The economy is due for a massive slow down, that will last along time during 07-09 due to rising inflation and oil prices and possible full scale wars and massive climate change reducing food supplies causing more price rises in staples. Add to that rising interest costs and dropping house prices killing peoples equity.
So I take it you're a "Glass is Half Empty" sort of person?
Oh, you're not. My apologies. You would have mentioned a bird flu epidemic in there somewhere.
Downside is that if you've got Kazza or other stuff installed and sharing you're nailed...
So go off of public P2P altogether and get on I2P, TOR, or some other anonymous network. Sure, it's slower, but it will probably be too costly from a computing standpoint for the a given adversarial organization to nail you. The more they harass people, the more people will be driven underground to these "anonymous" networks. As of right now, it isn't illegal (in most places) to participate in one of these networks and hopefully it'll stay that way. The recent action on the TOR network in Germany (admittedly by mistake) shows that some nodes may get taken, though.
So, if you absolutely need that new episode of Lost, encrypt your "gray area" data appropriately with Truecrypt (or whatever software will give you plausible deniability) and get on an anonymous network. These anonymous networks are already being used for reasons that are much more important, but the more people that use them, the better off we'll all be. Personally, I recommend I2P.
One thing I've always wondered about. Why wouldn't the RIAA/MPAA just hire a third party to cull IP addresses from the trackers by joining the swarm? They can record the IP addresses that upload data. Why would they need to bother piratebay (or whatever tracker site) to get the IP addresses? I mean, you could get have a bittorrent client log every single IP that uploads data to you. Blow the data away and start again. Leave it on for weeks, and you'll get thousands of IP addresses from the more popular torrents.
Since they are now part of this method, would the act of their agent joining the download swarm (and consequently uploading the content) be an implicit admission that a torrent is an accepted distribution channel of the copyrighted material? Or is the fact that it's only little chunks of the data from any individual host that poses the problem? Really, who cares about the tracker? You can get the IP addresses of people through much more direct means.
Please, someone tell me why you can't use this method.
So can anybody even point me to a link on the web to anywhere that talks about this in a logical that even atempts to explain how I could be hurt by this?
I don't have a link, but personally, I'm of the opinion that not allowing gay marriage damages the sanctity of marriage.
Though slowly becoming undone, there is still a "taboo" nature of being homosexual. Individuals that are homosexual may not come to terms with it as a result of societal pressures. They marry into a heterosexual marriage and have kids. The end result is a divorce, a broken home, and emotional stress on all involved. If people were able to realize who they are sooner by being free from those social pressures, those unfortunate types of marriage problems might be reduced or nearly eliminated.
If you don't want somebody else to see it, never type it.
I'm guessing that you imply this by "type", but I'd mention IM by name in that as well, since most IM traffic is unencrypted. I set up a computer system a few years ago that was connected to an ethernet port of a core switch. I turned on traffic monitoring on the switch and the port got a copy of all traffic through the switch forwarded to it. I set up the computer to log all ICQ and AIM conversations to a SQL database, just with some Perl scripts and monitoring network packets. Message, user, time, IP, everything. It was ridiculously simple to implement and I think I used AIM Sniff at the time, though I'm not completely sure. My motivation for it at the time was to demonstrate that IM was insecure.
Want to justify the need for mandatory IM encryption or even IM blocking? Demo one of these for your boss. Or perhaps you just want some gossip/blackmail material. Especially in an IM happy organization where users can install IM clients at will. Very illuminating.
That if I get a monopoly in Monopoly(r) that my future games have to be government regulated?
If you sold one of your monopolies (or any other asset) in game to another player for game money, the IRS couldn't care in the least. If you were to accept real money for that transaction, then the IRS would like to know.
This is the way that the law works right now. FTA: Under current law, Saxton said if a transaction takes place solely within a virtual world there is no "taxable event."
With the changes that the IRS apparently wants, would there be a tax on these "untaxable events"? As these virtual economies grow more, they'll approach the scale and complexity of a traditional economy. Granted, they are regulated by a corporation rather than a government, but it could be argued that corporations already control traditional economies to some extent. Once they reach that level, will the IRS start taxing equivalent "untaxable events" in foreign economies as well? Because that's the logical conclusion of it and it seems that we're on that road.
-----
Put one Counter onto Pawn when it comes into play. Pawn may only have a maximum of one Counter at any time.
