Bear with me and hear me out, here: there's something to be said for someone whose capability is in coming up with eventful, useful ideas. When you're down in the minutiae, it can be hard to understand the context of your design and the importance of the decisions you've made up that that point.
A good "idea person" shouldn't be some stand-alone guru, they're someone who takes inspiration off of others around them and who knows how to use the expertise of others around them to polish better ideas. This process means that most of the ideas you have are going to be crap. Simple fact, if you've thought of it, chances are there's a reason why someone else hasn't done it yet. There's benefit in realizing why this might be and what you may be able to do differently. Regardless, ideas are a dime a dozen and that means that you have to constantly be trying new ones and seeing if there's even one worth keeping.
The problem you run into as an "ideas person", when you're really working at it, is that your ideas require more skills than you can, individually, develop. Yes, we need to learn to program to understand what we're working with, but there's no way we can dedicate the time to be an excellent programmer and still cover all the other fields that need to be covered. If that were the case, we'd have to specialize in three or four different fields just to be viable.
The tradeoff is that we have to become at least functional in multiple areas with enough knowledge to know that in any given room, we're always the apprentices. We only exist to try and communicate where the other methods and wider perspectives may exist to improve the overall project.
Seriously. I think I just heard a choir of angels. This is a beautiful summary.
Also, at least the new guy cares enough to take it up, now it's time to get him to do something useful about it
One: if you want to look at what divides high-powered innovation, look no farther than the ability for those who are designing systems to understand high-level mathematics. There are all kinds of solutions out there to be applied in creative ways, but the problem is often in how to even comprehend the information that exists out there (relatively) freely in academic papers and demonstrations.
Two: if you wonder what use math is, you probably need more of it. The interesting part of a mathematics education is that it teaches you the respect of its application. I never understood just how important linear algebra is until I had to start playing with it. Now, I realize just how much of the massive data flood we wade through is filtered and explained through such powerful methods.
I've got an extensive mathematics education in my engineering degree and I never have had a good reason to regret a minute of it (after the initial gnashing of teeth, of course).
While the high graphics, large publishers have put out a lot of Medal Of Brotherhood Honor Warfare + Zombies lately, it's obvious that there were quite a few things overlooked: Bioware's Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises have been incredibly aggressive in developing new storyline approaches, Bastion reinvented the case of narration in a game, Uncharted was compared to playing a movie, and lets not get started into the Portal properties...
The point of sequels coming out instead of new IP is actually a side-effect from developing fantastic storylines. People want to continue the stories and worlds they've visited, and is that a bad thing?
It seems like a plausible enough explanation and strategy. Have you actually considered *telling* them?
Most companies do tend to have a feedback section for such thoughts. They can sometimes be surprisingly well-viewed.
Maybe the problem is their 15% fee. Would any fee be reasonable, though? At a point, they're trying to make money and there's a reasonable point for them being able to profit a reasonable amount from trade of equipment in their game, especially if they're the ones providing the clearinghouse.
Maybe they should take their 10% like God.
We constantly hear complaints about companies and their inability to deal with the grey market over item resale. Like it or not, they're building digital economies and that means real value is being dealt with. Valve hired an economist for a reason and, likewise, Blizzard has taken a very bold step in their RMAH.
Many have praised 2nd Life for its embrace of digital/real value and have talked about it being a model for serious later material, but, honestly, we're still collectively wary if someone actually wants to try it for themselves.
The real point to be made is that the "pay to win" model exists regardless of the game itself and the game developer's intentions. As long as you can trade items between players, you create economic incentive to game the system. If you've ever talked a friend in real life into trading you material in-game, you've done the exact same thing, but only with social capital. All that Blizzard has done is bring it out into the light and try and address the mechanic that is in place and clean up the system so that there is a clear standard rather than murky side-dealing.
This is exactly what I thought in this case.
I immediately thought back to The Black Swan (Taleb's book, not the movie). There's a long discussion involving power laws. What most people don't realize about power laws is that a decimal of difference has quite a large effect.
Besides, with comments about preventing these sort of things by allocating resources in advance to fit this power law you have to wonder if these authors understand the implications of sampling error. Even if this fits, it is a fairly small sample of one murderer. You would have to compare with other ones to see if there are any similarities and you would fall into validation issues for anyone who *doesn't* follow the same impetus for their murders.
