I imagine they would infect themselves and then travel to places making sure to come into contact with as many other people as possible. Sort of like slow suicide bombers.

With the plague, someone can rub the crap on themselves, then contact as many doors, people, subways, and so on as possible and hit quite a few of these before symptoms even start showing after 2 to 5 days. Then they can cover the symptoms and go somewhere dirty but hidden to die so rodents and fleas get infected thereby transferring it to even more people.

They can likely do this without ever coming into contact with the TSA/DHS/ATF at all. Our borders are not secure and that fact has been all over the news recently and no one in government seems to be able to do anything about it. So they perfect some plague well enough to kill humans, travel to Canada and Mexico, divide it between 40 or 50 people spread across the border areas (north and south), infect themselves right before coming over legally, and from there, no place in the US cannot be reached within those first two symptom free days.

Wrong. Executive orders are supposed to be used when there is ambiguity in a law, when congress defers power to the administration, or where the constitution already gives the administration powers.

Executive orders are not I am King orders and without a basis of authorization like mentioned above, they will not survive a challenge in court. Unfortunately, administrations use them somewhat like a proclamation by the king but someone has to have standing in order to get the courts involved.

You can hide folders and files in most operating systems, It's generally a file attribute you set either through a command line argument or the properties dialog in the US.

There have been a couple root-kits that used special characters enveloping the file or folder name which would hide it from the OS and anyone using the OS to look for it. I'm betting it is just the attribute in this case.

Yes it would. Congress wouldn't have the power to make such a broad law over the administration of presidential powers and if a president did so by executive order, the next could simply undo it.

What is needed is judicial review or something to ensure the lawfulness and constitutionality of them if half of congress requests or something. The courts do have original jurisdiction over these issues as they often determine the lawfulness and constitutionality of government.

One of the problems is that a lot of executive orders made seem to be contrary to law and the constitution which is strange seeing how the entire power for them is derived by law and the constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the law.. but who has standing to challenge them.

You had me until you mentioned Nixon. Nixon was never impeached. Why are people going around thinking he was?

And no, Nixon was not going to be impeached for sicking the IRS on people. It was about defying congress in it's investigation surrounding a series of breaking and entering instances by some FBI agents at the Watergate hotel which is where the DNC headquarters was for the next election cycle. The claim was they were trying to gather information on campaign strategy and corrupt the election while all but one of the FBI agents claimed it was to gather evidence on a prostitution ring the DNC was hosting for it's visiting donors. Nixon claimed he knew nothing about it, people close to him said he did, 18 or so minutes from a tape recording supposedly containing evidence that he was told about it and tried to cover up knowing congress subpoenaed it was erased.

Nixon resigned in shame when talks of impeachment started in congress, claiming he was not a crook and Ford Pardoned him. Nothing else was made of it as far as Nixon was concerned.

Sigh.. I know you are trolling but seriously, if any of that was true and illegal, all you would have to do is go see an employment lawyer and it wouldn't happen much longer.

In the last 2 years, I've had approximately 40 hours worth of wages stolen from me by my employer, who refuses to pay them back.

You see, laws were used against Walmart when employees were classified in ways to avoid paying overtime when the law said they deserved it and managers were changing employee time sheets in order to avoid paying overtime and deducting for lunch breaks even though they didn't get them.

My employer refuses to pay his staff for our public holidays, even though the contract and law says he must.

If it is the law, see above, If it is a contract, see above. There are remedies available without necessitating a Union. If you actually have a case, most laws provide that your legal fees be covered as part of the judgement or settlement.

If I had a union none of that would have happened, and he would be facing criminal charges for the wages theft and civil charges for the lack of breaks, mandatory unpaid overtime, and so forth.

Actually, you would likely be in the same boat you are in right now. Either with a fictitious claim or not pursuing any of it until its way too late like you appear to have done already. You not speaking up, you not looking for the right answers is the reason he got away with it. A union is not likely to change that.

As it stands, if I do anything about it by myself, I will find myself unemployable after he puts the bad word out on me, so don't you put that "unions are evil" shit out there without seeing how the world is when they're not around.

And your lawyer simply has someone he does business with check for an employment reference and when it comes back negative, your old employer pays your wages while you look for a new job and cannot find one.

This isn't something new.. It's happened to lots of people and they did something about it. They did it with and without a union.

Nope. Because it is not law. It is how agencies view or interpret an existing law that has some ambiguity to it.

Other presidents have ammended the executive order so in a sense, you could say that even if it was invalidated for reasons like that, those presidents effectivly reinstated it. Now if it is ever found to violate the law or be unconstitutional by a court, it would be invalid.

Facts are facts which is why i took his post as a friendly version of citation needed.

But rumors and truth- i think he was being ironic with that because so many internet truths turn out to be unsubstantiated rumors often completely false too.

Or the people in the planes who where left to chance when all the flight controllers illegally walked out of the air traffic control towers to start a strike.

How this gets forgotten is beyond me. Planes needing to land, needing to know where other planes were so not to hit them were left in the dark.

I'm not so sure terrifying is the word you want. Perhaps horrific instead.

Nagasaki happened when no response could equal it. What would make it terrifying is if the counter punch had the same horrific damage potential which causes a cycle ending only when the world is destroyed or the people capable of dropping the bombs died which would be about the same.

I for one am glad that you did. The site the article calls home purley sucks. I'm on my phone and when you make the text large enough to read, a flash menu and a bunch of social networking crap floods the page so you can only see two words in a line.

Nah. You are correct in strict terms but not in addressing his comment. If one lego brick equals one model, the most you can have is the same number of bricks as models. If it takes two bricks to make one model, you will always have half as many models for bricks even if there are an infinate amount of them.

That was his point, any simulation or model will be tied to the host msking it possible. It will never surpass the host and often be less than.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

What he mentioned about google fiber is the epitome of free market.

Actually, quite the contrary. I'm arguing that you get what you paid for and who you paid is not entitled to not give you that or give you less depending on if a third party doesn't pony up in addition.

Consumer reports or whatever doesn't need to be involved at all. I purchase a 12 meg unlimited connection and the ISP simply is not delivering on the goods they sold if they purposely limit it because netflix doesn't purchase a fast lane.

I think you are proving his point.

How long have you been a tea party member?