TAP: Pawn moves one square forward. Remove Counter from Pawn if one is present. If Counter has been removed while tapping this way, Pawn may move an additional square forward.
TAP: Pawn moves one square forward and one square to either the right or left, if enemy is present there. Enemy is automatically removed. Remove Counter from Pawn if one is present.
(Forward is the direction away from you, toward your opponent.)
-----
Hmmm. I may have played too much MtG over the years.
I also find these games hard to start out with because you have to spend so much time trying to remember what all the cards do. If they guy you're playing agains has 10 cards layed out, you can't just take a quick glance and figure out your current situation. With a game like chess, you can at least tell if you're in big trouble by taking a quick look at the board.
I'll admit that it might take a bit longer to pick up on the basic rules compared to chess, but both MtG and chess are still games that are constrained by rules. If you had little idea of how to play Chess, you'd have no idea if you were in Big Trouble either. Humans are quite capable of learning, and even mastering complex systems with all sorts of wacky rules.
In fact, I'd say that MtG is a bit easier than chess. You get to read the card if you don't know what it does! Though there are lots of strategic combinations, the limits placed on each card are greater when compared to a chess piece, and you know exactly how it can be used. With chess, your opponent may move a piece to a spot, and you may have no idea why.
but the Republican-owned media company saw the ad and said they didn't like it so they canceled the contract -- despite having put up much more extreme pro-republican billboards.
So they should have been forced to put up a billboard of something that they didn't agree with? Do billboard companies qualify as a similar media channel to radio and tv stations, in that they must allow equal time for political parties? They don't use a chunk of the public spectrum, but they might have a use contract with governments for the land next to roads? I'm not sure, but if so, then what they did is wrong. But if it's a private company without these requirements, they might not be forced to put these advertisements on their billboards. It isn't cool, but it wouldn't be illegal.
If there are no other billboard companies in town that have close to the same reach to the audience as the one they tried initially, then maybe there are some serious anti-trust issues they should look into.
The problem with that is there are people that will blindly accept his vitriolic opinion as truth and fact when there is a lack of an alternate viewpoint. If the mature, logical gamers don't "give him attention" by responding, the other side of the debate won't even be heard, and it will just be the hardcore gamers making stupid comments and generally making a bad impression on the so-called "normal people". Jack Thompson's rhetoric sounds reasonable if someone isn't familiar with the subject he's attacking, or isn't informed.
Although, reading this preview account of it, I can't think that the judge, if he is at all fair, will see what's all that bad about it. Jack Thompson may have tried to select the particular judge to his own liking, though.
Yeah, you're right. I guess that might make it a feature that would be applied to the dedicated server customers only. Which might be bad, since the smaller sites that use those shared services and are just starting out might need the most shielding from things like this.
That's a fairly foolish thing to do legally in defending yourself in a lawsuit. I might be able to understand it because they switched lawyers, but still! Move it to federal United States jurisdiction and then not show? How stupid!
Get your tin-foil hats on tight! What if Spamhaus was paid off by a third party to intentionally bring the lawsuit to the federal level, and then intentionally lose it in such a fashion? Will it pave the way for US federal law precedent, thus opening the gates for other US companies to bring a litigious form of corporate warfare to entities that are at odds with their interests in other countries? Too Paranoid?
I know the com/net/org TLDs are pretty popular, but it seems like the non-USA part of the world is using country TLDs for many things. Maybe it will just end up further segregating the TLD usage and have little effect besides wasting everyone's time.
And the result of that slippery slope, if there are enough successful lawsuits, is that hosting companies will start IP filtering for the web sites and services they host. Another service offering! Don't want to raise the ire of some US-based (or other litigious country-based) company? Just block incoming access attempts from that country's IPs. If you get sued and could counter-sue for damages (and win), go there and win and then take a vacation.
"My server's traffic doesn't go to this country, your honor. Check the computer in front of you. You can't even get to my website from this country."
Even the badly tech-illiterate know when you can't get to a website, and should be able to make that logic leap.
So there's a possible solution, but I don't like it one bit.
I've only waited like that one time, for the midnight release of Halo 2, and it was inside. Probably not the best use of my time, but really, it was more about the camaraderie with the other people in line with me. The talking about video games, playing GBAs, and the anticipation, rather than getting the product itself.
I think it's partially intended as a hint about what a future without network neutrality might be like.
--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I think most college students would accept "I don't know" as a reasonable (and possibly smart-assed) answer.
