reden
Aug 30, 09:35 AM
I was looking through Apple's enviromental contributions about 3 weeks ago and there was nothing that I didn't like. I think Apple is really putting good efforts to help the enviroment. It's very tough to create a self-sustained company and recuding their footprint on this world as a computer company.
Also, what these enviroment companies fail to realize is that Apple computers are different. People keep these computers for longer periods of time, they almost become novelty items. When the hell have you heard someone post a DELL LISA on EBAY? You know how people recycle their Macs for the most part? They pass them on to someone, schools, their local YMCA because it's always a useful piece of equipment that lasts for a good amount of time. They also reduce their footprint by not breaking down as much as their PC counter parts.
Of all the Macs I've owned in the past 10 years, I've NEVER had to take my Mac to get it fixed such as a replaced motherboard or anything like that. Macs last longer, they are useful for longer periods of time, etc. LEARN TO EVALUATE THAT GREENwhatever. I've owned a G4, an iMac, a pizza-box powerpc, and I know where all these computers are located, and they still function. I know they're not in some dump.
Also, what these enviroment companies fail to realize is that Apple computers are different. People keep these computers for longer periods of time, they almost become novelty items. When the hell have you heard someone post a DELL LISA on EBAY? You know how people recycle their Macs for the most part? They pass them on to someone, schools, their local YMCA because it's always a useful piece of equipment that lasts for a good amount of time. They also reduce their footprint by not breaking down as much as their PC counter parts.
Of all the Macs I've owned in the past 10 years, I've NEVER had to take my Mac to get it fixed such as a replaced motherboard or anything like that. Macs last longer, they are useful for longer periods of time, etc. LEARN TO EVALUATE THAT GREENwhatever. I've owned a G4, an iMac, a pizza-box powerpc, and I know where all these computers are located, and they still function. I know they're not in some dump.
nagromme
Apr 15, 09:43 AM
Great program! These are really well done; worth seeing for just about anyone, not just kids thinking of harming themselves.
In fact, speaking as a straight kid who was bullied, the advice and commentary here DOES apply to me, and would have been encouraging, even if this particular program is in response to a cluster of LGBT suicides. (And a program like this, specific to LGBT kids, certainly is called for: they face many of the same challenges anyone else does, but they do face unique challenges too, for sure. Other programs have addressed bullying in general, which is great as well.)
In fact, speaking as a straight kid who was bullied, the advice and commentary here DOES apply to me, and would have been encouraging, even if this particular program is in response to a cluster of LGBT suicides. (And a program like this, specific to LGBT kids, certainly is called for: they face many of the same challenges anyone else does, but they do face unique challenges too, for sure. Other programs have addressed bullying in general, which is great as well.)
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:25 AM
What's an assertation?
some cute cupcake cupcakes
Happy Easter
1) Easter Egg Nests and Blue
easter cupcakes ideas. fun
cute easter bunny cupcakes.
Easter Bunny Cupcakes
cute easter bunny cupcakes.
Check out these ideas mar Do
Fun Easter Cupcakes the Kids
cute easter bunny cupcakes.
These cute little chicks were
Cute Easter cupcakes that the
Cupcakes also make a nice
cupcakes for easter ideas.
SO CUTE!
These cute cupcakes are simple
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Right, Apple lowered the barrier to entry so that people can GET STARTED more quickly.... and all the so-called "professionals" (in their own mind) are now declaring that they have removed all depth from the product, eliminated %90 of the features (based on what? their own ignorance about what was shown?)....
and are insisting that if it is easier to GET STARTED, it therefore cannot have the depth of features to do ADVANCED work.
It is nonsense.
It is the kind of nonsense attitude you see whenever Apple introduces something new.
Hell, people were saying the same stuff about iMovie back in 2006 and they are using the nonsense about iMovie as "evidence" that Apple is "doing it again" with Final Cut!
----
you know what?
Someone is always saying something stupid on the internet.
The sad thing is, the people who don't know any better, they believe these "professionals" and think they are "experts".
You can go into any camera store...
You can go into any bar...
You can go to any gun range...
You can go into any hobby or area of mild technical expertise...
and find self important, experts-in-their-own-mind who are derisive of whatever is new.
Guys who think they seem more macho by denigrating things they don't understand.
These people are not cool.
They are not to be admired.
And they certainly aren't worth taking advice from!
After all, they are the same ones who thought Windows was so much better than Mac OS!
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Right, Apple lowered the barrier to entry so that people can GET STARTED more quickly.... and all the so-called "professionals" (in their own mind) are now declaring that they have removed all depth from the product, eliminated %90 of the features (based on what? their own ignorance about what was shown?)....
and are insisting that if it is easier to GET STARTED, it therefore cannot have the depth of features to do ADVANCED work.
It is nonsense.
It is the kind of nonsense attitude you see whenever Apple introduces something new.
Hell, people were saying the same stuff about iMovie back in 2006 and they are using the nonsense about iMovie as "evidence" that Apple is "doing it again" with Final Cut!
----
you know what?
Someone is always saying something stupid on the internet.
The sad thing is, the people who don't know any better, they believe these "professionals" and think they are "experts".
You can go into any camera store...
You can go into any bar...
You can go to any gun range...
You can go into any hobby or area of mild technical expertise...
and find self important, experts-in-their-own-mind who are derisive of whatever is new.
