[ExI] inserting backdated posts, was RE: Who is safe?

[spike]

... On Behalf Of David Lubkin
Subject: Re: [ExI] inserting backdated posts, was RE: Who is safe?

Spike wrote:

>>I agree.  The story itself contains contradictions.  We hear of 
>>classified information that was taken from an unsecured link, but ...I
suspect it 
>>was counterfeit, or was liberally mixed with intentionally counterfeit
posts.

>A tweet led me to a URL with an odd "document", allegedly from the State
Department leaks: <http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txt>.
>Was this an actual DoS document that some clown classified? Or is it a hoax
page? -- David.

David we've been Rick rolled.  {8^D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling

It did give me an idea.  Wikileaks wants information to be free.  Very well,
we shall consider everything on wikileaks free.  For some of you
coderdemalions it will be child's play to code the following:  download the
entire contents of wikileaks, copy all, paste to  a separate file, randomly
change the post date, append to the original file, sort by date.  Now we
have twice as much information as wikileaks, and we are just getting warmed
up.  Take the resulting file, copy all, paste to a separate file, the code
takes paragraphs or sentences and randomly changes their order within the
post, and randomizes the date.  Append to original file, sort by date.  Now
we are four times the size of wikileaks.  Now copy all, paste to a separate
file, randomly mix paragraphs from randomly chosen posts, change date, sort.
Append to original file, to make 8 times the paltry gigabyte in wikileaks.  

Randomly insert a few Rick Astley videos, so that now one can legitimately
claim to have *over* 8 times more "information" than wikileaks.  Depending
of course on how one defines the term "information."  Is corrupted
information information?

Sell advertisement space on the site to make actual money off of all that
free information.  Everyone wins.

spike