All in all, it serves to be something interesting but its quite useless for their stated application of prevention; if it's useful for anything, it's useful for analysis and understanding.
Something has been rattling around my head in recent days on this topic and now I think it's a proper time to let it out.
The amount of information you're trying to free is entirely staggering and consists, largely, of tables of numbers. These numbers are incredibly significant, but people generally can't see them.
After you free all of this information and make it available to the public (as it should be), then what? What do you expect for the public to do with these numbers? Tables of information are not nearly as useful as graphs. This data needs to be seen, but, more importantly, it needs to be understood.
Do you have any ideas for how to disseminate this information? Perhaps a team-up with someone like gapminder.org's Hans Rosling might be particularly valuable for all of us.
You didn't finish your story. How long did the new director take to fix the Mac printing issue? How much equipment did he have to buy? If those multi-function printers that they purchased from [big brand A] only supported one protocol that only worked with one machine, then it's a bit more involved than simply checking a few options.
Having worked in a similar position, it can be incredibly hard managing hundreds of computers with different requirements. When one supplier decides that they're not going to support the new OS iteration fast enough, the IT department gets to pick up the slack and everyone hurts.
I see very little proof here beyond that snarky responses beget snarky responses and the system stays broken.
Part of the problem, as well, is that IT is an incredibly demanding job. You have to try and fix machines that are always finding new ways to break. Users are rarely supportive and, with great regularity, directly oppose any attempt to change things to increase stability. They frequently don't want to change a small behavior of theirs that would make their lives much easier, such as allowing their machine to backup once a week, or even once a month.
When your day-in-day-out job is to deal with the angriest person in the building, you tend to either have an emotional breakdown or you ice-over, harden up, and learn to bring a healthy level of disdain with you. It's about survival. Trying to actively be everyone's friend gets you beaten pretty badly in the field. You can't give everyone what they want.
Finally, because of policies, you have the be the bad guy. You can't simply choose not to enforce the policies. Someone higher up the chain makes those decisions for one reason or another, and even if they are good decisions for overall policy, there are bound to be problems that arise. Because policy will always be in need of update and will never completely respond to the needs of users, you, the IT monkey, becomes the lightning rod for every ounce of ire that cannot be directed at the policy.
Everyone expects that IT seems to either magically know exactly what's going on at all times, or that they're know-nothing lower primates. The truth is they're working stiffs like anyone else and that their job revolves entirely around dealing with the problems that noone else really wants to touch.
It's janitorial work w/ computers and added stress.
Bruce Sterling is also an excellent choice to contact, as he strongly supports the view of fixing broken systems.
Also: for shame all of you who immediately move to the illegality argument itself. It's also been illegal before to make copies of your own music, but I don't think that stopped any of you.
The case here is that OP got him/herself into a problem where they're no longer in legal territory and are wondering how to remain in ethical territory. The response to "do nothing" runs counter to everything I know about true hacker ethic. If you find a problem, fix it. To go back and hide in your hole and hope noone comes after you may be the most legally advisable (I am not a lawyer) but it's certainly not the most ethical. Don't ask OP to compromise themselves in favor of supporting a poorly written law.
The problem is, while you may have the same skills as a college-taught programmer you don't have the little piece of paper to verify them. However, most people are finding that that little piece of paper doesn't necessarily convey these abilities either.
You need to update your CV beyond just a paper format. Try submitting a link with your paper CV that can demonstrate your programming ability and highlight your creativity and capabilities. That way they don't just read about what skills you claim to have, they can see what you actually do. This'll help you rise to the top.
I find it particularly interesting that their choice of performers is OneRepublic and The Black Keys.
It's particularly odd because The Black Keys have some of the strongest independent credentials out there. They've been consistently published by independent labels and have really carved out their own musical niche by themselves. The idea that they're playing a concert for Microsoft is a bit... odd.
I don't particularly care, however. If I was in the area I would be one of the first there for the show.
I can definitely back a lot of those. I also know quite a few people who would get right behind them, and I go to one of the most conservative universities in the country. Now if someone could just get that message out and *STICK* to it, then we'd have a contender to pull for.
