iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 11:02 AM
Come on, Lee, you just enjoy spending your time surrounded by young, fit redheads guys. :)
Do you think they make him change in the closet? :)
Do you think they make him change in the closet? :)
charliehustle
Oct 7, 12:16 PM
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
generally speaking, a company that only makes software (google) has higher profit margins compared to a company that makes hardware and software..(apple)
and it seems like it's possible for google to take over, as they will sell to any phone manufacturer, but apple is stuck with only one device..
now if it's going to be a better phone, thats a different story, this is just market share, and profits..
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
generally speaking, a company that only makes software (google) has higher profit margins compared to a company that makes hardware and software..(apple)
and it seems like it's possible for google to take over, as they will sell to any phone manufacturer, but apple is stuck with only one device..
now if it's going to be a better phone, thats a different story, this is just market share, and profits..
takao
Mar 13, 04:04 PM
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
Ugg
Apr 15, 11:10 AM
What are you talking about? If you're talking about the Apple employees, this issue is obviously something that's very personal, real, and long-lasting for them. It's hardly a "hip" or "trendy" thing. If you're just talking about society (or the MacRumors forum), I don't understand that either. Many people are bullied, sure. But what's wrong with focusing on this particular group? There has been a recent spate in teen suicides due to teasing surrounding their sexual orientation.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
That's what's so sad. Victims are victims no matter where they live.
One thing I find encouraging is that so many social moderates are coming out and saying, "Hey, enough of the gayness already." That means that the message is finally getting across.
It will take more videos, more personal appeals by "real" people but I think we're finally at a point where being gay is ok.
It's sad that caliber can't see it that way. I think he's simply too young to understand what a struggle it has been since Stonewall.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
That's what's so sad. Victims are victims no matter where they live.
One thing I find encouraging is that so many social moderates are coming out and saying, "Hey, enough of the gayness already." That means that the message is finally getting across.
It will take more videos, more personal appeals by "real" people but I think we're finally at a point where being gay is ok.
It's sad that caliber can't see it that way. I think he's simply too young to understand what a struggle it has been since Stonewall.
dodge this
Apr 12, 10:32 PM
Any word on Motion? I use it alot.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:35 PM
citizenzen, there are strong elements of faith involved...
Yes, in theistic belief there are.
However, the thread I was responding to specifically tried to logically deduce the existence of God.
Had it been satisfied with basing its belief simply on faith, I'd have very little to say against it.
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment.
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Yes, in theistic belief there are.
However, the thread I was responding to specifically tried to logically deduce the existence of God.
Had it been satisfied with basing its belief simply on faith, I'd have very little to say against it.
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment.
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
hobo.hopkins
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
I couldn't agree more with this initiative. I'm so glad that a group of employees would be willing to do this on their own time. Bravo!
Manic Mouse
Jul 12, 07:58 AM
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
.JPG "is a Japanese Maple Leaf:")
Lamarak
Jun 13, 01:55 PM
All I can say is AT&T in my area far better than Verizon here in San Antonio. Not saying they don't have their problems, but Verizon doesnt allow you to talk and use the web at same time, which Im sure helps some in the traffic thats on the network.
UnixMac
Oct 9, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
Amen Brother!
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
Amen Brother!
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:14 PM
Do you write brochures for a living?
lol. Only for the Chernobyl tourist board. :D
lol. Only for the Chernobyl tourist board. :D
snoopy
Oct 12, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by benixau
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. . . . . if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' . . .
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. . . . . if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' . . .
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
henrikmk
Mar 19, 03:21 AM
I would be amused if this now leads to increased sales of music on the iTMS. DRM haters and/or Linux users will be allowed to buy music. It probably won't be noticable if they shut off access quickly enough, but it would be interesting. :D
DRM just doesn't work.
DRM just doesn't work.
sushi
Mar 12, 04:24 AM
I think that the key is not to get ahead of ourselves.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
drsmithy
Sep 26, 11:56 PM
Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X.
Well, no, unfortunately, it's not. OS X still needs a lot of improvement to make it work *well* with multiple CPUs. Right now it's about on par with Windows NT 4.0, Linux 2.2 and FreeBSD 4.x, but the next release should see some big improvements, especially now that multi-CPU machines (and pseudo-multi-CPU machines, ie: Hyperthreading) are so much more common than they were back in the mid-late '90s.
Well, no, unfortunately, it's not. OS X still needs a lot of improvement to make it work *well* with multiple CPUs. Right now it's about on par with Windows NT 4.0, Linux 2.2 and FreeBSD 4.x, but the next release should see some big improvements, especially now that multi-CPU machines (and pseudo-multi-CPU machines, ie: Hyperthreading) are so much more common than they were back in the mid-late '90s.
skunk
Mar 26, 01:39 PM
I agree with you, brother. God bless you.You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:35 PM
citizenzen, there are strong elements of faith involved...
Yes, in theistic belief there are.
However, the thread I was responding to specifically tried to logically deduce the existence of God.
Had it been satisfied with basing its belief simply on faith, I'd have very little to say against it.
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment.
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Yes, in theistic belief there are.
However, the thread I was responding to specifically tried to logically deduce the existence of God.
Had it been satisfied with basing its belief simply on faith, I'd have very little to say against it.
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment.
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:08 AM
I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:01 PM
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
Really? ;)
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so… But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
Really? ;)
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so… But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
shawnce
Sep 26, 11:01 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
munkery
May 2, 06:40 PM
Bugs are not flaws in a security model. They have nothing to do with "Unix security" being better. Stop hammering that point, it's not even valid.
Bugs are flaws in the overall security model. Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Bugs are flaws in the overall security model. Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:59 PM
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 03:16 PM
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
I explained what Sharia law is.
In your first paragraph you support my view that Islam is a threat to democracy, so many thanks.
Were they of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin by any chance? It seems in their culture to be possessive of their women.
CULTURE. Nothing to do with Islam!!!!!!!! Family of Pakistani origin.
Rebuttal provided.
no, they were of iraqi origin. this happened in the US, the father has been sentenced to jail.
it's not cultural if it transcends so much space, it's inherent in the teachings of the religion. allah is a bloodthirsty god
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
I explained what Sharia law is.
In your first paragraph you support my view that Islam is a threat to democracy, so many thanks.
Were they of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin by any chance? It seems in their culture to be possessive of their women.
CULTURE. Nothing to do with Islam!!!!!!!! Family of Pakistani origin.
Rebuttal provided.
no, they were of iraqi origin. this happened in the US, the father has been sentenced to jail.
it's not cultural if it transcends so much space, it's inherent in the teachings of the religion. allah is a bloodthirsty god
No comments:
Post a Comment