BaSiC Initiative

BaSiC Initiative

About

The BaSiC Initiative is a collaboration of faculty and students from Portland State University and University of Texas at Austin, School of Architecture.
We support community partnerships beginning two decades ago in housing
solutions for Native Americans, housing and community services for
migrant farm workers, and schools and health clinics in central Mexico.
Each program draws upon the unique relationship of communities to their
environment, finding solutions that embrace appropriate technologies
while reinforcing local values to spur self-initiated development.


The BaSiC initiative offers students a variety of design/build
opportunities. The Mexico Program occurs during the winter quarter in
various squatter settlements in Morelos. The Strawbale Program in
Montana occurs during the summer quarter, building on various American
Indian Reservations. The Rural Studio also occurs during the summer
quarter, exploring needed housing options in areas such as Eastern
Washington and southern Mississippi. Every few years, the Global Studio
replaces the Mexico Program, ranging in regions of the globe from Africa
to Cuba to India.

In the past two decades, the program has
successfully designed and built over 95 projects ranging from elementary
schools, to clinics, children’s libraries, laundry facilities, houses,
literacy centers, and urban gardens, to infrastructure projects such as
wells, cisterns, waste treatment facilities, and solar fields. Each
program has in its own way made a significant contribution to its host
community not only by providing new possibilities and ways of living
more economically and ecologically, but also through the experience and
capacity gained through the design/build process by both community
members and students.

The Wizard is Us: Symbiogenesis by Networking Part 2

The Wizard is Us: Symbiogenesis by Networking Part 2 - Augmented Reality Conference: Advancing the Business of AR

Anton Yudin, Master of Arts Students, Digital Worlds Institute

Date: Wednesday, April 21

Time: 11:52 - 12:00 PM

Location: Salon E
As early as 1926, the Russian biologist *Konstantin Mereschcowsky* proposed in his theory of Symbiogenesis that larger and more complex organisms (like lichens) evolved from the symbiotic relationship between less complex ones. The theory proposes an evolutionary mechanism based on cooperation rather than competition and as such it is of interest to those of us working in models of open source, both in software and hardware and ultimately knowledge.

Our entire society is based on the concept of information, and throughout history we have created and established the routes and the networks, the smoke signals and the semaphores, the nodes and relays that carry the fluid that nurtures commerce, warfare and knowledge.

It took only ten years, from 1958 when Bell labs researchers invented the modem (modulator-demodulator) that enabled communication between computers, to 1968, when the first RFP for ARPANET was published and the "Interfaith", as Senator Edward Kennedy called it, was funded by ARPA as the first "message processor".

Decoding and interpreting signals, packets, gestures etc. is what we call communication. Since the birth of the computer, that viral mechanism has established a symbiotic relationship with their creators, to the point where humans cannot longer function as a society without them. As we merge and augment our senses, our machinic self takes over a majority of functions that we once considered essential for survival, including memory, the control of vital organs and appendices. Carbon and silicon, en route to the next evolutionary stage, collaborate to bring about the inevitable transformation. Telecommunications and the internet have become mobile. We are the nodes, the packets and the modems. We are still the storytellers, and we wish to share the magic around the digital fire. As we pull the curtain we discover that the Wizard is Us.

Sensorless Motion Capture Technology

Free Motion Capture Data

Sensorless Motion Capture Technology

Master of Play The many worlds of a video-game artist.

Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo’s man behind Mario : The New Yorker

by Nick Paumgarten December 20, 2010
Shigeru Miyamoto has always tried to re-create his childhood wonderment. He

Shigeru Miyamoto has always tried to re-create his childhood wonderment. He’s the closest thing there is to an autobiographical game creator, and shuns focus groups: “As long as I can enjoy something, other people can enjoy it, too.”

United States diplomatic cables leak

United States diplomatic cables leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikinews has news on this topic
[show]

* Wikileaks to release thousands of secret documents; 'international embarrassment' likely, 27 November 2010
* Files will risk 'countless' lives, Obama administration warns Wikileaks, 28 November 2010
* Wikileaks website attacked; millions of files to be released tonight, 28 November 2010
* Wikileaks cable disclosure shows Arab fears of Iranian ambitions, 30 November 2010
* Latest 'CableGate' disclosures hint at US diplomatic tactics in Spain and beyond, 1 December 2010
* Leaked cables cause Australian concern, 10 December 2010

Page move-protected
This article is about the release of leaked U.S. diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. For the contents of those cables, see Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak.

The United States diplomatic cables leak (also known as Cablegate)[1] began on 28 November 2010 when WikiLeaks — an international new media non-profit organisation that publishes submissions of private, secret and classified media from anonymous news sources and news leaks — started to publish classified documents of detailed correspondence between the U.S. State Department and its diplomatic missions around the world, releasing further documents every day. Five major newspapers around the world have been publishing articles based on the leaks, by agreement with Wikileaks. The publication of the U.S. embassy cables is the third in a series of U.S. classified document "mega-leaks" distributed by WikiLeaks in 2010, following the Afghan War documents leak in July, and the Iraq War documents leak in October. The contents of the cables describe international affairs from 300 embassies dated from 1966–2010, containing diplomatic analysis of world leaders, an assessment of host countries, and a discussion about international and domestic issues.

The first 220[2] of the 251,287 documents were published on 28 November, with simultaneous press coverage from El País (Spain), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), The Guardian (United Kingdom), and The New York Times (United States).[3][4] Over 130,000 of the documents are unclassified, some 100,000 are labeled "confidential", about 15,000 documents have the higher classification "secret", and none are classified as "top secret" on the classification scale.[3][5] As of 16 December 2010, 1,532 individual cables had been released.[6] WikiLeaks plans to release all the cables in phases over several months at a pace of about 80 cables per day.[4][7]

Reactions to the leak varied widely. Some western governments expressed strong disapproval and condemnation, and criticized WikiLeaks for potentially jeopardizing international relations and global security. The leak also generated intense interest from the public, journalists, and media analysts. WikiLeaks received support from some commentators who questioned the necessity of government secrecy in a democracy that serves the interests of its people and depends on an informed electorate. Some political leaders referred to Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, as a criminal, but also blamed the U.S. Department of Defense for security lapses that led to the leak. Supporters of Assange have referred to him as a heroic defender of free speech and freedom of the press.[8][9][10][11][12] White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that an "open and transparent government is something that the President believes is truly important. But the stealing of classified information and its dissemination is a crime".[13]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Background
* 2 Release
o 2.1 Contents
o 2.2 Print media coverage
* 3 Information warfare
o 3.1 Denial-of-service attack
o 3.2 Attack on hosting, finances, and accessibility
o 3.3 Anonymous and Operation Payback
o 3.4 Forged cables from Pakistan
* 4 Reactions
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 External links

[edit] Background

In June 2010 the magazine Wired reported that the U.S. State Department and embassy personnel were concerned that Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army soldier who had been charged with the unauthorized download of classified material while he was stationed in Iraq, had leaked diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks rejected the report as inaccurate: "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified U.S. embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect".[14][15] Manning was suspected to have uploaded all of what he obtained to WikiLeaks, which chose to release the material in stages so as to have the greatest possible impact.[16]

According to The Guardian, all the diplomatic cables were marked "Sipdis", denoting "secret internet protocol distribution", which means they had been distributed via the closed U.S. SIPRNet, the U.S. Department of Defense’s classified version of the civilian internet.[17] Although more than three million U.S. government personnel and soldiers have access to this network,[18] "top secret" documents are not included in the system. Such a large quantity of secret information was available to a wide audience because, as The Guardian alleged, after the 11 September attacks an increased focus had been placed on sharing information since gaps in intra-governmental information sharing had been exposed.[17] More specifically the diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence communities would be able to do their jobs better with this easy access to analytic and operative information.[17] A spokesman said that in the previous weeks and months additional measures had been taken to improve the security of the system and prevent leaks.[17]

