Actually he assaulted his Boss or at least one of several Bosses, and He's also publically stated that people should lay off the Producers, because he punched his Boss in the face.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
... hm... my next home purchase might just have to have a conditional clause that if I can't get broadband, the deal is off...
You know, like how you can back out once you get an appraisal and learn that there are termites.
Emails are pretty useless, if you actually go through the effort to compose a real letter and send it through the mail with a stamp that costs real-world money, now that gets some attention! Also Congress-Critter's brains are hard-wired for reciprocity so be sure to inform them of your past support and that their support on this matter will make future support of them easier for you.
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.
RSS data looks far different.
However, at our stage of understanding the system, climate engineering is probably not such a good thing to be doing.
Really, and everyone keeps saying that the science is settled, who would have thought.
No CO2 has gone down to as low as 150ppm, 120ppm is considered a point of no return where sufficient amounts of plants die to trigger a mass extinction.
Since AGW has only been theoretical possible since the 1950's, how do explain that it hasn't warmed for longer than it has warmed?
Silly! How would that channel extra funds to NIST?
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!
We've defined chemical weapons as WMD period, one badly degraded shell dribbling HD out the side is just as much a WMD as a bunker full of VX ready to shoot. We found far more than a few leaky shells. Do you think that if a cop askes you if you have any weapons and you answer no, that he's going to excuse your for not telling him about the 22 cal single shot deringer in your pocket?
My ballot always seems to not only have Democrats and Republicans but Socialist Worker's Party (communists), Libertarians and Green Party; so that's 5 by my count. There might even be a few I missed.
You do realise that not only did they actually find WMD like nitrogen mustard and sarin, but they covered it up so the public wouldn't freak out; Bush was less worried about public reaction to not finding WMD, than he was about the reaction to the causalties involved with finding the chemical agents. Seriously blaming "Gulf War Syndrome" on burning oil wells made as much sense as blaming every unexplained aerial phenomina on "swamp gas".
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...