Transmitters of less than 7 W are generally excluded from the acceptable exposure limit guidelines, because they are not generally capable of whole body heating, even though certain handheld devices might produce localized effects that exceed the limits. These low-power and portable device are usually rated by "Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)". I think Wi-Fi devices should probably fall into this category, especially since notebook computers can easily be within the 20 cm proximity limit.
Also check out OET Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields":
Don't forget, you also need to consider near-field power density, and furthermore, any self-respecting antenna system is going to have *some* gain over an isotropic radiator, plus reflection effects from ground, so your effective radiated power at a given point of interest may be much higher than 100 mW.
Personally, I'm running a couple of Linksys WRT54GS's at 250 mW with the Linksys +7dBi antennae, so my ERP might be +14 dBi from your 100 mW isotropic case.
Not that I'm worried about that...I'm much more likely to get fried by the Yaesu FT-100 and Kenwood TM-D700A in my Jeep. The FT-100 puts out 100 W on a good day, and the Kenwood puts out 50W VHF into a +3.5 dBi antenna about three or four feet behind my head--and there's no metal roof between me and the radiator. (Is it warm in here, or is it just me?)
You are slightly misrepresenting the vaccination problem. It's not the MMR vaccine that's the problem, it's the Thimerosal preservative that's used in the multi-dose packaging. What's unfortunate is that the vaccine is also available in single-dose packaging that does not require the Thimerosal (but of course, costs more money). If we can eliminate the Thimerosal, even if we need to spend a bit more money to do it, why shouldn't we? If there is even a possibility that the mercury can cause problems, why use it when alternate solutions are available?
First of all, just because a microwave oven dissipates 1500 W of power, that doesn't mean that it actually *radiates* 1500 W of power. Second of all, the FCC has guidelines for microwave oven emissions. Total leakage at the time of manufacture is limited to 1 mW/ cm^2, and 5 mW/ cm^2 over the lifetime of the unit. This generally falls into the acceptable ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 guidelines for exposure, given that microwave oven usage is generally intermittent.
Why, the same organization that should probably be responsible for *all* critical Internet infrastructure standards, just as it is responsible for the standards relating to telecommunications and radio communications.
Go ahead, laugh, but I think it's long past time for control of such functions as DNS, NTP, assigned numbers, et cetera, to be transferred out of the hands of primarily US-based corporations and loosely coupled organizations such as the IETF and IANA and into the hands of some sort of international treaty organization.
Since the ITU not only fits this description, but in fact was founded to deal with precisely these sorts of issues, why not let it do what it does for the Internet as well?
There's a few very simple rules you need to keep in mind when trying to explain technical matters to those who have less exposure to such matters.
First of all, you need to remember that most people don't like to appear as if they don't know something, so they may not tell when they don't understand you. Second of all, never assume that people are unwilling or incapable of learning. Sometimes, people just need to be shown that the problem which is giving them a headache is simpler than it appears at first glance. Third of all, you need to have a certain amount of patience, because you may have to go all the way back to binary before your explanation gets around to contemporary technology. Fourth, don't talk down to people. We were all newbies in any given field at some point.
I don't think it's really a stretch to posit that many technical people are possessed of little in the way of social skills. Conversely, many people with highly developed social skills have little to no technical knowledge. What you need to bear in mind here is that each type of person here has an advanced skill set of some type, but they are in different fields. People on both sides of the issue need to approach the conversation as an opportunity to share knowledge.
Remember, a computer is nothing more than a glorified light switch. All it can do is "on" and "off". It's just that it can do it several billion times a second, and this gives it the appearance of complexity.
There are as many of us here in the US that don't trust our government one fucking bit as there are in the EU. Personally, I think it's undesireable to rely on the US(government)-controlled system, as well. At least with Galileo, we'd have some competition in the market, and maybe an ally, if it came to that...
Frankly I expected better from someone with a 4 digit ID.
[humor]You must be new here...[/humor]
Seriously, though, I'd love to see some competition for a global navigation system, and I'm a US citizen. After all, these days we're more in danger from our own government than anyone else! Your point about possible future geopolitical conflicts is well taken, but I think that we've go a lot more to worry about in terms of China than from the EU, though I do agree that EU/US relations will see even more cooling off than has already happened in the last decade.