An alternative answer might be also be "We Don't Know". The inclusive nature of "We" has the tendency to spread blame or other negative view around on a given group rather than a single individual. You hear "We" a lot in politics, since it also spreads responsibility around as well. If a project fails spectacularly, an individual can deflect blame from themselves to "the group" with "We failed..." Or if the project succeeds, the person has the option of saying "We succeeded!" to look like a team player or "I succeeded!" to take credit.
I use "We" all the time in my speech and writing without even thinking about it. It comes from the pseudo-political nature of the school district that I used to work in.:(
More like they are throwing knives at you from across the street. Sure, you could run over there to stop the person at the risk of getting hurt bad, but you'll probably be injured a lot less if you just walk away. On the other hand, if you walk away, that person is still throwing the knives.
So you think that these "partnerships" are somehow indicative of the grand ushering in of a brave new world? That putting music videos and TV shows up online will somehow make it all different? This is still all about money. Don't think that just because these corporations do this means that they have "seen the light" and are changing/have changed their ways. Everyone will still get compensated. Well, except for the average artist; those musicians will still get screwed and fade into obscurity, because they didn't get quite popular enough or sell enough albums.
Know where the real change is at? The slow takeover of these conventional media producers by smaller, more agile labels and media producers. With digital distribution costs tending toward zero with time, the Internet being pretty much accessible to anyone, and production costs dropping fast for anyone with an average computer, the large corporations may not be needed anymore. Even the manufacture of physical media is becoming easier and cheaper. It's happening in the indie community already. Granted, the signal:noise ratio might be worse, but social networking services like last.fm (and countless others) will act like a filter. They will connect people with music and media that they will like based on their tastes, and could bring a truly talented musician's release to the top fairly fast without the need for a music label's "promotion". It's like word of mouth on crack. We see this slowly starting to happen with music, and it will happen with television, and movies as well.
Don't get me wrong, I think (hope) that we will enter a world where everyone will get the media they want, for a fair price, the artists will be compensated fairly, and happy. Everyone wins, and we still could have popular superstars. The problem is that it sounds far too idyllic for the current market. The big companies are really entrenched in their ways and resistant to change. A new generation of executive management that grew up with online music may be needed in these companies before any real adapting takes place. The number of indie labels may explode in that time. The majority of dinosaurs didn't adapt; they died because they couldn't adapt fast enough, and were replaced by the smaller, though more adaptable mammal. I think the same will happen here.
To bring the thread back onto the oddly off-topic subject, one of the traits of the medical definition of euphoria is that the feeling of happiness is not necessarily well-founded. I don't think that "a big change" is imminent, I think that evidence does not point to it happening, so I believe the view is not well-founded. And the GGP poster had a rather giddy, euphoric tone. You are right about one thing, though...I'm still me.
Google owning youtube will be a catalyst factor in getting the dinasours realize that we are living in a new world, and pushing the whole WORLD's people for anything outdated is folly at best.
Yeah, I take euphoria producing drugs too, though mine are prescribed. Quite a fantastic feeling, even if it sometimes makes one a bit reckless.
It's FUD on the part of the submitter, but probably just to the average Slashdot user. Namely, the "BBC shows how vulnerable XP Home really is" part. None of this is news to us, that an unpatched, Windows machine, sans hardware or software firewall that is exposed to the net will get compromised.
As a geek, I've got one word for that: DUH.
I think even calling popup dialogs received by the Messenger service a "nuisance" is a little much. The service is just doing what it is designed to do. Just turn the service off. And the article sometimes says that the machine was "attacked", not that it was necessarily compromised. You can tell from the style of writing that the article is intended for the folks out in user-land, to possibly remind or educate them about some of the more invisible dangers of connecting to the internet. Many people might feel safe with a machine such as that one "since I don't go on the web that much", when that just isn't true.
This is not "News for Nerds", but it could fall into "stuff that matters" for the average computer user, in the interest of security. I can show you firewall logs from home showing you all the hits for all the same type of traffic that the article enumerated, and you'll understand it, but the average computer user will just go, "Huh? What's with the numbers?"
Slashdot Mirror
The economy is due for a massive slow down, that will last along time during 07-09 due to rising inflation and oil prices and possible full scale wars and massive climate change reducing food supplies causing more price rises in staples. Add to that rising interest costs and dropping house prices killing peoples equity.
So I take it you're a "Glass is Half Empty" sort of person?
Oh, you're not. My apologies. You would have mentioned a bird flu epidemic in there somewhere.
