so you justify muslim-extremeism by pointing out that there are whackos in Christianity as well?Yes there are, but the scale is "a bit" different. On one hand we have individuals and leaders of some remote churhes doing extreme things. On the other hand we have fucking governments sending death-threats to Salman Rushdie, governments recalling ambassadors, huge mobs attacking embassies, huge boycotts and the like. And I never claimed that Christian extremeists are not violent. There just seems to be A LOT more of those extremeists in Islam.
So I guess they are both as bad. Individual whackos in Christianity, government-issued death-threats and huge mobs burning embassies over some fucking cartoons in Islam. Yep, that clearly proves that christianity is as bad. Or it could be that some politically uber-correct idiots simply refuse to accept the fact that Islam is a lot more extreme religion than christianity is. I don't give a fuck about christianity either, but at least I don't see them burning embassies and recalling ambassadors because of some fucking religion-oriented cartoons. If you fail to see the difference here, then you are blind.
Yeah, but there just seems to be a lot more "bad people" is Islam than in other religions. Seriously, are there such things as "moderate muslims"? If a Christian restricted his diet because of what the Bible says and if he prayed five times a day, he would be labeled as a fundie by others. Yet those same things seem to be the norm in Islam. It seems to me that Islam simply does not have that much room for mere "believers" like Christianity does.
Seriously, it seems to me that Muslims take their religion way too seriously. Instead of religion serving their life, their lives serve the religion. And the funniest part? I have heard many muslims say that this is a case of "west trying to spread their ideologies on us!". Excuse me? Danish newspaper publishes some cartoons in Denmark, and Muslims in mid-east get their panties in a bunch and they then want to ban such pictures because it goes against THEIR religious rules. Who exactly is pushing their ideology on others here?
I simply do not see Christians (with all their faults) burning down embassies and sending death-threats if someone publishes cartoon they disagree with. But heaven forbid if someone does the same with Muslims! And I have talked with Muslims about this crisis, and one recurring comment seems to be "We don't want to limit free speech, we just want to make sure that these kinds of pictures are not published in the future". In other words: "You are free to say anything you wish. Unless it's something we find offensive".
I for one am getting sick and tired of having to come up with excuses when it comes to muslims. Yes yes, "it's only a minority that causes problems!". Maybe, maybe not, but in Islam that "minority" might actually be the majority, and they seem to be causing problems ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you want more insight on this matter, go talk to Salman Rushdie or Theo van Gogh. Altough in the case of the latter person, it might be a bit difficult.
Fuck Allah, and fuck Mohammad (although I heard he's more in to 8-year old girls). I wonder will I be receiving any Fatwas soon? Mod me down if you wish, I don't fucking care.
Yeah, I need every bit of CPU-power to surf the web, draw images, check email... I guess I could reduce my compile-times by 0.3% if I eliminated all eye-candy. But OTOH, that would make my computer-usage a bit less enjoyable, so I fail to see the benefit.
And to be honest, that screenshot looks like crap and it's very unproductive IMO. Just because something looks like crap does not mean that it's "efficient". and just because something looks good does not mean that it's inefficient.
I have never understood what is the functionallity of the "transparency"
It looks cools. I for one would like to see the unfocused windows become partially transparent. It would effectively differentiate the focused windows from the unfocused windows. You might say that "we don't need something like that". And you are right. But if I had to choose between two functionally identical systems, with one of them being gorgrous and the other one being ugly, I would choose the gorgerous system.
Verizon (and others) are clearly using the power-company's electricity to carry out their business. And they are basically getting a free lunch here! Clearly the power-company is entitled to receive their cut of Verizons profits, right?
Disney is horribly evil because it has manipulated copyright law that is just plain "wrong" (even though the American courts don't seem to think so)
Just because something is legal does not mean that it's right. There is a loophole in copyrights, namely: they only last for a "limited time". If you keep on extending the time those copyrights last, it's still "limited time", when in reality it's something different. It might be legal and OK according to the letter of the law, but it's still morally wrong and it goes against the spirit of the law.
and they have used older material, writen by others, which is also "wrong" (though they have never been successfully prosecuted for such a thing?)
The problem is that they took content that was in public domain for free, and used them to earn big bucks. Now that they were about to face a situation where THEIR content was about to enter public domain, they started to whine and got copyrights extended. They want to take advantage of content created by others, but they refuse to return the favour.
