Dogma Debate #223

I recently listened to the discussion on Dogma Debate #223 starting at 1:05:00 regarding the blocking of the airport by Black Lives Matter activists.  I think there was some miscommunication, and some lack of understanding.

From what I could tell, David was claiming that harm was done by the blockage of the airport.  I think this is objectively true, and not contested effectively.  It was trivialized through unreasonable claims for evidence.

Eli kept talking about a line that you just can’t draw, because everyone would keep moving the line toward the more conservative position until the civil disobedience would become completely ineffective.

Alix seemed to generally be on the side of no line, and was advocating for the moral acceptability of the civil disobedience

Issues:

The demands for evidence of actual harm are bad logic – the behavior can be called immoral based solely on the risk of harm.  Introducing undue risk of harm is immoral.

David concedes, “Be disruptive.”  The problem, is that being disruptive always causes harm.  That’s the definition.  It doesn’t always cause great harm, but it always causes at least inconvenience, and it almost always risks great harm.  The civil disobedience on “the bus” risked great harm, just like the airport.  The risk was far lower, but it was still there.

What wasn’t conceded, but what should be conceded, is that the lack of disobedience also causes harm.  We do have a problem, and letting it continue causes harm.  This seems to have not been discussed, but is extremely morally relevant.

The line that Eli was saying cannot be drawn, has to be drawn.  Because a disadvantaged group killing all members of the advantaged group is clearly unacceptable.  That kind of protest, is not ok.  So there is a line.  The line should be drawn by weighing the risk of harm of the protest against the risk of harm of not protesting.  As social resistance to the movement increases, the risk of harm of not protesting increases.  So you keep seeing the line move towards the risk to the social majority side of the equation – because that is the only way the situation gets resolved.

The math that isn’t available to me, but I suspect the protest would come out morally defensible.

Ergodex DX-1 Suite 2.05.0171 Published

I am not sure if the affected anyone but me, but the formal release on the http://www.in-character.com release page for the Ergodex DX-1 Suite was not working.  It just kept throwing up the virtual keyboard, not using the DX-1 hardware.  I think this has been fixed with the newest release,

The control suite, version 2.05.0171, is available on our product page at http://www.in-character.com/Pages/ErgodexDX1Suite.aspx.

Here is a direct link for download:  http://patrickvhines.com/Releases/Ergodex_DX1_Suite_2.05.0171.zip

Logic vs. Butter

I recently outed myself as an atheistic agnostic.  As such, I find myself thinking differently.  Historically, I have always been at odds with certain moral dilemmas, my logic not always aligning with my Christian influences.  Having set those influences aside deliberately, I have some issues to deal with.

One of those issues, regrettably, is butter.

The quandary is this:  what is moral?  What is right?  It is easy and natural to fall onto defining moral as what results in the most comfort (or least discomfort) for a group.  But what is that group?  Clearly, I want to be in it.  I want my wife in it.  My parents.  My children.  You (assuming anyone actually reads this).  But I find difficulty in knowing where to put that line.  Is it all of humanity?  I say yes, I would want all of humanity in that group.  It would be very, very, very convenient for me to draw the line there.

But there are issues with that.  I have had several dogs that I care(d) deeply for.  Their suffering does not seem trivial to me, so I'd want them in that group.  I would not consider it moral to abuse any of my pets.  Dolphins and Bonobos copulate for pleasure, and that's kind of cool.  So lets add them in.  Many animals have demonstrated ethical behavior.  So lets add them in.  I can't look into the eyes of a being that thinks like me and revert to a morality that states a 1% genetic difference invalidates its suffering.

So now the best I can rationalize is that what is moral is that which reduces the suffering and/or increases the pleasure of conscious beings.  Our robot overlords will love me as a house slave.  But until then...

I have to figure out how to live morally in a society that feeds its populous through what I now see as the morally bankrupt practice of abusing animals.  Many human societies throughout history have had a respectable symbiotic relationship with livestock.  I do not see ours as one.  We do not cherish the cow, chicken, turkey, or goat.  We have a parasitic relationship.  We abuse them.  We breed them to be abused in life and tortured in slaughter.  We have laws that protect pets, and excuse food-providing animals from those same laws so that we can have $0.99 chicken nuggets.

