Please back up this claim with even a little bit of evidence. Some of the *users* (especially the vocal group here on/.) exhibit that elitist attitude, but to paint the developers with the same brush is quite rude.
If the goal of the developers of Gnome and KDE was to make unix more difficult for users and developers, they are not doing a very good job.
If I had offended the small minority of developers that really do care about the vast masses of the unwashed, uneductated and disinterested users I apologise.
But I stand by the claim that untill program X easily doubleclick installs and does not require any sort of knowledge of bash, unix principles of configfiles to be run at full capacity it isn't really userfriendly, it is merely paying lip service to it and assuming that all serious users will and should learn the "good old ways".
If we want secure software, it has to be open source.. Granted, at the start the code quality of open source stuff is around equal to closed source stuff but the resources available to check code that is public are far larger than any closed source firm can muster.
Potential resources mean nothing. Open source code that no-one bothers to read isn't going to get better on it's own.
Nobody (except perhaps Ellison and McNealy) wants to see a desktop distro, other than Windows, that is usable by non-misterwizard types.
Amen to that!
The greatest problem with Linux adoption is that developers want windows users to learn *nix and the windows users would rather just use it without having to actually learn anything about it. And when you take away everything from linux that is easy to use and accessible for the average windows user what have do you have? Just a bad copy of windows. This is especially paralyzing to the semi competent windows users: "I can get a free FTP and WWW server and firewall software with the OS? Great! Count me in! Oh I'd need to learn the way of the unix, commandline and bash. Count me out."
Really the greatest problem with Linux adoption seems to be that the programmers and community in general dont want to give the users what the users want (power and new features) without paying a price they had to pay (RTFM, learn the *nix way.)
It may be easier to fix prices in a virtual world (No Cops or raids neccessary). But that does not mean it will not hurt the virtual economy, or that a black market will not appear. Think of all the stories about selling virtual objects and characters on Ebay.
If this works as stated, then I can see issues.. For instance, large mailing lists. Would they have to be white-listed? 3000 seconds of computation is a heavy tax on a community based program like the Linux Kernel Mailing List, which averages 300 messages to my inbox a day. Also, there's the issue of viral spammers.. Those that send out viruses to do the spamming for them. If you infect enough, 8000 mails per day per computer can still be quite a bit.
Personally, my whole take on spam is that everything needs to be done on the user end. Laws have loopholes in every situation (foreign spammers being a large one,) server restrictions are either too restrictive on small servers, or can be defeated with distributed computing.. I say we stick with Bayesian filtering. It works _wonders_ for me, and I'd love to see more people use it.
Whitelists my good friend, whitelists.
Just make it so that some people dont have to calculate hashes for you and there you go.
Just use irate. All the free (beer) music you can listen to, computer-selected to be music you will like. The user interface could use a great deal of polishing, but I'm sure that is happening. And it's quite usable in its current state. I see no reason to support RIAA music for any reason anymore. (And sharing their music is supporting them, as it builds popularity).
Lets be honest, the UI is not usable. You cannot search songs, you cant create playlists, you cannot even jump into a part of song, you have no volume control...
I believe there was a Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago regarding building your own PVR. The majority of the comments seemed say "Why bother, just buy a TIVO/Replay TV, its already done for."
Well, this is why you roll your own. Yes, its a little more work, the cost is pretty much the same, but there is no monthly fee, and features don't get yanked out from under you.
MythTV is absolutely amazing, and its evolving incredibly fast. If your lookinng for a PVR, I recommend giving it a shot.
Problem is that while MythTV requires two things that cannot be bought. Knowledge and interest about computers and linux. That leaves out about 99% of the users. Or would you recommend MythTV to someone who doesn't know anything about computers and/or linux and doesn't want to?
"Better operating systems" is just part of it. Freedom is the other bit. I don't see M$ adopting that any time soon...
That depends whether you advocate Open Source or Free Software. For a FS this is a defeat since it makes their competitor stronger and for OSS this is a great thing since use of OSS, even just by studying management practices used in its creation, breeds better software, which is the goal of OSS.
Only thing I know about Windows/UNIX cultural divide is that I cant use the computer in the *nix world the way I like.
