Iron Man's New Villain — an Open Source Terrorist

An anonymous reader writes "In a recent interview on Comic Book Resources about his new continuation of the Marvel comic-book series 'Invincible Iron Man,' Matt Faction provides information about the the new series (debut will be May 7). The villain is Ezekiel Stane, son of Obadiah Stane (the villain of the new Iron Man movie opening on May 2). Whereas Obadiah was a ruthless billionaire who fought as the Iron Monger, Zeke 'rejects the strategies of his father as being the crude tactics of Attila the Hun.' Instead, he will be 'a post-national business man and kind of an open source ideological terrorist.' As the author puts it, 'Windows wants to be on every computer desktop in the world, but Linux and Stane want to destroy the desktop.' The concept has gone over well on the CBR forums."

Comments

Open Source Terrorism?

[Pikoro]

Some how I get the feeling that that is where this is all headed...

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[jd]

Just because the movie is sponsored by SCO, Microsoft and NVidia does NOT mean that it is prejudice. Honest, gov.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

it isn't open source already? seem to be a good bit of openness and sharing in terms of tactics, weapons (look at all the bomb/IED plans available freely.), etc.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Max Littlemore]

I'm sure if the movie was sponsored by Red Hat, Sun and IBM, Iron Man would get his arse kicked by Big-Iron Man - who runs Linux of course.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Bellum Aeternus]

Just because the movie is sponsored by SCO, Microsoft and NVidia does NOT mean that it is prejudice. Honest, gov. How in heck did NVidia make into that sentence? MSFT and SCO I can see... but NVidia? Do they not make a Linux driver, or an OpenGL driver or something I'm not aware of?

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[MrNaz]

Doesn't the ridiculous labelling of open source software as "terrorism" call into question all the other things that get labelled terrorism? Examples:

The ANC anti-Apartheid movement under the white South African government was labelled a terrorism. Nelson Mandela was public enemy number 1, the Osama Bin Laden of his time and place. White South Africa bought into their government's propaganda.

The White Rose organisation was labelled terrorist, and its leaders beheaded. for their non-violent anti-Nazi position in pre-WWII Nazi Germany. The German body politic bought into their government's propaganda.

Today, the word terrorism gets thrown around like some Muslim / Arab / Islamist (whatever that means) is hiding in the bushes outside your house with his AK-47 pointed at your door just waiting for you and your kids to step out so he can vent his hatred of your freedoms. The American people buy into their government's propaganda.

When you hear the label "terrorist" used, you should think about who is doing the labelling, and what exactly their agenda is rather than just taking their word for it that you are in danger and need their protection.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Wiseman1024]

In fact, nVidia has shown much more interest in supporting Linux and providing with decent drivers than ATi.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[compact_support]

Still, we have ATi (AMD) specifications at least. For many users, closed drivers are as good as no drivers.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Muslim / Arab / Islamist (whatever that means)

"Whatever that means"? Oh, please. That's the most sophomoric of all the rhetorical tactics the anti-war folk try to use to discredit the government. There's no ambiguity in the term: just as a White Supremacist is someone who believes that Caucasians should dominate America (through violence if necessary), and a Zionist is someone who believes that Jews should dominate the Middle East (through violence if necessary), so an Islamist is someone who believes that Muslims should dominate the parts of the world they identify as their core territory, i.e. the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of south/central Asia including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and north-west India (through violence if necessary).

I don't disagree with the broad thrust of your point; you are quite right that terrorism is not actually a real threat to most Americans. And certainly the presence of terrorists elsewhere in the world is not a valid reason to take away the liberties of Americans who are not terrorists and do not support them. We must be vigilant to ensure that doesn't happen. But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the suffering of people elsewhere in the world. What's the point of having the world's best military if you don't use it to stomp on some evildoers now and again? ;)

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[fractoid]

For a few ideological zealots, closed source drivers are as good as, or worse than, no drivers. For "many users", closed source drivers make the product work and thus are fine.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Jesus_666]

What's the point of having the world's best military if you don't use it to stomp on some evildoers now and again? ;)

Not being one yourself. When you put the world's most powerful military and the world's most powerful corporations together and add one of the world's most important resources in an area occupied by people easy to label as evil, you end up with a very nasty situation in which it's hard to unambiguously define anyone as the "good guy".

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[chromatic]

For a few ideological zealots, closed source drivers are as good as, or worse than, no drivers.

Assuming those binary blobs even work on your chosen operating system and processor, or the versions thereof.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ANC did bomb quite a bit of what could only be called civilian targets.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[ettlz]

What's the point of having the world's best military if you don't use it to stomp on some evildoers now and again? ;)

Yeah, the USA might yet try doing that in earnest.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[MrNaz]

I agree, however one must take into account the fact that the ANC viewed the entirety of white South Africa as the enemy. White South Africans on the whole (with few but very noble and notable exceptions) had racist views (partly the result of government propaganda and party the result of humans' latent xenophobia) and supported the government's racist policy. Furthermore, the average white South African treated blacks as slaves and expendable labourers, which made them appear as hostiles in the eyes of the blacks. Factory foremen brutalised their black workers, farmers often shot their farmhands just to make a point to the others and mining companies did not bother with even the most rudimentary of safety precautions for their mine workers, because in the eyes of management, the only good black was a dead black. Just because a person does not wear a uniform and salute, does not mean they cannot be a military type aggressor.

In fact, the US definition of "enemy combatant" is deliberately designed to allow civilians to be targeted by military action.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[somersault]

Yeah, I run Damn Fickle Linux on my underclocked MC68000 with 256KB of RAM. I didn't engineer a PCIx slot into my setup just to have nVidia spit in my face like this!

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[somersault]

We must be vigilant to ensure that doesn't happen. Hah! That was almost as good as the big iron joke above.. listen!

*whoosh whoosh whoosh whoosh*

That's the sound of the patriot act and its buddies who passed overhead a few years ago, I guess it took a while for the sound to catch up..

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[somersault]

McDonald's had better look out!

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[mqduck]

"No ambiguity in the term"? When a roadside bomb attacking military vehicles is "terrorism", the word has lost all meaning.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[mqduck]

Don't forget the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Not only was its being called terrorist slander to begin with, but it's now abandoned the civil war and a major player (in fact, the largest player) in the creation of a new secular, democratic republic. And it's still on the official US terrorist list.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[tpheiska]

The White Rose organisation was labelled terrorist, and its leaders beheaded. for their non-violent anti-Nazi position in pre-WWII Nazi Germany. The German body politic bought into their government's propaganda. Sorry for the nitpicking, but die Weisse Rose was actually in action in wartime Nazi Germany (42-43), not pre-war. This is important as one of the main figures, Sophie Scholl, lost her husband in Stalingrad, which is thought to have provoked her into action. Pre-war, she was actually a member of the BDM, a female equivalent of Hitler Youth. There's a movie about the movement too, I encourage checking it out.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[nguy]

If it wasn't clear to you that governments love to use "terrorism" to demonize inconvenient political, social, or economic movements, you really haven't been paying attention. This has been going for as long as there have been governments.

For a stupid and corrupt movie script writer to do this really is only the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[oliderid]

I think this is far more simple than that (or it could be summarized by): You fear what you don't know. Most people don't know what open source means. So this is a potential source of fear. Most people don't know open source, but they have heard of it (especially the targeted audience:Young male). Hollywood movie plays with it.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Kjella]

Last I checked, they had not released the R600 3D specs, and it remains to be seen how quickly you'll see specs for the latest and greatest hardware. It's not like good stable drivers pop up the day they release specs either. It's great when and if they come, but nVidia's drivers are here today, fully capable and in my experience stable. Would I like to replace it? Yes, but it's the kind of light itch I'll handle once I get the gaping wounds covered...

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll reply here even though you post again a bit lower. And I post as Anonymous since I am actually South African.

Did you just read a book about South Africa or perhaps pay a short visit at some time? Your knowledge of the country would suggest so.

The ANC did in fact bomb innocent people. They did in fact attack an Anglican while a sermon was taking place. By the way, that same convicted bomber is now chief of police in Johannesburg.

And your use of the term "a few noble whites" is insulting and ignorant. Just because a few people give something a bad name (think suicide bombers != representative of Islam) does not mean everyone subscribes to it. And don't give me bullshit about democracy and voting for another party with different policies. Just look at Zimbabwe and how useful democracy is there.

Rather speak what you know of instead of making an arse out of yourself on a public forum.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[totallyarb]

Apartheid is always going to be a touchy subject, so I have to watch my words here, but... Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. That his cause was noble is beyond doubt, and his leadership of the post-Apartheid South Africa was magnificent, but the fact remains that he was the leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, which carried out bombings of civilian targets and which was therefore a terrorist organisation.

They say that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, and I agree with the parent post that we have to be very sceptical whenever somebody uses the term "terrorist" because they usually have an agenda in doing so. But we also have to be careful not to condone acts that are genuinely terrorism just because we don't think the perpetrators are bad people. The world isn't made up of saints and sinners, and sometimes even good people cross a line.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[PopeRatzo]

But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the suffering of people elsewhere in the world. What's the point of having the world's best military if you don't use it to stomp on some evildoers now and again?

"Turn a blind eye to suffering?" Hell, friend, we caused most of that suffering thank you very much. Americans get so little thanks for all we do.

As far as "what's the point of having a military if you can't stomp on evildoers"...

That's exactly what the rest of the world is thinking.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[totallyarb]

...farmers often shot their farmhands just to make a point to the others...

Serious citation needed here. You can't make such a sweeping statement (*often*?!?) without giving at least some proof. I paid quite a lot of attention to the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I don't remember hearing any such thing.

...the average white South African treated blacks as slaves...

That's a gross exaggeration. The average white South African was more or less indifferent. They played no part in actively oppressing blacks, but were happy to accept the advantages that the systemic oppression brought them, so long as it didn't cause too much trouble. It's hard to get people to stand up when other people's rights are being trampled, isn't it? Not a lot of Americans complained about the Trail of Tears either.

The trouble with politics is that it's the extremists who are most likely to be politically active. Decisions are made by those who show up, and those tend to be the people with strong views. Very few Russians in 1916 were enthusiastic communists; the rest were just prepared to go along with it. And very few South Africans in 1948 were hardcore racists; but they were OK with the fact that their government was made up of scumbags and that is their guilt.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[AvitarX]

They are not fully capable.

The h.264 acceleration does not work in Linux.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Wiseman1024]

I'm a free software advocate, but even I understand that drivers, while they could very well be open sauce, are not essential as long as they work, are reliable, and are provided for a reasonable number of platforms. I've never had problems with nVidia's drivers, nor I've felt the need to look at the sauce, nor I've felt nVidia would do anything bad to me with their closed sauce drivers. In fact, their business is in the graphics cards market. I already paid them, they got what I wanted from me; now their job is to please me with driver support and quality if they want me to buy my next card from them. And things are going pretty well, I'm inclined to buy from nVidia again.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[brewstate]

"No ambiguity in the term"? When a roadside bomb attacking military vehicles is "terrorism", the word has lost all meaning. Not if they freely distribute the makings of said bomb. Sorry couldn't help myself.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[sm62704]

For a few ideological zealots, closed source drivers are as good as, or worse than, no drivers.

For some reason I had visions of that Leslie Nielson movie where Ray Charles has a cameo as a bus driver, and the one movie where Tommy Chong played a school bus driver and ODed on drugs while driving it, leaving it with no driver.

Ray: "Closed sourse, next stop"

Passenger: "Let me out here, please!"

-mcgrew

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the submitter forgot to mention was Obadiah Stane was the son of Jizz Stane.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[sm62704]

Yesterday's communist is today's terrorist. Anti Flag said it well in Anatomy of your enemy:

10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war: Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives. It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated. We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.

First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.

Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you. Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job, they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!

Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.

Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information

Iron Man anti-open source movie, anyone? Remember, this is an American movie, and the multinational corporations own and control the US government

this can be done through state run media. Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information. Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.

Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different. Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.

Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party. Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between. One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.

Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom." This can also be achieved by the use of flags.

Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity. It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."

Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones. Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.

Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears. Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.

I remember the "duck and cover" drills. The tactics would be competely useless if there was an atomic explosion, it had no purpose whatever except to create and maintain an atmosphere of fear.

-mcgrew

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[fractoid]

As I understand it, that's what the bomb itself does, very rapidly. ;)

Oohhh you meant "instructions for making" rather than "ingredients. Never mind. :P

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[g4b]

Just remember... there was a time, when ATi didn't provide open drivers, nor specifications...

I always had the feeling, they open their specs, because they can't hold up with nvidia and closed source driver development...

and until today, I still prefer nVidia with closed source drivers over ATi with open drivers on my desktop...
even if nvidia has glitches with rects/shadows in opengl sometimes, and leaves nice grey stripes on my desktop with compiz (something which happened in windows too some time ago), the 3d, playback, 2d and so on work greatly and fast!
The closed ATi drivers don't offer everything, and the open ones cause Xv+kaffeine to crash my XServer from time to time, or have mouse cursor problems, and I have to tweak around all the time... so with ATi I can switch between performance+bugs and slowness+stability, in nvidia i have to install closed drivers from time to time but it is fast and stable... I prefer second option.

But that might change in future, of course.
But I wouldnt depict nVidia as evil, just because ATi (which was less supportive to linux) now opens its driverbase.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[sm62704]

When a roadside bomb attacking military vehicles is "terrorism", the word has lost all meaning.

"Terrorism" was originally defined as violence against civilians to affect politics. How are actions against soldiers in any way considered "terrorism"? Yet the American government called the barracks bombing (pre-911, under Clinton IIRC) "terrorism" and the present terrorist-in-chief (if military actions against soldiers is terrorism then?) considers roadside bombs to be "terrorism", then as you say, the word has lost all meaning.

It is now just a propaganda ploy.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[sm62704]

I think the GP merely misspelled "southern" and "American". Easy slip of the keyboard. ;)

Not a lot of Americans complained about the Trail of Tears either.

Only the indigenous ones! Now that typo I can't understand; people talk of "native" Americans; well, I'm a native. I was born here. They should in fact say Indigenous Americans, if they're so pedantic that the word "Indians" won't do.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

would you like a pie with that sauce, sir?

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Mr. Slippery]

the fact remains that he was the leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, which carried out bombings of civilian targets and which was therefore a terrorist organisation.

If bombing civilians makes an organization terrorist, then any government which has engaged in mass aerial bombardment or artillery strikes is a terrorist.

Not that I disagree with that conclusion. It's all about who writes the history.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[sm62704]

You fear what you don't know

No, I fear what I KNOW. Of course, what one knows may in fact not be accurate. People fear that their kids will be killed by a school shooter despite the minimal actual danger, thanks to the american "journalists". I fear heights; but I broke both arms falling off a swingset when I was seven, so that fear is well founded. I don't fear polar bears despite how dangerous they are, because the only ones I've ever seen are in zoos.

No, using open-source as a villian is clearly propaganda. People don't fear open source - NOW. They may after seeing this piece of shit propaganda piece.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Foobar of Borg]

Sorry for the nitpicking, but die Weisse Rose was actually in action in wartime Nazi Germany (42-43), not pre-war.

GP may have been thinking of the Edelweiss Pirates (yar!) which did begin just prior to WWII. They were also largely non-violent and enjoyed hiking, singing, and sex.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a few ideological zealots, closed source drivers are as good as, or worse than, no drivers. Spoken like a true terrorist!

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[cold fjord]

"No ambiguity in the term"? When a roadside bomb attacking military vehicles is "terrorism", the word has lost all meaning.

The original post's line "No ambiguity in the term" reference was to Islamist, not terrorism. I'm not sure how that was confusing. But since you bring it up....

Do you think most people could go out on a limb and agree that suicide vest attacks at funerals, car bombings of schools, mass kidnappings (where the victims are likely to end up in mass graves ), and roadside bombs targeting children are still terrorism? What about attacking worshipers at a mosque with rockets? What about when they try to destroy an entire village? What about poison gas attacks on city government?

The fact that terrorists attack military and police units doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. The presence of a few police or soldiers at a site being attacked doesn't mean that the attack isn't terrorism.

The word terrorism hasn't lost its meaning, but some people seem to lack the ability to discuss it in a meaningful and reasonable way.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Sancho]

I've never had problems with nVidia's drivers, nor I've felt the need to look at the sauce, nor I've felt nVidia would do anything bad to me with their closed sauce drivers. So? Other people have.