You've been amazing at the helm. Thank you for exposing me to so many interesting stories and opinions. I would be a good deal more foolish if it wasn't for your work. We'll miss you!
The "100% Accuracy" thing is a bit of a stickler, but there are some fun examples in Social Psychology. I know they're not about being "nudged" but they *are* about influence and susceptibility and there should be many more examples in Social Psychology if you are interested in learning more:
-- Asch's Conformity Study: An individual was asked to rate the length of a line while placed in a group. The subject would answer after 5 other people, who were all instructed to agree on the wrong line. The choice was patently obvious, but a *very* large number caved. Those who did not were highly distressed, over LINES.
--Milgram's Obedience study: proved that the average person would electrocute someone to death if told to by an authority figure.
-- Stanford Prison Experiment: demonstrated that individuals fill the role that they are placed into. Atrocity is easy; standing up for your own values is hard.
All in all, I cannot prove with a causal reliability that you are, indeed, prone to influence. However, I know that I myself feel worried on a day to day basis about being influenced and often am despite my best attempts not to be. Either a.) you are a paragon among men (hats off to you) or b.) you have yet to have your own vulnerability proven to you.
The funny thing about Psychology is that you yourself are easily influenced and will only recognize it when you pay attention for it. Nudging is extremely common and has been used as a basic social method for as long was we've been interacting. Noone's immune. It's just important to realize when it's happening and to think twice about it.
I'm actually an industrial engineering student who studies cognitive ergonomics (pretty much social engineering). I'm actually quite interested in "nudging technologies" and am doing a bit of research in related fields.
I took a Psych class that discussed the relevance of subliminal messaging and covered a bit of the controversy surrounding it. The professor mentioned something strange: subliminal messaging doesn't make an individual do anything they otherwise would not do if persuaded. You can only get standard behavior that the individual would be interested in performing on their own. These nudging technologies do affect an individual's autonomy by affecting the choices they make, but, in the end, they still can make their own decision to take the elevator.
An important contrast to consider is that the alternative to make people take the stairs more is to coerce them by making rules. Is that any more ethical? At least in a nudge system they have the option to do as they wish. Sure, the individual may not be aware that they are influenced, but it would be a system incredibly hard to abuse.
I've had to deal w/ individuals who throw their newly emptied coke bottles into the trash when the trash can is directly next to the trash can. I don't feel that the best approach is to convince them with general aphorisms about the environment but rather to nudge them that way we can all get along to taking care of more important problems.
Do not rule out the importance of ethics in science. They guide us in possible repercussions of our actions. The interesting point is that there are more kinds of stem cells than just embryonic. To argue that embryonic cells are the only way is to ignore equally viable options. Simply to say that embryos aren't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery.
I say that if there's a way to get scientific results while avoiding ethical concerns, then that should be our main focus.
Is it just me, or does this have the sound of an escalating digital cold war? Palm updates, Apple Updates, Palm Updates, Apple updates. Palm Pre gets a reputation of compatibility with Itunes for the hardcore fans, just as long as they choose to sync on even weeks when Apple's busy writing patches for the new backdoors.
This is interesting particularly coupled with a posting earlier about Wolfram Alpha and all of the trouble rising over its place in mathematical education.
Under the math system that this article seeks to indict the introduction of an accessible mathematical tool such as WolframAlpha would be poison to everything they're trying to teach. However, in the system that he tries to forward, such technology would be a great boon. In the general attitude of/. being "Technology giveth and technology taketh away" wouldn't this be simply another variation on the same theme? Mathematics education needs some revitalization and what better way than to put power to teach oneself into the hands of eager students?
and most of them can be traced to certain groups (*cough*fundamentalists*cough*) waging a 30 year war on public education, and people refusing to see and treat education as what it is: an investment in the future national security and economic stability of the united states.
I think you're missing the point and wonder if it's possible that you haven't read the article fully. The state that education is in can't be simply blamed on one group and left to lie. Sure, some fundamentalist groups are busy fighting a nonsensical war on science and sexual education. However to claim that they have drug down math education is an outright red herring argument. Other groups may be just as much to blame. To quote "The Two Cultures of Mathematics" by W.T. Gowers, there was a cited cased from C.P. Snow as follows
"A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards
of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable
gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I
have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe
the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative.
