I haven't seen any of the issues you have stated above, well except for memory usage and the shitty search function but I will get to that in a second. Win7 is certainly far more stable than Vista was for myself. Vista wasn't all that bad for stability and most issues I had were driver/hardware issues with it. It runs all my development software perfectly and any games or media software without issue.

Memory usage. I have a couple things to say about that. First being, If you have the memory in your machine, then why not use it? If the OS can speed things up by using it, then what is the problem? Second being, memory is stupidly cheap. Its a non issue. I've never seen Explorer hog the cpu or churn the HD...ever.

I will definitely concede on the search function. Its just as retarded as it was in Vista. Just turning off the indexer goes a long way. I would like to see that be the default on a new install. For myself, this is probably the most annoying thing about vista/win7.

I always get a great laugh about boot times and how intense all the benchmarks are. I certainly don't care if it takes 15 seconds, or 30 seconds. What I do care about is that it does what I want. I maybe reboot my PC once every 2 weeks or so.

*sigh*

TPB is openly facilitating the said act. And in doing so, share the guilt of the individuals.

And of course using his logic, if the individuals believe that file sharing is not wrong then certainly they will think that TPB is not wrong either.

If you don't understand the concept sharing something that is not yours to begin with is stealing, then this whole conversation is a moot point anyway.

Isnt that where Peterman went?

Who said anything with siding with the RIAA?

What's really funny is I find the same people that support TPB will swarm like sharks on anyone that violates the GPL. Its funny how individuals tend to protect with they think is theirs....

If I may use your hand gun analogy.. TPB was a hand gun shop sitting in in the middle of a large shopping mall. They handing out free handguns then told people its ok to rob any store they feel like at gun point.

Was TPB guilty of distributing copyrighted material? Nope. They were found guilty in facilitating the theft.

Now that is funny. How is TPB even remotely private or non-commercial?

Yes, I agree to an extent. The RIAA was not the only place that was applying pressure. What about all the software companies? Do they fall into the same morally abject group as the RIAA?

For some reason it always seems to end up RIAA vs TPB.

Umm, Isn't this how its been done for 1000s of years? I guess I don't entirely know what kind of 'pressure' was put on this 'culture'. I would assume economic pressure of some sort. This is how society works, always has and always will. All the way from your corperate job to the government.

I agree with bonch's post completely. What I do find comical is how the judge is 'flagged' as guilty of bias without being proven and that the pirates are inoscent even after being convicted. This is more about slackers that are used to getting everything for free, now loosing that ability.

If he is guilty of bias, then absolutely a new trial is warrented. Will it change the outcome? I sincerely doubt it.

Without a doubt, what they were doing was wrong or 'biased' toward ripping people off, choose your term. They made the conscience choice to do what they did. The owners of the stolen material simply asked the legal system of that country to help put an end to it. Clearly it was in their interest to do so.

Your argument is weak at best.

If someone owns rights to something that you think you have 'invented', then you are not the inventor of said item. In which case, they are correct to have their way with your ass. Leave or bend over.

So lets take the NDA approach which in theory may sound like the best thing since sliced bread. However that little piece of paper has holds absolutely no weight if the company disolves, or if you have no proof of an employee selling your secret. Either of which doesn't matter anyway because you don't own any rights to your idea except with the guy you showed it to.

Come on, an NDA isn't going to stop anyone from ripping off your cute idea. In the end, it may give you satisfaction that you put that little shop out of business, all the while 20 other factories are happily churning out your device while you get nothing. Mean while your lawyer is sending you bills.

So what then happens to all that time and money you put into researching and building your cute little device? I guess that goes right out the window because now there are 50 other places making your cute device.

If you expect to make money off your idea, then you need to have it protected. Otherwise, you may has well just give it to a lawyer, because they are the only one that will make a profit from it

Brilliant!

So now when I take my invention to the manufacturers to be mass produced, the only words I will hear now is: "Woot!, that will sell like mad, thank you for sharing your wonderful idea. You may leave now"

I just purchased a 2009 Traverse, A large crossover type vehicle. The purchase was not for my lack of said junk. On the contrary, I prefer that said junk isn't smashed when I sit in my vehicle.

Can someone please remind me why I need a government to tell me what kind of vehicles I am allowed to buy?

What does it matter if it was microsoft or not? They didn't break in via the database.

Why not ask the question, what was the webserver software and who made the website that allowed them to break in?