaker's the greatest; this is an undeniable, inconvenient truth. You cannot deny. To deny it indicates that you accept it in your heart, but are simply in denial.
Use Gamemaker. It's the only option. You must return to Gamemakerdom.
There's simply no other option.
You worthless piece of garbage! Human trash! That's all you'll ever be until you return to Gamemakerdom right this minuteness!
Wow! Everyone is laughing at your Gamemakerlessness!
I agree 100%. Gamemaker's great.
Nothing is better than Gamemaker. Gamemaker is the absolute greatest. What's greater than Gamemaker? Nothing! Nothing is better than Gamemaker! There will never be anything greater than Gamemaker!
So why not return to Gamemakerdom!? What kind of loser are you!?
Why have you not returned to Gamemakerdom, my friend?
Are you depressed? Are you lonely? Are you contemplating suicide? For you, the answer to all of those is a resounding "yes." That's why you need to switch to Gamemaker. Gamemaker takes programming to the next level, and will bring joy back to your life.
Switch to Gamemaker! Return to Gamemakerdooooooooooom!
You're a pathetic loser. The fix? Use Gamemaker. Return to Gamemakerdom!
Have you ever been chronically depressed to the point where you were contemplating suicide? I was once in that situation; I had a bad habit of beating my wife and two daughters with various objects, couldn't hold down a job, and was about to lose my house.
But I got better. I now have a high-paying job, a beautiful house, a stupendous car, and my family loves me dearly. How did I go from being a depressed loser to an all-around winner? I started using Gamemaker.
That's right. I returned to Gamemakerdom, and my life changed for the better! You should too.
Return, return, return, return, return to Gamemakerdom!
Frankly, I'm going to be frank: you need to calm down, take a breather, and smash your ass down on Gamemakerdom.
That's right. You need to return to Gamemakerdom. Your entire life is meaningless unless you do so.
Why? Why not Gamemaker. Switch now! Gamemaker's the best!
After all this time...! I've been claiming to be a software programmer for years, and yet, unknown to me, that was completely false!
How can someone be a programmer if they don't even use Gamemaker!? It isn't possible, and you, my dear friend, helped me realize that.
Let's all return to Gamemakerdom: a world of innovation and peace where everyone uses Gamemaker.
It cannot be said that your words are false. Unfortunately, this is among the greatest of inconvenient truths for some closed-minded imbeciles.
I'll return to Gamemakerdom right this minuteness.
unless the penalties are sufficiently draconian and enforcement is sufficiently publicized so they hear about it on a weekly basis.
Additionally, there would have to be a high risk of getting caught, but there are ways around that, too...
But I think punishments are draconian enough. So are their 'solutions'.
What? They're not allowed to stop using Hulu!
We need to bribe politicians to pass some law to prevent people from moving away from Hulu! And cable subscriptions, too!
Time to switch. Remember the switch.
That's too extreme. Surely we could compromise? Perhaps just a bomb?
I don't see any reason in supporting libertarianism for its own sake.
Neither do I. I want it to accomplish the good, too. That's why I'm anti-collective punishment, pro-freedom, and pro-privacy.
Because either:
Are there more options? But I guess, either way, it doesn't have anything to do with DRM or copyright.
I by nature of government have to entrust government to forcibly move people and put them in captivity. I by the nature of government have to entrust them to kill people and expose Americans to life threatening situation. I by the nature of government have to make them responsible for the safety of our public infrastructure.
Which means what? They should be able to do whatever they please because they do other things, too?
What's the worst that happens
Censorship. Loss of freedom and privacy. A complete disregard for the spirit of the constitution.
A lesser evil is still an evil. The government should not be able to ban a single word simply because they don't like it. Let's say it was a lesser used word. A word many people don't use. The harm itself would be relatively small, but it would still be wrong to ban it.
I can't give you firm proof.
Then I sincerely hope you or people like you don't try to pass any laws.
Instead we have to guess based on similar situations, modeling and analogies. That's the way all laws are argued for.
Many laws are put forth without any evidence. You should not be able to pass laws unless you have a damn good reason to support the fact that they should exist, but you haven't even given me that, let alone actual evidence. Otherwise we end up with a bunch of nonsensical laws. Which is exactly what we have now.
We are down to about a $6b market which is about 2/3rds or more smaller than it likely would have been without digital copying. The effect on mass music and culture has been tremendous.
Because of the lack of DRM? If so, how do you know this? Why should I care?
OTOH I don't question that both are the government doing their job even if I disagree with the particulars.
Their job is to violate our freedom and privacy in exchange for security theater? We're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy; if a law would violate the constitution, it must not be passed.
They took an oath to uphold the constitution, and they're simply not doing that when they support SOPA, the TSA, the Patriot Act, or anything similar.