And yes, that means I prefer GUI over commandline by far and would never touch commandline. To those who think it's a fault: It might be only a personal preference but trying to debate it is like trying to debate whether apples (fruits, not the computers) taste good. In that sense, Windows offers me greater freedom to do with my computer what I want to.
The real benefit on these cameras (after they're hacked) is that you can use them where you wouldn't want to risk your $100-500 camera. For example, most people don't want the expense of having to risk a high-end digital camera for underwater (SCUBA, snorkel) shots. The Ritz camera (when hacked to interface with USB) is a great camera for use in a shallow-depth enclosure (because it has a flash) and you don't care if it's destroyed because $10 is a mere fraction of the cost of diving (it might be less expensive than the compressed AIR you're breathing while doing it). Also, think about skiers or other extreme sports people what kick the living crap out of their gear. This makes a digital (albeit crappy) camera something that you can actually use with reckless abandon and not feel so bad when after the Nth time you fall on your *ass after a bad trip down the moguls it finally gives up. (you just hope that it lasts you a couple of trips). Granted it's crappy but, again, a niche use is still a good use.
You can do all that without having to hack the camera.
But the problem emerges in a system where everyone defines their own rights. Where do their right of defining their own right end?
And if you look at your arguement closely it could be used to prove that no humans have right to privacy as breach of privacy does not cause physical or monetary losses. The problem arises when the damage done isn't either. If you claim that you cannot mentally harm someone we can only agree to disagree. But would you like to live in a world where stalking is perfectly legal as it causes you no monetary losses or anything that can be checked by a doctor?
While the idea of carrying bubbles around as the define our own land has it's merits it fails because it is impossible to avoid conflicts as long as human contact exists because it is possible to have right A and right B collide in a way that cannot simply be solved with the idea of personal inviolate space. Morality is much more complex then that.
In this case, "beneficial" and "harm" are both terms to be defined by law.
My problem with that statement is that in the end law is defined by humans and as such it cannot use objective terms of benefit and harm (No, I dont believe humans can act objectively on a subject as this).
The thing is, I think we'd be better off pushing law in a direction that abstracts morality into something practical.
I dont agree with this either because it'll lead into pragmatic morals which I dont consider a positive thing because I believe that while morality is personal I also believe I should use it universally and not decide what is good and what is wrong according what gives me the greatest advantage. But that's just a personal preference
Consider the numerous laws that have been passed for the purpose of making morality into law. Witchcraft laws, sodomy laws, numerous others. Many of which haven't been repealed across the board in spite of the fact that nobody morally believes in the laws any more, whether they morally believe in the rules themselves.
I consider those to be problems in the process of updating and creating laws, not in the principle they're being founded on.
I have built up my own "sense of morality" by using freedom as a starting point. That is at least somewhat in defiance of the idea that morality requires religion. Would you assert that you must have religion to have morals? If not, what is your own foundation for morality?
You must have misunderstood me at some point if you think I'm holding my viewpoint because of religious reasons. I'm an agnostic. I merely defended the "religious side" in the discussion way back because I disagreed with the statements and their reasoning in the grand^x parent post.
From that you can already guess that I agree that morality does not require religion to back it up (I consider religious and other moral systems to be equal). But I must say your question is quite difficult to answer as I'm not certain that humans as much create their moral systems instead of "discovering" it. But to answer your question I'd have to say that a central point in my moral system seems to be the quest to gain enlightement. A good life (Because in a way your question cannot be answered without answering the question of the meaning of life) is one filled with discovery and thinking. Not because of the goal but because of the journey.
I disagree with your point with or lack of mutual dependance. Whether or not in theory it would be possible to have a system of laws that would be purely pragmatic ours isn't one in any way because when making laws we are considering both ethics and morality. Consider punishment. to punish someone we're making a moral choice that it is tolerable to remove someone's freedoms in certain situations. And what about torture? It'd certainly decrease the amount of crimes if we'd publicly torture everyone who is found guilty. What about death penalty? Quite a few places are trying to get rid of it because humans have fundamental rights to be alive. That is not a pragmatic view. And what about the fundamental rights that are written into lawbooks world wide?
And besides, you speak of practicality. That implies a goal. But can we have goals without moral decisions? To me that idea seems quite alien.
Not only is it a name, it's a generic word found in any dictionary. If they were to try using the name "L-OS/X" or "L-AIX" I could see where there would be a problem.
