What you've missed is that I've already had this debate on /. multiple times. I'll summarize it for you by quoting my last comment on the matter:

Only "blue states" aren't self-funded. Here's a previous discussion on this same topic, with all the numbers. They're confusing people's retirement patterns with state funding patterns. The oft-cited statistics are more about the fact that a certain percentage of people tend to work and pay taxes in higher cost of living/salary blue areas (creating the higher "contributions"), and then retire to lower cost of living red areas to collect their social security/medicare/federal retirement benefits. It has very little to do with state government budgets and how they are funded.

These numbers come from counting payments to individuals, like social security, military retirement payments, etc... Of course states which people retire to are going to have more people collecting retirement benefits. That doesn't mean those people didn't work and pay taxes for most of the rest of their lives and it doesn't convert them into a "taker".

Bullshit. Just because people retire to Florida for the lower cost of living and the weather doesn't mean that their pensions magically turn them into a "taker". They paid taxes and worked their entire lives. Your assertion is based on total misinformation. Stop spreading it.

I think what happened is that the greedy people at the top were eager to pocket ALL of the profits from the increased productivity, so nothing changed at the bottom--but the rich bastards are still unsatisfied and still desperately want more money.

Perfect! Then all you need to do is start your own business and hire all those underpaid but more productive workers away from their current employers by paying them more. You'll be able to destroy the competition by lowering prices and still pay your employees more, just because you aren't greedy like those other guys and don't keep all that money for yourself!

Meanwhile, in the real world, the markets for capital, employees, etc... are generally pretty competitive (when not distorted by laws and regulations) and if productivity gains aren't translated into benefits for employees, customers, and shareholders (generally in that order of who gets the most of it), the company dies because their competition takes them out.

Yep, me too. TI-99 4/a with the speech synthesizer module and a cassette tape to record my own programs. Defender was the best!

Then a C-64 w/floppy, then a C-128. About the same time, a Trash-80 (TRS-80) and Apple IIe at school.

Learned Commodore Basic and took assembly for 8-bit processors from Cal Poly Pomona as a teen. Just POKE'ing and PEEK'ing around, nothing to see here...

That's a blast from the past! Email me, should be able to figure out the address from here.

Teacher's unions in NY are the worst, but I imagine if you're a company in the market for a modern warehouse in the area, things are looking up for being able to purchase one already built.

The economics don't make sense because anyone developing a new reactor type knows it'll take 10-20 years minimum to get through all the environmental and regulatory hurdles. The NRC doesn't want new reactors and they know how to stop them, just make them so difficult to build that no one sane will try.

Tell me, why did she have to leave the state?

Can't you read? She didn't have to leave the state. The only reason she did is because someone misled her, the poor 10-year-old girl you're attempting to use to score political points.

So why does this 10-year old have to give birth to a baby and care for it when the state CLEARLY recognizes that she's incapable of being a responsible mother?

Again, she didn't have to. I notice you didn't point to any law requiring her to.

Point to the law prohibiting it, then, because according to The Ohio Attorney General's office, who would lead the prosecution of any violation, Ohio law permits an abortion in her case.

You're just factually incorrect, because you have a left-wing news bubble that tells you what you want to hear.

There was nothing which needed to be refuted. Your list of government programs is irrelevant in multiple ways.

And there was no law preventing that 10-year old from getting treatment, just an ignorant abortionist, sort of how you're apparently ignorant of the relevant laws.

It's amazing how clueless you are about reality.

You mad bro?

A little over-sensitive to hearing the truth and unable to actually discuss the topic at hand with any kind of relevant information?

Sorry, I was born in California and lived there for decades. I watched the left-wing Democratic Party led decline from first-hand experience. Bunch of power-mad racist control freaks there in Sacramento.

Now go take your afternoon nap. It'll be okay, NPR will put you to back to sleep.

California used to have a much better economy, but the left running the government has been trashing it for a while now. Still, there's a lot or ruin in a state...

Remember when "Net Neutrality" was repealed and the Internet as we know it ended?

So your counter to "If it's in a public place, it's public" is that "there exist places which aren't public"???

Well sure, there are non-public places in existence. I don't see anywhere I stated anything differently...

No, much of what you're talking about is public info. And public info is by definition, public.

If you happen to be in public when I take a photo, there's no obligation to scrub that location data from a photo, for example. If you're publicly broadcasting an identifier from your device, then you're sending it out to everyone, it's not a secret. If you're making information available to anyone on the internet, like posting a comment, that's not "private" in any way.