On 22 November, an announcement was made via WikiLeaks's Twitter feed that the next release would be "7× the size of the Iraq War Logs".[19][20] U.S. authorities and the media had speculated, at the time, that they could contain diplomatic cables.[21] Prior to the expected leak, the government of the United Kingdom (U.K.) sent a DA-Notice to U.K. newspapers, which requested advance notice from newspapers regarding the expected publication.[22] According to the Index on Censorship, "there is no obligation on [the] media to comply".[22] Under the terms of a DA-Notice, "[n]ewspaper editors would speak to [the] Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee prior to publication".[22] The Guardian was revealed to have been the source of the copy of the documents given to The New York Times in order to prevent the British government from obtaining any injunction against its publication.[23] The Pakistani newspaper Dawn stated that the U.S. newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post were expected to publish parts of the diplomatic cables on 28 November, including 94 Pakistan-related documents.[24]

On 26 November, Assange sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State, via his lawyer Jennifer Robinson, inviting them to "privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed".[25][26][27] Harold Koh, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, rejected the proposal, stating: "We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials".[27] Assange responded in turn by writing back to the U.S. State Department that "you have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour".[28][29]

Ahead of the leak of the documents, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contacted officials in Afghanistan, France, Germany, the People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom about the impending release, while other diplomats apparently spoke with the leaders in Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, India, Iraq, Israel, Italy,[30][31] New Zealand,[32] the Netherlands.[33][34][35] Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Sweden[36] and Turkey.
[edit] Release

The five newspapers that had obtained an advance copy of all leaked cables began releasing the cables on 28 November 2010, and Wikileaks made the cables selected by these newspapers and redacted by their journalists available on its website. "They are releasing the documents we selected," Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview.[37]

Wikileaks aims to release the cables in phases over several months due to their global scope and significance.[3] The first batch of leaks released comprised 220 cables.[3] Further cables were subsequently made available on the WikiLeaks website.[4] The full set of cables published so far can be browsed at cablesearch.org.

There has been some media confusion about the number of cables published. That number is still only a tiny fraction of the total of a quarter of a million.[38] A small table with counts follows.
Leaks release timetable[show]
Available↓ Deleted↓ Timestamp↓
220 0 23:16 GMT, 28 November
243 ≥ 0 13:48 GMT, 29 November
291 ≥ 4 0:23 GMT, 1 December
486 ≥ 2 17:00 GMT, 1 December
...
1,766 ≥ 12 19:48 GMT, 18 December
1,788 ≥ 11 12:18 GMT, 19 December
1,818 ≥ 3 07:24 GMT, 20 December
1,824 ≥ 4 13:40 GMT, 20 December
1,862 ≥ 8 21:36 GMT, 21 December

The 'available' column gives the number of cables contained in the torrent file with the given timestamp. The 'deleted' column gives the number of cables that occurred in earlier releases but are absent in that release. Usually these cables come back later, sometimes redacted or unredacted. A few more cables have been published by various newspapers but not yet by Wikileaks. Sources:[39][40][41][42]
[edit] Contents
Contents of the announced leak (251,287 cables) Subject Documents
External political relations 145,451
Internal government affairs 122,896
Human rights 55,211
Economic conditions 49,044
Terrorists and terrorism 28,801
UN Security Council 6,532
Main article: Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak

The contents of the U.S. diplomatic cables leak describe in detail events and incidents surrounding international affairs from 274 embassies dating from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010. The diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S. embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts for and resistance against nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, U.S. support of dictatorship and other diplomatic actions.
[edit] Print media coverage

The Guardian released its coverage of the leaked cables in numerous articles, including an interactive database, starting on 28 November.[43] Der Spiegel also released its preliminary report, with extended coverage promised for the next day.[44] Its cover for 29 November was also leaked with the initial report.[45] The New York Times covered the story in a nine-part series spanning nine days, with the first story published simultaneously with the other outlets.[46] The New York Times was not originally intended to receive the leak, allegedly[47] due to its unflattering portrayal of the site's founder, but The Guardian decided to share coverage, citing earlier cooperation while covering the Afghan and Iraqi war logs. The Washington Post reported that it also requested permission to see the documents, but was rejected for undisclosed reasons.[47] El País released its report[48] saying there was an agreement between the newspapers for simultaneous publication of the "internationally relevant" documents, but that each newspaper was free to select and treat those documents that primarily relate to its own country.[49]

Australian-based Fairfax Media obtained access to the cables under a separate arrangement.[50] Fairfax newspapers began releasing their own stories based on the leaked cables on 7 December. Unlike other newspapers given access, Fairfax originally had not posted any of the original cables online, citing the need to maintain its competitive advantage over other Australian newspapers.[51] However, on 16 December Fairfax reversed its position, and began publishing the cables used in its stories.[52]

CNN was originally supposed to receive an advance copy of the documents as well, but did not after it refused to sign a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks.[53] The Wall Street Journal also refused advance access, apparently for similar reasons as CNN.[54]

Aftenposten, a Norwegian daily newspaper, reported on 17 December that it had received access to the full cable set of 251,287 documents.[55]
[edit] Information warfare
[edit] Denial-of-service attack

About an hour prior to the planned release of the initial documents, WikiLeaks announced it was experiencing a massive distributed denial-of-service attack,[56] but vowed to still release the cables and documents via pre-agreed prominent media outlets El País, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and The New York Times.[57]

According to Arbor Networks, an internet analyst group, the DDoS attack accounted for between two and four gigabits per second (Gbit/s) of additional traffic to the WikiLeaks host network, compared to an average traffic of between twelve and fifteen Gbit/s under ordinary conditions.[58] The attack was slightly more powerful than ordinary DDoS attacks, though well below the maximum of 60 to 100 Gbit/s of other major attacks during 2010.[58] The attack was claimed to have been carried out by a person by the name of "Jester", who describes himself as a "hacktivist". Jester took credit for the attack on Twitter, stating that WikiLeaks "threaten[ed] the lives of our troops and 'other assets.'"[58][59]

On 2 December 2010, EveryDNS, a domain name registrar, dropped WikiLeaks from its entries, citing denial-of-service attacks (DDoS) that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure",[60] but the site was still reachable at http://46.59.1.2[61] and http://213.251.145.96, as well as several other addresses.

John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote a tweet saying: "The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops."[62]
[edit] Attack on hosting, finances, and accessibility

Amazon.com removed WikiLeaks from its servers on 1 December 2010 at 19:30 GMT, and the latter website was unreachable until 20:17 GMT when the site had defaulted to its Swedish servers, hosted by Bahnhof. U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, among the members of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who had questioned Amazon in private communication on the company's hosting of WikiLeaks and the illegally obtained documents, commended Amazon for the action;[63] WikiLeaks, however, responded by stating on its official Twitter page that "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free—fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe",[64] and later that "If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books".[65]

On 4 December, Paypal cut off the account used by WikiLeaks to collect donations.[66] On 6 December, the Swiss bank PostFinance announced that it had frozen the assets of Assange;[67] on the same day, MasterCard stopped payments to WikiLeaks,[68] with Visa following them on 7 December.[69]

Official efforts by the U.S. government to limit access to, conversation about, and general spread of the cables leaked by WikiLeaks were revealed by leading media organizations. A 4 December 2010 article by MSNBC,[70] reported that the Obama administration has warned federal government employees and students in educational institutions studying towards careers in public service that they must refrain from downloading or linking to any WikiLeaks documents. However, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley denied ordering students, stating, "We do not control private networks. We have issued no authoritative instructions to people who are not employees of the Department of State." He said the warning was from an "overzealous employee."[71] According to a 3 December 2010 article in The Guardian,[72] access to WikiLeaks has been blocked for federal workers. The U.S. Library of Congress, the U.S. Commerce Department and other government agencies have confirmed that the ban is already in place.

A spokesman for Columbia University confirmed on 4 December that its Office of Career Services sent an e-mail warning students at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs to refrain from accessing WikiLeaks cables and discussing this subject on the grounds that "discourse about the documents would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information".[73] However, this was quickly retracted on the following day. SIPA Dean John Henry Coatsworth wrote that "Freedom of information and expression is a core value of our institution, [...] thus, SIPA’s position is that students have a right to discuss and debate any information in the public arena that they deem relevant to their studies or to their roles as global citizens, and to do so without fear of adverse consequences."[74]

The New York Times reported on 14 December[75] that the U.S. Air Force bars its personnel from access to news sites (such as those of The New York Times and The Guardian) that publish leaked cables.

