pseudo-holomorphic curves and ended with a little bit more abstraction, today I'm going to go in the opposite direction. I'll begin with some more abstract discussion and then eventually we'll find our ways back to pseudo-holomorphic curves. So where did we leave off? We were talking about a category C and we were talking about the category of functors, the category of sets. And the object of this functor category is called a pre-sheaf. The functor from C off the set is called a pre-sheaf. So this is the category of pre-sheafs on C. And one of these pre-sheafs is called a representable when it's isomorphic to one of these pre-sheafs Hx, which is just hom in C to an object X. And furthermore, I argued that a pair X in C and U of X representing F, unique, up to unique isomorphism. So if I want to specify for you an object of C, I might as well specify the associated pre-sheaf. Great. So we had some examples such as the space of continuous maps, the compact open to pathology. This represents this functor. And this CW complex BO represents the map to isomorphism classes of vector bundles. And this is the first one I guess is on the top watch on this category of topological spaces. The second one is on the homotopy category of CW complexes. So that's a quick review of where we left off last time. So it turns out there's not only can you talk about these representable pre-sheaves as individual objects, there's an entire functor from C to pre-sheaves on C. I'm going to, I'm now going to call it pre-sheaves on C. So that's this category sending X, Hx. And there's a fundamental fact about this, this functor, which is that natural bijection forms a pre-sheaves from H of X to any F and the value of that pre-sheaf on the object. I'm going to pose an exercise. It's completely trivial, it's like two lines or something. But yet, it's a little bit tricky to figure it out. So it looks, it's tricky to figure out where the content actually is and whether you've proven it or whether you've just written down the tautology. Okay. So in particular, if I take F to be itselfly a native functor, either hom from Hx to Hy is equal to hom from X to Y. In other words, this functor Y, fully faithful, fully faithful meaning it's a bijection on morphisms. Okay. So what that means is that we can view C as a full subcategory of pre-sheaves of C. This is a, and this is a much stronger assertion than this assertion here about representing a functor, the object representing a functor being unique up to unique isomorphism. So you can think of P of C as consisting of sort of generalized objects of C in the sort of very vague sense of, but the sense which is similar to the way in which distributions are generalized functions. A distribution is something which, well, you can't evaluate it at a point, but you can integrate it against any smooth function. You can sort of pair it with smooth functions. And a pre-sheave is exactly the same sort of thing. It's not an object of C, but you can at least make sense of this mapping an object of C to it. Okay. So just, Mark, there's a precise version of this statement that C is the recode completion of C. Yes? I was afraid. Okay. So I think we're done with that. Questions? Yeah. So the question is why is this implication true? Yeah. So I'm just going to take f equal to h y. So f is h y and h y on x on from x to y. Now, I didn't tell you what the map was. And so you might complain that this equality might not be the map induced by the functor. Okay. So there's a more geometric subcategory of the category of all sheaves. And that is something which doesn't make sense on all categories. It only makes sense on some categories with the topology. And I'm going to stick to the case of topological spaces or smooth metaphones here. So then, basically, I need a notion of open covering, which has both of these categories have. f, the sheaf, then draw open covers, open sets, the following, the bijection goes to limit. Let me not write it like that. Let me not write it like that at all. The set of tuples, alpha i in f of ui, such that when you take their image in f, any overlap, they coincide. So this, what it says intuitively is that the specifying element amounts to local data examples. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So let's, yeah, that was many questions. So let me just go over the definition again, clarifying all of that. Okay. So we're only considering these two categories. Okay. For right now. So x is an object of one of these categories. And every open subset of x is therefore also an open subset of smooth metaphones. So I can apply f to that open set. And if I start with an element of f of x, so there's a tautological inclusion map from ui to x, just including that open set. And so that gives me a map, a restriction map from f of x to f of ui. So if I have an element of f of x, I can get a bunch of elements of f of ui, one for every i. Now, if I have two open sets, f of x maps to i and to uj because they're open subsets, and then both of these also map to ui intersect uj. Okay. And the fact that f is a functor means that this diagram commutes, this is the same map, just the map induced by pulling back under the inclusion from ui intersect uj into x. So if I start with an element of f of x and I look at the tuple of elements of f of ui I get for all i, then I can't just get any tuple. The only tuples I can possibly get are the ones that satisfy this condition that when I take alpha i and further restrict it to the intersection, that's the same as taking alpha j and further restricting it to the intersection. And then I made this sort of imprecise statement that the assertion that this map is an isomorphism should be thought of as saying that, well, to specify an element of f of x amounts to local data on x. I mean, would it even by local? Well, I mean, you can specify on some open sets and if you have agreements on overlaps, then it extends to your whole space. But I think maybe at this point an example would be clarified. Yes, question? Yeah, well, yes. Okay, so repeat the question. The question was the definition of a sheaf that you often first see is a sheaf on a fixed topological space. And if you took this definition and replaced C with a category of open subsets of a fixed topological space, then you would recover that definition. So this is a, anyway, it's a very similar flavor. It's a different thing. You know, it's the one you want to use if you're talking about representing functors. Okay, so let me write down an example. An example is that these unated functors are sheaves. Why is that? Well, if I suppose I have some smooth manifold m and I want to map x to m, well, specifying a smooth map from x to m is the same as specifying a smooth map on each UI to m and with the requirement that they agree on overlaps. There's not much content in that. But there are other things which are sheaves. For example, a and b are smooth manifolds. Then z maps to smooth maps, z cross a to b. That's also a sheaf. And it's basically the same reason because now the sheaf property is telling me that to specify a smooth map from z cross a to b, I can just specify on UI cross a and it should agree on the overlaps. Okay, so that one is also a sheaf. Usually the statement, usually the assertion that something is a sheaf is sort of a trivial statement. It's either, if it's true, the proof doesn't amount to much. But we remarked last time, this one is not representable. They're more sheaves than representables. What is something that's not a sheaf, not sheaves? U maps to the set of embeddings of U into Rn. So to specify a map from U to Rn, that is a local data. But the condition that that map be an embedding is not a local condition. So this map would be an injection, but not a surjection. U maps to set of continuous functions on U cross U. That's not a sheaf because it's not local data.  It's never going to tell me what it does. There's something which is also not a sheaf U maps to isomorphism classes of vector bundles. So that's a little bit, maybe surprising at first glance that that's not a sheaf because I had this intuitive model that a sheaf is something which is local. And to specify a vector bundle, that's something pretty local. You can glue vector bundles together if I give you an open cover and vector bundles on each open set and you specify isomorphism between them and co-cycle condition. You can glue them together to get a global vector bundle. Okay, so the problem is here isomorphism classes. Okay, so why is this not a sheaf? Well, I mean here's an explicit counter example, right? Take a circle and cover it with this open set. And this open set, let's look at vector bundles of rank one. So the intersection is this union, that there's only one vector bundle on this piece, only one vector bundle on this piece, and only one vector bundle on their intersection. And yet the vector bundle, there are two vector bundles on the circle, rank one vector bundles. It depends on how I glue them together. And that's not something that this definition captures. Okay, I'm going a little bit out of order from my notes, but I think it makes sense. So to fix this last example, we need the notion of a stack and that following. So first, let's define a groupoid. This is a category. All morphisms are isomorphisms. So if you take any category and just throw away all the morphisms, which aren't isomorphisms, you get a groupoid. So take your favorite category. It gives you an example of a groupoid by just throwing away all the non-invertible morphisms, groups and isomorphisms of groups. So for example, if G is any group, we can look at this BG. This is a groupoid. It's just a single object and the end of set of all the morphisms of that object is G. That's an example of a groupoid. Another example is X is a topological space. Then vector bundles of X and isomorphisms of vector bundles over X is a groupoid. So functor F, not values and sets, but instead valued in the category of group oids of the stack when for all open covers, the following is an isomorphism. So sorry, X equals, yes, thank you. So again, I'm only taking C here to be as smooth manifolds are sets, or smooth manifolds are topological spaces. So here, I'm just going to write down an analog of the of the sheaf condition, but it will be a little bit different. So again, I choose alpha i in F of ui for all