All the responses posted to this one - especially those labeled "insightful" have themselves been either flamebait or ridiculous, while this one got the bad break of an early mod-down by a linux partisan who can't face the real problems within Linux.
Linux, at its core, is NOT user friendly. You can whine and complain all you like, but when normal hardware requires a ton of command-line stuff to push through and a script from a wiki site that may or may not work on YOUR particular distribution (and there's no standard between the distros) it is a LINUX problem that doesn't go away just because Linux people shout "we hate Micro$oft" really loudly.
The Linux community HAS to get beyond the idea that people ought to be building boxes specifically to run Linux. Parent post is a GREAT example of this: someone who's run a windows-based PVR for years, who gives Linux and MythTV a try, and finds out it doesn't work right.
This is the kind of person the Linux crowd is trying to convert to their cause, and yet what do they do when he gives them a shot? When he comes for help, does the Linux community help? Do they deal honestly and openly and say "yeah, we're having some trouble with this hardware right now, we're working on it and sorry it didn't work right"?
No.
He gets an insulting and completely undeserved "-1 Flamebait" moderation, he gets a dick posting a bunch of wiki links to old instructions that don't work on the latest distribution any more, and he gets spat on by a bunch of jerks who insult him for "buying the wrong hardware."
One actually insinuates that he's part of some giant DRM cabal simply for making a purchase of certain hardware years ago.
THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE LINUX COMMUNITY. Instead of being honest and open, instead of working on solutions, instead of having the simple integrity necessary to admit that their stuff didn't work and may need to be improved, they shout "heretic" and "burn it at the stake" whenever someone from "the outside" comes in... and these are exactly the kind of people they will one day need to win over if Linux is to succeed and get out of being a niche thing.
The worst thing you could do is feed the Wikipedia brand of nonsense to kids as "educational" material. Might as well give them a set of unshielded wires and an electric socket and tell them to learn about electricity. And it's not just the situations this Parker Peters describes above: you people fuck up on a pretty regular basis.
Well? I'm not comfortable knowing an "encyclopedia" infested with this kind of behavior is being given to kids as "educational" and "correct" learning material. How do you justify it?
when many schools wont allow research to be done on wikipedia itself which has the authority of the sources itself to back it
Actually, Wikipedia has: - Cherry-picked sources - Quotations taken out of context - Redundantly sourced crap (sources that turn out later to have themselves been sourced from... wikipedia). - NO way to fix any of these if an administrator or "consensus" of kooks sets up shop on a particular page and decides to edit-war en masse and proclaim that real, authoritative sources counter to their POV are "not reliable."
I encourage you to see how wikipedia really works. Spend a few hours reading the blog of a former Wikipedia administrator who saw how it was from the inside out.
Go on. I dare you. Read about the REAL wikipedia. And then realize that this horribly written stuff is going to be fed to schoolkids as an example of "researched" material.
How many times has something been "verified" on wikipedia... the "verification" coming from a "news story" somewhere... only to turn out that the news writer based his story (but didn't bother to list the source) on a preexisting wikipedia entry? I've lost count.
"Consensus" also runs into the same problems it always does when people with too much power try to control the "consensus".
I love this quote. It explains everything about what's wrong with Wikipedia:
"Why is this interesting? Because this is precisely the goal of the abusive administrators. They want, no, need, to drive away anyone new who disagrees with them, because if they did not, then ultimately they bear the risk of enough new users coming in to overturn their bogus "consensus" on the articles they control."
What's worse for Wikipedia is that even their best minds, the people who should have been welcomed and allowed to work and were essential to fixing the problems - in other words, those people who were NOT part of the "consensus" and were doing their best to work on fixing it - have constantly been abused and attacked and run off (or just banned) by people who have too much power, too many "ownership" issues over the encyclopedia, and too little sense to behave like human beings.
The blog I just linked to shows just a few of the people Wikipedia would have needed to NOT turn into a disaster, but it's too late now. They're all run off or permanently removed by stupid, insane policies that essentially amount to a carte-blanche for administrators and administrators' "friends" to be abusive.
Any time someone points out flaws within Islam, some/b/tard has to come along and start shitting over other religions. It's a standard debate tactic - try to distract and change the subject because what you're trying to defend is indefensible.
And yes, it's entirely possible for multiple religions to be wrong. However, there's only one major religion today that still tells its followers to stone people, cut their heads off, and kill them for being "unbelievers."
how come any time someone talks about what's wrong in the Muslim faith, the knee jerk reaction is from a bunch of/b/tards who want to shit all over other religions?