There is a case of Disney using content which copyright was not in public domain: Winnie the Pooh for example. The copyright belongs to heirs of A. A. Milne. Of course Disney owns the rights to their version of Pooh, but not to Pooh itself or the original stories. As it happened, A. A. Milne's hometown wanted to erect a statue honoring Milne. The statue would have had Pooh in it (the original, not the Disney-version). Disney sued, claiming that Pooh is their property. IIRC, the town capitulated when faced with Disney's army of lawyers.
I think that Disney was at it's worst during the Eisner-era. I have hopes that post-Eisner Disney will be "better".
We can only know God by what He has chosen to reveal to us, making it very difficult for us, constrained to the physical world, to put any soft of scientific test on God.
So, God can't be scientifically studied. therefore God has no place in science-classes. if we put God in science-classes we should put Santa Clause, Tooth-fairy and Flying Spahgetti Monster in there as well. I mean, what makes God more important or more believable than those three? Because you personally happen to believe in God?
To me, trying to figure out how life originated it outside the realm of science.
What makes you think that? The purpose of science is to expand the boundaries of knowledge. Trying to figure out where life came from fits that perfectly. If you are uncomforable with having scientist figuring out where life came from is YOUR problem, not mine and certainly not scientists problem!
But considering that you openly advocate ignorace over knowledge, I'm not one bit surprised by your comment.
So far science has been unable to reproduce the phenomena.
Really?. Granted, we don't have the few billion years needed to make advanced lifeforms appear from primoidial soup, but tests HAVE been made, and theories have been formed based on those tests.
Stick to what we do know.
yes, never try to learn anything new! Ignorance is the key to happy life! God will give us all the answers we need, we should just be blind and stupid sheep. We should dismantle schools and universities and just "stick to what we know".
We know that external forces can cause changes in *living* organisms. This is otherwise known as natural selection. Anything beyond that is speculation.
More technologies that do the same thing, yet are incompatible with each other. "Oh, we'll let the market sort this one out". translation: "MWAHAHAHAHAA! Screw the consumers! It's up to the little guy to figure this one out, because we will have nothing to do with it!".
Really, this is such BS (pun intended). "Bill Smith, chief technology officer at BellSouth, justified content charging companies by saying they are using the telco's network without paying for it", oh really, Mr. Einstein?! I suppose the consumers are not paying for their network-connections? The companies providing the content are not paying for their fat pipes to the internet? Oh no, they just hook up to BellSouths network, and BS never gets any money. No sirree! Up until now BellSouth has been a charity, giving companies and consumers free network-connections. But that's about to change!
The corporate greed and detachment from reality is really reaching new heights when it comes to Mr. Smith and the BS he spouts from his big fat mouth! Really, that man is just a waste of space and resources.
I think the idea of the DRM-clause is as follows: If someone uses GPL'ed code in DRM'ed product, they are agreeing that the DRM on their product is not a "strong technological protection". What does that mean? It means that they can't use DMCA to sue users who circumvent the DRM. DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent "strong technological protection". If they use GPL'ed code, they are saying that their DRM is not strong, and therefore circumventing that DRM is not against the DMCA.
You are missing the point of the DRM-clause in the GPL3. DMCA says that you can't circumvent "effective technological protection". GPL3 says that if the code containts GPL'ed code, then it's not "effective technological protection", and circumventing it is therefore legal under the DMCA.
The idea is to stop companies hitting people with the DMCA. If they use GPL as part of their product that contains DRM, they can't use DMCA as a weapon against the consumers, since circumventing that DRM is allowed.
And remember, we're moving away from a copper society, not towards it.
We are? Sure, we could replace CAT5 with WLAN. We could replace cables with fiber. And we could use cell-phones instead. But those are only the tip of the iceberg when copper-usage in concerned!
Actually, one newspaper in Finland asked the relevant comissioner that were these changes to law required in order to satisfy EUCD. His answer was "no". The minister spearheading the new legislation claimed that these changed are needed because of EU-directives, and now we have EU-comissioners saying that no changes were needed. What happened next? The minister started claiming that the comissioner doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I really, REALLY fail to see what part in EUCD says that we are not allowed to talk about copy-protection? Is this the Fight Club? "First rule of copy-protection: you do not talk about copy-protection!"
