mnl777 Is Palo Alto Networks a good cybersecurity stock for 2025?Former president Jimmy Carter, who has just died at 100 , was known for committing a major breech in royal protocol when meeting the Queen Mother. During his May 1977 stay at Buckingham Palace ahead of a NATO visit, which was initiated by Queen Elizabeth II , President Carter greeted the Queen Mother, Elizabeth Bowes Lyon, with a smooch on the lips. At the time, the Queen Mother, who passed away in March of 2002, was not very amused by President Carter's choice of salutation. The Nobel Peace Prize winner died this afternoon after living out his final months in his hometown. Jimmy Carter triggered a royal kissing scandal when meeting the Queen Mother Jimmy Carter fulfilled final wish on his bucket list before his death aged 100 Confirming his death, the Carter Center posted on X : “Our founder, former US President Jimmy Carter, passed away this afternoon in Plains, Georgia." Following his death at 100, the outpouring of tributes to America's 39th leader showed the depth of affection felt more for what he did after his presidency than during it. He became the longest-living president in March 2019 when he passed former President George H.W. Bush, who died four months before. Although Carter, nicknamed Jimmy Cardigan after once wearing a jumper for a televised speech, left the White House after one of the biggest landslide defeats of the modern era, he was one of very few US leaders to be memorialised while still alive. The evolution of his legacy was unusual as he had such a long period between the end of his unpopular presidency and the announcement at the weekend that he would undergo no further treatment to die peacefully at his home. Carter's time in the White House was marred by his struggles to respond to formidable challenges, including a major energy crisis, high inflation, and unemployment. He took office after Gerald Ford left the entire US government in disarray. Carter entered the Oval Office facing mounting challenges - an energy crisis, Soviet aggression and, above all, a deep mistrust of leadership by voters. In foreign affairs, he reopened US relations with China and tried to broker peace in the historic Arab-Israeli conflict, but was damaged late in his term by a hostage crisis in Iran . Before his death today, Carter defied illness and death for years . When his melanoma spread to his brain in 2015, he drew praise for announcing it publicly. Even as he underwent treatment, he continued to teach Sunday school in his home town's Baptist church. Within months, he announced that he was cancer-free. Four years later, Carter fell at least three times, at one point breaking a hip and at another requiring 14 stitches. Each time he bounced back, even showing up for a Habitat for Humanity home-building project shortly after one stumble. But he has slowly retreated from public life lately, making fewer and fewer appearances or statements and was unable to attend President Biden 's inauguration in January 2021. However, he lived long enough to outlast two presidents who followed him and his own vice president, Walter Mondale.PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The Philadelphia Phillies and right-handed pitcher Joe Ross finalized a one-year contract on Monday. The 31-year-old Ross made 10 starts and 25 total appearances for the Milwaukee Brewers last season. He went 3-6 with a 3.77 ERA. Selected by the San Diego Padres in the first round of the 2011 amateur draft, the 6-foot-4 Ross has pitched in 123 career games across seven seasons with the Washington Nationals and Brewers. In his career, he has combined for a 4.19 ERA with 469 strikeouts to 170 walks. He's 29-34 with a 4.19 career ERA. Ross is the latest in an offseason of minor moves for the NL East champs. The Phillies acquired left-hander Jesús Luzardo from the Miami Marlins and signed free-agent outfielder Max Kepler to a $10 million, one-year deal. ___ AP MLB: https://apnews.com/hub/MLB The Associated Press

Burt, the huge crocodile that rose to fame with a cameo in the movie “Crocodile Dundee” and continued to impress visitors with his fiery temper and commanding presence, has died. Burt died over the weekend, the Crocosaurus Cove reptile aquarium in Darwin , Australia, said. He was at least 90 years old. “Known for his independent nature, Burt was a confirmed bachelor — an attitude he made clear during his earlier years at a crocodile farm,” Crocosaurus Cove wrote in social media posts. “He wasn’t just a crocodile, he was a force of nature and a reminder of the power and majesty of these incredible creatures. While his personality could be challenging, it was also what made him so memorable and beloved by those who worked with him and the thousands who visited him over the years,” the aquarium wrote. A saltwater crocodile, Burt was estimated to be more than 5 meters (16 feet) long. He was captured in the 1980s in the Reynolds River and became one of the most well-known crocodiles in the world, according to Crocosaurus Cove. The 1986 movie stars Paul Hogan as the rugged crocodile hunter Mick Dundee . In the movie, American Sue Charlton, played by actress Linda Kozlowski, goes to fill her canteen in a watering hole when she is attacked by a crocodile before being saved by Dundee. Burt is briefly shown lunging out of the water. But the creature shown in more detail as Dundee saves the day is apparently something else. The Internet Movie Database says the movie goofed by depicting an American alligator, which has a blunter snout. The Australian aquarium where Burt had lived since 2008 features a “Cage of Death” which it says is the nation's only crocodile dive. It said it planned to honor Burt's legacy with a commemorative sign “celebrating his extraordinary life and the stories and interactions he shared throughout his time at the park.”

