Impressive, though it seems the demo scene has evolved to include the use of platform libraries (graphics/synthesizer.) Impressive anyways - I'm assuming the imagery is all algorithmic.
When I last paid attention to demos, it seemed to be all in the executable, code dealing directly with hardware.
Hah. I have wondered how his wireless electricity scheme would've turned out. Looks like latter-day wireless electricity variations are showing up in certain fields, using inductance.
Dude, no no no! This is all due to the HAARP project, part of the conspiracy to control the weather so that the earth will heat up enough to provide a "factual" basis for all those "scientific" research projects about global "warming!"
For those of you wealthy enough to ride Virgin Galactic, through the ice cloud vortex at 50 miles, I strongly suggest bringing snow gear, and tinfoil hats to ward off the Teslan radio waves!
My gods. Look up "semantic reasoning" and educate yourself. Stop applying your one canonical, context-free definition for a term to all instances that you encounter. And see a doctor about the bug that is deeply lodged up your butt. Seems to have nested in your cerebral cortex.
When you know that Action A results in Response B, and you choose to take Action A - yes, you have explicitly agreed/allowed/caused Response B to happen!
If you do not have that knowledge, I guess you could say "implicit."
To all my "fans" in this thread: today's event-driven devices are at the level of complexity that you could say either "explicit" or "implicit," all depending on your level of knowledge of the device and its internals.
As an Android developer, and by use of a packet sniffer and other tools, I know that by powering on a G1 phone (which has my google.com credentials stored in it) that Google will be collecting an awful lot of data about me, the apps I use, when I use them, and even some of the data passed between my phone and the third party servers used by those apps.
Therefore, when I power on that phone, I'm expressly and explicitly granting permission to Larry and Sergei's employees to track me.
This thread is all down to lawyer talk. Issues like this are in the realm of contract legalese.
Explicit doesn't mean simple or one-to-one or anything like that.
Boy, the grammar-flamers really come out over nothing on/. Let's go to the tape, Bob. The G^P said:
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy. By having it, you're explicitly granting permission...
Let's break that down, so that you'll have opportunity to understand it, if new meanings and ideas can penetrate that thick skull of yours, k?
- "you're" == the phone owner and/or user, the one holding a contract with the phone's assigned telco
- "explicitly" -> The user is making a clear expression, of their own, based on foreknowledge that telcos log location data
- "granting" -> giving, provided
- "permission" -> consent, licence, ceding of authority
Let's reassemble it now: The user, with foreknowledge that his/her telco location logs, expressed that they may do so, by powering on the phone. Easy, isn't it?
Reverse it: By leaving the phone off, the user expresses that they do not want their location logged.
Pressing the power button does one thing explicitly. It turns on the phone.
IT IS NOT A POWER SWITCH. YOU JUST BELIEVE IT IS. It's a multi-function button. There is no one explicit function to cellphone buttons. That button with only a '1' label on it? It also delivers a bunch of non-alphanumeric symbols, on many phones.
Explicit doesn't mean simple or one-to-one or anything like that. It means fully revealed or expressed. Pressing the power button absolutely does not fully reveal or express any location logging.
That's just one cherry-picked meaning of "explicit." Otherwise, nothing is ever explicit! Except your odd irateness, that is.
If you'd read my entire post, you might have inferred the implicit meanings of the term "explicit" -- it has more than one meaning!
Quiz time for Mr_Pedantic_MuthaFucka: When you power on your cellphone by pressing the "power button," are you powering it on "explicitly," or "implicitly?"
If you answered "explicitly," you were wrong. That button is not a power switch. It did not explicitly close the power circuit which runs the phone, and the current which runs the phone does not flow between that button's contacts. It's all "implicit," as *you* would say. "Explicit" will never be the correct answer, unless it's old stereo equipment or a light switch.
Are we achieving an understanding, now? You could say that there is nothing "explicit" about the function of most any button on today's portable electronic devices. Buttons do not directly perform any one function, anymore, when all they do is generate an event signal that is routed for processing by chips and firmware.
Therefore: that "explicit" agreement to allow your location to be logged by your telco when powering on (as expressed by the GGGP), occurs within your head. You know that, underneath that button and its many virtual functions, buried in the layers of complexity in the gadget's electronics and the telco's networks and systems, there is going to be some logging.
