use our internal apply helpers everywhere

Thanks @jdalton for the suggestion. Provides a small but significant speed boost in `.bind()`, `.partial()` and `.partialConstructor()`. We still get our asses kicked by SpiderMonkey for prebound functions, but it's still faster than before:

#### V8
```
  Native .bind() vs fast.bind()
    ✓  Function::bind() x 832,970 ops/sec ±1.44% (85 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() x 7,142,465 ops/sec ±0.91% (93 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() v0.0.2 x 6,376,371 ops/sec ±1.14% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.bind() x 528,686 ops/sec ±1.57% (80 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.bind() x 349,213 ops/sec ±2.10% (80 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 757.47% faster than Function::bind().

  Native .bind() vs fast.bind() with prebound functions
    ✓  Function::bind() x 4,596,421 ops/sec ±1.05% (93 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() x 19,187,335 ops/sec ±0.97% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() v0.0.2 x 13,930,265 ops/sec ±0.94% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.bind() x 4,562,916 ops/sec ±0.95% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.bind() x 4,860,192 ops/sec ±1.17% (87 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 317.44% faster than Function::bind().

  Native .bind() vs fast.partial()
    ✓  Function::bind() x 841,061 ops/sec ±1.83% (80 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() x 8,674,420 ops/sec ±1.54% (93 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.2 x 7,056,606 ops/sec ±1.43% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.0 x 6,806,520 ops/sec ±1.31% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.partial() x 1,629,855 ops/sec ±1.49% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.partial() x 329,820 ops/sec ±2.75% (69 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 931.37% faster than Function::bind().

  Native .bind() vs fast.partial() with prebound functions
    ✓  Function::bind() x 4,362,196 ops/sec ±1.54% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() x 18,008,835 ops/sec ±1.37% (73 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.2 x 13,511,525 ops/sec ±1.40% (82 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.0 x 13,379,174 ops/sec ±1.53% (78 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.partial() x 6,610,677 ops/sec ±1.25% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.partial() x 4,630,166 ops/sec ±1.36% (87 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 312.84% faster than Function::bind().

```
#### SpiderMonkey
```
  Native .bind() vs fast.bind()
    ✓  Function::bind() x 1,052,708 ops/sec ±3.17% (52 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() x 1,998,159 ops/sec ±2.90% (58 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() v0.0.2 x 850,026 ops/sec ±2.40% (63 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.bind() x 491,642 ops/sec ±3.26% (56 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.bind() x 255,096 ops/sec ±2.15% (62 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 89.81% faster than Function::bind().

  Native .bind() vs fast.bind() with prebound functions
    ✓  Function::bind() x 75,606,163 ops/sec ±0.51% (68 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() x 9,952,095 ops/sec ±0.55% (67 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() v0.0.2 x 4,535,786 ops/sec ±1.13% (66 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.bind() x 74,498,853 ops/sec ±0.59% (67 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.bind() x 1,680,624 ops/sec ±2.38% (64 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 86.84% slower than Function::bind().

  Native .bind() vs fast.partial()
    ✓  Function::bind() x 1,105,650 ops/sec ±3.08% (52 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() x 2,245,123 ops/sec ±3.01% (60 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.2 x 917,150 ops/sec ±2.15% (64 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.0 x 916,274 ops/sec ±2.28% (62 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.partial() x 818,945 ops/sec ±1.93% (60 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.partial() x 263,751 ops/sec ±2.30% (62 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 103.06% faster than Function::bind().

  Native .bind() vs fast.partial() with prebound functions
    ✓  Function::bind() x 78,707,103 ops/sec ±0.33% (69 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() x 9,642,861 ops/sec ±0.43% (66 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.2 x 4,203,013 ops/sec ±1.27% (40 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.0 x 4,162,810 ops/sec ±0.82% (67 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.partial() x 3,163,519 ops/sec ±0.46% (68 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.partial() x 1,593,738 ops/sec ±2.59% (61 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 87.75% slower than Function::bind().

```

fixes #49 
> Sorry, I was referring specifically to performance, Lo-Dash is not primarily designed for performance, so it was pretty easy to beat it for most cases with the first release of fast.js.

When `fast` launched and got all the hacker news buzz, Lo-Dash was beating or on par with most of its methods. There was even a thread where the gist seemed to be `fast` wasn't worth it.

> This is not a criticism btw, most people are not saying "why is Array::map() so slow? I should use Lo-Dash", they're saying "Why are so many fundamentally common and useful methods missing from JavaScript? I should use Lo-Dash". Different goals.

Devs use Lo-Dash for lots of different reasons. Some dig the perf, some dig the features, some dig the chaining, or the fact that we offer modules.

> it's not about "beating native", it's about going fast enough to be able to use .map(), .forEach() etc virtually everywhere without any real impact compared to a for loop

You might want to compare against a for-loop and not lodash/underscore/native. Also you should totally add that to the readme.

>  Aside from the .indexOf() etc specific stuff, all of the things you point to are strategies used by bluebird too. I'm sure you also consider that library to be riddled with micro-optimizations, 

You're using strategies from Lo-Dash too, but you lack consideration of context and prioritize micro-opts over all-else.

> but you cannot deny that that strategy has paid off in terms of performance.

Another hundred thousand ops/sec on something that's already millions? Is that really a pay-off?