But most other promotions aren't deterministic. You buy a McDonalds/BK/whatever meal, and you get a *tiny* expectation that you win. Same with extra-long field goals (of either type); only a machine could crank 'em out w/ 100% accuracy simply as a matter of effort or will. It's like a lottery ticket; for $1, you buy a mathematical expectation that you'll get less than $1 back. You may be gaining some thrill or hope from it, and you may gain in utility (if the amount you spend isn't worth that much to you, because you can well afford it), but as a straight mathematical proposition, you lose. There's also established precedent for paying off in money, cars, and so forth. Even sweepstakes do this, because they usually limit their losses (e.g. Publisher's Clearing House only gives one top prize a year, so it's a VERY manageable loss), and they *still* most likely have a net gain due to people who buy otherwise unwanted products in a misguided attempt to increase their odds.
There's none, as far as I know, for deterministically selling VTOL military jets to civillians at substantial discounts: nothing even remotely close.
Points that you redeem, however, weren't acquired by chance; there was a direct and fixed correlation between money used to buy the points, the points acquired, and merchandise available.
There are conditions under which a [US] judge can direct a losing party to pay both court costs and "reasonable" legal fees of the victor, apparently; it lately happened w/ Judge Weber-Wright smacking the President with a bill for such. The bill included some of the fees incurred by Paula Jones -- only some, because only part of the time they spent was directly related to the issue (contempt of court concerning the President's testimoney re: Lewinsky in that court). I'm not sure what the conditions are, but it can happen.
Oh, something that some of you may find amusing: the Judge (Weber-Wright) is a former student of the President's. True.
...qualification is relevant because in the ad, the alleged owner was a student who had and used the jet.
That's roughly like showing a cat winning cat toys, some furniture to scratch up, and then the very same cat driving a Mercedes: ain't gonna happen. The very fact that it was this ludicrous matters.
As long as the claims are clearly outrageous, fine by me. Then, it can be done with a bit of humor, and might be more amusing than the more patronizing ads involving complete and utter hams. There's little public interest in outlawing satire.
{shrug} The ways to hurt the advertisers would mostly be to
* avoid buying the advertised products, and * avoid watching the programs featuring the ads.
For many, there's sufficient variety to allow not buying particular brands.
One in which emotive arguments, anti-corporate attitudes, and disavowal of personal responsibility plague the courts, that's what kind.
Given that there are small-time lawyers who (literally) pay their way through life by suing their neighbors and collecting settlements, and juries who believe that manufacturers of products are utterly liable for unlawful use of them, or that a single auto accident is worth several billion dollars (really!) to the victims...
Because you don't automatically win with a lottery ticket; the percentage favors the house, obviously. Or did that slip your mind? The point of a lottery is to raise money for the state, by exploiting the concept of infrequent rewards: the customer is getting something (a very low monetary expectation) that's worth less than he's paid, if you just compare fiscal values.
Now, if the ad stated something like "pay 7 million points for a 1 in 30,000 chance of getting a Harrier -- or else, nothing", *AND* Harriers were civillian commodities, *then* it might be reasonable.
It comes down to a bozo who probably hoped he could scam the courts.
It's not reasonable. High-school students are rarely remotely qualified to fly a VTOL military aircraft, and civillian students almost certainly not. For a fellow to believe an ad like that is about as ludicrous as the woman who tried to sue the PA Lotto because she played for years and never won (true. thrown out, 'tho), or about anybody who looks at Nike ads and thinks that the shoes will turn him into the next Jordan clone, or people who buy magazines to increase their odds of winning the Publisher's Clearinghouse stuff (IIRC, it'd be illegal to tie odds in any way to purchases).
Sweepstakes that *don't* pay out *are* illegal, fwiw; there's probably an obligation actually to print the odds of winning and such.
