Microsoft's advisory says that IE7 runs in protected mode in Vista, thus it is "protected from currently known web based attacks" and the exploit can only crash the browser not execute arbitrary code. It's in the "Mitigating Factors for Animated Cursor Vulnerability" section.
"In Protected Mode, Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista cannot modify user or system files and settings without user consent." -- From the Windows Vista: Features Explained site.
Unless of course the user has been driven insane by all the "Cancel or Allow?" questions and would readily click "Allow" even in a dialog box asking, "Your computer would like to strangle you with its power cord. Cancel or Allow?"
I read your post, and the first thing that sprang to my mind is that you haven't held a serious job yet.
I read your post, and the first thing that sprang to my mind is that you are an abject failure in your life.
I read your post, and the first thing that sprang to my mind is that you have nothing useful to contribute to this conversation. Maybe people mod you down all the time because you're an enormous tool. That's probably why you have twice as many freaks as fans. "Relevant and useful" my ass.
People here obviously don't like you, and for good reason. Why don't you hang out at digg where your style of "debate" is more accepted?
I'd like to see some statistics about old money. Another poster made a similar point, but had no statistics. I went looking, but also couldn't find anything concrete that didn't have an obvious bias. On the flip side, I did find an article about some recent research that shows it takes, on average, eight generations for a poor family to become middle class.
Just from a common sense point of view, your statement makes no sense. You don't need business acumen to stay rich, when you are rich you can hire people with business acumen.
As for ownership and me not being able to say what someone else should be worth, why? It's all just a big game, and WE are the ones who make up the rules. We can change them any time we like. No, I'm not buying the "Natural Right To Any Wealth Level Whatsoever, No Matter The Consequences For The Rest Of The World" argument. See, the thing is, it requires initiation of force to maintain that level of inequality, which is against my moral beliefs.
If a group of people set up a system that unfairly rewards them, while excluding you from the rightful rewards of your work, would you let them tell you you can't change the system? I wouldn't. No one has a moral right to tell me what systems I must or must not work with. The wealthy got where they are without consideration of me, why should I give consideration to them?
In short, I think people have every right to place whatever limits they want on others, as long as no coercion is used. That only leaves open withdrawal of reward. So groups of people can say, if you want to do business with us, you must respect an income and ownership cap. And you must not do business with people who don't respect that cap. There are far more people who would be below any reasonable cap, and it would be in their best interests to agree to such a system. It is entirely fair, and there is nothing the small minority of wealthy people could do about it without resorting to force.
Unfortunately, the wealthy often resort to force. They may not know it, but much actual force and coercion is used in maintaining such inequalities in distribution of wealth. They are also the beneficiaries of much hidden socialism. Although much of what our government does benefits everyone, most of it benefits the rich more.
In short, the wealthy have an unfair advantage that is unrelated to excellence or diligence. Despite your anecdotes and wishful thinking to the contrary, the rich tend to not only stay rich but become more so. The middle class is shrinking, it's an incontrovertible fact and it has been going on more or less since the sixties. There is no moral reason for anyone to lay back and let themselves be raped. And people can stand up to power without using force if they will only organize around their own common self interest.
Oooh, did I piss off the poor small minded conservative with the mod points again? Every time one of you inbred idiots mods me down like this, I have to laugh because I know that I pissed you off enough for you to risk losing your mod points in the meta-mod round.
I have more karma than I know what to do with. Modding me down doesn't do shit. You think people aren't going to read my posts because you mod them down? As if that's going to make these oh-so-dangerous ideas go away. You really want them to go away? Refute them. Modding down a post like this just shows what pansy ass cowards you are.
Ah, they want to keep the poor that way because the poor have fewer choices and must accept poor wages and working conditions. Having more wealthy people wouldn't make the wealthier any more money. You can make plenty of money selling lots of cheap crap to the poor, heck, most of them have no cars so they have little choice in where they shop and have to take whatever you offer them.
Look at world history. I don't know about you, but I see a pattern of the rich and powerful trying to maintain and expand the power and money differential between themselves and the rest of us. It's kind of, you know, one of the major driving forces of history. How has any of that changed in our system?
