Really? My first impression, upon reading the Ars article, was that it was sensationalistic, ham-handed slop, emitted by someone who not only didn't understand what the hell he was talking about, but didn't appear to have bothered even trying. Then I checked the byline, and all became clear: Dan Goodin is a hack of long disrepute [1] [2], barely competent to regurgitate content generated by others, and certainly not up to anything remotely resembling original analysis or reporting.
The surprise is not that, when given a relatively subtle and complex topic such as this, he made such an utter hash of it that the subject of his interview came off like a paranoid schizophrenic. The surprise is instead that Ruiu didn't know better than to give a third-string jackass like Goodin an interview in the first place.