That's not the reason they don't have aluminum bats.
Part of the "art" of pitching is "sawing" a batter off with an inside pitch on the handle. Part of the reason college pitchers (where aluminum bats are used) have a hard time adjusting to the pro game is because they've become accustomed to NOT throwing inside - because with aluminum bats, it has no effect. The "sweet spot" on the bat is much larger and a ball hit down near the handle will still go pretty far and fast.
If MLB allowed aluminum bats, you'd have to add body armor and combat pay for every third basemen in the game. Otherwise, you'd have a lot of dead third basemen.
You'd still need the umpire to determine when theres a play at the plate if the runner is safe or not. Also you need umpire to determine if the pitcher bachs or not. There's still lot things for umpires to do.
I hate it when a pitcher "bachs". I'd much rather have him "beethoven" or "mozart".
Telling people they can bring phones on board, but must turn them off.... is the equivalent of telling them they can bring guns on board as long as they unload them.
If they were as dangerous as reported, THEY WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED ON PLANES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Use common sense, people. They would be banned from airplanes altogether if they posed a danger. The airlines couldn't afford the potential lawsuits that would arise if a plane crashed because someone accidentally left their phone on in their checked bags in the luggage compartment. For liability reasons alone, it would be illegal to bring a cell phone onto an airplane if they were really a danger.
You had yet to learn ANY language, yet you knew your Doctor's name was "Dr. Knight". Despite the fact that all sounds you would have heard would have been extremely muffled and unintelligible.... even to an adult mind. "It is very strange that I knew his name".... it is very strange that you knew the CONCEPT of "name". It is very strange that everything else everyone said was unintelligible, but the words "Doctor Knight" and their meaning were known to you. uh-huh... right.
You had no concept of "mother", but you completely understood the concept of "sister". You weren't aware that your mother was your mother, but you WERE aware that your sister was your sister? uh-huh.
"All these strange big people were there moving around.." Considering that your eyes would have been CLOSED (and even in the off chance that they were open, they wouldn't be able to focus on any images for several days) this is quite interesting that you could discern "people moving around"... especially when you wouldn't know a "person" from a bedpost.
Listen, I am sure in your mind you have convinced yourself that you remember all this. And I'm sure the tales your mom and sisters told you as a child helped "develop" these memories in you.
Hold on to your delusions all you want, pal. Your story is so full of holes, it's ridiculous.....to the point that I suspect you're making it all up.
You like Fox because they play to your stereotypes and "validate" your beliefs.
Hint: if a Network uses every commercial break as an excuse to tell you how "fair and balanced" they are, chances are pretty good that they aren't.
Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The current regime in Washington has effectively eliminated the 1st, 4th, and 10th ammendments of our constitution.
1. In a Pittsburgh campaign stop last month, the Bush people made local law enforcement herd sign-carrying protestors into a fenced off, "designated free speech zone" (that's what they called it! I'm not joking...) more than 1/2 mile from the event. One protestor, carrying a sign saying "Bush must love the poor, he's created so many of us", decided that a "designated free speech zone" is a contradiction in terms (and unconstitutional). He decided to hop the fence and stand next to the people carrying pro-Bush signs. He was arrested. He violated no law, but was considered a "threat" because he had the nerve to carry an anti-Bush sign where Bush might see it.
2. The voters of California decided, through ballot initiative, that medical use of marijuana was legal. The Ashcroft justice department, deciding that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply anymore, decided to arrest Marijuana growers in California who were growing it with the expressed permission of the California government. "States' Rights" Republicans are apparently only worried about those rights when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and abortion laws, apparently.
3. And finally, the U.S. Patriot Act. Practically authored by Ashcroft, and passed overwhelmingly by a fearful and gutless congress (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate), the Patriot Act effectively eliminates all remaining protections of the 4th ammendment... The "drug war" weakened it, and the Patriot act killed it.
With the current group in charge, you can bet that every ammendment in the Bill of Rights, save for the 2nd, is in danger.
Wait until some alleged terrorist tries to "plead the 5th". Then we'll be down to 6.
Guess what? The whole world is based on axioms, and for me, one axiom in my life is "An invisible fire-breathing dragon exists in my garage." And that's what I stand by. I need no proof of his existence, because no evidence points either way, so I take t on personal faith that he exists.