Guys who think they seem more macho by denigrating things they don't understand.
These people are not cool.
They are not to be admired.
And they certainly aren't worth taking advice from!
After all, they are the same ones who thought Windows was so much better than Mac OS!
faroZ06
May 2, 06:27 PM
I just received an email with this site
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/coming-soon-to-a-mac-near-you-serious-malware/3212?tag=nl.e589
Mac getting targetted after many years
Bert
Eh, I'll see after 5 years how much my computer has been successfully attacked. :cool:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/coming-soon-to-a-mac-near-you-serious-malware/3212?tag=nl.e589
Mac getting targetted after many years
Bert
Eh, I'll see after 5 years how much my computer has been successfully attacked. :cool:
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 03:19 AM
Care to elaborate?
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
hcho3
Apr 20, 05:35 PM
Good to hear Jobs isn't planning to retire. The question about Android being like Windows was to the Mac to iOS was probably the dumbest question of the call.
Dumbest question was about product cycle on iPod and iphone.
Tim and Peter would never comment on future products.
Dumbest question was about product cycle on iPod and iphone.
Tim and Peter would never comment on future products.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
jlasoon
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
Your overall point being because Apple poses and threat to Nintendo, which Nintendo recognises, Nintendo are doomed to go out of business?
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 05:04 PM
We're on the same sheet of music, Java...
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
emil.lofman
Aug 29, 12:53 PM
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
I think you've missed something here. Greenpeace did not, infact, state that Apple is solely responsible for killing the environment.
When China and India begins polluting as much as most western countries do per capita, that's when we're in trouble.
I would guess the industries in India and China are exporting quite a lot of goods to the western world, which makes us morally responsible. To make a real bad analogy, a prostitute with no customers is not a prositute.
Greenpeace probably doesn't have much of a chance to raise awareness on environmental issues in either China, a country were there is no freedom of speech, or India, were a large part of the population is preoccupied with being really, really poor and therefore has no time to spare for macrumors.
You seem really intelligent by the way - you'll probably do great in high school.
I think you've missed something here. Greenpeace did not, infact, state that Apple is solely responsible for killing the environment.
When China and India begins polluting as much as most western countries do per capita, that's when we're in trouble.
I would guess the industries in India and China are exporting quite a lot of goods to the western world, which makes us morally responsible. To make a real bad analogy, a prostitute with no customers is not a prositute.
Greenpeace probably doesn't have much of a chance to raise awareness on environmental issues in either China, a country were there is no freedom of speech, or India, were a large part of the population is preoccupied with being really, really poor and therefore has no time to spare for macrumors.
You seem really intelligent by the way - you'll probably do great in high school.
blackburn
Apr 9, 05:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
*Sniff*
*Sniff*
Troll.
Troll? Looks like your an apple fan boy.
*Sniff*
*Sniff*
Troll.
Troll? Looks like your an apple fan boy.
tveric
Mar 18, 04:58 PM
I would just like to point out that, sort of, this thread and topic are a repeat of this thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116009
started this morning.
It's not often I notice some Mac news before this site does, so hey, the one time it happens...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116009
started this morning.
It's not often I notice some Mac news before this site does, so hey, the one time it happens...
sonnys
Oct 26, 02:34 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.
Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.
Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.
pbh444
Apr 10, 09:04 AM
"MCV reports that Apple has poached two major public relations executives from Nintendo (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43885/Rob-Saunders-heading-to-Apple) and Activision (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43894/Now-Activisions-Nick-Grange-joins-Apple), respectively."
Hoo hah...
This would be a much more important development if Apple had poached head game developers from Nintendo and Activision and not just PR people.
PR people deal with spin and without the quality developers create, spin doesn't mean a thing.
Hoo hah...
This would be a much more important development if Apple had poached head game developers from Nintendo and Activision and not just PR people.
PR people deal with spin and without the quality developers create, spin doesn't mean a thing.
benpatient
May 2, 09:18 AM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:15 PM
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
emotion
Sep 21, 01:36 PM
Hey at least you guys had U2 before we did.:)
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
greenstork
Sep 12, 04:55 PM
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
Palanka
Oct 26, 12:00 AM
I cant stand AT&T...Their service sucks.. Your company would go under if it were to their "business services" department.
mac1984user
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I did most certainly not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
Ha! It's so true. I meant to copy BOTH quotes in. MY BAD! Editing happening now!
I did most certainly not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
Ha! It's so true. I meant to copy BOTH quotes in. MY BAD! Editing happening now!
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:23 PM
Huh?? I'm the last person who usually defends Atheists around here (nothing against them) :), I'm Agnostic too, but regardless if I think they are out on a limb for my own personal reasons, using the scientific method, with no practical evidence of God is it really fair to accuse them of not thinking and being lazy?? Lol. It could be argued that believing there is no God for lack of evidence is stronger than believing in God based on faith (lack of proof).
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
skunk
Mar 28, 11:29 AM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 04:52 PM
such that women are more likely to forget things.
So, woman are addle-minded?
I wouldn't wonder, they are kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, all in the service of Allah. And proper schooling is only of-late, and just in certain 'forward' Islamic countries.
I declined to read any further.
So, woman are addle-minded?
I wouldn't wonder, they are kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, all in the service of Allah. And proper schooling is only of-late, and just in certain 'forward' Islamic countries.
I declined to read any further.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar