hiva, the great Hindu god, whose dance continuously creates and recreates the Universe, was once confronted by a rather rude demon named Rahu. Rahu is famous for occasionally trying to swallow the Moon, but, since he has no stomach, the Moon always escapes, resulting merely in a lunar eclipse. Rahu has been sent by King Jalandhara, a giant who has conquered most of the world, to retrieve Shiva's bride Parvati, for himself. When Shiva learns of this insult, he becomes so enraged that his furrowed brow gives birth to a terrifying looking fellow with flaming eyes and the mouth of a lion. Shiva orders this furious creature to devour Rahu, who, in turn, tries to run away but can't outpace this terrible manifestation of Shiva's rage. He finally turns and throws himself desperately before Shiva, begging for his mercy. Approached in this manner, Shiva cannot refuse. He orders his rage to stand down. But now this ravenous creature itself begins protesting, "But I'm hungry! Now what am I suppose to do!"
Shiva thinks for a moment then instructs the gluttonous creature to eat its own hands and feet. But the creature doesn't just stop there, it continues devouring itself until all that's left is its face and head. Shiva looks upon this and declares, "This is my most magnificent creation ever! Henceforth it shall be known as Kirtimukha, the Face of Glory, and must always remain at the entrance of my door. From now on, nobody comes before me unless they first bow to Kirtimukha." - Joseph Campbell.
But nobody is saying it in that fashion. What basis do you have to say that someone is trying to end scientific debate?
No? Gore most certianly is:
Just six weeks ago, the scientific community, in its strongest statement to date, confirmed that the evidence of warming is "unequivocal." Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23668
Thus, he is no longer in the realm of scientific rules of theory, he is in political/socialogic rules of theory. But he wants it to have that scientific "aura" so people will believe him. Apparently he thinks scientific data is "unequivocal".
Main Entry: unequivocal
Pronunciation: "&n-i-'kwi-v&-k&l
Function: adjective
1 : leaving no doubt : CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS
2 : UNQUESTIONABLE http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unequivocal
Just in case you have some other definition of unequivocal.
Uhm.... I don't think humanity would survive on Mars, Jupiter or Pluto. WTF does any of this have to do with whether or not we should attempt to manage the climate on Earth?
Nothing. But then I never said we should do nothing, I just said reducing CO2 might not be effect. Why?
Simple, if 3 other planets with no humans, and as you point out we cant survive there, are warming then the cause cannot be solely humans. QED. Even if we remove all human causes, it will still get warmer due to whatever is making the other planets get warmer... like maybe more solar output?
You do realize that we will lose most coastal cities if the ice on Greenland melts?
Yes, and if we only try to reduce CO2, how are we going to build dikes or transplant people? We have no replacement for oil as yet, and nothing on the horizon to replace it at the scale needed to protect or move people.
I suppose your next response will be something on the order of YHBT, YHL, HAND.
No you have it right. I am saying that if anyone, lest of all Gore, says the "debate is over" about human caused global warming they are trying to falsely use scientific evedence to end debate about what to do.
Hey, make the "anthropomoric global warming" theory equivelent to sociology or economic theories, but it is not a scientific theory if we cannot challenge it. There are plenty of very good theories with evendence that point to the current heating of the earth being largely unrelated to humans, and even good theories that rises in CO2 are due to the warming, not the CO2 causing the warming. I.E., it is an indicator of global warming, not the cause.
If we address the issue based on "humans caused it and that if we stop what we are doing it will all go away" then we may have made a fatal mistake.
I do think that there is plenty of strong evidence that the earth is warming due to natural causes. Similar losses of polar ice caps on Mars, (Mars ice cap ovservation records go back farther than our own earth's, and the closest thing we have to a control for earth) rise of surface temps on Jupiter and Pluto being a good examples that there is a solar system wide event going on. Not of THAT was in the movie, because it is not a scientific treatment of the subject, it is a political one.
So addressing global warming by preparing for ice melts regardless of the source makes sense. Trying to stop or reverse it strictly by stopping human production of CO2, as Gore suggests, might yeild less than satifactory results if it turns out that the theory is wrong and man's impact is far less than he thinks.