Local Republican Central Committee to host interviews for coroner replacementPLAINS, Ga. (AP) — Newly married and sworn as a Naval officer, left his tiny hometown in 1946 hoping to climb the ranks and see the world. Less than a decade later, the death of his father and namesake, a merchant farmer and local politician who went by “Mr. Earl,” prompted the submariner and his wife, Rosalynn, to return to the rural life of Plains, Georgia, they thought they’d escaped. The lieutenant never would be an admiral. Instead, he became commander in chief. Years after his presidency ended in humbling defeat, he would add a Nobel Peace Prize, awarded not for his White House accomplishments but “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” The life of James Earl Carter Jr., the 39th and longest-lived U.S. president, ended Sunday at the age of 100 where it began: Plains, the town of 600 that fueled his political rise, welcomed him after his fall and sustained him during 40 years of service that redefined what it means to be a former president. With the stubborn confidence of an engineer and an optimism rooted in his Baptist faith, Carter described his motivations in politics and beyond in the same way: an almost missionary zeal to solve problems and improve lives. Carter was raised amid racism, abject poverty and hard rural living — realities that shaped both his deliberate politics and emphasis on human rights. “He always felt a responsibility to help people,” said Jill Stuckey, a longtime friend of Carter’s in Plains. “And when he couldn’t make change wherever he was, he decided he had to go higher.” Carter’s path, , pitted moral imperatives against political pragmatism; and it defied typical labels of American politics, especially caricatures of one-term presidents as failures. “We shouldn’t judge presidents by how popular they are in their day. That’s a very narrow way of assessing them,” Carter biographer Jonathan Alter told the Associated Press. “We should judge them by how they changed the country and the world for the better. On that score, Jimmy Carter is not in the first rank of American presidents, but he stands up quite well.” Later in life, Carter conceded that many Americans, even those too young to remember his tenure, judged him ineffective for failing to contain inflation or interest rates, end the energy crisis or quickly bring home American hostages in Iran. He gained admirers instead for his work at The Carter Center — advocating globally for public health, human rights and democracy since 1982 — and the decades he and Rosalynn wore hardhats and swung hammers with Habitat for Humanity. Yet the common view that he was better after the Oval Office than in it annoyed Carter, and his allies relished him living long enough to see historians reassess his presidency. “He doesn’t quite fit in today’s terms” of a left-right, red-blue scoreboard, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who visited the former president multiple times during his own White House bid. At various points in his political career, Carter labeled himself “progressive” or “conservative” — sometimes both at once. His most ambitious health care bill failed — perhaps one of his biggest legislative disappointments — because it didn’t go far enough to suit liberals. Republicans, especially after his 1980 defeat, cast him as a left-wing cartoon. It would be easiest to classify Carter as a centrist, Buttigieg said, “but there’s also something radical about the depth of his commitment to looking after those who are left out of society and out of the economy.” Indeed, Carter’s legacy is stitched with complexities, contradictions and evolutions — personal and political. The self-styled peacemaker was a war-trained Naval Academy graduate who promised Democratic challenger Ted Kennedy that he’d “kick his ass.” But he campaigned with a call to treat everyone with “respect and compassion and with love.” Carter vowed to restore America’s virtue after the shame of Vietnam and Watergate, and his technocratic, good-government approach didn’t suit Republicans who tagged government itself as the problem. It also sometimes put Carter at odds with fellow Democrats. The result still was a notable legislative record, with wins on the environment, education, and mental health care. He dramatically expanded federally protected lands, began deregulating air travel, railroads and trucking, and he put human rights at the center of U.S. foreign policy. As a fiscal hawk, Carter added a relative pittance to the national debt, unlike successors from