You're right. But the problem is, loyalty is a two way street. If an employer doesn't value existing employees to pay them what the market rate is, or even reasonably close, deserve to lose them to people willing to pay for it all. If my boss hired someone to do what I do, with less skill and experience than me, for more than I make, while being unwilling to even negotiate with me on a raise .... see ya boos!

I blame (D) and (R) who are so stuck on bringing home bacon, that they screw the people they clam they serve while getting all sorts of re-election donations for the very people they should be de-funding.

How is that for what to blame?

You get a better job, by becoming better at your job, and either you move up, or on. This is especially true in IT, where if you stay in your job, you don't get any raises or improvements in benefits. The proven method is to change your job, work somewhere else where they will pay you more, a lot more. I just read where people who change jobs do get raises, because they leave places that do not offer wages, but offer new employees more money than the people who have been there a while.

Which is something I never considered before, and now, I'm actively seeking new employment, and will continue to do so for the rest of my career. If people don't value what they have, they will lose it. Pay me what I am worth, or the marketplace will take me away from you.

Credible doubt ... the Antarctic Ice Sheet being larger than average, during the "hottest years in the last century", and violating the entire climate change model being used to predict catastrophic sea-level changes!

Thesis is made
Antithesis is rendered
Experiments are conducted (Climate Change SuperComputer Models)
Results are measured. (Ice Sheets should be shrinking, but are growing)

Conclusion, AWG isn't producing the results actually seen compared to the various climate models. The Thesis is flawed, and therefore MUST be reconsidered, but that isn't happening. Why?

The new answer is "global warming is changing currents in the oceans, causing ice sheet growth". So, by example, the global cooling should make the ice sheets smaller? But that doesn't work either, does it?

Hurricanes, Tornadoes, drought, flooding, etc are all about the same or LESS than years before, counter to all the AGW predictions about "massive" change to the climate.

I can cast credible doubt, but it will be ignored by the likes of you, simply because you WANT to believe AGW.

How is this a strawman? This is exactly the point. Here is a guy, who views exceptionalism, as "injustice" and "exclusion". Being really good at something is not an "injustice" period. It is exclusive, but that is kind of the point, as being really good at something does make your talent and skill exclusive. But that is the problem with LeftWingers, who want equal outcome, regardless of ability.

Follow the money. How many grants are given to the study of ..... non catastrophic AGW? If you are a climatologist and want funding, you are pro-AGW, and you don't hide it, even if you are skeptical, as it is the only way to keep your funding.

Of course, if this were funded by KOCH, you'd bet the funding would be an issue.

And when I see words like "injustice" and "excluded" I see a typical liberal who views skill, talent, dedication and mastery as bad things. Misapplying words like this, in ways exactly like this, cheapens real injustice, and real exclusion. Normal Humans are excluded from exceptionalism, not because of some "injustice" but rather that is what makes the exceptional so great (mostly hard work and dedication).

How about, instead of deriding the exceptional among us, we inspire others to exceptionalism?

Tools are simpler and easier to use, and yet a Master can make those tools do things your average user cannot. And that makes the world of difference. A spreadsheet "can" be used as a simple Database, but actual real databases are more complex and can do things a Spreadsheet simply cannot handle. Is the difference "database" or something else? Is it the tool or something else?

The problem isn't where the author thinks it is, masters always make their work look easy, but it takes skill and talent both. Skill is practice, talent is skill with artistry.

Okay, Libertarians complain, about government interference in the lives of people. Why does every busy body think it is their right and responsibility to get involved in the daily affairs of the serfs? And I'm talking about both the (D) and (R) type micromanaging of people and telling us all how to live.

Sophistry.

When "cutting the growth" of a program equates to "throwing grandma over the cliff, Draconian Measures and evil", the result is the same. You are paying attention, aren't you?

Actually, it is. If you have a better way of offering goods at a Supermarket, that doesn't collect information, and offer it up, I'm sure you'll make a small fortune.

Libertarians don't complain, they create a market where others only see problems.

You're kidding, right?

I would postulate that protectionist "regulations" designed to hide protectionism in the form or "safety" or other regulations, creating barriers to entry in such a way that it prevents new, innovative ideas from coming to the market quickly and efficiently. The whole Technology surge of the last 20 years will be undone when "regulations" trying to prevent "bubbles" or other momentary inefficiencies will result in the abrupt end to the technology economy.

Yes, inefficiencies are part of a "free" economy, and often result in the busts that inevitably follow, as they are driven from the market. However, in no other kind of economy, can a person reach their full potential either, as restrictions in the form of regulations create the barriers to entry that effectively block them from doing so.

The end result is that in trying to prevent "harm" we actually do greater harm, that is masked in terms of stability. Stability is not necessarily a good thing, even while we desire it.

;)

You may have morals, but they aren't derived from your lack of belief in a god, anymore than mine are defined by my failure to believe in the FSM or pink unicorns. Lack of belief in something doesn't define anything "moral", hence the term "amoral" (no morals)

Or ... even shorter periods of time, like minutes or even seconds.

So, you're dismissive of anything that reflects badly upon Atheism and atheist in general, by ignoring actual concerns. If you're going to be grammatically pedantic, fine, I get it, and will rephrase my statements so that you can understand my intentions better.

Atheists who say those things, or me for reporting it as it happened?

THESE (mentioned previously) Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". (citing example followed, which was ignored)

I see, tossing "all" atheists into the same basket is not okay, but doing the same with "all" religions is! Do you dismiss the idea of State Sponsored Atheism caused the state to persecute religions in the name of atheism? Or is it simply the case that that wasn't "true atheism"?

I can assure you that my faith doesn't require me killing anyone. There is not a commandment to kill, and specifically has a prohibition against murder. Of course there is no such commandment to not kill in Atheism for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes. Meaning there is nothing prohibited or commanded in the name of no-diety, therefore any time atheists say anything about atheism, it is subject to change based upon the whims of those that adhere to it.