That is the suicidal error: taking action to reverse the effects of a theory, rather than taking steps based on the results of the theory.
Again, some of these same scientists thought we were entering an ice age back in the 70's and made recommendations of dusting the icecaps with coal dust. So I am a little reluctent to have them do things that change the overall environment instead of planning for the changes independent of cause.
I did realize in my statement I misquoted Gore, he is claiming anthropomorphic warming, which is quite a bit different than natural warming due to leaving a normal ice age/warming age. That may change what I am about to say in response to you, as you do use the qualifier "almost agree" for human based. It still applies to those who think anthropomorphic warming is not disputable.
I disagree on the basis of accepted scientific method, not my PhD in any subject. That requires less than a Slashidiot level of education and intellegence to understand.
Popper's Rules of Demarcation prove the point in general with no data necessary:
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory-if we look for confirmations." and
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of theory (as people often think) but a vice. and finally:
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionaliststratagem. ")
So, if it is, as you claim, no longer a matter for scientific debate, then it is not really scientific theory. Scientific theories are refutable, and if global warming due to human activity is not refutable, it is something other than a scientific theory.
yeah! Cuz we all know right wing Republicans are against the EPA since the very beginning. Why, if that left wing loony Nixon handn't of signed it into law, we wouldn't have to do stuff like this!
Please, bad science is bi-partisan. All you have to do is hear Gore (as a recent, glaring example) state the "debate is over" on global warming. Any time you hear an absolute from a politician of any ilk you can be assured it is no longer science, but retoric.
Heck, the story right after this one, http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/3 1/0218245, reports a testable theory about violations of Newton's second law! The debate is NEVER over, it can always be opened if you have good science to prove your case. This guy doesn't have proof of his theory yet, and may never have it. But if he does get the proof people will have to re-open our understanding of that "Law".
sugar effect it the same way as my 4 year old son? Give him a bunch and runs around a 4x regular speed for an hour, then throws a fit and sugar crashes...
Hard to break into a datacenter with a barometric chamber as a man-trap... nothing like a case of the bends to slow someone down
Yes, I know... no chance of the bends. But it was the first thing that came to mind, having to cycle through a barometric chamber to get to the raised floor.
"So I would venture to say that in order to make these plants resistant, there is probably something being produced by them that is not entirely natural."
There are many plants resistant to RoundUp. Most berry plants being a good example, and most ivy is also resistant. Oxalis is another resistant plant. St. Augustine's grass is pretty resistant too.
RoundUp is most effective against broad leafted shallow rooted grasses, not every plant.
The current hard evidence, what little is exant, shows him flying and doing his duty as was required at the time.
Show me ONE peice of actual, unfabricated evidence and I will say you have a point. "So-and-so says so" does not fly with me, just like the whole "swift boat" thing with Kerry. Yeah sure, 5 bajillon guys that may or may not have served with him say the offical records don't match what happened. Total hatchet job just like the National Guard thing and Bush. Maybe you took the bait on that one too, or maybe because it wasn't Bush it had to be a fabrication. In terms of actual records the level of rebuttle is the same, there are no fact to back up what the denouncers on each side claim. I did not vote for Kerry because he is a socialist liberal who betrayed his comrads in arms in testifying to congress about "atrocities", not because some guy said he was an elitist jerk. Kerry says it far better himself anyway.
See, I have an actual open mind on these things. You need some real evidence to say "X did this or that" not just what you "think" is true.
If there is no point in arguing with me, it is your own failing, not mine. I look at real evidence and make up my mind. You, by your own words, are willing to believe something you have no proof for and only something you believe is true.
And that is the sort of Fake-but-acurate bull that I am talking about.
The ONLY evidence available shows that Bush did his time as required. But here you are calling it "Bush's actual derelictions of duty" when there is no (unfabricated) evidence what so ever to back that claim!
So sir, you have bought the bait, you need people to expose the fraud for you because your pre conceived notions blind you.