How about world hunger? Nah. That's too hard. Let's just hire more TSA employees to molest people at airports.
1) They might not even understand how to pirate to begin with.
2) They might think it's morally wrong, but not because a few websites got shut down.
So, yeah, your "anti piracy is working because most people don't pirate" is a nonsensical assumption. Rather than saying correlation is causation, prove that shutting down a few websites occasionally is responsible for most people not resorting to piracy.
And, you know, you have to be quite ignorant to think that "anti piracy" actions are working. It will literally take me about five seconds to retrieve a torrent file that I can use to pirate the latest game/movie/album. If I was a pirate, that is how easy it would be for me to do so.
Your claims that we're preventing piracy are absolutely removed from reality. It takes about five seconds to see that's not true. As such, the more likely explanation is something completely different (ignorance or the belief that paying the artist is a good thing). This has nothing to do with copyright enforcement. If most people wanted to pirate, you'd be screwed; even more so than you are now.
What world are you living in?
The proof of my views on the alternative is Asia.
How is that proof? That's no copyright enforcement at all. How about showing proof that your draconian laws and DRM are good things? What's especially funny is that I never said anything about no copyright enforcement. But if it is to be enforced, it must be done so in a way that doesn't violate people's rights or privacy. And guess what? There is no reason that you cannot enforce copyright in a way that doesn't violate people's privacy and freedom. This is done on a case-by-case basis. How you could ever trust the government with such powers is beyond me.
If you're going to propose laws, the burden of proof is on you.
In terms of copying being less serious than jaywalking. Media represents hundreds of billions of dollars combined.
That's comical. The act of copyright infringement is an act which may or may not cause a loss of potential profit. That's all it is.
But I suppose all that matters is money...
Anti piracy is working if most consumers are buying not stealing their content.
Alternate reasons:
1) They might not even understand how to pirate to begin with.
2) They might think it's morally wrong, but not because a few websites got shut down.
So, yeah, your "anti piracy is working because most people don't pirate" is a nonsensical assumption. Rather than saying correlation is causation, prove that shutting down a few websites occasionally is responsible for most people not resorting to piracy.
What I said was that the desire is to control the who.
You're playing word games. You cannot control the "who" without controlling the "what." After all, you do not know who the "who" is, and you don't know what they're planning to do. There is no magical way to determine this.
ebooks, movies or music today
I don't know what kind of garbage DRM is in ebooks or movies, but music? I heard plenty of music is 100% DRM free. I guess the industry is dead, huh?
This BTW is what I mean by absolutist and extreme.
"extreme" is subjective to begin with. As I said, I think you're taking an extreme stance when you constantly go on and on about compromise.
But, I say again: "extreme" doesn't mean "wrong." Furthermore, if it's extreme to want to control the data you bought, then so be it. I'm an "extremist" according to you. I love freedom, privacy, and the ability to have control over my own property. To me, it's clear that you don't. It seems to me that you're one of those people who would support the TSA or the Patriot Act because they claim to protect us from all the big, evil terrorists. But in this case, at least in my opinion, it's even worse. I mean, at least terrorism actually takes lives. All that's at stake here is potential profit.
It is possible to have some restrictions or a few restrictions and that is different than total lockdown.
If it restricts what I can do with my own property, I'm not going to buy that garbage.
Cracking it is only necessary to share to change the who.
No, it's not. If you have, say, music on one device and DRM that restricts it to that one device, cracking it could allow you to play it on all of your devices. That is just one example.
Please tell me more about this magical DRM that places absolutely no restrictions upon the paying customer; I'd love to know more.
I see a thriving movie business, a thriving television business, a thriving e-book business, a thriving digital magazine business, and even the music business is starting to recover.
That has nothing to do with stopping piracy. Most people just don't pirate, either due to ignorance or because they simply don't want to. You're assuming it's because they've shut down a few websites, and that's simply removed from reality.
As for the rest that's what fighting all crime is like
Not quite. Internet piracy is special since it doesn't have any noticeable effects on anyone (other than a loss of potential profit) and is mostly completely untraceable. It's also quite widespread (although most probably don't engage in it).
Normal people have a threshold of quality vs. price vs. willingness to copy.
I didn't say otherwise. You're just putting words into my mouth. I stated a fact: piracy is fairly widespread and difficult to stop. That doesn't mean all or even most people do it.
Most people value content far more than minor changes to privacy
[citation needed]
Not that it matters how many people believe that, but I'm interested to know how you know that.
and understand that law enforcement in many areas often involves collateral damage and collateral damage far worse than anything the DRM debate will ever produce.