Documentation being complete and detailed does not necessarily translate into easy to read and easy to follow for users less knowledgeable than a dyed-in-the-wool guru. This is the main failing of even the best documentation I've seen out there. Not enough time is spent on step by step directions, and not enough time is spent discussing the ramifications of particular configuration options. Much of the time, the user is expected to already know what a particular option does...which obviates the need for documentation in the first place.
Here's a couple important projects that I've recently discovered are in *serious* need of better documentation:
1. GnuPG. I don't have any books on PGP or GPG, but the online documentation is horrendously incomplete and inexact. 2. RT (Request Tracker). There is a Wiki for documentation, but much of it is out of date and incomplete. The O'Reilly book is helpful, but there's a lot it doesn't cover.
I've been working with these two packages recently, so they're fresh in my mind. While you can glean quite a bit from the associated mailing lists for many open source and free software projects, it usually means wading through months if not years of posts in order to discover answers that may not even be corroborated.
With GnuPG, it took me quite a long time to find out that the secret key is still encrypted even when it's exported, though the existing documentation says that's it's insecure to export your secret key. How then, if that's insecure, are you supposed to share a single secret key among multiple computers? Most of the documentation doesn't even cover the possibility of doing this, and even the answer I found was embedded in some over-archingly insufferable responses from supposed experts "explaining" that security software shouldn't be used on untrusted systems. Well, as far as I'm concerned *all* systems should be considered untrusted to a certain extent, and this should be taken into account in the design of security software. So, phhhppppt. I also use a few Thawte certificates, and the built-in PKI mechanisms in most email and browser software simply works better from this perspective, anyway.
It also irks me that GnuPG support in such seminal projects as Thunderbird and Firefox needs to have extensions separately installed in order to function. That's not really helpful if I need to send a signed email to someone who doesn't know how to install and configure GnuPG or PGP and the necessary extensions.
Even if you can't do documentation, the most important thing you can do to improve free and open source software is to actually use the stuff, and report back to the developers on how the package does or does not fit your particular needs.
I completely disagree. A "leftist" stance would have been to leave Iraq alone altogether, and as you indicate, removal of sanctions and other impedances to Iraqi participation on the world stage. The centrist stance maintains pressure and vigilance while not moving things so far as invasion and deposition. The "rightist" stance was what the Republican adminsitrations of the 1980's realized very quickly--Saddam Hussein is the only thing keeping Shia Iraq and Iran from blowing up in our faces, so let's be pragmatic about it and prop him up.
You will notice that the response of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to the situation in Iraq does not fall into this spectrum.
However, I think that perhaps it is best to think of rebellion, per se, as being extralegal, when the particular rebellion is morally justified based on the abdication of legitimacy by the established government, rather than illegal.
The better basis for your argument is your previously made point that the CSA failed to meet the moral justification for rebellion, nor did the USA abdicate legitimacy. That said, I believe that states *should* be able to secede if they so desire, and if their grounds for doing so are legitimate in themselves. Government legitimacy is obtained most directly through personal consent of the governed, thought that is not of course the only avenue.
I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't refute my premise. Focusing on an small exchange between two individuals doesn't give you an accurate view of the larger picture. All wealth creation has as its basis the exploitation of raw materials. We can add value to these raw materials through primary and secondary industry (mining/refining and manufacture of goods), and we can even build higher levels of economic abstraction on top of that (servicing and transport of said goods, etc). We can even exchange these goods many times over without resorting to new raw materials. As a society, we have not yet reached the limits of wealth creation, so many people tend to think there are *no* limits. This is quite simply not true.
Also, when I speak of wealth being a "zero sum" proposition, what I am referring to is the fact that wealth cannot simply be willed into existence. Even if the actual sum that is available to us at any given moment is changing all the time, we cannot simply will more raw materials into existence. What we have in this universe is all we're going to get.
The trouble with economic theorists is that most of them are only looking at a portion of the overall system, whether it's scarcity theory, added value through labor, monetarism, or some other pet theory of the economist of the moment. Smith, Keynes, Marx, and Friedman weren't gods, you know.
First of all, that's a facetious argument. Second of all, if we blew up the Earth, the winners would obviously be those in a position to harvest value from the remains...assuming anyone is left at all. "Wealth" as a concept only has meaning for humans, anyway, so if we were all dead, it wouldn't really matter, would it?
