That's not the ruling, the ruling is at the bottom.

A Mac doesn't cost 1.5 to 2 times more than a similarly specked PC.

Sorry, is there some other requirement to make a playable CD? Obviously it needs to be the right sample rate and so on, but software will do that automatically. It's entirely possible to create a valid audio file that can be pressed on vinyl and won't play. To my knowledge, it's not possible to create a valid audio file that won't play when burnt to CD, unless it's clipping.

A large bass waveform on vinyl can make the stylus literally jump out of the groove. Lots of hard work goes into cutting a vinyl master, it's very easy to make an unplayable record. With CD all you have to do is make sure it doesn't clip. I love my vinyl collection, but what you've written is bullshit.

Pull-down menus weren't invented by Xerox, their GUI used a modal button bar at the top of each window. You can see photographic evidence of the Apple development process here. I know Apple get criticised for being derivative, but they did invent this GUI element, and their early attempts used a per-window model, which they eventually rejected for a global bar. You think per-window is better; as someone who used Windows for many years, then various Linux distros exclusively for 5 years, then latterly Mac OSX, I vastly prefer the global menus. It's a matter of opinion.

Actually, pull-down menus were invented there - by Apple, when they were working on the Lisa and Mac GUIs. It's always been that way, some like it, some don't. I find it great on my MacBook Air that screen space isn't wasted by duplicating dozens of near-identical menus, and I personally don't find it a problem when I connect up to my Cinema display. I find it quicker to Cmd-tab between applications and know that the menus are always in the same place no matter how I arrange things on the display. I can also do things like have a window nearly completely off the edge of the screen (e.g. referring to a web page whilst coding) but still being able to access all the menus, so I don't have to drag the window back on to create a bookmark then close the window. There's pros and cons to both models.

As you say, it's a preference. I find it annoying using operating systems with menu bars all over the screen, as I tend to keep my mouse hovering near the top of the screen and Cmd-tab between applications, which is broken by Windows-style UIs, unless I keep everything maximised.

I'm confused about why you can't tell what app the UI relates to. The name of the application that has focus is always shown at the top-left of the screen.

By "sort out" you mean look at the application name, which is at the top-left of the screen at all times. Seems pretty obvious and intuitive to me. I agree it's not a perfect system, but for me the pros outweighs the cons especially on smaller screens. Not duplicating the menu bar on secondary monitors is pretty stupid, though.

The menu bar following the app has always been a feature of the Mac OS. It's nothing to do with using one app at a time, it's to do with the muscle memory advantage of just shoving the mouse to the top of the screen regardless of which application you're using. It also saves screen space by avoiding having multiple near-identical menus all over the screen.

Wow, you know all that from half a dozen short quotes?

It applied to Psystar because they had images of the modified osx on a server, which they then imaged onto each machine they sold. That imaging process was an unauthorised copy under copyright law. Probably, if they had shipped the boxes without an OS, and included a shrink wrapped copy of osx and a cd with their drivers etc, they would have been ok - although I think Apple would still have tried to sue them.

This is where you clearly don't understand patents. Pinch and zoom is not the same as dragging a zoom box with a mouse, which is why it is a patentable invention. It would be just the same if an accelerator (gas pedal) stalk on the steering column of a car had never been invented. It's the same outcome as pressing a gas pedal, but the implementation is entirely different, which is why it's an invention. By your logic, no-one would ever invent anything.

It's really simple: black market - illegal; "white" market (although no-one uses that phrase) - legal, and approved by the manufacturer; Grey Market - legal, not approved by the manufacturer. It's not a fabrication, and it's been a well-known term for many decades.

That should be the case for all forms of government in all countries. It makes a mockery of democracy when bills are amended to contain statute that has nothing to do with the original purpose of the bill.