At the start of the year, we got new copyright-legislation. And it has been a serious setback as far as user-rights are concerned. It makes it illegal to circumvent copy-protection (unless the proctection is "weak", which is clearly specified in the law). And it makes it illegal to "discuss methods of circumventing copy-protection in an organized manner". We do have the right to discuss methods of blowing up the Parliament, but we can't discuss methods of cirumventing copy-protection. Yes, it's insane. yes, it goes against the right to free speech.
The whole process of drafting the law was just sickening. Politicians did hear from few "experts". and they mostly represented the copyright-holders, consumers weren't heard at all. The record-labels made some ludicrous claims to back up the legislation (among others, they claimed that one album by one Finnish artist (his songs all have Finnish lyrics, so he doesn't really have market outside Finland) had been dowloaded 6 million times on the net. That would mean that each and every person living in Finland (about 5.1 million people) had a copy of his album, and there would still be enough copies to give citizen of Stockholm a copy as well.
Add to this the sweet irony when the minister spearheading this legislation was found to have bought a pirated copy of a Prada bag...
About a week ago, the opponents of the new legislation started a campaign aimed against the legislation. They set up a website, where they discussed methods of cirumventing copy-protection. Some participants were involved in order to earn money (they requested a payment of 5 cents for their advice). They discussed about copy-protection in organised manner for a week, and then they turned themselves to the police. They want clear information as to what is and isn't allowed under the new legislation and they wanted to show the absurdity of the law.
nd besides, Apple's hope that this will somehow stop people from running OSX on other machines is just stupid.
Well, not really. Apple is a hardware-company. And one of the primary reasons people buy their hardware is that they then get to use the OS that runs on that hardware. Sure, there might be few hardcore-geeks who will run OS X on generic PC, but regular Joe will not. And what makes you think that people should have the right to run OS X wherever they please? You are not entitled to OS X. You do not have the right to OS X.
No, TPM is bad news, no matter how you look at it.
TPM is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It can be used for good things, and it can be used for bad things. Knives can be used to kill people, does that mean that knives are bad?
In itself, TPM is not "bad". Some of the things you could do with it could be considered as "bad" though.
The idea of TPM in the case of Apple is that it makes sure that OS X only runs on Apple-hardware. It's NOT designed to prevent the user from running Linux (for example) on their PowerBook. The idea is to prevent someone from running OS X on a Dell.
I do not think that it deprives you of your freedoms. You can run the OS of your choice on a Mac (barring technical obstacles, like Windows not supporting EFI that is used in the Macintels). You are not entitled to use OS X on your generic x86-PC, however. And if you want to use OS X, you can do so easily: just buy a Mac.
Nah, I'll have to pay double the money at least, and then I STILL WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DUAL BOOT to any OS I choose.
Can you do that with the Dell? I mean, can you boot in to OS X with it? No? Then what are you complaining about?
MAcBook could boot in to Windows, if Windows supported EFI. But since Windows doesn't support it, it wont work. Vista will support EFI, so you should be able to install Vista on the MacBook (alongside OS X, Linux *BSD etc.)
And every time I have handled those low-end PC-laptops, they have felts heavy and cheap. Mac-laptops have felt a lot better. PC-laptops might have more power (although that could change once all Mac-laptops switch to Intel), but there are more to laptops (and computers in general) than mere performance.
How exactly am I "failing" anything? All I said that Apples reasons to not use AMD are not related to AMD's capacity, nothing more, nothing less. I presented no opinions as to what their reasons might be, so I don't see how I could be "failing" anything, when I didn't even say anything.
AMD has more than enough capacity to satisfy Apple. Not only do they have their current fabs, their new fab became online not long ago. Then they have joint capacity with IBM, and they have a deal with Chartered, which says that they can outsource some of their production to them, if needed.
AMD has the capacity. Apple's reasons are elsewhere.
So, the extra 500 bucks gets you better memory and faster vidcard? Does that Gateway ship with webcam and remote (not needed, but nice things to have, regardless)? Add to that the ability to run OS X, top-notch industrial design (no squeaky plastic, cool powerplug etc.) great software-bundle... Sounds like a deal to me!
Seriously: there's more to laptops than mere specs. I have tried PowerBooks and PC-laptops. And PowerBooks have always felt really sturdy and cool, whereas most PC-laptops feel cheap and flimsy.