both parties. Carter nonetheless struggled to make his achievements resonate with the electorate he charmed in 1976. Quoting Bob Dylan and grinning enthusiastically, he had promised voters he would “never tell a lie.” Once in Washington, though, he led like a joyless engineer, insisting his ideas would become reality and he’d be rewarded politically if only he could convince enough people with facts and logic. This served him well at Camp David, where he brokered peace between Israel’s Menachem Begin and Epypt’s Anwar Sadat, an experience that later sparked the idea of The Carter Center in Atlanta. Carter’s tenacity helped the center grow to a global force that monitored elections across five continents, enabled his freelance diplomacy and sent public health experts across the developing world. The center’s wins were personal for Carter, who hoped to outlive the last Guinea worm parasite, and nearly did. As president, though, the approach fell short when he urged consumers beleaguered by energy costs to turn down their thermostats. Or when he tried to be the nation’s cheerleader, beseeching Americans to overcome a collective “crisis of confidence.” Republican Ronald Reagan exploited Carter’s lecturing tone with a belittling quip in their lone 1980 debate. “There you go again,” the former Hollywood actor said in response to a wonky answer from the sitting president. “The Great Communicator” outpaced Carter in all but six states. Carter later suggested he “tried to do too much, too soon” and mused that he was incompatible with Washington culture: media figures, lobbyists and Georgetown social elites who looked down on the as “country come to town.” Carter carefully navigated divides on race and class on his way to the Oval Office. , Carter was raised in the mostly Black community of Archery, just outside Plains, by a progressive mother and white supremacist father. Their home had no running water or electricity but the future president still grew up with the relative advantages of a locally prominent, land-owning family in a system of Jim Crow segregation. He wrote of President Franklin Roosevelt’s towering presence and his family’s Democratic Party roots, but his father soured on FDR, and Jimmy Carter never campaigned or governed as a New Deal liberal. He offered himself as a small-town peanut farmer with an understated style, carrying his own luggage, bunking with supporters during his first presidential campaign and always using his nickname. And he began his political career in a whites-only Democratic Party. As private citizens, he and Rosalynn supported integration as early as the 1950s and believed it inevitable. Carter refused to join the White Citizens Council in Plains and spoke out in his Baptist church against denying Black people access to worship services. “This is not my house; this is not your house,” he said in a churchwide meeting, reminding fellow parishioners their sanctuary belonged to God. Yet as the appointed chairman of Sumter County schools he never pushed to desegregate, thinking it impractical after the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board decision. And while presidential candidate Carter would hail the 1965 Voting Rights Act, signed by fellow Democrat Lyndon Johnson when Carter was a state senator, there is no record of Carter publicly supporting it at the time. Carter overcame a ballot-stuffing opponent to win his legislative seat, then lost the 1966 governor’s race to an arch-segregationist. He won four years later by avoiding explicit mentions of race and campaigning to the right of his rival, who he mocked as “Cufflinks Carl” — the insult of an ascendant politician who never saw himself as part the establishment. Carter’s rural and small-town coalition in 1970 would match any victorious Republican electoral map in 2024. Once elected, though, Carter shocked his white conservative supporters — and landed on the cover of Time magazine — by declaring that “the time for racial discrimination is over.” Before making the jump to Washington, Carter befriended the family of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., whom he’d never sought out as he eyed the governor’s office. Carter lamented his foot-dragging on school integration as a “mistake.” But he also met, conspicuously, with Alabama’s segregationist Gov. George Wallace to accept his primary rival’s endorsement ahead of the 1976 Democratic convention. “He very shrewdly took advantage of his own Southerness,” said Amber Roessner, a University of Tennessee professor and expert on Carter’s campaigns. A