I won't answer for the person you directed this question to, but for me, the answer is this:
At the distinct point at which the ball of cells that carried my DNA achieved consciousness, I became a living human being.
Just as, I will cease to be a living human being at the moment I permanently lose consciousness.
The only logical difference between those two statements is that the second one is the commonly accepted definition of legal death in most of the civilized world, while the first one is controversal. Now, why is that?
The current, globally-accepted, definition of death is the cessation of cerebral brain activity. "legally dead", "brain dead", etc.
If we accept that definition of death, then I think the we must accept that life doesn't begin until the onset of cerebral brain activity. This occurs sometime during the 3rd month of gestation.
If human death is defined as the lack of detectable consciousness, then human life must be defined as beginning with the acquisition of detectable consciousness.
Therefore embryos, while they are living human tissue, are not living human beings anymore than a brain-dead individual on life-support is a living human being at the other end of the spectrum.
Somalia - We didn't "attack" the nation of Somalia. We went there as part of a UN mission to bring order to a civil war situation. We never remotely came close to a "war" with Somalia... we fought warlords within Somalia to protect the food and medical shipments to the Somali people. Very different... And...history has shown that this was a BIG mistake anyway.
Germany - We didn't declare war on Germany in WWII until Germany joined Japan and Italy to form the axis. We were at war with Japan, and all of their allies (including Germany) in direct response to an attack on our soil. In WWI, we didn't declare war on Germany until their U-boats sunk the Lusitania and killed Americans.
Iraq - The act of provocation was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Our treaties and our standing in the UN required us to come to the defense of one of our allies. The provocation came in August of 1990 when Saddam invaded one of our allies.
Libya - We bombed Libya in direct response to evidence linking them with the downing of an airliner carrying U.S. citizens over Lockerbie Scotland.
You really need to learn your history, bub. Each of the examples you listed are examples of the U.S. springing into action as a direct result of direct provocation!
As for your last comment, I would say from reading your postings that I loathe America and what it stands for a lot less than you. America stands for the words of the Constitution. We do NOT invade a country without provocation, at least we didn't until now. All of these nations around the world are always accusing us of being "imperialistic" and it has ALWAYS been false. Not since the Native Americans have we actively TAKEN land from any other peoples without provocation. Despite defeating Japan and Germany in war, we grabbed none of their natural resources or land. But if we invade Iraq without provocation, we will become the imperialists that the world always accuses us of being.
As the only superpower it is incumbent upon us to set the example. The example that you can't overthrow another nation's government, no matter how bad it is, without provocation. What's to stop the North Koreans from invading South Korea because they "fear they might get weapons of mass destruction?" What's to stop the Pakistani's from invading India because India has nukes pointed at Pakistan (or vice versa)?
As the only superpower, and a nation that should do what's right even when it isn't popular, we have to set the example that even though we have the ability to do so, we CANNOT dictate the nature of other sovereign nations' governments.
Look, I want Saddam to go away as much as you do. But how is Saddam worse than Castro? Fidel Castro has spent nearly 50 years bent on the destruction of the United States, yet other than the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, we have dealt with him using a policy of containment. And it has worked. We spent 50 years with Soviet missiles aimed at our cities, yet we NEVER talked about invading Moscow to affect a "regime change".
This is about three things:
a. Saving daddy's legacy.
b. Securing Iraqi oil.
c. Diversion from the fact that we haven't gotten Bin Laden yet.
YOU need to open YOUR eyes. The minute we begin to march on Baghdad is the minute Saddam *DOES* use his chemical and biological weapons. On our bases in Qatar and Saudi Arabia...on our aircraft carriers in the gulf...on our troops in the field....on Tel Aviv....on Jerusalem. What incentive would he have to hold them back? None.
Your a sheep. You are blindly following your leaders into hell.
As a proud American, I will do my best to prevent the trampling of our Constitution.... I will speak out when my Government becomes like those we despise.
It is offensive for you to imply that those of us who disagree with this administration "loathe" America. You, sir, are a Republican's wet dream. You blindly follow those that would put you in jeapordy because they wave a flag in front of you and play to the worst part of your nature. You are a mindless limbot. You quote Sean Hannity, of all people, on slashdot because you can't form opinions of your own.