Now please do not misunderstand, cheap food is a very worthy goal.  But is it not one that we can meet without this abuse?  I think it is.  But only through an animal-free food chain.  When you add in an ethically treated animal, it just seems to cost too much to feed a man.

For that reason, I am now a relaxed, ethical vegan.  The ethical side of this is that I have no problem with consumption of animal products if they are obtained ethically.  But I do not want to support the US food industry at large due to its practices.  I am relaxed as in this is my problem, not yours.  I'm not asking anyone else to go out of their way for my moral problems, especially when most of the persons I associate with have a different moral basis, one that allows for these practices.

Although I won't complain if you throw a few extra vegetables on the grill and keep the butter on the side.

Roadshow Experience

As I write this, I am sitting in Nashville listening to a group of developers jam on guitars / Bass.  It is a good night.

The event is the Nashville .NET Rocks Roadshow.  The speaker was Kate Gregory.  As expected, she gave a good presentation on C++ 11 and C++ Amp.  I have a strong C++ background and know these subjects well, so there were no big surprises, but it was still a good talk.  It is nice to hear a competent defense of C++ in the wake of the developer productivity that is .NET.  I do wish that she had addressed what I think is a problem - catching up to productivity enhancements every 10 years is nice, but C++ really could use a quicker cadence for specification modification.  I imagine that in 10 years we will be back on the defensive talking about missing features.

Carl and Richard both gave good talks that both hold possibilities professionally.

But by far the most interesting part of the evening was the live recording of a .NET rocks episode.  It is interesting to, in a small, personal way, be a part of something public that has had a big impact on my life.  It is odd to see some of what goes on behind the curtain, but it was a very good experience that more than met expectation.

Now the after party is going.  I had a chance to catch up with some friends I made at Codestock, but now most have left.  Carl is participating in a jam session.  Richard is running a scotch session.  I sit alone in the corner blogging.  I am losing the battle against a plague my children morphed into something entirely unnatural, and definitely do not want to infect a travelling show.   

Jimi Hendrix.  I wondered how long that would take.  Apparently 4 songs, or 1 hand-written blog post.

If you get a chance to attend one of these events, I highly recommend it.  If you do, stick around after.  There is more to life than work. 

Ergodex DX1 Windows 8 Driver

I have updated the Ergodex DX1 driver that I support to include Windows 8 support (tested on x64, untested on x32).  In order to do this, I had to purchase a VeriSign Authenticode account and sign the driver.  The setup experience should be a little smoother across the board now that the driver is signed.  This did require a capital investment of $100, and that will be a yearly fee, so if you get use out of this product I would appreciate a contribution (Available at our website at http://www.in-character.com and linked from in the tool using the "$" link on the main screen).

The driver, version 3.1, is available on our product page at http://www.in-character.com/Pages/ErgodexDX1Suite.aspx.

Here is a direct link for download:  http://patrickvhines.com/Releases/DX1_Driver_3.01.zip

Ergodex DX1 Suite 2.04.0128 Released

I have released version 2.04.0128 of the Ergodex DX1 control software.  It is available on the product page at:

http://www.in-character.com/Pages/ErgodexDX1Suite.aspx

This adds a new big feature (macro support) and has been lightly tested.  I also reworked the UI for simplicity.  The next release is planned to be 3.0 with a full round of testing.  Please do not hesitate to send me bug reports.

Ergodex DX-1 Driver 2.03.0101 Released

I have updated the Ergodex DX-1 driver project and released it.  It is available on the product page located at http://www.in-character.com/Pages/ErgodexDX1Suite.aspx.  I did not have time to do what I would consider adequate testing on this.  I know of a few bugs in the tool.  This is mostly a baby-step release on the way toward full macro support, which is why I am proceeding with a release in the current state.  I did add the ability to bind to modified key sequences (so you can now bind a DX-1 key to shift-A, for example).  Hopefully my other projects will allow a relatively quick release supporting macros, but given the number of side projects going at the moment, I can make no promises.