If you really want to know why, here is how Thomas Jefferson explained it:

Note this is a controversy as old as the country itself, and is not likely to go away any time soon.

It's not an attempt to put Science on a short leash, it's an attempt to limit the EPA. In the USA, Republicans generally don't even pretend to like the EPA, mainly for reasons listed in this article:

I have no idea if the claims in the article are accurate or not, I'm just pointed out that those are the reasons Republicans don't like the EPA.

That's an interesting idea. For my next post I'm planning on investigating how stable the systemd APIs have been over time.

You can see the full API here (as you probably already know). Note that a lot of the functionality is dealing with sleep/shutdown (and sending notifications of that).

Please do that. I would really, really like to see the results.

You're not thinking clearly. Preventing developing countries from building coal-power plants will kill people (unless there is a practical alternative to power, which in most cases there isn't). Making the wrong decision and overreacting will kill people. Making the wrong decision and under-reacting will also kill people.

How do you know? Did you read it on the internet?

Reducing our CO2 output to zero at this time would be costly with today's technology, if it's even possible.

No, because the magnitude of the problem determines what our response should be.

*If climate change is catastrophically serious, we need to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and immediately switch from coal to nuclear (as James Hansen advocates).
*If climate change is moderately serious, we can put resources into solar/wind/other technologies, and put them into production when they are viable (or somewhat before).
*If climate change is not serious, we can focus on improving the economy and living conditions of poor people, which by itself will reduce more serious pollution (like atmospheric sulfur and polluted rivers).

If we choose wrongly, our actions very likely will be counter-productive and take us farther from our goals.

Be glad dictators are morons, else we'd all be slaves to one or another.

That's not what I want.....I want to work with quality engineers, and not worry about gender.

I think you missed the GP's point that the classes are not teaching them to intelligently discuss literature and arts......they are merely the kind of classes that some students would find more entertaining.

That doesn't sound like being a 'content expert.' Unless you count getting an education degree to be a content expert. And don't get me wrong, teachers do need expertise, it's not an easy job, but not necessarily in the subject they are teaching.

I'm not sure being a high school teacher counts as being a 'content expert,' and based on the teachers I've known, I'd guess a low percentage of teachers have particularly deeper knowledge than whatever textbook they are teaching from.

Being a teacher at the high-school and elementary school level is more about classroom management and communicating the ideas, not about being an 'expert.'

Also, good luck finding someone you can pay $15 an hour to fix computers and take care of a classroom full of kids.

If you have a program that is long-running (that is, it doesn't clear all the objects you created every time a new http request comes in), and you aren't thinking about memory leaks, then you have them.

Recently I saw a case where a guy had written a program half in C and half in Java. It had some leaks in it but he couldn't find them (mainly he had not been using any introspection tools, so it's not surprising. If you want to find leaks, you need to be able to look at what's going on with your memory. Use jmap or something).

Probably. You could use some improvement anyway.