i. Okay, and then there's this agreement on the overlaps condition. But we're in a category, a category of vector spaces. It's usually a bad idea to talk about equality or isomorphism of objects. It's better to specify an isomorphism. Yes. Yes. The question is, what is group oids? Group oids is a two category. I was, I was, I was hoping not to have to say this. So this is a two category. It's not a category. And so anyway, in a, in a category, the collection of morphisms from X to Y is a set. And in a two category, the collection of morphisms from X to Y is a group void. And that means you have to be a little bit more careful about what you mean by associativity of composition. Maybe I'll leave it at that. Okay, the question is to repeat. So in, in, in a category, um, x, y is a set. In a two category, um, x, y is a group void, one of these things. And replacing it with its set of isomorphism classes is usually not what you want to do. When it's a group void, you have to be a little bit careful about what you mean by associativity of composition because um, x, y times hom y, z times hom z, w, to hom x, w, that is a functor between group voids. And so you can't, you, it is, it is the wrong condition to say that the two functors you obtain by composing in either order are isomorphic. You need to specify an isomorphism and require a co-psycho condition for, for, for quadruple morphisms. Anyway, just despite the extra complication, most of the things you want to ever consider with group void, with, with, with categories, you can just do with two categories. It works mostly the same. There are a few more diagrams to, to chase, but that's it. Okay, so maybe I'll continue writing the definition. Um, you take alpha i in f of ui. You can restrict alpha i and alpha j to ui intersect uj. And, um, we no longer want to say that they're isomorphic. They're the same since, since they're objects of a category, we should specify an isomorphism between them. So, so that's part of the data here, beta ij. That's, uh, from alpha i restricted to ui intersect uj to alpha j restricted to ui intersect uj. And, um, well how do we glue together vector bundles? If I have an open cover, x equals union i ui, and I have vector bundles on each of the ui, and on each double overlap, I have an isomorphism between the restrictions. Um, if I want to get a vector bundle on a total space, I'm missing a condition, namely the co-cycle condition. So I better have the, uh, beta ij times beta jk. I'm going to swap the order of these, so my composition is in the correct order. I think alpha j, alpha i. Uh, so then I can write this co-cycle condition in an order which makes sense, beta ij, beta jk is equal to beta ik. So this thing on the right here is a groupoid. Let me not tell you the, the definition of, well let me not write the definition of an isomorphism between two of these things, but there's natural way to talk about things here, being isomorphic. Basically, through, uh, the example that, uh, x maps to vector bundles on x, so I don't think I need to say more about that. Um, but basically anything you could want to parameterize is going to give you a stack. So, um, you know, x maps to, say x is, is a smooth manifold. Let me do things in the smooth category. Then I can ask to parameterize remount surfaces by smooth manifold. So what does that mean? Um, c goes to x. Um, well it says, I guess it's a maybe it's a proper submersion, um, with a fiber-wise, almost complex structure. Proper submersion, um, with fibers, with two-dimensional fibers, a fiber-wise, almost complex structure. So that, this is the, you know, the, this, this you would call the modular stack of remount surfaces. Okay, so the question, you, you, you should be the first question.  Right? If, if it were representable, then that object representing it, I would call it the modular space of, of remount surfaces. Oh, so what's the answer to this question? Yes, Paul. So if the answer were yes, then it would probably be pretty hard to construct it. So, okay. Um, so everything representable is of the form, ham to something. And ham to something is always a set. And, and this is not a set because it has automorphisms. That's the, it could be equivalent to, it could be equivalent to, it's not equivalent to a set, is why? Uh, no, as long as you, as soon as you have any automorphism, it's, it's not equivalent to a set. It's not equivalent to a set indeed. It's not, yes, okay. Yes, I, I should, I should, I should write it, I should say it like that. Because it's, say it's value on a point, it's not equivalent to a set. Where the morphisms of the groupoid on the left hand side, the left hand side of what? F of x? Or this, this, maybe this groupoid here? So, okay, I'll, sorry. Okay, so, so, yeah, so, so, so, yeah, I think it must be about this. Okay, so, so morphism, morphism is a diagram. It's an isomorphism over x. So, so c to x is some family, and c prime to x is another family, and I, I give this map. And this map should be an isomorphism, not just any map. Well, it's isomorphism of families over x. It's, ah, yes. Um, so equivalent means, what do I mean by equivalent to a set? Um, right, so when you have, um, so, if you have two categories, you can ask for functor, um, in both directions, and for both compositions to be isomorphic to the identity. That's an equivalence of categories. It's called equivalence, not isomorphism, um, because, um, because you don't want to ask that both compositions are equal to the identity functor, just that they're, um, equivalent to it, or isomorphic to it. So a set, you can regard it as a groupoid by saying, well, the objects are that set, and they're no morphisms other than the identities of every, of every element. Yes, I, ah, why is it not equivalent to a set? Yes, so I'll, I'll, I'll finish my sentence. It's not equivalent to a set since, um, there exists, ah, there's just Riemann surface, whose automorphism group is not one. And as soon as you have an object of your groupoid, automorphism, well, it's even, even only, right? A groupoid is equivalent to a set, even only if the automorphism group of every object is trivial. Indeed, yes, the stack of vector bundles is not representable either. Okay. So, so despite the fact that these are not representable, um, well, how can I say, they, they, they are still nicer than arbitrary stacks. Oh, they're also nicer than arbitrary stacks, but they're even nicer than arbitrary pre-sheets, I guess. No, so let me, let me refer back to my notes rather than just, ah, making it up as I go. But in, in, in particular, um, for example, modular stack of orbital, of modular stack of, of Riemann surfaces, and here, um, just so I don't say it's technically wrong statement, let's say the genius is at least two, um, is an orbital. So that's probably the, the tamest you can, the, the, the tamest you can be without being actually representable by smooth manifold. So it's a, it's a quotient of a smooth manifold by, I just locally a quotient of a smooth manifold by finite group action. Okay. So, so, so let me say what, what, uh, of that, what that means. Okay. So if you have a stack of topological spaces, um, x and y are stacks on topological spaces, y is called representable when in top, uh, fiber product x cross y z representable. So we already have a notion of what an object is representable. I'm defining what it means for, for morphism to be representable. And what you should think of this as saying is basically that the fibers are representable, the fibers of the morphism are representable, whatever, whatever that means. Yes, an orbital is not a manifold, right? So, so Homstone orbital fold is, um, the question is, how can the modified stack be an orbital? Um, well, I haven't really defined for you an orbital. So, so, uh, the orbital do not form a category. They form a two category. They're one of these. And, and what that means is that the maps, um, yeah, an orbital doesn't have a set of point that has a, has a group point of points. Anytime you have a, a local model, you know, Rn mod G and you have a point, um, in Rn, uh, you should regard the, you know, the point in the quotient as having automorphism group that the stabilizer at that point. Y for, for every, yes. So in, indeed, I messed this up, um, every, in top and every map, e to y. Yes. Yes. A map from z to y is, is a map from the United Functor of, of z to, to y. Equivalently, it's an object of the group point y of z. Okay. So, so, so more, more, more generally, um, if he, any property of morphisms served under pullback. So, property of morphisms served under pullback is a property of morphisms such that, um, in any diagram like this, if x to y has p, then, then so is the pullback. So there are lots of properties like this, ones which an open map of topological spaces, an embedding of topological spaces, um, a closed embedding of topological spaces, um, admitting local sections, um, a submersion of, of, of smooth manifolds. There, there are lots of these.  Maybe I'll just make a definition, orbifold categories with manifolds, um, back x such that one, um, exists a surjective etal u to x to the diagonal map. So in the presence of two, one is equivalent to one prime, which says that x is locally modulo gamma for m, with manifolds and gamma finite group. So in some sense, this, this stack of, of vector bundles is the unit of point modulo dLnr. So this is a quotient in, in this category of stacks. Yeah, um, what do I mean by locally? Um, so there are lots of, right. So I mean, um, there are a bunch of open embeddings from m mod gamma to x and it's an open covering and open embedding and open covering. Those are properties of morphisms in category of topological spaces or smooth manifolds. And so they make sense for morphisms of stacks also.  