Downside is that if you've got Kazza or other stuff installed and sharing you're nailed...
So go off of public P2P altogether and get on I2P, TOR, or some other anonymous network. Sure, it's slower, but it will probably be too costly from a computing standpoint for the a given adversarial organization to nail you. The more they harass people, the more people will be driven underground to these "anonymous" networks. As of right now, it isn't illegal (in most places) to participate in one of these networks and hopefully it'll stay that way. The recent action on the TOR network in Germany (admittedly by mistake) shows that some nodes may get taken, though.
So, if you absolutely need that new episode of Lost, encrypt your "gray area" data appropriately with Truecrypt (or whatever software will give you plausible deniability) and get on an anonymous network. These anonymous networks are already being used for reasons that are much more important, but the more people that use them, the better off we'll all be. Personally, I recommend I2P.
One thing I've always wondered about. Why wouldn't the RIAA/MPAA just hire a third party to cull IP addresses from the trackers by joining the swarm? They can record the IP addresses that upload data. Why would they need to bother piratebay (or whatever tracker site) to get the IP addresses? I mean, you could get have a bittorrent client log every single IP that uploads data to you. Blow the data away and start again. Leave it on for weeks, and you'll get thousands of IP addresses from the more popular torrents.
Since they are now part of this method, would the act of their agent joining the download swarm (and consequently uploading the content) be an implicit admission that a torrent is an accepted distribution channel of the copyrighted material? Or is the fact that it's only little chunks of the data from any individual host that poses the problem? Really, who cares about the tracker? You can get the IP addresses of people through much more direct means.
Please, someone tell me why you can't use this method.
So can anybody even point me to a link on the web to anywhere that talks about this in a logical that even atempts to explain how I could be hurt by this?
I don't have a link, but personally, I'm of the opinion that not allowing gay marriage damages the sanctity of marriage.
Though slowly becoming undone, there is still a "taboo" nature of being homosexual. Individuals that are homosexual may not come to terms with it as a result of societal pressures. They marry into a heterosexual marriage and have kids. The end result is a divorce, a broken home, and emotional stress on all involved. If people were able to realize who they are sooner by being free from those social pressures, those unfortunate types of marriage problems might be reduced or nearly eliminated.
The End of the World As We Know It.
It's actually an event prophesied in the Book of Charles.
If you don't want somebody else to see it, never type it.
I'm guessing that you imply this by "type", but I'd mention IM by name in that as well, since most IM traffic is unencrypted. I set up a computer system a few years ago that was connected to an ethernet port of a core switch. I turned on traffic monitoring on the switch and the port got a copy of all traffic through the switch forwarded to it. I set up the computer to log all ICQ and AIM conversations to a SQL database, just with some Perl scripts and monitoring network packets. Message, user, time, IP, everything. It was ridiculously simple to implement and I think I used AIM Sniff at the time, though I'm not completely sure. My motivation for it at the time was to demonstrate that IM was insecure.
Want to justify the need for mandatory IM encryption or even IM blocking? Demo one of these for your boss. Or perhaps you just want some gossip/blackmail material. Especially in an IM happy organization where users can install IM clients at will. Very illuminating.
Titles like Lego Star Wars cost less money to make, and sell more copies.
And the Lego SW games are Fun, as well. Someone should probably mention that.
There's nothing quite like busting Lego bricks with a lightsaber wielding Lego Jedi.
But think of how much more work you can get done without all those distractions!
That if I get a monopoly in Monopoly(r) that my future games have to be government regulated?
If you sold one of your monopolies (or any other asset) in game to another player for game money, the IRS couldn't care in the least. If you were to accept real money for that transaction, then the IRS would like to know.
This is the way that the law works right now. FTA: Under current law, Saxton said if a transaction takes place solely within a virtual world there is no "taxable event."
With the changes that the IRS apparently wants, would there be a tax on these "untaxable events"? As these virtual economies grow more, they'll approach the scale and complexity of a traditional economy. Granted, they are regulated by a corporation rather than a government, but it could be argued that corporations already control traditional economies to some extent. Once they reach that level, will the IRS start taxing equivalent "untaxable events" in foreign economies as well? Because that's the logical conclusion of it and it seems that we're on that road.
Shouldn't that be:
-----
Put one Counter onto Pawn when it comes into play. Pawn may only have a maximum of one Counter at any time.