I believe there are finite limits to wealth. That doesn't mean we have reached that limit. The point is that wealth is a real thing which doesn't magically appear out of thin air. It does, however, grow on trees. Wealth *has* to come from somewhere. We dig it out of the ground, harvest it in our fields, sift it out of the ocean, etc. Yes, the inherent value of an object can be increased through labor, but this is not an infinite cycle.
"As long as labor exists". Yes, that is the point. However, you failed to recognize the flaw in your argument, namely, that without the copper, your ability to labor is meaningless, and there is a limit to how much value you can impart with your labor to that copper. Go back a think about what I said in my previous post again.
Aside from the fact that what you said is so self-contradictory that it boggles the mind that a human being could possess himself of such notions and still have the mental capacity to type on a keyboard, the concepts I am speaking of go way, way beyond what you probably didn't listen to in Economics 101. Unfortunately, I don't expect a simpleton such as yourself to grasp economic concepts that conflict with what the academicians have been force-feeding students for decades.
There *is* a limit. Your inability to conceive a limit does not refute its existence.
The term "moralism", as it applies in the political arena, denotes those who would force their own notions of morality down the rest of society's throats by enshrining their version of morality in law.
Yes, the Mac does that, too. You just need Mac OS X Server and Open Directory, just as with Windows, you would need Windows Server 2003 and Active Directory.
It's really not that odd. Creative users tend to need more and better support. They are the "exception that proves the rule", so to speak.
I've been supporting Macs as an independent consultant for seven years, and as part of a larger systems integration company for another five years before that. I have expertise in the fields of graphic design, photography, and audio production, among others
Creative users tend to replace software and hardware much more often. One reason is that creative houses tend to deal with files from many other companies, to say nothing of moving files around in house, and the upgrade cycle of each individual software package tends to introduce incompatibilities that even when minor can interrupt a workflow process to the point that a significant amount of time and money is lost in dealing with the problem, so everyone tends to upgrade at the same time. When your clients and freelancers start sending you QuarkXpress 8 files that can't be opened in QuarkXpress 7, you'll upgrade too. Of course, with every new software version, the hardware requirements go up.
Creative users, in order to be properly supported, require that their support personnel actually know something about their highly specialized field. Such people are difficult to come by, and cost a lot of money when you *do* find them [like me;)]. It's rare that you'll find someone that's cross-trained at a high enough level to replace two or more people, so you end up consulting several different people for some issues.
We're not talking Microsoft Office here. This is some serious shit with big money involved and little time to dick around.
On the other hand, while there are less "enterprise" support tools for Macs, it's because they need them less. Ghost? Who needs it on a Mac? Sure, if you're doing a mass roll-out of hundreds of Macs, a multicast replication tool is nice to have, but it's nowhere near as necessary as when dealing with a Windows SID environment. Macs also break less often, and are easier to fix when they do. I would be nice, though, if Apple would do some better documentation of Open Directory. When I hear people talking about the lack of "enterprise support tools" for the Mac, they're usually approaching the problem with a Windows mindset rather than a Mac mindset.
You didn't specify the terms of the license agreement. It's great that it's permanent and exclusive, but if you want the copyright transferred to your company, be prepared to pay for that privilege. This is a fairly common practice.
In increasing order of expected value:
1. Temporary, non-exclusive right 2. Permanent, non-exclusive right or temporary, exclusive right 3. Permanent, exclusive right 4. Copyright transfer
The author has the right to expect greater compensation for greater value delivered. Perhaps you should try to negotiate a transfer agreement before you get too up in arms about this matter.
Not true at all. Go take a closer look at the county-by-county returns. The vast majority of rural districts voted heavily Republican, and the vast majority of urban districts voted heavily Democrat.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondary Obligatory Citation...
/ Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf
/ Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65c.pdf
Transmitters of less than 7 W are generally excluded from the acceptable exposure limit guidelines, because they are not generally capable of whole body heating, even though certain handheld devices might produce localized effects that exceed the limits. These low-power and portable device are usually rated by "Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)". I think Wi-Fi devices should probably fall into this category, especially since notebook computers can easily be within the 20 cm proximity limit.