Um, there exists, what was the meaning of one was, so there exists a surjective etal map from, from some, from some u and from some smooth manifold u. But etal means local isomorphism, local homeomorphism or local, the few morphism. Okay. So there were quite a few more things I wanted to say, but um, one is easier because the question was that one prime seems easier than one. Um, because showing something is locally quotient, uh, requires actually, well, okay, I, I, I'm just going to assert the opposite, which is that one, one, one is easier than one prime because, um, right, if x is union of mi modulo, gamma i, then mi to mi modulo gamma i is etal. And this is a bunch of open embeddings, in particular it's etal, so this is etal. Oh yeah, etal, etal, etal does not mean proper, certainly not. Yeah. Um, going from one to one prime is a little bit harder, but so actually let me stay a theorem along on the line. So this is a, in the last 10 years, a theorem of Zung, which says that if x smooth manifolds and it has proper diagonal, there exists a surjective submersion, your representant to x, then x locally, um, mod g, or smooth manifolds in g, compact v group, drop condition 2. Yeah, so condition, what would happen if we dropped condition 2? So condition 2 is analogous to, uh, being how to start. So, um, you, you can get lots of, um, very, very bad things, like, um, you could take the, like the real line with a doubled origin, and then maybe you could, uh, try to quotient by the, by the Z2 action exchanging the two origins or something like that. So if you have, if you, if you drop two, then one in one prime are no longer equivalent. One is weaker. Basically, you take any, um, any, any, any smooth manifolds and take open sets and identify them. However you like. Uh, yeah, so, so we have this, yeah, so I think, I think maybe I didn't say this. So C, um, embeds into, um, to C, the embeds fully faithful into the category of stacks. So that means there's really no need to distinguish between, um, element of C and it's, it's your native functor here. So this is just, if we're thinking about stacks, then we're working in this category. And if I ever mentioned an object of C, I really mean its image in here. Not that those things are, were really any different in the first place, but, um, so, so if I, I mean a map from, from sort of f, this stack, then, um, f means a map from Hx. Um, and by Uneda, that's, that's the same thing as L object. So I apologize that this lecture was all about stacks. I thought I was going to get to holomorphic curves. I promise I will do only holomorphic curves next time. I didn't, I didn't really hear the last part, something about the image of, image of a, okay. So, so, so the question was to compare the definition of a sheaf with the definition of a stack. Yeah. So, um, when is a stack a sheaf? That was, that was the question. Yes. Okay. So, um, okay, so sets you should think of as inside group voids.  Um, so this inclusion is, is very nice, uh, sets into group voids. And so any sheaf is a stack. Now you can take, take a stack and, and apply pi zero to it to get a pre-sheaf, and usually it's not a sheaf. Um, I don't know if I could, I mean, if, if it were originally sheaf, it came from a sheaf, but, but if it's not a sheaf, then probably, if it's not, yeah, if it, yeah, if you have a stack, which is not a sheaf, and you try to apply isomorphism classes, usually you're not going to get a sheaf. Yes. I mean, and, and, and, and yes, yes, vector bundles, we won't surface any of the examples. If it were a really trivial stack, I guess you could probably, I don't know. Yeah. So the question was, um, at the beginning of this time, in the end of last time, I talked about isomorphism classes of vector bundles that is a functor on the homotopy category of, of CW complex. And I said that's represented by BO. And then today I, later I said, vector bundles, that's isomorphism classes. Um, that's not representable as a functor on top. Um, yeah. So, so, so there's no inconsistency since these are different categories. And you know, you, you can try to, you know, take the functor from say nice topological spaces to the homotopy category of CW complex and try to prove one is representable based on noting, noting the other is you realize you can't prove it. And by doing so, maybe you'll see why. Yeah. So, so what do I mean by proper and surjective submersion? So these are again, uh, properties which are preserved under pullback. And so I can, um, I can, I can define them for a map of stacks by, by saying, well, every pullback satisfies them. Ah, yes. What do I mean by POC is the free code completion of C. So let's see if I get this right. Um, so, so let's say D is a co, co-complete category. And that means it has all co limits. Then I can look at co-continuous bunkers from P of C, D, co-continuous means preserves all co limits. And I can restrict it to C. And this is an equivalence. That's what it means. The P of C is the free co-completion.


I'm Tara Sands, and I started working in anime about 20 years ago. The very first anime job I had was on Pokemon, and I thought it was some very weird crazy cartoon, and when I did Bulbasaur for the first time, I said, well, what does he say? And he said, he just says his name, and I said, well, this show's not going anywhere. And I was completely wrong, so yeah, I was very lucky, 20 years later we were still talking about Pokemon, and I was very lucky. I played about 50 roles in the first eight seasons here. I'll give you my, this is my cheat sheet, because I forget who I played. So I keep my little list here. I mean, we were all really young, living in New York City, and there was no social media. So it wasn't as exciting as you might think, because we weren't getting Twitter at all, they emailed, and people didn't know, we were very anonymous. But for the first movie, we had the premiere at the Ziegfeld Theater in New York City, which was my favorite movie theater, it's an iconic movie theater, and I think when we saw the fans at that premiere and that night, it really made us realize that we were part of something enormous. I mean, I knew I was part of a hit show, but there's a difference between a hit show and a cultural phenomenon. And I always say, I always call Pokemon a gateway anime, because it really opened the world up of anime and Japanese culture and different things for kids and adults who maybe would not have seen it in a mainstream kind of way. So very cool to be a part of something like that.  I was a big talker. I got in trouble in school for talking, so I do that with kids. But as a little kid, I would quote commercials all the time. I was always just reciting them back. And when I was a little bit older, I was in high school, I went on my first voiceover audition, which I didn't know this was a job. I mean, I never thought of it as a job. I was an actor, I did theater and singing and all that, but I never thought of voiceovers as a job, though, I could do it. And my very first audition, I got the job, which, I mean, again, very lucky. Right place, right time, and my mom was like, wait, you get paid to do that? And I was like, yeah, this is crazy. And then I went and I studied it, and I did all the right things. I didn't take it for granted that this was gonna be a job I just fell into. I went to college, I studied theater, worked on using my voice in a way so that it would stay healthy and would lose it all the time. This is a loud convention, so I might lose it after this. But that's when I really realized this was a job that I wanted to do. And I knock on everything, I'm still doing this, so. A lot of people think that you have to have a unique voice to do this or a very flexible voice. The truth is, and I think this is true. And again, you'll get a different answer from every actor you talk to. I think it's about your ability to tell a story and communicate and act. It's an acting job at the end of the day. You might have the most beautiful voice in the world or the most rich, booming, powerful voice. But if you tell the story or deliver the lines in a way that doesn't feel real or genuine, probably not gonna work as much as a lot of actors and voice-over come from theater backgrounds. And I think that's because they're used to communicating with an audience. And then when they get in the booth alone, they're able to translate those skills. They don't necessarily meet the audience right there, which it's hard to do.  And when you're doing this, you're in a booth by yourself. So that's when all of your training kicks in. I was asked today, it's so funny. A lot of people think this is a job you can kind of sign up for. And I was asked today, what do I do? To just do that, I was like, it's a journey. It's a commitment, if you want it to be a hobby, that's a different thing. But to do this full time is a commitment. And that's what I would tell people who want to do this. You have to really love it, you have to put in your time. Of course, you hear overnight success stories and they happen and I'm lucky. I got lucky, it was a different industry when I started. But I feel like when I tell my story, it makes people think that that's kind of an easy way in, but I had been working at it.


We're an attraction based near Tenby in West Wales and we were recently double winners at the National Tourism Awards for Wales, picking up Best Family Day out in Wales and Best Digital Marketing. Folly Farm launched its new website in summer 2010. Prior to the current website we have, we had very much more of an online brochure. Digital is an increasingly important marketing means. It enables us to cast the net a lot wider than we would be able to through traditional offline advertising. We've seen huge benefits delivering our product online and other tourism operators and then breakfasts in the area should really be embracing technology in the same way that we have in order to get their product noticed amongst a wider audience. One of our guiding principles is making sure that wherever possible we can use local suppliers and our supplier for our website right media based in Roche just outside Haverford West are an amazingly creative agency that helped us to deliver the fun and engaging content that we have on the site. And they're also currently working on an iPhone application for a zoo tour around our zoo where you can meet all the animals. Considian Systems has a lot of demands on its digital infrastructure in order to be able to operate as a business. From the customer side we have a global customer base whether it be towards NATO, the US or as far as Australia and an awful lot of our communication and our interaction with the customer is done through digital means. We rely on having a strong resource pool available to us of experts in IT infrastructure, in communications, in software, in managing services and the digital environment. So these are all fundamentally important to us.


On behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Archives and Records Administration and the University of Texas is my great privilege to welcome you to the President's daily brief delivering intelligence to the first customer. 50 years ago, President Johnson in an address to American business leaders said, a long axiom in my political thinking has been that a man's judgment is no better than his information on any given subject. Since its creation, the President's daily brief has served to provide our commanders in chief with the intelligence that informs vital decisions relating to our foreign and national security policy. In short, these classified documents offer presidents the tools they need to render their best judgment. First known as the President's Intelligence Checklist or the Pickle, when it was introduced in June 1961, the document became known as the President's daily brief or PDB in December of 1964. It represents the distillation of intelligence material deemed worthy of a President's attention, providing not just news, but importantly, context and analysis. Today's program, which includes our nation's top intelligence officials, will shed light on the intelligence apparatus and how it is used to ensure that the first and most important customer, the President of the United States, is armed with the information he needs on matters of state. It comes as the CIA releases PDBs from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations from June 1961 through January 1969, making, marking the first time the CIA has, through its historical review board, declassified PDBs and made them available to the public. As of today, in fact as of about five minutes ago, they will be posted on the CIA's website. It is now my great privilege to welcome to the stage the head of the National Archives and Records Administration, the Archivist of the United States, the Honorable David Ferriero. Thank you, Mark. And let me add my welcomes to one of my favorite presidential libraries, the LBJ. When we opened our doors in 1935, the National Archives mission was to collect, protect, and encourage the use of the records of the United States government, most importantly, to make the records available so that the American public can hold its government accountable for its actions and to learn from the past. We're the final destination of the most important records of the United States government, that two to three percent of records deemed by departments and agencies to be important enough for permanent preservation. The National Archives is responsible for the records of 275 executive branch agencies and departments, the White House and the Supreme Court, and we provide courtesy storage for the records of Congress. Our records start with the oath of allegiance signed by George Washington and his troops at Valley Forge in 1775 and go all the way up to the tweets that are being created as I am speaking in the White House. It's a collection of about 12 billion pieces of paper, 42 million photographs, miles and miles of film and video, and five billion electronic records. Thirteen of the 46 facilities that make up the National Archives are presidential libraries. When President Franklin Roosevelt created the National Archives in 1934, he also created the presidential library system. The libraries start with the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library in West Branch, Iowa and go to the George W. Bush Library in Dallas, Texas. They contain more than 780 million pages of textual material, 625,000 museum objects and electronic records. We started collecting electronic records during the Reagan administration, between Reagan and Bush 41, about 2.5 million email messages, 20 million in the Clinton White House, 210 million in Bush 43, and we just recently passed the 1 billion mark for the Obama White House. On his first day in office, President Barack Obama issued an open government directive which declared that my administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. This idea of open government is embedded in the mission of the National Archives. Our work is built on the belief that citizens have the right to see, examine, and learn from those records. Five years ago, President Obama signed an executive order entitled classified national security information intended to overhaul the way documents created by the federal government are assigned classification codes, secret, top secret. The executive order also created the National Declassification Center within the National Archives with a mandate to review for declassification some 400 million pages of classified records going back to World War I, and to do that by the end of 2013. We successfully met that goal in the declassification process, emphasizing a risk management strategy and expanding data capture efforts. And I'm proud to report that the six oldest documents were released. They are classified by the CIA. They are on his last day, just about his last day in office, Leon Panetta held a press conference announcing the release of these six documents, all formulas for secret ink. Most recently, the National Declassification Center coordinated a multi-agency activity across government to answer a White House request for declassified records responsive to the Brazilian National Truth Commission, the desire for records relating to human rights abuses during 1964. Vice President Joe Biden provided the first of several CD collections to the Brazilian government last summer, and the National Declassification Center is concluding this review in 2015 with a web release that also describes the impacts on Americans abroad. The motto of the National Declassification Center is releasing all we can, protecting what we must. In that spirit, let me tell you that the work of the National Declassification Center goes on so that we avoid those backlogs that they were originally saddled with. Finally, I'd like to say that the release of the President's Intelligent Checklist and the Presidential Daily Briefings will add meaningful context to other National Archives documents in how the President's used intelligence briefings to do their job, and we're thrilled that the CIA is releasing these documents from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. And we look forward to more Presidential Daily Briefings from the Nixon and Ford Libraries after the CIA completes its review. And a special shout out from the Archivist of the United States to my colleague Joe Lampert for making this work a priority. Thank you. Thank you, David. It is now my pleasure to welcome the gentleman who David just shouted out, the man who is largely responsible for the release of these PDBs, and consequently this conference today, the CIA's Director of Information Management Services, Joe Lampert. Thank you, Mark, and thank you, David. On behalf of all my colleagues back at Langley, I want to welcome you to the CIA's latest declassification release event on the PDBs. At CIA, we are very proud that this is our 24th major release event in the last seven years. The first occurred in 2008 at Georgetown University, and it focused on the tenure of Richard Helms as Director of Central Intelligence. Since that time, we've held events at Presidential Libraries and major universities all over the country, highlighting the release of significantly, historically significant documents such as Air America, where at the University of Texas at Dallas, we put Air America helicopter pilots in touch for the very first time with the Air Force pilots that they had rescued. And we contributed thousands of documents on Air America to the archive at UT. We've held events on the 92 to 95 Bosnian War with President Clinton as the keynote speaker at his library in Little Rock. We've held an event on the Camp David Accords with President Jimmy Carter as the keynote at his library in Atlanta. Back in Washington, we held an event on the Declaration of Polish Martial Law, which focused on the life of Colonel Ruzar Koklinski from the Polish General Staff, who is one of CIA's most important Cold War assets. We held our very first thematic event at Smith College, and that one was entitled, Typist to Trailblazer, and it focused on the involving role of women in the CIA workforce. In addition to these major events, we've held a number of smaller ones, like the one we held in the Wilson Center in D.C., highlighting the CIA's involvement in the publication of the Russian language version of Boris Pasternak's Dr. Chevago. Today's event marks the second time that we've actually had the pleasure to work with Mark up to Grove and the LBJ Library here in Austin. In 2010, we released documents on the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and for me, that was one of the most memorable events, not necessarily for what we released, but for the day after the phone call I received from my 20-year-old college student in California. The event had made the media, as they typically do, and it was picked up by an outlet in California in Los Angeles, and my son called me and said, Dad, I hear the CIA's talking about an invasion. Do I need to be worried? I said, son, did you read the article? He said, no. I said, do you have it? He said, yeah, I have it right here. I said, kid, you take a minute and go a little bit further south. In typical 20-year-old fashion, I waited about 15, 20 seconds, heard a big sigh, followed by, oh, come on, Dad, 1968, really? Public releases of historically significant documents like this don't just happen. They require a tremendous amount of behind-the-scenes collaboration and work. We gratefully acknowledge the appreciation and support of both LBJ and the library here and the University of Texas for making this wonderful venue available to showcase this document release. In addition to the CIA, there were 13 other intelligence community and government agencies that were involved in one way or another with the review of these documents. I want to offer a very special thanks to the National Security Agency for their efforts. Finally, I'd like to thank CIA's information management professionals back in Washington who've been diligently reviewing these PDBs for the past two years to enable their release today to the American people. Their work is often unsung and the lesson that they've taught me over the past five years is that deciding when a secret is no longer a secret can sometimes be a very difficult task. Now I have the pleasure of introducing our keynote speaker for today. We are very pleased that we have the director of the CIA, John Brennan, with us today. John joined the CIA in 1980 and has been our director since March of 2013. He's uniquely qualified to give the keynote address as he's been on both sides of the PDB process as both a PDB briefer himself and as a recipient when he was assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Please join me in welcoming my boss, John Brennan. Thank you very much Joe and thank you for your outstanding work that's brought us to today's event and good afternoon everyone. Having spent some wonderful years as a student at UT and still a very very proud longhorn it is my very great pleasure to be back in Austin. I want to thank Mark Uptegrove and his excellent staff for hosting today's event. When President Johnson dedicated this library he said it is all here the story of our time with the bark off. You can't get much further below the bark than top secret intelligence reports. So I think President Johnson would approve of today's proceedings. I also want to thank my good friend and one of our nation's greatest patriots Admiral William McRaven, Chancellor of the University of Texas System for speaking later this afternoon on the importance of intelligence. It is highly appropriate for Bill to help celebrate the history of the President's daily brief the PDB because for a number of years the operations he commanded helped fill the book with some of the very best intelligence. I also want to offer my gratitude to two outstanding agency leaders former CIA director Portugas and former deputy director of central intelligence Bobby Iman for lending their insights and expertise to the panel discussion coming up next. And finally I want to thank my very good friend and colleague General James Clapper the director of national intelligence and an icon of the intelligence profession who knows more about this business than I would argue anyone else. President Johnson made a point of keeping most of his speeches to a 400 word limit and I may be dangerous to the close to hitting that already but I plan to hold on to this podium for a while so I can offer a few words on today's release and the enduring challenge of preserving our national security. On his first full day in office President Obama called on the heads of executive departments and agencies to build an unprecedented level of openness in our government. He made it known that giving the American people a clear picture of the work done on their behalf consistent with common sense and the legitimate requirements of national security would be a touchstone of his administration. In light of this new approach and pursuant to an executive order outlining new classification and declassification guidelines CIA information management officers worked with their counterparts at the national security council and the office of the director of national intelligence to start the review and declassification of PDBs that were more than 40 years old. And today for the first time ever the central intelligence agency is releasing en masse declassified copies of the PDBs and its predecessor publications. Some 2,500 documents from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. This is just the beginning. Some 