Nvidia's drivers have had bugs in them in the past. Bugs which other people could have fixed if they'd had access to the source. Instead, we wait for Nvidia's release cycle to be complete (and, might I add, they tend to add new features in with their bugfixes--a software development no-no.)

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Just remember... there was a time, when ATi didn't provide open drivers, nor specifications...

I always had the feeling, they open their specs, because they can't hold up with nvidia and closed source driver development...

Oh, quit spouting off about things you know nothing about. ATi released their interface specifications almost immediately after they were acquired by AMD.

Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[ircharlie]

"The ANC anti-Apartheid movement under the white South African government was labelled a terrorism"

Umm... would that maybe be because they blew stuff up? I can understand the outrage at calling open source developers terrorists but, regardless of how just the cause may be, using bombs to achieve political objectives might deservedly lead to the label "terrorists".

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DrgnDancer]

Actually, the binary blobs contain an encrypted tarball of the source which they untar and custom compile. When you run the installer, it checks to see if it has an availabel precompiled drive for your precise architecture. 90% of the time it doesn't and just compiles from source.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Hal_Porter]

Don't forget the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Not only was its being called terrorist slander to begin with, but it's now abandoned the civil war and a major player (in fact, the largest player) in the creation of a new secular, democratic republic. And it's still on the official US terrorist list.

They killed thousands of civillians in a war. Here's what Amnesty International said
http://archive.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA310462005?open&of=ENG-NPL

Examples of the lack of commitment to human rights by the CPN (Maoist) are plentiful. Maoist forces have staged several attacks recently on civilians and civilian objects, including political activists and schools. On 15 April, Maoists reportedly surrounded Bargadwa village, Somani VDC, Ward 7 in Nawalparasi district and rounded up all villagers. They then reportedly separated all the boys and men aged between 14 and 40 and summarily executed ten men and one boy. On 29 April, Maoist cadres reportedly abducted and killed Dan Bahadur Shreebastav, chairman of the Kapilvastu District Monitoring Committee, and on 9 May shot dead Bhagwan Das Shrestha, chairman of the Chitwan District Monitoring Committee. None of these victims were legitimate military targets.

Last month, Maoist forces also carried out a spate of attacks on schools in the context of a two-week campaign for the closure of all private schools initiated on 14 April 2005. Among the schools targeted were a school in Nepalgunj, Banke district, on 17 April and another in Kalyanpur, Chitwan district on 21 April. Three children were reportedly injured when the Maoists threw a bomb at students at a school in Khara, Rukum district, on 17 April. Hundreds of schools across the country remain closed due to threats by Maoists. Furthermore, Maoist forces have regularly abducted large numbers of students from schools for political indoctrination and propaganda campaigns. In a recent example, reports from Salyan district indicate that as many as 200 students from remote villages were abducted around 17 May. None of these targets can be described as military â" they were all civilians and civilian objects the targeting of which is prohibited under international humanitarian law.

We are also concerned that Maoist forces have abducted, tortured and killed civilians, whom they accused of "spying" and other crimes, and security force personnel whom they had captured. Among recent cases is Lila Singh, a 23-year-old karate practitioner from Mahendranagar, Kanchanpur district who was abducted from her home on 29 April allegedly on suspicion of spying. To date, her relatives have not heard anything about her fate or whereabouts. On 16 May 2005, Shanker Sarki, a soldier, who had returned home from Congo where he had served in the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, was abducted from his home in Dhangadi, Kailali district by 12 armed Maoist cadres in civilian dress and killed. Torture and extrajudicial executions are similarly prohibited, under international law, in all circumstances.

Now the government has basically surrendered and called elections where the Maoists have had free range to intimidate, something they have a long experience in. Here's what the UN said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL140233

KATHMANDU, June 23 (Reuters) - Activists from the youth wing of Nepal's former Maoist rebels are creating a "climate of fear" by abducting and beating people, the United Nations said on Saturday.

The UN body said on Friday that Maoists, who ended a decade-long insurgency in November, were among those preventing other parties from functioning freely in rural areas ahead of an assembly election at the end of this year.

On the BBC they interviewed people who said that they were voting for them to stop them killing people! Seems like te

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am South African (be it young) and my mother and father both protested heavily against apartheid. Every white person I know did have maids that were taken care of. My mother helped pay for our maid's trail with her abusive husband. My aunt paid for her boat boy's funeral after he had stolen 4000 rand from her. The families that I knew Looked after the blacks they employed. Thats not to say it was the same all over, but the middle and upper classes were kind.
The biggest problem with apartheid was the heavy restrictions on education and thus work. This caused problems when we switched because we had basically community college grads (or less) running the country. The tribes had their assorted universities, which had trained lecturers and professors, but not near the quality of Cape Town University. Now that all the whites were fired and untrained blacks employed. Cholera is back, there are roiling brown outs, the economy is down, small jobs (like a maid) are non-existent, roads are failing apart. Before, South Africa was a first world country.
Mbeki is best friends with Mugabe, who killed off Zimbabwe. Zuma, who looks to be our next president is a rapist.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[GXTi]

Incorrect. The installer merely compiles a wrapper around the blob in order to interface it with your kernel. The installer is not the "blob"; you can extract the (clearly unencrypted) tarball from it, as is done in many distributions to automate the build.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[colmore]

Once you've had the experience of a system software upgrade rendering hardware unusable, and the manufacturer flat doesn't want to provide new drivers for old equipment, you will immediately see the value of open source drivers.

A working closed driver is nice when it supports your system. An open driver means that if more than four or five hardcore geeks out there run a similar system as you, you WILL have a driver.

So no, for day to day use on current consumer desktops that are free to update and reinstall whenever, closed drivers aren't a big deal. That isn't the only type of system out there.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DavidShor]

Then please, give me a definition of terrorism that does not make the US military a terrorist organization(And remember not to use intent! Governments do not have feelings, and the slain do not care about the motivations of their killers).

Once you do this, then explain how the US would not be a state sponsor of terror, based on our confirmed historical support of right-wing paramilitaries in Nicaragua, and our more recent involvement funding warlords in Somalia, and violent separatist groups in Iran.

For extra-credit, justify the US's refusal to prosecute perpetrators the My Lai massacre, or our WW2 era concepts of total war, or even better, the African National Congress's tendency to or Irgun.

After you finish with the mental acrobatics necessary to do such a thing, then apply these new and broad standards to Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Mahdi army.

The point? Things are not black and white, and we do not possess any moral high-ground upon which to condemn others. Terrorism is just a tactic, one used for good and bad. And at the same time, a tactic that kills far less people then organized war.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[tabrisnet]

That has to be one of the craziest theories I've heard yet!

To try to dispel this nutty theory, let's bring some truth to the table.

They rather have the tarball contain several compiled versions of the combined module (specific to your platform/version), and a copy of a) a source shim b) a binary blob.

If they don't have an appropriate combined module for your platform/version, they will instead attempt to compile the shim and link the binary blob into it.

By no means would they put in encrypted source, as some smartass would just figure out how to intercept the files while they're decrypted.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Toonol]

If it wasn't clear to you that governments love to use "terrorism" to demonize inconvenient political, social, or economic movements, you really haven't been paying attention. This has been going for as long as there have been governments.

You're absolutely right; but I've seen many posters in this thread go too far in rejecting that idea. Some of the groups labeled as 'terrorist' are vile, evil, and deserve to be wiped off the Earth. Weakening the definition to include all enemy factions is harmful not just because it demonizes undeserving groups, it softens criticism of groups deserving that name.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DavidShor]

I just want to provide some context for those who listen to Anonymous cowards.

South Africa was never a first world country, if you included the huge black majority that was held in well... apartheid. The economy is actually doing very well, and has consistently grown at a rate of 5-7% per year. It is now quite a bit richer than it was in 1991. There are rolling blackouts, but that is mainly a result of the high energy prices that have hit the rest of the world.

What scares me most about this poster, is that she fails to see the biggest problem with Apartheid. That 85% of the population was systematically oppressed and denied the right to vote.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DavidShor]

You never considered that maybe, the other parties historic ties to the monarchy discredited them in the eyes of their people? This would explain why they even won seats in Kathmandu, where they had no ability to "intimidate" voters due to the heavy army presence.

The Maoists are not going to take over and set up a Maoist regime, India and China wouldn't allow it.

But the GP's point, is that their frequent terrorism was justified, in that it freed the country from dictatorial monarchy.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DavidShor]

It's pretty clear that Apartheid wouldn't have ended as quickly as it did if it were not for the ANC's terrorist tactics. Because of that, the ANC's terrorism was justified.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DavidShor]

Pro-apartheid parties won consistently every year in free and democratic(if white only) elections. If anti-apartheid parties won, but were denied the right to take power, then your Zimbabwe analogy would make sense. Instead, anti-apartheid parties never won more then 30% of the vote in any South African election.

In fact, a referendum was held in 1992 to determine whether the public supported the ruling party's negotiations to dismantle apartheid. Despite the reigning international sanctions, riots, and 30 years of terrorism, the "No" vote got 31% of the vote.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[c_woolley]

Hard to believe that I am actually going to respond to this, but what the hell...

I would have to say that Nelson Mandela was not exactly viewed as the Osama Bin Laden of his time. Yes, his country's government did label him as a terrorist, and there are a few others that define him as a terrorist because the movement he was associated with did use violence as a means for political change...But that is about as far as the comparison goes. The slamming of airliners into buildings full of civilians is a little different or even slamming an airliner full of civilians into a military building. And more to the point, the World Trade Center which was full of Jews in the opinion of a few Muslim extremist groups...quite a bit different from Nelson Mandela's approach.

While I am at it, let me be very clear when I point out that although Americans were effected by Al-Qaeda attacks on Sept. 11th, there are MANY countries that have come under attack from these terrorists, both before and since that incident. It is unfortunate that when many around the world today hear Muslim or Islamist, that people do tend to view a violent image of a suicide bomb-wearing Arab. However, it is not just Americans that think this way. Perhaps you should try and see what is going on in the world around you and notice how the people of other countries view subway bombs, car bombs, passenger train derailments, sex slavery, opium trade, enforcement of children into a warlord's personal military, slaughtering villages for political gain...I really could go on for quite some time. When you get the opportunity to see a marketplace blown up and see the horrors of blood streaming down a 3-year old girl, who is clinging on to her dead mother; driving up next to a pack of wild dogs gnawing on the carcass of a dead child who was shot in the head for learning in a school sponsored by Western government; seeing women mutilated after being raped and the men of their village killed, then six months later, the same attackers come through to kill the pregnant women because it would be shameful for those women to carry the children of the men who raped them...then you can start to pretend to have enough worldly experience to make generalizations like you do. Until then, don't downplay terrorism from behind your computer screen as a mythical beast dreamt up by governments. While it is true that many of you will never see terrorism yourself firsthand, don't dishonor or disregard those of us who have, or the families of those who have.

As for the OP, it's a movie. I doubt the general public will EVER link Open Source and terrorism...simply because the majority of the general public doesn't even know what Open Source is.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[totallyarb]

Well, that's an opinion Machiavelli would have approved of.

The problem is that if you allow that logic, all terrorism is justified. Let's rewrite your statement as "It's pretty clear that America's occupation of Iraq wouldn't have ended as quickly as it did if it were not for Al-Quaeda's terrorist tactics. Because of that, Al-Quaeda's terrorism was justified." Do you still agree? If so, I think you're in the minority.

It's an age-old philosophical question: Can immoral acts be condoned if they're in a good cause? As far as I'm concerned, the answer is no, but I recognise that there are a lot of different opinions on the matter.

In any event, it's all very well saying "it's for a good cause", but defining a good cause is a very subjective thing. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a terrorist who didn't think his cause was good.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[operagost]

If bombing civilians makes an organization terrorist, then any government which has engaged in mass aerial bombardment or artillery strikes is a terrorist.

No, it's not, unless it purposely strikes a known civilian target.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Hal_Porter]

The Maoists are not going to take over and set up a Maoist regime, India and China wouldn't allow it.

Right, because China stopped Burma from setting up a repressive state, or Sudan, or Pol Pot's Kampuchea, or North Korea....

Actually they want to turn all of them into client states as a buffer against the West. The fact that life in all of them is pretty miserable is not really a concern to the Chinese government. In fact since they don't believe in democracy at home, complaining about a lack of it in their allies would be a bit unwise domestically.

India backed the Nepali Congress Party, like the US and UK. They have just announced that the Nepali king will go into exile in India. In fact politically if not geographically you could say India is part of 'the West' now. Hmm, maybe since 'the West' is now defined by having a democratic government rather than geography, maybe we should think of a new name for it, like 'The Free World'

Since Congress seems to have been decimated in the election, 'The Free World' does't have much say on what the Maoists do next. They planned to marginalize the Maoists and promote the other parties, but they seem to have lost. This is not good for Nepalis.

I read that post election the Maoists have held talks with China and said that 'Tibet is an integral part of China and they won't allow Nepali territory to be used as a base for Tibetan separatism', by which they presmably mean they will kill, imprison or deport the Tibetan exiles. Doesn't sound too democratic by the way, does it? But somehow I don't see the Chinese government complaining.

Even before the election, the Nepal Maoists were cited along with North Korea by China
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080328/COMMENTARY/282837929/1012

To counter growing international criticism, on March 20, China's official Xinhua news agency trumpeted a statement of support from the North Korean dictatorship that "denounces the unsavory elements of their moves to seek 'independence of Tibet' and scuttle the upcoming Beijing Olympics, and supports the Chinese government in its efforts to ensure social stability and the rule of law in Tibet and defend the fundamental interests of the Tibetan people." Xinhua also cited the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) which "strongly condemns the incident that put at risk the freedom and sovereignty of the Chinese people."

I'd say Nepal is well on the way to client state status.

But the GP's point, is that their frequent terrorism was justified, in that it freed the country from dictatorial monarchy.

He said it was slander to call them terrorists. I pointed out that it wasn't. They have deliberately targetted civillians and used terror to influence politics, which is terrorism.

I found another comment on this

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/04/15/nepalese_vote_to_give_peace_a_chance/2819/

Finally, and very importantly, the fear factor played a major role in the unprecedented landslide that destroyed the CPN-UML party, which has now resigned from the government, and crippled the mighty Nepali Congress.

Arun Paudel, who was campaigning from his hometown in Gorkha district, said, "People were genuinely afraid of the Maoists." More than 10 years of armed conflict that left over 13,000 people dead and two years of "peaceful" intimidation and extortion, left its mark on the minds of the Nepalese people.

In the West they may call this appeasement, but here is it called "give peace a chance." The thinking goes like this, "If the Maoists want power, give it to them. Then, at least, we can dream again of peace."

Making people vote for you so you stop killing them certainly sounds like terrorism to me.

And my point is that there isn't any sign s

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[camg188]

Doesn't the ridiculous labelling of open source software as "terrorism" call into question all the other things that get labelled terrorism?

Iron Man if a work of fiction. The "open source terrorist" is a fictional comic book character. So, no the labelling of open source software as "terrorism" IN A COMIC BOOK does not call into question the labeling of terrorists in real life.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DamnStupidElf]

For a few ideological zealots, closed source drivers are as good as, or worse than, no drivers. For "many users", closed source drivers make the product work and thus are fine.

A few ideological zealots such as the kernel developers who actually improve Linux? There's no point in trying to track down the cause of panics in development kernels when blobs are loaded.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[johannesg]

2010: "it's pretty clear that the occupation of Iraq wouldn't have ended as quickly as it did if it were not for al queada's terrorist tactics. Because of that, al quaeda's tactics were justified."

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DamnStupidElf]

I heard a story once about this guy who was so pissed off that his proprietary printer driver didn't work that he went and wrote his own stack of free software so he wouldn't have the problem again.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[HermMunster]

Because it was an illegal act. If a civilian in the US were to attack our government troops it would be an illegal act. Granted it wouldn't be considered terrorism. But when other terrorist organizations that have attacked civilians to affect politics and then that same organization attacks the military of another nation then it is terrorism. Also, consider that these were not attacks of one government on another which was supported by the people. This was an illegal attack by a known terrorist organization that attacked and murdered civilians in the past.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DamnStupidElf]

Some of the groups labeled as 'terrorist' are vile, evil, and deserve to be wiped off the Earth.