Also check out OET Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields":
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology
and Supplement C to same:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology
Don't forget, you also need to consider near-field power density, and furthermore, any self-respecting antenna system is going to have *some* gain over an isotropic radiator, plus reflection effects from ground, so your effective radiated power at a given point of interest may be much higher than 100 mW.
Personally, I'm running a couple of Linksys WRT54GS's at 250 mW with the Linksys +7dBi antennae, so my ERP might be +14 dBi from your 100 mW isotropic case.
Not that I'm worried about that...I'm much more likely to get fried by the Yaesu FT-100 and Kenwood TM-D700A in my Jeep. The FT-100 puts out 100 W on a good day, and the Kenwood puts out 50W VHF into a +3.5 dBi antenna about three or four feet behind my head--and there's no metal roof between me and the radiator. (Is it warm in here, or is it just me?)
You are slightly misrepresenting the vaccination problem. It's not the MMR vaccine that's the problem, it's the Thimerosal preservative that's used in the multi-dose packaging. What's unfortunate is that the vaccine is also available in single-dose packaging that does not require the Thimerosal (but of course, costs more money). If we can eliminate the Thimerosal, even if we need to spend a bit more money to do it, why shouldn't we? If there is even a possibility that the mercury can cause problems, why use it when alternate solutions are available?
First of all, just because a microwave oven dissipates 1500 W of power, that doesn't mean that it actually *radiates* 1500 W of power. Second of all, the FCC has guidelines for microwave oven emissions. Total leakage at the time of manufacture is limited to 1 mW/ cm^2, and 5 mW/ cm^2 over the lifetime of the unit. This generally falls into the acceptable ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 guidelines for exposure, given that microwave oven usage is generally intermittent.
Oblig. citation...
/ Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology
see page 15 for limits on acceptable uncontrolled exposure in the relevant frequency range (1 mW/ cm^2).
Why, the same organization that should probably be responsible for *all* critical Internet infrastructure standards, just as it is responsible for the standards relating to telecommunications and radio communications.
The ITU (also here.
Go ahead, laugh, but I think it's long past time for control of such functions as DNS, NTP, assigned numbers, et cetera, to be transferred out of the hands of primarily US-based corporations and loosely coupled organizations such as the IETF and IANA and into the hands of some sort of international treaty organization.
Since the ITU not only fits this description, but in fact was founded to deal with precisely these sorts of issues, why not let it do what it does for the Internet as well?
There's a few very simple rules you need to keep in mind when trying to explain technical matters to those who have less exposure to such matters.
First of all, you need to remember that most people don't like to appear as if they don't know something, so they may not tell when they don't understand you.
Second of all, never assume that people are unwilling or incapable of learning. Sometimes, people just need to be shown that the problem which is giving them a headache is simpler than it appears at first glance.
Third of all, you need to have a certain amount of patience, because you may have to go all the way back to binary before your explanation gets around to contemporary technology.
Fourth, don't talk down to people. We were all newbies in any given field at some point.
I don't think it's really a stretch to posit that many technical people are possessed of little in the way of social skills. Conversely, many people with highly developed social skills have little to no technical knowledge. What you need to bear in mind here is that each type of person here has an advanced skill set of some type, but they are in different fields. People on both sides of the issue need to approach the conversation as an opportunity to share knowledge.
Remember, a computer is nothing more than a glorified light switch. All it can do is "on" and "off". It's just that it can do it several billion times a second, and this gives it the appearance of complexity.
I'm interested in seeing how Apple solved this problem with the iPhone
It's simple, really, which is why Apple is of course the only company that gets it. Make the buttons fit the finger.
http://www.apple.com/iphone
There are as many of us here in the US that don't trust our government one fucking bit as there are in the EU. Personally, I think it's undesireable to rely on the US(government)-controlled system, as well. At least with Galileo, we'd have some competition in the market, and maybe an ally, if it came to that...
Frankly I expected better from someone with a 4 digit ID.
[humor]You must be new here...[/humor]
Seriously, though, I'd love to see some competition for a global navigation system, and I'm a US citizen. After all, these days we're more in danger from our own government than anyone else! Your point about possible future geopolitical conflicts is well taken, but I think that we've go a lot more to worry about in terms of China than from the EU, though I do agree that EU/US relations will see even more cooling off than has already happened in the last decade.