More simply, in the "expression" meaning of "explicit," the cellphone user is expressing agreement to location logging just by powering on. That's what GGGP meant.
You're picked that nit too finely: given that we're aware cell infrastructure *knows* our whereabouts (albeit roughly), having your cellphone switched on is pretty much an explicit permission grant on location data.
why would Paul leave his life of luxury as a Jewish leader stoning Christians if he didn't experience something supernatural?
How many times has the resurrected Christ appeared to mankind since that time? (e.g. 1st Cor. 15:3-6.) Not so many? Why would he not appear to those who pray for him to appear, even though he promised unconditionally to fulfill prayers? (John 14:14 - "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.")
How do we know Paul was telling the truth? Where's the evidence? Not the faith thought-virus, I want real, verifiable evidence.
But enough with all that. It's time to go lay down some Biblical law on sinners:
Ever worked a Sunday shift? You are so dead. Exodus 35:2 - "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
Are you a married woman who fornicated? Watch out for falling rocks! Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - "If any man take a wife... [and] found her not a maid... Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."
Got a rebellious teen at home? Time to clean house. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother... the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Know a man who slept with another man? Big trouble. Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
The Bible is the literal word and law of God. Obey it. Now. Go on, get busy!
The 904... one of my favorites. Porsche didn't do so well against the GT40 with it, though... and didn't do well again until the very-not-for-street 917.
Not to pick nits, but SSC have been tinkering with their Aero supercars for more than a decade, and they're producing just 25 cars this year. That barely qualifies as "production," and wouldn't for most racing delegations in the Aero's class (GT-level.) "Nits," I said, I did.
The Audi/Volkswagen and Porsche supercars, for comparison, come from factories that have run GT/GTP race teams for decades. Porsche's supercars are design descendants of their fully-homologated production race cars (necessitating hundreds of race-ready units per year to qualify.) I know which I'd pilot to a win in a one-on-one race versus the Aero TT, heh. The Aero is a fast car, but top linear speed doesn't matter on most courses, not unless it's a drag strip!
The forthcoming Porsche GT1 2009 (*not* the 911 GT1 of last decade) looks to be a potential Veyron- and Aero-killer, with 950 bhp and weighing fully 500 kg less than the two-tonne Veyron - though still more than the ultra-light Aero, so who knows?
More pointless points... fun to watch these mad-fast cars, man. Petrol still King! Maybe in 5-10 years we'll see an entirely electric grand touring group formed.
RAID1 is useless for protecting against hardware errors - people use it for the stellar read-performance and for no other reason.
In my experience, RAID1 performance gain varies quite a bit from solution to solution.
For a desktop solution, a system builder can get good results by stroking the drive(s) during O/S installation, then carefully choosing which partitions to use for their various needs (outer vs inner.)
And back it up! My solution has been to install a second drive of same-or-greater size from a *different* manufacturer. It stays spun down most of the day, and is started periodically for backups. (Yes, I've been lectured that drives supposedly last longer when spinning all the time, but I don't buy it - they're generating heat, are subject to g-force shocks, etc.)
I've been happy using rdiff-backup, but there are plenty of backup solutions for Windows, if the OP choose to be proactive about that.
Taunting (even subtle taunting) is the very definition of smartass.
I shouldn't feed the trolls, but is this what this country has come to? When you deal with the public in your job, you gotta have a thick skin... otherwise, you may end up in an unprovoked and unjustified altercation, next up on somebody's blog, and just maybe wind up on the news as the guard who lost his cool.
I get hassled frequently by the cops in my town... all I have to do is pull out a camera. Any camera, doesn't matter if expensive or cheap little windup party camera. They go bananas when you point one at city infrastructure.
The oddest thing about Osinski's article is his claim to be "the one" to have written the CDO packaging software that brought down Wall Street-
I wrote the software that turned mortgages into bonds.
That statement alone pegged my bogometer. Sweeping claims for sole ownership of a *type* of system that developed by many banks - bullshit.
During the 80s and 90s, I worked for several major Wall St. IBs, writing institution-level portfolio risk-valuation software - dealing with billions in net value across markets, trillions in notional face value (whoop-t-do.) And I collaborated with coworkers who wrote and maintained, get this, CDO packaging/securitization systems.
