...and it's one of the most impressive scientific endeavors we've undertaken.

Yes, one of it's missions is "stockpile stewardship" -- maintaining the integrity of the United States nuclear stockpile without nuclear testing, via simulations and tests.

But it also has a goal of initiating "ignition": a sustained ("sustained" being relative, here) fusion reaction which produces more power than was put in.

Even if there is no immediate practical application, understanding various aspects of fusion, and the science it takes to get there, is critical to our energy future.

In short, like many military and national security projects, this is a truly dual-use.

The NIF just made history by firing its 192 beams to deliver more than 500 terawatts and 1.85 megajoules of energy to its target -- more than 1000 times the power the United States uses at any particular instant, and more than 100 times the power of any other laser.

We do need science like NIF, and I'm still pained by the US decision to kill the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), what was to be the most powerful particle accelerator in the world -- significantly more so than the LHC -- after 14 miles of tunnels were dug and over $2 billion spent.

I hope this article wasn't unintentionally accurate when it called the SSC the "high water mark of American science"...(must see photos by the way).

We NEED big science.

...and has throughout our history — but it shouldn't be the only thing that drives space science and other human achievement.

If you're interested in a truly insightful and inspiring speech on this topic, I highly encourage you to set aside an hour for Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson's recent talk on just this subject at the University of Wisconsin - Madison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJzHHkmJ-8

It's well worth your time to watch, to think about — and to discuss with your elected officials.

And that's a huge problem with cyber: attribution. Even if an attack appears to be coming from a particular source, that doesn't mean it originated from and/or was ordered by that source. In fact, intentional misattribution or denial of attribution is yet another element of cyber operations. From a US perspective, we still don't have a comprehensive set of rules of engagement for cyber, or even really have consistent, well-understood definitions for what constitutes "cyber war" (though there's certainly a lot of hype...)

Some relevant recent articles:

---

Cyber Command struggles to define its place on a shifting battlefield - Nextgov

The U.S. Cyber Command, which directs network offensive operations for the Pentagon and protects its networks, is becoming more open about the military’s capabilities in cyberspace. Recently, the Defense Department was forced to show part of its hand when leaks surfaced about U.S.-manufactured cyber weapons and cyber espionage missions. Still, since 2011, the department has told the world it stands prepared to protect U.S. national security interests through cyberspace maneuvers.

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2012/08/hacker-wars/57438/

---

Confusion Reigns In Cyber Planning - AVIATION WEEK

Pentagon warfighters have for years been asking for a cybercombat policy, rules of engagement, funding and a less-fragmented chain of authority. But those needs remain unfulfilled as bureaucrats, lawmakers and top Defense Department civilian officials thrash about in a pit of indecision while an international complex of digital threats continues to emerge.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FDT_05_01_2012_p38-444018.xml&guid=74908

---

'Turf War' Slows New U.S. Cyber Rules - Defense News

Despite the ongoing concern about the escalating pace of cyber attacks, a new set of standing rules of engagement for cyber operations — policy guidelines that would specify how the Pentagon would respond to different types of cyber attacks — is being delayed by a debate over the role of the U.S. military in defending non-military networks, sources said.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120507/C4ISR01/305070015/-8216-Turf-War-8217-Slows-New-U-S-Cyber-Rules

---

Pentagon revamps rules of engagement for cyberwar - The Hill

The Pentagon is rewriting the book on how it defends against and possibly responds to cyberattacks against the United States, the top uniformed officer in charge of the effort told Congress on Tuesday.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/218435-pentagon-revamps-rules-of-engagement-for-cyberwar

Judeo-Christian prayers, sayings, incantations, blessings, and similar?

From TFA:

“Ebay bans alternative religious items.But! Not for Christians. Holy water and other sundry ‘holy’ items are discriminately allowed. Hm. Let me get this straight. Some guy in Rome wearing long robes can wave his hand over some water and imbue it with something, and then it’s very ‘powerful?’ How is that different fromany other magical item previously sold on ebay?”

Let me see if I have this straight:

You think that for 15 years, I didn't realize that I've had a link to the same public homepage on my slashdot profile, which has thousands of posts, dozens of accepted front page article submissions, and also uses my real name, and that in reality I'm secretly a paid government shill that just didn't do a good job of hiding his identity?

Wow. Just... Wow.

Also, US Navy Officers are not anonymous. By law, all US Navy Officers must be identified by name, rank, and officer designator: https://navalregister.bol.navy.mil/

If you're actually asking me, I'll give you the courtesy of providing an answer:

While most people look to a generic definition of "information warfare" and immediately think "propaganda" (which even then is only one small piece of IW, or what the US now calls "Information Operations" in doctrine), this actually has nothing to do with with 99% of Navy Information Warfare officers actually do.

The Navy Information Warfare Community was renamed from "Cryptology" a few years ago when everything "cyber" started getting big. Navy IW officers do signals intelligence (SIGINT), and "cyber" ("computer network operations", or CNO), to the exclusion of nearly everything else, against foreign adversary targets.

Yes, sometimes Navy IW Officers get put in billets where they are doing traditional "IO", of which even then "propaganda" is a very small piece. But that has nothing to do with the job of nearly all Navy IW officers, and even when that happens, it's all in foreign theaters (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan).

So again, when I post on slashdot, as I have done for about 15 years, I have always done so as myself. My day job is as basically a computer geek, like many other people on slashdot, for a large university — again, all on my homepage. You might disagree with me, but that doesn't make me a paid shill. It makes me someone you disagree with.

So that's why I can say that "propaganda" has zero to do with any of my jobs — because it doesn't. And no matter what my jobs are, I'm still posting here on my own time, with my own opinions, as me.

I do find it amusing that so many on slashdot can't stomach the idea that it's possible for people to have differing views without being paid for them.