It's a false-advertising issue. If it's not "reasonable" to believe it, it's not really a true obligation (e.g. you couldn't have sued over the "Joe Isuzu" ads for their not letting you pay with shells, nor could one claim that a commercial actually led them to believe drinking a particular brand of beer conjures up bikini-clad babes and sue because that failed to happen. They're allowed to exaggerate, stretch things, and so forth -- as long as it's obvious to a "reasonable" person.)
If memory serves, there's something called the "Mutation Engine" (MtE) that attempts to modify itself in such a way as to get past plain signature-based scanners. I've never bothered to look at its code, so can't give more details than that -- even about its efficacy or whatever. I don't believe it was aimed at actually detecting specific scanners, either.
'tho, actually, it might be possible to patch the most popular scanners to never report a positive hit.
You'd probably be able to find information 'bout MtE on comp.virus, or from the more reputable anti-virus researchers, 'tho.
Or, implementing a strong sandbox-like environment. On a multi-user system, this means running untested software as a non-privileged account, so that you can't hose your system.
Human immune systems can, for the most part, function adaptively because of the vast number of cells. Detection does not have to be immediate, as long as it occurs fast enough for the infection to be contained, and the damaged cells eventually replaced. Then, the newly noticed antigens will result in cells with receptors for such, and the next wave will be detected faster *if* it hasn't mutated enough to alter such.
That's not acceptable for a critical computer system's data; ergo, something stronger such as a sandbox or other mechanism to prevent unauthorized access would be desireable.
Er, sorry, I've finished up the "Thomas Covenant" chronicles lately.
But seriously, there are quite a few people who really don't care whether it's mainstream or not methinks. Or, say, are you telling me that there are no fans of classic rock anymore, and that such radio stations don't exist? And so forth. Switching operating systems is a bit of a bother just to satisfy a countercultural whim. Unlike primarily recreational areas like music, there are actual demands on people that limit their flexibility with OS choices.
I *need* to be able to develop software that'll run on *nix-type boxes, like Solaris and Linux. Arguably, if I need to write a GUI for a mixed environment like that, obtaining a Mac and using MacOS is not exactly a good choice; nor is using Visual C++ on a WinNT box, unless it's loading something cross-platform like Tk. It also happens that much of the diversionary software that I have, like Alpha Centauri, needs to run on MS Windows variants. I might add to the stable (e.g. OpenBSD if I opt for an always-on net connection -- because OBSD is subject to serious code auditing, *if* it supports most of my hardware) but that again would be based on a functional requirement, and would be an addition instead of a replacement. It'd still require serious thought.
Point being, it's easier to switch radio stations (e.g. 'tween an oldies station and a classic-rock station: *no* recent music:) than between operating systems. The former is more susceptible to whims, being less constrained by needs.
Is that even legal? I was under the impression that the Moon was considered public property of all Mankind, and that would imply that private companies/individuals have no right to sell it (without the consent of, say, half of Mankind). Sounds like (probably mail) fraud.
* The US Gov't has an odd tendency to support it's citizens visiting overseas, through its consulates, the State Dept., et cetera.
* If you're over here in the States, they're less likely to suddenly revoke any of your benefits in a sudden wave of anti-immigrant fervor: it could happen, but it's less likely.
* You might be able to get away w/ lower income taxes than certain other nations (the more progressive Scandinavian nations come to mind, for instance). Then again, if that's *really* a concern, perhaps you should be considering somewhere in the Caribbean. <shrug>.
Some might argue that there is a feedback loop of sorts -- vulgarity and idiocy in popular culture make it seem more acceptable behavior-wise. This behavior is then used to justify exposure to more drivel, the reasoning being that the schools or other foo of your choice are already that bad.
The counter, then, is that perhaps the schools and such should be cleaned up; that a problem does not another problem justify.
Whether or not that's true, eh. I do distinctly remember that while my high school (public, and general ed -- not a magnet or private school) seemed civil and peaceful enough, in the past couple years apparently the situation has deteriorated to the point that incidents have been featured on 20/20. Why? Most likely, cultural reasons -- the demographics are pretty stable.
