It is still doing kernel and architectual concepts today that you cannot find any other consumer level OS. PERIOD.
Out of curiosity: which would that be? Besides, what do you mean by "consumer level OS"?
And what this means by them moving the Video back up from Ring0 is of course more stability, so the new NVidia beta build doesn't make the Windows machine lock up when it shouldn't, as most graphic drivers are the root of 99% of all system lockups with Windows, since most users don't run MS certified drivers and are running the latest incarnations.
Where does this 99% quote come from? Also, are you saying, that running a Windows with only MS certified drivers installed would reduce the number of lock-ups down to 1%?
Well, cool... now they only need the space ship to have something to launch from their fancy spaceport...:-)
No, really - I wish Virgin, Branson and Scaled Composits all the good luck in the world - they have deserved it. Maybe, after all these years of empty promisses, we *are* at the verge of the space era.
Maybe I'll be able to explain my stance after all - it seems you *are* reading, but are also being rather selective in choosing which parts you reply to.:-)
Which scientific evidence can you quote which is going against pink unihorns, magic, and astrology? None that I am aware of. Therefore those things all fall into the same category as the religion, and deserve - from the logical point of view - the same attention.
It's a matter of common sense, not of faith, to filter out ideas for which not even the most fiery supporters are able to present anything resembling some evidence (or even a coherent argumentation). We are filtering information from noise constantly - if we didn't, we'd overload in matter of days. I don't see which criterion one can use to decide not to filter out the religion together with magic, astrology, pink unihorns, and similar.
I understand that some people can feel the need for a religion. It is their good right to do so. However, when they try to somehow put their personal beliefs, i.e. the fruits of their imagination, in such a close relation to science, or when they try to force their beliefs upon schoolchildren, then they shouldn't be so surprised when they face the resistance from a small but vocal (not vocal enough, if you ask me) scientific community.
In the part you chose not to relpy to, I explained pretty well what I meant with "not even worth contemplating". It seems you are not even reading what I took so much time and effort to write. It's a shame, really - you could've learned a thing or two.
Atheist is a well defined word. You can not re-define it in accordance to what you think it should mean, sorry.
Please understand, that the lack of belief does not mean a belief in opposite. If I say I lack the belief that a god exists, I am not saying I believe there is no god. I am saying "the idea is not even worth contemplating".
Let me clarify this. The followers of the idea have not yet managed to present even the slightest shred of supportive evidence, therefore I have absolutely no way to say "yes, the god exists". On the other side, with absolutely no logic behind the idea, I can't think of a way to disprove the existence of a god, therefore I also can't say "no, there is no god". PLEASE NOTE, however, that exactly the same can be said of millions upon millions of other theories out there (invisible pink unihorns, dragons in a garage, or the flying spaghetti monster). Why am I not simply saying "I don't know"? For the same reason I'm not saying "I don't know" to the question of the existence of invisible pink unihorns or flying spaghetti monsters. It's not worth giving it the doubt that "I don't know" expresses.
Finally, it is not rational to assume the existence of something (in this case, an immortal soul, or whatever it is that you assume to exist beyond our physical presence) based solely on the wish to be more important than you (we) actually are.
Sorry, but this is not correct. Atheism is NOT the assumption that "god does not exist because we cannot see him". Atheism is simply the lack of belief that a god exists. There's nothing bad about lacking a certain belief. You also don't believe everything you hear on the street, do you?
Look, you said, some posts ago, that you changed your atheist mind and became a religious person because the religion gave you the answers you were looking for. Which answers would that be? Basically, the only answer a religion gives one is "because". That's something my 6 year old son refuses to accept for quite a few years already. How comes you are satisfied with such a shallow answer? Frankly, I'd rather have no answer at all, than an answer like that.
Talking about what scientific position would be... in this case, it would be "I have heard an extraordinary claim, but have seen no supporting evidence whatsoever. The claim does not seem to be consistent in itself, it is not testable, not verifiable, and not provable. It is based on some 2000 years old writings, and talks about supernatural beings with unlimited powers. Based on the past experience with similar claims (greek mythology, roman mythology, egyptian pharao cults, and so on), it's a pile of crap, which does not deserve any of my precious time. When the supporters come up with some evidence, and if that evidence looks strong, I might be interested. So far, this is less convincing than the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' theory, which is more cool anyway, because it has a midget in it."