Osinski, wherever he was at the time, wasn't "the one." Many people worked at this, across numerous banks (eventually.) That he has a guilt complex about it is kind of absurd. He might have been an early developer, though certainly not the only one, and he was most definitely not the inventor of mortgage-backed bonds. That alone should clear his conscience.
His guilt is either misplaced, or amplified to a level that runs way, waaay outside his actual responsibilities as a developer.
Also, his claim that the code became "the standard" used by IBs around the world seems utterly bogus. At the firms I was employed by (and consulted for), while we did license code and contract out for systems developed by quant software boutiques for specific needs, things like securitization systems were in-house. Because: a) it was very complex, b) it had to be very specifically tailored to your "inventory" systems (and the retail banks you bought from), and c) at the time, you did not want an outside firm getting into your books or onto your network. (This was in the days before FIX became a standard.)
So, maybe this guy is seeing a second/third career as a writer. Good luck with that.
Uh, err... damn. That's the last time I post to/. after tasting our latest hooch production.
I meant They Live. Watched both movies back-to-back a few weeks ago, probably why I confused the two. 'They Live' is about space aliens who live hidden among us, aliens who came to earth to colonize it and us, because they view earth as a "developing planet." The key part is that they look just like us - unless you're wearing special optics, made for seeing their true image.
So... what exactly is an "avatar," in the context of story you retold us all...?
The punishment should fit the crime. Speeding is "essentially" a thought crime; unless and until there is a collision, there is no victim (yes I understand that "people were put at risk").
Hey, that's a great idea! In the same way, my firing my 9mm pistol randomly out the window of my (non-speeding) car doesn't victimize anyone! At least not until some stupid shit moves in the way of my car^H^H^H bullet, er, that is.
Crimes without victims should be immediately removed from the books, to help improve the economy.
I can't wait for the bored, thrill-seeking hoods in my town to start speeding at even greater speeds down my residential street. 100 miles per hour, around the neighbors' kids playing ball, makes so much sense!
We've got tons of coal that's (relatively) easy to mine and (if not clean) not nearly as bad as it used to be and its environmental impact isn't all that much worse than a lot of the "green" sources.
Coal mining is a major environmental catastrophe, always has been, always will be. Blowing the tops off mountains to get at it, and parking the burn waste right on the edge of rivers, it's hard for it not to be.
Now, if Mr. Chu can turn around those practices, I'll applaud him. But nothing I've heard so far leads me to believe they'll address things beyond cap-and-trade.
The systems were not defective nor did they lose any voter data. The user interface was just badly designed
Industrial Design 101: A system, such as a user interface, whether mechanical, software-based, or both, that allows a transaction to be left in an ambiguous state, is indeed a defective design.
At the very least, they could have designed it to warn the user, upon yanking out their ID card *mid-transaction*, with loud sounds and flashing screen messages. Or, to notify the voting administrators that a voter had inadvertently not completed their vote.
It could also have been designed to mechanically lock the voter's ID card in place, until the transaction was complete. Some ATMs are designed to perform in this way - your card is not returned until you have completed whatever function(s) you began.
I'm am no expert at underwater audiology (IANEAUA), but doesn't water transmit sound waves differently than air? I remember experiments in high school physics, where sound levels were compared passing through steel, wood, water and air, and recall air being the weakest conductor of sound waves.
Is an air-based decibel measurement comparable to water-based?
that they can ruin if Kim starts feeling a bit irrelevant
Kim won't feel anything, not long after he presses the button. He'll be dead, unable to enjoy his lavish lifestyle.
You can rest assured that the game theory boys are busy keeping Obama and his staff updated about probabilities and best moves. The U.S. employs much better-trained minds than ours.
It is fallacious to assume that dictators and cultural tyrants are a) Obsessed with launching nuclear first strikes against heavily-armed allies and enemies, b) Suicidal, and therefore c) Aaahhh! We're doomed! IOW, the death-wish assumption is specious.
That level of thinking is what produces comic book plots. Tinpot dictators got where they are because they love power (or inherited it), and the benefits that power personally brings them.