I'm assuming you mean the groups need to be wiped off the face of the earth, since after all it is presumed that the people in the groups still have their human rights and deserve fair trials, right?

So if you mean an entire ideology should die out, then doesn't that require a form of thought police?

Actions should be punished, not beliefs.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[sm62704]

If a civilian in the US were to attack our government troops it would be an illegal act.

Kind of like when civilians fired on British troops during the US Revolution? The winning side's "freedom fighters" are the losing side's "terrorists".

If you target civilians for political purposes it's terrorism. Calling anything else "terrorism" is propaganda, and a lie to boot.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[node 3]

For a few ideological zealots, closed source drivers are as good as, or worse than, no drivers. For "many users", closed source drivers make the product work and thus are fine. Perhaps, but for "most users", closed source drivers are better than no driver, but nowhere near as good as open source drivers.

Why? Are these users zealots? No. While they are not zealots, they're still more likely to prefer open source over closed source, just on basic principle. And, more pragmatically, open source video drivers tend to be included and "just work" on most mainstream Linux distros, while closed source drivers are rarely included, and due to being closed source, place technical restrictions on the user with regards to kernel and X.org versions, as well as making upgrades to any affected software more involved.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Chosen Reject]

I'm not going to give a definition of terrorism. I only wanted to comment on this:

And remember not to use intent! Governments do not have feelings, and the slain do not care about the motivations of their killers

Intent is very important in any society. Sure, the dead don't care what your intent may have been since that won't bring them back, but it's still important for how the living treat the perpetrator(s). If a company is hired to demolish a building, and in so doing accidentally kill some people that they were unaware were still inside it, that is completely different than Timothy McVeigh even though the end result is the same.

In fact, I would think anyone would find it difficult to define terrorism without using intent. I can't imagine terrorism not involving terror. And while unexpected deaths can certainly cause terror in a populace, good intentions gone awry as a valid and truthful excuse can subdue that terror much more easily than an unknown group causing death(s) at a whim.

If the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had only done so because of faulty navigational systems, would you still consider that an act of terrorism? Or was intent important in that event? I would say intent was very important. Sure, the faulty nav systems would cause an uproar, fear and tragedy, but 7 years later would not be what it is now.

So maybe there is a definition of terrorism that makes the US military not a terrorist organization, maybe there isn't, but I fail to see how one could define terrorism without including intent.

Also

Governments do not have feelings

While this is a true statement, governments are made up of people, people have intentions, and those same people make decisions. So while "government" has no feelings, the people that make the decisions do, and the decision makers can be considered as demonstrating the "intent" of the government.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[ScentCone]

It's pretty clear that Apartheid wouldn't have ended as quickly as it did if it were not for the ANC's terrorist tactics. Because of that, the ANC's terrorism was justified

Well, then, it would have ended even more quickly if they had simply slaughtered all of the white people in the country, right? That would have changed the political landscape pretty much instantly. And since you think speed is good, isn't even more speed better? Better yet, why discriminate? Just move a few people you like outide of the borders, and then kill everyone in the country, so you can move back in and enjoy a blank slate. Totally justified, since it's so quick, right? Do you even listen to yourself?

On the presumption that you don't think the Taliban was a really swell regime to have running Afghanistan, would you have supported simply nuking the country? So what if civilians are killed without any attempt whatsoever to control such damage... gets the job done more quickly, right?

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Toonol]

Actions should be punished, not beliefs.

I agree, beliefs alone don't make you a terrorist. It requires acts of violence against civilians. (Or plotting, or knowingly assisting, etc...) This should be judged on an individual level. And in cases of domestic terrorism, I certainly support full and fair trials (international terrorism is trickier). But when we do confirm that somebody was, indeed, a terrorist in the strict sense... well, part of the reason the courts exist, helping us separate the innocent from the guilty, is so that we can then go on to wipe the guilty ones off the face of the Earth without any reservations. Odd, I feel somewhat ruthless today. Maybe I'm channeling Heinlein.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DavidShor]

What if I rewrite the statement as "It's pretty clear that World War II would not have ended anywhere near as quickly as it did if it were not for the US's indiscriminate bombing of German cities. Because of that, and despite the massive civilian casualties, the bombing was justified." Do you still disagree? If so, I think you're in the minority.

There are many uncontroversial bad things that are for the societal good. Taxation is theft, imprisonment is kidnapping, and war is large scale murder. But we accept that these acts, immoral in a local sense, can sometimes be for the greater good.

Yes, defining "the greater good" is very subjective, and our enemies think they are doing the same.

But that's the point. If we are to condemn Al-Qaeda on the world stage, the statement "They've attacked civilians!" rings hollow from the government that has killed more innocents then Al-Qaeda could dream of.

Attacking them on their goals, as opposed to their means, would be much more fruitful.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

"work" is a relative term. Function? Maybe.

Free Software or Open Source drivers tend to work better than proprietary drivers... that's historically been the case for a LONG time.

You can say "zealot" until you're blue in the face, but the technical reality is that the model works.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

My linux desktop suffers from freezes. When? when I use the only proprietary app I have on (skype client) with the only proprietary driver I have on (wireless). Coincidence? I think NOT.

So ideological zealots for you = people who think about long term consequences of their choices for me. Pragmatic for you = nearsighted guys for me.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Kazoo the Clown]

Yes, open source is a pretty good hedge against planned obsolescence too. Old gear that the manufacturers don't support anymore on new software platforms doesn't have to be thrown away anymore. But businesses have gotten used to the idea that if they make stuff cheaply enough and don't support last years stuff, things will stop working more often and they'll sell more product. Open source is an alternative for the consumer to such hijinks.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Kazoo the Clown]

Not being one yourself. When you put the world's most powerful military and the world's most powerful corporations together and add one of the world's most important resources in an area occupied by people easy to label as evil, you end up with a very nasty situation in which it's hard to unambiguously define anyone as the "good guy"

But hey, that means the situation is self-correcting! I guess the free market really works! :-)

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[mqduck]

Not if they freely distribute the makings of said bomb. E'splain how.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[mqduck]

The fact that terrorists attack military and police units doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. I think it's imperative that you recognize that you're unfairly grouping a massive, decentralized resistance movement (and, in fact, few if any of the attacks mentioned had anything to do with the "terrorists" supposedly fighting us). I have faith that you can do so.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[mqduck]

(And remember not to use intent! Governments do not have feelings, and the slain do not care about the motivations of their killers) Actually, I think you're further confusing the meaning of the term here. Terrorism is defined by its intent. If you nuke a large city to destroy military targets, it may be unjust but it's not terrorism. However, if you nuke a large city to terrify your enemy into surrendering, that's terrorism.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[mqduck]

Oh, and you're right.

The original post's line "No ambiguity in the term" reference was to Islamist, not terrorism. My mistake, but my point remains valid out of context.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

How useful would be a multiplatform compilation from source if the installer itself is binary and platform dependent?

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[DavidShor]

You obviously know a lot more about this then me. So please clear any misunderstanding on my part.

I thought that countries like Nepal and Bhutan served as buffer states between India and China. Wouldn't India intervene in Nepal to preserve the balence of power if they shifted too much toward China?

China could prevent such a thing, but then India could retaliate by supporting active Tibet seperatists. Soon, things become a mess.

Both China and India enjoy the status quo, and I doubt either will allow things to deviate from it.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[mqduck]

Don't forget the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Not only was its being called terrorist slander to begin with, but it's now abandoned the civil war and a major player (in fact, the largest player) in the creation of a new secular, democratic republic. And it's still on the official US terrorist list.

They killed thousands of civillians in a war. Here's what Amnesty International said

Forgive me for my flippant dismissal, but they sure do say "reportedly" alot. Knowing Amnesty International, they probably rely exclusively on the "independent", respected media - probably from India. The Maoist's massive support seems to indicate otherwise. For that matter, how do you think they were so successful? It's not like they were being armed by China or something.

Now the government has basically surrendered

You demonstrate here that you have no idea what's going on in Nepal. The "government" you speak of was overthrown by a massive uprising made in alliance with the political parties in the cities and the Maoists in the countryside for the first time.

and called elections where the Maoists have had free range to intimidate, something they have a long experience in. Here's what the UN said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL140233

KATHMANDU, June 23 (Reuters) - Activists from the youth wing of Nepal's former Maoist rebels are creating a "climate of fear" by abducting and beating people, the United Nations said on Saturday.

The UN body said on Friday that Maoists, who ended a decade-long insurgency in November, were among those preventing other parties from functioning freely in rural areas ahead of an assembly election at the end of this year.

I can't respond to these claims directly, but the article is from over a year ago, whereas...

On the BBC they interviewed people who said that they were voting for them to stop them killing people!

That's some journalism, there, doing whatever you can to find and report on people upset with the chance to vote.

Seems like terrorism has got them into government

See above. This is just getting comical.

where they plan to abolish the monarchy and set up a 'strong Presidential system'

I'm terrified.

presumably with their leader Prachanda - Nepali for The Fierce One

"Presumably" with whoever *gets elected*. What's so hard to understand here?

and an admirer of Stalin and Mao

Mao's support of the name of Stalinism is a complicated thing. Many of Mao's greatest admirers in the West were Trotskyists - go figure.

Of course there's no guarantee that Nepal will stay democratic after the election. The Maoists might arrange some Reichstag fire type situation and use it as an excuse to impose a state of emergency, ban other parties and convert their strong president into a dictator.

Especially now that you've given them the idea!!

Before the election they've said that they believe in the multi party system, but maybe they're lying.

Maybe the Nepal Samajwadi Janata Dal party is, too. What's your point?

But only US politicans are dishonest, right?

I'm waiting for your argument in support of the theory that the Maoists are lying. I'm guessing it amounts to "because they're Maoists!"

Every single politician that the US doesn't like in the entire world is totally uncorrupt and only interested in working for the betterment of their countries, not in gaining godlike personal power

Are you trying to say that every single politician the US doesn't like is trying to gain godlike personal power??

Anyway, putting a check wherever the US puts a minus is indeed a sophomoric mistake. The more nuanced reality is that the US only demoni

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Sibko]

I remember the "duck and cover" drills. The tactics would be competely useless if there was an atomic explosion, it had no purpose whatever except to create and maintain an atmosphere of fear. I rather disagree with that. Duck and Cover will not save your life if an atom bomb detonates over your house, but if it was kilometers away, the flash of the explosion would preceed the shockwave by several seconds. In which case, laying on the ground helps keep you from being impaled or crushed by debris.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

After which you'd die of leukaemia...

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[aflat362]

For a few ideological zealots, closed source drivers are as good as, or worse than, no drivers. For "many users", closed source drivers make the product work and thus are fine. many != most

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Hal_Porter]

I thought that countries like Nepal and Bhutan served as buffer states between India and China. Wouldn't India intervene in Nepal to preserve the balence of power if they shifted too much toward China? A buffer state is just contested territory between two larger powers. It's stable if those two powers have equal influence. But the election of the Maoists alters that radically to the point where China has far more influence than India.

China could prevent such a thing, but then India could retaliate by supporting active Tibet seperatists. Soon, things become a mess.

Both China and India enjoy the status quo, and I doubt either will allow things to deviate from it. I think you're confusing what you'd do with what they'd do. You're not out to convert neighbouring countries into client states - I'd guess as a civilised citizen of a free country that you're horrified by the whole idea of imperialism. But that doesn't mean that the Chinese don't have imperial ambitions. I actually think one of the problems with the Free World is that they're not playing the imperialism game. Their opponents are however and that just means they lose it by default. You can see this over Tibet. China annexed the country and killed thousands of people. Team Free World made a few protests and pointed out that the Dalai Lama doesn't want independence and supports the One China principle and China should negotiate with him. But that doesn't matter much, since the Chinese still accuse him of being a terrorist and refuse to talk. They know that they are militarily far superior to the Tibetans and will use that to crush them completely. Talks and compromise seem unnecessary to them given that they have the upper hand militarily

Carter to me personifies this dangerous naivite - essentially a blind faith that leaders of non free societies that took power by force are as reasonable as leaders of free ones that took power by elections and the compromise that implies. So it's not too surprising that he's called for the Maoists to be taken off the list of terrorist organisations. Essentially power politics is distasteful to him personally so he simply pretends it is not happening.

Despite the fact that the Free World has never really tried to use Tibetan separatism against China the new Nepal government has already started to crack down on Tibetans in Nepal.

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/200804/s2218021.htm?tab=latest

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Kjella]

Then please, give me a definition of terrorism that does not make the US military a terrorist organization(And remember not to use intent! Governments do not have feelings, and the slain do not care about the motivations of their killers). (...) The point? Things are not black and white, and we do not possess any moral high-ground upon which to condemn others. Terrorism is just a tactic, one used for good and bad. If it doesn't matter why someone was killed, there's no difference between manslaughter and murder one. It's impossible to define terrorism without an intent to cause terror, long before we get down to the details. This is a Chewbacca defense to support moral relativism.

There's a few things they mainly agree on as necessary (but not sufficient):
1. There is a direct target (victim) that serves as a message generator for the indirect target (the terrorized).
2. The message is a cause - political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar.
3. It involves the use or threat of grave violence, destruction of property, loss of life or disruption of infrastruvture.
4. It involves disguising as non-combattants to hide among the general population.

If it fails the first point, it's merely a regular crime like for example an assassination.
If it fails the second point, it's regular crime even if it instills fear and "sets an example".
If it fails the third point, it's regular crime because it's not capable of instilling fear.
If it fails the fourth point, it's part of the military and can do war crimes not terrorism.

Now, these are not sufficient because it covers freedom fighters, covert military ops and more, but already from the points made here terrorism is never a peaceful solution to any problem. It's using violence to solve a problem, and hopefully the other guy is worse so that it's justified.

This is where it starts to get hairy, who can be the victim? Does it really matter for the people if it's the WTC (the people), the government (white house that never arrived) or the military (pentagon) that's hit? It's not like they terrorists are going to force a retreat from Iraq, it'll be a Vietnam-style withdraw called from home because the government has been influenced.

If we divide the crime into two parts, the direct (killing) and the indirect (terrorizing) then clearly the murder of civilians is a crime but terrorism is something on top of that. Now, even if we assume it's a military target and the killing is legitimate under the rules of war, where does that leave the terror? Still the same, still not directed at the military and yet it's not terrorism?

Freedom fighters are trying to terrorize an occupant to go home. The ends justify the means, simple as that. I don't think there's any military force that's going to take it and say "well, that's all right then" anyway. Then you just have to deal with the doublespeak of occupy vs liberate...

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Artifakt]

There are two common cases of buffer states:

Type 1 is the sort of thing you describe, with a neutral state that dampens competitive or aggressive acts by larger powers on either side in at least a relatively equal fashion. As you point out, the total amount of violence occurring depends on both powers deciding it's in their best interests not to ramp up violence - playing tit for tat can either make the 'other side' go back to its old levels of intervention in the buffer or further escalate, but seldom goes without a response. Because the situation is inherently dynamic, such buffers are actually rare over historical timeframes.

Type 2 is what's sometimes called a 'defensive' buffer, where a smaller state serves the interests of one side predominately or exclusively. Soviet control of states such as Poland and Yugoslavia is an example. Just about ALL Soviet decision making with regards to their buffer states was dominated by one concern - whether an action would create more delay for invading Western or PRC troops trying to cross the buffers. Meanwhile the West's interests changed frequently and irregularly but the 'single-mindedness' of the USSR still kept the overall situation very static, and internal ethnic strife, economic development of the regions, and normal political transitions all stayed as static. This shows why a one sided buffer tends to actually be more common.

So, if China desires a 'defensive' buffer in Tibet, and if India can fairly be characterized as at least normally non-aggressive towards China, then for China to destabilize Tibet's internal political structure and ramp up violence towards civilians is paradoxically aggressive. (There's at least one 'if' there that is seriously arguable).
For India to take actions that ramp up violence (in the short term and on internal Tibetian scales only), counts as merely trying to restore the status quo if Tibet is Type 1, or to convert a Type 2 to a Type 1 buffer at worst. For China to be the one which elects to destablize Tibet is for China to throw away its defensive shield - which is as much as to say China thinks it doesn't need defenses there, i.e. because it is going on the offensive re. India!