Finally: no, I don't "have faith" in atheism. If you ever "had faith" in atheism, then you never was an atheist.
There is, however, one fundamental conceptual point of incompatibility between the religion and the science: the former is all about "final truths", while the later is about theories currently best fitting the observations. As soon as a better scientific theory is found (i.e. a theory which better fits the observations), the old one is dropped, or at best kept around as an approximation of the "real thing" (see, for example, Newtons' theory of gravitation) On the other hand, a religion must, per definitionem, stick to what was postulated at the time of founding, which - in most cases - lays a few thousand years in past. Of course, being unprovable and untestable, one can't even know how much in common the writings nowadays recognized as the bible (or the quran, or the torah, or whatever) have with the original version of the text.
I suppose you now see why religion can be stretched to also (kind of) accommodate for science, but the reversal is not possible without perverting the very idea of the science and scientific method. That's why you won't see that many scientists trying to do that. Please don't missunderstand that for arrogance.
Finally, I would like to point out one more thing that I find intriguing. Why are you even trying to present the science and the religion as compatible? I don't even see the need for that. The science has proven many times already that its' methods can (and do) lead to higher living standards, give us the warm shelters in the winter, and cure us from many diseases. The religion, on the other hand, has nothing comparable to show. To be honest, the opposite is true: people are still figting terrible wars over religious differences. In my eyes, the religion has ultimatively failed to deliver what it was expected to. The recent attempts of some religious circles to bring the religion into the proximity of the science represent, as I see it, only an attempt to keep religion alive for some more time, by leeching on the success of the science. I would be interested in hearing your opinion on that.
When I talk about religion, I talk about the most wide-spread religions in the western world. This is, in part, due to my ignorance for other religion beliefs beyond the most influential ones (Christianity and Islam), and in part because those less influential religions play only a very minor role in our lives.
As of definition of religion and its' relationship to the Science, here is what Wikipedia says. If you have some better source, be my guest and present it here, instead of making empty remarks about how "I should review the definition of religion".
Religion (see etymology below) sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe
I suppose we can all agree that neither Christianity nor Islam defines itself primarily as "the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe", therefore it's all about worshiping supernatural, sacred, or divine something. In a selfish hope to gain some benefit from it post mortem, I might add. Of course, it's also about making big monetary donations to the institution in place to promote your favourite religion, but it's another topic.
Oppression of the free Science, of course, is not written down in a definition of a religion, but is a logical consequence.
You know, I used to call myself a "fundamentalist atheist", too. Some 10 years ago, I figured that's a too... well, fundamentalistic position to take, so I changed my stance to being a "moderate atheist", very firm in my position, but still keeping out of any religious discussions. I felt really good, being open-minded, tolerant, and generally very relaxed about that topic.
Now, 10 years later, I am very inclined towards becoming fundamentalist again. The world, it seems, has changed: religious jerks seem to be getting stronger again, and are finding new ways to impose their delusions onto unwashed masses. Only, this time they are doing it the sneaky way: instead of resorting to their usual "Holy Inquisition" approach, they are trying to wrap up their fantasies in something which might look like science to the uneducated and ignorant. They even outright lie that it *is* science.
Why does it bother me now? Science, in my opinion, is the greatest thing humankind has ever invented. It presents a noble mechanism of discovering the world around us, without cowardly resorting to "final truths" or "divine beings" when the going gets tough. Science is what differentiates us from animals (science and art, of course, but that's a different topic).
Religion, in its' definition, is the opposite of science. Throughout the history, the religion has oppressed science, and was actively trying to silence down the scientists whenever their theories were opposing the religious view of the world.
That now religious fanatics are trying to misuse science in order for their purposes is what makes me sick to my stomach. The time has come to stand up and kick some fanatic asses again.
Recursive fork()ing is a dynamic attack, which indeed is not easy to handle by the OS. A crash due to user trying to allocate an amount of memory much larger than what is available is something completely different.
You might give this method a try. Brings Windows XP with SP2 down (first a short BSOD, followed by a reboot). Nothing to do with drivers and/or hardware problems.
