No, no, the Ten Commandments aren't meant to represent Christianity or Judaism. They represent the Bible. Satan is also from the Bible. So the second monument would actually be representing the same belief system as the first one, namely the people who worship the Bible.
Note that worshipping the Bible apparently does not involve reading the Bible, or understanding any of its messages, and definitely not following any of the mutually exclusive moral codes it contains.
There is also the fact that a monarch is decided by an objective process which is independent of the electoral process. There is no uncertainty, arguing, or recounting ballots. Being elected gives a certain kind of legitimacy, and never having a vote against you gives a different kind of legitimacy, and both are useful.
The Queen is the defender of last resort of the constitution. The politicians play their games, and the monarch is the referee. Much better than having arbitration done by other politicians or politically-active judges.
the question of altruism: why people spend considerable time and effort doing favo[u]rs for others that don't directly benefit them...the favo[u]r is quickly returned...
So, the same answer we've had for the last 150 years.
Okay, there's lots to not like about the oil industry, but how can drilling new wells conceivably not be a legitimate expense for a business that takes its product out of wells?
They're saying this could have been an opportunity for life to migrate from Earth to Europa etc., not that it was the only possible way for there be life there.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no good reason for that protection either.
No, no, the Ten Commandments aren't meant to represent Christianity or Judaism. They represent the Bible. Satan is also from the Bible. So the second monument would actually be representing the same belief system as the first one, namely the people who worship the Bible.
Note that worshipping the Bible apparently does not involve reading the Bible, or understanding any of its messages, and definitely not following any of the mutually exclusive moral codes it contains.
Once you have the technology for:
1) reliable birth control, and
2) reliable paternity testing,
there's actually no reason for any kind of marriage.
Single people are waiting for the rest of you to figure that out.
you did something really good in the past
So, no, not like congress.
Correct.
Once you order, you are contractually obligated to pay.
You get yourself kicked out before you eat, not their problem.
It's a health care system.
Not a health system.
Wrong.
Now they just have to decide whether to kill him just before an election, or after.
I question whether any pet food manufacturers actually follow that philosophy.
Here's a simple one: only allow actual eligible voters to participate.
Right of the top that excludes corporations, unions, political parties, foreign governments, etc.
There is also the fact that a monarch is decided by an objective process which is independent of the electoral process. There is no uncertainty, arguing, or recounting ballots. Being elected gives a certain kind of legitimacy, and never having a vote against you gives a different kind of legitimacy, and both are useful.
The Queen is the defender of last resort of the constitution. The politicians play their games, and the monarch is the referee. Much better than having arbitration done by other politicians or politically-active judges.
That was money that was embezzled.
Not at all the same things as incompetence.
Ever heard of artificial insemination?
...with first-century technology? No, can't say that I have.
But it's irrelevant since in those days 'virgin' meant unmarried. The whole point was that Jesus's birth was humble, not that it was supernatural.
the question of altruism: why people spend considerable time and effort doing favo[u]rs for others that don't directly benefit them...the favo[u]r is quickly returned...
So, the same answer we've had for the last 150 years.
...the Time War since the only Daleks defeated were the ones in close orbit around Gallifrey, which certainly was not all of them.
I don't expect perfection from Doctor Who script-writing but I expected better.
Having different rules for the rich and poor might not work out the way you expect.
I've not seen where we've benefited
You weren't paying attention to who they were trying to benefit. And they weren't exactly subtle about it.
Okay, there's lots to not like about the oil industry, but how can drilling new wells conceivably not be a legitimate expense for a business that takes its product out of wells?
is it only the people who are rich enough to bribe senators?
Rhetorical question, right?
This "unidentified" law enforcement official is either uninformed, stupid, deluded or all three.
What about plain old-fashioned lying?
They're saying this could have been an opportunity for life to migrate from Earth to Europa etc., not that it was the only possible way for there be life there.
True.
But leaps happen.
Empire and Commonwealth are not the same
...today.
I'm sure Anonymous Coward was referring to the British Empire at its height, in the early Twentieth Century.
Same as the US meant the US empire before it started its journey of self-destruction after September 11th