On 18 December, the Bank of America stopped handling payments for WikiLeaks.[76]
[edit] Anonymous and Operation Payback
Main article: Operation Payback

In response to perceived federal, and actual corporate, censorship of the cable leaks, internet group Anonymous attacked several websites using DDoS. So far, the websites of the Swedish prosecutor, PostFinance, the Swiss post-office banking company, MasterCard and Visa have all been targeted.[77]
[edit] Forged cables from Pakistan

On 9 December 2010, major Pakistani newspapers (such as The News International, The Express Tribune and the Daily Jang) and television channels carried stories that claimed to detail U.S. diplomats' assessments of senior Indian generals as "vain, egotistical and genocidal", also saying "India's government is secretly allied with Hindu fundamentalists", and that "Indian spies are covertly supporting Islamist militants in Pakistan's tribal belt and Balochistan.".[78] The claims were credited to an Islamabad-based news service agency that has frequently run pro-Pakistan Army stories in the past.[78]

Later, The News International admitted the story "was dubious and may have been planted", and The Express Tribune offered "profuse" apologies to readers.[79] Urdu-language papers such as the Daily Jang, however, declined to retract the story.[79]
[edit] Reactions
Main article: Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak

Many governments said the leaks could damage diplomatic relationships between countries and put people at risk. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the leak as an attack not just on the U.S. but on all governments:

Let's be clear: This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity. Now, I'm aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so I want to set the record straight. There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations.[80]

Clinton's credibility was questioned by several mainstream American and British periodicals, as some journalists, as well as a Bolivarian[who?] head-of-state, have called for Clinton to resign or asked whether she will resign, amid allegations that Clinton has broken international law or other laws by allegedly trying to steal credit card numbers, passwords, and biometric data from the Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon and other leaders, and as future cable leaks or the current ones may bring investigations against Clinton.[81][82][83][84][85]

Javier Moreno, editor-in-chief of El País, said that the release of the documents does not put lives at risk and that the attacks on such a release of information to the general public amount to the same reaction seen in other leaks, such as the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Moreno said that the only thing at risk is the career of officials and diplomats within the compromised governments.[86]

The publishing of a cable from the U.S. State Department sent in February 2009, titled the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, listed foreign installations and infrastructure considered critical to U.S. interests; before its release, WikiLeaks removed the names and locations. The list includes key facilities that if attacked could disrupt the global supply chain and global communications, as well as goods and services important to the U.S. and its economy.[87] U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said the disclosure of this list "gives a group like al-Qaeda a targeting list."[88] British prime minister David Cameron said the list was damaging to the national security of both his country and the U.S., "and elsewhere". WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said with reference to the cable: "This further undermines claims made by the US Government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence-gathering role. In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors, though it does reveal the US asked its diplomats to report back on these matters."[89]

In the wake of the leak of classified materials, politicians called for action. U.S. Congressman Peter T. King proposed designating WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization,[90] and Assange became a target of repeated attacks and incitements to violence. According to Assange:

I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.[91]

Reporters Without Borders raised concerns over the extreme comments made by American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Assange. It issued a statement saying that "this is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China."[92] The group also condemned the subsequent blocking and the massive distributed denial-of-service attack on the WikiLeaks website.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the overclassification of information that should otherwise be available to the public for discussion. The ACLU called on President Obama to "recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to."[93] Ben Wizner, Litigation Director of the ACLU National Security Project, issued a statement about the Khalid El-Masri cable leak revelations, calling for public accountability and the strengthening of the rule of law and democracy in the U.S.[94]

Henry Porter, writing in The Observer, 11 December, established a parallel with events in 1771. At that time British law prohibited reporting of U.K. Parliamentary debates and speeches because those in power argued that the information was too sensitive and would be disruptive if published. John Wilkes and others illegally published debates, with the eventual support of the London mob, shopkeepers and members of the gentry. Porter says that "From that moment, the freedom of the press was born ... and the kingdom did not fall."[95]

As of 8 December 2010, the Office of the Vice President of Bolivia had created a portal website (at http://WikiLeaks.vicepresidencia.gob.bo) for leaked cables related to Bolivia. The site acts as both a mirror for these cables as they are released, and a host of translations and quantitative analysis of the cables.[96][97]
[edit] See also

* Classified information in the United States
* New York Times Co. v. United States