This has nothing to do with the argument, and NeutronCowboy's argument is "crap" as he puts it. It is entirely possible for MULTIPLE religions to be wrong and trying to distract from Islam's problems by attacking another religion is a poor debate tactic, a desperate attempt to distract the argument from something he knows he can't honestly defend.
This was a great reply. Far too many people parrot "religion of peace, religion of peace" over and over again and have never done any serious study of what Islam actually says.
Give the PP his karma back. This wasn't a "flamebait" post, somebody abused the mod system. We lack a "-1 disagree" for a fucking reason, the mod system is NOT supposed to be used that way.
Seriously - this has meaning. The guess that they pulled the game because of fears over rioting/threats or actual violence is a pretty good guess given the "objectionable" content that's being removed from the game.
Would you think they'd have removed it for a couple of lines in Yiddish? Or a Biblical quotation, or a Celtic pagan quotation? You can be 100% sure that they wouldn't.
Give Parent Poster his karma back. This wasn't "flamebait."
I find it really funny how every time this comes up, rather than fulfill the contractual obligations they originally signed with people, Comcrap has a bunch of its plants hop onto Slashdot screaming "pay us more money."
However, if you are the kind of person who needs lots and lots of bandwidth, it seems only fair you should pay more for it.
I'm not the person who needs "lots and lots of bandwidth." I expect that, rather than be let get away with this crap, Comcrap and the other telcos be required to live up to their contractual obligations.
They've screwed the customer, committed an amazing number of breaches of contract, and now want to have a do-over and get off scot free. I don't think we, the people, should let them.
I mean seriously here - RAY BECKERMAN is modded down as "flamebait", while AKAImBatmanTroll is getting "interesting" nods?
WTF is wrong with this system? A few minutes ago PP Moryath was at 5,Insightful and now it's "1, flamebait" - and for what? Because he let out salient points that backed up Beckerman's position?
Come on, enough is enough. Time to put a stop to the abuse of Slashdot's moderator system.
Someone must be trying pretty hard to protect their slashvertisement.
I mean seriously - EVERY person who's written in and disagreed with the review, no matter how much merit and insight in their post, is getting downmodded.
So how much did EA pay Slashdot to get this astroturfing "review" posted, huh?
I personally find it amazing
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
Every person who's posted that they think yes, this review gives too high a score and yes, this is a bogus review is being downmodded as "troll." I watched one move down from a score of 3:Insightful to -1:Troll in under two minutes.
I've never seen ratings move THAT fast before.
That right there tells me someone with serious access is doing the downmodding, and is even more evidence that this is a Slashvertisement that EA paid someone off to post this and overlook their DRM.
I've never seen a simple request get downmodded as "troll" so fast. And he's not the only one - EVERYONE who has pegged this properly as a fake review has been downmodded.
Someone's obviously trying to protect a fake slashvertisement that got slipped in as a bogus "news" story here.
Way over-rated!
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I've played it. It's not worth a 4/5. It is worth a 2.0-2.5/5 maybe once you get through the hassle of installing it, the crappy control scheme, the horribly inept pathing, and the fact that it's not a "game" but rather a disjointed set of minigames.
Hell, the "evolution" that was supposed to be the core of the gameplay is actually less complicated than the old SNES title EVO - how your creature looks has NOTHING to do with how it behaves or how well it lives.
That's reason enough to think that somebody at EA paid for a more-positive Slashvertisement. And probably a 15% "bonus" to list it as a "review" rather than a Slashvertisement.
I find it amazing
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 0, Troll
how every time someone calls out the plants and nonsense here, they get modded down "troll."
I've watched this user get chain-downmodded before, too. I think someone who gets mod points too often is just out to get them. And I think that's a shame because he's one of the most insightful users I've seen.
Probably safe to assume a new hole was found in something windows-ish and is making the rounds, gathering up all the vulnerable machines.
Before someone jumps on the "everyone should use Linux" bandwagon, Windows has over 90% of the market. Windows also has much more of the casual user market and much less of the enthusiast market - and the casuals don't keep a hawklike watch on their system.
Therefore, if you want to make a big botnet, compromising Windows is the way to go.
Someone found a new vulnerability, but didn't publicize it. Or they're exploiting the same old vulnerabilities (PICNIC, blank admin passwords, etc) and just stepped up their efforts again.
