And yet, even though I spend more time than I should on the internets, I'd never heard about it. Also, some of the people on this site would have only been 12 or 13 (or younger!) in 2004 so might not have been that likely to have heard, or at least paid attention to, an article like this at the time.
My point is that just because something is 'old' or 'common knowledge' doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually widely known by people. Probably better to move on and look at something else than waste your energy pointing out that something is 'old'.