Just because you could get a Dodge with better specs and equipment than similarly priced BMW has, does that mean that the Dodge is a better car? By your thinking, it is.
Slashdot Mirror
so you justify muslim-extremeism by pointing out that there are whackos in Christianity as well?Yes there are, but the scale is "a bit" different. On one hand we have individuals and leaders of some remote churhes doing extreme things. On the other hand we have fucking governments sending death-threats to Salman Rushdie, governments recalling ambassadors, huge mobs attacking embassies, huge boycotts and the like. And I never claimed that Christian extremeists are not violent. There just seems to be A LOT more of those extremeists in Islam.
So I guess they are both as bad. Individual whackos in Christianity, government-issued death-threats and huge mobs burning embassies over some fucking cartoons in Islam. Yep, that clearly proves that christianity is as bad. Or it could be that some politically uber-correct idiots simply refuse to accept the fact that Islam is a lot more extreme religion than christianity is. I don't give a fuck about christianity either, but at least I don't see them burning embassies and recalling ambassadors because of some fucking religion-oriented cartoons. If you fail to see the difference here, then you are blind.
Yeah, but there just seems to be a lot more "bad people" is Islam than in other religions. Seriously, are there such things as "moderate muslims"? If a Christian restricted his diet because of what the Bible says and if he prayed five times a day, he would be labeled as a fundie by others. Yet those same things seem to be the norm in Islam. It seems to me that Islam simply does not have that much room for mere "believers" like Christianity does.
Seriously, it seems to me that Muslims take their religion way too seriously. Instead of religion serving their life, their lives serve the religion. And the funniest part? I have heard many muslims say that this is a case of "west trying to spread their ideologies on us!". Excuse me? Danish newspaper publishes some cartoons in Denmark, and Muslims in mid-east get their panties in a bunch and they then want to ban such pictures because it goes against THEIR religious rules. Who exactly is pushing their ideology on others here?
I simply do not see Christians (with all their faults) burning down embassies and sending death-threats if someone publishes cartoon they disagree with. But heaven forbid if someone does the same with Muslims! And I have talked with Muslims about this crisis, and one recurring comment seems to be "We don't want to limit free speech, we just want to make sure that these kinds of pictures are not published in the future". In other words: "You are free to say anything you wish. Unless it's something we find offensive".
I for one am getting sick and tired of having to come up with excuses when it comes to muslims. Yes yes, "it's only a minority that causes problems!". Maybe, maybe not, but in Islam that "minority" might actually be the majority, and they seem to be causing problems ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you want more insight on this matter, go talk to Salman Rushdie or Theo van Gogh. Altough in the case of the latter person, it might be a bit difficult.
Fuck Allah, and fuck Mohammad (although I heard he's more in to 8-year old girls). I wonder will I be receiving any Fatwas soon? Mod me down if you wish, I don't fucking care.
Yeah, I need every bit of CPU-power to surf the web, draw images, check email... I guess I could reduce my compile-times by 0.3% if I eliminated all eye-candy. But OTOH, that would make my computer-usage a bit less enjoyable, so I fail to see the benefit.
And to be honest, that screenshot looks like crap and it's very unproductive IMO. Just because something looks like crap does not mean that it's "efficient". and just because something looks good does not mean that it's inefficient.
It looks cools. I for one would like to see the unfocused windows become partially transparent. It would effectively differentiate the focused windows from the unfocused windows. You might say that "we don't need something like that". And you are right. But if I had to choose between two functionally identical systems, with one of them being gorgrous and the other one being ugly, I would choose the gorgerous system.
There's nothing wrong with looking good.
IIRC, the G4 was a Motorola/Freescale chip, not IBM. G3 was IBM.
Verizon (and others) are clearly using the power-company's electricity to carry out their business. And they are basically getting a free lunch here! Clearly the power-company is entitled to receive their cut of Verizons profits, right?
Just because something is legal does not mean that it's right. There is a loophole in copyrights, namely: they only last for a "limited time". If you keep on extending the time those copyrights last, it's still "limited time", when in reality it's something different. It might be legal and OK according to the letter of the law, but it's still morally wrong and it goes against the spirit of the law.