"Newspapers have a glorious future working to expose trolls in our new mediasphere full of cheap and easy cover. We need more exposure, and more support for it."
I think as Rathergate and Ruetersgate (gods I hate the -gate meme, but it is so useful) have shown that they are part of the trollers, and that the blogosphere are the ones doing the outing of trolls.
Maybe so, but we have quite a few 550's and we are getting a 570.
True, 500,000 is a lot compared to a whitebox with linux. But then, running a mid-fortune 1000 company without spending money on machines is silly.
We are not spendthrift, just 3.0% overall in IT, but with billions in revenue it means we can buy big iron and partition it. The industry standard is more like 8 to 10% for healthcare, btw.
And we use it stratigically to get processing power to the right places at the right times, like during month end close or billing cycles.
We use it tactically because we can make a very tiny partition quickly and let them try an upgrade or a new product without disturbing the dev-to-production code pipelines.
For the price, AIX is very cost effective, more so than the A/S400 or the Mainframe. (VMS is the most effective, but hey, I can't have everything)
When they have an idea? A lighted florecent bulb just doesn't have the same punch!
Seriously, I am at over 75% florecent or LCD spotlight in my house. I have a few lights that can be dimmed or are on motion detectors, that are still incandescent.
Those ought to be sorted out in the next few years.
Nothing has changed in the Hebrew Calander, not for as long as their have been Hebrews. The western calander has changed to correct problems with the dates, but not with the days of the week. When they corrected the calander in England they went from Wendnesday the 2nd of Febuary to Thursday the 14th, no change in the days of the week, just the days of the month.
You are mistaken about the way the US handles rights. You see, we as individuals are indowed with inalienable rights as put in our Declaration of Independence (which is NOT law) and then we in turn consent to being governed in the Constitution, which is law. No right from a Diety to govern over us is given to the government, that power comes from "We the People" and we may remove at any time through several mechanisms.
Individual leaders may have personal connections with their God, but in America that has no bearing on their right to rule. It may, or may not, give them the vison to lead the country better.
Iran as a theocracy that works is a highly debatable example given it's history in the last 40 years. In fact, I would give it and the Taliban as a prime example why Theocracies are a really bad idea.
Unless, of course, you are saying that things would be EVEN WORSE in Iran if it was under a non-theocratic dictatorship like Iraq was until recently. I might accept that arguement, but I am not sure you would win anything by making that case.
I went to a SDA church and school, so yes, I am very familiar with them. There are also Seventh Day Babtist, in case you did not know.
The Hebrews know exactly which day is the Biblical Sabbath, it is the current Saturday, they are very punctious about these things. They have observed the Sabbath Day for something like 4000 years without interruption.
There is no Biblical teaching that says worship on Sunday, it is a practice that evolved out of very early Christian life, and is later cemented by the Catholic Church.
BTW, Adventists believe in the Triumverate God, which has no foundation in the cannonical Bible either. But they also make it very clear that they only believe in what is in the Bible. I will let you guess what happens when you challenge them on this point...
The overall point of my post is that translations are very tricky to use on matters of absolute faith. You can't really make analysis of what the Koran says without understanding the orginal language. Like the Hebrew Torah, at least the Koran has the advantage of being written in the same language as the founder, unlike the Bible.
Now, if you want to critique what the followers of Christianity, Judism or Islam must believe in based on their behavior... well, things get kinda strange. Suffice it to say I would rather not live in a country run as a Theocracy by any of them.
Rulers who rule based on the authority of a Diety rather than the Will of the People are dangerous indeed. They answer to no one.