The only reasons we haven't taken out the Norks' nuke-making capacity, like with Syria, are a) We don't want to piss off China, not just yet, as that's an expensive card to play; and b) It's useful to have a bogeyman on the world stage.
That wasn't an ICBM, more like an intra-continental missile. Doesn't have the range to hit anything past Hawaii.
Korea just wants to join the game. If they did succeed in nuking Japan or somebody, in an hour's time the Norks would become a clicking-hot pile of rubble.
Slashdot Mirror
Elevated by RGBA and TBC.
Impressive, though it seems the demo scene has evolved to include the use of platform libraries (graphics/synthesizer.) Impressive anyways - I'm assuming the imagery is all algorithmic.
When I last paid attention to demos, it seemed to be all in the executable, code dealing directly with hardware.
Hah. I have wondered how his wireless electricity scheme would've turned out. Looks like latter-day wireless electricity variations are showing up in certain fields, using inductance.
Dude, no no no! This is all due to the HAARP project, part of the conspiracy to control the weather so that the earth will heat up enough to provide a "factual" basis for all those "scientific" research projects about global "warming!"
For those of you wealthy enough to ride Virgin Galactic, through the ice cloud vortex at 50 miles, I strongly suggest bringing snow gear, and tinfoil hats to ward off the Teslan radio waves!
My gods. Look up "semantic reasoning" and educate yourself. Stop applying your one canonical, context-free definition for a term to all instances that you encounter. And see a doctor about the bug that is deeply lodged up your butt. Seems to have nested in your cerebral cortex.
When you know that Action A results in Response B, and you choose to take Action A - yes, you have explicitly agreed/allowed/caused Response B to happen!
If you do not have that knowledge, I guess you could say "implicit."
To all my "fans" in this thread: today's event-driven devices are at the level of complexity that you could say either "explicit" or "implicit," all depending on your level of knowledge of the device and its internals.
As an Android developer, and by use of a packet sniffer and other tools, I know that by powering on a G1 phone (which has my google.com credentials stored in it) that Google will be collecting an awful lot of data about me, the apps I use, when I use them, and even some of the data passed between my phone and the third party servers used by those apps.
Therefore, when I power on that phone, I'm expressly and explicitly granting permission to Larry and Sergei's employees to track me.
This thread is all down to lawyer talk. Issues like this are in the realm of contract legalese.
Boy, the grammar-flamers really come out over nothing on /. Let's go to the tape, Bob. The G^P said:
Let's break that down, so that you'll have opportunity to understand it, if new meanings and ideas can penetrate that thick skull of yours, k?
- "you're" == the phone owner and/or user, the one holding a contract with the phone's assigned telco
- "explicitly" -> The user is making a clear expression, of their own, based on foreknowledge that telcos log location data
- "granting" -> giving, provided
- "permission" -> consent, licence, ceding of authority
Let's reassemble it now: The user, with foreknowledge that his/her telco location logs, expressed that they may do so, by powering on the phone. Easy, isn't it?
Reverse it: By leaving the phone off, the user expresses that they do not want their location logged.
IT IS NOT A POWER SWITCH. YOU JUST BELIEVE IT IS. It's a multi-function button. There is no one explicit function to cellphone buttons. That button with only a '1' label on it? It also delivers a bunch of non-alphanumeric symbols, on many phones.
That's just one cherry-picked meaning of "explicit." Otherwise, nothing is ever explicit! Except your odd irateness, that is.
If you'd read my entire post, you might have inferred the implicit meanings of the term "explicit" -- it has more than one meaning!
Quiz time for Mr_Pedantic_MuthaFucka: When you power on your cellphone by pressing the "power button," are you powering it on "explicitly," or "implicitly?"
If you answered "explicitly," you were wrong. That button is not a power switch. It did not explicitly close the power circuit which runs the phone, and the current which runs the phone does not flow between that button's contacts. It's all "implicit," as *you* would say. "Explicit" will never be the correct answer, unless it's old stereo equipment or a light switch.
Are we achieving an understanding, now? You could say that there is nothing "explicit" about the function of most any button on today's portable electronic devices. Buttons do not directly perform any one function, anymore, when all they do is generate an event signal that is routed for processing by chips and firmware.