This page is in german, but the HTML code can be seen with no problems. I managed to bring 2 out of 3 windows XP installations down by this trick (sometimes, you have to wait a little while before it crashes, but it most probably will)
"Jason" (a stupid horror flick) is also not a space movie. Nevertheless, it was on the list of movies you could cast your vote for.
Now, if "Jason" can make it, the guys over there at space.com didn't take it so strict with what makes a space movie and what not.
I mentioned "Stargate" only because it gave birth to the TV series, not because I liked the movie. In fact, I also found it rather boring.
Try watching "Starship Troopers" a few more times. The first 2-3 times (they play it *very* often on the cable where I live) I also found it idiotic. At some point in time, I somehow started liking it... beats me why.
BTW, you didn't like "Dark Star"? BRING THE TAR AND THE FEATHERS!!:-)
The amount of religious zealotry the moviemakers showed (the last scene with "WE BELIEVE" banners made me want to puke) spoiled it for me. The rest was excellent.
The authors of the movie missappropriated a rather good story to transport their religious believes. The rest of the movie served them only to mud up the things a bit.
I find it very sad, that the list contains little less than a bunch of star wars/star treck movies. Who was the voting audience? Space Odyssey only #5? No Aliens? (OK, at least Alien is on the list). Where is "Blade Runner"? "Total Recall"? "Dark Star"? Hell, even "Stargate" or "Starship Troopers" deserved to get on that list more than some other entries ("Contact", for example, is a very good book, but a mediocre movie - to say the least).
If it works for you - great! Personally, I think a development process which too much relies on luxury tools is a bad development process. That's only my opinion, of course, based on experience and observations I made so far, not on hard facts. YMMV.
I see your point. However, my position is that you *always* have to *know* the type of the variable you are using. And the only way to *know* (as opposed to "believe to know, based on a prefix added by an unknown co-worker at some point in time") is to look it up in the declaration section.
On a somewhat less related note: there are a lot of areas where using unsigned short really is preferred to using an int (think embedded programming).
Great link, thank you very much! I never realized there is another kind of HN beside the dark-side HN (I'm a UNIX type of guy, HN never really took off in the UNIX world - at least not to the same extent as in the MS world).
Oh, I forgot to mention, that the most supporters of the hungarian notation in my group have changed their minds over the years. Nowadays, only one of them seems to be sticking to the notation, and that's more out of a habit (as he says).
I'm not a friend of a hungarian notation. It's OK to prepend a "p" to a pointer, for it is always nice to recognize a pointer at once (that's why I hate those C++ 'references'), but everything going beyond that brings as good nothing, while introducing a *lot* of work when you decide to change the type of the variable.
Where I work, the rule is "if you like it, use it, if you don't - don't use it, but you HAVE to be consistent within a compilation unit."
Besides, what would a "pointer to unsigned short 'sy'" look like in hungarian notation?:-)
Actually, Joe Public does not hate Microsoft at all, from what I have seen so far. Joe Public doesn't even know a computer can also not crash (or behave strangely, or get infected with malware 40 seconds after being connected to the Net, or... well, pick your favorite).
In the past few months, I had quite a few contacts with management type of guys in the company where I work. I was disgusted to see that they not only have nothing against MS, they even seem to LOVE MS! Those people are not stupid. Some of them are even very smart, at least in their areas of expertise. When it comes to computers, however, they are mind-boggingly ignorant.
Now, why is that? The reason is simple: the cast majority of people is not interested in technology AT ALL, and are therefore happy with whatever makes their daily tasks easier to handle. They don't have the time or the interest to go out on the internet and to start looking for alternatives. They are happy with what they have (i.e. what they got as they bought their computers, what they got as a pirated copy from their neighbor, or what they received a training for in their company) and don't know any better. They don't hate MS and probably never will.
Why some technologically well educated people seem to have no dislike for MS espaces me completely, but that's a different topic.
I asked you for the link to a commercially available 128-way system running Windows. Instead of providing one, you called me a lazy troll, and you said my posting was the stupidest thing you had to respond to.
I'll take that as "no, I don't know of such a system". Actually, I'm surprised. I knew Windows is certified by MS to support 128-way systems, but I never thought no such system is actually commercially available. This means, I'd say, that the original poster was right.