Slashdot Mirror
vaporware. He promised a four-layer diode:
m l
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_3/chpt_7/3.ht
and never delievered on it. Some samples were made, but it never made it to production.
hiva, the great Hindu god, whose dance continuously creates and recreates the Universe, was once confronted by a rather rude demon named Rahu. Rahu is famous for occasionally trying to swallow the Moon, but, since he has no stomach, the Moon always escapes, resulting merely in a lunar eclipse. Rahu has been sent by King Jalandhara, a giant who has conquered most of the world, to retrieve Shiva's bride Parvati, for himself. When Shiva learns of this insult, he becomes so enraged that his furrowed brow gives birth to a terrifying looking fellow with flaming eyes and the mouth of a lion. Shiva orders this furious creature to devour Rahu, who, in turn, tries to run away but can't outpace this terrible manifestation of Shiva's rage. He finally turns and throws himself desperately before Shiva, begging for his mercy. Approached in this manner, Shiva cannot refuse. He orders his rage to stand down. But now this ravenous creature itself begins protesting, "But I'm hungry! Now what am I suppose to do!"
Shiva thinks for a moment then instructs the gluttonous creature to eat its own hands and feet. But the creature doesn't just stop there, it continues devouring itself until all that's left is its face and head. Shiva looks upon this and declares, "This is my most magnificent creation ever! Henceforth it shall be known as Kirtimukha, the Face of Glory, and must always remain at the entrance of my door. From now on, nobody comes before me unless they first bow to Kirtimukha." - Joseph Campbell.
No? Gore most certianly is:
Just six weeks ago, the scientific community, in its strongest statement to date, confirmed that the evidence of warming is "unequivocal." Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=2366
Thus, he is no longer in the realm of scientific rules of theory, he is in political/socialogic rules of theory. But he wants it to have that scientific "aura" so people will believe him. Apparently he thinks scientific data is "unequivocal".
Main Entry: unequivocal
Pronunciation: "&n-i-'kwi-v&-k&l
Function: adjective
1 : leaving no doubt : CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS
2 : UNQUESTIONABLE
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unequivocal
Just in case you have some other definition of unequivocal.
Uhm.... I don't think humanity would survive on Mars, Jupiter or Pluto. WTF does any of this have to do with whether or not we should attempt to manage the climate on Earth?
Nothing. But then I never said we should do nothing, I just said reducing CO2 might not be effect. Why?
Simple, if 3 other planets with no humans, and as you point out we cant survive there, are warming then the cause cannot be solely humans. QED. Even if we remove all human causes, it will still get warmer due to whatever is making the other planets get warmer... like maybe more solar output?
You do realize that we will lose most coastal cities if the ice on Greenland melts?
Yes, and if we only try to reduce CO2, how are we going to build dikes or transplant people? We have no replacement for oil as yet, and nothing on the horizon to replace it at the scale needed to protect or move people.
I suppose your next response will be something on the order of YHBT, YHL, HAND.
No you have it right. I am saying that if anyone, lest of all Gore, says the "debate is over" about human caused global warming they are trying to falsely use scientific evedence to end debate about what to do.
Hey, make the "anthropomoric global warming" theory equivelent to sociology or economic theories, but it is not a scientific theory if we cannot challenge it. There are plenty of very good theories with evendence that point to the current heating of the earth being largely unrelated to humans, and even good theories that rises in CO2 are due to the warming, not the CO2 causing the warming. I.E., it is an indicator of global warming, not the cause.
If we address the issue based on "humans caused it and that if we stop what we are doing it will all go away" then we may have made a fatal mistake.
I do think that there is plenty of strong evidence that the earth is warming due to natural causes. Similar losses of polar ice caps on Mars, (Mars ice cap ovservation records go back farther than our own earth's, and the closest thing we have to a control for earth) rise of surface temps on Jupiter and Pluto being a good examples that there is a solar system wide event going on. Not of THAT was in the movie, because it is not a scientific treatment of the subject, it is a political one.
So addressing global warming by preparing for ice melts regardless of the source makes sense. Trying to stop or reverse it strictly by stopping human production of CO2, as Gore suggests, might yeild less than satifactory results if it turns out that the theory is wrong and man's impact is far less than he thinks.
That is the suicidal error: taking action to reverse the effects of a theory, rather than taking steps based on the results of the theory.
Again, some of these same scientists thought we were entering an ice age back in the 70's and made recommendations of dusting the icecaps with coal dust. So I am a little reluctent to have them do things that change the overall environment instead of planning for the changes independent of cause.