If your machine's admin password is blank and you're not behind a NAT, you are completely exposed. All the botnet guys have to do is get into the system through XP Pro's originally configured default drive shares and replace one commonly used file (say, a favorite new video game) with their payload. The user reinstalls the game figuring it got corrupted and it wipes out how they originally got in - but they're already in the system with a rootkit installed from the time the user tried to run your game, and it's a bot.
The unfortunate reality is that the largest vulnerability is, and will be, the human element. They want their login to be "easy" - so anyone who gets physical access to the machine gets root access with no password credentials, or they use a trivially-cracked password. They want to "simplify" their security arrangements. They trust an email sent by their friends (or sometimes even spoofed to look like it came from themselves) or "system administrator at your domain."
End result? More vulnerabilities.
Unfortunately, the "solution" involves either telling a lot of crybabies "no, you can't have it this way" or else changing human nature. And it's not in human nature to stand up to the crybabies (actually, an actual corporation never would - it's "bad customer relations.")
Let's not forget certain Louisiana Democrat politicians who've been caught with bribe money in their freezer, yet somehow the Democrats refuse to even censure them, let alone do the honorable thing and throw them out of office.
I wonder if he's doing the same thing in THIS evacuation. Likely, he is. Thankfully, we have Bobby Jindal (relatively honest, at least as Louisiana politicians go) in office rather than Kathleen "just slip it under the door of stall number three" Blanco this time around.
Ok: there was ONE transaction, three years prior, in which the card was activated
An activation transaction still shows up on a statement as a "transaction", but it's a direct one (done by phone call to the credit card company) and not a retail/merchant transaction. Unless the credit card company itself has a leak, the activation doesn't count for your claim that it was "used once."
It looks like we have a smart user here - someone who keeps an emergency card available. It's a smart move, because it increases your credit score by showing more available credit as well as functioning much like a "rainy day" fund when you really need it for some emergency. Plus, reading the comments, they used it as a good opportunity to pay things down with a balance transfer incentive program.
All companies have security flaws, banks and credit card companies are no different. Small transactions are frequently used to sort out "working" cards from dead after a leak; it's hardly surprising that the person started seeing $4-5 transactions when the thieves were "testing the waters" on his card. You get a lot of stuff out there like this too.
I think that the OP was right - banks and CC companies have a financial incentive (banks especially) to not look too hard for this. If they have to refund $10 when it's caught, but only 1 in 20 people catch it, then they just made $10 aggregate; multiply by a large number of fraudulent charges and you have a pretty big bonus for the CC company.
Re:STAND UP AGAINST MOD ABUSE, MOD PARENT UP
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not only that - every post from this one person in the discussion is being downmodded.
I agree with the AC, it looks a hell of a lot like someone/someone(s) with a pro-Obama stance and mod points are abusing the system and downmodding because of their opponent's signature.
The point being made, that the banks and credit card companies have a financial incentive to allow fraudulent transactions to occur (because they make money if the customer doesn't detect them), is insightful and not "trolling" at all.
We love F-Zero X a hell of lot more. It's impossible to enjoy multiplayer F-Zero GX, it gets boring and stupid.
On the other hand, you can make a hell of a drinking game out of F-Zero X: winner gets a drink. Slot Machine of Death FTW too!
Stupidest thing they ever did was take out the slot machine of death from multiplayer. Now, one slip and you just sit there bored off your ass while the remaining players either die or finish the course.
Youtube's not just tilted in relation to China/IOC's shenanigans here, they've regularly shown bias in what they'll delete on the pro/anti-George Bush, pro/anti-Islam, pro/anti-terrorism, and pro/anti-$cientology fronts.
Hell, they even give random people grief whenever some jumped-up 2-bit shyster attached to a media company comes calling.
If the post on the Pakistani government's stuff is "5, interesting" there's no way the following post deserves "-1, Flamebait" except that someone with an axe to grind decided to abuse the mod system early.
Slashdot Mirror
All the responses posted to this one - especially those labeled "insightful" have themselves been either flamebait or ridiculous, while this one got the bad break of an early mod-down by a linux partisan who can't face the real problems within Linux.
Linux, at its core, is NOT user friendly. You can whine and complain all you like, but when normal hardware requires a ton of command-line stuff to push through and a script from a wiki site that may or may not work on YOUR particular distribution (and there's no standard between the distros) it is a LINUX problem that doesn't go away just because Linux people shout "we hate Micro$oft" really loudly.