The overall effects of immersion in a permissive culture may shape personality. A single contested movie is simply one element of the whole mixture: drivel on TV, drivel on the big screen, drivel on CD, whatever. I doubt there's anybody who could plausibly deny that culture has an effect on human psychological development, and that includes immersion in obscenity, inanity or so forth.
From one point of view, it's better for the teen to develop his own set of ethics than have them be taught by the parent; rational justification, thought, discussion and examination would probably be more stimulating and, in the long term, useful than dictating from above. On the other hand, that'll lead to conflicts between rationality and assorted values in the prevailing culture.
As for the movie theatre acting like a parent, perhaps it's not: by establishing a firm policy that basically demands proof of parental consent, they let the parents decide by choosing whether to show up or not. Otherwise, they either have to A) let everybody in, leaving themselves open to lawsuits from latchkey parents (they're *not* going to sue the kid, after all), B) decide on an individual case (such as notes; again, this leaves themselves open to lawsuits in the case of forgeries, etc), C) allow none in, which denies them a decent amount of income. Probably, if they could be convinced that nobody would sue them *and* that the government wouldn't legislate rules, they'd be more than happy to take money from every willing patron. Well, most would, anyway. Perhaps when the current frenzy of juvenile protectionism dies down...
The other argument, regarding violence, is that those who are likely to commit such acts may do so more efficiently in attempting to follow the script. <shrug> but that's about as applicable for clueless adults as it is for clueless juvies.
* Probably, the theatres are attempting to save themselves from a) government legislation (my understanding is that it's all voluntary, now) and possibly b) lawsuits from irate parents. Given that there are many, many two-parent households who don't track their kids that well, it wouldn't surprise me if at least some would consider suing if a theatre let their 14- or 15- year-old in.
* Arguably, they could make the claim that if the parent isn't even going to show up, that they have no evidence of such permission. The requirement that the parent actually *stay* throughout the movie is a little odd, but it's not that big a leap.
This way, they are leaving the decision with the parents: show up with your kid and see the movie, or withhold your permission by not showing up. The theatre doesn't have to decide anything at all (such as whether a note of permission is real, or so forth); arguably, there should be a middle ground here (versus letting all kids in, and leaving yourselves open to liability) but I'm not sure if one exists.
Well, substitute 'open source'. Then, at least, if the military runs into trouble with their software, they can attempt to fix it without going through a vendor. Given that they probably stress their systems in unusual configurations, and that the consequences of any equipment failure of theirs can be *very* serious, that's a good thing.
Re:Sure, it could reduce US military spending.
on
Linux in the Military
·
· Score: 1
In particular, reliable military hardware forming a credible threat saves lives. If, say, increasingly digital-aged materiel frequently "crashed" due to software problems -- perhaps due to lack of vendor support, or untested configurations, or whatever -- and there is no way to fix this, then the threat is significantly less credible. This increases the likelihood for combat by encouraging any potential opposition.
As a trivial, silly example, consider two hermits living out a deadly enmity on two islands. Each has a tactical nuclear warhead loaded onto a missile; their distances and ranges are such that either could fire at the other, without directly affecting himself. However, each is fully aware that a launch will be immediately detected by the other, and thus you have mutually assured destruction. If neither wishes to die, than neither will.
Now, make the missiles reliable, say, 50% of the time -- plus or minus some random, unknown factor. If one tunes his missile software a tad, he may feel that he could launch and quite possibly be victorious (namely, obliterate his opponent and live). This increases the risk that one or both will die.
It's simplified, but ya get the point -- sometimes, improving weapons systems reduces the chance that they'll ever need to be used.
National interests can easily cross national borders. The US, as a *major* member of NATO, has a serious interest in not seeing a relatively minor nation make a mockery out of the alliance that countered the now-defunct Warsaw Pact... the act of NATO's throwing down the gauntlet by focusing on alleged Serb violations of the rights of Kosovar civillians in their counter-insurgency, much of the rest of the script followed thereafter. Pride, credibility, ideals...
The US also has a bit of a responsibility in upholding the ideals of the UN. We could withdraw, I suppose, from the international community, but that's most likely not in our interests, either.
Fear the bread terrorists! With the support of host gov'ts, these vile creatures try to turn their enemies into toast, while being buttered up by friendly media as freedom fighters... Rather than spending their days loafing around and getting moldy, they seek to put their opponents in a perpetual jam while leaving barely crumbs of evidence behind. Any way you slice it, they're bad.
Because thermonuclear devices provide far more bang for the buck, if you consider safety, maintenance, reliability and destructive potential.
Biological weapons are, right now, fairly tough to deploy. Among other things, they have to come in contact with, be inhaled by, or otherwise be transmitted to each and every one of your victims. You also have to take precautions when preparing them, and to keep them alive until you have enough to actually do damage. There aren't that many groups that can use these as WOMAD, methinks.
Chemical weapons might be easier, if you don't have to worry about leaks.
A nuclear device of reasonably modern size, however, can obliterate an entire city without anybody seeing it. You can use a variety of delivery mechanisms that don't require direct exposure to your intended victim populace. Heck, you could probably have it concealed in the basement of a building for a few years... It'll probably be more difficult to get the parts, but the effect could be dramatically greater. It's also probably more difficult to nuke yourself by accident...
Well, aside from the reprisals (the more apocalyptic groups frankly wouldn't care), the skills and technology are rather rare -- in fact, if duplicating an existing virus is the best anyone's done, than nobody can do it today. The number of people who can do this will almost certainly remain quite small, as I don't see masses of humanity suddenly becoming well-educated in the future.
The reprisals wouldn't matter, tho', and detection would be harder than you might think. That part depends on patience and planning. There are also groups that are content with terror tactics; <shrug> they'll get the most press time, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
But most other promotions aren't deterministic. You buy a McDonalds/BK/whatever meal, and you get a *tiny* expectation that you win. Same with extra-long field goals (of either type); only a machine could crank 'em out w/ 100% accuracy simply as a matter of effort or will. It's like a lottery ticket; for $1, you buy a mathematical expectation that you'll get less than $1 back. You may be gaining some thrill or hope from it, and you may gain in utility (if the amount you spend isn't worth that much to you, because you can well afford it), but as a straight mathematical proposition, you lose. There's also established precedent for paying off in money, cars, and so forth. Even sweepstakes do this, because they usually limit their losses (e.g. Publisher's Clearing House only gives one top prize a year, so it's a VERY manageable loss), and they *still* most likely have a net gain due to people who buy otherwise unwanted products in a misguided attempt to increase their odds.
There's none, as far as I know, for deterministically selling VTOL military jets to civillians at substantial discounts: nothing even remotely close.
Points that you redeem, however, weren't acquired by chance; there was a direct and fixed correlation between money used to buy the points, the points acquired, and merchandise available.
There are conditions under which a [US] judge can direct a losing party to pay both court costs and "reasonable" legal fees of the victor, apparently; it lately happened w/ Judge Weber-Wright smacking the President with a bill for such. The bill included some of the fees incurred by Paula Jones -- only some, because only part of the time they spent was directly related to the issue (contempt of court concerning the President's testimoney re: Lewinsky in that court). I'm not sure what the conditions are, but it can happen.
Oh, something that some of you may find amusing: the Judge (Weber-Wright) is a former student of the President's. True.
Yeah. Hmmmm, she was one of the ones bitten by "Nannygate", right? Her and... Zoe Baird, if memory serves.
...qualification is relevant because in the ad, the alleged owner was a student who had and used the jet.
That's roughly like showing a cat winning cat toys, some furniture to scratch up, and then the very same cat driving a Mercedes: ain't gonna happen. The very fact that it was this ludicrous matters.
That is, are any of them not due to filled event logs, or very similar DoS's?
?
Is untested software ever considered finished?
As long as the claims are clearly outrageous, fine by me. Then, it can be done with a bit of humor, and might be more amusing than the more patronizing ads involving complete and utter hams. There's little public interest in outlawing satire.
{shrug} The ways to hurt the advertisers would mostly be to
* avoid buying the advertised products, and
* avoid watching the programs featuring the ads.
For many, there's sufficient variety to allow not buying particular brands.
One in which emotive arguments, anti-corporate attitudes, and disavowal of personal responsibility plague the courts, that's what kind.
Given that there are small-time lawyers who (literally) pay their way through life by suing their neighbors and collecting settlements, and juries who believe that manufacturers of products are utterly liable for unlawful use of them, or that a single auto accident is worth several billion dollars (really!) to the victims...
Because you don't automatically win with a lottery ticket; the percentage favors the house, obviously. Or did that slip your mind? The point of a lottery is to raise money for the state, by exploiting the concept of infrequent rewards: the customer is getting something (a very low monetary expectation) that's worth less than he's paid, if you just compare fiscal values.
Now, if the ad stated something like "pay 7 million points for a 1 in 30,000 chance of getting a Harrier -- or else, nothing", *AND* Harriers were civillian commodities, *then* it might be reasonable.
It comes down to a bozo who probably hoped he could scam the courts.
It's not reasonable. High-school students are rarely remotely qualified to fly a VTOL military aircraft, and civillian students almost certainly not. For a fellow to believe an ad like that is about as ludicrous as the woman who tried to sue the PA Lotto because she played for years and never won (true. thrown out, 'tho), or about anybody who looks at Nike ads and thinks that the shoes will turn him into the next Jordan clone, or people who buy magazines to increase their odds of winning the Publisher's Clearinghouse stuff (IIRC, it'd be illegal to tie odds in any way to purchases).
Sweepstakes that *don't* pay out *are* illegal, fwiw; there's probably an obligation actually to print the odds of winning and such.
It's a false-advertising issue. If it's not "reasonable" to believe it, it's not really a true obligation (e.g. you couldn't have sued over the "Joe Isuzu" ads for their not letting you pay with shells, nor could one claim that a commercial actually led them to believe drinking a particular brand of beer conjures up bikini-clad babes and sue because that failed to happen. They're allowed to exaggerate, stretch things, and so forth -- as long as it's obvious to a "reasonable" person.)
If memory serves, there's something called the "Mutation Engine" (MtE) that attempts to modify itself in such a way as to get past plain signature-based scanners. I've never bothered to look at its code, so can't give more details than that -- even about its efficacy or whatever. I don't believe it was aimed at actually detecting specific scanners, either.
'tho, actually, it might be possible to patch the most popular scanners to never report a positive hit.
You'd probably be able to find information 'bout MtE on comp.virus, or from the more reputable anti-virus researchers, 'tho.
Or, implementing a strong sandbox-like environment. On a multi-user system, this means running untested software as a non-privileged account, so that you can't hose your system.
Human immune systems can, for the most part, function adaptively because of the vast number of cells. Detection does not have to be immediate, as long as it occurs fast enough for the infection to be contained, and the damaged cells eventually replaced. Then, the newly noticed antigens will result in cells with receptors for such, and the next wave will be detected faster *if* it hasn't mutated enough to alter such.
That's not acceptable for a critical computer system's data; ergo, something stronger such as a sandbox or other mechanism to prevent unauthorized access would be desireable.
"Raver! Madman! <evil laughter>"
:) than between operating systems. The former is more susceptible to whims, being less constrained by needs.
Er, sorry, I've finished up the "Thomas Covenant" chronicles lately.
But seriously, there are quite a few people who really don't care whether it's mainstream or not methinks. Or, say, are you telling me that there are no fans of classic rock anymore, and that such radio stations don't exist? And so forth. Switching operating systems is a bit of a bother just to satisfy a countercultural whim. Unlike primarily recreational areas like music, there are actual demands on people that limit their flexibility with OS choices.
I *need* to be able to develop software that'll run on *nix-type boxes, like Solaris and Linux. Arguably, if I need to write a GUI for a mixed environment like that, obtaining a Mac and using MacOS is not exactly a good choice; nor is using Visual C++ on a WinNT box, unless it's loading something cross-platform like Tk. It also happens that much of the diversionary software that I have, like Alpha Centauri, needs to run on MS Windows variants. I might add to the stable (e.g. OpenBSD if I opt for an always-on net connection -- because OBSD is subject to serious code auditing, *if* it supports most of my hardware) but that again would be based on a functional requirement, and would be an addition instead of a replacement. It'd still require serious thought.
Point being, it's easier to switch radio stations (e.g. 'tween an oldies station and a classic-rock station: *no* recent music
Is that even legal? I was under the impression that the Moon was considered public property of all Mankind, and that would imply that private companies/individuals have no right to sell it (without the consent of, say, half of Mankind). Sounds like (probably mail) fraud.
* The US Gov't has an odd tendency to support it's citizens visiting overseas, through its consulates, the State Dept., et cetera.
* If you're over here in the States, they're less likely to suddenly revoke any of your benefits in a sudden wave of anti-immigrant fervor: it could happen, but it's less likely.
* You might be able to get away w/ lower income taxes than certain other nations (the more progressive Scandinavian nations come to mind, for instance). Then again, if that's *really* a concern, perhaps you should be considering somewhere in the Caribbean. <shrug>.
I'm almost completely certain his post was satirical...
Some might argue that there is a feedback loop of sorts -- vulgarity and idiocy in popular culture make it seem more acceptable behavior-wise. This behavior is then used to justify exposure to more drivel, the reasoning being that the schools or other foo of your choice are already that bad.
The counter, then, is that perhaps the schools and such should be cleaned up; that a problem does not another problem justify.
Whether or not that's true, eh. I do distinctly remember that while my high school (public, and general ed -- not a magnet or private school) seemed civil and peaceful enough, in the past couple years apparently the situation has deteriorated to the point that incidents have been featured on 20/20. Why? Most likely, cultural reasons -- the demographics are pretty stable.
The overall effects of immersion in a permissive culture may shape personality. A single contested movie is simply one element of the whole mixture: drivel on TV, drivel on the big screen, drivel on CD, whatever. I doubt there's anybody who could plausibly deny that culture has an effect on human psychological development, and that includes immersion in obscenity, inanity or so forth.
From one point of view, it's better for the teen to develop his own set of ethics than have them be taught by the parent; rational justification, thought, discussion and examination would probably be more stimulating and, in the long term, useful than dictating from above. On the other hand, that'll lead to conflicts between rationality and assorted values in the prevailing culture.
As for the movie theatre acting like a parent, perhaps it's not: by establishing a firm policy that basically demands proof of parental consent, they let the parents decide by choosing whether to show up or not. Otherwise, they either have to A) let everybody in, leaving themselves open to lawsuits from latchkey parents (they're *not* going to sue the kid, after all), B) decide on an individual case (such as notes; again, this leaves themselves open to lawsuits in the case of forgeries, etc), C) allow none in, which denies them a decent amount of income. Probably, if they could be convinced that nobody would sue them *and* that the government wouldn't legislate rules, they'd be more than happy to take money from every willing patron. Well, most would, anyway. Perhaps when the current frenzy of juvenile protectionism dies down...
The other argument, regarding violence, is that those who are likely to commit such acts may do so more efficiently in attempting to follow the script. <shrug> but that's about as applicable for clueless adults as it is for clueless juvies.
* Probably, the theatres are attempting to save themselves from a) government legislation (my understanding is that it's all voluntary, now) and possibly b) lawsuits from irate parents. Given that there are many, many two-parent households who don't track their kids that well, it wouldn't surprise me if at least some would consider suing if a theatre let their 14- or 15- year-old in.