Wow.. what a great insight. Except for the fact that:
A) The perpetrators were devout muslims, who have probably never read the Judeo-Christian bible.
B) To them, since they don't follow the Western (Christian) calendar, it wasn't even "September" or "11th". It was some totally unrelated month/date in the muslim calendar.
While the date may have had "religious significance" to the terrorists, you can bet the significance didn't come from the bible of the christian "infidel".
what a maroon. Why don't you quote some Nostradamus for us next...
Just to let you know, Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle both talked about the need for a regime change in Iraq back in 1998. Now that a Republican is president, liberals are playing politics by saying its about oil and whatnot. Its about a crazed leader of a country having the ability to kill many people.
You need to stop getting your facts (and your opinions) from Sean Hannity.
Yes, Bill Clinton talked of a need for a regime change in Iraq back in 1998.. but he talked of that change coming from within Iraq. It is no business of ours until and unless Iraq attacks us. In this country, we don't invade other countries without provocation (at least we didn't).
Secondly, find me a quote from 1998 where Daschle even mentioned a regime change in Iraq. You can't. That was completely made up by Hannity. Also, Tom Daschle now is not opposing a regime change in Iraq... in fact he has said the exact opposite.
Form your own opinions. Don't let a Republican hack like Sean Hannity tell you what to think.
What are you talking about? Are you blaming Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans up on the Hill for this?
Yes, because the de-regulation craze that started with Reagan and has advanced ever since is a conservative, Republican agenda. De-regulation caused the corporate mess we are in... and de-regulation is the pet cause of the Republicans... and has been for over 25 years.
So, yes, I blame Republicans generally, conservatives specifically.
Do you think that none of this was going on while Clinton was at the helm? Of course it was. Clinton initiated a climate where lying was not seen as a horrible thing.
The perpetrators of these crimes are the very people who worked to remove Clinton from office! The very people who hated Clinton to his core.... and you are saying that the emulated him?
Clinton was fucking his intern. These guys are fucking the entire country.
Please. It is only now under the eyes of the Republican party that all of this is coming out into the open.
It is coming out into the open because the shit finally hit the fan. Is Bush directly responsible? No.. (except in the case of Harken) but the anti-regulation policies over the last 25 years that have been put in place that he agrees with and champions are responsible.
Vote Republican: Get de-regulation and corporations with too much power
Vote Democrat: Get regulation and government with too much power
Somewhere between there is a happy medium... hopefully we find it before it is too late.
Any hacker who trusts any member of this administration is too foolish to be a free person. This has Ashcroft written all over it. First you will identify yourselves, then you will be arrested for DMCA violations.
This administration is the most anti-4th Ammendment in the history of this nation. Now they produce a scheme to get hackers to unknowingly turn themselves in.
No, not really. When you are filing your taxes, the only parties that can be affected are you and the IRS. If there is some sort of fraud, then the only ones that may be harmed are you and the IRS. If there is voter fraud, on the other hand, then the entire population can be affected.
Really, after what happened in 2000, are we still worried about the miniscule chance of election fraud with online voting?
How can it be any more fraudulent than the 2000 Presidential election?
It seems like opinion here at slashdot is quite prejudiced to evolution. The thing is, science is about thinking, it's not about believing about what some guy in a white coat says.
How is that worse than believing what some guy in a robe says on Sundays? Or what some multi-thousand year old text written in hebrew says?
Why do most people here think that evolution is a shut case? I really don't think that matters are so simple.
It's not a "shut case". It just does a better job of explaining the facts before us than any other theory at this point.
The difference between evolutionists and creationists is this:
- An evolutionist looks at the available data and comes up with a theory that explains it.
- A creationist comes up with a theory and then keeps only the data that supports that theory and discards the rest.
The key is to have a theory that supports all of the known data....not to have a preconceived notion and to throw out all data that doesn't fit.
OK, but what about something like sexual morality where a person only mates with one individual for life (I think swans do this too). Surely it would be genetically better for me to mate with as many girls as possible?
Which is exactly why most men have the instinctual urge to do exactly that.
The problem is, if every man acted on those urges to the fullest, there would be no way for an individual to know whether he was the parent of a child or not. Therefore, he would be less likely to work to provide for the offspring (it may be somebody else's!)....and then the species would die off.