[edit] References

1. ^ Young, Graham (18 December 2010). "Cablegate Gift Keeps on Giving". The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/cablegate-gift-keeps-on-giving/story-fn775xjq-1225972909371. Retrieved 20 December 2010.
2. ^ (registration required) "Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy" The New York Times. 28 November 2010. Retrieved 15 December 2010.
3. ^ a b c d "The embassy cables will be released in stages over the next few months. The subject matter of these cables is of such importance, and the geographical spread so broad, that to do otherwise would not do this material justice". See: "Secret US Embassy Cables". WikiLeaks. 28 November 2010. Archived from the original on 28 November 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uaR3fktN. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
4. ^ a b c Danielle, Kris (25 November 2010). "1,796 Memos from US Embassy in Manila in WikiLeaks 'Cablegate'". ABS-CBN News. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/29/10/1796-memos-us-embassy-manila-wikileaks-cablegate. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
5. ^ (registration required) Shane, Scott; Lehren, Andrew W. (28 November 2010). "Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html.
6. ^ "Secret US Embassy Cables". WikiLeaks. 8 December 2010. Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uosm075G.
7. ^ Walsh, Declan (2 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Editor Calls on Clinton To Quit". The Sydney Morning Herald (via The Southland Times). Retrieved 11 December 2010.
8. ^ Sanburn, Josh (10 November 2010). "Julian Assange — Who Will Be Time's 2010 Person of the Year?". Time. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
9. ^ Carl Bernstein on "The Joy Behar Show" – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPbuGYwxQm8 Retrieved 7 December 2010.
10. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "In Defence of WikiLeaks". Blog on The Economist. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
11. ^ Jenkins, Simon (28 November 2010). "US Embassy Cables: The Job of the Media Is Not To Protect the Powerful from Embarrassment — It Is for Governments — Not Journalists — To Guard Public Secrets, and There Is No National Jeopardy in WikiLeaks' Revelations". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
12. ^ Naureckas, Jim (1 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Hasn't 'Leaked' Anything". Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved 13 December 2010.
13. ^ Gibbs, Robert (29 November 2010). "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 11/29/2010". White House Office of the Press Secretary. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/29/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-11292010. "I think it is safe to say that the President was – it’s an understatement – not pleased with this information becoming public. As you saw during the presidential campaign and during his time in the White House, open and transparent government is something that the President believes is truly important. But the stealing of classified information and its dissemination is a crime." Secondary source coverage is extensive, i.e., Time, USA Today, etc.
14. ^ Zetter, Kim; Poulsen, Kevin (8 June 2010). "State Department Anxious About Possible Leak of Cables to Wikileaks". Wired. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/state-department-anxious/. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
15. ^ Staff writer (6 June 2010). "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect.". Wikileaks (via Twitter). Retrieved 4 December 2010.
16. ^ "Cable Viewer". wikileaks.dd19.de. http://wikileaks.dd19.de/static/html/faq.html. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
17. ^ a b c d Tisdall, Simon (29 November 2010). "Wikileaks Cables Reveal China 'Ready To Abandon North Korea' — Leaked Dispatches Show Beijing Is Frustrated with Military Actions of 'Spoiled Child' and Increasingly Favours Reunified Korea". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
18. ^ Borger, Julian; Leigh, David. (28 November 2010). "Siprnet: Where America Stores Its Secret Cables — Defence Department's Hidden Internet Is Meant To Be Secure, But Millions of Officials and Soldiers Have Access". The Guardian. Accessed 12 December 2010.
"The US general accounting office identified 3,067,000 people cleared to "secret" and above in a 1993 study."
19. ^ "WikiLeaks Twitter Status". Wikileaks (via Twitter). 22 November 2010. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/6564225640042499. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
20. ^ Petrou, Andrea (22 November 2010). "WikiLeaks Promises Leak 'Seven Times Bigger than Iraq' — Coming Months Will See 'History Redefined'". TechEye. http://www.techeye.net/internet/wikileaks-promises-leak-seven-times-bigger-than-iraq. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
21. ^ Staff writer (23 November 2010). "Telegraph: WikiLeaks To Release Three Million Secret US Documents". Focus Information Agency. http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n235797. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
22. ^ a b c Butselaar, Emily (26 November 2010). "Wikileaks: UK Issues DA-Notice as US Briefs Allies on Fresh Leak". Index on Censorship. http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/11/us-uk-wikileaks-d-notice-leak/. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
23. ^ Calderone, Michael (28 November 2010). "The Guardian Gave State Dept. Cables to the NY Times" Yahoo! News. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
24. ^ Iqbal, Anwar (27 November 2010). "WikiLeaks Plans To Release 94 Papers about Pakistan". Dawn. Archived from the original on 26 November 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uXW29Chj. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
25. ^ "Letters between Wikileaks and the U.S. Government". Documents.nytimes.com. http://documents.nytimes.com/letters-between-wikileaks-and-gov#text/p1. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
26. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "US Rejects Talks with WikiLeaks". Agence France-Presse (via The Sydney Morning Herald). Archived from the original on 28 November 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uZqzdckM. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
27. ^ a b Koh, Harold Hongju (27 November 2010). "Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange" (PDF). The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 28 November 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uZqSSqr6. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
28. ^ "Letters between Wikileaks and the U.S. Government". Documents.nytimes.com. http://documents.nytimes.com/letters-between-wikileaks-and-gov#document/p4. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
29. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "U.S. Tries To Suppress Evidence of Human Rights: Assange". Press Trust of India (via The Hindu). http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article921240.ece. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
30. ^ "Wikileaks Set To Release Top US Secrets". YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAfPn1Bmd5o. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
31. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "Bracing for WikiLeaks, US Warns 'Friend' India". The Indian Express. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Bracing-for-WikiLeaks--US-warns--friend--India/717152. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
32. ^ Trevett, Claire; Donnel, Hayden (29 November 2010). "PM: Wikileaks Release May Cause 'Embarrassment'". The New Zealand Herald. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10690871. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
33. ^ Staff writer (26 November 2010). "Ook Nederland Gewaarschuwd Voor Wikileaks" (in Dutch language). Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
34. ^ Staff writer (26 November 2010). "VS Waarschuwen Ook Nederland Voor Wikileaks" (in Dutch language). De Pers. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
35. ^ Staff writer (26 November 2010). "VS Waarschuwt Nederland om Inhoud Wikileaks" (in Dutch language). De Volkskrant. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
36. ^ Harnden, Toby (28 November 2010). "WikiLeaks: Julian Assange Could Face 'Grave Consequences' — Julian Assange, the Founder of WikiLeaks, Has Been Rebuffed by the US Government after He Sought Information Regarding Individuals Who May Be 'at Significant Risk of Harm' Because of His Release of Classified Documents". The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8166421/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-could-face-grave-consequences.html. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
37. ^ Staff writer (3 December 2010). "Respected Media Outlets Collaborate with WikiLeaks". Associated Press (via Google News). Retrieved 12 December 2010.
38. ^ Greenwald, Glenn (10 December 2010). "The Media's Authoritarianism and WikiLeaks". Salon.com. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
39. ^ WikiLeaks (30 November 2010). "Secret US Embassy Cables". http://wikileaks.dd19.de/cablegate.html. Retrieved 2 December 2010.
40. ^ "WikiLeaks Torrents". http://www.privetbank.com.ua/cablegate/index.html.
41. ^ "Cable Search BETA". Cablesearch.org. http://cablesearch.org/. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
42. ^ "FAQ « Cable Search BETA". Cablesearch.org. http://cablesearch.org/?page_id=99. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
43. ^ Staff writer (portal to database) (28 November 2010). "US Embassy Cables: Browse the Database". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
44. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "The US Diplomatic Leaks: A Superpower's View of the World". Der Spiegel. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,731580,00.html. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
45. ^ (Image of 29 November 2010 Der Spiegel cover) (undated posting). Gawker (blog). Retrieved 29 November 2010.
46. ^ (registration required) Shane, Scott; Lehren, Andrew W. (28 November 2010). "Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&hp. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
47. ^ a b Farhi, Paul (29 November 2010). "WikiLeaks Spurned New York Times, but Guardian Leaked State Department Cables". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905421.html. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
48. ^ Jiménez, Vincente; Caño, Antonio (14 July 2010). "La Mayor Filtración de la Historia Deja al Descubierto los Secretos de la Política Exterior de EE UU" (in Spanish language). El País. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/mayor/filtracion/historia/deja/descubierto/secretos/politica/exterior/EE/UU/elpepuint/20101128elpepuint_25/Tes. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
49. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "Preguntas y Respuestas Sobre los Papeles del Departamento de Estado" (in Spanish language). El País. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Preguntas/respuestas/papeles/Departamento/Estado/elpepuint/20101128elpepuint_11/Tes. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
50. ^ Dorling, Philip (11 December 2010). "How I Met Julian Assange and Secured the American Embassy Cables". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 13 December 2010.
51. ^ Holmes, Jonathan (14 December 2010). "WikiLeaks, Journalists and That Elusive Public Interest". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 17 December 2010.
52. ^ Massola, James (16 December 2010). "Fairfax Publishes Diplomatic Cables in WikiLeaks Row". The Australian. Retrieved 17 December 2010.
53. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "U.S. Documents Obtained by WikiLeaks Posted Despite Site Problem". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/28/wikileaks.attack/?hpt=T1. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
54. ^ Lindsay, James (29 November 2010). "Wikileaks Cables Expose World Leaders' Sensitive Diplomacy". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/11/29/DI2010112902197.html. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
55. ^ Staff writer (17 December 2010). "250.000 Nye Wikileaks-Dokumenter til Aftenposten — Aftenposten Har Fått Tilgang til 250.000 Nye Wikileaks-Dokumenter. Nyhetsredaktør Ole Erik Almlid Sier Avisen Kan Bruke Dokumentene uten Betingelser" (in Norwegian language). Aftenposten. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/wikileaks/article3953048.ece. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
56. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "Wikileaks 'Hacked Ahead of Secret US Document Release'". BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858637. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
57. ^ "Twitter / WikiLeaks: El Pais, Le Monde, Speigel". Wikileaks (via Twitter). http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/8924979961798657. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
58. ^ a b c Poulsen, Kevin (29 November 2010). "Cyber Attack Against WikiLeaks Was Weak". Wired. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/wikileaks-attack/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2)). Retrieved 29 November 2010.
59. ^ "Twitter / Jester: www.wikileaks.org – TANGO...". Twitter. 28 November 2010. http://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/8928679056900096. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
60. ^ Satter, Raphael G.; Svensson, Peter (3 December 2010) "WikiLeaks Fights To Stay Online Amid Attacks". Associated Press (via The Charlotte Observer). Retrieved 4 December 2010.
61. ^ Netcraft What's That Site Running Results
62. ^ Satter, Raphael G.; Svensson, Peterand (3 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Fights To Stay Online Amid Attacks". Associated Press (via The Washington Post). Retrieved 10 December 2010.
63. ^ Staff writer (1 December 2010). "Internet Company Had Hosted Wikileaks Website". Office of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman. http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/12/amazon-severs-ties-with-wikileaks. Retrieved 4 December 2010.
64. ^ Staff writer (1 December [2010]). "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free--fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe.". WikiLeaks (via Twitter). http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/10058229002272768. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
65. ^ Staff writer (1 December [2010]). "If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books.". WikiLeaks (via Twitter). http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/10073870316863488. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
66. ^ Staff writer (4 December 2010). PayPal Turns Off Tap for WikiLeaks Donations — Online Payment Service Cuts Whistleblower Site From Money Flow, Making Donations More Difficult". Associated Press (via CBS News). Retrieved 10 December 2010.
67. ^ Staff writer (6 December 2010). "Wikileaks: Swiss Bank Shuts Julian Assange's Account". BBC News. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
68. ^ McCullagh, Declan (6 December 2010). "MasterCard Pulls Plug on WikiLeaks Payments". CBS News. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
69. ^ Staff writer (7 December 2010). "Wikileaks' Visa Payments Suspended". BBC News. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
70. ^ Staff writer (4 December 2010). "Fed Workers Told: Stay Away from Those Leaked Cables – Directive Notes the Content 'Remains Classified'; Columbia U. Also Warns Future Diplomats". MSNBC. Retrieved 5 December 2010.
71. ^ Staff writer (7 December 2010). "State Dept Denies Warning Students about WikiLeaks". Associated Press (via The Wall Street Journal). http://online.wsj.com/article/AP66175f65a14645a98bbe7b99c7a2dc7f.html. Retrieved 9 December 2010.
72. ^ MacAskill, Ewen (3 December 2010). "US Blocks Access to WikiLeaks for Federal Workers – Employees Unable To Call Up WikiLeaks on Government Computers as Material Is Still Formally Classified, Says US". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 December 2010.
73. ^ Staff writer (4 December 2010). "Fed Workers Told: Stay Away from Those Leaked Cables". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40512200/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
74. ^ Gustin, Sam (6 December 2010). "Columbia University Reverses Anti-WikiLeaks Guidance". Wired. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
75. ^ (registration required) [1]. The New York Times.
76. ^ Staff writer (18 December 2010). "Bank of America Stops Handling Wikileaks Payments". BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12028084. Retrieved 20 December 2010.
77. ^ Satter, Raphael G.; Lawless, Jill (10 December 2010). "Protests, Cyber-Skirmishes Rage over WikiLeaks". Associated Press (via Yahoo! News). http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wikileaks;_ylt=AufzaAythuCl0aimsCU.8Hms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM5dWlhMnAwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMjA4L3dpa2lsZWFrcwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzgEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2hhY2tlcnNzdHJpaw--. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
78. ^ a b Walsh, Declan (9 December 2010). "Pakistani Media Publish Fake WikiLeaks Cables Attacking India — Comments Alleged To Be from WikiLeaks US Embassy Cables Say Indian Generals Are Genocidal and New Delhi Backs Militants". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/pakistani-newspaper-fake-leaks-india. Retrieved 11 December 2010.
79. ^ a b Walsh, Declan (10 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Fake Cables — Pakistani Newspapers Admit They Were Hoaxed — Papers Apologise to Readers for Publishing Anti-Indian Comments Alleged To Have Been Said by US Officials". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-fake-cables-pakistan-apologies. Retrieved 11 December 2010.
80. ^ Staff writer (30 November 2010). "PBS Clinton Transcript". PBS. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec10/wikileaks1_11-29.html. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
81. ^ Corn, David (30 November 2010). "WikiLeaks Fallout: Should Hillary Clinton Resign?". Retrieved 21 December 2010.