The problem is that they took content that was in public domain for free, and used them to earn big bucks. Now that they were about to face a situation where THEIR content was about to enter public domain, they started to whine and got copyrights extended. They want to take advantage of content created by others, but they refuse to return the favour.
There is a case of Disney using content which copyright was not in public domain: Winnie the Pooh for example. The copyright belongs to heirs of A. A. Milne. Of course Disney owns the rights to their version of Pooh, but not to Pooh itself or the original stories. As it happened, A. A. Milne's hometown wanted to erect a statue honoring Milne. The statue would have had Pooh in it (the original, not the Disney-version). Disney sued, claiming that Pooh is their property. IIRC, the town capitulated when faced with Disney's army of lawyers.
I think that Disney was at it's worst during the Eisner-era. I have hopes that post-Eisner Disney will be "better".
So, God can't be scientifically studied. therefore God has no place in science-classes. if we put God in science-classes we should put Santa Clause, Tooth-fairy and Flying Spahgetti Monster in there as well. I mean, what makes God more important or more believable than those three? Because you personally happen to believe in God?
What makes you think that? The purpose of science is to expand the boundaries of knowledge. Trying to figure out where life came from fits that perfectly. If you are uncomforable with having scientist figuring out where life came from is YOUR problem, not mine and certainly not scientists problem!
But considering that you openly advocate ignorace over knowledge, I'm not one bit surprised by your comment.
Really?. Granted, we don't have the few billion years needed to make advanced lifeforms appear from primoidial soup, but tests HAVE been made, and theories have been formed based on those tests.
yes, never try to learn anything new! Ignorance is the key to happy life! God will give us all the answers we need, we should just be blind and stupid sheep. We should dismantle schools and universities and just "stick to what we know".
And that means that "God did it"? Gotcha.
More technologies that do the same thing, yet are incompatible with each other. "Oh, we'll let the market sort this one out". translation: "MWAHAHAHAHAA! Screw the consumers! It's up to the little guy to figure this one out, because we will have nothing to do with it!".
Really, this is such BS (pun intended). "Bill Smith, chief technology officer at BellSouth, justified content charging companies by saying they are using the telco's network without paying for it", oh really, Mr. Einstein?! I suppose the consumers are not paying for their network-connections? The companies providing the content are not paying for their fat pipes to the internet? Oh no, they just hook up to BellSouths network, and BS never gets any money. No sirree! Up until now BellSouth has been a charity, giving companies and consumers free network-connections. But that's about to change!
The corporate greed and detachment from reality is really reaching new heights when it comes to Mr. Smith and the BS he spouts from his big fat mouth! Really, that man is just a waste of space and resources.
I think the idea of the DRM-clause is as follows: If someone uses GPL'ed code in DRM'ed product, they are agreeing that the DRM on their product is not a "strong technological protection". What does that mean? It means that they can't use DMCA to sue users who circumvent the DRM. DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent "strong technological protection". If they use GPL'ed code, they are saying that their DRM is not strong, and therefore circumventing that DRM is not against the DMCA.
It's brilliant, really.
You are missing the point of the DRM-clause in the GPL3. DMCA says that you can't circumvent "effective technological protection". GPL3 says that if the code containts GPL'ed code, then it's not "effective technological protection", and circumventing it is therefore legal under the DMCA.
The idea is to stop companies hitting people with the DMCA. If they use GPL as part of their product that contains DRM, they can't use DMCA as a weapon against the consumers, since circumventing that DRM is allowed.
We are? Sure, we could replace CAT5 with WLAN. We could replace cables with fiber. And we could use cell-phones instead. But those are only the tip of the iceberg when copper-usage in concerned!
Lighting-bolt! Lightning-bolt! Lightning-bolt!
Actually, one newspaper in Finland asked the relevant comissioner that were these changes to law required in order to satisfy EUCD. His answer was "no". The minister spearheading the new legislation claimed that these changed are needed because of EU-directives, and now we have EU-comissioners saying that no changes were needed. What happened next? The minister started claiming that the comissioner doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I really, REALLY fail to see what part in EUCD says that we are not allowed to talk about copy-protection? Is this the Fight Club? "First rule of copy-protection: you do not talk about copy-protection!"
