Questioning the Need for Jargon

That is pretty much literally a different language. I wonder how much of that jargon is actually essential. I find it hard to believe it’s not possible to explain these things in, well, English.

I kinda wish the space and biology naming conventions were reversed. I mean we have names for everything in space, right down to specific names for virtually every crater on the moon.

And yeah the stars are numbered but we have also given tons of actual names to comets and other things.

I think it would be useful in biology to name the specific things with specific names, not strange quasi latin translation descriptions of what things do.

Like if we’re going to call a specific cell that rolls something that essentially mean “roller cell” in latin, and the argument is that we can’t just call it a roller cell is because it’ll get confused with some other thing that is also a cell that rolls, they why not name it specifically after a god or something (like we do with space stuff.)

I suspect the god names wouldn’t even be needed, since each latinized or greek quasi word translates into something.

The translation issue is a sort of valid argument but then why not simply force scientists to publish in a completely new language like lojban, to eliminate any chance of confusion?

You telling me learning lojban is any harder than getting a phd in cellular biology? I think not.

I can’t wait till the AIs get here. They will essentially be the greatest translation and learning tools ever imagined by humanity. I could tell an AI: “Hey, translate the entire nomenclature of biology into consistent non-ambiguous simple English please, and then re-narrate this video.”

Understanding and innovation are going to totally explode when we have ubiquitous AIs capable of that kind of data translation and juggling linked to human curiosity and imagination.

Why I don’t care about DRM.

The DRM debate to me is like the gay marriage debate: A dangerous diversion from a deeper more widespread, and more pressing problem.

(In the case of gay marriage the deeper issue is why we permit the state to regulate what is essentially a religious ritual in the first place. Marriage should not exist in any official capacity. It should not be an official status any more than the state of your baptism. I should not get a tax break or hike for participating in any religious ritual.)

In the case of DRM the deeper problem is intellectual property law (IPL) itself. DRM is part and parcel with IPL. The reason the anti-drm groups look frankly small time and a bit whacked out fringe is because of where they are attacking the logic chain. To the pro DRM crowd they are the enemy, and to the abolitionist crowd they seem like collaborators or traitors of some stripe. The anti-DRM movement seem to be a walking contradiction because if you assert or imply that IPL itself is ok, then the logic of DRM is quite sound. If on the other hand you assume that logic is bogus, then why are you limiting yourself to opposing DRM?

Anti-DRM groups by their very nature seem to imply a compromise. They suggest that the phenomenon of selling copies, selling strings of numbers, patenting numbers, is ok. They seem to say it’s just that how those laws are enforced that’s the problem.

They seem a little insane in their level of compromise. Whether or not that compromise is practical and wise politically is a separate issue. It would be like segregation era black arguing that the policy isn’t the problem, just the police violence that occurs when its enforced.

And if you think for one second this issue is trivial because games and movies, I remind you that these exact same laws apply to drugs and the food supply. Where do you think the drug companies got the legal framework that lets them charge what they want to whomever they want? Where do you think Monsanto got the idea of a terminator gene?

Compare anti DRM efforts with the people attacking the correct root, the hardcore abolitionists and the full on pirate party types who assert that the whole business model is unjust and more than a little insane. They somehow seem more serious, more credible. And there’s a whole lot more of them.

The reason a conservative 1% rules the world is because their opposition is by definition fragmented. There is only one status quo, one way it is, and there are a million different directions we can progress in.

That will always be the case, but you could at least get the progressives of whatever strike to be more effective if you could get it across to them that root problems are the ones worth curing.

DRM: Disabling the disabled

Reblogged from: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/disabling-the-disabled

DRM: Disabling the disabled

This is a guest post by Storm Dragon and Kyle (co-writer), two blind anti-DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) activists. It focuses on the problems facing blind readers in the US, but much of it is applicable to other countries as well.

DRM affects almost everyone on a daily basis, but in the blind community it is a problem of epic proportions. Usually when people want something to read, they go to a library, pick up a book, and check it out. Blind people in the US can use the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped in almost the same way—except for one major difference: coming from the NLSBPH, books are usually audiobooks, stored in a specialized format encumbered with DRM.

DRM restricts audiobooks so that they can only play on specialized hardware: either a rather large and cumbersome device provided by the library or other specialized players that are extremely overpriced, starting at around $350 to $400 USD. If you want to listen to the book on your computer, your digital audio player, or your Android smartphone, too bad; although the stated intent of DRM is to prevent non-blind people from using the NSLBPH’s books, it actually prevents blind people from using them on unsanctioned devices. A notable exception is Apple products, which allow sharing between devices, but only at the unacceptable cost of using particularly restrictive proprietary operating systems.

Attempting to read an audiobook from the NLSBPH in the US is comparable to going to the library and sitting down with a good book, only to find out that reading it requires a licensed pair of glasses, produced by only two or three vendors, available at checkout or purchased at a premium from authorized dealers.

DRM not only affects the accessibility of material to people with visual impairment, but also places an undue burden on the taxpayer, whose money the government uses to design the NSLBPH’s needless DRM constraints. This tax money could be much better spent providing off-the-shelf players installed with free software, which would be capable of playing audiobooks in more compact formats, such as the Opus audio standard. Such free players could even be adapted to read a new generation of time-indexed markup, which would allow skipping backward and forward through a book by multiple levels of divisions, like sentences and chapters. This level of control over the reading experience, widely available to sighted people, is still mostly out of reach for the blind.

As a blind reader, I have had my own moral struggle with the problem of digital restrictions on the books I read. At this point, my only choices are to read books from LibriVox, which has a large selection, but very little new literature, or to find more questionable ways of obtaining books that do not suffer from restrictions that prevent me from reading them. Out of these choices, LibriVox is definitely the better option, even though it limits my selection of books to those in the public domain, or those which otherwise have no copyright restrictions of any kind. Although no copyright restrictions would be the ideal state of things for me, the fact remains that there are still very few new entries into the public domain, and that is not likely to change any time soon. So when someone tells me that they have read a really good book, I end up having to tell them that I am unable to read it, because although I have access to the file, it limits my ability to play it on the device I want to use, undercutting my freedom to read it.

Because digital restrictions are especially hard on people with disabilities, I urge everyone in the US to contact the National Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, as well as their senators and representatives, to make them aware of the seriousness of the problem.

The US library is not the only one that suffers from these problems. I encourage anyone in any other country to find out what restrictions are on books that local blind and visually impaired people read. If they have the same digital restrictions, attempt to have laws changed in your country as well, “that all may read,” as the US library so eloquently, but currently falsely, puts it.

In order to contact us or discuss this article, follow @[email protected] and @[email protected] from your favorite GNU social site. The authors also have Web sites at https://stormdragon.tk and http://kyle.tk/.

To the extent possible under law, Storm Dragon and Kyle has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to DRM: Disabling the disabled. This work is published from: United States.