Oh, and about Vista: it was officially announced by MS and was also posted here on the slashdot that neither Monad nor WinFS are going to be included. If you really need those links, I can dig them up for you. And if you re-read your previous post, you'll see it wasn't me who brought Vista into this thread. It was you.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity: which would that be? Besides, what do you mean by "consumer level OS"?
Where does this 99% quote come from? Also, are you saying, that running a Windows with only MS certified drivers installed would reduce the number of lock-ups down to 1%?
Well, cool... now they only need the space ship to have something to launch from their fancy spaceport... :-)
No, really - I wish Virgin, Branson and Scaled Composits all the good luck in the world - they have deserved it. Maybe, after all these years of empty promisses, we *are* at the verge of the space era.
Maybe I'll be able to explain my stance after all - it seems you *are* reading, but are also being rather selective in choosing which parts you reply to. :-)
Which scientific evidence can you quote which is going against pink unihorns, magic, and astrology? None that I am aware of. Therefore those things all fall into the same category as the religion, and deserve - from the logical point of view - the same attention.
It's a matter of common sense, not of faith, to filter out ideas for which not even the most fiery supporters are able to present anything resembling some evidence (or even a coherent argumentation). We are filtering information from noise constantly - if we didn't, we'd overload in matter of days. I don't see which criterion one can use to decide not to filter out the religion together with magic, astrology, pink unihorns, and similar.
I understand that some people can feel the need for a religion. It is their good right to do so. However, when they try to somehow put their personal beliefs, i.e. the fruits of their imagination, in such a close relation to science, or when they try to force their beliefs upon schoolchildren, then they shouldn't be so surprised when they face the resistance from a small but vocal (not vocal enough, if you ask me) scientific community.
In the part you chose not to relpy to, I explained pretty well what I meant with "not even worth contemplating". It seems you are not even reading what I took so much time and effort to write. It's a shame, really - you could've learned a thing or two.
Have a nice day.
Atheist is a well defined word. You can not re-define it in accordance to what you think it should mean, sorry.
Please understand, that the lack of belief does not mean a belief in opposite. If I say I lack the belief that a god exists, I am not saying I believe there is no god. I am saying "the idea is not even worth contemplating".
Let me clarify this. The followers of the idea have not yet managed to present even the slightest shred of supportive evidence, therefore I have absolutely no way to say "yes, the god exists". On the other side, with absolutely no logic behind the idea, I can't think of a way to disprove the existence of a god, therefore I also can't say "no, there is no god". PLEASE NOTE, however, that exactly the same can be said of millions upon millions of other theories out there (invisible pink unihorns, dragons in a garage, or the flying spaghetti monster). Why am I not simply saying "I don't know"? For the same reason I'm not saying "I don't know" to the question of the existence of invisible pink unihorns or flying spaghetti monsters. It's not worth giving it the doubt that "I don't know" expresses.
Finally, it is not rational to assume the existence of something (in this case, an immortal soul, or whatever it is that you assume to exist beyond our physical presence) based solely on the wish to be more important than you (we) actually are.
Sorry, but this is not correct. Atheism is NOT the assumption that "god does not exist because we cannot see him". Atheism is simply the lack of belief that a god exists. There's nothing bad about lacking a certain belief. You also don't believe everything you hear on the street, do you?
Look, you said, some posts ago, that you changed your atheist mind and became a religious person because the religion gave you the answers you were looking for. Which answers would that be? Basically, the only answer a religion gives one is "because". That's something my 6 year old son refuses to accept for quite a few years already. How comes you are satisfied with such a shallow answer? Frankly, I'd rather have no answer at all, than an answer like that.
Talking about what scientific position would be... in this case, it would be "I have heard an extraordinary claim, but have seen no supporting evidence whatsoever. The claim does not seem to be consistent in itself, it is not testable, not verifiable, and not provable. It is based on some 2000 years old writings, and talks about supernatural beings with unlimited powers. Based on the past experience with similar claims (greek mythology, roman mythology, egyptian pharao cults, and so on), it's a pile of crap, which does not deserve any of my precious time. When the supporters come up with some evidence, and if that evidence looks strong, I might be interested. So far, this is less convincing than the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' theory, which is more cool anyway, because it has a midget in it."
Finally: no, I don't "have faith" in atheism. If you ever "had faith" in atheism, then you never was an atheist.
Great explanation!
