S'why I mentioned that I didn't read the article expressly. I know it happens a lot, and I'd rather people think I think I'm being insightful because I'm lazy... as opposed to a cocky SOB that doesn't feel the need to read things before sounding off on them.
Given that there are direct references to two different virtual card hoaxes in the "attack" itself maybe everyone's looking at it from the wrong slant...
My gut reaction is that this is some (extreme) degree of internet art. This article about hoaxes being essentially viruses in and of themselves says a lot about what may have motivated this particular form of expression.
Maybe whoever made this virus was making a statement about what is "known" (What is well known not to be a virus). They may have also been making a statement about anti-hoax information and/or the "truth".
I didn't read the initial article, mind you -- but the blurb cut seemed to have everything essential in it already.
Slashdot Mirror
S'why I mentioned that I didn't read the article expressly. I know it happens a lot, and I'd rather people think I think I'm being insightful because I'm lazy... as opposed to a cocky SOB that doesn't feel the need to read things before sounding off on them.
It was a fun thought while it lasted.
Given that there are direct references to two different virtual card hoaxes in the "attack" itself maybe everyone's looking at it from the wrong slant...
My gut reaction is that this is some (extreme) degree of internet art. This article about hoaxes being essentially viruses in and of themselves says a lot about what may have motivated this particular form of expression.
Maybe whoever made this virus was making a statement about what is "known" (What is well known not to be a virus). They may have also been making a statement about anti-hoax information and/or the "truth".
I didn't read the initial article, mind you -- but the blurb cut seemed to have everything essential in it already.