TAP: Pawn moves one square forward. Remove Counter from Pawn if one is present. If Counter has been removed while tapping this way, Pawn may move an additional square forward.
TAP: Pawn moves one square forward and one square to either the right or left, if enemy is present there. Enemy is automatically removed. Remove Counter from Pawn if one is present.
(Forward is the direction away from you, toward your opponent.)
-----
Hmmm. I may have played too much MtG over the years.
I also find these games hard to start out with because you have to spend so much time trying to remember what all the cards do. If they guy you're playing agains has 10 cards layed out, you can't just take a quick glance and figure out your current situation. With a game like chess, you can at least tell if you're in big trouble by taking a quick look at the board.
I'll admit that it might take a bit longer to pick up on the basic rules compared to chess, but both MtG and chess are still games that are constrained by rules. If you had little idea of how to play Chess, you'd have no idea if you were in Big Trouble either. Humans are quite capable of learning, and even mastering complex systems with all sorts of wacky rules.
In fact, I'd say that MtG is a bit easier than chess. You get to read the card if you don't know what it does! Though there are lots of strategic combinations, the limits placed on each card are greater when compared to a chess piece, and you know exactly how it can be used. With chess, your opponent may move a piece to a spot, and you may have no idea why.
but the Republican-owned media company saw the ad and said they didn't like it so they canceled the contract -- despite having put up much more extreme pro-republican billboards.
So they should have been forced to put up a billboard of something that they didn't agree with? Do billboard companies qualify as a similar media channel to radio and tv stations, in that they must allow equal time for political parties? They don't use a chunk of the public spectrum, but they might have a use contract with governments for the land next to roads? I'm not sure, but if so, then what they did is wrong. But if it's a private company without these requirements, they might not be forced to put these advertisements on their billboards. It isn't cool, but it wouldn't be illegal.
If there are no other billboard companies in town that have close to the same reach to the audience as the one they tried initially, then maybe there are some serious anti-trust issues they should look into.
Giving him attention is letting him win.
The problem with that is there are people that will blindly accept his vitriolic opinion as truth and fact when there is a lack of an alternate viewpoint. If the mature, logical gamers don't "give him attention" by responding, the other side of the debate won't even be heard, and it will just be the hardcore gamers making stupid comments and generally making a bad impression on the so-called "normal people". Jack Thompson's rhetoric sounds reasonable if someone isn't familiar with the subject he's attacking, or isn't informed.
Although, reading this preview account of it, I can't think that the judge, if he is at all fair, will see what's all that bad about it. Jack Thompson may have tried to select the particular judge to his own liking, though.
Yeah, you're right. I guess that might make it a feature that would be applied to the dedicated server customers only. Which might be bad, since the smaller sites that use those shared services and are just starting out might need the most shielding from things like this.
That's a fairly foolish thing to do legally in defending yourself in a lawsuit. I might be able to understand it because they switched lawyers, but still! Move it to federal United States jurisdiction and then not show? How stupid!
Get your tin-foil hats on tight! What if Spamhaus was paid off by a third party to intentionally bring the lawsuit to the federal level, and then intentionally lose it in such a fashion? Will it pave the way for US federal law precedent, thus opening the gates for other US companies to bring a litigious form of corporate warfare to entities that are at odds with their interests in other countries? Too Paranoid?
I know the com/net/org TLDs are pretty popular, but it seems like the non-USA part of the world is using country TLDs for many things. Maybe it will just end up further segregating the TLD usage and have little effect besides wasting everyone's time.
It's a slippery slope.
And the result of that slippery slope, if there are enough successful lawsuits, is that hosting companies will start IP filtering for the web sites and services they host. Another service offering! Don't want to raise the ire of some US-based (or other litigious country-based) company? Just block incoming access attempts from that country's IPs. If you get sued and could counter-sue for damages (and win), go there and win and then take a vacation.
"My server's traffic doesn't go to this country, your honor. Check the computer in front of you. You can't even get to my website from this country."
Even the badly tech-illiterate know when you can't get to a website, and should be able to make that logic leap.
So there's a possible solution, but I don't like it one bit.
I've only waited like that one time, for the midnight release of Halo 2, and it was inside. Probably not the best use of my time, but really, it was more about the camaraderie with the other people in line with me. The talking about video games, playing GBAs, and the anticipation, rather than getting the product itself.
I think it's partially intended as a hint about what a future without network neutrality might be like.
--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Your sig is very apt.