      In other words, if one nation desires a buffer state much more than the other, then that nation will be judged as intending aggression by the rest of the international community if it does just about anything that destabilizes that buffer internally. I only say "just about", because actually helping a buffer state modernize and industrialize or hold what the UN would consider genuinely free elections are sometimes exceptions.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Descalzo]

There is only ever one justification for terrorism, or indeed for any kind of rebellion: success.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

...farmers often shot their farmhands just to make a point to the others...

In democratic South Africa that is tame, nowadays we have farmers dragging farmhands behind trucks, hunting children like dogs and with You Tube this is now all online.

In apartheid the average white person did treat black people like slaves and not much has actually changed.

Btw i am a white South African.

Re:Open Source Terrorism?

[nguy]

I certainly support full and fair trials (international terrorism is trickier)

I don't see what's "trickier" about it. We should lead in terms of rule of law by insisting that everybody, US citizen or not, domestic or abroad, get a fair trial.

But when we do confirm that somebody was, indeed, a terrorist in the strict sense... well, part of the reason the courts exist, helping us separate the innocent from the guilty, is so that we can then go on to wipe the guilty ones off the face of the Earth without any reservations.

The intended purpose of courts is not retribution, it is utilitarian, and for good reason.

People! Not everything is terrorism!

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Since 9/11, every goddamned thing is considered terrorism. Shoot a gun downtown? Terrorism. Drink someone's milkshake? Terrorism. Ship cocaine from Colombia to the U.S. Yep, terrorism.

No! It's not! There are proper terms here, and by calling any crime terrorism you insinuate that the crimes are perpetrated by terrorists. That's giving a whole lot of credit to idiot criminals.

Installing Linux on the computers of unwitting Windows users may be a dumb plot, but it's hardly terrorism. If it were, every goddamned user on Slashdot would be a terrorist for trying to wrest Windows from Granny's warm, wet hands.

I'd like to see this OSS terrorist face the CEO of Nerv (from that other forgettable hacker movie a few years back). Geek Terrorist. Coming soon to a basement near you!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, people who use that sort of language must be branded stupidity terrorists, and treated accordingly.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

And before 9/11 every bad person was compared to Hitler. Even if they didn't kill nearly as many Jews as he did.

BTW:
"Drink someone's milkshake? Terrorism."

You're my new hero for that one.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument sounds like something a terrorist would say.

Don't you remember? 9/11 changed everything! If you break the law you are a terrorist because using the police to respond to your crime takes manpower and resources away from fighting terrorism. And if that doesn't convince you then it is obvious that *you* are trying to obstruct the fight against terrorism by not fully supporting every policy of the government.

So stop hating freedom, terrorist.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[orzetto]

1. Wait for large terrorist act that scares the crap out of the nation
2. Pass draconian terror laws suspending civil rights and allowing torture ("But just for terrorists!")
3. Extend definition of terrorism to include any activity you want to persecute; if met with complaint, answer "Why do you hate Freedom so much?"
4. ...
5. Dictatorship!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Reed Solomon]

Drink someone's milkshake? Terrorism.

I drink your milkshake! I DRINK IT UP!! For great justice!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[arivanov]

Wait for large terrorist act that scares the crap out of the nation

The Burning of the Reichstag?

Pass draconian terror laws suspending civil rights and allowing torture ("But just for terrorists!")

The protection of the state laws voted by Germany in 1934, Bulgaria, Hungary and other German allies in the 1934-1939 interval?

Extend definition of terrorism to include any activity you want to persecute; if met with complaint, answer "Why do you hate Freedom so much?"

Yavol, mein Fuhrer!!!

...

Dictatorship!

Zich Heil!!!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Workaphobia]

I miss the days when the word terrorist made people think of movies like Air Force One or Die Hard. I miss it being associated with ordinary secular goals instead of just religious extremism.

I'd like to see this OSS terrorist face the CEO of Nerv (from that other forgettable hacker movie a few years back).

Ava?

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[melikamp]

Yes! For chocolate!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[teh kurisu]

if met with complaint, answer "Why do you hate Freedom so much?"

That does sound like something that an over-zealous open source activist might say.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to bring Nazi-Germany into this, you should at least write proper German:

-Jawohl mein Führer (with an Umlaut)
-Sieg Heil

Disclaimer: I'm not German, I'm Dutch.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because it is all a "1984" type plot. First you find something that most people dislike, like terrorism. Then you start a "war" on it. Terrorism is especially good here cause you cannot "win" against terrorism, it does not have an identifiable enemy. Anyway, then you start argue for your case, and ask "but do you really support the terrorists then ?" when people tell you this is a bad trend they are seeing, whatever arguments they may have. Then you go on by defining "everything" as terrorism. And there you are, you have bypassed every law ever made to oppose oppression by the ruling class over the rest. Since you can now put people in jail over terrorist suspicion without any evidence or even a trial this is very dangerous. But people seem to be so blinded by "those mean terrorists" that they will accept anything. This is why 9/11 was both christmas and birthday in one day for the rulers.

"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty." - Benjamin Franklin

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up (insightful), as it is an excellent commentary on recent history (yet manages to make efficient use of the language).

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Angostura]

Well, I'd mod you funny, if I had the points.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

American comics are all about preserving the status quo anyway... Conservative stuff, you know. No wonder why open-source guys get depicted as "terrorists." What next? Terrorist vegetarians?

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[mlush]

Suspected of trying to send your child to a school outside your catchment area Terrorist

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[empaler]

And before 9/11 every bad person was compared to Hitler. Even if they didn't kill nearly as many Jews as he did. Godsdamnit, I'M WORKING AS FAST AS I CAN!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Jesus_666]

I think it's awesome to apply to comic-book storylines. Aliens attack the Earth? Terrorism. An evil scientist wanrts to blow up the sun for no apparent reason? Terrorism. Unicron eats a planet? Terrorism. Someone digs up an old bomb from the WW2 in his garden and dies? Terrorism! Hell, if Dr. Xavier gets a bedsore from sitting in his wheelchair all the time that's terrorism.

The following decade of comics will be known as the Bomb The Shit Out Of Third-World Countries Era.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss the days when terrorists were Irish and we were allowed to make fun of them.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done, you've Godwinned the thread already.
Oh, and that would be Jawohl, and Zeig Heil.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Starayo]

COWS DID 9/11
THINK ABOUT IT
IT MAKES SENSE

WHO HAD THE MOST TO GAIN AND THE LEAST TO LOSE

COWS

With the economic shock, people wouldn't have as much money to spend on: THAT'S RIGHT! BEEF

THE VEGETARIANS ARE IN ON IT!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[empaler]

Shhhh! Don't tip them off! Otherwise I'll have to start eating meat to avoid suspicion!

Apart from that, some PETA (and similar) raids have been depicted as terrorism...

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[somersault]

Granny's warm, wet hands
Presumably not one of your better analogies.. and I reaaaally don't want to have this one explained to me.

Agree with the rest though :P

Hey, what OS do the Autobots run?

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[sjwest]

You forget that I too shall also be a 'terrorist' by not going to view this film (thats got to be an mpaa crime somewhere). After all whats the difference between a basement and a cinema anyhow ? I'd wish they would make super chair thrower into a film what a role model he is

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

...spelling Nazi.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Yetihehe]

You bring new meaning to "grammar nazi" ;) Disclaimer: I know you are not German.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Kjella]

Disclaimer: I'm not German, I'm Dutch. <rimshot>Don't worry, the last guy wasn't german either...</rimshot>

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[silent_artichoke]

... Granny's warm, wet hands. Oh the repressed memories! Oh the horror!!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[iapetus]

And rightly so, too.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

The same thing that happened to "rape" has happened to "terrorism".

Incidentally, i find it very interesting that in a country like Sweden where there is practically no threat of terrorism, the government is redefining the crime of rape.

Before 2005 (or 06, 07 i'm not sure exactly which of those years it came into place), we had a law that basically said that sex with a minor is "abuse of minor". Now a later law rewrote that so sex with a minor is no longer "abuse of minor" but plain "rape". That is, even if the sex is consentual, there is no legal difference. There's a dillution of terms. Sure it's abuse, but is it rape? No. Rape is forcefully having sex with someone. Abuse of minor is abuse of minor and not rape. They've now changed the definition of rape to be "forcefully having sex with someone, OR having sex with someone who's younger than ".

From what can be discerned in current debates, the next step is widening the definition further by defaulting that sex without proven consent is rape too. The idea is to put part of the burden of proof on the "criminal" by forcing him to prove that the "victim" wanted to have sex and did not protest. The excuse is that too many rapists go free. (If the girl gets plastered, then gets fucked, and then regrets it, was it rape?

They've already widened the definition of child porn to encompass drawings and something that's being debated is the possibility of writing in another exception in the child porn law that would
1: Set a definite 18 year old limit on porn (currently the definition is "if she looks sexually mature, the porn is legal")
2: Set a secondary limit defined by her looks that goes beyond point 1. That is, "if she does not look sexually mature the porn is illegal even if the girl is proven to be over 18".

The widened definition of child porn is, not entirely surprisingly, supported by the man who is also one of sweden's most vocal opponents of filesharing (Thomas Bodström). The same person is also a supporter of the swedish child porn filter which has previously been used to block The Pirate Bay (and some site about bonsai trees). Coincidence?

My personal belief is that the US fight on terrorism is inspiring those with a desire for more power into finding scapegoats. In order to create more scapegoats that can be used in order to expand oppressive laws, they widen the definitions of existing crimes. After all, if drawings are child porn, then surely the amount of child porn has suddenly seen an increase and then the supporters can come out and say "Well look even if we're fighting THIS HARD against child porn it's not doing anything good so we must fight even HARDER". And as mentioned before, this also works wonders as they can use the same weapons they use against child porn against file sharing.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[ecavalli]

What's wrong with your grandmother that her hands are both warm and wet?

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[ecavalli]

Seek High El Mine Furor!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[earthforce_1]

I think goodwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin's_law is having a field day with this thread!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[X3J11]

I think goodwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin's_law [wikipedia.org] is having a field day with this thread!

It's Godwin. Lucky for you, Wikipedia knows when you're wrong, even if you don't.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[StrawberryFrog]

Drink someone's milkshake? Terrorism.

No, that's the oil business.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, Slashdot:
Nazi references modded Insightful and Informative? In some of the first comments to a story?

Please tell me that I missed sarcasm tags again, otherwise this is the dumbest moderation I've seen on this site.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

I miss the days when the word terrorist made people think of movies like Air Force One or Die Hard. I miss it being associated with ordinary secular goals instead of just religious extremism. You young whippersnapper.....

Delta Force came before those, while Harrison Ford was between jobs galaxy hopping as a smuggler and finding lost biblical icons. Bruce Willis was just a petty Private Eye.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[jollyreaper]

If you're going to bring Nazi-Germany into this, you should at least write proper German:

-Jawohl mein Führer (with an Umlaut)
-Sieg Heil

Disclaimer: I'm not German, I'm Dutch. Ah, I was wondering about those wooden jackboots.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[siride]

You mean Sieg Heil...

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Sciros]

Nerv? Man I don't watch many hacker movies, but from what I understood whoever's in charge of Nerv can just send a couple of hundred-meter-tall biomechs at whatever the problem happens to be and I imagine it would be a problem no longer.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, even in the unlikely event he isn't a terrorist, by saying these things he proves he doesn't support the troops and his cut-and-run strategy emboldens the enemy. We must stay the course.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

so my local cops are fighting the terrorism at the local Doughnut shop and sleeping by the train tracks?

Holy Crap! I though those old guys that ran that doughnut shop were nice! I think we'll help the police by organizing a mob and burning and hanging anyone that is around where our police are silently fighting terrorism!

I also have another idea, how about the youth anti terrorism league? they can look for terrorism in their homes, they can report if their parents are acting terrorist like and then we can come and arrest them!

Thanks for the tip citizen! together we will bring terrorism to it's knees!

You all do realize they started programming us with this terrorism bullshit decades ago. They made sure we all hated Cobra and their terrorist organization that was fighting the USA, Um I mean Gi-Joe. and 24 certainly makes it clear to everyone we even get to torture innocent people!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Fallen Seraph]

On an electrical engineering exam a friend of mine took, one of the bonus questions asked one they use one particular formula for calculations now in lieu of a different one that was used a few years back.

His response was "Because 9/11 changed everything"

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Fallen Seraph]

People are STILL compared to Hitler on a daily basis. Believe me, Godwin's Law still holds very true...

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Andrewkov]

Net result: The terrorists have actually achieved their goals of destroying our freedom.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Torodung]

Oh my god, did you seriously just misspell "Godwin" in a response about misspelling?

What a (sic) joke!

--
Toro

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
I never actually thought I'd actually see it unfold before my very eyes.

"The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate..."

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[smellotron]

The idea of "statutory rape" has been around for a while, and that's a good thing. I'm pretty sure that no matter how "consensual" you might think it is, an adult having sex with a thirteen year-old cannot be anything but rape.

IANADad, but the idea that I had was that statutory rape laws break down when a different-age couple hits a certain age, depending on local laws for "age of consent"; and their previously irresponsible activities become criminal. In particular, because girls tend to date older guys, it gives the parents of the girl tremendous legal leverage against her boyfriend. A situation like that is IMO abuse of the corner cases of the law, and significantly different from the black-and-white of 13yo vs. 21yo.

Quick googling shows Illinois laws. If the younger is between 13-17 and the older is within 5 years, it's only "criminal sexual abuse". If the older is over 5 years above, it's "aggrivated criminal sexual abuse". So Illinois is sort-of accounting for this situation.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

spelling terrorist

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Paul Jakma]

What about a 17 year old male and a 15 year old female? Where they meet in the pub, where she's drinking with her father, says she's 16 and they later have consensual sex? Is the 17 year old male a rapist, to be sent to prison for years and branded a sex offender for life?

That's no hypothethical. That's actually what happened under Ireland's statutory rape laws (age<16 == rape). So, sorry, but I have nothing but contempt for your mindless "you must not be a parent" drivel that results in politicians placating you and your ilk with "statutory X" and "minimum sentence" laws. You make this world a *worse* place for your children and mine.

Thankfully, the Irish law was eventually ruled unconstitutional, but not before the young man concerned had, wrongfully, spent 6 years in jail.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

I said it is abuse and NOT rape. This is what i mean with dillution.

It's like calling a bank robbery terrorism. They're both crimes, but one clearly holds more "oomph" than the other.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[dkleinsc]

Actually, not only are cows terrorists, they're also communists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[harry666t]

I think that it's the USA govt who are the "terrorists". They're, in fact, spreading terror. "There's a terrorist in every trash can! Fear of them! They want to kill your family and eat your candies! But we are SO protecting you from them!"

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[sm62704]

Now hold on there, son.

Installing Linux on the computers of unwitting Windows users may be a dumb plot, but it's hardly terrorism. If it were, every goddamned user on Slashdot would be a terrorist for trying to wrest Windows from Granny's warm, wet hands.

Those here who have instalkled Linux on someone's machine without permission raise your hands. Nobody? That's what I thought.

Those here who have installed malware on some unwitting Windows user's machine to add to your spambotnet? You in the back, you're under arrest!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[sm62704]

Oops, sorry.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[sm62704]

Leave Godwin out of this! He's no terrorist!

Oh he is? Sorry.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Chandon Seldon]

Was it really the *terrorists* who had that goal?

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither was Hitler, he was an Austrian.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh...

First of all, it's "Jawohl"! What's this Yavol shit? Who are you, Yakov Smirnoff?

And what's this "Zich" crap? It's "Sieg Heil"!

I'm not even German, for crying out loud. EVERYBODY knows this stuff.

Sheesh.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[MrScary]

I drinks you milkshake! I drinks it up!!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[ajs]

Since 9/11, every goddamned thing is considered terrorism. Shoot a gun downtown? Terrorism. Drink someone's milkshake? Terrorism. I haven't heard any such references.

Ship cocaine from Colombia to the U.S. Yep, terrorism. Now, you're dealing with something altogether different, and I think you need to acknowledge the current administration's authority on this matter. When they say that it's terrorists shipping drugs, they don't mean that shipping drugs is a terrorist act, they mean that it's being used to finance terror. GWB should know this all too well, given that it's exactly what his father arranged (for those who don't know, when GHWB was VP, he was involved to an as yet unrevealed depth with the trading of drugs cash for Iranian guns for Nicaraguan terrorists in a fiasco known as Iran Contra; being the former CIA chief, it was always assumed that GHWB was at the very least kept appraised of the operation as VP). GWB knows exactly how this is done, and no one can better apply the label of terrorist to those who would use such tactics.

Installing Linux on the computers of unwitting Windows users may be a dumb plot, but it's hardly terrorism. If it were, every goddamned user on Slashdot would be a terrorist for trying to wrest Windows from Granny's warm, wet hands. There's a difference between trying to install an OS and subverting national infrastructure in order to force a conversion. The latter could easily be seen as a terrorist act.

I have no access to the upcoming Iron Man issues, so perhaps I'm painting the wrong mental image, but this sounds like the kind of plot that you'd see in a modern, mainstream superhero comic.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Hal_Porter]

Don't be a law Nazi.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[LiENUS]

You all do realize they started programming us with this terrorism bullshit decades ago. They made sure we all hated Cobra and their terrorist organization that was fighting the USA, Um I mean Gi-Joe. and 24 certainly makes it clear to everyone we even get to torture innocent people! And knowing is half the battle...

(The other half is killing people.)

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Narpak]

Gradually the term Terrorist is losing its meaning. The definitions used by the media and some politicians twist and turn to suit the situation they present. Yet as with all things that are overused people become immunized and the word loses it's newspaper selling effect.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Narpak]

Luckily the Mind-Ray is almost complete! Then finally the government can unify the nation by beaming the correct perspective right into your brain! Hurray!

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Mr. Beatdown]

I think Austin Powers' dad has heard just about enough from your ilk already.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Cheapy]

Shoot a gun downtown? Terrorism. Unless the person shot is an abortion doctor. In that case, it's not terrorism at all, but rather someone standing up for their beliefs.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[ggvaidya]

Man, *seven* hours to the first Eva reference? /. is dying, netcraft conf...

Thank you for making me smile nevertheless :)

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[dgatwood]

Hey, what OS do the Autobots run?

NetBSD... just like my toaster.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Granny's warm, wet hands"

Could you please, PLEASE rephrase that

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[amplt1337]

(If the girl gets plastered, then gets fucked, and then regrets it, was it rape? Why yes, yes it is, actually. And it should be treated as such.

No decent human being would have sex with someone who obviously has no idea what's going on. Whether she chose to become unconscious or not is irrelevant.

And besides, there's plenty research out there that shows that the majority of rapes are committed by a very small group of repeat offenders, and that a lot of these guys intentionally target women to try to make them drunk enough that they're incapacitated before raping them. (Google "Dr. David Lisak" or "Undetected rapist" for more).

It's right there in your quote, actually -- the woman in question "gets fucked", she's not a participant. Sure, if everybody's had a few and they wind up doing things they regret and wouldn't have done sober, that's one thing; if she's (or he's!) "plastered" and then "gets fucked" you're describing a totally different situation that's really no more morally justifiable than having sex with someone in a coma.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[mscholin]

I was wondering if anyone else had caught that. :) Part of the NERV Logo "God is in his heaven and all is right with the world."

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[ConceptJunkie]

I miss the days when the biggest U.S. domestic terrorist threats were considered to be these guys.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Das ist "Ja wohl"

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[capologist]

Since 9/11, every goddamned thing is considered terrorism. Shoot a gun downtown? Terrorism. Drink someone's milkshake? Terrorism. Ship cocaine from Colombia to the U.S. Yep, terrorism.

What about cheating on my income taxes? Is that terrorism? I need an answer today. Thank you.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[Jorophose]

Except, you know, nazi germany was a dictatorship purpoting to be the "superior race", that they would reclaim their "essential living space", slowly kill off whatever "lower" populations lived there and replace them with germanics.

The US is a republic where the people were too stupid to make a firm decision. Wasn't it like 40% of the american people voted in 2004?

Hey bub, if you don't like Bush, vote for the person you like, and bring your friends to vote with you. Want to make a difference? Make your voice head in whatever way you can. Nobody forced you to vote Bush, and he was a massive idiot within the republican party in the first place.

And if you did participate, why didn't you bring your friends and family along with you? If that other 60% had voted for somebody other than Bush, well, guess what, no Bush for the last 4 years. But instead you guys let the poor sod get elected AGAIN. /rage. (Oh and go ahead and mod me troll/flamebait again slashdotters, I don't effing care because I'll spend my life with terrible karma if I have to.)

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[JonToycrafter]

Sadly, a police officer used this argument on a friend of mine when they arrested her for protesting a speaker at her college...

The basic argument was, "You could be a dupe for al-Qaeda, your protest could be a decoy while they do a bombing," along with the typical we-live-in-a-post-9/11-world crap.

Re:People! Not everything is terrorism!

[brianosaurus]

If I had been his TA, I'd have given him a gold star for sure.

In related news

[dedazo]

The FSF has announced Richard Stallman will be engaging in a speaking tour of comic conventions to demand they be called free ideological terrorists.

Re:In related news

[Chuck Chunder]

Gnuman!

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

In an update to our existing story, Mr. Stallman stated that it wasn't "free" terrorists, but "GNU/Terrorists"...........

Suit performance a factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if Stark's suit is running Vista then perhaps he'll be at odds when the open source terrorist beats him with a suit made of old library computers that has equal or better performance.

OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick...

[Thanshin]

Sharerman!

He will share global economy to it's knees!

His nefarious plan of... sharing stuff, has to be stopped!

Re:OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick...

[ILuvRamen]

I thought it would be mortgage man and his diabolical schemes to give scam loans to poor people in order to drive himself into bankruptcy.
Btw this would be accurate if they made the open source guy an elitist, self important, condescending, arrogant jackass like way too many Linux experts but I think Microsoft forcing everyone to use a horrible operating system is eviler.

Re:OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick...

[Jesus_666]

Okay, how about this set of villains:

The Open Sourceror: Wants the whole world to be covered by the GPL. Has a Shield of Arrogance labeled "RTFM" that can absorb the damage of any attack and turn it into a blast of pure rejection. Can use his package manager to quickly construct mostly-working devices for everything. Thinks the Free Initiative are his best friends.

The Free Initiative: Don't want to be called "Freedom Initiative" because they don't want freedom, they want Free-as-in-freedom. Insist that there's a big difference. Hate the Open Sourceror, the non-Free world and each other, because they can't agree which variant of the BSD licence they want to put the world under.

The Consultant: Sent by IBM manufacturer, the Consultant wears a heavy mechanized armor called the Z System. His goal is to destroy the world (except for IBM) and replace it with a virtual clone running on IBM mainframes. Attacks by throwing blade servers with deadly precision. Has the mysterious ability to drain cash from people's wallets at frightening speed.

Sunray: Sent by Sun, this combatant lugs around a 500 liter canister of Java on his back, which e constantly drinks from by means of a straw. Insists that the caffeine in the Java makes him slower, despite the fact that he can barely move with the canister on his back. Has a on-again-off-again alliance with the Open Sourceror.

Emmessdeeann: This mysterious alien was hired by Microsoft to ensure that every single person on the planet has a valid licence for every product Microsoft manufactures, plans to manufacture at some point or doesn't manufacture but wish they did. Has a Cash Launcher, which suffocates his enemies under wads of Dollar bills, then sets them alight. Also has a Crash Launcher, which causes his power armor to shut down until a service techician can fix it. Unfortunately, both are built into the same weapon. Insists on ending each sentence with ".NET" instead of a full stop. Has a son and a daughter, both called "hWnd".

Google: Omnipresent and omniscient. Insist they aren't doing actual evil while using thir vast archive of footage of illegal activities to blackmail everyone into looking at their context-sensitive ads. Even though they are targetting the entire population of the planet, nobody could yet topple their "we only target evil people" argument.

Re:OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick...

[madboson]

I believe you are missing some here.

/.: A faithful cult of sidekicks who will run to the aid of any one combatant that catches their or their /. overlords copper/doped silicon eyes. Often considered poisonous to Emmessdeeann, they are the on-again-off-again slaves of Google. All confusion as to whether The Open Sourceror and The Free Initiative are subsets of /. or /. is a subset of these two should be ignored as that would require RTFA.

Benevolent Slashdot Overlords: This elusive team of overlords rule over the masses of /. by providing a forum home for any who wish to post in safety. Often thought of as ghosts they have never yet been seen by human eyes. Of note, this team is the only group who might RTFA, however small that chance may be.

Re:OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick...

[geminidomino]

That was quite funny, and actually made me want to draw a few of them, but I think you may have the licenses backwards. The "Free as in Freedom" crowd are generally the GPL worshippers, and BSDers tend to go with "Open Source(eror)"

Re:OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick...

[Jesus_666]

What, now comic book heroes are supposed to make sense all of a sudden? If they would be adopted as I just wrote them we could be relieved. I'd expect Marvel to have the Free crowd use CDDL and the Open Sourceror use the zlib license.

Re:OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick...

[the phantom]

And here I always thought that MSDN stood for "Microsoft Death Ninjas." I guess you learn something new every day. ;)

Juh?

[dancingmad]

As the author puts it, 'Windows wants to be on every computer desktop in the world, but Linux and Stane want to destroy the desktop.'

What part of that sentence did I understand?

Re:Juh?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Don't you get it? Stane is obviously a high profile journalist constantly declaring the current year to be "The Year of Linux on the Desktop", thereby getting hundreds of thousands of geeks to install Linux and waste their time trying to get their audio, DVD, and printing working. This results in millions of lost hours of work for their employers, driving up costs while providing no tangible benefit whatsoever. The economy is brought to its knees by this temporary reduction in productivity and Stane and his hordes swoop in to capitalize on the mayhem by selling more OSS services to "fix" the productivity problem.

The victims are forced onto the consultant treadmill and pay ever-increasing amounts of cash to Stane and his company.

The plan is almost perfect!

Re:Juh?

[nawcom]

I think you are supposed to look at Windows as the Robin Hood of operating systems. Doing a bad thing, but for the good.. ermm.... well. Supposedly for the good of the people.

All in perspective. Think communism, I guess. Okay, so maybe this should be the other way around, with Windows "destroying the desktop". Helps the plot make more sense.

Though we already know about the true outcome of that.

Re:Juh?

[Dr_Barnowl]

Hmm.

Getting DVD and audio to work? My media player asked if I wanted it to work, and behold, after I ticked and clicked, it did.

Printer? A little research on http://linuxprinting.org/ another tick'n'click, and a setup wizard, and I was printing too.

Perhaps Tony Stark sponsors Ubuntu?

(oh, and any corporation mad enough to allow it's users to watch movies at work has more productivity worries than whether they have the right codecs installed or not).

Re:Juh?

[arivanov]

DVD work?

What DVD work?

I have 400+ movies on my Linux file server with any computer around the house being able to work as a proper media player (with a proper IR remote and everything). You also can use a bog standard fanless and diskless thin client for this. No noise, nothing.

Wanna try this with Microcrap Media Center Edition? Dream on...

DVD is actually an area where Linux reigns supreme. I have tried many HD upscalers and I actually play my movies on a Linux box using VLC and Nvidia (with Nvidia drivers). It simply works better than any commercial upscaler I have seen so far. In fact it works so good that I do not see the point of buying and HD media for at least the next few years.

You simply need to chose the _RIGHT_ drive or play off the hard drive. The problems with playing DVDs are usually not with Linux, they are with the DVDs being massively bastardised by Macrovision. As a result if you got the "wrong" DVD drive it will fail to read under anything - Windows, Linux, MacOS, etc.
If you rip it all problems disappear. All my DVDs are actually stored on a file server in the loft. I got tired of dealing with scratches, dirt, Macrovision or simply trying to find the right DVD to watch.

Re:Juh?

[Per Abrahamsen]

You understand that Linux is an alternative to Windows, not an alternative to the desktop, and that the allegory therefore is flawed.

Re:Juh?

[martin-boundary]

I think you are supposed to look at Windows as the Robin Hood of operating systems.

It's true! He lives in the woods, where, err, chairs are made.

Re:Juh?

[palewook]

"Linux want to destroy the desktop" was the part that caught my eye. But left me wondering why Vista wasn't accurately credited with destroying the desktop....

Re:Juh?

[Gewalt]

(oh, and any corporation mad enough to allow it's users to watch movies at work has more productivity worries than whether they have the right codecs installed or not). Right! because noone in their right mind would EVER want to use a computer that is NOT in a workplace.

Re:Juh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Baldrick: They say he's half way to becoming the new Robin Hood.
Blackadder: Why only half way?
Baldrick: Well, he steals from the rich, but he hasn't got round to giving it to the poor yet.

Re:Juh?

[McGiraf]

Sure it works, but playing DVD on Linux is still illegal in many countries.

Therefore if you play DVDs on Linux you are a terrorist.

Re:Juh?

[rizawbone]

Wanna try this with Microcrap Media Center Edition? Dream on...

I can stream movies in full hd from my fileserver to any laptop in my house, or to my plasma tv. using windows (not even media center edition). It's actually much easier than my former MythTV/DVD server i had with linux, most of my devices can be setup in under 5 minutes.

You should do a little more research before getting on your high horse. I love linux but when it comes to home media streaming, Windows is miles ahead and way easier to set up.

Re:Juh?

[smellotron]

...I actually play my movies on a Linux box using VLC and Nvidia (with Nvidia drivers). It simply works better than any commercial upscaler I have seen so far. In fact it works so good that I do not see the point of buying and HD media for at least the next few years.

You know, no amount of upsampling will increase the resolution (which is what you get with HD media). But anyways, do you know offhand what algorithms your setup uses for upsampling? I'm curious how that would compare to how most hardware HD upsamplers work, since it's easier to introduce nonlinear filters in software, but arbitrarily more expensive.

Mod parent down

[AuMatar]

He's guilty of rant-terrorism. Don't let the terrorists win.

Re:Mod parent down

[supernova_hq]

Wow, i just heard the CS "Terrorists Win" announcement in my head.

As I said on my LUG mailinglist

[pembo13]

... let this one go.

Muhahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll show them! I'll show them all! ...my source code

Re:Muhahahaha

[bky1701]

We need to stop Doctor GPL! he wants to allow everyone to see everyone else's privates, and give them a way to directly modify them! His perversion of source code everywhere must be stopped, but who...

Re:Muhahahaha

[mikiN]

Microsoft: Attack of the Clones

Linux: Teenage Mutant Ninja Penguins

FTW!

Join us now and share the software...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw You will not be rick-rolled.

Re:Join us now and share the software...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is truly doomed.

Re:Join us now and share the software...

[Anonymous Coward]

Goddamn, I'd rather be Rick-rolled.

Re:Join us now and share the software...

[Anonymous Coward]

But you will be rms-rolled instead...

Debut film from Microsoft Studios Hollywood

[Cryacin]

It would only ever happen at the movies.

Re:Debut film from Microsoft Studios Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see The Island?

Two hour Microsoft commercial. Good thing they brought Scarlet Johansen in to keep our attention.

Re:Debut film from Microsoft Studios Hollywood

[somersault]

Not even joking, but I don't remember any Microsoft :P Maybe an Audi.. and yes, Scarlett Johansen :) mmmm

Re:Debut film from Microsoft Studios Hollywood

[Wooky_linuxer]

while my eyes were also full with Scarlett, the MSN/Live butterflies were hard not to notice...

meh

[wizardforce]

'Windows wants to be on every computer desktop in the world, but Linux and Stane want to destroy the desktop.'

he seems to be operating under the assumption that Windows *is* the desktop. Even in that case, he is disasterously wrong. Linux isn't out to destroy Windows as in the words of Linus himself: "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect."

Re:meh

[TuringTest]

After I RTFA, is more like he assumes that Iron Man is Windows. He uses the Windows/Linux comparison as a metaphor of the kind of fight than Tony Stark will have to face in this story arc:

He's the open source to Stark's closed source oppressiveness. He has no headquarters, no base, and no bank account. He's a true ghost in the machine; completely off the grid, flexible, and mobile. That absolutely flies in the face of Tony's received business wisdom and in the way business is done. There are banks and lawyers and you have facilities and testing. Stane is a much more different animal. He's a much smarter, more mobile and much quicker to respond and evolved futurist.

Re:meh

[hey!]

Here's an elementary principle of story telling: you can't get your hero to win against impossible odds, if the villain is stupider and weaker than he is. It follows that a hero must be at a disadvantage when facing his enemies.

Part of the Marvel formula, of course, is the neurotic, conflicted hero. Following the principle of heroic disadvantage, it follows that it helps to give the villain clarity. And there is nothing that promotes clarity like a mad, Utopian vision. What makes the vision mad is not its lack of feasibility; what makes it mad is that getting there requires subverting the things the vision is supposed to accomplish. Dr. Doom is certain that if he makes decisions for people, they'll be better of in the end. In practice that means enslaving them. Real life examples include right wing terror groups who rob banks in the cause of non-interference with individual liberty, or left wing extremists who run kidnapping and extortion rackets in the name of human dignity.

Heroes in comic book universes tend to be conservative. Not necessarily politically so, but they always act to preserve the status quo. In part, this is determined by the need to reset the universe story after story after story. The superhero might not know what he wants, but whatever it is, it does not involve change. Superman does not fight to make America a better place, he fights to preserve the "American way". Batman crusades against crime, but in his wealthy playboy alter ego he does not crusade for education, which would ultimately be more effective.

Tony Stark, arguably, has the worst plan for using his super abilities of any comic book hero.

Stark's super-ability is engineering. A physically super-powered character like Spider-man can only accomplish things that require him to be on the spot; Stark's potential super-deeds can be mass produced. Even a moderately talented engineer could do hundreds of times more for humanity than Spider-man, and Stark is not an ordinary engineer; he is prodigiously talented. He could use his unique engineering prowess to cure heart disease, or to provide mobility to paralysis victims. Instead he chooses to pursue a quixotic crusade against villainy which could be left to dozens, if not hundreds of other costumed superheroes. He's brought himself down from the level of engineering genius to the level of a mere superhero. Instead of designing mass producible solutions to humanity's problems, he designs combat technologies that threaten humanity when they are reproduced. Indeed he spends a great deal of superhero energy trying to put the technology transfer genie back in the bottle.

In short, in the comic book universe it is never the superheroes who have a vision of a better world. It is the supervillains who are agents of change. Their vision, of course, is insane, otherwise they'd be super-philanthropists, not super-villains. But if it weren't for supervillains, superheroes wouldn't have the imagination to put their powers to any productive uses. Superman, by spending an hour a day or so on a super-treadmill, could provide enough power for Metropolis to shut down all it's coal fired power plants, improving the economic life and health of everybody in the city. Instead he wastes his out of costume time playing absurd games with secret identities.

Re:meh

[Snowmit]

Hilarious. I can't believe that I had to read/scroll past 2/3 of the page of people proclaiming "LINUX ISN'T EVIL THIS GUY IS A M$/SCO/BUSH/CIA SHILL" before I got to someone who'd RTFA.

Guys, this is a story about Tony Stark's insane closed source mentality (remember that in the Armour Wars he travelled around the world attacking and even killing everyone in an armoured suit that MIGHT have had some of his technology, including some fellow good guys) and the limitations it faces against a diffused and amorphous enemy that consists of dozens of groups sharing information and whatnot.

From TFA "No matter how high tech or evolved, even with Extremis, the Iron Man armor is still a guy in a suit," Fraction stated. "If you get between the man and the suit you can undo it. So Stane doesn't need a suit. That's the difference. That's what we start to see, the future of Iron Man is that there's no gap between Iron and Man. It's one being and Stane is quite literally evolving himself and people who pay him as we see in the book's opening."

This is actually the first Iron Man story that I'm looking forwards to in awhile. It looks like it might be an interesting and nuanced look at the fight for the future of technology.

If you guys could get off your "Open Source == good" mentality and dial it back to "Open Source == better way to get things done" then you might be able to see how even terrorists could benefit from the wisdom of crowds. And once you can see that, there are all these really interesting possibilities for where the story could go.

Re:meh

[paperninja]

So kind of like the Anonymous people hassling Scientology?

Re:meh

[ShadowsHawk]

This is great post and it should have been modded higher.

Re:meh

[Mr. Beatdown]

Their vision, of course, is insane, otherwise they'd be super-philanthropists, not super-villains. Not unlike, say, Bill Gates?

Re:meh

[DDX_2002]

While this is undoubtedly true for the overwhelming majority of comics, there are bright spots where someone is thinking outside the box. The Ellis run of Stormwatch and its transformation into The Authority was revolutionary. Jenny Sparks said "There has to be someone left to save the world. And someone left to change it." As the opening panel of one ish asked, why don't superheroes ever go after the REAL villains - and what followed was the Authority invading Indonesia, deposing Suharto and leaving him to be killed by his own victims. For that matter, in WildCATS 3.0 the hero decides to save/change the world by making a corporation, using his supertech to create an unbeatable product and use the leverage it gives him to reshape the entire global economic and political system. Of course, the requirements of publishing meant that the entire run was reset and the point lost and these became more violent and not particularly innovative or interesting titles.

Re:meh

[Iambic Pentametor]

Dean Kamen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Kamen has taken the path you suggest Stark should take. Robotic arms for veterans, water purification with no consumables, mobile dialysis, insulin pumps, and wheelchairs that can climb stairs. A true Hero!

Re:meh

[Snodgrass]

Wow, that was awesome! Well done.

and in other news

[RuBLed]

It's the Year of Linux in... errrr... armor?

Wow

[kamapuaa]

I can see Comic books and open source uniting, working together to keep geeks around the world from getting laid.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure which scares me more. The truth of that statement, or the fact that it was modded insightful.

Re:Wow

[sm62704]

A Nerd's Guide to Getting Laid

I should add "hide all your comic books" to that list.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

A Link to the smug62704s stupid Journal

I should add "hide all your comic books" to that list

*wank wank wank wank*

Re:Wow

[sm62704]

You keep doing that "wank wank" thing. All I can gather from that is you asume nobody's reading the journals. Well guess what, mr anonymous troll, you're quite wrong.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep doing that "wank wank" thing. All I can gather from that is you asume nobody's reading the journals. Well guess what, mr anonymous troll, you're quite wrong.

Of course people read your journal but that doesn't mean you have to post comments with links to it, especially if it's not even vaguely related to the article. That's just off-topic spam. Same goes for Uncyclopedia btw.

Oh, and for *wank wank wank wank*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker

Man, and I though piracy was bad

[CrazyJim1]

Now they're making open source to look bad? I'll have to download this movie wearing my tinfoil turban.

Re:Man, and I though piracy was bad

[CrazyJim1]

I re-read the summary, the article, and some of the CBR forum stuff. I misunderstood that the movie isn't going to portray Open Source as being fuel for terrorism, but instead it is the new comic book.

Tony Starks armor clearly runs on Vista

[Reed Solomon]

Why else does it get shut down and fail so often?

Bah. I don't care. I barely read any Marvel anymore anyways. Heck I don't care enough to even download them illegally that's how disinterested I am. They cancelled anything I liked. Cable/Deadpool and Thunderbolts were the last two things I was reading. I'm just barely hanging on with Thunderbolts at this point. Hopefully they bring back the original team before its too late and I don't care anymore. Though I always imagined the Fixer as being a BSD user.

I'll stick to DC and their "hack the gibson" take on computer hacking. Save us Oracle!

Re:Tony Starks armor clearly runs on Vista

[phrostie]

i was thinking that Stark ran his suit on one of the BSDs

he strikes me as the kind that wants to use others work but not give back.

he only hates Linux becuase of the GPL

We already have that

[hcmtnbiker]

But we already have Linux Super Villian.

Re:We already have that

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.

Let's see...

In a theoretically infinite universe, there are theoretically infinite objects that could be considered brains. If I only didn't have one brain, then that means I have all but one of the infinite brains out there, which would imply, at the very least, that I would be much, much smarter than you.

Where did you get that sig anyway? Some insult from some online forum?

(Mods, this is the entertainment section. There's no great need to be strictly on-topic, right? ;)

Re:We already have that

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahaha, i was going to make a reference to this but you beat me to it. works especially well for me -- steve is my real name, and it is widely known that i would like to have been a super villain.

Re:We already have that

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this a Copyright violation here? :-)

Re:We already have that

[Anonymous Coward]

The theory is not that it's infinite. The universe is finite but boundless. That means there's only a certain amount of space, but you could keep going in any direction forever because you'd "wrap around".

Re:We already have that

[sm62704]

Infinity: the number of times the word "infinity" can be said.

"Black holes are where I decided to divide by zero"
-God (taken from the Uncyclopedia, so don't blame me!)

Re:We already have that

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzman_brain

Re:We already have that

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get that sig anyway? Some insult from some online forum? Squidward. It was the episode where Sponge and Star were talking to each other with bubbles, and Squid wanted to mess with them, and used the phrase in question.

Epiphany and Switcheroo

[Dr_Barnowl]

If you ask me, the plot is ripe for a twist ; Stark discovers that Stane is actually the good guy, and that the massed legions of commercial software are colluding with the hardware manufacturers in a plan to take over the worlds computers by putting secret encryption keys on the motherboards and only permitting "approved" software to run.

Re:Epiphany and Switcheroo

[Gideon Fubar]

This supports Marvel's "what a twist!" plot generator perfectly. Tony will be forced to choose between his loyalty to his industrial forbears and the good of all humanity.

Of course, his character is a raging, womanizing alcoholic who regularly gets blackmailed for things he's actually done.. Hold on.. which one is the good guy again?

Re:Epiphany and Switcheroo

[mcvos]

Exactly. Even TFA calls him oppressive for hanging on to his secret revolutionary technology that could change the world, for being unable to trust others with that technology. Tony Stark is proprietary technology personified.

The only reason he's a hero at all is because he has his own comic book. Besides, I never liked Iron Man anyway.

Re:Epiphany and Switcheroo

[Neoncow]

Hold on.. which one is the good guy again? Get your stinking code away from me, you damned dirty nerd!

Re:Epiphany and Switcheroo

[mqduck]

Maybe Deus Ex 3 will actually be the movie's tie-in game.

Re:Epiphany and Switcheroo

[MMC Monster]

Iron Man has always been a bastard. He was an alcoholic that used his suit while drunk and used women on a regular basis.

The whole Armor Wars saga, where he eventually killed the Titanium Man (as well as fighting some innocent people and disabling the armor of U.S. Government agents) should have branded him a murderer. While others stole his technology, did he really have to go it alone to fight it out with them?

He got away with it at the time by faking the death of Iron Man. Now that it's known that Tony Stark is Iron Man, he should have been arrested and thrown in prison.

Re:Epiphany and Switcheroo

[Culture20]

With everything happening in the Civil War series, it seems pretty clear that Tony owns SHIELD and possibly other portions of the U.S. government (possibly because they rely on his proprietary tech). He's been calling a lot of shots and keeping Reed too busy with science to realize what's happening.

Re:Epiphany and Switcheroo

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ask me, the plot is ripe for a twist ; Stark discovers that Stane is actually the good guy, and that the massed legions of commercial software are colluding with the hardware manufacturers in a plan to take over the worlds computers by putting secret encryption keys on the motherboards and only permitting "approved" software to run. I think you're asking a bit too much from Marvel Comics' writers. :)

Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe Stane doesn't like desktop applications. Maybe the web is his thing and he wants to move everything to the cloud.

Maybe Stane is Google. :-)

Re:Google?

[jd]

But... but... Google doesn't do evil. It must be true, because I searched for it - on Google.

Some Villain

[lusiphur69]

I find it hard to look at the concept as menacing.

"We're going to provide Linux free of charge to anyone! MUHAHAHAHA!"

"Beware my open source laser! Powered by the distilled tears of Microsoft execs, it will cut you out of vendor lock-in!"

Or better, Stark teams up with Microsoft to combat the 'threat', then, during a battle as Iron Man powers up his blaster, the HUD flashes..

  WinIRON.sys
  The driver is attempting to access memory beyond the end of the
  allocation.
  Stop: 0x000000D6
  (0x89781000, 0x00000000, 0xBF82683F, 0x00000000)
  WinIRON.sys address BF82683F base at BF80000

Re:Some Villain

[jd]

But your lasers are fitted to sharks on rocket-powered planes in the clouds with lightning bolts and... and... and I can't get the rest of the front page into this, damnit!

Re:Some Villain

[nine-times]

I can see one possible scary aspect of it-- If the designs for a powerful weapon were made open and available to everyone, and anyone could build one, it could become a problem. Imagine the sorts of problems that would come into play if anyone could build themselves an Iron Man suit. Criminals would become a lot more dangerous, and people would probably end up killing each other in stupid accidents. On the positive side, the Youtube videos would be highly entertaining.

Thanks for ruining Iron Man even more

[Mex]

First they make him the mastermind of the whole Civil War saga, for sending Hulk into space(which admittedly was a cool series, but it made Iron Man the bad guy), and responsible for Captain America's death, and now this?

Iron Man was my fave character (A smooth but smart dude), but he's gone to shit in the past few years.

Thanks, Marvel.

Re:Thanks for ruining Iron Man even more

[MMC Monster]

The thing is, Iron Man may have been cool, but he hasn't been "good" for over a decade now.

Womanizing alcoholic murderers are rarely considered good guys (and that's from the late 80s & early 90s).

Re:Thanks for ruining Iron Man even more

[hal2814]

"which admittedly was a cool series, but it made Iron Man the bad guy"

Yeah, he was a lot more of a good guy when he went around forcefully disabling other super heroes' suits because they maybe might have some sort of Stark-designed equipment in them, especially when he accidentally kills someone in the process. Or that time he decided to kill the Supreme Intelligence even after the Avengers as a team agreed not to. When you have to pretend you're not your regular guy alter-ego just to stay on your super hero team, you're far from a good guy in the traditional sense. Iron Man has always made ethically questionable decisions. Personally, I think he's right on some and wrong on some but that's just the way he's always going to be. The down side to that is that he'll always be a much more effective character in team-based series than in an individual series because he really needs to play off of a peer.

Re:Thanks for ruining Iron Man even more

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's the point. A guy with good intentions, thinking he's doing the right then, when really he's sowing the seeds for even bigger problems. Sounds like a good metaphor for a certain entity we're all familiar with.

Re:Thanks for ruining Iron Man even more

[PCM2]

Nah. I think they just need to put a decent writer on him. Marvel should approach some post-cyberpunk sci-fi author with the idea of revamping the character. Somebody who actually knows something about technology. Iron Man is a technological hero, yet he's been saddled with 20 years worth of "ZOMG teh mega-circuits is set us up teh virus!!11 Use mah repulsa rays to reverse da polariteez!"

There's room for at least a couple years' worth of stories where Iron Man is actually more savvy and his business more modern than that of the dad in My Three Sons. He should retire from Stark International for personal reasons and found a start-up. He should work on alternative energy -- then find out that AIM is doing the same thing (why?). He should find out that Life Model Decoys are replacing normal people and they're not controlled by SHIELD (who could master the technology?) They should revamp the Mandarin as a Chinese industrialist, so he'd actually have a worthy rival for a change, instead of a racist Fu Manchu ripoff.

Skim any two William Gibson books and they could get better ideas than this whole "Tony Stark is a heroic amalgam of J. Edgar Hoover and Dick Cheney" angle.

Re:Thanks for ruining Iron Man even more

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got back into reading comics years later after watching some of the '90s animated cartoons. Jeeze, what did they do to the storylines?!

Honestly, I'm glad they started the Ultimates Universe. Ultimate Spider Man is a really fun read while the Ultimates is just plain awesome.

Re:Thanks for ruining Iron Man even more

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody's gotta pay Lenny.
Somebody always has to pay.

In (still) other news

[Torodung]

Iron Man will be renaming himself "Palladium," fighting to keep your computer trustworthy against open terror!

I will be smelling stale milk for weeks after putting it out my nose laughing. I guess the "Heroes Happen Here" stuff isn't taking off?

--
Toro

(Note: I believe this article was about a new comic book, not the movie, which features "Iron Monger" (Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane) as the enemy.)

[[UAC warning: Someone is making a schizoid post! mod Funny or Informative? Yeah, you should probably just click "ignore" ;^)]]

Why don't you try this rendition of "Sadi Moma"?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Marvel Civil War (terrorist or freedom fighter?)

[Per Abrahamsen]

I didn't follow the "Marvel Civil War" but saw some of the ads, and I got the impression that Iron Man was the leader of the "government oppression" side.

So if they take the "ones man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" point of view, this doesn't have to be bad. A supervillian using free software tactics (grassroots, openness, transparency, collaboration) to destroy Tony Starks (closed, hierarchical, corrupt) economic empire.

Carefully choosing words

[BRSloth]

From the article:

Whether in the boardroom or on the battlefield, most of the opponents Iron Man confronts usually have some sort of ties to society and politics; ties which Stark has often used to his advantage. But Zeke Stane is a very different sort of enemy than what Stark is used to. "Zeke is a post-national business man and kind of an open source ideological terrorist," explained Fraction, appropriately putting the contrast into software terms. "He has absolutely no loyalty to any sort of law, creed, or credo. He doesn't want to beat Tony Stark, he wants to make him obsolete. Windows wants to be on every computer desktop in the world, but Linux and Stane want to destroy the desktop. He's the open source to Stark's closed source oppressiveness. He has no headquarters, no base, and no bank account. He's a true ghost in the machine; completely off the grid, flexible, and mobile. That absolutely flies in the face of Tony's received business wisdom and in the way business is done. There are banks and lawyers and you have facilities and testing. Stane is a much more different animal. He's a much smarter, more mobile and much quicker to respond and evolved futurist." Yeah, it sounds bad. But then you find "he's the open source to Stark's closed source oppressiveness. [...] He's a tru ghost in the machine; completely off the grid, flexible and mobile." Makes you almost like the guy already.

Re:Carefully choosing words

[Sockatume]

I don't follow the comics that well but isn't Iron Man just a big right-wing straw-man lately anyway? Maybe we're meant to like this "villain".

Re:Carefully choosing words

[boyko.at.netqos]

Right. Like. Except, he's supposed to be the bad guy that Iron Man has to defeat. Why not make him the hero?

Re:Carefully choosing words

[Quattro Vezina]

Almost reminds me of the Ghost in that way. The Ghost was a communist who hated corporations; he hired himself out to other villains to do their dirty work, but gloated to himself that he loves it so much he'd do it for free.

He was Stark's ideological opposite, and a perfect foil: Stark belives that corporate power can be used to effect positive change in the world; the Ghost believes that corporate power _is_ what's wrong with the world.

Too bad the writers went the Mary Sue route and had him kill Spymaster for no other reason then to look like a badass.

Re:Carefully choosing words

[dwye]

Yeah, it sounds bad. But then you find "he's the open source to Stark's closed source oppressiveness. [...] He's a tru ghost in the machine; completely off the grid, flexible and mobile." Makes you almost like the guy already.

I think that the goal of this Fraction fellow is that Zeke Stain is a New Model Ted Kaczynsky, without Ted's obvious insanity and whiny reasons (thus, more like another Ted, Ted Bundy). Rather like the villian/hero from V For Vendetta, or the Norse God/Anti-God Loki.

Thus, you are supposed to like Stane, even as your higher morality/long-term view realizes that he is out to wipe out everybody who doesn't join in whole-heartedly with his crusade. As an example, if Linus Torvalds had as his real and public goal the reduction of every current and former MS shareholder to poverty as abject as the Ik, rather than just replace the MS product with a better choice, cutting down their future income.

That is, assuming that I am right in my reading of the original article. My only personal familiarity with Iron Man comes from 1960s/70s TV cartoons, and reading bits related to Captain America's death (sorry, I was a DC brat), so I am writing from moderate ignorance.

Wait Wait...

[Comatose51]

And his sidekick is WikiMan, disseminating forbidden knowledge everywhere for... free! Everyone knows that knowledge is power and by giving knowledge to everyone WikiMan is giving everyone power, thus destroying the foundation of capitalistic society and opening the doors to... Communism! Oh no, the Cold War is back!

Re:Wait Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don;t you mean
Wikileakiman?

Heh!

[jd]

Windows is more like the Sherrif of Nottingham or (even closer) King John. In fact, if I understand the plot correctly, it is Linux that is being declared the outlaw. (Mind you, the Geste of Robin Hood is pretty violent and both sides are guilty of what would today be considered war-crimes. Robin Hood, at one point, bumps off kids who could be witnesses, for example. The most Linux could be said to have bumped off is the MACH-based version of HURD, but I think that's usually considered a mercy killing.)

Reminder of CHICK

[Andtalath]

This truly reminds me of CHICKs view on DnD, it seems like a way to demonize an entire business branch by placing a character within the constraints and making it unreasonably evil. Seriously, haven't the propaganda people learned that using blatantly stupid characters to destroy something in the end only gives the subject increased exposure which makes people ask and learn about it? Seems like a really stupid antagonist, unless Tony wins be learning a lesson and start applying the good ideas of his opponent to make his own products stronger.

Who's the terrorist?

[Wiseman1024]

The ones who have consistently followed terrorism patterns - extortion, blackmail, revolutionary tax, digital restrictions malware, mafia-controlled monopolies, forcing to upgrade, forcing to sell together with other products, etc. are those behind "Windows wants to be on every desktop". The only thing Linux advocacy does is helping people having a choice Microsoft would never give them.

But what else could you expect from stereotyped cartoons from the United Corporation of America?

Re:Who's the terrorist?

[utnapistim]

Not that I don't agree with you that all that is bad (extortion, blackmail, etc.), but they are not "terrorist patterns" in any way shape or form: they're not really producing terror, in the name of a political agenda (that is what I understand terrorism to be).

</pedantic>

Re:Who's the terrorist?

[Wiseman1024]

Yes, you're right. Well, maybe their numerous security bugs, Windows Update and DRM policies may cause some terror.

what's next?

[nguy]

Geez, don't these people get that lowering the price of a product (even down to zero) is (1) what the free market is supposed to accomplish, and (2) good for everybody other than the people who keep selling overpriced shit?

What's next? Mother Theresa terrorists try to destroy the food industry by giving away free soup to the poor?

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually RTFA he is just using open source/closed source as metaphor.
Do you really this the world of entertainment really gives a fuck about the tensions between open and closed source?
Slashdot - News for nerds detached from reality.

Sounds like MS "Evangelism" to me.

[Anti-Trend]

I can really only think of one company that would be "terrorized" by open source...

Ironic, really. One would think Steve Ballmer would be the ideal anti-hero.

Re:Sounds like MS "Evangelism" to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ballmer
Height: 6'1"
Weight: 240 lbs
Super ability:
Throws chairs.

Don't let your children watch or read crap

[Tuqui]

Well, this is a good reason to prohibit your children to read comic crap.

and his new side kick freetard boy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof that Linux is bad its got its own supervillan. :-p

These kinds of things frighten me

[Anonymous Coward]

These kinds of things frighten me because:

a) The people involved seem really adamant about something
b) You read the link, in it's entirety and you have no idea why
c) Worse, when you read it rationally, it makes no sense what they're talking about. It's like a random jumble of words
d) No, I'm not joking.
e) An open source terrorist? Sit down, deep breath. That's a random collection of words. Were there only closed source terrorists before?
f) People really are frightening after all.

Re:These kinds of things frighten me

[PJ1216]

I think they were closed-source. Unless you can point me to their wiki-terror page and I can help collaborate on their next scheme.

I'm speechless

[bersl2]

Gut reaction: lynch mob time.
Read TFForumPost: Wow... I thought I got nerdy with my fandoms...
Read more: Damn, they moved on quickly. lol @ suggestion of hero/villain alignment switch
Read the /. comments: ...

I got nothin'.

Fact check on aisle 4. Fact check on aisle 4.

[The Evil Couch]

"In a recent CBR interview about his new continuation of the Marvel comic-book series 'Invincible Iron Man,' Matt Faction provides information about the the new series (debut will be May 7).

The writer's name is Matt FRACTION.

Re:Fact check on aisle 4. Fact check on aisle 4.

[STrinity]

Actually, it's Mack Fraction. He's out to make everyone in the world cool, even if it means taking away things they consider to functionality, because he knows better than anyone how many buttons and ports they need.

Re:Fact check on aisle 4. Fact check on aisle 4.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever, Comic Book Guy.

Re:Fact check on aisle 4. Fact check on aisle 4.

[fuocoZERO]

World's worst web comic? I thought it was Heroes Happen Here

Uhm...

[kitsunewarlock]

Considering the "secret" of Iron Man's suit has been an issue in the past (especially when it was sentient...wait, is it still sentient?...bah forget it), the idea that someone who'd want all code everywhere to be open source would be an important issue. After all, if Titanium Man was able to upgrade his suit using the software of Iron Man (note that Titanium Man's hardware is many times better than Iron Man's already...). Crazy Russians and their open source... (sorry, inside joke with my Russian co-worker).

But yeah, another Armor Wars would be a bad thing, from Iron Man's point of view at least.

It actually makes sense

[Hitto]

I've just finished reading the whole "civil war" arc (I know, late), and it's in accordance of Iron Man's personality : he fights AGAINST THE GOOD GUYS.
Next up, tony stark bulldozes a terrorist orphanage!

Iron Man?

[Nephrite]

Well people, I've always said Iron Mad is kinda wimpy.

Fights over shared source and free open source ter

[SpaghettiPattern]

Imagine the FTF being founded with the idea to realize UNA (UNA is Not Al-Quada.)

Blueprints are available on how to setup your own organization. Crash courses in setting up your own cell, free formats to document the cell meeting minutes, open and verifiable systems to elect cell and organization leaders, recommended lingo to hide intentions (although open, the message encryption works but people are left guessing as to what you are conspiring about.)

However, a small but significant part is missing. There's no plan for the rocket. The base is there, the logistics, the whole organization, but no rocket. So reluctantly UNA uses rockets manufactured by evil corporations that do not allow you to modify them and only ause death and destruction with a very inferior sense of style.

Until one day a youngster from South-Jemen comes that desperately needs a rocket but is highly disappointed by the commodity but closed source rockets. So he boldly builds one himself and calls it Afred (he himself is called Alfred.) And he starts deploying it for his own purpose but uses the available UNA blueprints.

Before you know everyone is using Afred for the daily terrorism fix.

Then the FTF founder quite rightly points out that a missile launching compound consists of many more things than a missile. The missile is a vital part and without it no devastation takes place. However, one should not underestimate the infrastructure provided by UNA.

Compounds should not be referred to as Afred because that would not give sufficient credit to the FTF. Instead a more appropriate name is UNA/Afred. AT least so says the Saint of the Church of UNA, St. Ignitius (I bless thee missile.)

...

A Linux Beowulf Cluster of Supermen

[Orion Blastar]

Ezekiel Stane tries to take over the world with a Linux Beowulf cluster of supermen. At first he tried Windows but kept getting the BSOD. He found that open source software worked better for his evil schemes.

Too bad Tony Stark had Stark Technology and his Iron Man armor pwned by a Skrull Alien Virus.

"while in Avengers Tower, the Skrull that had replaced Edwin Jarvis inserts a computer virus into Stark Tower's systems that causes any computer controlled by Iron Man, including S.H.I.E.L.D. and Iron Man's armor itself, to crash. It also releases every prisoner in the Raft (among them being Armadillo, Doctor Doom, Mandrill, Molecule Man, and Shockwave) and the Cube."

Tony Stark should have used Linux instead of Windows. :)

Iron Man is not a good guy

[twotailakitsune]

Iron Man hired villain's to kill other hero's. This new guy is only called a villain becuse he is lowering the bottom line. Money is was Iron Man cares about.

Remember the song "Iron Man"...

Art Community Ambivalent

[LionKimbro]

In my experience, my artist friends (painters, writers,) are ambivalent about Open Source ideas; They see a culture of free (as in cost) information as being completely destructive to their chances at making a living.

Re:Art Community Ambivalent

[Anita Coney]

I agree. I read an interview with John Carmack about his releasing the source code of older id's games. The artists fought it tooth and nail but obviously lost.

the sky is blue because God uses

[Anonymous Coward]

... you guessed it ... Windows!

continuous blue screen from the heavens.

Of course, Windows Vista Home Lite Edition.

my, oh my, does that not explain perfectly, the shoddy state of affairs on this planet!

open source and terrorism ..

[rs232]

Why not a closed.source.innovating.through.innovation.ideological.terrorist. Did someone pay him to say this, is this a new paradigm we are being primed with, to equate 'open source' with terrorism, similarly to how some time back, every other movie terrorist was a card carrying towel.head .. :)

If the movie turms out like real life then later on it'll turn out that Tony Stark is secretly funding Osama bin Stane so as he can offer protection to the citizens and the benefits of purchasing product that is fully protected by intellectual property laws .. :)

I hope Iron Man wins.

[This name in use]

I'm not an expert admin, and I have to work with Red Hat, Suse, Win2k, and Win 2003. Administering Windows hasn't changed much in 8 years (or more?). Everything can be done with the GUI, and has easier to work with help files. With Linux, you need years of experience or hours to spend surfing to figure out how to do simple tasks. Save me, Iron Man.

Re:I hope Iron Man wins.

[Cytlid]

And peddling on a bike, staying balanced without training wheels is so freakin hard too. Oh and tying my shoes? No matter what people tell me about the bunnie ears, I just don't get it. I'm like, just buy me some velco shoes or ones I can slip on. Or maybe I can go barefoot.

I mean editing a text file? C'mon people, what do you think I am, a rocket surgeon?

Re:I hope Iron Man wins.

[Culture20]

Professional admins can't use GUI's on hundreds of computers to keep things sane. Save us, Son of Stane.

P.S., with Linux, everything can be done with a GUI too (but.. why?), and the internet is one big help file.

Editors!

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Please use the full, proper name of the villain... it's "Ezekiel GNU/Stane". Thank you, RMS.

terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder...

[3seas]

in this case it appears to be in teh eyes of MS or supporters of MS.

It's an analogy...

[SuperJ]

Did anyone read the article? He's not saying that the character in the movie is going to blow people up in the name of free software (which sounds a lot like RMS to me)...it was an *analogy* He's comparing the character to his father and saying they're like a Linux guy and a Windows guy.

Re:It's an analogy...

[xgr3gx]

Is it an analogy used in the movie, or is it used by the article's author?

Re:It's an analogy...

[doom]

He's not saying that the character in the movie is going to blow people up in the name of free software (which sounds a lot like RMS to me)

You, are a near complete fool. To me you "sound a lot like" a nitwit who isn't fit to tie Richard Stallman's shoelaces, let alone accuse him of being a mad bomber (Why, because he has a fucking beard? What is the deal with you morons?).

When they throw you in jail because "all those linux guys are hackers" or some such, I hope you'll remember this idiocy.

wtf?

[jollyreaper]

Ezekiel Stane, son of Obadiah Stane? What the fuck, so Iron Man's even got the Amish pissed at him? I knew that Civil War storyline was a dumb idea.

I do have to say the movie has me laughing my ass off. The illogic of the origin story is breathtaking.

terrorist: Ok, so Mr. Industrialist, I want you to make for me a bullet-proof flying robot suit.

tony stark: Yeah, and I want a 12-year old scotch and an 18-year old girlfriend. Looks like we'll both be disappointed.

terrorist: No, look, I have this forge here, see? And a nice, heavy hammer. You can forge your robot suit, just like the crusaders made their armor when they conquered my homeland. I've got scrap iron for you to work with as well.

tony stark: Looks like someone's been hitting the hashish a little early today. Ok, I'll play along. So I bash together the armor. Now how am I going to make the microchips for the computers, the ultra-compact jet engines for the flying part, etc?

terrorist: With the hammer, very carefully.

tony stark: I'm not sure who you're mistaking me for here, MacGuyver or the A-Team.

terrorist: Look, I follow a backwards tribalist religion that believes in a supreme sky being who directs our lives. My people blow themselves up in the belief that they will get 72 virgins in a magical afterlife. We keep our women wrapped up in sheets, barefoot and ignorant and we reject learning and wisdom as the tools of Shaitan. You think you're actually going to win an argument with me using reason and logic?

tony start: You make a compelling point. Hand me that hammer.

WTF are you talking about?

[hassanchop]

Doesn't the ridiculous labelling of open source software as "terrorism" call into question all the other things that get labelled terrorism?

Put your persecution complex away for a second, it was an analogy. Nowhere in this interview is open source software labeled terrorism, it is simply used as a metaphor.

Nice rant though.

Home media networking

[sukotto]

On your site I see a few articles that touch on this (notably the DVD ripping and Thin client articles) but I really would like to read details about your setup as it sounds very similar to what I'd like to do in my own home.

Any chance of you writing up a detailed guide of your setup, along with lessons learned and "if only I'd known then what I know now"?

Admittedly, there are other guides out there on this topic. But at the same time, what you describe sounds pretty cool and I'd like to hear more about it.

Open source man!

[Laxitive]

Open source man, open source man,
Doin' the things that copyleft can,
What's he like? It's not important.
open source man.

Is he a geek, or is he a terrorist?
When he's on the internet does he distribute himself?
Or does the internet distribute him instead?
Nobody knows, open source man.

Iron man, Iron man.
Iron man hates open source man.
They have a fight, iron wins.
Iron man.

Maybe the "evil big corp" concept is getting old?

[phorm]

To be fair, plots involving "big corps" doing something bad (tm) that harms or puts the world (or a significant portion thereof) at risk is not new. For example, take Weyland Yutani, the UAC, Umbrella Corp and many others.

I don't really like having open source equated with terrorism, but perhaps an open-source villain isn't a terrible idea.

Get Your Hands Off Me

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . you damn dirty Linux hippie!

I guess this is uSoft's answer to "Antitrust"

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess this is Microsoft's answer to the movie "Antitrust", in which the Bill Gates character was not only the head of a massive software concern in the Pacific Northwest, he was also a murder. Scott McNeally made a cameo. It came out in 2001. Not bad really, but kind of over-the-top.

IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218817/

Iron Man?

[homebrewmike]

Looks like Iron Man's greatest foe has been apathy. I mean - they're really chumming to come up with such a lame super villain.

Yeah, Stallman seems to be a bit nutty, but I really don't see him as a super villain.

Looks like it's time for Iron Man to take a bow and head off into the sunset.

In the fine print of the opening page

[elrous0]

"Story by B. Gates, S. Balmer"

At a way to vilify Linux.

[cmdBarbar!an]

At a way to vilify Linux. Now everyone, run fast to Windows. Bill Gates will protect you from the evil terroristic world of "Linux". MWAHAHAHAHA! I hear Bill laughing louder than ever.

MOD PARENT UP

[Snowmit]

In the article it's used as an ANALOGY.

Tony Stark is a closed source old school military industrial complex type. The new enemy is a diffuse open source agile terrorist type. Tony Stark finds that he and his closed source ways are having trouble keeping up with the open source stylings of his enemy.

P.S. It has NOTHING to do with the movie. Take off the tinfoil, this is an article about the new story arc in the comic book and is not part of a MIAA plot to take away your Linux.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[MsGeek]

Tony Stark is also the most openly fascistic of all the Marvel Silver Age characters. He was also somewhat ambiguous as to his alignment. It can be said that he was the first "anti-hero" superhero, before The Punisher, who actually was debuted as a villain. He became an out-and-out villain in the "Civil War" arc.

So it's not out of criticism of Open Source that Tony Stark, military-industrial complex tycoon and neocon, is battling an Open Source villain. This is a story arc pitting, in the Pro Wrestling sense, two "heels" against each other. One is lumbering and dinosaur-like, the other is agile and mammalian. This should be interesting.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Mods on crack

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

How is the parent a troll? Sigh. The moderators must be smoking up again.

Linux would never have become what it is today if it hadn't been for widespread documentation of hardware-software interfaces. "The next Linux" will need the same. It boggles the mind how many Linux users refuse to understand that.

Re:Mods on crack

[utopianfiat]

How is the parent a troll? Sigh. The moderators must be smoking up again.

I've always found that toking before modding just makes me call every post +5, Funny

Marvel.com runs on linux

[mardukvmbc]

According to netcraft, they're running Apache/2.0.52 on Red Hat.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.marvel.com
Terrorists.

How Can You Destroy...

[eno2001]

...that which you cannot touch? THIS year will be the year of Linux on the Desktop!

OK, I'm kidding. I've had Linux on the desktop since 1997 and it's been a far better experience than any Microsoft offering. There is nothing I can't do on Linux that I am interested in. However, Windows prevents me from doing a lot that I wish to do. Having said that, my point is that I'm the kind of person that Microsoft doesn't cater to and Linux distros do. I'm also not Joe Average. My needs are a bit out of the mainstream.

It is kind of odd that a major motion picture would even comment on open source. However, as I've not read the article (nor will I since I could give a rat's ass about comic book characters) I suspect that this is more the interpretation of the person writing the piece than the intention of the film's creators.

Open Source Comics...

[deanston]

...is what we need. Instead of the failed Wall Street scheme that has crashed the comic book as an art form and viable local industry in this country for the past 20 years. I can see it now - Iron Man's OS crash due to an XP virus so he had to upgrade to Vista. The only thing US comic companies have left to hang onto are rehashing the old super heros created by long time comic greats whose vision are only possible in cinema with today's technology, or create bikini babes just for video games. No wonder real comic fans now favor Anime and Manga. How long can they keep milking these cliche story lines? Every super hero must have an equal but opposite villain, and the son/nephew/sister of villains always come back as villains and keep going on and on forever? Marvel and DC are just as out of fresh ideas as most of today's companies.

Ladys and Gentlemen!

[DarthJohn]

My killbot features Exim and kill 9!

Iron Man was a drunk for a reason.

[Fantastic Lad]

The main character lives high on blood money and pretends to do good by having private WWWF matches with other selfish lunatics. --Oh wait. My mistake; the new villain is an open source guy being postered as a villain.

This story was written for neo-cons and their brain-numbed followers. Have a nice Summer.

-FL

OMFG

[Moe1975]

I about fell out of my chair the second I read the word "terrorist" next to "open source" . . . I hope I am not the only one alarmed at this . . .JUST WHAT WE FN NEED, THE WORD "TERRORIST" BECOMING ASSOCIATED WITH "OPEN SOURCE" IN THE SHEEPLE CONSCIOUSNESS . . . NO!

Something needs to be done about this . . . boycott anyone? I am willing to devote time and effort toward doing something about this. Anyone interested please private message me . . .

Next movie...

[SiriusStarr]

I can see the FOSS community's reply to this already... Coming Summer 2009... IRON TUX (cue Black Sabbath)

Iron Man is interesting

[PCM2]

In the comics recently, Iron Man has contradicted some of your statements somewhat.

Marvel recently had a big crossover plot line called "Civil War," in which it was decided that superheroes were too dangerous to have running around without government oversight. They were all required to register with the Federal government. If they failed to do so, they were subject to imprisonment in one of SHIELD's top-security prisons designed for supervillains.

Who was the main man responsible for hunting down his fellow heroes and former comrades? Tony Stark, the invincible Iron Man.

In fact, Tony went on to become the head of SHIELD, the government's most ultra-secret spy organization (think more oversight than the FBI, more freedom than the CIA). In most respects, they've taken the "Tony is a billionaire industrialist" angle and spun it into "Tony is an arch-conservative storm trooper of the old guard of manufacturing wealth, using the power of the government to enforce a neo-facist agenda that goes contrary to 50 years of Marvel Comics philosophy."

It's interesting that they are portraying the latest villain as an "open source" one ... because Tony has very much become Microsoft. In fact, I can't read comics where Iron Man appears anymore, because every time the character opens his mouth I can't understand why they are still calling him a hero, when he seems to really have become little more than a smarter, more modernized version of Doctor Doom.

Re:Iron Man is interesting

[hey!]

I actually think this proves what I was saying.

The evil twin theme is very common in comic books, whether the twin is in a parallel universe, or is a pretender, or just somebody who is awfully like the hero. The quest for more complexity and realism in recent stories means there is no better candidate for evil twin than the hero himself. It's an even match, no kryptonite needed.

It's a very plausible and useful theme. What is a supervillain, but a superhero with a plan to drag the world, against its will if need be, into a better future? He starts by acting as if his undeniable superiority gives him the right to make decisions for others. In the end he finds himself using lesser people as expendable means to his ends. What I've argued is that the classic comic book hero is really not all that heroic. The villains are arguably more heroic, but only from the perspective of their severe moral short sightedness.

If you want to take a superhero on a journey from being a muscle-bound enforcer of the status quo to being real hero, the straightest path cuts right across supervillain territory.

Is Tony Stark really any different from Dr. Doom? They're both vain, armor wearing geniuses with a serious authoritarian streak. As bona-fide geniuses they have more reason than most to believe themselves qualified to decide what is in the best interest of others. However, Dr. Doom will never be a hero, because there is no end to his self-delusion of omniscience; there are no limits to what he will destroy today to build a better tomorrow.

Sacrifice is essential to heroism. A hero has to give something up for the greater good. In the DC universe, Batman is a kind of neurotic fixation of Bruce Wayne; Wayne fights crime, but in a way that precludes him having normally satisfying relationships with other people.

Clearly, the easiest way to make Tony Stark into a hero is to give him something he has to give up; you can't take away his genius, which makes taking away his money futile. So you have to give him something, namely the power and authority he not-so-secretly craves. The best way to show that Tony Stark is different from Dr. Doom in an essential way is for him to become Dr. Doom. Then turn back. And, since this is Marvel, he'll return from the trip with enough personal demons to flummox Dr. Strange.

Re:Iron Man is interesting

[lennier]

My read when I first heard of the resolution of the Civil War plotline is that the 'Tony Stark is a jerk' effect is entirely deliberate, and that it's all quietly part of an ongoing mega-event that will culminate in a 'Civil War II' when SHIELD's approach is demonstrated to be unworkable. Probably the new Captain America will lead the charge.

Notice that DC continued from Infinite Crisis through 52 and now 'Final Crisis'. Be very surprised if Marvel's not running on the same kind of big-picture timeline.

Re:Iron Man is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

And, since this is Marvel, he'll return from the trip with enough personal demons to flummox Dr. Strange

"Skrulls. It's all going to be about Skrulls." -- (paraphrased) Warren Ellis, on scans_daily, a couple of years ago

PS: I love you, hey!

Settle down people ...

[Bob-taro]

... It seems to me they are using the term "open source" descriptively, not pejoratively. I really doubt they are trying to put the open source movement in a bad light in any way. I mean, it's not like we equate the words "closed source" or "corporate" with evil, right? ... right?

Doesn nobody think this is a bad thing?

[DaDibbel]

Demonizing Linux and Open Source?

Re:Doesn nobody think this is a bad thing?

[step_right_up]

Demonizing Linux and Open Source? Yes, I agree leave that to *BSD.

Don't mix logic with political spin

[AHumbleOpinion]

When a roadside bomb attacking military vehicles is "terrorism", the word has lost all meaning. ... considers roadside bombs to be "terrorism", then as you say, the word has lost all meaning. It is now just a propaganda ploy.

Please don't mix logic with political spin, it undermines an otherwise valid point. Singling out Bush by name is misleading, his usage of the word is hardly any different than administrations before him, republican and democrat, and its current usage goes back farther than you suggest. More importantly, Iraq is an exceptionally poor example of this otherwise valid point. In addition to the fact that those targeting soldiers one day also target civilians on other days, some attacks on soldiers demonstrate no consideration for civilian casualties. The word's formal definition applies quite well to insurgents in Iraq, little propaganda is needed.

Re:Don't mix logic with political spin

[sm62704]

Singling out Bush by name is misleading, his usage of the word is hardly any different than administrations before him

True, IIRC the Beruit bombings were called "terrorism" by the Clinton administration. I'm just as down on the Democrats as I am the Republicans.

some attacks on soldiers demonstrate no consideration for civilian casualties

When we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage".

Re:Don't mix logic with political spin

[AHumbleOpinion]

"some attacks on soldiers demonstrate no consideration for civilian casualties"

When we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage".

Note the words "no consideration" above. We try to avoid collateral damage, even to the extent that we occasionally put our troops in greater danger. In contrast, the enemy includes some who consider the civilian casualties a bonus because they are from the "other" school of Islam and are therefore heretics deserving death, and some who consider the civilian casualties a blessing because they are from the "same" school of Islam and are there righteous true believers who have died in a struggle to defend the faith and are therefore martyrs who are entering paradise.

Re:Don't mix logic with political spin

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure who your plural noun "We" refers to. Surely not the country responsible for Hiroshima, the Dresden bombing, the Mai Lai massacre, cluster bombing of civilian populated areas in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

Re:Don't mix logic with political spin

[AHumbleOpinion]

I'm not sure who your plural noun "We" refers to. Surely not the country responsible for Hiroshima, the Dresden bombing, ...

In both cases the US did not initiate the intentional targeting of civilians, it responded in kind. The Japanese were notoriously brutal in this respect (China). Also, in Europe the US greatly increased the risk to its air crews by preferring to bomb in daylight so that military targets could be more precisely targeted. This was in part motivated by concerns for civilian casualties. In contrast to the British preference for night bombing which generally carpet bombed cities. Dresden was closer to this latter case.

... the Mai Lai massacre, ...

An aberration by one small unit. Other US troops went into harms way to rescue the civilians being attacked and threatened to fire on the attackers. The commander who ordered the attack was prosecuted.

... cluster bombing of civilian populated areas in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

Precision bombs, not cluster bombs, are generally used for strikes in or near populated areas. Cluster bombs are generally used against large military formations or military areas such as airfields. In any case, the US is working pretty hard at avoiding civilian casualties. When such casualties have occurred it is usually the result of faulty intelligence or some other error (similar to friendly fire), not the indiscriminate use of area weapons.

Re:Don't mix logic with political spin

[Anonymous Coward]

Jerk: The label I reserve for those who try to sarcastically take a morally superior position in hindsight ... in other words ... you.

Ironman will lose

[strider2k]

Ironman will lose so bad. Think about it...

Ironman/Warmachine = closed source software developed at Stark Enterprises.
Villain = Open Source Software maintained by millions of uber geeks around the world.

Not only is Ironman/Warmachine 's suits are more prone to software bugs and require daily updates and/or service packs, they wouldn't stand a chance to the innovative technology of OSS. Heck, let's all create our own ironman suit using Python and WINE! I'll be scared if Sentinels are created by OSS though.

More info on the new tech-savvy Iron Man comic

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.marvel.com/news/comicstories.2560

I think it's clear

[msimm]

that terrorism is a political label first and an accurate description second.

Linus in a Titainium Penguin suit!

[Paracelcus]

GPL Man!

An "Open Source Terrorist" is a near impossibility

[doom]

The idea of an "open source terrorist" is pretty crazy, needless to say: terrorists have to act in secrecy, open source software works out in the open; free software relies on the cooperation of communities, "terrorists" (when not government agents in disguise [1]) are a fraction of a percent of the population.

Anyone who really wanted to nail the script kiddies would spike their stashes of freeware with tracers that phone home, and if the NSA hasn't done this for some reason, well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

[1] By the way: no, I'm not a believer in the "9/11 Truth Movement".

Remember Kiddies...

[amplt1337]

As someone said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you. Then you win."

Re:Remember Kiddies...

[geekoid]

Also remember:
It's OK to watch your women die forcing them to reject 'western' medicine, but when it's your time, western medicine is OK!

He was nothing but a control freak.

Wrong Tag

[nurb432]

It should be 'propaganda'.

Seems if they cant fight logic, they will just program the next generation.

Lets hope it all backfires, just like when they went after napster. If that had never happened, 90% of the world would still not know about it.

Re:An "Open Source Terrorist" is a near impossibil

[nurb432]

You are using logic.

Most people that see this wont, and it will slowly make OSS a bad word in the public.

The new open-source villain

[Tetsujin]

Here's a few choice snippets from the new villain:

"Ha ha, FOOL! My weapon is invincible! Its open design has been thoroughly scrutinized by many eyes!"

"Well, of course everybody knows the location of my secret lair! Security through obscurity is worthless!"

"I refuse to fight you, Iron Man, as interfacing with your closed hardware would violate the licensing terms of my weapons!"

"As it happens, my battle suit is every bit as good as Iron Man's! Granted, there are a few bugs here and there, and the documentation is a little out of date, but the power it gives me is unrivaled!"

I miss Len Kaminski

[Quattro Vezina]

Unlike the current writers, Len Kaminski actually knew what he was talking about when he referenced technologies in his run.

Damn, I wish Kaminski'd write Iron Man again. I miss him.

RTFA!

[bickle]

Way to quote out of context! Read the article and it's very different than what this horrible summary implies.

Re:Maybe the "evil big corp" concept is getting ol

[MikeFM]

Except that in the open source world terrorism consists of installing Windows on your friend's computer. Scary but hardly action packed. :)

Who is paying them

[rayk_sland]

to create such a lame villain...?