A week? What kind of lame-o Civ gamer are you? A week's barely enough time to finish one single epic game on a huge map. A week is two or three multiplayer games. Meh. Get back to me when you've lost a job, had to drop out of school, or been kicked out of an apartment because of the smell. Then maybe you can call yourself a serious Civ gamer.
Seriously, though, I am SO glad they beefed up the late game. This incarnation of civ has had one of the weakest espionage elements of any of them, and I've missed the end-game fun to be had with corporations, like in Civ: CTP.
Thick skin is a good trait to have on/. You may not have seen it on that Mondragon page, but do you know what the workers are complaining about? The move from a 10x cap to a 50x cap. The richest in that society can't make more than 50 times what the poorest make. Now that, I can live with. Heck, I can go up to 100x. That was coincidentally, the cap in ancient Athens during the birth of democracy. Nobody is worth millions of times what someone else is worth, and no one has the right to say they are and force the rest of us to buy into it.
Given that human history is full of examples of people using money and power to keep themselves in money and power while keeping others out, I'd say the burden of proof is on you to show why that DOESN'T happen in a capitalist society. I assume you are familiar with the notion of feedback loops? Wealth is a positive feedback loop, it creates more opportunities for the accumulation of wealth. Poverty is a negative feedback loop, it makes it easier for others to take advantage of you and take your wealth because you have fewer options. These are systemic faults in the system.
Oh, that was just a troll. Revolution isn't the answer, it always leads to the most brutal and ruthless rising to the top, and becoming what you rebelled against.
Personal responsibility? What about systemic responsibility? People do not exist in isolation. Their hopes and dreams, their notions of what is probable and what their place in society are all shaped by their society.
Or for that matter, what about the personal responsibility of the rich themselves? Why is it okay for them to use money and power to keep the poor poor and them rich? The poor aren't all poor because of bad choices. It is the height of arrogance to think so. Face facts: not everyone can be rich. Not everyone can be a leader. Not everyone can make money off of the hard work of others, because who then would be doing the hard work.
Good point about revolutions, though. That is the failed ideology, not communism or socialism. The first hasn't been tried, precisely because revolutions don't work. Yes, I was just trolling with that line about the police and army, I don't really think that is the answer. The second is alive and well and working quite nicely for a number of first world nations.
As for what would work? I'm not the naive ideologue you seem to think. In fact, I have given it a lot of thought. Collectivist systems such as the Mondragon Collective in Spain have proven themselves more effective than pure capitalism. Look at the number of startup failures they have. Compared to us, they have far fewer new business failures because the whole society is set up to encourage people to form new collectives, and the society provides all the business, employement, and financial services necessary to ensure success, all in the form of collectives as well.
People are no less motivated just because they have an income and wealth cap in Mondragon.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really do want a better world, but I often find that people advocating the loudest for "personal responsibility" are the ones most vested in keeping their unfair privilege and the ones least likely to accept any form of personal responsibility that is not thrust on them by force.
One of the primary perks of being in the dominant class is that you never have to question your assumptions. You assume that hard work will always succeed because that it has for you. Others who are not in the dominant class are less likely to accept such myths because, as much as they would like them to be true, they have seen them fail in their own lives.
Class won't go away just because you want it to. When one easily identifiable class of people continually fucks over another class of people, THAT is classism. It is not classism when somone calls a group out for fucking over others.
You know why I don't like the way the market works? Because rich people fuck with the market and make it work in their favor. I wouldn't mind so much if people who were rich actually deserved it because they were smarter or worked harder, but the majority of rich people aren't and don't. They are rich because money breeds money, and because they have no compunctions about fucking over others.
Race is just a red herring, though, thrown out by the rich to keep the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves instead of uniting to fight them. There are far more middle class and poor people than there are rich people, and if we want to we can just take all their shit and there is nothing they can do. Yeah, that's right you rich motherfuckers, the police and military are all poor and middle class to, who do you really think they'd side with?
I think the purpose of the Russian Epic Novell is to cause suffering in the reader, the better for them to understand the suffering of the Russian soul.
A little of column A, a little of column B, at least by my reading. They were called out on the lack of source over a year ago, claimed they were having technical difficulties and would release the source post-haste. They never did. Now, they were probably in some financial trouble even then, but how hard is it to tar up a source tree and throw it on the web?