2,000 additional declassified PDB documents from the Nixon and Ford administrations will be released next year and the process will continue. The PDB is among the most highly classified and sensitive documents in all of our government. It represents the intelligence community's daily dialogue with the president in addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities related to our national security and for students of history the declassified briefs will lend insight into why a president chooses one path over another when it comes to statecraft. The release of these documents affirms that the world's greatest democracy does not keep secrets merely for secrecy's sake. Whenever we can shed light on the work of our government without harming national security and let me repeat that caveat without harming national security we will do so. The story of the PDB begins more than 50 years ago at President Kennedy's weekend retreat near the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia. It was June 17th 1961 and an aide had just arrived from Washington carrying a top secret document. The president sat down to read it next to the swimming pool perched on the edge of the diving board. The document was seven pages long and printed on short square blocks of paper with spiral bonding along the top. Inside were two maps a few notes and 14 intelligence briefs most no more than two sentences in length on topics ranging from Laos to Cuba to Khrushchev. After reading the document the president sent word that he was pleased with the contents. An aide contacted the offices at CIA who had written it and said so far so good. This was the very first issue of what would become the PDB. The publication quickly became a must read for President Kennedy and it set in motion a routine for delivering intelligence to the Oval Office that has been at the heart of CIA's mission ever since. The idea behind the PDB was developed quickly in a matter of days to meet a very specific need. Since taking office President Kennedy had been frustrated with the way intelligence was being delivered to him. The reports he was receiving were long dense and abstract and they would come in haphazardly throughout the day making it hard for him and his staff to keep up. The result was that much of what he was being given each day went unread and the president was making policy decisions without the benefit of the intelligence our government had collected for him. A few months into the president's term after he was caught off guard by several developments on the intelligence front his brother Robert Kennedy lit into the president's staff. CIA soon got a call from the White House demanding that the agency find a better way to keep the president informed. In consultation with the president's advisors a team of agency officers decided to produce a daily digest delivered each morning to the White House that would summarize in a few pages all the intelligence that deserve the president's attention. They called it the pickle short for the president's intelligence checklist the forerunner of the PDB. The idea was so successful that it has endured in various forms under 10 presidents and today it is such a vital part of how the White House operates that one can hardly imagine the modern presidency without it. Throughout its history the PDB has helped the president confront the gravest subjects a commander-in-chief can face issues like terrorism and famine and war but as you will see in the documents we are releasing today the PDB's history includes more than coverage of crisis and conflict. In today's collection you will find offbeat items like Russian reaction to a performance by the New York City Ballet and commentary on a decision by the New York Yankees to fire Yogi Berra an awful decision. You will encounter a host of lively characters such as a political leader in Latin America described as a high-living fifth of scotch a day man. You will also find occasional doses of humor a fair number of off-color remarks and an entire issue comprising little more than a poem. Today the PDB is the most abundantly staffed most deeply sourced daily information service in the world. It provides the president with a wealth of insight and analysis on virtually every issue on his foreign policy agenda but when the idea of the PDB was first conceived the plans were not nearly so ambitious. The document was envisioned as more as more of a straightforward news bulletin summarizing the latest developments rather than a font of in-depth analysis. It was very little in the way of rigorous forecasting in the early years. Whole disciplines that are integral to the intelligence business such as covert action were largely left out. Director John McCown who was appointed by President Kennedy thought that some subjects were simply too sensitive to be included in the document so he would relay them to the president in person a practice that has continued to this day. Nevertheless today's PDB in many respects is unrecognizable from what it was in the Kennedy and Johnson years. One of the clearest differences is writing style. Back then the articles were full of colorful language and personal asides that would never make it past a PDB editor today. Consider this report from 1967 about the harassment of diplomats in China. It said, a mob kept one ambassador in his car for 10 hours causing him to ruin both his clothing and the upholstery or this assessment of a fact-finding team that was sent to Yemen in 1967. The team left yesterday with more haste than dignity after six gunfire-ridden days spent mostly locked in hotel rooms and presumably under the beds. It gets more colorful but I think you have the idea. Having been a PDB brief of myself in the 1990s I can assure you that the commentary in the Oval Office is at times quite sporty and eyebrow-raising when the PDB is discussed. Beyond the writing style the PDB has evolved in countless ways since those early years. It has grown in length and sophistication adding features like graphics and imagery. It is more comprehensive now and the analysis is far more rigorous and perhaps most importantly it has gone from a document written by just a handful of people at CIA to one produced by officers representing an array of organizations, specialties and disciplines in the intelligence community. Many of the changes have been driven by technology and by the possibilities afforded by our expanding capabilities and a more integrated intelligence community. But above all the publication has changed in response to the preferences and habits of each president. President Kennedy wanted the checklist as it was known then to be short and to the point. It should be small enough when AIDS said to fit into a breast pocket so that the president could carry it around with him and read it at his convenience. Kennedy also insisted that it be written in plain conversational English, stripped of the jargon and official ease that characterized most intelligence writing at the time. No gobbledygook, the White House said. Over time the checklist began to reflect Kennedy's pet peeves and language and usage. One word that rankled him was boondocks. He founded two colloquial and told the writers of the checklist that it was not an acceptable word. But Kennedy was not an overly fastidious editor and his writers clearly relished the freedom they were given, sprinkling the prose with words like effervescent, ticklish and cuckoo. Classification markings were another pet peeve. Kennedy's AIDS did not want them cluttering up the text. Regardless of the content, each document was to carry a single marking, top secret, stamped at the bottom of the page. This was true even if the information was based on diplomatic reporting or unclassified news accounts. So while you will see a lot of what can rightfully be described as overclassification in today's release, the reason was to streamline the production processes back then and to make the document easier on the eye. Ah, the good old days. In both content and style, the checklist also testified to President Kennedy's breath of expertise. Since Kennedy was so well versed on intelligence issues, each item in his checklist was spare and direct without much background or explanatory information. The authors focused only on what the president did not already know, meaning that a lot of important intelligence was left out of the document. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, photographs and other pieces of intelligence that were passed to the president through separate channels were often omitted from the checklist. As one editor said, why summarize what the president already knows? After only a few months of producing the checklist, the authors had gotten so much feedback from Kennedy that they were able to anticipate his intelligence needs and draft a document to meet them. They understood the kind of writing he liked, the issues that mattered to him, and how he wanted them explained. A bond of trust had formed between them and the president that would last throughout his time in office. One senior officer later said the relationship was going so well that it seemed like heaven on earth. But one of the eternal challenges of the PDB is what works for one president rarely works for the next one. You almost have to start from scratch each time. That is certainly what happened when President Johnson took office. During the Kennedy administration, the checklist was not disseminated very widely. At first it only went to the president and to the director of central intelligence and later to the secretaries of state and defense. But one of Kennedy's aides told the agency that under no circumstances should the checklist be given to Johnson. So when Johnson took office, agency editors had no idea how familiar he was with the subjects they had been writing about in a checklist. It was clear that he needed more background information in the articles than Kennedy did. But how much more? The editors wanted to give the appropriate context, but they worried that if they went too far they would appear condescending and might alienate the new president. Their first effort delivered the day after President Kennedy's assassination included five rather lengthy items and several notes. It did not seem to hit the mark, though it was hard to tell. When the president was briefed on it in the morning, he did not say much in response. He seemed mostly relieved that nothing in the document required his immediate attention, understandable and light of the trauma and mourning that our nation was experiencing. As the months went by, it became clear that Johnson was not reading the checklist. Part of the problem was that early on at least, he preferred to get his intelligence informally, in meetings and through conversation, instead of from written products. Johnson may also have harbored a built-in bias against the checklist since it had been deliberately withheld from him when he was vice president. But the main problem was the format. The checklist had been created for President Kennedy. And in many respects, it was still his product designed to match his preferences and work habits rather than those of Johnson. So the editors of the checklist decided to change course. They gave the document a new name, the president's daily brief. They repackaged it, adding longer articles that supplied greater detail as well as thoughts on future trends. And they delivered it in the afternoon, not the morning, since Johnson liked to do his reading at the end of the day, often in his pajamas while lying in bed. After several test runs, the first official PDB was published on December 1, 1964. Senior aide Jack Valenti returned it with a handwritten note the very same day. The president likes this very much. As with Kennedy, Johnson's PDB did not include material that he had already received through other briefings, or that he was getting from other intelligence products. It is worth emphasizing here that the PDB was never intended to be the only source of intelligence for a president, and it never has been. Throughout the PDB's existence, presidents have also gotten intelligence from the military and other departments of government, through briefings, meetings, and informal conversations, and from longer forms of analysis such as that found in national intelligence estimates. But to say that presidents get their intelligence from a variety of sources in no way minimizes the importance of the PDB. There is no denying the utility of the product to Kennedy and after several changes to Johnson as well. And as the documents we are releasing today made clear, the PDB provided them with critical insights as they charted our nation's course amid the challenges of a turbulent decade. Looking down from History's summit at the challenges and crisis of the past, it is human nature to see them as less complicated and dangerous than those we face today. The threats have either subsided or disappeared. The standoffs have long been resolved. And hindsight has showed us all the answers, or at least most of them, to the questions that were so vexing back in the day. So the past does seem a lot simpler than today's world until, that is, you jump in at just about any point in the narrative contained in these documents and start reading and putting yourself in the shoes of the men for whom they were written. I took a couple of hours on a recent evening to do just that. And doing so quickly restores one sense of perspective. These pages remind us, for example, that while President Kennedy was deciding how to stop Moscow from establishing a nuclear arsenal in Cuba, the rest of the world was not standing still for him. India and China were engaged in a fierce border war. The Vietnam