Excerpt: "Jack Shafer at Slate makes a good case.... 'No matter what sort of noises Clinton makes about how the disclosures are "an attack on America" and "the international community,"...[t]here is no way that the new WikiLeaks leaks don't leave Hillary Clinton holding the smoking gun.' ...In many other nations, news such as this would indeed prompt resignations of high officials. The United States does not have this noble tradition...Perhaps the coming WikiLeaks leaks will cause additional difficulties for Clinton. But given the ADD [(attention deficit disorder)] of the national media, she probably can survive the current storm."

82. ^ Booth, Robert; Borger, Julian (28 November 2010). "US Diplomats Spied on UN Leadership — Diplomats Ordered To Gather Intelligence on Ban Ki-moon — Secret Directives Sent to More than 30 US Embassies — Call for DNA Data, Computer Passwords and Terrorist Links". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 December 2010.

"The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities which states: 'The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable'.... The 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which covers the UN, also states that 'the official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable'."

83. ^[unreliable source?]Harris, Paul X. (29 November [2010])."Hillary Clinton says #wikileaks undermines US diplomacy. No, what undermines it is trying to steal Ban Ki Moon's frequent flyer number". Paul X. Harris (via Twitter). Retrieved 21 December 2010.
84. ^ Cancel, Daniel; Orozco, Jose (29 November 2010). "Chavez Praises Wikileaks for 'Bravery' While Calling on Clinton to Resign". http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-30/chavez-praises-wikileaks-for-bravery-while-calling-on-clinton-to-resign.html. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
85. ^ News conference transcript (30 November 2010). "Acting Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary General Farhan HAQ Holds Office of the Spokesman for the U.N. Secretary General Regular New Briefing". Political Transcript Wire (via FindArticles). Retrieved 21 December 2010.
86. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "Los Internautas Preguntan a Javier Moreno" (in Spanish language). El País. http://www.elpais.com/edigitales/entrevista.html?encuentro=7439. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
87. ^ Kendall, Bridget (6 December 2010). "Wikileaks: Site List Reveals US Sensitivities". BBC News. Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uoxgrdN5. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
88. ^ Lister, Tim (7 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Lists Sites Key to U.S. Security". CNN. Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uoyXENa1. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
89. ^ Haynes, Deborah; Mostrous, Alexi; Whittell, Giles (7 December 2010). "Wikileaks Lists 'Targets for Terror' Against US". The Australian. Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5up0AdST7. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
90. ^ Cole, Rob (29 November 2010). "WikiLeaks 'Should Be A Terror Organisation'". Sky News. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/WikiLeaks-Republican-Peter-King-Says-WikiLeaks-Should-Be-Designated-A-Terrorist-Organisation/Article/201011415837684?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15837684_WikiLeaks%3A_Republican_Peter_King_Says_WikiLeaks_Should_Be_Designated_A_Terrorist_Organisation. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
91. ^ Assange, Julian (8 December 2010). "Don't Shoot Messenger for Revealing Uncomfortable Truths". The Australian. Archived from the original on 7 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uop1ll2L.
92. ^ Staff writer (4 December 2010). "Wikileaks Hounded?". Reporters Without Borders. http://en.rsf.org/wikileaks-hounded-04-12-2010,38958.html. Retrieved 5 December 2010.
93. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "Wikileaks – News and Background". American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security/wikileaks-news-and-background. Retrieved 2 December 2010.
94. ^ Hasan, Mehdi (2 December 2010). "Does WikiLeaks Prove That the Yanks Are "a Force for Good"?". New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/12/david-aaronovitch-united-iraq. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
See also: Staff writer (29 November 2010). "U.S. Pressured Germany Not To Prosecute CIA Officers For Torture And Rendition". American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org/national-security/us-pressured-germany-not-prosecute-cia-officers-torture-and-rendition. Retrieved 7 December 2010.
95. ^ Porter, Henry (11 December 2010). "WikiLeaks May Make the Powerful Howl, But We Are Learning the Truth — WikiLeaks Has Offered Us Glimpses of How the World Works. And in Most Cases Nothing But Good Can Come of It". The Observer. Retrieved 13 December 2010.
96. ^ Staff writer (8 December 2010). "Vicepresidente: Portal WikiLeaks Bolivia Muestra Decadencia de Espionaje Estadounidense" (in Spanish language). Los Tiempos. http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/politica/20101208/vicepresidente-portal-wikileaks-bolivia-muestra-decadencia-de-espionaje_102892_200484.html. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
97. ^ Staff writer (9 December 2010). "Bolivia Hosts WikiLeaks 'Mirror'". Associated Press (via Google News). http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4aNo1MoKfNGrFW57aOq2uJhwd1Q?docId=a42fc6411d8c48c996ae757be953bdc6. Retrieved 10 December 2010.