Maybe the solid core is acting like the agitator? Perhaps there are rougher features at the northern pole than there are at the southern, explaining why there is no southern hexagon. The article says the hexagon rotates at the same speed as radio emissions from Saturn, which they assume is the same speed as the core rotates.
That link made my brain hurt. I wish I knew more math. Can spherical harmonics make a six sided figure? It didn't look like it from the wiki page, but aside from the pictures, I'd have no way of knowing.
That spinning water thing seems like a plausible explanation, though, as some parts of a gas giants atmosphere spin faster than others. Different rotational speeds in the band just below the pole might act like the wall in the bucket and cause a similar geometric effect.
Wasn't there a story here within the last six months or so about spinning a bucket of water at the right speed and having it form geometric forms, including a hexagon?
I don't like her as an author or a philosopher. I think she would have really gotten off on the fact that I have no respect for her. Had we been contemporaries, I certainly wouldn't have minded slapping her around a bit and making her call me daddy.;-)
No, I meant GOD is omniscient and omnipotent. The "It" was capitalized, an inconsistent nod to non-gender based Divinity. Omniscience and omnipotence rule out desire. One can not know everything and have all power and still have anything left to desire, it makes no sense, that was the point I wss trying to make.
I was looking for a Divinity I could believe in. I was not looking for certainty, but there are certain illogical things I can not accept. If God wants certain things from me, why put those instructions in different and contradictory religions, all of which look more like the work of imperfect man than a perfect God? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, the things written by God's hand would be perfect in a way that was qualitatively different than things written by the hand of man. I have seen no such things. All I have seen are people who do not know God any better than I do trying to tell me that they know what God wants.
I have found something that I can only describe as very large and very mysterious. In Christian terms It most closely resembles the concept of the Divine held by Deists. It is certainly nothing like the God that most Christians think of, in fact, It is so different from and larger than that that calling it God only confuses the issue as far as I'm concerned. But in my quest for this, I did honestly and sincerely (at one point) accept Jesus as my personal savior, and some time after that this very large and mysterious thing began to make itself known to me, so who knows? It could also just be my own mind's ability to find patterns even when there are none. Until something along the lines of a burning bush speaks directly to me, I'm afraid I'm going to have to remain agnostic.
Good point about the fall and our dominion over nature, it puts my Genesis quote in the proper context. I still think you are reading your own interpretation into it, and that's fine. As I said, one's relationship with the divine is a personal matter. It just isn't fair to say that your interpretation is THE interpretation, as many religions do.
Rand? Seriously? Shittiest self-styled philosopher and author ever to put pen to page. This passage is about as deep and insightful as "a is a," and about as well written as "My Pet Goat."
You want a good "Atlas Shrugged" quote? here's my favorite: "the band on the wrist of her naked arm gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained." Yeah, Ayn had some serious sexual issues. Not that there's anything wrong with BDSM, heck, I like slapping around a willing playmate now and then, but Ayn is seriously messed up with all her non-consensual sex fantasies and homophobia. As writer Jenny Turner wrote in a review of one of Ayn's biographies:
"the sex in Rand's novels is extraordinarily violent and fetishistic. In The Fountainhead, the first coupling of the heroes, heralded by whips and rock drills and horseback riding and cracks in marble, is 'an act of scorn... not as love, but as defilement' - in other words, a rape. ('The act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted.' In Atlas Shrugged, erotic tension is cleverly increased by having one heroine bound into a plot with lots of spectacularly cruel and handsome men.)
More insight into the dark and twisted world of Ayn's sexuality here.
The Bible is clear on things that matter. It is not right to assume that you know what matters to God if it is not clear in the Bible. If God had not wanted us to genetically engineer animals, He would have put in a passage like the one about not using mixed fabrics that everybody follows so diligently.
God doesn't need to care about the Universe. It is omnipotent and omniscient. I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of that. As for the evidence you mention: yes, anecdotes and hearsay are kinds of evidence. I've looked, long and hard. I've searched for God my whole life. Sorry, finding God isn't as easy or as simple as you make it out to be, even when the desire is strong and the search lasts a lifetime.