coalition of Black voters and white moderate Democrats ultimately made Carter the last Democratic presidential nominee to sweep the Deep South. Then, just as he did in Georgia, he used his power in office to appoint more non-whites than all his predecessors had, combined. He once acknowledged “the secret shame” of white Americans who didn’t fight segregation. But he also told Alter that doing more would have sacrificed his political viability – and thus everything he accomplished in office and after. King’s daughter, Bernice King, described Carter as wisely “strategic” in winning higher offices to enact change. “He was a leader of conscience,” she said in an interview. Rosalynn Carter, who at the age of 96, was identified by both husband and wife as the “more political” of the pair; she sat in on Cabinet meetings and urged him to postpone certain priorities, like pressing the Senate to relinquish control of the Panama Canal. “Let that go until the second term,” she would sometimes say. The president, recalled her former aide Kathy Cade, retorted that he was “going to do what’s right” even if “it might cut short the time I have.” Rosalynn held firm, Cade said: “She’d remind him you have to win to govern.” Carter also was the first president to appoint multiple women as Cabinet officers. Yet by his own telling, his career sprouted from chauvinism in the Carters’ early marriage: He did not consult Rosalynn when deciding to move back to Plains in 1953 or before launching his state Senate bid a decade later. Many years later, he called it “inconceivable” that he didn’t confer with the woman he described as his “full partner,” at home, in government and at The Carter Center. “We developed a partnership when we were working in the farm supply business, and it continued when Jimmy got involved in politics,” Rosalynn Carter told AP in 2021. So deep was their trust that when Carter remained tethered to the White House in 1980 as 52 Americans were held hostage in Tehran, it was Rosalynn who campaigned on her husband’s behalf. “I just loved it,” she said, despite the bitterness of defeat. Fair or not, the label of a disastrous presidency had leading Democrats keep their distance, at least publicly, for many years, but Carter managed to remain relevant, writing books and weighing in on societal challenges. He lamented widening wealth gaps and the influence of money in politics. He voted for democratic socialist Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in 2016, and later declared that America had devolved from fully functioning democracy to “oligarchy.” Yet looking ahead to 2020, with Sanders running again, Carter warned Democrats not to lest they help re-elect President Donald Trump. Carter scolded the Republican for his serial lies and threats to democracy, and chided the U.S. establishment for misunderstanding Trump’s populist appeal. He delighted in yearly convocations with Emory University freshmen, often asking them to guess how much he’d raised in his two general election campaigns. “Zero,” he’d gesture with a smile, explaining the public financing system candidates now avoid so they can raise billions. Carter still remained quite practical in partnering with wealthy corporations and foundations to advance Carter Center programs. Carter recognized that economic woes and the Iran crisis doomed his presidency, but offered no apologies for appointing Paul Volcker as the Federal Reserve chairman whose interest rate hikes would not curb inflation until Reagan’s presidency. He was proud of getting all the hostages home without starting a shooting war, even though Tehran would not free them until Reagan’s Inauguration Day. “Carter didn’t look at it” as a failure, Alter emphasized. “He said, ‘They came home safely.’ And that’s what he wanted.” Well into their 90s, the Carters greeted visitors at Plains’ Maranatha Baptist Church, where he taught Sunday School and where he will have his last funeral before being buried on . Carter, who made the congregation’s collection plates in his woodworking shop, still garnered headlines there, calling for women’s rights within religious institutions, many of which, he said, “subjugate” women in church and society. Carter was not one to dwell on regrets. “I am at peace with the accomplishments, regret the unrealized goals and utilize my former political position to enhance everything we do,” he wrote around his 90th birthday. The politician who had supposedly hated Washington politics also enjoyed hosting Democratic presidential contenders as again. Carter sat with