conflict, especially the presence of North Vietnamese troops in Laos, was a persistent concern. Civil wars were raging in Yemen and the Congo, countries that tragically have had more than their share of fighting over the years. Warsaw Pact countries launched unannounced military exercises in Eastern Europe, and the East Germans resumed work on extending the wall along their border with West Germany. The fact is, America has faced an unending series of national security challenges ever since we emerged from the end of the Second World War and emerged as the world's preeminent global power. Having assumed the duties and obligations that go along with leading the free world, our country's most pressing foreign policy need in the post-war era was not only to counter the relentless Soviet military and clandestine threat, but to obtain timely, accurate and insightful information on our adversary's actions and intentions. And so it took the United States 171 years before it finally did what every other great power had done, establish a comprehensive intelligence service for both peacetime and war. I joined that service, the Central Intelligence Agency in 1980. I believed in this mission back then, and I believe in it even more strongly today. We have had great fortune over the past 68 years to play an important role in keeping this nation strong and its people safe from the constantly evolving array of overseas threats. And though we are exceptionally proud of the work we do, we have not been a perfect organization. We have made mistakes, more than a few, and we have tried mightily to learn from them and move forward as a smarter, more capable organization. And ever since the agency is founding during the Truman administration, its single most important mission has been to give each president and his senior advisors the clearest possible picture of the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be. CIA endeavors to be a trusted, authoritative source of information and understanding and answering any president's most crucial questions, particularly in times of heightened risk and danger. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an iconic example of the agency marshaling its technical, operational, and analytic strengths to help the Commander-in-Chief resolve a delicate standoff peacefully and successfully amid the highest stakes imaginable. In the pages of the president's intelligence checklist and in far greater detail and briefings and other products and venues, CIA offered precise, up-to-the-minute information tailored to presidential requirements, highlighting its essential role in supporting every president of the modern era. But it doesn't take a nuclear confrontation to demonstrate the utility of the agency's support to the presidents. Throughout the documents released today, you will find reports to reflect a truly global scope. All the overseas issues that demand some amount of the president's time and attention presented with bottom line assessments, significant detail, and helpful context for breaking events with which the busy reader might not be familiar. During the Johnson administration, for instance, the PDB was well-received at the White House during the outbreak of the Civil War in the Dominican Republic in April of 1965. It was a very complex situation in a country that wasn't often in the headlines, and LBJ's Press Secretary, Bill Moyers, observed that President Johnson read the PDB avidly throughout the crisis. Objectivity, too, is critical to presidential support. CIA was charted as an independent agency unique in government, free of departmental bias and serving as a dependable source of available information, good news and bad news. It's an essential role, albeit a challenging one. For just as collecting intelligence often requires physical courage, reporting it requires intellectual courage, the proverbial ability to speak truth to power. And that quality shows in the agency's coverage of the conflict that overshadowed all others during that era, Vietnam. It is certainly true that CIA missed some important calls, most notably before the Ted Offensive in January 1968, when CIA headquarters failed to pass along the warning from CIA's station in Saigon that an unprecedented enemy offensive was at hand. But the fact remains that CIA estimates of the enemy's order of battle and staying power were consistently more ominous and as events would prove more accurate than those produced elsewhere. Senior White House staffers occasionally expressed concern over the PDB's perceived negativism on Vietnam. Bromley Smith, the NSC's executive secretary during the Johnson administration, told an agency officer at the time that you're going to break the president's heart. He thinks things are much better today, but that's no reason for not writing it as you see it. In covering the world in 2015, we at CIA are still writing it as we see it. Our contributions to the PDB, which today is published under the auspices of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at CIA headquarters, benefit from the enormous range of talents, skills, and disciplines that CIA brings to bear in fulfilling our global mission. Drawing on the intelligence and ground truth by the agency's worldwide network of stations and bases, as well as the expertise and insight of our all-source analysts at headquarters and overseas, we put together products in the PDB and elsewhere that enable the president and his senior advisors to see an issue in its entirety with the risks, challenges, and opportunities clearly delineated. And like our predecessors who adapted to the needs of the day by developing the pickle and the PDB, we too are taking steps to optimize our relevance and our effectiveness in our own time. When the PDB is sent to the Oval Office today, for example, it arrives on a tablet computer and iPad instead of paper. Indeed, the transformational effect of information technology is the single most decisive factor in setting today's world apart from that of the 1960s. Along with the end of the Cold War, both the cyber realm and social media have made the planet smaller and dramatically more interconnected. And those developments in turn have had a profound impact on the mission of the Central Intelligence Agency and our IC partners. To begin with, cyber technology has created an entirely new domain for human interaction. And though it presents boundless opportunities for advancing our national interests, it also enables individuals and small groups, not only nation states, to inflict great harm on our national security. When it comes to intelligence operations, digital fingerprints might enable us to track down a terrorist. But the digital world also makes it harder to maintain cover for our current generation of clandestine officers, who, for example, almost certainly have used social media sites before they even began their agency careers. Moreover, the erosion of boundaries between domestic and foreign communications has raised complicated legal and ethical questions for our profession. In President Kennedy and Johnson's Day, the enormous signals collection effort against the Soviets and their client states, whose communication networks were largely segregated from those of the free world, carried little or no legal ambiguity. But the terrorists we face today routinely use the same channels everyone else does. And the public debate rightly continues over how to strike the appropriate balance between the need for security and the importance of privacy. When I asked a group of our senior officers last fall to ponder CIA's future and come back with a strategic plan for modernizing the agency, they agreed that, among other things, we had to do a much better job of embracing and leveraging the digital revolution. Consequently, under our current modernization program launched last March, we are adding a fifth directorate to the agency as part of the biggest change to CIA structure in five decades, the directorate of digital innovation. When this new directorate is up and running on October 1st, it will be the center of the agency's effort to inject digital solutions into every aspect of our work. It will be responsible for accelerating the integration of our digital and cyber capabilities across all of our mission areas. Human intelligence collection, all-source analysis, open-source intelligence, and covert action. And though the documents we are releasing today show us that the world is hardly unique in its complexity and danger, it nonetheless harbors a wider variety of threats than the world of the 1960s. These contemporary challenges often overlap, change rapidly, and require a multidisciplinary approach. And as the intelligence community as a whole has learned in the years since 9-11 attacks, integrating disciplines and capabilities is a very powerful way to magnify and optimize our effectiveness. So on October 1st, 10 new CIA mission centers will cover every issue we face. Six focused on regions, like Africa and the Near East, and four focused on functional issues such as terrorism and weapons proliferation. Each center will pull together all the tremendous talents and skills previously stove-piped into separate groups, promoting collaboration among agency specialists in operations, collection, analysis, technical capabilities, and support. These are times of tremendous opportunity for CIA. Our plan will bring the same kind of teamwork to CIA headquarters that one finds in our stations and bases around the globe, where it has helped us succeed against the toughest of targets. These changes build squarely on our strengths, enabling the agency to do an even better job of operating in the multidisciplinary and ever more technical environments that come with our mission today, and that will be even more prevalent in the years ahead. Before I conclude, I want to thank you all for coming out today to mark this occasion. The documents released today touch on history, the presidency, the intelligence field, and democracy itself. Subjects that were of great interest to me when I was a graduate student here at the University of Texas and are even greater interest to me today. If any of this kindles your interest in joining the agency, Chancellor McRaven can tell you some pretty good stories of what it's like to work with us. And I hope to see you among the new officers that I swear in every couple of weeks or so. My own path to CIA started here at UT, where I was interviewed for an agency job when my wife thought I was getting far too comfortable as a graduate student and I was. And it has been my deep privilege since then, not only to serve as a CIA officer, but to serve presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike, who devote so much of themselves to the extraordinarily hard and consequential work of leading our republic. Each of us, who has ever had a hand in producing a PDB or a pickle, feels deeply honored to have played a role, however small, in helping the president make the decisions on which our national security rests. Every book is written, edited and delivered not only as a review of intelligence, but as an expression of respect. And none better captures this spirit than the President's Intelligence Checklist of November 22, 1963, the day we lost President Kennedy. Its pages are largely blank, except for the following words. For this day, the checklist staff can find no words more fitting than a verse quoted by the President to a group of newspaper men the day he learned of the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Bullfight critics ranked in rows, crowd the enormous plaza full, but only one is there who knows and he's the man who fights the bull. Last night we received from the White House a letter from President Barack Obama addressed to the dedicated professionals of the United States intelligence community. And it says, our national security depends on protecting the intelligence that saves lives and our democracy depends on transparency for our citizens to make informed judgments and to hold our government accountable. That is why I have pledged the American people that the United States government will be as open as possible even as we safeguard the intelligence sources and methods that must remain secret. In keeping with this commitment, I want to thank the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency and the entire intelligence community for working so diligently to declassify and release an unprecedented number of the world's most sensitive intelligence products. The President's daily brief from 1961 to 1969. I also want to thank the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library and the University of Texas for supporting this historic release of PDB articles. As your Commander-in-Chief, each morning I rely on the expertise of the intelligence community to understand the threats, challenges, and opportunities we face around the world. I depend on your insights and analysis as I make decisions critical to the security of our nation. Put simply, I could not do my job without you. The United States has the most professional and capable intelligence community in the world and we are going to keep it that way. While most Americans will never know the full extent of your success, I hope these declassified documents offer our fellow citizens and people around the world a window into your extraordinary service and indispensable contributions to global security and peace. As you gather in Austin to celebrate the culmination of your hard work and success, please accept my deepest appreciation and best wishes for Obama. Thank you. It has been a real pleasure and an honor and privilege to be here as Director of CIA and to be part of this release. Thank you.


