The report does note that the public at large is unlikely to receive any particularly dangerous exposure... this is more just for the workers, which to be fair, should be limiting their exposure to it in the first place. It's well known that it can cause health effects if mixed without any respirator coveralls etc..
Just because it requires a respirator and "clean suit" to spray it and mix it, doesn't mean that it's dangerous to the consumer... it just means that those people are the most likely to experience chronic meaningful exposure.
Just armageddon (not the literal one, natch) through cyber means?
This reminds me of the 90's when people would prefix things with "e-" without a unified definition of the monkier. "E-mail", "E-file", etc...
If I had to guess, I'd imagine a "cyber-armageddon" as some sort of problem directly affecting logical electronic infrastructure. Imagine simultaneously wiping out all copies of DNS records everywhere (including hosts files) through some mysterious malware, blowing up a bunch of datacenters, and a Sony Pictures-like virus that hits Google and wipes out all code backups. That might be a "cyber-armageddon."
That would suck, and would cause quite a bit of culture shock (and, of course, would be a catastrophic economic event), but it would not be the End of the World.
On the other hand, an EMP attack against the United States which disables/blows most non-hardened electronic equipment and causes a quickly-cascading North American power system collapse everywhere all at once would be a *true* (figurative) armageddon. That's really what I think of when dealing with continuity of government plans and "dire threats". American society would find a way to survive without the Internet (although true, unprepared Millennials might suffer debillitating levels of shock). American society would probably *not* find a way to survive after a few months of a power and communications outage, however, at least in its current geopolitical form -- and especially if a power vaccum formed internationally. (Think "Revolution" without the hand-wavey, future-science gobbledygook.)
Silly! How would that channel extra funds to NIST?
http://tf.nist.gov/time/common...
Because NIST developed the "Common view time transfer using the GPS system"...
Because NIST has a finger in everything having to do with measurement?
Clearly, you'll never be a politician, son!
Except that people don't actually interpret the sentences that way.
You're bringing logic to a syntax fight...
If it is intended to actually double negate, then emphasis is used, "I said, I don't have NO books." This lifts the word up for consideration of special usage. And it is used this way in users of both positive and negative Negative Agreement... "I don't have any books. I don't have NO books." "I don't have no books. I don't have NO books."
Otherwise, all negative words in a clause are just glomped all together. Which is why "I don't think, that he didn't do it." tends to still double negate, even without emphasis... Even people who use negative Negative Agreement, would likely say "I don't think he did it."
Oh, one can totally learn about English grammar just by studying English grammar. But in many ways as our native language we're "too close" to it. People find it difficult to learn the distinction of a noun and a verb, because we just use English grammar, we don't think ABOUT English grammar.
It's a lot like breathing. We can think about breathing, and study the way breathing works, but in the end, from our perspective we just breathe automagically.
Discouraged by whom?
The formal register. Which unlike colloquial English has a number of stupid rules like "no double negatives" that don't actually make sense linguistically, but if you're in formal writing, you better use it, because if someone comes across it, they will immediately recognize you as lacking proper education in the formal register.
Some others immediately jump from "lack of proper education in the formal register" to "stupid" or "half-witted" or "redneck", but I do not ascribe to that opinion.
Either way, you write to your audience, and the formal English register has determined these stupid rules to be distinguishing and defining features...
But that seems like a very formal way of writing.
Which was kind of my point. German formal writing prefers this construction, whereas in English, the formal writing rules tend to prefer extremely flat sentences... "There was a woman, who gave a striped ball. She
Thanks for the gestreiften use though. I maybe would have thought of that if I weren't intentionally seeking to construct stilted formal written German...
I tend to prefer Glücklich for happy. But then I have learned a somewhat archaic form of German, due to the state of US textbooks...
When the US constitution talks of "pursuit of happiness" it isn't meant "happiness" as we know it today. They had the same sort of ambiguity at the time between luck/happiness/joy
If it were being rewritten in modern English the intent was "pursuit of fortune/wealth"
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer
