Slashdot Mirror


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."

27 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. People! Not everything is terrorism! by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by arivanov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!!!

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by teh+kurisu · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by empaler · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!
    7. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...spelling Nazi.

    8. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by Kjella · · Score: 5, Funny

      Disclaimer: I'm not German, I'm Dutch. <rimshot>Don't worry, the last guy wasn't german either...</rimshot>
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! by Fallen+Seraph · · Score: 5, Funny

      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"

  2. In related news by dedazo · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  3. OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick... by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sharerman!

    He will share global economy to it's knees!

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

    1. Re:OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  4. meh by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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."
    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:meh by TuringTest · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    2. Re:meh by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Some Villain by lusiphur69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  6. In (still) other news by Torodung · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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" ;^)]]

  7. Re:Open Source Terrorism? by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    I don't therefore I'm not.
  8. Re:Open Source Terrorism? by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I hate printers.
  9. Re:Open Source Terrorism? by compact_support · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  10. Re:Open Source Terrorism? by fractoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  11. Re:Open Source Terrorism? by totallyarb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
  12. Re:Open Source Terrorism? by totallyarb · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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.

    --
    -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
  13. Re:Open Source Terrorism? by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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
    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  14. Re:Open Source Terrorism? by DavidShor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.