[edit] External links
Look up Cablegate in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Internet portal
Government of the United States portal

* Secret US Embassy Cables website by WikiLeaks
* The US embassy cables by The Guardian
* State's Secrets by The New York Times
* WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables by Der Spiegel
* Dedicated News Website
* The Arrest of Julian Assange and the U.S. "War on WikiLeaks" – video report by Democracy Now!
* Dutch Wikileaks Mirror by WikiLeaks
* All Cables on Google Fusion Tables
* "Wikileaked — Inside the State Department's Secret Cables". A journal run by Foreign Policy devoted to contents of Wikileaks's U.S. diplomatic cables release (retrieved 10 December 2010)
* "Support organization of Wikileaks and Julian Assange"

WikiLeaks: Moving Target

WikiLeaks: Moving Target - Renesys Blog

By James Cowie on December 7, 2010 5:20 PM | 10 Comments | No TrackBacks

This has been an exciting month for those of us who study the Internet's infrastructure and think about ways to keep it running (and growing). Did I say exciting? Maybe "exhausting" would be more accurate. From China, to Iran, to the US Congress, everyone seems to be wondering how best to control the Internet and bring it in line with local law.

And then came the latest iteration of the WikiLeaks drama.

Love them or hate them, you have to admit that these folks are effective at creating and sustaining an audience for their content. Their glacially slow release of secret information, a few tastes each day, is calculated to feed a media storm that could easily last for months.

If nothing else, the massive amounts of traffic they are attracting, and the efforts of actors unknown to shut them down, have created a unique laboratory for studying Internet resilience.wikileaks_logo.png

Consider their primary website: wikileaks.org. They lost their Web hosting, their payment services, and ultimately the use of the domain name itself, all while coming under withering DDoS attacks and intermittent nation-level blacklisting. And yet, WikiLeaks stays up, taunting their adversaries with their jaunty hourglass and hourly tweets of coming attractions.

How are they staying on the Internet? Why haven't their adversaries shut them down already?

I guess the short answer is that the harder you hit them, the bigger they get.

For the long answer, you need to examine their DNS and BGP configurations: the mapping from domain names (like wikileaks.ch) to IP addresses (like 178.21.20.8), and from IP addresses to the providers who host them. These are the protocols that make the Internet survivable, and after a somewhat shaky start, it's clear that WikiLeaks is exploiting them very effectively to stay alive.
Termination of Service

In recent months, wikileaks.org's content had lived happily in just a few IP address blocks, hosted by Bahnhof and PRQ (two Swedish ISPs with ... let's say ... liberal policies for the content they host), and French provider Cursys. Then, when the cables were first released at the end of November, WikiLeaks added additional hosting in Amazon's EC2 cloud (presumably to cope with the tremendous volumes of traffic being generated in the first days of the release).
Wikileaks_timeline_Dec_2010_d.jpg

It was not to last — Amazon evicted them on December 1st for terms of service violations. In response, they diversified by hosting the wikileaks.org domain in two different IP blocks: one in France, hosted by OVH, and another in Sweden, hosted by Bahnhof.

A couple days later, on December 3rd, EveryDNS (their DNS provider) shut them off, refusing to supply a valid IP address to queries for wikileaks.org. Today, if you ask the .org root for the authoritative DNS servers for wikileaks.org, you still get back the same four EveryDNS servers ... but they won't answer.

Why didn't WikiLeaks just change DNS providers for the .org site? That's a bit of a mystery — we'd note only that the sponsoring registrar is a California company, Dynadot, who apparently doesn't know what to do with the hot potato.

Thus endeth the first phase of WikiLeaks' "rustication."

Respawning Globally

Remember, when EveryDNS made their call to turn off DNS for the wikileaks.org domain on December 3rd, the WikiLeaks IP address space was still routed and their servers were still alive (though intermittently unavailable due to tremendous inbound DDoS attacks). When the wikileaks.org domain stopped resolving, WikiLeaks simply diversified into alternative ccTLDs (country code top level domains) and pointed those names towards existing IP addresses, or added new hosting.

The country-level domain for Germany (wikileaks.de) has Swedish hosting from PRQ in Sweden and 1&1 in Germany; the European Union (wikileaks.eu), Finland (wikileaks.fi), the Netherlands (wikileaks.nl), Poland (wikileaks.pl), Sweden (wikileaks.se), and Tonga (wikileaks.to) have been pointed at the existing 88.80.0.0/19 block, hosted by Bahnhof in Sweden. But just to make good and sure, additional country-level domains for Austria (wikileaks.at), the Cocos Islands (wikileaks.cc), and Switzerland (wikileaks.ch, held by the Swiss Pirate Party) came up on Bahnhof's 88.80.0.0/19 block over the weekend. Norwegian wikileaks.no has hosting from French OVH and Swedish Bahnhof, and Luxembourg (wikileaks.lu) marches to its own drum, getting hosting from local provider Root SA. (There are probably some I'm missing, and the set continues to mutate daily, adding additional hosting in different countries to continuously reduce vulnerability to takedown.)

To prevent a repeat performance of the EveryDNS experience, the Swiss site seems to have been selected for heavy reinforcement through DNS diversification. If you ask for the authoritative servers for wikileaks.ch today, you'll find no fewer than 14 different authoritative nameservers, spread across eleven different autonomous systems, in eight different countries, from Switzerland to Canada to Malaysia. And if you ask any of those 14 servers where to find wikileaks.ch, they'll point you to one of three differently routed IP blocks, containing web server IP addresses with diverse geolocation: 78.21.16.0/21 (originated by Serverius, in the Netherlands), 46.59.0.0/17 (originated by Bahnhof, in Sweden), and 213.251.128.0/18 (originated by OVH in France).

Are you getting the picture yet?

748 volunteer mirrors of wikileaks.org can be found all over the US and Europe, with a few dozen elsewhere.

Taking away WikiLeaks' hosting, their DNS service, even their primary domain name, has had the net effect of increasing WikiLeaks' effective use of Internet diversity to stay connected. And it just keeps going. As long as you can still reach any one copy of WikiLeaks, you can read their mirror page, which lists over 1,000 additional volunteer sites (including several dozen on the alternative IPv6 Internet). None of those is going to be as hardened as wikileaks.ch against DNS takedown or local court order — but they don't need to be.

Within a couple days' time, the WikiLeaks web content has been spread across enough independent parts of the Internet's DNS and routing space that they are, for all intents and purposes, now immune to takedown by any single legal authority. If pressure were applied, one imagines that the geographic diversity would simply double, and double again.

And we're only considering the website itself, not the torrented data files, which ensure that cryptographically signed copies of the website and its backing data are dispersed beyond all attempts to recall or suppress the information they contain. That's an Internet infrastructure subject for another day.

Diversification: Not Without Its Problems

If you think for a moment, you'll realize that this rapid growth does create some potential problems with trust — when you click through to one of the myriad wikileak-look-alike sites out there, which ones are "real?" They all look pretty familiar, and share the same content at first glance. But there's no mechanism in place to allow you to know that you're looking at an unaltered, reasonably real-time mirroring of the official wikileaks.org website (which is, of course, no longer available for comparison). Is that incredible cable about the existence of alien bodies in New Mexico real, or is it a joke?

The torrents don't suffer from this problem, because they are signed, and the WikiLeaks public key was distributed long ago. But when I visit, to pick a random example from the WikiLeaks mirror page, http://nepaliwikileaks.org/, am I really reading the Real Deal? For that matter, which of the dozens of official WikiLeaks sites are the Real Deal?

We can already see that enterprising souls who care more about ad revenue than Internet freedom have 'parked' other WikiLeaks ccTLD domains. I'm looking at you, Belgium, Chile, Colombia, India, Spain, Japan, Russia, Slovakia, and Niue (.nu). The Wikia Inc folks are hanging onto wikileaks.us, wikileaks.com, and wikileaks.net.

My favorite example here would be wikileaks.ru, which looks like this:
wikileaks_ru.jpg Summary

This is a volatile conflict, with people who feel strongly about freedom on both sides, and who aren't hesitant to talk about this as a cyberwar. I'm not going to go there. From a more dispassionate infrastructure standpoint, though, we can make a few observations.

First, even without considering the possibility of alternatives to the current DNS infrastructure, it's evident that the country-level distribution of authority inherent in the ccTLD system has provided enough political cover to keep an extremely controversial site running. Everyone has laws that make certain kinds of content illegal, but there is no global agreement across jurisdictions about the definition of illegal content.