Therefore: that "explicit" agreement to allow your location to be logged by your telco when powering on (as expressed by the GGGP), occurs within your head. You know that, underneath that button and its many virtual functions, buried in the layers of complexity in the gadget's electronics and the telco's networks and systems, there is going to be some logging.
More simply, in the "expression" meaning of "explicit," the cellphone user is expressing agreement to location logging just by powering on. That's what GGGP meant.
You're picked that nit too finely: given that we're aware cell infrastructure *knows* our whereabouts (albeit roughly), having your cellphone switched on is pretty much an explicit permission grant on location data.
How many times has the resurrected Christ appeared to mankind since that time? (e.g. 1st Cor. 15:3-6.) Not so many? Why would he not appear to those who pray for him to appear, even though he promised unconditionally to fulfill prayers? (John 14:14 - "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.")
How do we know Paul was telling the truth? Where's the evidence? Not the faith thought-virus, I want real, verifiable evidence.
But enough with all that. It's time to go lay down some Biblical law on sinners:
The Bible is the literal word and law of God. Obey it. Now. Go on, get busy!
The 904... one of my favorites. Porsche didn't do so well against the GT40 with it, though ... and didn't do well again until the very-not-for-street 917.
Not to pick nits, but SSC have been tinkering with their Aero supercars for more than a decade, and they're producing just 25 cars this year. That barely qualifies as "production," and wouldn't for most racing delegations in the Aero's class (GT-level.) "Nits," I said, I did.
The Audi/Volkswagen and Porsche supercars, for comparison, come from factories that have run GT/GTP race teams for decades. Porsche's supercars are design descendants of their fully-homologated production race cars (necessitating hundreds of race-ready units per year to qualify.) I know which I'd pilot to a win in a one-on-one race versus the Aero TT, heh. The Aero is a fast car, but top linear speed doesn't matter on most courses, not unless it's a drag strip!
The forthcoming Porsche GT1 2009 (*not* the 911 GT1 of last decade) looks to be a potential Veyron- and Aero-killer, with 950 bhp and weighing fully 500 kg less than the two-tonne Veyron - though still more than the ultra-light Aero, so who knows?
More pointless points... fun to watch these mad-fast cars, man. Petrol still King! Maybe in 5-10 years we'll see an entirely electric grand touring group formed.
In my experience, RAID1 performance gain varies quite a bit from solution to solution.
For a desktop solution, a system builder can get good results by stroking the drive(s) during O/S installation, then carefully choosing which partitions to use for their various needs (outer vs inner.)
And back it up! My solution has been to install a second drive of same-or-greater size from a *different* manufacturer. It stays spun down most of the day, and is started periodically for backups. (Yes, I've been lectured that drives supposedly last longer when spinning all the time, but I don't buy it - they're generating heat, are subject to g-force shocks, etc.)
I've been happy using rdiff-backup, but there are plenty of backup solutions for Windows, if the OP choose to be proactive about that.
I shouldn't feed the trolls, but is this what this country has come to? When you deal with the public in your job, you gotta have a thick skin... otherwise, you may end up in an unprovoked and unjustified altercation, next up on somebody's blog, and just maybe wind up on the news as the guard who lost his cool.
I get hassled frequently by the cops in my town ... all I have to do is pull out a camera. Any camera, doesn't matter if expensive or cheap little windup party camera. They go bananas when you point one at city infrastructure.
The oddest thing about Osinski's article is his claim to be "the one" to have written the CDO packaging software that brought down Wall Street-
That statement alone pegged my bogometer. Sweeping claims for sole ownership of a *type* of system that developed by many banks - bullshit.
During the 80s and 90s, I worked for several major Wall St. IBs, writing institution-level portfolio risk-valuation software - dealing with billions in net value across markets, trillions in notional face value (whoop-t-do.) And I collaborated with coworkers who wrote and maintained, get this, CDO packaging/securitization systems.
Osinski, wherever he was at the time, wasn't "the one." Many people worked at this, across numerous banks (eventually.) That he has a guilt complex about it is kind of absurd. He might have been an early developer, though certainly not the only one, and he was most definitely not the inventor of mortgage-backed bonds. That alone should clear his conscience.