Equally influential - if the woman cannot determine the father of her child, she will be on her own to support and feed that child...so it is in HER best interest to have one partner, so parenthood can be determined....and the male would have the incentive to provide for the offspring.
Evolutionary-speaking, early man could only ensure that his genes are propagating if he could ensure that his mate was only getting jiggy with him. Conversely, early woman could only ensure that she and her children were provided for if her mate had an interest in the well-being of said offspring... which he would only have if he knew they were his.
Monogamy, or polygamy involving a single male and many females, is actually better for survival of the offspring than a sexual free-for-all. (though not necessarily as fun for all participants;)
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the "art" of pitching is "sawing" a batter off with an inside pitch on the handle. Part of the reason college pitchers (where aluminum bats are used) have a hard time adjusting to the pro game is because they've become accustomed to NOT throwing inside - because with aluminum bats, it has no effect. The "sweet spot" on the bat is much larger and a ball hit down near the handle will still go pretty far and fast.
If MLB allowed aluminum bats, you'd have to add body armor and combat pay for every third basemen in the game. Otherwise, you'd have a lot of dead third basemen.
I hate it when a pitcher "bachs". I'd much rather have him "beethoven" or "mozart".
(the word you're looking for it "balk").
Telling people they can bring phones on board, but must turn them off .... is the equivalent of telling them they can bring guns on board as long as they unload them.
If they were as dangerous as reported, THEY WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED ON PLANES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Use common sense, people. They would be banned from airplanes altogether if they posed a danger. The airlines couldn't afford the potential lawsuits that would arise if a plane crashed because someone accidentally left their phone on in their checked bags in the luggage compartment. For liability reasons alone, it would be illegal to bring a cell phone onto an airplane if they were really a danger.
It doesn't pass the bullshit test.
(skygolfgps.com)
If the accuracy is off by 100 meters or more, my handicap is going up.
"I know the card says the hole is a 104-yard par 3, but the GPS says I'm 523 yards away. Better pull out the driver to be safe."
The child process has an exact copy of the original's memory space, and as far as it knows (if it had a conscious), it IS the parent.
The new "quick and easy" diet. Step into the transporter, and come out the other side a skinnier you.
Listen, I am sure in your mind you have convinced yourself that you remember all this. And I'm sure the tales your mom and sisters told you as a child helped "develop" these memories in you.
Hold on to your delusions all you want, pal. Your story is so full of holes, it's ridiculous. ....to the point that I suspect you're making it all up.
"a well-regulated militia .... "
You absolutely have the right to own a gun. The government also absolutely has the right to regulate that ownership.
Hint: if a Network uses every commercial break as an excuse to tell you how "fair and balanced" they are, chances are pretty good that they aren't.
1. In a Pittsburgh campaign stop last month, the Bush people made local law enforcement herd sign-carrying protestors into a fenced off, "designated free speech zone" (that's what they called it! I'm not joking...) more than 1/2 mile from the event. One protestor, carrying a sign saying "Bush must love the poor, he's created so many of us", decided that a "designated free speech zone" is a contradiction in terms (and unconstitutional). He decided to hop the fence and stand next to the people carrying pro-Bush signs. He was arrested. He violated no law, but was considered a "threat" because he had the nerve to carry an anti-Bush sign where Bush might see it.
2. The voters of California decided, through ballot initiative, that medical use of marijuana was legal. The Ashcroft justice department, deciding that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply anymore, decided to arrest Marijuana growers in California who were growing it with the expressed permission of the California government. "States' Rights" Republicans are apparently only worried about those rights when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and abortion laws, apparently.
3. And finally, the U.S. Patriot Act. Practically authored by Ashcroft, and passed overwhelmingly by a fearful and gutless congress (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate), the Patriot Act effectively eliminates all remaining protections of the 4th ammendment... The "drug war" weakened it, and the Patriot act killed it.
With the current group in charge, you can bet that every ammendment in the Bill of Rights, save for the 2nd, is in danger.
Wait until some alleged terrorist tries to "plead the 5th". Then we'll be down to 6.
Guess what? The whole world is based on axioms, and for me, one axiom in my life is "An invisible fire-breathing dragon exists in my garage." And that's what I stand by. I need no proof of his existence, because no evidence points either way, so I take t on personal faith that he exists.
Go ahead... disprove the axiom that I live by.