The Linux community HAS to get beyond the idea that people ought to be building boxes specifically to run Linux. Parent post is a GREAT example of this: someone who's run a windows-based PVR for years, who gives Linux and MythTV a try, and finds out it doesn't work right.
This is the kind of person the Linux crowd is trying to convert to their cause, and yet what do they do when he gives them a shot? When he comes for help, does the Linux community help? Do they deal honestly and openly and say "yeah, we're having some trouble with this hardware right now, we're working on it and sorry it didn't work right"?
No.
He gets an insulting and completely undeserved "-1 Flamebait" moderation, he gets a dick posting a bunch of wiki links to old instructions that don't work on the latest distribution any more, and he gets spat on by a bunch of jerks who insult him for "buying the wrong hardware."
One actually insinuates that he's part of some giant DRM cabal simply for making a purchase of certain hardware years ago.
THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE LINUX COMMUNITY. Instead of being honest and open, instead of working on solutions, instead of having the simple integrity necessary to admit that their stuff didn't work and may need to be improved, they shout "heretic" and "burn it at the stake" whenever someone from "the outside" comes in... and these are exactly the kind of people they will one day need to win over if Linux is to succeed and get out of being a niche thing.
You got that?
Suuuure. Lie some more please.
I've read this blog. I know how wikipedia works.
Or rather... how it doesn't work at all.
The worst thing you could do is feed the Wikipedia brand of nonsense to kids as "educational" material. Might as well give them a set of unshielded wires and an electric socket and tell them to learn about electricity. And it's not just the situations this Parker Peters describes above: you people fuck up on a pretty regular basis.
Well? I'm not comfortable knowing an "encyclopedia" infested with this kind of behavior is being given to kids as "educational" and "correct" learning material. How do you justify it?
when many schools wont allow research to be done on wikipedia itself which has the authority of the sources itself to back it
Actually, Wikipedia has:
- Cherry-picked sources
- Quotations taken out of context
- Redundantly sourced crap (sources that turn out later to have themselves been sourced from... wikipedia).
- NO way to fix any of these if an administrator or "consensus" of kooks sets up shop on a particular page and decides to edit-war en masse and proclaim that real, authoritative sources counter to their POV are "not reliable."
I encourage you to see how wikipedia really works. Spend a few hours reading the blog of a former Wikipedia administrator who saw how it was from the inside out.
Here's a great start.
Go on. I dare you. Read about the REAL wikipedia. And then realize that this horribly written stuff is going to be fed to schoolkids as an example of "researched" material.
You scared yet? I certainly am.
"Truth, not verifiability."
How many times has something been "verified" on wikipedia... the "verification" coming from a "news story" somewhere... only to turn out that the news writer based his story (but didn't bother to list the source) on a preexisting wikipedia entry? I've lost count.
"Consensus" also runs into the same problems it always does when people with too much power try to control the "consensus".
I love this quote. It explains everything about what's wrong with Wikipedia:
"Why is this interesting? Because this is precisely the goal of the abusive administrators. They want, no, need, to drive away anyone new who disagrees with them, because if they did not, then ultimately they bear the risk of enough new users coming in to overturn their bogus "consensus" on the articles they control."
What's worse for Wikipedia is that even their best minds, the people who should have been welcomed and allowed to work and were essential to fixing the problems - in other words, those people who were NOT part of the "consensus" and were doing their best to work on fixing it - have constantly been abused and attacked and run off (or just banned) by people who have too much power, too many "ownership" issues over the encyclopedia, and too little sense to behave like human beings.
The blog I just linked to shows just a few of the people Wikipedia would have needed to NOT turn into a disaster, but it's too late now. They're all run off or permanently removed by stupid, insane policies that essentially amount to a carte-blanche for administrators and administrators' "friends" to be abusive.
Any time someone points out flaws within Islam, some /b/tard has to come along and start shitting over other religions. It's a standard debate tactic - try to distract and change the subject because what you're trying to defend is indefensible.
And yes, it's entirely possible for multiple religions to be wrong. However, there's only one major religion today that still tells its followers to stone people, cut their heads off, and kill them for being "unbelievers."
how come any time someone talks about what's wrong in the Muslim faith, the knee jerk reaction is from a bunch of /b/tards who want to shit all over other religions?