You knew exactly the Genesis I meant. It's pretty clear to me, maybe you interpret it differently, but to me it sounds an awful lot like God is giving us complete dominion over Nature, and saying that Nature will be rightfully terrified of that dominion. What's your interpretation?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's advisory says that IE7 runs in protected mode in Vista, thus it is "protected from currently known web based attacks" and the exploit can only crash the browser not execute arbitrary code. It's in the "Mitigating Factors for Animated Cursor Vulnerability" section.
"In Protected Mode, Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista cannot modify user or system files and settings without user consent." -- From the Windows Vista: Features Explained site.
Unless of course the user has been driven insane by all the "Cancel or Allow?" questions and would readily click "Allow" even in a dialog box asking, "Your computer would like to strangle you with its power cord. Cancel or Allow?"
WTF? Since when has ANY windows application included development files?
Face it, geeks don't *want* the unwashed mouth-breathers to use Linux.
A single anecdote does not a trend make. Very few geeks want Linux all for themselves nowadays. Those geeks who do get made fun of by other geeks.
I read your post, and the first thing that sprang to my mind is that you have nothing useful to contribute to this conversation. Maybe people mod you down all the time because you're an enormous tool. That's probably why you have twice as many freaks as fans. "Relevant and useful" my ass.
People here obviously don't like you, and for good reason. Why don't you hang out at digg where your style of "debate" is more accepted?
It's true, the Danes are a thrifty people who would never dream of wasting panties.
It sounds like you, for one, would welcome some new, overlord hating overlords.
I'd like to see some statistics about old money. Another poster made a similar point, but had no statistics. I went looking, but also couldn't find anything concrete that didn't have an obvious bias. On the flip side, I did find an article about some recent research that shows it takes, on average, eight generations for a poor family to become middle class.
Just from a common sense point of view, your statement makes no sense. You don't need business acumen to stay rich, when you are rich you can hire people with business acumen.
As for ownership and me not being able to say what someone else should be worth, why? It's all just a big game, and WE are the ones who make up the rules. We can change them any time we like. No, I'm not buying the "Natural Right To Any Wealth Level Whatsoever, No Matter The Consequences For The Rest Of The World" argument. See, the thing is, it requires initiation of force to maintain that level of inequality, which is against my moral beliefs.
If a group of people set up a system that unfairly rewards them, while excluding you from the rightful rewards of your work, would you let them tell you you can't change the system? I wouldn't. No one has a moral right to tell me what systems I must or must not work with. The wealthy got where they are without consideration of me, why should I give consideration to them?
In short, I think people have every right to place whatever limits they want on others, as long as no coercion is used. That only leaves open withdrawal of reward. So groups of people can say, if you want to do business with us, you must respect an income and ownership cap. And you must not do business with people who don't respect that cap. There are far more people who would be below any reasonable cap, and it would be in their best interests to agree to such a system. It is entirely fair, and there is nothing the small minority of wealthy people could do about it without resorting to force.
Unfortunately, the wealthy often resort to force. They may not know it, but much actual force and coercion is used in maintaining such inequalities in distribution of wealth. They are also the beneficiaries of much hidden socialism. Although much of what our government does benefits everyone, most of it benefits the rich more.
In short, the wealthy have an unfair advantage that is unrelated to excellence or diligence. Despite your anecdotes and wishful thinking to the contrary, the rich tend to not only stay rich but become more so. The middle class is shrinking, it's an incontrovertible fact and it has been going on more or less since the sixties. There is no moral reason for anyone to lay back and let themselves be raped. And people can stand up to power without using force if they will only organize around their own common self interest.
Oooh, did I piss off the poor small minded conservative with the mod points again? Every time one of you inbred idiots mods me down like this, I have to laugh because I know that I pissed you off enough for you to risk losing your mod points in the meta-mod round.
I have more karma than I know what to do with. Modding me down doesn't do shit. You think people aren't going to read my posts because you mod them down? As if that's going to make these oh-so-dangerous ideas go away. You really want them to go away? Refute them. Modding down a post like this just shows what pansy ass cowards you are.
Ah, they want to keep the poor that way because the poor have fewer choices and must accept poor wages and working conditions. Having more wealthy people wouldn't make the wealthier any more money. You can make plenty of money selling lots of cheap crap to the poor, heck, most of them have no cars so they have little choice in where they shop and have to take whatever you offer them.