* Arguably, they could make the claim that if the parent isn't even going to show up, that they have no evidence of such permission. The requirement that the parent actually *stay* throughout the movie is a little odd, but it's not that big a leap.
This way, they are leaving the decision with the parents: show up with your kid and see the movie, or withhold your permission by not showing up. The theatre doesn't have to decide anything at all (such as whether a note of permission is real, or so forth); arguably, there should be a middle ground here (versus letting all kids in, and leaving yourselves open to liability) but I'm not sure if one exists.
Well, substitute 'open source'. Then, at least, if the military runs into trouble with their software, they can attempt to fix it without going through a vendor. Given that they probably stress their systems in unusual configurations, and that the consequences of any equipment failure of theirs can be *very* serious, that's a good thing.
In particular, reliable military hardware forming a credible threat saves lives. If, say, increasingly digital-aged materiel frequently "crashed" due to software problems -- perhaps due to lack of vendor support, or untested configurations, or whatever -- and there is no way to fix this, then the threat is significantly less credible. This increases the likelihood for combat by encouraging any potential opposition.
As a trivial, silly example, consider two hermits living out a deadly enmity on two islands. Each has a tactical nuclear warhead loaded onto a missile; their distances and ranges are such that either could fire at the other, without directly affecting himself. However, each is fully aware that a launch will be immediately detected by the other, and thus you have mutually assured destruction. If neither wishes to die, than neither will.
Now, make the missiles reliable, say, 50% of the time -- plus or minus some random, unknown factor. If one tunes his missile software a tad, he may feel that he could launch and quite possibly be victorious (namely, obliterate his opponent and live). This increases the risk that one or both will die.
It's simplified, but ya get the point -- sometimes, improving weapons systems reduces the chance that they'll ever need to be used.
National interests can easily cross national borders. The US, as a *major* member of NATO, has a serious interest in not seeing a relatively minor nation make a mockery out of the alliance that countered the now-defunct Warsaw Pact... the act of NATO's throwing down the gauntlet by focusing on alleged Serb violations of the rights of Kosovar civillians in their counter-insurgency, much of the rest of the script followed thereafter. Pride, credibility, ideals...
The US also has a bit of a responsibility in upholding the ideals of the UN. We could withdraw, I suppose, from the international community, but that's most likely not in our interests, either.
Fear the bread terrorists! With the support of host gov'ts, these vile creatures try to turn their enemies into toast, while being buttered up by friendly media as freedom fighters... Rather than spending their days loafing around and getting moldy, they seek to put their opponents in a perpetual jam while leaving barely crumbs of evidence behind. Any way you slice it, they're bad.
;-)
Because thermonuclear devices provide far more bang for the buck, if you consider safety, maintenance, reliability and destructive potential.
Biological weapons are, right now, fairly tough to deploy. Among other things, they have to come in contact with, be inhaled by, or otherwise be transmitted to each and every one of your victims. You also have to take precautions when preparing them, and to keep them alive until you have enough to actually do damage. There aren't that many groups that can use these as WOMAD, methinks.
Chemical weapons might be easier, if you don't have to worry about leaks.
A nuclear device of reasonably modern size, however, can obliterate an entire city without anybody seeing it. You can use a variety of delivery mechanisms that don't require direct exposure to your intended victim populace. Heck, you could probably have it concealed in the basement of a building for a few years... It'll probably be more difficult to get the parts, but the effect could be dramatically greater. It's also probably more difficult to nuke yourself by accident...
Well, aside from the reprisals (the more apocalyptic groups frankly wouldn't care), the skills and technology are rather rare -- in fact, if duplicating an existing virus is the best anyone's done, than nobody can do it today. The number of people who can do this will almost certainly remain quite small, as I don't see masses of humanity suddenly becoming well-educated in the future.
The reprisals wouldn't matter, tho', and detection would be harder than you might think. That part depends on patience and planning. There are also groups that are content with terror tactics; <shrug> they'll get the most press time, after all.