Second, it's apparent that search and social infrastructure (Google and Twitter) now play a key role in re-spawning content that gets blocked in any one place, and drawing even more attention to the surviving copies. If suppressed content automatically goes viral, the Internet's construction basically guarantees that that content will have a home for the rest of time. If you attack DNS support, people will tweet raw IP addresses. If you take down the BGP routes to web content, people will put up more mirrors, or switch to overlay networks to distribute the data. You can't burn down the Library of Alexandria any more— it will respawn in someone's basement in Stockholm, or Denver, or Beijing.

Finally, we can predict that in the future, enforcement of local laws will take place almost exclusively at the consumer edge of the Internet. Providers of content can change jurisdictions, but consumers generally cannot — and this asymmetry drives the creation of national domain blacklists and monitoring of access to illegal content within access networks. The day isn't far off, if it isn't here already, when your ISP will be set to work making lists of the naughty and nice. Get your proxies ready!

Update: An earlier version of this blog incorrectly identified the owners of the wikileaks.us, wikileaks.com, and wikileaks.net domains. We regret the error.

The major incidents on the Internet in 2010

         The major incidents on the Internet in 2010                                                                                        

Posted in Main on December 21st, 2010 by Pingdom

Internet Incidents

In what has become something of a yearly tradition, it’s now time for us to present 10 of the most noteworthy incidents on the Internet from this past year. As you’ll see, 2010 has been very interesting.

Just like previous years, we have included problems ranging from website outages and service issues to large-scale network interruptions. If you’re an avid Web user, you are bound to recognize several of them.

Let’s get started! The major incidents on the Internet in 2010 were…
Wikipedia’s failover fail

Wikipedia has become so ubiquitous that it can’t go down for a minute without people noticing. According to Google Trends for Websites, the site has roughly 50 million visitors per day.

In March, when servers in Wikimedia’s European data center overheated and shut down, the service was supposed to fail over to a US data center. Unfortunately, the failover mechanism didn’t work properly and broke the DNS lookups for all of Wikipedia. This effectively rendered the site unreachable worldwide. It took several hours before everyone could access the site again.
WordPress.com’s big-blog crash

WordPress.com got a pretty bad start this year when a network issue caused the biggest outage the service had seen in four years. The outage became extra noticeable not just because of the sheer number of blogs it hosts (at the time 10 million, now many more), but also because so many high-profile blogs use it. The WordPress.com outage took down blogs such as TechCrunch, GigaOM and the Wired blogs for almost two hours in February.
Gmail’s multiple outages

Gmail is one of the world’s most popular email services, and is an integral part of Google Apps. Unfortunately, it’s had several notable outages this year. These issues haven’t always affected Gmail’s entire user base, but enough of it to make headlines in the news.

In February, a routine maintenance caused a disruption that cascaded from data center to data center, knocking out Gmail worldwide for about 2.5 hours. In March, Gmail had an issue that lasted as much as 36 hours for some users. Another incident happened early in September, when overloaded routers made the service completely unavailable for almost two hours.
China reroutes the Internet

In April, China Telecom spread incorrect traffic routes to the rest of the Internet. In this specific case it meant that during 18 minutes, potentially as much as 15% of the traffic on the Internet was sent via China because routers believed it was the most effective route to take.

Similar incidents have happened before, for example when YouTube was hijacked globally by a small Pakistani ISP two years ago. Normally this results in a crash since the ISP can’t handle the traffic. However, China Telecom was able to handle the traffic, so most people never noticed this. At most they noticed increased latency as traffic to the affected networks took a very long and awkward route across the Internet (via China).

Even though no serious outage happened as a result of this, we think it’s such a fascinating disruption of the traffic flow that we felt it was worth including here. This is an inherent weakness of today’s Internet infrastructure, which largely relies on the honor system. Renesys has a more in-depth explanation of this incident and how it could happen. We should state that it wasn’t necessarily an intentional hijacking.
Twitter’s World Cup woes

Twitter seemed like the ideal companion to the World Cup (soccer to you Americans, football to the rest of the world, John Cleese explains it best). Tweeting about the World Cup proved so popular that it slowed down or broke Twitter several times during the weeks of the event. The upside is that this effectively load tested Twitter’s infrastructure, revealing potential weaknesses. As a result, Twitter’s service today is most likely more stable than it might otherwise have been.
Facebook’s feedback loop

Facebook has become a true juggernaut with more than 500 million users. That hasn’t changed its development philosophy, “don’t be afraid to break things.” This aggressive approach to speedy development has been key to Facebook’s success, but, well, sometimes it will break things.

Facebook’s worst outage in four years came in September when a seemingly innocent update to Facebook’s backend code caused a feedback loop that completely overloaded its databases. The only way for Facebook to recover was to take down the entire site and remove the bad code before taking the site back online. Facebook was offline for approximately 2.5 hours.
Foursquare’s double whammy

Foursquare’s location-based social network has been a resounding success and has in little time gathered a following of millions, so when the service went down for roughly 11 hours early in October, people of course noticed. The culprit was an overloaded database. And as if to add insult to injury, almost exactly the same thing happened the day after, taking the site down for an additional six hours.
Paypal’s payment problems

When Paypal stumbles, so do the many thousands of merchants that rely on Paypal to handle payments, not to mention the millions of regular consumers who use Paypal for their online payments. You can imagine the effect, and sales lost, if Paypal stops working for hours on end. Which was exactly what happened in October when a problem with Paypal’s network equipment crippled the service for as much as 4.5 hours. At its peak the issue affected all of Paypal’s members worldwide for 1.5 hours.
Tumblr’s tumble

Tumblr was (and still is) one of the great social media successes of 2010, but with rapid growth comes scalability challenges. This has become increasingly noticeable, and culminated with a 24-hour outage early in December when all of Tumblr’s 11 million blogs were offline due to a broken database cluster.
The Wikileaks drama

If you’ve missed this you must have been hiding under a rock, which in turn was buried below a mountain of rocks. The site issues that Wikileaks experienced during the so-called Cablegate were significant. First the site was the victim of a large-scale distributed denial-of-service attack which forced Wikileaks to switch to a different web host. After Wikileaks moved to Amazon EC2 to better handle the increased traffic, Amazon soon shut them down. In addition to this, several countries blocked access to the Wikileaks site. And then the possibly largest blow came when the DNS provider for the official Wikileaks.org domain, EveryDNS, shut down the domain itself.

Without a working domain name in place, Wikileaks could for a time only be reached by its IP address. Since then, Wikileaks has spread itself out, mirroring the content over hundreds of sites and different domain names, including a new main site at Wikileaks.ch.

As if this wasn’t enough drama, you have to add the reactions from some of Wikileaks’ supporters (not from Wikileaks itself). The services that cut off Wikileaks in various ways (Paypal, VISA, Mastercard, Amazon, EveryDNS, etc.) were subjected to distributed denial-of-service attacks from upset supporters across the world, which resulted in even more downtime. There was also collateral damage, when some attackers mistook the DNS provider EasyDNS for EveryDNS, aiming their attacks at the wrong target.

The Wikileaks drama is without a doubt the Internet incident of the year.
Final words

The events we have listed here above really are just a small sample of everything that has happened in 2010. Even without Wikileaks, it’s been a very eventful year on the Internet. That said, this is something we find ourselves saying every year. The truth is that the Internet is not quite as stable and solid as most of us would like to believe. It’s a complex system, like a living organism, and things do break from time to time. Sometimes it’s small-scale enough that nobody notices, and sometimes hundreds of millions of people are affected.

Hopefully 2011 will be a less eventful year, but we wouldn’t count on it.

If you feel we missed something major, please let us know in the comments!

Previous years:

* Internet incidents in 2007
* Internet incidents in 2008
* Internet incidents of the decade, 2000-2009

are all these connected?

it is a valid question on how all these are connecting in my life, the dots are unclear yet.....

Incubus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incubus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An incubus (from the Latin, incubo, or "nightmare"; plural incubi) is a demon in male form who, according to a number of mythological and legendary traditions, lies upon sleepers, especially women, in order to have sex with them. Its female counterpart is the succubus. An incubus may pursue sexual relations with a woman in order to father a child, as in the legend of Merlin.[1] Religious tradition holds that repeated intercourse with an incubus or succubus may result in the deterioration of health, or even death.[2]

Medieval legend claims that demons both male and female sexually prey on human beings, generally during the night when the victim is sleeping.