Laws exist to provide "peace", not "common good". They provide a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law.
Now, my statement has plenty of holes in it as far as creating a government or other group of people to make and enforce law. I haven't addressed that at all, I've only provided a purpose of law, and not even a definition at that.:)
However, you must admit that "a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law." requires moral choices in itself. Such as the decision that peace, harmony and prosperity are morally good things. A certainly agreeable decision? Yes. but a decision regardless. Even the outlawing of thievery requires either the moral decision that humans have right to property OR the decision that since thievery leads to lack of prosperity it is morally bad.
No, he's not. The vital point you're missing is that his views are not affecting those he is addressing directly. Their views ARE affecting him directly.
Because one of the sides believes their viewpoint should be able to impact the other side?
What I'm arguing that it is impossible to avoid it.
This is just a plain dumb analogy based on a false pretense. If it is your property, someone else's house would not be in the middle of it.
No, you just didn't interpret it correctly. I meant an O-shaped but thick area which belongs to my property and a small island at the middle which belongs to the other guy.
While neither principle is unreasonable they are mutually incompatible.
It is very simple: The right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose.
But even that rule has problems. If you mean you cant harm the other person we still have to define harm. What if mine and his view of harm are different? If mr.A thinks looking at him is harmful to him should we prevent other people from doing that? And what if mr.B thinks he is free to look at other people? It is quite difficult to create a society that is based on the principle of noninterference because the concept is so immaterial and as long as people interact with each others in any way we have to agree on some ground rules (laws). And all rules limit someone, it is something that cannot be avoided.
How would you apply your idea of noninterferance in a case where a wants 1000000$ from b because b watched his flowers and a considers that a breach of his privacy? It simply wont work because all actions affect other people because both action X and action -X can both be interpreted as positive rights.
Very well, I can see now that you didn't intend to post your opinions as absolute facts but I assumed you did. My apologies for that, I just felt like I had to point out how morals aren't that simple and that we also have opinions on them.
As you can guess, I'm a moral relativist and as such I try to avoid making absolute claims and disagree when someone else makes them so easily.
Fair enough, but how can we debate morality then if it's just opinions?
You're absolutely correct about the "mutually incompatible moral systems". You'll note, though, that I do not make a moral judgment, simply a pragmatic one. I want to be able to live a long and healthy life, and so should you (if you want to.) Is that unreasonable?
In my opinion it is not. But would you say that you have the right to long, happy and healthy life no matter the cost to everyone else? I certainly wouldn't want a longer and healthier life it'd mean death to innocent and unwilling people (Which is the case if souls exist). Would you?
This is something I feel pretty strongly about--I find any religious argument against the reduction of suffering or extension of life to be anti-humanist, ignorant and intolerant. Live how you will, but don't deny me and others the fundamental right to live what we see as better lives through the advancement of medical science.
However, you're not in a morally superior position compared to them. You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic. See how you use the word "fundamental right". According to whom? Not according to them.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why? Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right? And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute? If you'd like to argue that laws aren't really moral codes I'd to hear your arguements. Just remember that if you claim that they're made for the common good be prepared to answer how can we define "good" without making a moral decision.
Fuck 'em! Playing games is not worth sacrificing software freedom and choice.
Tell that those millions who game with consoles. It's all matter of values.
Re:Automatons will initially create economic chaos
on
The Robots are Coming
·
· Score: 1
Your point is valid - mechanization and automation always create huge economic imbalances as workers are dislocated and the wage/consumption cycle breaks temporarily. ITs been happening since the cotton ginny.
Yet you and I are not adversely affected by autoamtion of cotton production, so its clear that a flexible workforce can, over time, adapt. The key is education and a willingness to change. If you don't have those, you're screwed.
I have to disagree with you on that one. There exists a point where there is nothing humans cant do better then computers can. As the capabilities of computers grow the professions we can do better then them grow thin. What to do on the day the last human is replaced by a robot?
Slashdot Mirror
Please back up this claim with even a little bit of evidence. Some of the *users* (especially the vocal group here on /.) exhibit that elitist attitude, but to paint the developers with the same brush is quite rude.
If the goal of the developers of Gnome and KDE was to make unix more difficult for users and developers, they are not doing a very good job.