Buttigieg for the final time March 1, 2020, hours before the Indiana mayor ended his campaign and endorsed eventual winner Joe Biden. “He asked me how I thought the campaign was going,” Buttigieg said, recalling that Carter flashed his signature grin and nodded along as the young candidate, born a year after Carter left office, “put the best face” on the walloping he endured the day before in South Carolina. Never breaking his smile, the 95-year-old host fired back, “I think you ought to drop out.” “So matter of fact,” Buttigieg said with a laugh. “It was somehow encouraging.” Carter had lived enough, won plenty and lost enough to take the long view. “He talked a lot about coming from nowhere,” Buttigieg said, not just to attain the presidency but to leverage “all of the instruments you have in life” and “make the world more peaceful.” In his farewell address as president, Carter said as much to the country that had embraced and rejected him. “The struggle for human rights overrides all differences of color, nation or language,” he declared. “Those who hunger for freedom, who thirst for human dignity and who suffer for the sake of justice — they are the patriots of this cause.” Carter pledged to remain engaged with and for them as he returned “home to the South where I was born and raised,” home to Plains, where that young lieutenant had indeed become “a fellow citizen of the world.” —-Week 17’s Sunday games brought crucial moments for coaches on the hot seat, teams battling for their playoff lives and, in some cases, both. The Cowboys tried to rally around their head coach and the Eagles got it done with second- and third-string quarterbacks. Meanwhile, the Colts let an opportunity slip through their grasp, just like the Broncos did a day earlier. Drew Lock runs it in 📺: FOX pic.twitter.com/5m2v3z0zWd — New York Giants (@Giants) December 29, 2024 The Athletic NFL writers Mike Jones, Ted Nguyen and Dan Pompei share their thoughts on all of these storylines and more. There is plenty of buzz that the Cowboys locker room wants Mike McCarthy back — is that a good idea or a bad idea for Dallas? Nguyen: The offense has stayed afloat with Cooper Rush despite a lack of bluechip weapons. McCarthy finding ways to highlight the strengths of players like Rico Dowdle and KaVontae Turpin is a positive sign. But hiring defensive coordinator Mike Zimmer might ultimately be what saves McCarthy’s job; after a shaky start to the season, the defense is playing at a high level. They’re obviously still weak against the run, but that’s a personnel problem — they are light upfront and you can only do so much to mask that schematically. Coming into the week, the Cowboys were the top third-and-long (7-plus yards) defense in the league; Zimmer can still dial up pressure schemes with the best of them. Though they got blown out by the Eagles on Sunday, I think McCarthy has done enough to justify bringing him back. Unless they think they can land a big fish like Ben Johnson, McCarthy and Zimmer working with an upgraded roster could be a winning combination. However, the problem with McCarthy is his late-game decision making. The Cowboys didn’t play in a lot of big games in 2024, but how he performs in those big-stake situations is ultimately how he will be judged. Advertisement Jones: McCarthy has done a good job of getting the Cowboys to continue battling despite rampant injuries (well, until Sunday anyway). Give him credit. The locker room easily could have tuned out the message and let the season turn very ugly. And before this year, McCarthy had led the Cowboys to three straight 12-win seasons, though the underachieving Dallas has done in each of those postseasons looms large. This year’s injuries are beyond McCarthy’s control, and the failure to adequately address the running back position is Jerry Jones’ fault. However, the Cowboys seem to have reached their ceiling under McCarthy. If Jones is happy to be competitive in the regular season and then fall short repeatedly in the preseason, then sticking with McCarthy is the way to go. But if he truly wants to win another Super Bowl, Jones needs to both turn over talent acquisition duties to someone else and find a stronger leader and more innovative mind to guide this team as head coach. Pompei: A newcomer with fewer scars might inspire more external excitement, but that never should be the driving force in making a decision on the head coach. There is merit in retaining McCarthy, whose history inspires confidence. Does anybody believe another coach could have led this team to the