Documentation being complete and detailed does not necessarily translate into easy to read and easy to follow for users less knowledgeable than a dyed-in-the-wool guru. This is the main failing of even the best documentation I've seen out there. Not enough time is spent on step by step directions, and not enough time is spent discussing the ramifications of particular configuration options. Much of the time, the user is expected to already know what a particular option does...which obviates the need for documentation in the first place.
Here's a couple important projects that I've recently discovered are in *serious* need of better documentation:
1. GnuPG. I don't have any books on PGP or GPG, but the online documentation is horrendously incomplete and inexact.
2. RT (Request Tracker). There is a Wiki for documentation, but much of it is out of date and incomplete. The O'Reilly book is helpful, but there's a lot it doesn't cover.
I've been working with these two packages recently, so they're fresh in my mind. While you can glean quite a bit from the associated mailing lists for many open source and free software projects, it usually means wading through months if not years of posts in order to discover answers that may not even be corroborated.
With GnuPG, it took me quite a long time to find out that the secret key is still encrypted even when it's exported, though the existing documentation says that's it's insecure to export your secret key. How then, if that's insecure, are you supposed to share a single secret key among multiple computers? Most of the documentation doesn't even cover the possibility of doing this, and even the answer I found was embedded in some over-archingly insufferable responses from supposed experts "explaining" that security software shouldn't be used on untrusted systems. Well, as far as I'm concerned *all* systems should be considered untrusted to a certain extent, and this should be taken into account in the design of security software. So, phhhppppt. I also use a few Thawte certificates, and the built-in PKI mechanisms in most email and browser software simply works better from this perspective, anyway.
It also irks me that GnuPG support in such seminal projects as Thunderbird and Firefox needs to have extensions separately installed in order to function. That's not really helpful if I need to send a signed email to someone who doesn't know how to install and configure GnuPG or PGP and the necessary extensions.
Even if you can't do documentation, the most important thing you can do to improve free and open source software is to actually use the stuff, and report back to the developers on how the package does or does not fit your particular needs.
I completely disagree. A "leftist" stance would have been to leave Iraq alone altogether, and as you indicate, removal of sanctions and other impedances to Iraqi participation on the world stage. The centrist stance maintains pressure and vigilance while not moving things so far as invasion and deposition. The "rightist" stance was what the Republican adminsitrations of the 1980's realized very quickly--Saddam Hussein is the only thing keeping Shia Iraq and Iran from blowing up in our faces, so let's be pragmatic about it and prop him up.
You will notice that the response of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to the situation in Iraq does not fall into this spectrum.
A brilliant summation.
However, I think that perhaps it is best to think of rebellion, per se, as being extralegal, when the particular rebellion is morally justified based on the abdication of legitimacy by the established government, rather than illegal.
The better basis for your argument is your previously made point that the CSA failed to meet the moral justification for rebellion, nor did the USA abdicate legitimacy. That said, I believe that states *should* be able to secede if they so desire, and if their grounds for doing so are legitimate in themselves. Government legitimacy is obtained most directly through personal consent of the governed, thought that is not of course the only avenue.
I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't refute my premise. Focusing on an small exchange between two individuals doesn't give you an accurate view of the larger picture. All wealth creation has as its basis the exploitation of raw materials. We can add value to these raw materials through primary and secondary industry (mining/refining and manufacture of goods), and we can even build higher levels of economic abstraction on top of that (servicing and transport of said goods, etc). We can even exchange these goods many times over without resorting to new raw materials. As a society, we have not yet reached the limits of wealth creation, so many people tend to think there are *no* limits. This is quite simply not true.
Also, when I speak of wealth being a "zero sum" proposition, what I am referring to is the fact that wealth cannot simply be willed into existence. Even if the actual sum that is available to us at any given moment is changing all the time, we cannot simply will more raw materials into existence. What we have in this universe is all we're going to get.
The trouble with economic theorists is that most of them are only looking at a portion of the overall system, whether it's scarcity theory, added value through labor, monetarism, or some other pet theory of the economist of the moment. Smith, Keynes, Marx, and Friedman weren't gods, you know.