If I had offended the small minority of developers that really do care about the vast masses of the unwashed, uneductated and disinterested users I apologise.
But I stand by the claim that untill program X easily doubleclick installs and does not require any sort of knowledge of bash, unix principles of configfiles to be run at full capacity it isn't really userfriendly, it is merely paying lip service to it and assuming that all serious users will and should learn the "good old ways".
If we want secure software, it has to be open source.. Granted, at the start the code quality of open source stuff is around equal to closed source stuff but the resources available to check code that is public are far larger than any closed source firm can muster.
Potential resources mean nothing. Open source code that no-one bothers to read isn't going to get better on it's own.
Nobody (except perhaps Ellison and McNealy) wants to see a desktop distro, other than Windows, that is usable by non-misterwizard types.
Amen to that!
The greatest problem with Linux adoption is that developers want windows users to learn *nix and the windows users would rather just use it without having to actually learn anything about it. And when you take away everything from linux that is easy to use and accessible for the average windows user what have do you have? Just a bad copy of windows. This is especially paralyzing to the semi competent windows users: "I can get a free FTP and WWW server and firewall software with the OS? Great! Count me in! Oh I'd need to learn the way of the unix, commandline and bash. Count me out."
Really the greatest problem with Linux adoption seems to be that the programmers and community in general dont want to give the users what the users want (power and new features) without paying a price they had to pay (RTFM, learn the *nix way.)
It may be easier to fix prices in a virtual world (No Cops or raids neccessary). But that does not mean it will not hurt the virtual economy, or that a black market will not appear. Think of all the stories about selling virtual objects and characters on Ebay.
How can a virtual economy be hurt?
If this works as stated, then I can see issues.. For instance, large mailing lists. Would they have to be white-listed? 3000 seconds of computation is a heavy tax on a community based program like the Linux Kernel Mailing List, which averages 300 messages to my inbox a day. Also, there's the issue of viral spammers.. Those that send out viruses to do the spamming for them. If you infect enough, 8000 mails per day per computer can still be quite a bit.
Personally, my whole take on spam is that everything needs to be done on the user end. Laws have loopholes in every situation (foreign spammers being a large one,) server restrictions are either too restrictive on small servers, or can be defeated with distributed computing.. I say we stick with Bayesian filtering. It works _wonders_ for me, and I'd love to see more people use it.
Whitelists my good friend, whitelists.
Just make it so that some people dont have to calculate hashes for you and there you go.
Seriously, I never would have considered the Ars readership to be an intellectual step down from /..
And it is only so if you consider the knowledge about schedulers to be the ultimate benchmark for smarts.
Which is the premise of it. It suggests you songs. You don't have to search for them.
I think your other points are valid, but this one is not.
I didn't want to search new songs, I wanted to search my already downloaded music for that cool song named X.
Just use irate. All the free (beer) music you can listen to, computer-selected to be music you will like. The user interface could use a great deal of polishing, but I'm sure that is happening. And it's quite usable in its current state. I see no reason to support RIAA music for any reason anymore. (And sharing their music is supporting them, as it builds popularity).
Lets be honest, the UI is not usable. You cannot search songs, you cant create playlists, you cannot even jump into a part of song, you have no volume control...
I believe there was a Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago regarding building your own PVR. The majority of the comments seemed say "Why bother, just buy a TIVO/Replay TV, its already done for."
Well, this is why you roll your own. Yes, its a little more work, the cost is pretty much the same, but there is no monthly fee, and features don't get yanked out from under you.
MythTV is absolutely amazing, and its evolving incredibly fast. If your lookinng for a PVR, I recommend giving it a shot.
Problem is that while MythTV requires two things that cannot be bought. Knowledge and interest about computers and linux. That leaves out about 99% of the users. Or would you recommend MythTV to someone who doesn't know anything about computers and/or linux and doesn't want to?
And how do you do that? Even anarchism is a system in which the majority is commited to opposing any conglomeration of power by a minority.
By doing it alone.
the feeling of destroying national security in the name of freedom.
Some principles are worth living and fighten, some are even worth dying for.
"Better operating systems" is just part of it. Freedom is the other bit. I don't see M$ adopting that any time soon...