My name is Dr. Jeremiah Sumerian. I'm a member of the SEP Ethics Committee.  You might even be asking yourself what the Ethics Committee has to do with the food service staff. Well, first I'd like to ask you how much you enjoyed the stale donuts, cold coffee, and warm soda. Probably didn't enjoy it much yesterday either. Every meal you've had this week has been terrible. That's by design. Some of you have been recruited directly from the military. Some of you have trained civilian chefs. Others have worked in fast food for years. Treat the stale donuts as an object lesson. A good meal can make a world of difference in both mood and morale. The people you're going to be feeding every day are going to be working with some of the most dangerous objects in the world. Dr. McDockerson is working with a potentially world-ending artifact every day. He's bound to get a bit listless. The wrong mood at the wrong time, and maybe the good doctor makes a mistake that nobody can recover from. But what if instead he wakes up thinking about the pizza you're going to serve at lunch instead? The effect a good meal has on efficiency and safety cannot be overstated. But that's only half of your purpose. And it's not the reason why I am delivering this orientation. The SCP Foundation is sort of a research organization, but the world is much stranger than we let on. Some of you are even on track to receive security clearances of your own, so you're going to find out exactly how strange the world really is. And you've already likely learned, at least around the edges, what kind of strange and wonderful items we keep in containment. But what do you haven't been told about yet? Are the living anomalies? Yes, murmur, murmur, I get it. That's not in the brochure. But sadly, we're also a prison isn't a good selling point for hiring the best of the best, even with a six-figure salary. So to protect the world, we put people, sometimes under lock and key. 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And this causes problems that you will need to find some of the solutions to. First, I'm going to talk to you about a fellow called Jacob McKenzie. He was an accountant born with an anomaly that caused local seismic disturbances if he experienced pain. Now, the disturbances worsen depending on the severity of the pain. His anomalous nature was discovered and he was contained by the Foundation in his mid-twenties. He had a number of dietary restrictions. Obviously, he wasn't allowed frozen foods for fear of a brain freeze. He was not allowed sharp or hard foods on the opportunity he might cut the inside of his mouth. And he wasn't allowed spicy food of any kind. But his favorite type of food was Mexican. At the time, the people in charge of the containment also kept him under the effects of a narcotic pain medication almost around the clock. His nutritional requirements reflected this reality, of course. For instance, he required higher than average hydration due to the medications he was using. Those in charge of his care didn't need to enforce the dietary restrictions we put on him. Because at the time, the Foundation fed the same meal to pretty much every sentient object, except for ones whose dietary restrictions somehow excluded it. A poorly flavored mush that was cheap and could keep a human alive indefinitely. Jacob experienced a period of severe depression and took his own life in 2004. The entirety of Site 134 was lost in the seismic event that occurred during that incident. Now, what a meal from Taco Bell have solved Jacob's depression now. But if we'd been paying attention, we'd have noticed he wasn't eating as much anymore. And, you know, maybe a meal like that would have, along with a host of other precautions, at least helped. You will still run into old Foundation staff who treat the objects under our care as prisoners. But they both are and aren't that. We're not jailers. We're caretakers. Most of these people have done nothing to deserve punishment or imprisonment. They just are in containment for their and sometimes the world's safety. But no matter what, they need to be treated with gentle dignity and respect. This is why the food service staff were put under the ethics committee's purview in 2005. And it's why you attended a number of orientations this week with the newly hired entertainment staff as well. Each of you will be in charge of a site or project's food needs. Some of you will have a staff of dozens. Others will work alone. But no matter what you do, you will need to study the objects under your care. They're once. They're needs. They're mood. This is all your concern. You're not going to be alone. You're going to just be one of many fail safes that we've put in place to save the life of the next Jacob McKenzie. If you need more information about a person's history or preferences than the dossiers tell you, then you should contact the intel department. They will help you look into your anomalies past. If you run into particularly stubborn researchers who you think are negatively affecting the psychological health of those under your care and make no mistake, they are under your care. You will contact the ethics committee liaison for the site or project you were assigned to. There will be more meetings this week and many of you will be receiving specialized one-on-one briefings for the object or objects under your care. I'll leave you with the food service staff's motto. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to feed everybody you meet. Now, by now, I'm sure you've smelled the pizza in the next room. We've got bread free and vegan options and hot coffee and cold sodas. Have a nice day.


We should all feel very proud of what Māori are achieving. Tonight's main purpose, of course, is to recognise and to celebrate Māori excellence and success in business. Something that delves deep into our own Hiningaro, where we have to stand up and challenge ourselves, challenge our friends and challenge a host of other barriers that stand in the way of entrepreneurial spirit. It has not only really found, it has a tremendously difficult spirit to keep alive in the face of adversity. When I started this journey, I saw a pretty clear path ahead of me. But in reality, it was a mountain trek. And the good thing about the mountain trek is that I could look back and see how far I had come. And the best thing about it was I could look ahead and see how far I had to go. There's a number of reasons that I fight for financial literacy in our communities for Aotearoa. Some of them are trenched in data, statistics, quite removed from the individual. And others are closely intertwined with what I see right beside me in society. And I know what I value is truly important because of that. I've talked about in the last couple of weeks the Māori worldview and Māori values. In fact, it was challenged by a former minister on such a thing. He said to me, how do you really know? How do you know there's a Māori worldview? And I'm not sure that my answer was particularly satisfying for said minister. But I said to him that I was as sure of the Māori worldview as the air that I was breathing. And I know this because it's about our values. And yes, they manifest themselves in different ways depending on who we are and the experiences that we have in life. But at the end of the day, those values are what got us to this point. There's no way that we would have survived our history without them. And there is categorically no way that we will survive our future without them. What Māori have demonstrated is that the competitive edge of culture actually matters more in a global society now than ever before. For me, the ICP, its foundation is it's not about the fish. It's not about the fish. It's about us. And if we can keep us together, then we're going to be more successful. It is important to understand the immense value and lessons that are available through the teachings and wisdom of those who have come before us. But equally, in understanding the role we have in nurturing and supporting those who will follow after us. I received some advice. It was unsolicited advice, which often the best is. And it was simple advice. It was to build the world that I wanted to be in. And I feel really privileged that I get to do that every day because the wonderful thing is that the world is mutable. It's open to change. Through courage, through conviction, through perseverance, through sacrifice we can shape the world to be absolutely whatever we want it to be. We've got to set the bar sky high for ourselves and aim for an equitable, inclusive, dynamic, prosperous future for Māori. We want to make forward steps in the Māori economy. We have to invest in our people and our capabilities and our education. So our capability does catch up with our potential. I hope that my games will motivate, inspire and educate. I hope that what I do inspires and motivates people to look at using the gaming platform as another platform to tell our stories. We should have talked earlier about 40% Māori have in seafood, 50%-30% in other primary sectors. What would happen if we actually worked together as iwi? So that's what our ancestors are saying. Fire is a fire in the fire. Aim for the highest clouds. So if you miss it, you will hit a lofty mountain. This is the end of my speech. I'm not the winner. The family is the winner. We need to follow these initiatives. We need to support our families. We need to speak the language. We need to stand up for our people. So thank you, thank you, thank you all.


How can Ali Mohammad summarise the loss of his livelihood, his work? Since the overnight change that came in when the central government scrapped Article 370 in Jammu in Kashmir and turned it into a union territory. Eight months later, the valley sees another lockdown. This time it is to stop the coronavirus pandemic from spreading in newer territories. We haven't earned anything. Our cars are sitting like this. Our finances don't increase. When we don't drive at home, where will the finances go? On our roads, bank cars are caught. When we don't have it, where will the finances go? Look at how many cars are standing here. There are many cars standing on the right and on the left. The government is taxing from top to top. We have token tax, passenger tax. The insurance is less than 30,000. So, when we don't earn money, where will the finances go? So, from the government, it is the same thing. We are sitting here with our eyes closed. Now, there is a problem of eating. When we don't earn money, where will the food come from? People have been saved from the lockdown. But people are hungry here. There is nothing. There is no help from the government.