I defy you! You can't prove it!
Silly dogmatic.....
At the distinct point at which the ball of cells that carried my DNA achieved consciousness, I became a living human being.
Just as, I will cease to be a living human being at the moment I permanently lose consciousness.
The only logical difference between those two statements is that the second one is the commonly accepted definition of legal death in most of the civilized world, while the first one is controversal. Now, why is that?
If we accept that definition of death, then I think the we must accept that life doesn't begin until the onset of cerebral brain activity. This occurs sometime during the 3rd month of gestation.
If human death is defined as the lack of detectable consciousness, then human life must be defined as beginning with the acquisition of detectable consciousness.
Therefore embryos, while they are living human tissue, are not living human beings anymore than a brain-dead individual on life-support is a living human being at the other end of the spectrum.
"I think, therefore I am alive."
Embryo's can't, so they aren't.
Germany - We didn't declare war on Germany in WWII until Germany joined Japan and Italy to form the axis. We were at war with Japan, and all of their allies (including Germany) in direct response to an attack on our soil. In WWI, we didn't declare war on Germany until their U-boats sunk the Lusitania and killed Americans.
Iraq - The act of provocation was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Our treaties and our standing in the UN required us to come to the defense of one of our allies. The provocation came in August of 1990 when Saddam invaded one of our allies.
Libya - We bombed Libya in direct response to evidence linking them with the downing of an airliner carrying U.S. citizens over Lockerbie Scotland.
You really need to learn your history, bub. Each of the examples you listed are examples of the U.S. springing into action as a direct result of direct provocation!
As for your last comment, I would say from reading your postings that I loathe America and what it stands for a lot less than you. America stands for the words of the Constitution. We do NOT invade a country without provocation, at least we didn't until now. All of these nations around the world are always accusing us of being "imperialistic" and it has ALWAYS been false. Not since the Native Americans have we actively TAKEN land from any other peoples without provocation. Despite defeating Japan and Germany in war, we grabbed none of their natural resources or land. But if we invade Iraq without provocation, we will become the imperialists that the world always accuses us of being.
As the only superpower it is incumbent upon us to set the example. The example that you can't overthrow another nation's government, no matter how bad it is, without provocation. What's to stop the North Koreans from invading South Korea because they "fear they might get weapons of mass destruction?" What's to stop the Pakistani's from invading India because India has nukes pointed at Pakistan (or vice versa)?
As the only superpower, and a nation that should do what's right even when it isn't popular, we have to set the example that even though we have the ability to do so, we CANNOT dictate the nature of other sovereign nations' governments.
Look, I want Saddam to go away as much as you do. But how is Saddam worse than Castro? Fidel Castro has spent nearly 50 years bent on the destruction of the United States, yet other than the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, we have dealt with him using a policy of containment. And it has worked. We spent 50 years with Soviet missiles aimed at our cities, yet we NEVER talked about invading Moscow to affect a "regime change".
This is about three things:
a. Saving daddy's legacy.
b. Securing Iraqi oil.
c. Diversion from the fact that we haven't gotten Bin Laden yet.
YOU need to open YOUR eyes. The minute we begin to march on Baghdad is the minute Saddam *DOES* use his chemical and biological weapons. On our bases in Qatar and Saudi Arabia...on our aircraft carriers in the gulf...on our troops in the field....on Tel Aviv....on Jerusalem. What incentive would he have to hold them back? None.
Your a sheep. You are blindly following your leaders into hell.
As a proud American, I will do my best to prevent the trampling of our Constitution.... I will speak out when my Government becomes like those we despise.
It is offensive for you to imply that those of us who disagree with this administration "loathe" America. You, sir, are a Republican's wet dream. You blindly follow those that would put you in jeapordy because they wave a flag in front of you and play to the worst part of your nature. You are a mindless limbot. You quote Sean Hannity, of all people, on slashdot because you can't form opinions of your own.
A) The perpetrators were devout muslims, who have probably never read the Judeo-Christian bible. B) To them, since they don't follow the Western (Christian) calendar, it wasn't even "September" or "11th". It was some totally unrelated month/date in the muslim calendar.
While the date may have had "religious significance" to the terrorists, you can bet the significance didn't come from the bible of the christian "infidel".
what a maroon. Why don't you quote some Nostradamus for us next...