That depends whether you advocate Open Source or Free Software. For a FS this is a defeat since it makes their competitor stronger and for OSS this is a great thing since use of OSS, even just by studying management practices used in its creation, breeds better software, which is the goal of OSS.
Only thing I know about Windows/UNIX cultural divide is that I cant use the computer in the *nix world the way I like.
And yes, that means I prefer GUI over commandline by far and would never touch commandline. To those who think it's a fault: It might be only a personal preference but trying to debate it is like trying to debate whether apples (fruits, not the computers) taste good. In that sense, Windows offers me greater freedom to do with my computer what I want to.
The real benefit on these cameras (after they're hacked) is that you can use them where you wouldn't want to risk your $100-500 camera.
For example, most people don't want the expense of having to risk a high-end digital camera for underwater (SCUBA, snorkel) shots. The Ritz camera (when hacked to interface with USB) is a great camera for use in a shallow-depth enclosure (because it has a flash) and you don't care if it's destroyed because $10 is a mere fraction of the cost of diving (it might be less expensive than the compressed AIR you're breathing while doing it).
Also, think about skiers or other extreme sports people what kick the living crap out of their gear. This makes a digital (albeit crappy) camera something that you can actually use with reckless abandon and not feel so bad when after the Nth time you fall on your *ass after a bad trip down the moguls it finally gives up. (you just hope that it lasts you a couple of trips).
Granted it's crappy but, again, a niche use is still a good use.
You can do all that without having to hack the camera.
But the problem emerges in a system where everyone defines their own rights. Where do their right of defining their own right end?
And if you look at your arguement closely it could be used to prove that no humans have right to privacy as breach of privacy does not cause physical or monetary losses. The problem arises when the damage done isn't either. If you claim that you cannot mentally harm someone we can only agree to disagree. But would you like to live in a world where stalking is perfectly legal as it causes you no monetary losses or anything that can be checked by a doctor?
While the idea of carrying bubbles around as the define our own land has it's merits it fails because it is impossible to avoid conflicts as long as human contact exists because it is possible to have right A and right B collide in a way that cannot simply be solved with the idea of personal inviolate space. Morality is much more complex then that.
In this case, "beneficial" and "harm" are both terms to be defined by law.
My problem with that statement is that in the end law is defined by humans and as such it cannot use objective terms of benefit and harm (No, I dont believe humans can act objectively on a subject as this).
The thing is, I think we'd be better off pushing law in a direction that abstracts morality into something practical.
I dont agree with this either because it'll lead into pragmatic morals which I dont consider a positive thing because I believe that while morality is personal I also believe I should use it universally and not decide what is good and what is wrong according what gives me the greatest advantage. But that's just a personal preference
Consider the numerous laws that have been passed for the purpose of making morality into law. Witchcraft laws, sodomy laws, numerous others. Many of which haven't been repealed across the board in spite of the fact that nobody morally believes in the laws any more, whether they morally believe in the rules themselves.
I consider those to be problems in the process of updating and creating laws, not in the principle they're being founded on.
I have built up my own "sense of morality" by using freedom as a starting point. That is at least somewhat in defiance of the idea that morality requires religion. Would you assert that you must have religion to have morals? If not, what is your own foundation for morality?
You must have misunderstood me at some point if you think I'm holding my viewpoint because of religious reasons. I'm an agnostic. I merely defended the "religious side" in the discussion way back because I disagreed with the statements and their reasoning in the grand^x parent post.
From that you can already guess that I agree that morality does not require religion to back it up (I consider religious and other moral systems to be equal). But I must say your question is quite difficult to answer as I'm not certain that humans as much create their moral systems instead of "discovering" it. But to answer your question I'd have to say that a central point in my moral system seems to be the quest to gain enlightement. A good life (Because in a way your question cannot be answered without answering the question of the meaning of life) is one filled with discovery and thinking. Not because of the goal but because of the journey.
I disagree with your point with or lack of mutual dependance. Whether or not in theory it would be possible to have a system of laws that would be purely pragmatic ours isn't one in any way because when making laws we are considering both ethics and morality. Consider punishment. to punish someone we're making a moral choice that it is tolerable to remove someone's freedoms in certain situations. And what about torture? It'd certainly decrease the amount of crimes if we'd publicly torture everyone who is found guilty. What about death penalty? Quite a few places are trying to get rid of it because humans have fundamental rights to be alive. That is not a pragmatic view. And what about the fundamental rights that are written into lawbooks world wide?