Look at world history. I don't know about you, but I see a pattern of the rich and powerful trying to maintain and expand the power and money differential between themselves and the rest of us. It's kind of, you know, one of the major driving forces of history. How has any of that changed in our system?
A week? What kind of lame-o Civ gamer are you? A week's barely enough time to finish one single epic game on a huge map. A week is two or three multiplayer games. Meh. Get back to me when you've lost a job, had to drop out of school, or been kicked out of an apartment because of the smell. Then maybe you can call yourself a serious Civ gamer.
Seriously, though, I am SO glad they beefed up the late game. This incarnation of civ has had one of the weakest espionage elements of any of them, and I've missed the end-game fun to be had with corporations, like in Civ: CTP.
Thick skin is a good trait to have on /. You may not have seen it on that Mondragon page, but do you know what the workers are complaining about? The move from a 10x cap to a 50x cap. The richest in that society can't make more than 50 times what the poorest make. Now that, I can live with. Heck, I can go up to 100x. That was coincidentally, the cap in ancient Athens during the birth of democracy. Nobody is worth millions of times what someone else is worth, and no one has the right to say they are and force the rest of us to buy into it.
Given that human history is full of examples of people using money and power to keep themselves in money and power while keeping others out, I'd say the burden of proof is on you to show why that DOESN'T happen in a capitalist society. I assume you are familiar with the notion of feedback loops? Wealth is a positive feedback loop, it creates more opportunities for the accumulation of wealth. Poverty is a negative feedback loop, it makes it easier for others to take advantage of you and take your wealth because you have fewer options. These are systemic faults in the system.
Oh, that was just a troll. Revolution isn't the answer, it always leads to the most brutal and ruthless rising to the top, and becoming what you rebelled against.
Personal responsibility? What about systemic responsibility? People do not exist in isolation. Their hopes and dreams, their notions of what is probable and what their place in society are all shaped by their society.
Or for that matter, what about the personal responsibility of the rich themselves? Why is it okay for them to use money and power to keep the poor poor and them rich? The poor aren't all poor because of bad choices. It is the height of arrogance to think so. Face facts: not everyone can be rich. Not everyone can be a leader. Not everyone can make money off of the hard work of others, because who then would be doing the hard work.
Good point about revolutions, though. That is the failed ideology, not communism or socialism. The first hasn't been tried, precisely because revolutions don't work. Yes, I was just trolling with that line about the police and army, I don't really think that is the answer. The second is alive and well and working quite nicely for a number of first world nations.
As for what would work? I'm not the naive ideologue you seem to think. In fact, I have given it a lot of thought. Collectivist systems such as the Mondragon Collective in Spain have proven themselves more effective than pure capitalism. Look at the number of startup failures they have. Compared to us, they have far fewer new business failures because the whole society is set up to encourage people to form new collectives, and the society provides all the business, employement, and financial services necessary to ensure success, all in the form of collectives as well.
People are no less motivated just because they have an income and wealth cap in Mondragon.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really do want a better world, but I often find that people advocating the loudest for "personal responsibility" are the ones most vested in keeping their unfair privilege and the ones least likely to accept any form of personal responsibility that is not thrust on them by force.
One of the primary perks of being in the dominant class is that you never have to question your assumptions. You assume that hard work will always succeed because that it has for you. Others who are not in the dominant class are less likely to accept such myths because, as much as they would like them to be true, they have seen them fail in their own lives.
Class won't go away just because you want it to. When one easily identifiable class of people continually fucks over another class of people, THAT is classism. It is not classism when somone calls a group out for fucking over others.
You know why I don't like the way the market works? Because rich people fuck with the market and make it work in their favor. I wouldn't mind so much if people who were rich actually deserved it because they were smarter or worked harder, but the majority of rich people aren't and don't. They are rich because money breeds money, and because they have no compunctions about fucking over others.
Race is just a red herring, though, thrown out by the rich to keep the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves instead of uniting to fight them. There are far more middle class and poor people than there are rich people, and if we want to we can just take all their shit and there is nothing they can do. Yeah, that's right you rich motherfuckers, the police and military are all poor and middle class to, who do you really think they'd side with?
I think the purpose of the Russian Epic Novell is to cause suffering in the reader, the better for them to understand the suffering of the Russian soul.