Hello everyone! And as you've quite clearly seen, and you should be made aware of, there is a new DLC coming to Jurassic World Evolution 2. And speculation has rumoured that there was camcretaceous, and it is! Camcretaceous, but maybe it's what you expected, or maybe it's not. Or we're about to go over that. So the trailer shows that you can get a couple of new dinosaurs, as well as skins for other dinosaurs. In fact, I want to say thank you to Frontier for sending me a whole debrief of everything that's going to be added, as well as a free update that's also coming out. So I'm excited to let you guys know about that. So first we're starting off with some skins, and that is the Baryonyx skins. Now I completely forgot about the names of these guys, until I was like, oh yeah, what were they again? So basically these three baryonyx are Grim, Limbo, and Chaos. Now I don't know which one Limbo and Chaos are, but Grim is the green one at the back. Now what's interesting, I just had a quick look up about this, because like I said, I completely forgot about these guys' names. Grim is the one that died. The green one, I think. According to JurassicParkFandom.com. Grim died in season two, and 2016 apparently it died. But what's interesting about Grim is that underneath its eye, it actually has a big red patch, and I think it's probably on both sides of the face, but they haven't done it on this, which is interesting. So they don't look too different from each other. Maybe the orange one is just slightly different, but apart from that the skins are the same. Like the pattern along the back is the same pattern on all three of them, which of course, you know, in Camp Cretaceous, they weren't. They were all different kinds of patterns, and like I said, there was even red on that one.  Maybe the model has changed a little bit, but if I'm honest, I can't really tell. But okay, so I'd say that's probably one of the weaker ones we can go over. So we'll move on to the next one, which is Gorse! Bumpy! And this is Addle Bumpy. In the trailer, we see it like walking with or walking towards the other ones and drinking with some Oranosaurs. It doesn't seem to be any smaller though. I hope it is because Bumpy was supposed only be like 60% of the size of a regular Ankylosaur due to its growth genes, the growth hormones that were put into it, which meant that it grew faster, but it didn't grow as as big as the other Ankylosaur. But it does show that on its horns, you have some asymmetry there, which is the reason why Henry Wu was, I think, gonna bin it actually. It was kind of like too many Bumpy because it was not perfect. So it would be really nice if we had a baby Bumpy as well. We've just seen that mods have put in a baby Triceratops to replace Minmi. So it would have been really nice to have the option to find a baby Bumpy, especially, you know, if we just had that as a separate species, possibly that would be really cool. And it would have added loads of options for modders to also include other types of babies in games, or in the game. But anyway, I digress. Bumpy's a really cool thing to have here, and it looks like Bumpy. I can't say whether the model is exactly like the one in Camp Cretaceous, but from what I saw in the trailer and this picture, it looks very similar. This one, however, the Kendrasaur, was in, I think, the latest season of Camp Cretaceous, and the most questionable season. Oh my God, it was. And it looks exactly like it did there. There's not really much I can say about it. I don't know, did we have Kendrasaur in? I can't even remember now. But from what I remember, Camp Cretaceous looks exactly the same. It's probably like a different skin. Pretty happy with that one. Next is a new dinosaur that is the monolophosaurus. I was so confused because when I saw this, I thought, didn't we have monolophosaurus, but actually it's pro-soridosaurus. It'd be forgiven because they look very similar. They've both got their crest on the front there, or frill, whatever you want to call it. So it could be what I'm hoping for. Anyway, this is one of the only new dinosaurs in the entire DLC. I'm hoping the DLC doesn't retail too expensive because it is paid for. I'm hoping this has unique animations. Everything in Jurassic World Evolution 2, as far as carnivores go, have unique animations for goats, have unique animations for interacting with each other, and unique animations for killing people even. So looking forward to seeing just what the pro-soridosaurus looks like when it does all those things, and hopefully it's not a copy. I'd be very surprised every time Frontier makes a DLC, even in Jurassic World Evolution, it was always a unique animation was thrown in the weather. It was the iguanodon, for instance, or Indoraptor as well. Next one, being a reskin of the Oranosaur.  It's like 2001, I think it was for Dresspot 3. It's not only a new skin, but it's a remodel, and you can definitely see this as a remodel. One of the jumpscaresauruses that apparently ripped a hole in the boat still don't know how that happened in Camcretaceous, but it's something new. I wouldn't say it's on my list of things I want for Dress of World Evolution 2, but you know what, it's there, it's basically chucked in. And from season one, the Parasaurolophus, or I should say, what was it called? I don't even know what they called it. I think it was just Bioluminescent Parasaurolophus. And it'll be interesting to see whether it glows, or whether it's just a constant glow that's on it. I'm hoping it pulsates or something like that. That would be quite cool. All moves around even, a bit like some Bioluminescent algae or plankton. You know, that would be kind of cool. It's got a shimmer, it's got a pulse, it's got to do something. That would be quite cool. And the one, the other new dinosaur in this DLC is the Scorpius Rex. I mean if they were going to do a Camcretaceous DLC, they kind of had to have a Scorpius Rex in here. It's been put in mods, even in Jurassic World Evolution, the original before this, you know, Evolution 2 came out, there was a mod for switching into a Raptor for Scorpius Rex, or even I think in the end just having it as a separate species. And there's probably one already that you can get on the Nexus website to make this guy, but it looks gorgeous, looks exactly like it does in, you know, Camcretaceous. It's even shown running on two legs, which I'm, you know, I was kind of wondering as to when we saw in the trailer if it was just going to be Indoraptor walk cycle, because it was on all fours and it roared a bit like Indoraptor roars and I was a bit hesitant. But seeing it here, there's no way that you can just put Indoraptor's animations on Scorpius Rex. Its legs are too long, it's too tall, it just wouldn't make sense. So I'm hoping that it's its own. And like I said, all these DLCs we've seen from Frontier have had unique animations in them.  Yeah, I know it's been, it's been even longer. Gee, since Fallen Kingdom. Yeah, I'm hoping as well that maybe it does something with toxic quills and shrek some people. That would be an interesting one. Well, I would have loved as well would have been to have got some guests that maybe were like, you know, skins of Ben or, you know, other characters from Camcretaceous or, you know, something like that. That would have been quite cool. Or maybe even some of the camp counselors with the red shirts and stuff, that would have been a nice touch. But that's not all, because I'll quickly go over what they've told me, what Frontier's told me. So two new dinosaurs, that's the, I'm pretty sure that's the pro, the model ofosaurus and the Scorpius Rex, excuse me. Two new variants for existing species. I'm assuming that's the Ankylosaur on the Oranosaurus. It could even be the para. I think the para is probably just a skin though. And eight eye-catching skins that you can, that you can use in the park to spice up the life. And that of course is the three barrys. So that's three, the para making it four. And then five, six, seven. It's not exactly sure what the other ones are, but I'm assuming we'll find out. You'll meet the fearsome Scorpius Rex and the distinguished model of the In the Camp Cretaceous pack, as well as eight brand new skins based off the dinosaurs in Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous, including a bumpy, the Ankylosaur skin. So they haven't shown us everything that's going to be in it. I'm pretty sure, unless I'm missing some, unless the eight is including everything else. Alongside this, and this is really interesting, there will also be additions. The free update includes a long-awaited species viewer. So this is interesting. And apparently they haven't said much, but it just says it allows you to observe each species in greater detail.  That might be a thing. It's possible. And also something that again, like this was put in implemented by modders, a first-person view. So this will have ways to get up close and personal with each prehistoric species in their enclosures at guest height. I'm hoping it's more than just a camera that centres you at guest height. It'd be kind of cool if you had a barb or something like that, as well. Obviously you can't like go super quick if you did that. It'll be interesting. At least we have that option now because we could only go to like the height of buildings before. And also, finally, there will also be even more ways to decorate your park and enthrall your guests as we are adding new decoration items, including individually placable trees and much more. So they've heard it. Frontier has paid attention to what people want. And yes, the dinosaurs are brilliant now, but we were hoping for more customisation. And I think they know that people are going to mod. And it's even giving modders new ways of playing with the game. Now that there is more slots for individual trees or new decorations, it's basically good. There's nothing bad about this that you can say at all. It just depends on how much this is going to cost. Of course, I'm going to get it because, you know, this is my job, so I can't do it. But with two dinosaurs or two new animations, Scorpius Rex and all those skins, as well as the free update as, you know, even if you don't buy Camp Cretaceous, the game itself is just getting even more customisation. Frontier are just showing they really know what to do with their updates when it comes to Drosigal Evolution 2 here. But yeah, if you enjoyed this video, leave a like. Of course, we'll cover it when it comes out. Check out Scorpius Rex's animations and the model of Osaurus and check out all the skins and all that jazz. And until next time, I'll see you cuties later. Bye bye.