Now can you do me a favor and answer a question for me?

What about the initial post in this thread pointing out that Ecuador has a terrible record on human rights, free speech, and free press was so offensive to you? In fact, looking back at that post, there is only a single sentence where I offer my opinion. Sure, the tone of the post can certainly be seen as anti-Assange and opposed to the ideologies that Correa promotes in Ecuador, but does that position really stun you that much?

Wrong...I have posted with this account, which contains my real name and has linked to the same public web site, for about 15 years. I am not posting in any "capacity" other than a person with viewpoints that apparently disagree with yours. Is it really that surprising to you that someone who chose to serve in the US military would disagree with Julian Assange, and not support ideologies of states like Ecuador?

Here, I'll help:

- I excerpted 3 articles, without commentary, about Ecuador's atrocious record on human rights, free speech, and free press, from the Guardian, the BBC, and the New York Times, and implicitly reflected on the irony of someone who claims to be a champion of free speech and press freedom seeking asylum from a nation with a terrible record on both.

- I noted preemptively that the UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy, but that the UK can in fact revoke its diplomatic status, though that would have serious consequences, and linked another Guardian piece describing the situation in detail.

- I then offered my own opinion -- which is clearly my opinion -- and closed with a quote from one of the premier campaigners against government secrecy calling WikiLeaks an enemy of open society because it does not honor the rule of law nor respect individual rights.

So, please: tell me how that post should be -1, other than it doesn't conform to slashdot groupthink which views Assange as some kind of a hero, and states like Ecuador, Venezuela, and Russia as more open and trustworthy than Western democracies like the US, UK, and Sweden.

"Dig up"? It's on my public web site...linked from every post on slashdot...posted from a profile with my real name...and has been the case for literally years.

"Dig up"? Are you actually being serious?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but "propaganda" is not my day job, night job, or any job. Furthermore, my posts and opinions here and elsewhere are my own.

I'm curious though: can you point to anything inaccurate in my post? (I'm guessing you won't respond...which is fine, but just thought I'd put it out there.)

Sorry, not pre-prepared. I'm a slashdot subscriber, and I see stories early.

I'm following this thread, too, and have posted numerous times in it. I don't post as AC.

I'm transparent about my identity and affiliations. Are you? Is any (semi-)anonymous person or AC on slashdot?

Was my post really that controversial? Ecuador has a terrible record on free speech and freedom of the press, two key things Assange claims to champion. The Kremlin-backed Russian state media outlet RT is the one to air the interview between Correa and Assange. It is ironic, is it not? How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are — explicitly or implicitly — thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?

That's the kind of bizarre thinking my post is highlighting, and it seems to hit close to home for many...

I really don't think a disclaimer is necessary when it's pretty clear who I am. How many others here whose identities are hidden have undisclosed affiliations/jobs/etc. which may influence their opinions? There is no way to know. I'm not saying they're "shills", but do they need disclaimers?

And for the record I wasn't actually accusing you of being a paid shill — I was just making a point.

I hate to disappoint you, but I'm not paid or compelled or compensated by anyone in any way to post on slashdot. What do you take issue with in my post?

Are you saying that Ecuador really has a stellar record on human rights and free speech, that it's not ironic for someone who claims to support free speech and freedom of the press is seeking refuge from a nation that has a terrible record on both, that the US really loves WikiLeaks, and that Steven Aftergood didn't say what he said?

How is this propaganda?

1. It sounds like you're not familiar with what Navy Information Warfare Officers do. Hint: this community was previously called Cryptology Officers.

2. I'm not on anyone's clock. (To be clear: I am not being paid or given any consideration, by anyone, for posting on slashdot or anywhere else on the internet, nor have I ever.)

So yes, it's not only an ad hominem, it's a particularly ridiculous one. Most places welcome someone with background and experience who take the time to source their posts participating in a discussion. Can you point to anything inaccurate in my post?

Yet it will be ACs and people whose identities aren't known praising Assange and Ecuador who will receive the most positive attention here. Those with opposing views will be shouted down, or, in this case, be accused of being paid government shills.

Yes, Hatta, I "believe what I'm saying". Curious though what you think in my post is "disinformation", given that the articles I chose were sourced from the NYT, the Guardian (2), and the BBC. Steven Aftergood's quote wasn't out-of-context, and I don't see how anything else remaining in the post that could be construed as a personal opinion is "disinformation".

Does Ecuador really have a stellar record on human rights and free speech, and I just missed it? Did WikiLeaks' mission not change when Assange essentially became WikiLeaks and turned — by his own admission — to almost exclusively targeting the US?

Also, Ecuador's free speech record is highly relevant:

First, it's highly ironic, at the very least.

Second, why are Western governments "persecuting" Assange (ignoring for a moment that if ANY Western government wanted Assange out of the picture, he would have been dead long ago) to whatever extent they are? Could it be that in free and open societies governed by the rule of law we don't allow individuals to unilaterally decide, on their own, what secrets of their own governments should be released? Intelligence operations and diplomatic work demand secrecy even in free societies. We allow for that as a people.

The irony, I suppose — irony being a common thread here — is that all the leaked cables showed is that the US has a thoughtful and dedicated foreign service. Unless, of course, you're one of those people who hates the US and believes that they revealed some dark and sinister secrets by taking a handful of cables out-of-context out of hundreds of thousands and using them to invent some kind of imagined scandal.

This absolutely smears Assange. I realize that he's simply pragmatically seeking refuge wherever he can find it, but do you really believe Correa and Assange are some kind of kindred spirits? They sure acted like it on the "interview" which Kremlin-backed Russian state media outlet RT aired. But I suppose you find things like RT beyond reproach, and nothing hypocritical about someone who claims to champion free speech and free press seeking asylum with one of the worst offenders on both counts.