At the start of the year, we got new copyright-legislation. And it has been a serious setback as far as user-rights are concerned. It makes it illegal to circumvent copy-protection (unless the proctection is "weak", which is clearly specified in the law). And it makes it illegal to "discuss methods of circumventing copy-protection in an organized manner". We do have the right to discuss methods of blowing up the Parliament, but we can't discuss methods of cirumventing copy-protection. Yes, it's insane. yes, it goes against the right to free speech.
The whole process of drafting the law was just sickening. Politicians did hear from few "experts". and they mostly represented the copyright-holders, consumers weren't heard at all. The record-labels made some ludicrous claims to back up the legislation (among others, they claimed that one album by one Finnish artist (his songs all have Finnish lyrics, so he doesn't really have market outside Finland) had been dowloaded 6 million times on the net. That would mean that each and every person living in Finland (about 5.1 million people) had a copy of his album, and there would still be enough copies to give citizen of Stockholm a copy as well.
Add to this the sweet irony when the minister spearheading this legislation was found to have bought a pirated copy of a Prada bag...
About a week ago, the opponents of the new legislation started a campaign aimed against the legislation. They set up a website, where they discussed methods of cirumventing copy-protection. Some participants were involved in order to earn money (they requested a payment of 5 cents for their advice). They discussed about copy-protection in organised manner for a week, and then they turned themselves to the police. They want clear information as to what is and isn't allowed under the new legislation and they wanted to show the absurdity of the law.
Well, not really. Apple is a hardware-company. And one of the primary reasons people buy their hardware is that they then get to use the OS that runs on that hardware. Sure, there might be few hardcore-geeks who will run OS X on generic PC, but regular Joe will not. And what makes you think that people should have the right to run OS X wherever they please? You are not entitled to OS X. You do not have the right to OS X.
TPM is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It can be used for good things, and it can be used for bad things. Knives can be used to kill people, does that mean that knives are bad?
In itself, TPM is not "bad". Some of the things you could do with it could be considered as "bad" though.
The idea of TPM in the case of Apple is that it makes sure that OS X only runs on Apple-hardware. It's NOT designed to prevent the user from running Linux (for example) on their PowerBook. The idea is to prevent someone from running OS X on a Dell.
I do not think that it deprives you of your freedoms. You can run the OS of your choice on a Mac (barring technical obstacles, like Windows not supporting EFI that is used in the Macintels). You are not entitled to use OS X on your generic x86-PC, however. And if you want to use OS X, you can do so easily: just buy a Mac.
Would USA be willing to let EU control the GPS-system? No? Then why should EU be content with letting USA control a key piece of technology?
Can you do that with the Dell? I mean, can you boot in to OS X with it? No? Then what are you complaining about?
MAcBook could boot in to Windows, if Windows supported EFI. But since Windows doesn't support it, it wont work. Vista will support EFI, so you should be able to install Vista on the MacBook (alongside OS X, Linux *BSD etc.)
And every time I have handled those low-end PC-laptops, they have felts heavy and cheap. Mac-laptops have felt a lot better. PC-laptops might have more power (although that could change once all Mac-laptops switch to Intel), but there are more to laptops (and computers in general) than mere performance.
How exactly am I "failing" anything? All I said that Apples reasons to not use AMD are not related to AMD's capacity, nothing more, nothing less. I presented no opinions as to what their reasons might be, so I don't see how I could be "failing" anything, when I didn't even say anything.
One word for that: HA-HA!
AMD has more than enough capacity to satisfy Apple. Not only do they have their current fabs, their new fab became online not long ago. Then they have joint capacity with IBM, and they have a deal with Chartered, which says that they can outsource some of their production to them, if needed.
AMD has the capacity. Apple's reasons are elsewhere.
So, the extra 500 bucks gets you better memory and faster vidcard? Does that Gateway ship with webcam and remote (not needed, but nice things to have, regardless)? Add to that the ability to run OS X, top-notch industrial design (no squeaky plastic, cool powerplug etc.) great software-bundle... Sounds like a deal to me!
Seriously: there's more to laptops than mere specs. I have tried PowerBooks and PC-laptops. And PowerBooks have always felt really sturdy and cool, whereas most PC-laptops feel cheap and flimsy.
Just because you could get a Dodge with better specs and equipment than similarly priced BMW has, does that mean that the Dodge is a better car? By your thinking, it is.
Nope, doesn't work. On Panther at least you can't access the Apple-menu by throwing the cursor to the corner.