First of all, that's a facetious argument. Second of all, if we blew up the Earth, the winners would obviously be those in a position to harvest value from the remains...assuming anyone is left at all. "Wealth" as a concept only has meaning for humans, anyway, so if we were all dead, it wouldn't really matter, would it?
I believe there are finite limits to wealth. That doesn't mean we have reached that limit. The point is that wealth is a real thing which doesn't magically appear out of thin air. It does, however, grow on trees. Wealth *has* to come from somewhere. We dig it out of the ground, harvest it in our fields, sift it out of the ocean, etc. Yes, the inherent value of an object can be increased through labor, but this is not an infinite cycle.
"As long as labor exists". Yes, that is the point. However, you failed to recognize the flaw in your argument, namely, that without the copper, your ability to labor is meaningless, and there is a limit to how much value you can impart with your labor to that copper. Go back a think about what I said in my previous post again.
Aside from the fact that what you said is so self-contradictory that it boggles the mind that a human being could possess himself of such notions and still have the mental capacity to type on a keyboard, the concepts I am speaking of go way, way beyond what you probably didn't listen to in Economics 101. Unfortunately, I don't expect a simpleton such as yourself to grasp economic concepts that conflict with what the academicians have been force-feeding students for decades.
There *is* a limit. Your inability to conceive a limit does not refute its existence.
The term "moralism", as it applies in the political arena, denotes those who would force their own notions of morality down the rest of society's throats by enshrining their version of morality in law.
Yes, the Mac does that, too. You just need Mac OS X Server and Open Directory, just as with Windows, you would need Windows Server 2003 and Active Directory.
You're probably looking for Mac OS X Server v10.4 (Tiger).
Open Directory
Software Update Server
Macintosh Manager
Apple Remote Desktop
ssh
NetBoot
Then there's third-party tools, like Radmind, and others.
Yes, but RealVNC Viewer on Windows to Apple's Remote Desktop sucks the big one over a slow connection. I still prefer OSXvnc.
It's really not that odd. Creative users tend to need more and better support. They are the "exception that proves the rule", so to speak.
;)]. It's rare that you'll find someone that's cross-trained at a high enough level to replace two or more people, so you end up consulting several different people for some issues.
I've been supporting Macs as an independent consultant for seven years, and as part of a larger systems integration company for another five years before that. I have expertise in the fields of graphic design, photography, and audio production, among others
Creative users tend to replace software and hardware much more often. One reason is that creative houses tend to deal with files from many other companies, to say nothing of moving files around in house, and the upgrade cycle of each individual software package tends to introduce incompatibilities that even when minor can interrupt a workflow process to the point that a significant amount of time and money is lost in dealing with the problem, so everyone tends to upgrade at the same time. When your clients and freelancers start sending you QuarkXpress 8 files that can't be opened in QuarkXpress 7, you'll upgrade too. Of course, with every new software version, the hardware requirements go up.
Creative users, in order to be properly supported, require that their support personnel actually know something about their highly specialized field. Such people are difficult to come by, and cost a lot of money when you *do* find them [like me
We're not talking Microsoft Office here. This is some serious shit with big money involved and little time to dick around.
On the other hand, while there are less "enterprise" support tools for Macs, it's because they need them less. Ghost? Who needs it on a Mac? Sure, if you're doing a mass roll-out of hundreds of Macs, a multicast replication tool is nice to have, but it's nowhere near as necessary as when dealing with a Windows SID environment. Macs also break less often, and are easier to fix when they do. I would be nice, though, if Apple would do some better documentation of Open Directory. When I hear people talking about the lack of "enterprise support tools" for the Mac, they're usually approaching the problem with a Windows mindset rather than a Mac mindset.
You didn't specify the terms of the license agreement. It's great that it's permanent and exclusive, but if you want the copyright transferred to your company, be prepared to pay for that privilege. This is a fairly common practice.
In increasing order of expected value:
1. Temporary, non-exclusive right
2. Permanent, non-exclusive right or temporary, exclusive right
3. Permanent, exclusive right
4. Copyright transfer
The author has the right to expect greater compensation for greater value delivered. Perhaps you should try to negotiate a transfer agreement before you get too up in arms about this matter.
Not true at all. Go take a closer look at the county-by-county returns. The vast majority of rural districts voted heavily Republican, and the vast majority of urban districts voted heavily Democrat.