No collateral damage is difficult to avoid, but DRM is arbitrary collateral damage. It isn't necessary at all. For one thing, its entire point is to stop unwanted copying: a 'crime' that can hardly be considered on the level of jaywalking. Yet people treat it as if it's a national security emergency.
They can use DRM all they want, but I'll never buy their garbage.
For Americans broadly, we want privacy, we want freedom
Doubt it, honestly. Probably the same ones who have a "nothing to hide nothing to fear" mentality.
we want a thriving content creation industry which is customer supported.
DRM and draconian copyright laws aren't necessary for that. But even if they were, I'll have none of that. I will never buy anything with DRM.
You are free to assert an extreme position but that's not meaningfully addressing the complexity of balancing competing interests which is how societies really do make policy.
There's no need to address that due to it being nonsense. Sometimes extreme positions are correct. I'm not saying that mine is, but it happens.
And if desiring freedom is considered "extreme," then I don't want to live in this country any longer.
absolutism on privacy and freedom
I didn't mention anything about absolutism.
in exchange for a return to the dismal content
Non sequitur. Please tell me how you reached the conclusion that the absence of draconian laws and DRM would bring only "dismal content." And then prove it, please.
In my opinion, your stance on DRM, laws, and freedom are simply broken and completely incompatible with mine. In fact, just as you seem to find my views extreme, I find yours extreme. Not that that makes them wrong, of course.
So I don't think it is accurate to say they want to control "what", they are interested in controlling "who" and what is just a mechanism.
But in the end, DRM always controls you, the customer, and what you can do with your own data. This is a fact. If it did not, cracking it wouldn't even be necessary.
Right now publishers believe they can beat pirates and the media world has continued to function.
And they obviously can't. We've seen them try, but they've failed. It takes ridiculous amounts of money just to shut down a single website, and pirates just move on to the next. In fact, sometimes they even waste taxpayer money on this nonsense. And for what? To stop a few people from copying data? Sorry if I don't think they're national heroes.
It continues to function not because they believe they can stop it, but because some (most, probably) people are still buying the media.
We are doing it now and we have been doing it for centuries.
And we've failed time and time again. It's much more simple to catch commercial copyright infringement. However, when you have normal people all over the world infringing upon copyright, that is much, much more difficult to prevent. No, it's just impossible. Especially if they start using encryption/VPNs.
There are failures but the fact are that most content is bought from publishers not from pirates.
Bought? You don't even need to buy it; it's available for free. As I said, commercial copyright infringement is a bit more simple to stop.
You have to look at places where there is much less enforcement and balance out plusses and minuses which IMHO comes down clearly on the side of plusses.
Sorry, but if any of the "minuses" happen to be a loss of privacy or collateral damage, I would much rather have no copyright enforcement.
Freedom is absolutely more important to me than copyright, and I don't think there's anything you could say that would change my mind. Any defense of DRM will just fall on deaf ears.
However, if you have a solution that doesn't involve violating people's privacy, opening the internet up to dangerous censorship, or causing collateral damage, feel free to chime in. If you know of a single piece of DRM that doesn't restrict the customer in some way, please tell me. I know of none.
Bad, restrictive DRM hurts everyone.
All DRM is restrictive. That is by design. If it wasn't, then you could freely do whatever you wanted with the data. In which case, it wouldn't really stop unwanted copying, now would it (not that it does anyway)?
Even Steam is a form of DRM. I've often wondered why you even need Steam to run the games rather than it just being a platform to download the games on.
What we need are good quality DRM that protects that publishers and the consumers balancing the two.
And the pirates will just get rid of that, too. What a waste of time. I know of no DRM that protects publishers or customers. That concept sounds like pure unadulterated nonsense to me.
In short, this is far, far easier said than done.
Which is the sort of thing best handled by legislation.
Legislation? You mean like SOPA and the DMCA? Enforcing copyright is nigh impossible, and worst of all, the damage the legislation does to innocents is often even worse than the damage DRM does.
but rather the problem of how to transmit a copyrighted work without creating a new copy inadvertently.
How would this be possible without a locked-down platform? DRM hurts everyone, including paying customers. Actually, it doesn't even stop the pirates at all.
What they need to do is to stop getting innocents caught in the crossfire when they're trying to stop the 'enemy'. This means no nonsensical DRM.
You're clearly incorrect simply because you commented in a way that indicates you think you're correct. You're not allowed to disagree with people! It shows that your conclusions themselves are wrong!
they are far and away better than most homeschoolers.
[citation needed]
It can be done well and with those people I have no complaint, but, in my experience, those parents are less concerned with quality education that with isolating children from "corrupting influences" or more thoroughly impressing religious doctrine in the guise of education.
Honestly? With the focus on rote memorization and teaching to the test so prevalent in public schools, just about anything is better.