P.S. If I've offended any marketing people here, that was my intention.
They might be offended, but as long as they are your Target Demographic and your Reach is high through this Medium, they should be happy for you.
I think most college students would accept "I don't know" as a reasonable (and possibly smart-assed) answer.
An alternative answer might be also be "We Don't Know". The inclusive nature of "We" has the tendency to spread blame or other negative view around on a given group rather than a single individual. You hear "We" a lot in politics, since it also spreads responsibility around as well. If a project fails spectacularly, an individual can deflect blame from themselves to "the group" with "We failed..." Or if the project succeeds, the person has the option of saying "We succeeded!" to look like a team player or "I succeeded!" to take credit.
I use "We" all the time in my speech and writing without even thinking about it. It comes from the pseudo-political nature of the school district that I used to work in. :(
More like they are throwing knives at you from across the street. Sure, you could run over there to stop the person at the risk of getting hurt bad, but you'll probably be injured a lot less if you just walk away. On the other hand, if you walk away, that person is still throwing the knives.
So you think that these "partnerships" are somehow indicative of the grand ushering in of a brave new world? That putting music videos and TV shows up online will somehow make it all different? This is still all about money. Don't think that just because these corporations do this means that they have "seen the light" and are changing/have changed their ways. Everyone will still get compensated. Well, except for the average artist; those musicians will still get screwed and fade into obscurity, because they didn't get quite popular enough or sell enough albums.
Know where the real change is at? The slow takeover of these conventional media producers by smaller, more agile labels and media producers. With digital distribution costs tending toward zero with time, the Internet being pretty much accessible to anyone, and production costs dropping fast for anyone with an average computer, the large corporations may not be needed anymore. Even the manufacture of physical media is becoming easier and cheaper. It's happening in the indie community already. Granted, the signal:noise ratio might be worse, but social networking services like last.fm (and countless others) will act like a filter. They will connect people with music and media that they will like based on their tastes, and could bring a truly talented musician's release to the top fairly fast without the need for a music label's "promotion". It's like word of mouth on crack. We see this slowly starting to happen with music, and it will happen with television, and movies as well.
Don't get me wrong, I think (hope) that we will enter a world where everyone will get the media they want, for a fair price, the artists will be compensated fairly, and happy. Everyone wins, and we still could have popular superstars. The problem is that it sounds far too idyllic for the current market. The big companies are really entrenched in their ways and resistant to change. A new generation of executive management that grew up with online music may be needed in these companies before any real adapting takes place. The number of indie labels may explode in that time. The majority of dinosaurs didn't adapt; they died because they couldn't adapt fast enough, and were replaced by the smaller, though more adaptable mammal. I think the same will happen here.
To bring the thread back onto the oddly off-topic subject, one of the traits of the medical definition of euphoria is that the feeling of happiness is not necessarily well-founded. I don't think that "a big change" is imminent, I think that evidence does not point to it happening, so I believe the view is not well-founded. And the GGP poster had a rather giddy, euphoric tone. You are right about one thing, though...I'm still me.
Google owning youtube will be a catalyst factor in getting the dinasours realize that we are living in a new world, and pushing the whole WORLD's people for anything outdated is folly at best.
Yeah, I take euphoria producing drugs too, though mine are prescribed. Quite a fantastic feeling, even if it sometimes makes one a bit reckless.
It's FUD on the part of the submitter, but probably just to the average Slashdot user. Namely, the "BBC shows how vulnerable XP Home really is" part. None of this is news to us, that an unpatched, Windows machine, sans hardware or software firewall that is exposed to the net will get compromised.
As a geek, I've got one word for that: DUH.
I think even calling popup dialogs received by the Messenger service a "nuisance" is a little much. The service is just doing what it is designed to do. Just turn the service off. And the article sometimes says that the machine was "attacked", not that it was necessarily compromised. You can tell from the style of writing that the article is intended for the folks out in user-land, to possibly remind or educate them about some of the more invisible dangers of connecting to the internet. Many people might feel safe with a machine such as that one "since I don't go on the web that much", when that just isn't true.
This is not "News for Nerds", but it could fall into "stuff that matters" for the average computer user, in the interest of security. I can show you firewall logs from home showing you all the hits for all the same type of traffic that the article enumerated, and you'll understand it, but the average computer user will just go, "Huh? What's with the numbers?"
No doubt this will continue as long as conflict of any sort exists.
Which is to say, likely forever.
Crap.
I hate carrots.