His post doesn't sound like he's reached any conclusion.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
According to the page you told me to read, it means
"If your app doesnâ(TM)t offer much functionality or content, or only applies to a small niche market, it may not be approved."
That's actually pretty useful information, if you want to design something targeted at a relatively small community, perhaps steer clear of Apple.
It isn't not an entirely unreasonably way to discuss the opposite.
It's not dumb if it costs you nothing and influences your victim as you desire.
Without a TPM or asking questions about the ads that the user has seen, ad-blocker blockers are ultimately fallible.
It sounds a little like you're trying to just fling a firewall at the system and improve some sort of objective security metric.
What threats are you risks to mitigate with the firewall? What threats will it help guard against?
They don't come for free, and configuring them don't come for free.
Where's the '-1 heartless' mod?
"a lot of basic research needs to be done first" == "is unlikely to happen in your lifetime"
Do you close your curtains at night? Do you like to speak to your doctor alone? Do you lock the door to your bathroom when you take a piss? Do you do things out of work that you don't discuss with your coworkers? Have you done things in the past that you'd rather stayed there?
I do. I have plenty to hide and none of it's going to cause you any harm.
Maybe you do too.
Everyone damn well should know the basics of how engines work, though.
Looking at the shows she does watch, you'd assume she doesn't finds televised fiction too stimulating.
I know right. How hard is it to say something fewer good??
it does if you're trying to indirectly identify chemicals in a glass of wine.
But without a big explanation, it doesn't look like you're attemping to point out that the actual name is a deceptive ploy to obfuscate what DRM does. It looks like you've made an embarrassing mistake.
People love writing off people who make silly mistakes as nuts.
Look at my post above - typed it on a phone, full of typos and grammar errors. If I was trying to argue something important there, anything that could be interpretted as error on my part invites ad hominem attacks which are always good for swaying the opinion of the masses.
calling it 'restrictions' is petulent and confusing. without a verbose disclaimer about what you mean and why youve corrupted the name it becomes confusing.
arguments against DRM are just as valid whilst avoiding cheap shots.