Yet I was asking something which is about the scientic equivalent of: Have you read
a work of Shakespeare's?"
Who is to say that the sort of ignorance demonstrated by these people is not also to blame? The case this particular article points out is that there is a particular cultural ignorance of mathematics in both conceptual and practical understanding.
I'm sorry, but the issue at hand cannot be simply addressed by setting up the/. whipping boy of the ignorant right wing fundamentalist stereotype and giving him a good flaying.
Slashdot Mirror
Bear with me and hear me out, here: there's something to be said for someone whose capability is in coming up with eventful, useful ideas. When you're down in the minutiae, it can be hard to understand the context of your design and the importance of the decisions you've made up that that point. A good "idea person" shouldn't be some stand-alone guru, they're someone who takes inspiration off of others around them and who knows how to use the expertise of others around them to polish better ideas. This process means that most of the ideas you have are going to be crap. Simple fact, if you've thought of it, chances are there's a reason why someone else hasn't done it yet. There's benefit in realizing why this might be and what you may be able to do differently. Regardless, ideas are a dime a dozen and that means that you have to constantly be trying new ones and seeing if there's even one worth keeping. The problem you run into as an "ideas person", when you're really working at it, is that your ideas require more skills than you can, individually, develop. Yes, we need to learn to program to understand what we're working with, but there's no way we can dedicate the time to be an excellent programmer and still cover all the other fields that need to be covered. If that were the case, we'd have to specialize in three or four different fields just to be viable. The tradeoff is that we have to become at least functional in multiple areas with enough knowledge to know that in any given room, we're always the apprentices. We only exist to try and communicate where the other methods and wider perspectives may exist to improve the overall project.
Seriously. I think I just heard a choir of angels. This is a beautiful summary. Also, at least the new guy cares enough to take it up, now it's time to get him to do something useful about it
It will only work that way if that's what we buy.
One: if you want to look at what divides high-powered innovation, look no farther than the ability for those who are designing systems to understand high-level mathematics. There are all kinds of solutions out there to be applied in creative ways, but the problem is often in how to even comprehend the information that exists out there (relatively) freely in academic papers and demonstrations. Two: if you wonder what use math is, you probably need more of it. The interesting part of a mathematics education is that it teaches you the respect of its application. I never understood just how important linear algebra is until I had to start playing with it. Now, I realize just how much of the massive data flood we wade through is filtered and explained through such powerful methods. I've got an extensive mathematics education in my engineering degree and I never have had a good reason to regret a minute of it (after the initial gnashing of teeth, of course).
The point of sequels coming out instead of new IP is actually a side-effect from developing fantastic storylines. People want to continue the stories and worlds they've visited, and is that a bad thing?
It seems like a plausible enough explanation and strategy. Have you actually considered *telling* them? Most companies do tend to have a feedback section for such thoughts. They can sometimes be surprisingly well-viewed.
Maybe the problem is their 15% fee. Would any fee be reasonable, though? At a point, they're trying to make money and there's a reasonable point for them being able to profit a reasonable amount from trade of equipment in their game, especially if they're the ones providing the clearinghouse. Maybe they should take their 10% like God.
We constantly hear complaints about companies and their inability to deal with the grey market over item resale. Like it or not, they're building digital economies and that means real value is being dealt with. Valve hired an economist for a reason and, likewise, Blizzard has taken a very bold step in their RMAH. Many have praised 2nd Life for its embrace of digital/real value and have talked about it being a model for serious later material, but, honestly, we're still collectively wary if someone actually wants to try it for themselves. The real point to be made is that the "pay to win" model exists regardless of the game itself and the game developer's intentions. As long as you can trade items between players, you create economic incentive to game the system. If you've ever talked a friend in real life into trading you material in-game, you've done the exact same thing, but only with social capital. All that Blizzard has done is bring it out into the light and try and address the mechanic that is in place and clean up the system so that there is a clear standard rather than murky side-dealing.
This is exactly what I thought in this case. I immediately thought back to The Black Swan (Taleb's book, not the movie). There's a long discussion involving power laws. What most people don't realize about power laws is that a decimal of difference has quite a large effect. Besides, with comments about preventing these sort of things by allocating resources in advance to fit this power law you have to wonder if these authors understand the implications of sampling error. Even if this fits, it is a fairly small sample of one murderer. You would have to compare with other ones to see if there are any similarities and you would fall into validation issues for anyone who *doesn't* follow the same impetus for their murders. All in all, it serves to be something interesting but its quite useless for their stated application of prevention; if it's useful for anything, it's useful for analysis and understanding.
The amount of information you're trying to free is entirely staggering and consists, largely, of tables of numbers. These numbers are incredibly significant, but people generally can't see them.
After you free all of this information and make it available to the public (as it should be), then what? What do you expect for the public to do with these numbers? Tables of information are not nearly as useful as graphs. This data needs to be seen, but, more importantly, it needs to be understood.
Do you have any ideas for how to disseminate this information? Perhaps a team-up with someone like gapminder.org's Hans Rosling might be particularly valuable for all of us.
Having worked in a similar position, it can be incredibly hard managing hundreds of computers with different requirements. When one supplier decides that they're not going to support the new OS iteration fast enough, the IT department gets to pick up the slack and everyone hurts.
I see very little proof here beyond that snarky responses beget snarky responses and the system stays broken.
When your day-in-day-out job is to deal with the angriest person in the building, you tend to either have an emotional breakdown or you ice-over, harden up, and learn to bring a healthy level of disdain with you. It's about survival. Trying to actively be everyone's friend gets you beaten pretty badly in the field. You can't give everyone what they want.
Finally, because of policies, you have the be the bad guy. You can't simply choose not to enforce the policies. Someone higher up the chain makes those decisions for one reason or another, and even if they are good decisions for overall policy, there are bound to be problems that arise. Because policy will always be in need of update and will never completely respond to the needs of users, you, the IT monkey, becomes the lightning rod for every ounce of ire that cannot be directed at the policy.
Everyone expects that IT seems to either magically know exactly what's going on at all times, or that they're know-nothing lower primates. The truth is they're working stiffs like anyone else and that their job revolves entirely around dealing with the problems that noone else really wants to touch.
It's janitorial work w/ computers and added stress.
Bruce Sterling is also an excellent choice to contact, as he strongly supports the view of fixing broken systems. Also: for shame all of you who immediately move to the illegality argument itself. It's also been illegal before to make copies of your own music, but I don't think that stopped any of you. The case here is that OP got him/herself into a problem where they're no longer in legal territory and are wondering how to remain in ethical territory. The response to "do nothing" runs counter to everything I know about true hacker ethic. If you find a problem, fix it. To go back and hide in your hole and hope noone comes after you may be the most legally advisable (I am not a lawyer) but it's certainly not the most ethical. Don't ask OP to compromise themselves in favor of supporting a poorly written law.
The problem is, while you may have the same skills as a college-taught programmer you don't have the little piece of paper to verify them. However, most people are finding that that little piece of paper doesn't necessarily convey these abilities either. You need to update your CV beyond just a paper format. Try submitting a link with your paper CV that can demonstrate your programming ability and highlight your creativity and capabilities. That way they don't just read about what skills you claim to have, they can see what you actually do. This'll help you rise to the top.
I find it particularly interesting that their choice of performers is OneRepublic and The Black Keys. It's particularly odd because The Black Keys have some of the strongest independent credentials out there. They've been consistently published by independent labels and have really carved out their own musical niche by themselves. The idea that they're playing a concert for Microsoft is a bit... odd. I don't particularly care, however. If I was in the area I would be one of the first there for the show.
I can definitely back a lot of those. I also know quite a few people who would get right behind them, and I go to one of the most conservative universities in the country. Now if someone could just get that message out and *STICK* to it, then we'd have a contender to pull for.
You've been amazing at the helm. Thank you for exposing me to so many interesting stories and opinions. I would be a good deal more foolish if it wasn't for your work. We'll miss you!
The "100% Accuracy" thing is a bit of a stickler, but there are some fun examples in Social Psychology. I know they're not about being "nudged" but they *are* about influence and susceptibility and there should be many more examples in Social Psychology if you are interested in learning more:
-- Asch's Conformity Study: An individual was asked to rate the length of a line while placed in a group. The subject would answer after 5 other people, who were all instructed to agree on the wrong line. The choice was patently obvious, but a *very* large number caved. Those who did not were highly distressed, over LINES.
--Milgram's Obedience study: proved that the average person would electrocute someone to death if told to by an authority figure.
-- Stanford Prison Experiment: demonstrated that individuals fill the role that they are placed into. Atrocity is easy; standing up for your own values is hard.
All in all, I cannot prove with a causal reliability that you are, indeed, prone to influence. However, I know that I myself feel worried on a day to day basis about being influenced and often am despite my best attempts not to be. Either a.) you are a paragon among men (hats off to you) or b.) you have yet to have your own vulnerability proven to you.
The funny thing about Psychology is that you yourself are easily influenced and will only recognize it when you pay attention for it. Nudging is extremely common and has been used as a basic social method for as long was we've been interacting. Noone's immune. It's just important to realize when it's happening and to think twice about it.
Advertising *is* nudging, no question. It frequently manipulates decisions instead of persuading.
I'm actually an industrial engineering student who studies cognitive ergonomics (pretty much social engineering). I'm actually quite interested in "nudging technologies" and am doing a bit of research in related fields. I took a Psych class that discussed the relevance of subliminal messaging and covered a bit of the controversy surrounding it. The professor mentioned something strange: subliminal messaging doesn't make an individual do anything they otherwise would not do if persuaded. You can only get standard behavior that the individual would be interested in performing on their own. These nudging technologies do affect an individual's autonomy by affecting the choices they make, but, in the end, they still can make their own decision to take the elevator. An important contrast to consider is that the alternative to make people take the stairs more is to coerce them by making rules. Is that any more ethical? At least in a nudge system they have the option to do as they wish. Sure, the individual may not be aware that they are influenced, but it would be a system incredibly hard to abuse. I've had to deal w/ individuals who throw their newly emptied coke bottles into the trash when the trash can is directly next to the trash can. I don't feel that the best approach is to convince them with general aphorisms about the environment but rather to nudge them that way we can all get along to taking care of more important problems.
Do not rule out the importance of ethics in science. They guide us in possible repercussions of our actions. The interesting point is that there are more kinds of stem cells than just embryonic. To argue that embryonic cells are the only way is to ignore equally viable options. Simply to say that embryos aren't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery. I say that if there's a way to get scientific results while avoiding ethical concerns, then that should be our main focus.
Is it just me, or does this have the sound of an escalating digital cold war? Palm updates, Apple Updates, Palm Updates, Apple updates. Palm Pre gets a reputation of compatibility with Itunes for the hardcore fans, just as long as they choose to sync on even weeks when Apple's busy writing patches for the new backdoors.
This is interesting particularly coupled with a posting earlier about Wolfram Alpha and all of the trouble rising over its place in mathematical education. Under the math system that this article seeks to indict the introduction of an accessible mathematical tool such as WolframAlpha would be poison to everything they're trying to teach. However, in the system that he tries to forward, such technology would be a great boon. In the general attitude of /. being "Technology giveth and technology taketh away" wouldn't this be simply another variation on the same theme? Mathematics education needs some revitalization and what better way than to put power to teach oneself into the hands of eager students?
and most of them can be traced to certain groups (*cough*fundamentalists*cough*) waging a 30 year war on public education, and people refusing to see and treat education as what it is: an investment in the future national security and economic stability of the united states.
I think you're missing the point and wonder if it's possible that you haven't read the article fully. The state that education is in can't be simply blamed on one group and left to lie. Sure, some fundamentalist groups are busy fighting a nonsensical war on science and sexual education. However to claim that they have drug down math education is an outright red herring argument. Other groups may be just as much to blame. To quote "The Two Cultures of Mathematics" by W.T. Gowers, there was a cited cased from C.P. Snow as follows "A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientic equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?" Who is to say that the sort of ignorance demonstrated by these people is not also to blame? The case this particular article points out is that there is a particular cultural ignorance of mathematics in both conceptual and practical understanding. I'm sorry, but the issue at hand cannot be simply addressed by setting up the /. whipping boy of the ignorant right wing fundamentalist stereotype and giving him a good flaying.