This has nothing to do with the argument, and NeutronCowboy's argument is "crap" as he puts it. It is entirely possible for MULTIPLE religions to be wrong and trying to distract from Islam's problems by attacking another religion is a poor debate tactic, a desperate attempt to distract the argument from something he knows he can't honestly defend.
Remember, hell is exothermic.
How many slashdot trolls had mod points today?
This was a great reply. Far too many people parrot "religion of peace, religion of peace" over and over again and have never done any serious study of what Islam actually says.
Give the PP his karma back. This wasn't a "flamebait" post, somebody abused the mod system. We lack a "-1 disagree" for a fucking reason, the mod system is NOT supposed to be used that way.
How many slashdot trolls had mod points today?
Seriously - this has meaning. The guess that they pulled the game because of fears over rioting/threats or actual violence is a pretty good guess given the "objectionable" content that's being removed from the game.
Would you think they'd have removed it for a couple of lines in Yiddish? Or a Biblical quotation, or a Celtic pagan quotation? You can be 100% sure that they wouldn't.
Give Parent Poster his karma back. This wasn't "flamebait."
I find it really funny how every time this comes up, rather than fulfill the contractual obligations they originally signed with people, Comcrap has a bunch of its plants hop onto Slashdot screaming "pay us more money."
However, if you are the kind of person who needs lots and lots of bandwidth, it seems only fair you should pay more for it.
I'm not the person who needs "lots and lots of bandwidth." I expect that, rather than be let get away with this crap, Comcrap and the other telcos be required to live up to their contractual obligations.
They've screwed the customer, committed an amazing number of breaches of contract, and now want to have a do-over and get off scot free. I don't think we, the people, should let them.
Anyone else note one of the corrupt lawyers of the MafiAA somehow got appointed to a Colorado Judgeship?
Countdown till the MafiAA starts venue-shopping his direction in 3...2...1...
I mean seriously here - RAY BECKERMAN is modded down as "flamebait", while AKAImBatmanTroll is getting "interesting" nods?
WTF is wrong with this system? A few minutes ago PP Moryath was at 5,Insightful and now it's "1, flamebait" - and for what? Because he let out salient points that backed up Beckerman's position?
Come on, enough is enough. Time to put a stop to the abuse of Slashdot's moderator system.
Let's see:
AKAImBatman gets modded "interesting" for verbally insulting NY City Lawyer, a respected lawyer in intellectual property field.
Moryath gets modded "-1 troll" for calling AKAImBatman the troll he is.
Slashdot's fucked-up mod system at work again. Shame on the downmodders.
Someone must be trying pretty hard to protect their slashvertisement.
I mean seriously - EVERY person who's written in and disagreed with the review, no matter how much merit and insight in their post, is getting downmodded.
So how much did EA pay Slashdot to get this astroturfing "review" posted, huh?
Every person who's posted that they think yes, this review gives too high a score and yes, this is a bogus review is being downmodded as "troll." I watched one move down from a score of 3:Insightful to -1:Troll in under two minutes.
I've never seen ratings move THAT fast before.
That right there tells me someone with serious access is doing the downmodding, and is even more evidence that this is a Slashvertisement that EA paid someone off to post this and overlook their DRM.
I've never seen a simple request get downmodded as "troll" so fast. And he's not the only one - EVERYONE who has pegged this properly as a fake review has been downmodded.
Someone's obviously trying to protect a fake slashvertisement that got slipped in as a bogus "news" story here.
I've played it. It's not worth a 4/5. It is worth a 2.0-2.5 /5 maybe once you get through the hassle of installing it, the crappy control scheme, the horribly inept pathing, and the fact that it's not a "game" but rather a disjointed set of minigames.
Hell, the "evolution" that was supposed to be the core of the gameplay is actually less complicated than the old SNES title EVO - how your creature looks has NOTHING to do with how it behaves or how well it lives.
That's reason enough to think that somebody at EA paid for a more-positive Slashvertisement. And probably a 15% "bonus" to list it as a "review" rather than a Slashvertisement.
how every time someone calls out the plants and nonsense here, they get modded down "troll."
I've watched this user get chain-downmodded before, too. I think someone who gets mod points too often is just out to get them. And I think that's a shame because he's one of the most insightful users I've seen.
Probably safe to assume a new hole was found in something windows-ish and is making the rounds, gathering up all the vulnerable machines.