His guilt is either misplaced, or amplified to a level that runs way, waaay outside his actual responsibilities as a developer.
Also, his claim that the code became "the standard" used by IBs around the world seems utterly bogus. At the firms I was employed by (and consulted for), while we did license code and contract out for systems developed by quant software boutiques for specific needs, things like securitization systems were in-house. Because: a) it was very complex, b) it had to be very specifically tailored to your "inventory" systems (and the retail banks you bought from), and c) at the time, you did not want an outside firm getting into your books or onto your network. (This was in the days before FIX became a standard.)
So, maybe this guy is seeing a second/third career as a writer. Good luck with that.
Uh, err... damn. That's the last time I post to /. after tasting our latest hooch production.
I meant They Live. Watched both movies back-to-back a few weeks ago, probably why I confused the two. 'They Live' is about space aliens who live hidden among us, aliens who came to earth to colonize it and us, because they view earth as a "developing planet." The key part is that they look just like us - unless you're wearing special optics, made for seeing their true image.
So... what exactly is an "avatar," in the context of story you retold us all...?
This story is a dead-ringer for the plot of John Carpenter's cult classic film, 'The Hidden'.
Hey, that's a great idea! In the same way, my firing my 9mm pistol randomly out the window of my (non-speeding) car doesn't victimize anyone! At least not until some stupid shit moves in the way of my car^H^H^H bullet, er, that is.
I can't wait for the bored, thrill-seeking hoods in my town to start speeding at even greater speeds down my residential street. 100 miles per hour, around the neighbors' kids playing ball, makes so much sense!
Let us rejoice in your wisdom.
Oh, is that really true?
Coal mining is a major environmental catastrophe, always has been, always will be. Blowing the tops off mountains to get at it, and parking the burn waste right on the edge of rivers, it's hard for it not to be.
Now, if Mr. Chu can turn around those practices, I'll applaud him. But nothing I've heard so far leads me to believe they'll address things beyond cap-and-trade.
Industrial Design 101: A system, such as a user interface, whether mechanical, software-based, or both, that allows a transaction to be left in an ambiguous state, is indeed a defective design.
At the very least, they could have designed it to warn the user, upon yanking out their ID card *mid-transaction*, with loud sounds and flashing screen messages. Or, to notify the voting administrators that a voter had inadvertently not completed their vote.
It could also have been designed to mechanically lock the voter's ID card in place, until the transaction was complete. Some ATMs are designed to perform in this way - your card is not returned until you have completed whatever function(s) you began.
Are you forgetting that the U.S. boosted Hussein into his dictatorship the first place? Why, yes you are! Give the man a donut!
I'm am no expert at underwater audiology (IANEAUA), but doesn't water transmit sound waves differently than air? I remember experiments in high school physics, where sound levels were compared passing through steel, wood, water and air, and recall air being the weakest conductor of sound waves.
Is an air-based decibel measurement comparable to water-based?
Being Larry Ellison's date is conspicuously missing from that list. Does /. run on Oracle??
Kim won't feel anything, not long after he presses the button. He'll be dead, unable to enjoy his lavish lifestyle.
You can rest assured that the game theory boys are busy keeping Obama and his staff updated about probabilities and best moves. The U.S. employs much better-trained minds than ours.
It is fallacious to assume that dictators and cultural tyrants are a) Obsessed with launching nuclear first strikes against heavily-armed allies and enemies, b) Suicidal, and therefore c) Aaahhh! We're doomed! IOW, the death-wish assumption is specious.
That level of thinking is what produces comic book plots. Tinpot dictators got where they are because they love power (or inherited it), and the benefits that power personally brings them.
The only reasons we haven't taken out the Norks' nuke-making capacity, like with Syria, are a) We don't want to piss off China, not just yet, as that's an expensive card to play; and b) It's useful to have a bogeyman on the world stage.
Also, the U.S. will never give up the entire arsenal, regardless of Obama. Maybe on paper, but never in reality. Got to keep the deterrent fresh.
That wasn't an ICBM, more like an intra-continental missile. Doesn't have the range to hit anything past Hawaii.
Korea just wants to join the game. If they did succeed in nuking Japan or somebody, in an hour's time the Norks would become a clicking-hot pile of rubble.