Succubus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Succubus

Lilith tempting Eve into eating the forbidden fruit. 15th Century.
A 16th Century sculpture representing a succubus.
Lilith (1892) by John Collier in Southport Atkinson Art Gallery

In folklore traced back to medieval legend, a succubus (plural succubi) is a female demon who takes the form of a human woman in order to seduce men, usually through sexual intercourse.[1] In modern times, a succubus may or may not appear in dreams and is often depicted as a highly attractive seductress or enchantress, while in the past succubi were generally depicted as frightening and demonic.[2] The male counterpart is the incubus. Religious traditions hold that repeated intercourse with an incubus or succubus may result in the deterioration of health, or even death.

Similar to a vampire, succubi also known as Lilith and the Lilin (Jewish) and Belili (Sumerian) draw energy from men to sustain themselves.

Sleep Paralysis Continues

the phenomena of sleep paralysis while i am sleeping, continue. i am reading about all these experiences by people on the net. this time it was milder but still i can understand it was the same experience more or less. till now the first one was the most lucid and vivid. in any case the feelings are similar. it feels as if something is sucking my life energy of me, causing me to feel all the negative emotions. emotions like anger, fear, fatigued negativity in general. whatever these creatures suck out of me makes me being negative to life. i read of other people that this is one of their purposes. i am to find ways to deal with this now that i am not that scared anymore. got left with a head and neck ache though....

Sleep paralysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sleep Paralysis is paralysis associated with sleep that may occur in normal subjects or be associated with narcolepsy, cataplexy, and hypnagogic hallucinations. The pathophysiology of this condition is closely related to the normal hypotonia that occur during REM sleep.^[1] When considered to be a disease, isolated sleep paralysis is classified as MeSH D020188.^[2] Some evidence suggests that it can also, in some cases, be a symptom of migraine.^[3][4]
Evil Shadow Entity Attack During Sleep | Shadow Creatures | True Ghost Tales

and many more stories in folk stories around the world. 

The Crazy Greek blogger: Μόρα, o νυχτερινός επισκέπτης
in greek mora or vrachnas

also the "old hag syndrom" grey dark evil creatures and strange gremlin like creatures sucking the life energy of their victims feeding off their negative emotions and causing misery on their lives.

getting by

getting by is a bitch knowing what you need to do in order to deal with life in your terms. learning and keeping cool is helping this, soon decision are to be made. just waiting for my break, i just need something small to start with.

car crash

i just smashed the car, came out of it alive.... thank god or fuck god????? i don t know but i am tired of everything....

Evolution

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.^[1] This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation
into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result,
variants with particular traits become more, or less, common. A trait is
a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction.

The main source of variation is mutation, which introduces genetic changes. These changes are heritable (can be passed on through reproduction), and may give rise to alternative traits in organisms. Another source of variation is genetic recombination,
which shuffles the genes into new combinations which can result in
organisms exhibiting different traits. Under certain circumstances,
variation can also be increased by the transfer of genes between species,^[2][3] and by the extremely rare, but significant, wholesale incorporation of genomes through endosymbiosis.^[4][5]

Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rarer in a population. One is natural selection,
through which traits that aid survival and reproduction become more
common, while traits that hinder survival and reproduction become rarer.
Natural selection occurs because only a small proportion of individuals
in each generation will survive and reproduce, since resources are
limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment
can support. Over many generations, heritable variation in traits is
filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes are
successively retained through differential survival and reproduction.
This iterative process adjusts traits so they become better suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.^[6]

However, not all change is adaptive. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift,
which leads to random changes in how common traits are in a population.
Genetic drift is most important when traits do not strongly influence
survival—particularly so in small populations, in which chance plays a
disproportionate role in the frequency of traits passed on to the next
generation.^[7][8] Genetic drift is important in the neutral theory of molecular evolution, and plays a role in the molecular clocks that are used in phylogenetic studies.

A key process in evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits
and diversifies into multiple new species. There are several modes
through which this occurs. Ultimately, all living (and extinct) species
are descended from a common ancestor via a long series of speciation
events. These events stretch back in a diverse "tree of life" which has grown over the 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on Earth.^{[9][10][11][12]} This is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.

The History of Artificial Intelligence

Timeline of major AI events

Dream

Dreams are a succession of images, sounds or emotions that pass through the mind during sleep.^[1]
The content and purpose of dreams are not fully understood, though they
have been a topic of speculation and interest throughout recorded
history. The scientific study of dreams is known as oneirology.

Archetype

Jungian archetypes

Main article: Jungian archetypes

The concept of psychological archetypes was advanced by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung,
c. 1919. In Jung's psychological framework archetypes are innate,
universal prototypes for ideas and may be used to interpret
observations. A group of memories and interpretations associated with an
archetype is a complex,
e.g. a mother complex associated with the mother archetype. Jung
treated the archetypes as psychological organs, analogous to physical
ones in that both are morphological constructs that arose through evolution.^[6]

Jung outlined five main archetypes;

• The Self, the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation
• The Shadow, the opposite of the ego image, often containing qualities with which the ego does not identify, but which it possesses nonetheless
• The Anima, the feminine image in a man's psyche; or:
• The Animus, the masculine image in a woman's psyche
• The Persona, how we present to the world, is another of 'the subpersonalities, the complexes'^[7] and usually protects the Ego from negative images (acts like a mask)

Although archetypes can take on innumerable forms, there are a few particularly notable, recurring archetypal images^{[citation needed]}:

• The Child
• The Hero
• The Great Mother
• The Wise old man or Sage
• The Wise Old Woman/Man, archetypes of the collective unconscious
• The Trickster or Fox
• The Devil or Satan
• The Scarecrow
• The Mentor

Jung also outlined what he called archetypes of transformation.
Not personality constructs, they are situations, places, ways and means
that symbolize the transformation in question (CW9i:81). These
archetypes exist primarily as energy - and are useful in organizational
development, personal and organizational change management, and
extensively used in place branding. As with any archetype, image takes
priority over language. In a personal exploration of the Self,
archetypes play an important role in the process of individuation.

Note: any references to the works of Carl Gustav Jung are made
through the 20 volumes of the Collected Works (CW). The references may
be checked by first obtaining the volume number (example CW9i which is
The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious). The second reference
number will always refer to a paragraph number (example 81) - thus
CW9i:81. Jung may be the only theorist whose work is quoted by paragraph
numbers.

Cosmic consciousness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Superconsciousness)

Cosmic consciousness is the concept that the universe exists as an interconnected network of consciousness, with each conscious being linked to every other. Sometimes this is conceived as forming a collective consciousness which spans the cosmos,^[1] othertimes it is conceived of as an Absolute or Godhead
from which all conscious beings emanate. Throughout history, there have
been many renditions of universal unity, connectivity, and the spectrum
of considered possibility of mankind. The idea bears similarity to the
ancient Buddhist concept of Indra's net, Teilhard de Chardin's conception of the noosphere, James Lovelock's Gaia theory, to Hegel's Absolute idealism, Satori in Zen^[2], and to some traditional pantheist beliefs. It is also reminiscent of Carl Jung's collective unconscious^[3]. Many of those who have used psychedelics such as LSD and Psilocybin mushrooms have asserted that they have had direct experience of the cosmic consciousness,^[4]
although some have suggested that naturally occurring mystical
experiences and those induced by psychedelics are of a different nature.^[5] In the 19th century, Canadian psychiatrist Richard M. Bucke developed a theory which claimed that Cosmic Consciousness lies in a mystic state above and beyond Self-consciousness, the natural state of man's consciousness, just like animal consciousness lies below.^[6] In the 20th century, Canadian born psychologist Nathaniel Branden,
originator of Bio-Centric Psychology, stipulated that as life advances
from simplicity to complexity, consciousness evolves from the vegetative
through the animal to the natural human condition of
self-consciousness.^[7]