Seriously - that's one of the most basic misunderstandings out there (though admittedly the Ziegler faction at AI didn't help much in that case). The computer does not, ever, overrule the human - it has protections that are there to stop the aircraft from getting into dangerous situations (spiral dives, stalls etc) - but the pilot is in control *at all times* if he or she wants to be. Case in point - Capt. Sullenberger was the one decorated for bravery when he ditched his A320 in the Hudson, not the flight control computer (which frankly would have looked daft with a medal round it).
As has been said many times, there are arguments for and against force-feedback in these situations and I think those with entrenced viewpoints will be reluctant to let go of them. But while automation has brought in some new dangers, the number of old dangers they helped alleviate more than makes up for that IMO.
And as I have said before, for a site that regularly bashes journos for inaccuracy, it's amazing how many cling to the journalistic inaccuracy about the A32/3/4/80 computers "taking over" from pilots and being the first step in making pilots obsolete. Sensationalism at it's worst at the time, let alone now.
We're definitely edging off-topic here though - we were at "MD-11, somewhat unforgiving in handling on landing" if I recall correctly.