playoffs this year? And can anyone be sure that the Cowboys could replace him with a better coach? McCarthy works well with Jerry Jones and he resonates with Dak Prescott . There is value, underrated value, in continuity. The Cowboys might advance further in the near-future if they don’t have to step back first, and a new coaching staff almost always means a step back. Is there anything you take away from the Eagles (down to third-string QB Tanner McKee ) bouncing back from last week’s loss in Washington to blow out a division rival? Pompei: We didn’t really learn anything, but there would have been a significant takeaway if they didn’t handle the undermanned Cowboys as 7.5-point favorites. It’s impressive that the Eagles can score 41 without Jalen Hurts , and a testament to the value of Saquon Barkley and the offensive line. If they take care of the Giants next week (as they should), the Eagles will be able to look past their loss to the Commanders and feel justifiable confidence as they prepare for playoff opponents who are in a different class from the Cowboys. To win in the postseason, though, they will need their QB back. Advertisement Nguyen: Sunday’s win just reinforces what we know: The Eagles have an incredibly talented roster. They have an elite defense, elite running game, and elite weapons on the outside — those ingredients make the quarterback’s job easy. The weakest part about their team might be their quarterback depth. If Jalen Hurts plays at a decent level, this team should represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. Jones: I think the No. 1 takeaway is Tanner McKee > Kenny Pickett ! Nah, in all seriousness, the main takeaway is that this is a well-constructed team with a strong offensive line and collection of skill players, and a dominant defense capable of easing pressure on their quarterback. The Eagles aren’t making a deep playoff run without Jalen Hurts — let’s get that straight. But this is a well-oiled machine that doesn’t need their quarterback to throw for 300 yards and four touchdowns for them to win games. (We probably gathered that from the 10-game win streak, which saw Philadelphia win in a variety of ways, didn’t we?) More frustrating performance with a playoff spot on the line: Broncos letting it slip away in Cincinnati on Saturday, or Colts getting beat by the hapless Giants? Jones: Definitely the Colts. The Bengals are better than their record suggests, so it’s far less egregious for Denver to lose to an explosive and highly-motivated Cincinnati team led by Joe Burrow , who would have garnered MVP consideration had his defense not let him down so many times this season. But to go out and lose 45-33 to a two-win Giants team that 1) had only topped the 20-point mark three previous times and 2) had nothing but pride to play for is a grave transgression. Inexcusable. Nguyen: The Bengals have one of the best offenses in football; it wasn’t a surprise that the Broncos lost to Cincinnati. The Colts laid an egg. Even with Anthony Richardson missing the game, Joe Flacco is one of the better backups in the league. The Giants offense has been atrocious with Drew Lock and they scored 45 on Sunday — that’s unacceptable. The Colts showed definitively why they aren’t a playoff team today. The worst part is that the effort didn’t look bad. They gave up so many big plays to an offense that has struggled because of bad tackling and mental errors. Advertisement Pompei: That was a tough loss for the Broncos, but it came at the hands of a highly-motivated team that knows how to win and has a quarterback who is playing at the highest of levels. The Colts lost to a team that had nothing to play for, had no business being in the game, was playing its third choice at QB and had lost 10 in a row. Would it have been different if Richardson played? Maybe, but the loss mostly was on the defense and special teams, which combined to give up 45 points. (Top photo: Emilee Chinn / Getty Images)

Pet passports for dogs, cats and ferrets to travel within UK ‘an outrage’