Before someone jumps on the "everyone should use Linux" bandwagon, Windows has over 90% of the market. Windows also has much more of the casual user market and much less of the enthusiast market - and the casuals don't keep a hawklike watch on their system.
Therefore, if you want to make a big botnet, compromising Windows is the way to go.
Someone found a new vulnerability, but didn't publicize it. Or they're exploiting the same old vulnerabilities (PICNIC, blank admin passwords, etc) and just stepped up their efforts again.
If your machine's admin password is blank and you're not behind a NAT, you are completely exposed. All the botnet guys have to do is get into the system through XP Pro's originally configured default drive shares and replace one commonly used file (say, a favorite new video game) with their payload. The user reinstalls the game figuring it got corrupted and it wipes out how they originally got in - but they're already in the system with a rootkit installed from the time the user tried to run your game, and it's a bot.
The unfortunate reality is that the largest vulnerability is, and will be, the human element. They want their login to be "easy" - so anyone who gets physical access to the machine gets root access with no password credentials, or they use a trivially-cracked password. They want to "simplify" their security arrangements. They trust an email sent by their friends (or sometimes even spoofed to look like it came from themselves) or "system administrator at your domain."
End result? More vulnerabilities.
Unfortunately, the "solution" involves either telling a lot of crybabies "no, you can't have it this way" or else changing human nature. And it's not in human nature to stand up to the crybabies (actually, an actual corporation never would - it's "bad customer relations.")
Let's not forget certain Louisiana Democrat politicians who've been caught with bribe money in their freezer, yet somehow the Democrats refuse to even censure them, let alone do the honorable thing and throw them out of office.
And of course this latest evac is brought to you by the Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin Memorial Motor Pool Oil Slick.
I wonder if he's doing the same thing in THIS evacuation. Likely, he is. Thankfully, we have Bobby Jindal (relatively honest, at least as Louisiana politicians go) in office rather than Kathleen "just slip it under the door of stall number three" Blanco this time around.
Quoting from their response:
Ok: there was ONE transaction, three years prior, in which the card was activated
An activation transaction still shows up on a statement as a "transaction", but it's a direct one (done by phone call to the credit card company) and not a retail/merchant transaction. Unless the credit card company itself has a leak, the activation doesn't count for your claim that it was "used once."
It looks like we have a smart user here - someone who keeps an emergency card available. It's a smart move, because it increases your credit score by showing more available credit as well as functioning much like a "rainy day" fund when you really need it for some emergency. Plus, reading the comments, they used it as a good opportunity to pay things down with a balance transfer incentive program.
All companies have security flaws, banks and credit card companies are no different. Small transactions are frequently used to sort out "working" cards from dead after a leak; it's hardly surprising that the person started seeing $4-5 transactions when the thieves were "testing the waters" on his card. You get a lot of stuff out there like this too.
I think that the OP was right - banks and CC companies have a financial incentive (banks especially) to not look too hard for this. If they have to refund $10 when it's caught, but only 1 in 20 people catch it, then they just made $10 aggregate; multiply by a large number of fraudulent charges and you have a pretty big bonus for the CC company.
Not only that - every post from this one person in the discussion is being downmodded.
I agree with the AC, it looks a hell of a lot like someone/someone(s) with a pro-Obama stance and mod points are abusing the system and downmodding because of their opponent's signature.
The point being made, that the banks and credit card companies have a financial incentive to allow fraudulent transactions to occur (because they make money if the customer doesn't detect them), is insightful and not "trolling" at all.
Almost forgot: we have F-Zero X on Wii download. THAT ROCKS.
You're wrong, dude.
We love F-Zero X a hell of lot more. It's impossible to enjoy multiplayer F-Zero GX, it gets boring and stupid.
On the other hand, you can make a hell of a drinking game out of F-Zero X: winner gets a drink. Slot Machine of Death FTW too!
Stupidest thing they ever did was take out the slot machine of death from multiplayer. Now, one slip and you just sit there bored off your ass while the remaining players either die or finish the course.
Youtube's not just tilted in relation to China/IOC's shenanigans here, they've regularly shown bias in what they'll delete on the pro/anti-George Bush, pro/anti-Islam, pro/anti-terrorism, and pro/anti-$cientology fronts.
Hell, they even give random people grief whenever some jumped-up 2-bit shyster attached to a media company comes calling.
If the post on the Pakistani government's stuff is "5, interesting" there's no way the following post deserves "-1, Flamebait" except that someone with an axe to grind decided to abuse the mod system early.