;-)
One minor nit-pick to your sig: wouldn't 20+ and 70+ be just the same? Both mean "more than 20"...
There is, however, one fundamental conceptual point of incompatibility between the religion and the science: the former is all about "final truths", while the later is about theories currently best fitting the observations. As soon as a better scientific theory is found (i.e. a theory which better fits the observations), the old one is dropped, or at best kept around as an approximation of the "real thing" (see, for example, Newtons' theory of gravitation) On the other hand, a religion must, per definitionem, stick to what was postulated at the time of founding, which - in most cases - lays a few thousand years in past. Of course, being unprovable and untestable, one can't even know how much in common the writings nowadays recognized as the bible (or the quran, or the torah, or whatever) have with the original version of the text.
I suppose you now see why religion can be stretched to also (kind of) accommodate for science, but the reversal is not possible without perverting the very idea of the science and scientific method. That's why you won't see that many scientists trying to do that. Please don't missunderstand that for arrogance.
Finally, I would like to point out one more thing that I find intriguing. Why are you even trying to present the science and the religion as compatible? I don't even see the need for that. The science has proven many times already that its' methods can (and do) lead to higher living standards, give us the warm shelters in the winter, and cure us from many diseases. The religion, on the other hand, has nothing comparable to show. To be honest, the opposite is true: people are still figting terrible wars over religious differences. In my eyes, the religion has ultimatively failed to deliver what it was expected to. The recent attempts of some religious circles to bring the religion into the proximity of the science represent, as I see it, only an attempt to keep religion alive for some more time, by leeching on the success of the science. I would be interested in hearing your opinion on that.
As of definition of religion and its' relationship to the Science, here is what Wikipedia says. If you have some better source, be my guest and present it here, instead of making empty remarks about how "I should review the definition of religion". I suppose we can all agree that neither Christianity nor Islam defines itself primarily as "the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe", therefore it's all about worshiping supernatural, sacred, or divine something. In a selfish hope to gain some benefit from it post mortem, I might add. Of course, it's also about making big monetary donations to the institution in place to promote your favourite religion, but it's another topic.
Oppression of the free Science, of course, is not written down in a definition of a religion, but is a logical consequence.
You know, I used to call myself a "fundamentalist atheist", too. Some 10 years ago, I figured that's a too... well, fundamentalistic position to take, so I changed my stance to being a "moderate atheist", very firm in my position, but still keeping out of any religious discussions. I felt really good, being open-minded, tolerant, and generally very relaxed about that topic.
Now, 10 years later, I am very inclined towards becoming fundamentalist again. The world, it seems, has changed: religious jerks seem to be getting stronger again, and are finding new ways to impose their delusions onto unwashed masses. Only, this time they are doing it the sneaky way: instead of resorting to their usual "Holy Inquisition" approach, they are trying to wrap up their fantasies in something which might look like science to the uneducated and ignorant. They even outright lie that it *is* science.
Why does it bother me now? Science, in my opinion, is the greatest thing humankind has ever invented. It presents a noble mechanism of discovering the world around us, without cowardly resorting to "final truths" or "divine beings" when the going gets tough. Science is what differentiates us from animals (science and art, of course, but that's a different topic).
Religion, in its' definition, is the opposite of science. Throughout the history, the religion has oppressed science, and was actively trying to silence down the scientists whenever their theories were opposing the religious view of the world.
That now religious fanatics are trying to misuse science in order for their purposes is what makes me sick to my stomach. The time has come to stand up and kick some fanatic asses again.
Recursive fork()ing is a dynamic attack, which indeed is not easy to handle by the OS. A crash due to user trying to allocate an amount of memory much larger than what is available is something completely different.
You might give this method a try. Brings Windows XP with SP2 down (first a short BSOD, followed by a reboot). Nothing to do with drivers and/or hardware problems.
This page is in german, but the HTML code can be seen with no problems. I managed to bring 2 out of 3 windows XP installations down by this trick (sometimes, you have to wait a little while before it crashes, but it most probably will)
"Jason" (a stupid horror flick) is also not a space movie. Nevertheless, it was on the list of movies you could cast your vote for.
:-)
Now, if "Jason" can make it, the guys over there at space.com didn't take it so strict with what makes a space movie and what not.