The best AI tools of 2024: all the generative AI apps you need to tryGuy Ritchie left furious as robbers knick £2million worth of equipment from the set of new drama The FixerAidan O'Connell threw two touchdown passes, Daniel Carlson kicked four field goals, Ameer Abdullah had the first 100-yard rushing game of his career and the visiting Las Vegas Raiders defeated the New Orleans Saints 25-10 on Sunday afternoon. Abdullah, playing in the 141st game of his 10-year career, finished with 115 yards on 20 carries. O'Connell completed 20 of 35 passes for 242 yards as the Raiders (4-12) won their second straight after a 10-game losing streak. Brock Bowers added seven receptions for 77 yards, giving him 1,144 receiving yards, which broke the NFL single-season record for a rookie tight end, set by Mike Ditka with 1,076 yards in 14 games in 1961. Rookie Spencer Rattler passed for 218 yards with a touchdown and two interceptions and fell to 0-5 as the starter for the Saints (5-11). Las Vegas's first possession of the third quarter resulted in Carlson's 54-yard field goal, which increased its lead to 16-10 at the end of the period. Carlson's 25-yard field goal pushed the lead to 19-10 on the third play of the fourth quarter. O'Connell added an 18-yard touchdown pass to Tre Tucker to complete the scoring. The Raiders received the opening kickoff and held the ball for 17 plays before stalling. Carlson kicked a 31-yard field goal and the 3-0 lead held up through the end of the first quarter. On the first play of the second quarter, Rattler threw a 30-yard touchdown pass to former Raiders tight end Foster Moreau and the Saints took a 7-3 lead with their first points in the first half in three games. The ensuing possession ended with Carlson kicking a 39-yard field goal that trimmed the lead to 7-6. O'Connell threw a 3-yard touchdown pass to Jakobi Meyers to give Las Vegas a 13-7 lead with 57 seconds left in the second quarter. Rattler completed 5 of 7 for 54 yards in driving New Orleans to Blake Grupe's 34-yard field goal as time expired that trimmed the lead to 13-10 at halftime. --Field Level Media

Best Boxing Day deals from Amazon Australia: Retailer launches December 26 deals early

The Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKI), in collaboration with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) hosted a panel discussion titled, “Artificial Intelligence (AI), Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) and contemporary challenges” at the LKI Lighthouse Auditorium on 19 December 2024. It was attended by diplomats, representatives of international organisations, senior officials of relevant Ministries and agencies, military personnel, leading researchers and university students. Delivering the keynote address at the event, the Foreign Affairs Ministry Additional Secretary for East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa Yasoja Gunasekera underscored the urgent need for global action to regulate Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons Systems. She emphasised that while AI has become integral to numerous sectors, its growing presence on the battlefield raises profound concerns regarding its application in weapon systems. The Additional Secretary recalled that it was under the Chairmanship of Sri Lanka in 2015, that the high contracting parties to the convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) agreed to elevate the discussion of LAWS from an informal expert led discussion to a State-led dialogue, leading to the establishment of the first meeting of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) at the 2016 CCW Review Conference. She noted that in addition to actively engaging in the GGE, in October 2021 Sri Lanka together with a wide cross regional group of 70 states co-sponsored the first Joint Statement on LAWS at the UNGA and supported the adoption of “the Pact for the Future” by the UNGA in September 2024. Sri Lanka strongly supports the negotiation of a legally binding instrument to prohibit and regulate LAWS and supports the UN Secretary General and the President of the ICRC’s joint appeal to establish new rules on AWS by 2026. Earlier welcoming the gathering, LKI Executive Director Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha said the event was intended to salute the role played by the ICRC which commemorated the 75th anniversary of the operation of the Geneva Conventions, without which the world might have been a different place. He recalled the ICRC’s contributions to Sri Lanka since establishing a presence in 1989, particularly during the armed conflict – escorting food and civilian convoys to the North and the East, facilitating immunisation drives, passing messages between the parties in conflict and enabling the return of the wounded and the dead on both sides, and post conflict assistance in mine clearance, disaster response, and in the search for missing persons. Across time, the ICRC had also played an important role in training the security forces on IHL compliance and engaged in prison visitations and supported the improvement of