A little of column A, a little of column B, at least by my reading. They were called out on the lack of source over a year ago, claimed they were having technical difficulties and would release the source post-haste. They never did. Now, they were probably in some financial trouble even then, but how hard is it to tar up a source tree and throw it on the web?
Oh, I know they didn't just talk trash about my beloved Wii.
They totally did, dude! I saw 'em, they said your Wii was short and aged.
Maybe the solid core is acting like the agitator? Perhaps there are rougher features at the northern pole than there are at the southern, explaining why there is no southern hexagon. The article says the hexagon rotates at the same speed as radio emissions from Saturn, which they assume is the same speed as the core rotates.
That link made my brain hurt. I wish I knew more math. Can spherical harmonics make a six sided figure? It didn't look like it from the wiki page, but aside from the pictures, I'd have no way of knowing.
That spinning water thing seems like a plausible explanation, though, as some parts of a gas giants atmosphere spin faster than others. Different rotational speeds in the band just below the pole might act like the wall in the bucket and cause a similar geometric effect.
Oh come on! Sometimes you deserve the karma, you know. But thanks, whoever you are!
Wasn't there a story here within the last six months or so about spinning a bucket of water at the right speed and having it form geometric forms, including a hexagon?
I don't like her as an author or a philosopher. I think she would have really gotten off on the fact that I have no respect for her. Had we been contemporaries, I certainly wouldn't have minded slapping her around a bit and making her call me daddy. ;-)
No, I meant GOD is omniscient and omnipotent. The "It" was capitalized, an inconsistent nod to non-gender based Divinity. Omniscience and omnipotence rule out desire. One can not know everything and have all power and still have anything left to desire, it makes no sense, that was the point I wss trying to make.
I was looking for a Divinity I could believe in. I was not looking for certainty, but there are certain illogical things I can not accept. If God wants certain things from me, why put those instructions in different and contradictory religions, all of which look more like the work of imperfect man than a perfect God? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, the things written by God's hand would be perfect in a way that was qualitatively different than things written by the hand of man. I have seen no such things. All I have seen are people who do not know God any better than I do trying to tell me that they know what God wants.
I have found something that I can only describe as very large and very mysterious. In Christian terms It most closely resembles the concept of the Divine held by Deists. It is certainly nothing like the God that most Christians think of, in fact, It is so different from and larger than that that calling it God only confuses the issue as far as I'm concerned. But in my quest for this, I did honestly and sincerely (at one point) accept Jesus as my personal savior, and some time after that this very large and mysterious thing began to make itself known to me, so who knows? It could also just be my own mind's ability to find patterns even when there are none. Until something along the lines of a burning bush speaks directly to me, I'm afraid I'm going to have to remain agnostic.
Good point about the fall and our dominion over nature, it puts my Genesis quote in the proper context. I still think you are reading your own interpretation into it, and that's fine. As I said, one's relationship with the divine is a personal matter. It just isn't fair to say that your interpretation is THE interpretation, as many religions do.
You want a good "Atlas Shrugged" quote? here's my favorite: "the band on the wrist of her naked arm gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained." Yeah, Ayn had some serious sexual issues. Not that there's anything wrong with BDSM, heck, I like slapping around a willing playmate now and then, but Ayn is seriously messed up with all her non-consensual sex fantasies and homophobia. As writer Jenny Turner wrote in a review of one of Ayn's biographies:
More insight into the dark and twisted world of Ayn's sexuality here.
The Bible is clear on things that matter. It is not right to assume that you know what matters to God if it is not clear in the Bible. If God had not wanted us to genetically engineer animals, He would have put in a passage like the one about not using mixed fabrics that everybody follows so diligently.
God doesn't need to care about the Universe. It is omnipotent and omniscient. I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of that. As for the evidence you mention: yes, anecdotes and hearsay are kinds of evidence. I've looked, long and hard. I've searched for God my whole life. Sorry, finding God isn't as easy or as simple as you make it out to be, even when the desire is strong and the search lasts a lifetime.
You knew exactly the Genesis I meant. It's pretty clear to me, maybe you interpret it differently, but to me it sounds an awful lot like God is giving us complete dominion over Nature, and saying that Nature will be rightfully terrified of that dominion. What's your interpretation?