You need to stop getting your facts (and your opinions) from Sean Hannity.
Yes, Bill Clinton talked of a need for a regime change in Iraq back in 1998 .. but he talked of that change coming from within Iraq. It is no business of ours until and unless Iraq attacks us. In this country, we don't invade other countries without provocation (at least we didn't).
Secondly, find me a quote from 1998 where Daschle even mentioned a regime change in Iraq. You can't. That was completely made up by Hannity. Also, Tom Daschle now is not opposing a regime change in Iraq... in fact he has said the exact opposite.
Form your own opinions. Don't let a Republican hack like Sean Hannity tell you what to think.
Yes, because the de-regulation craze that started with Reagan and has advanced ever since is a conservative, Republican agenda. De-regulation caused the corporate mess we are in... and de-regulation is the pet cause of the Republicans... and has been for over 25 years.
So, yes, I blame Republicans generally, conservatives specifically.
Do you think that none of this was going on while Clinton was at the helm? Of course it was. Clinton initiated a climate where lying was not seen as a horrible thing.
The perpetrators of these crimes are the very people who worked to remove Clinton from office! The very people who hated Clinton to his core.... and you are saying that the emulated him?
Clinton was fucking his intern. These guys are fucking the entire country.
Please. It is only now under the eyes of the Republican party that all of this is coming out into the open.
It is coming out into the open because the shit finally hit the fan. Is Bush directly responsible? No.. (except in the case of Harken) but the anti-regulation policies over the last 25 years that have been put in place that he agrees with and champions are responsible.
Vote Republican: Get de-regulation and corporations with too much power
Vote Democrat: Get regulation and government with too much power
Somewhere between there is a happy medium... hopefully we find it before it is too late.
How much money did Kenneth Lay give to the Bush campaign?
answer: $118,000
How much money did Kenneth Lay give to the Gore campaign?
answer: $0
Who, up until Enron collapsed, referred to Kenneth Lay as "Kenny Boy" and as "one of my closest friends"?
answer: George W. Bush
Who hired an Enron exec to be Secretary of the Army?
answer: George W. Bush
Who participated in Dick Cheney's meetings to craft energy policy? (meeting minutes still being withheld by Cheney under "executive privilege")
answer: Enron
Staying in the Lincoln Bedroom cost the American taxpayers next to nothing.
"Kenny Boy" didn't get to craft energy policy in the Clinton administration.
The American people aren't fooled... Wait until November.....
Might as well... the Republicans (the party of the American CEO) will....
This administration is the most anti-4th Ammendment in the history of this nation. Now they produce a scheme to get hackers to unknowingly turn themselves in.
Enjoy your jail time, suckers....
Really, after what happened in 2000, are we still worried about the miniscule chance of election fraud with online voting?
How can it be any more fraudulent than the 2000 Presidential election?
How is that worse than believing what some guy in a robe says on Sundays? Or what some multi-thousand year old text written in hebrew says?
Why do most people here think that evolution is a shut case? I really don't think that matters are so simple.
It's not a "shut case". It just does a better job of explaining the facts before us than any other theory at this point.
The difference between evolutionists and creationists is this:
- An evolutionist looks at the available data and comes up with a theory that explains it.
- A creationist comes up with a theory and then keeps only the data that supports that theory and discards the rest.
The key is to have a theory that supports all of the known data....not to have a preconceived notion and to throw out all data that doesn't fit.
Which is exactly why most men have the instinctual urge to do exactly that.
The problem is, if every man acted on those urges to the fullest, there would be no way for an individual to know whether he was the parent of a child or not. Therefore, he would be less likely to work to provide for the offspring (it may be somebody else's!)....and then the species would die off.
Equally influential - if the woman cannot determine the father of her child, she will be on her own to support and feed that child...so it is in HER best interest to have one partner, so parenthood can be determined....and the male would have the incentive to provide for the offspring.
Evolutionary-speaking, early man could only ensure that his genes are propagating if he could ensure that his mate was only getting jiggy with him. Conversely, early woman could only ensure that she and her children were provided for if her mate had an interest in the well-being of said offspring ... which he would only have if he knew they were his.
Monogamy, or polygamy involving a single male and many females, is actually better for survival of the offspring than a sexual free-for-all. (though not necessarily as fun for all participants ;)