I mentioned "Stargate" only because it gave birth to the TV series, not because I liked the movie. In fact, I also found it rather boring.
Try watching "Starship Troopers" a few more times. The first 2-3 times (they play it *very* often on the cable where I live) I also found it idiotic. At some point in time, I somehow started liking it... beats me why.
BTW, you didn't like "Dark Star"? BRING THE TAR AND THE FEATHERS!!
The amount of religious zealotry the moviemakers showed (the last scene with "WE BELIEVE" banners made me want to puke) spoiled it for me. The rest was excellent.
The authors of the movie missappropriated a rather good story to transport their religious believes. The rest of the movie served them only to mud up the things a bit.
No, we're ate least two. And, as far as I'm concerned, it's also time to start easing up on Star Treck, too.
Read the book, and you too will hate the movie.
I find it very sad, that the list contains little less than a bunch of star wars/star treck movies. Who was the voting audience? Space Odyssey only #5? No Aliens? (OK, at least Alien is on the list). Where is "Blade Runner"? "Total Recall"? "Dark Star"? Hell, even "Stargate" or "Starship Troopers" deserved to get on that list more than some other entries ("Contact", for example, is a very good book, but a mediocre movie - to say the least).
Very good point, that with the anti-comment crowd. Never thought of it... :-)
If it works for you - great! Personally, I think a development process which too much relies on luxury tools is a bad development process. That's only my opinion, of course, based on experience and observations I made so far, not on hard facts. YMMV.
I see your point. However, my position is that you *always* have to *know* the type of the variable you are using. And the only way to *know* (as opposed to "believe to know, based on a prefix added by an unknown co-worker at some point in time") is to look it up in the declaration section.
On a somewhat less related note: there are a lot of areas where using unsigned short really is preferred to using an int (think embedded programming).
Great link, thank you very much! I never realized there is another kind of HN beside the dark-side HN (I'm a UNIX type of guy, HN never really took off in the UNIX world - at least not to the same extent as in the MS world).
Oh, I forgot to mention, that the most supporters of the hungarian notation in my group have changed their minds over the years. Nowadays, only one of them seems to be sticking to the notation, and that's more out of a habit (as he says).
I'm not a friend of a hungarian notation. It's OK to prepend a "p" to a pointer, for it is always nice to recognize a pointer at once (that's why I hate those C++ 'references'), but everything going beyond that brings as good nothing, while introducing a *lot* of work when you decide to change the type of the variable.
:-)
Where I work, the rule is "if you like it, use it, if you don't - don't use it, but you HAVE to be consistent within a compilation unit."
Besides, what would a "pointer to unsigned short 'sy'" look like in hungarian notation?
Actually, Joe Public does not hate Microsoft at all, from what I have seen so far. Joe Public doesn't even know a computer can also not crash (or behave strangely, or get infected with malware 40 seconds after being connected to the Net, or... well, pick your favorite).
In the past few months, I had quite a few contacts with management type of guys in the company where I work. I was disgusted to see that they not only have nothing against MS, they even seem to LOVE MS! Those people are not stupid. Some of them are even very smart, at least in their areas of expertise. When it comes to computers, however, they are mind-boggingly ignorant.
Now, why is that? The reason is simple: the cast majority of people is not interested in technology AT ALL, and are therefore happy with whatever makes their daily tasks easier to handle. They don't have the time or the interest to go out on the internet and to start looking for alternatives. They are happy with what they have (i.e. what they got as they bought their computers, what they got as a pirated copy from their neighbor, or what they received a training for in their company) and don't know any better. They don't hate MS and probably never will.
Why some technologically well educated people seem to have no dislike for MS espaces me completely, but that's a different topic.
I asked you for the link to a commercially available 128-way system running Windows. Instead of providing one, you called me a lazy troll, and you said my posting was the stupidest thing you had to respond to.
I'll take that as "no, I don't know of such a system". Actually, I'm surprised. I knew Windows is certified by MS to support 128-way systems, but I never thought no such system is actually commercially available. This means, I'd say, that the original poster was right.
Oh, and about Vista: it was officially announced by MS and was also posted here on the slashdot that neither Monad nor WinFS are going to be included. If you really need those links, I can dig them up for you. And if you re-read your previous post, you'll see it wasn't me who brought Vista into this thread. It was you.
Have a nice day.