I disagree on the basis of accepted scientific method, not my PhD in any subject. That requires less than a Slashidiot level of education and intellegence to understand.
Popper's Rules of Demarcation prove the point in general with no data necessary: "It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory-if we look for confirmations." and A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of theory (as people often think) but a vice. and finally: Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionaliststratagem. ")
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. http://cla.calpoly.edu/~fotoole/321.1/popper.html
So, if it is, as you claim, no longer a matter for scientific debate, then it is not really scientific theory. Scientific theories are refutable, and if global warming due to human activity is not refutable, it is something other than a scientific theory.
yeah! Cuz we all know right wing Republicans are against the EPA since the very beginning. Why, if that left wing loony Nixon handn't of signed it into law, we wouldn't have to do stuff like this!
3 1/0218245, reports a testable theory about violations of Newton's second law! The debate is NEVER over, it can always be opened if you have good science to prove your case. This guy doesn't have proof of his theory yet, and may never have it. But if he does get the proof people will have to re-open our understanding of that "Law".
Please, bad science is bi-partisan. All you have to do is hear Gore (as a recent, glaring example) state the "debate is over" on global warming. Any time you hear an absolute from a politician of any ilk you can be assured it is no longer science, but retoric.
Heck, the story right after this one, http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/
Snow Crash?
You mean Rollerball.
sugar effect it the same way as my 4 year old son? Give him a bunch and runs around a 4x regular speed for an hour, then throws a fit and sugar crashes...
Can we rethink this?
Hard to break into a datacenter with a barometric chamber as a man-trap... nothing like a case of the bends to slow someone down
Yes, I know... no chance of the bends. But it was the first thing that came to mind, having to cycle through a barometric chamber to get to the raised floor.
"So I would venture to say that in order to make these plants resistant, there is probably something being produced by them that is not entirely natural."
There are many plants resistant to RoundUp. Most berry plants being a good example, and most ivy is also resistant. Oxalis is another resistant plant. St. Augustine's grass is pretty resistant too.
RoundUp is most effective against broad leafted shallow rooted grasses, not every plant.
Lol!
MIT won't give you your tutition back?
The current hard evidence, what little is exant, shows him flying and doing his duty as was required at the time.
Show me ONE peice of actual, unfabricated evidence and I will say you have a point. "So-and-so says so" does not fly with me, just like the whole "swift boat" thing with Kerry. Yeah sure, 5 bajillon guys that may or may not have served with him say the offical records don't match what happened. Total hatchet job just like the National Guard thing and Bush. Maybe you took the bait on that one too, or maybe because it wasn't Bush it had to be a fabrication. In terms of actual records the level of rebuttle is the same, there are no fact to back up what the denouncers on each side claim. I did not vote for Kerry because he is a socialist liberal who betrayed his comrads in arms in testifying to congress about "atrocities", not because some guy said he was an elitist jerk. Kerry says it far better himself anyway.
See, I have an actual open mind on these things. You need some real evidence to say "X did this or that" not just what you "think" is true.
If there is no point in arguing with me, it is your own failing, not mine. I look at real evidence and make up my mind. You, by your own words, are willing to believe something you have no proof for and only something you believe is true.
I can't argue with that either.
And that is the sort of Fake-but-acurate bull that I am talking about.
The ONLY evidence available shows that Bush did his time as required. But here you are calling it "Bush's actual derelictions of duty" when there is no (unfabricated) evidence what so ever to back that claim!
So sir, you have bought the bait, you need people to expose the fraud for you because your pre conceived notions blind you.
"Newspapers have a glorious future working to expose trolls in our new mediasphere full of cheap and easy cover. We need more exposure, and more support for it."
I think as Rathergate and Ruetersgate (gods I hate the -gate meme, but it is so useful) have shown that they are part of the trollers, and that the blogosphere are the ones doing the outing of trolls.
Heathen!
I prefer precisely dovetailed joints with a bonding agent...
It is the ONE TRUE JOINING method!
Maybe so, but we have quite a few 550's and we are getting a 570.