And besides, you speak of practicality. That implies a goal. But can we have goals without moral decisions? To me that idea seems quite alien.
Not only is it a name, it's a generic word found in any dictionary. If they were to try using the name "L-OS/X" or "L-AIX" I could see where there would be a problem.
It's not a generic finnish or swedish word.
Laws exist to provide "peace", not "common good". They provide a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law.
:)
Now, my statement has plenty of holes in it as far as creating a government or other group of people to make and enforce law. I haven't addressed that at all, I've only provided a purpose of law, and not even a definition at that.
However, you must admit that "a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law." requires moral choices in itself. Such as the decision that peace, harmony and prosperity are morally good things. A certainly agreeable decision? Yes. but a decision regardless. Even the outlawing of thievery requires either the moral decision that humans have right to property OR the decision that since thievery leads to lack of prosperity it is morally bad.
No, he's not. The vital point you're missing is that his views are not affecting those he is addressing directly. Their views ARE affecting him directly.
Because one of the sides believes their viewpoint should be able to impact the other side?
What I'm arguing that it is impossible to avoid it.
This is just a plain dumb analogy based on a false pretense. If it is your property, someone else's house would not be in the middle of it.
No, you just didn't interpret it correctly. I meant an O-shaped but thick area which belongs to my property and a small island at the middle which belongs to the other guy.
While neither principle is unreasonable they are mutually incompatible.
It is very simple: The right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose.
But even that rule has problems. If you mean you cant harm the other person we still have to define harm. What if mine and his view of harm are different? If mr.A thinks looking at him is harmful to him should we prevent other people from doing that? And what if mr.B thinks he is free to look at other people? It is quite difficult to create a society that is based on the principle of noninterference because the concept is so
immaterial and as long as people interact with each others in any way we have to agree on some ground rules (laws). And all rules limit someone, it is something that cannot be avoided.
How would you apply your idea of noninterferance in a case where a wants 1000000$ from b because b watched his flowers and a considers that a breach of his privacy? It simply wont work because all actions affect other people because both action X and action -X can both be interpreted as positive rights.
Very well, I can see now that you didn't intend to post your opinions as absolute facts but I assumed you did. My apologies for that, I just felt like I had to point out how morals aren't that simple and that we also have opinions on them.
As you can guess, I'm a moral relativist and as such I try to avoid making absolute claims and disagree when someone else makes them so easily.
Precisely, I would never claim
Fair enough, but how can we debate morality then if it's just opinions?
You're absolutely correct about the "mutually incompatible moral systems". You'll note, though, that I do not make a moral judgment, simply a pragmatic one. I want to be able to live a long and healthy life, and so should you (if you want to.) Is that unreasonable?
In my opinion it is not. But would you say that you have the right to long, happy and healthy life no matter the cost to everyone else? I certainly wouldn't want a longer and healthier life it'd mean death to innocent and unwilling people (Which is the case if souls exist). Would you?
This is something I feel pretty strongly about--I find any religious argument against the reduction of suffering or extension of life to be anti-humanist, ignorant and intolerant. Live how you will, but don't deny me and others the fundamental right to live what we see as better lives through the advancement of medical science.
However, you're not in a morally superior position compared to them. You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic. See how you use the word "fundamental right". According to whom? Not according to them.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why? Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right? And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute? If you'd like to argue that laws aren't really moral codes I'd to hear your arguements. Just remember that if you claim that they're made for the common good be prepared to answer how can we define "good" without making a moral decision.
Fuck 'em! Playing games is not worth sacrificing software freedom and choice.
Tell that those millions who game with consoles. It's all matter of values.
Your point is valid - mechanization and automation always create huge economic imbalances as workers are dislocated and the wage/consumption cycle breaks temporarily. ITs been happening since the cotton ginny.
Yet you and I are not adversely affected by autoamtion of cotton production, so its clear that a flexible workforce can, over time, adapt. The key is education and a willingness to change. If you don't have those, you're screwed.
I have to disagree with you on that one. There exists a point where there is nothing humans cant do better then computers can. As the capabilities of computers grow the professions we can do better then them grow thin. What to do on the day the last human is replaced by a robot?