True, 500,000 is a lot compared to a whitebox with linux. But then, running a mid-fortune 1000 company without spending money on machines is silly.
We are not spendthrift, just 3.0% overall in IT, but with billions in revenue it means we can buy big iron and partition it. The industry standard is more like 8 to 10% for healthcare, btw.
And we use it stratigically to get processing power to the right places at the right times, like during month end close or billing cycles.
We use it tactically because we can make a very tiny partition quickly and let them try an upgrade or a new product without disturbing the dev-to-production code pipelines.
For the price, AIX is very cost effective, more so than the A/S400 or the Mainframe. (VMS is the most effective, but hey, I can't have everything)
Depends on the drag coeffient/terminal speed of the object thrown out of the plane.
Sky divers can control their speed, from about 100 mph to 200mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity
Personally, I think horizontal seperation created as the object decelerates and the plane does not would be the biggest issue.
Yeah, I bet it was a real in his life...
One presumes that the overload is because of a fault, otherwise you are right, you would gain nothing.
Many of our systems will survive the failure of a single part and fence it off, like a cpu, SAN controller cards, or memory.
However, it will degrade performance.
Sorry I was not clear on how real computers work.
Real companies with real computers have duplicate systems as backups.
Capacity on mission critical systems backups where I work is identical to the primary system.
When they have an idea? A lighted florecent bulb just doesn't have the same punch!
Seriously, I am at over 75% florecent or LCD spotlight in my house. I have a few lights that can be dimmed or are on motion detectors, that are still incandescent.
Those ought to be sorted out in the next few years.
I think it is called the "Ventura Freeway effect" where cars move slower as they enter a restricted flow area.
Just the opposite of a fluid.
Rebel scum!
Nothing has changed in the Hebrew Calander, not for as long as their have been Hebrews. The western calander has changed to correct problems with the dates, but not with the days of the week. When they corrected the calander in England they went from Wendnesday the 2nd of Febuary to Thursday the 14th, no change in the days of the week, just the days of the month.
l
See here: http://www.genfair.com/dates.htm
You are mistaken about the way the US handles rights. You see, we as individuals are indowed with inalienable rights as put in our Declaration of Independence (which is NOT law) and then we in turn consent to being governed in the Constitution, which is law. No right from a Diety to govern over us is given to the government, that power comes from "We the People" and we may remove at any time through several mechanisms.
Individual leaders may have personal connections with their God, but in America that has no bearing on their right to rule. It may, or may not, give them the vison to lead the country better.
Iran as a theocracy that works is a highly debatable example given it's history in the last 40 years. In fact, I would give it and the Taliban as a prime example why Theocracies are a really bad idea.
http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/iran.htm
Unless, of course, you are saying that things would be EVEN WORSE in Iran if it was under a non-theocratic dictatorship like Iraq was until recently. I might accept that arguement, but I am not sure you would win anything by making that case.
I went to a SDA church and school, so yes, I am very familiar with them. There are also Seventh Day Babtist, in case you did not know.
The Hebrews know exactly which day is the Biblical Sabbath, it is the current Saturday, they are very punctious about these things. They have observed the Sabbath Day for something like 4000 years without interruption.
There is no Biblical teaching that says worship on Sunday, it is a practice that evolved out of very early Christian life, and is later cemented by the Catholic Church.
BTW, Adventists believe in the Triumverate God, which has no foundation in the cannonical Bible either. But they also make it very clear that they only believe in what is in the Bible. I will let you guess what happens when you challenge them on this point...
The overall point of my post is that translations are very tricky to use on matters of absolute faith. You can't really make analysis of what the Koran says without understanding the orginal language. Like the Hebrew Torah, at least the Koran has the advantage of being written in the same language as the founder, unlike the Bible.
Now, if you want to critique what the followers of Christianity, Judism or Islam must believe in based on their behavior... well, things get kinda strange. Suffice it to say I would rather not live in a country run as a Theocracy by any of them.
Rulers who rule based on the authority of a Diety rather than the Will of the People are dangerous indeed. They answer to no one.