prison conditions. He observed that the theme of the discussion chosen on disarmament, besides being one where the ICRC and Sri Lanka closely collaborated globally, is the focus of several ongoing research endeavours of the LKI in recent times, along with ICT and its contemporary challenges. Delivering the opening remarks, ICRC Sri Lanka Head of Delegation Severine Chappaz focused on the continued relevance of IHL. Stressing that the main responsibility to apply IHL in good faith lies with States to mitigate human suffering, she underlined the importance of making IHL a national and international political priority. She also emphasised on aspects of IHL that are particularly relevant to Sri Lanka, including the post-conflict application of IHL, which applies specifically to the issue of missing persons, their right to be searched for, the right of their families to know the fate and whereabouts of their missing loved ones and the obligation to prevent people from going missing. She also referred to the significance of national integration of IHL where the National IHL committee of Sri Lanka plays a key role, training the armed forces in IHL, and the dissemination of IHL through academic and religious circles. In her remarks, Sri Lanka’s international engagement in the promotion and development of IHL, notably in the field of disarmament regulations, was also recognised. ICRC Regional Legal Advisor Prof. Andrei Kozik highlighted the novel humanitarian and legal challenges posed by technological developments including AI and AWS. Delving into the subject, he drew attention to the unique characteristics of AWS that heighten risks for civilians and raise challenges for IHL compliance. In his presentation, Prof. Kozik also clarified the ICRC’s position on AWS, stating that the ICRC calls for new rules that prohibit the use of “unpredictable” and “anti-personnel” autonomous weapons systems. It was noted that in this context, “unpredictability” refers to the discriminatory nature of AWS weapons while “anti-personnel” refers to autonomous weapons designed or used to target humans directly. The ICRC’s report titled “International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts” was referenced as a source to obtain an overview of some of the challenges for IHL posed by contemporary armed conflicts. The report broadly underscores the humanitarian consequences that could result from the potential loss of human control over the use of force in armed conflict. Sri Lankan Coordinator for the Global Campaign “Stop Killer Robots” Yanithra Kumaraguru underscored the critical role of ethics in shaping both the legal frameworks and the development of autonomous weapons, especially in areas where current laws may not provide clear guidance. She highlighted several key ethical concerns, including the challenge of ensuring that autonomous weapons comply with international humanitarian law principles and also questioned whether machines could reliably make life-and-death decisions without human biases, stressing the risks of errors that could lead to violations of human dignity. She further discussed the “moral accountability gap”, an ethical concern that extends beyond legal frameworks and asked whether responsibility for actions taken by autonomous weapons lies with designers, operators, or no one at all emphasising the dehumanising consequences of delegating such critical decisions to machines. Stressing the fact that some advocates for autonomous weapons argue that these technologies could lead to greater precision and fewer civilian casualties, Kumaraguru countered that those technological limitations, the unpredictable nature of conflict and the human realities of conflict make such claims overly idealistic. Defence Ministry Director of Media and Spokesman, and Institute of National Security Studies (INSS) Head Colonel Nalin Herath while acknowledging the ethical challenges posed highlighted the transformative impact of AI on modern warfare emphasising its potential for operational efficiency, noted how such weapons are reshaping combat strategies and in distinguishing civilians from military targets. He raised concern about the growing access of non-state actors to advanced technologies, which heightens unpredictability in conflicts and cautioned against the dangers posed by AI in terms of misinformation and disinformation. Stressing the absence of a global consensus on regulating AI in warfare, he called for caution and cooperation to ensure ethical use of AI and to prevent its misuse. National Innovation Agency (NIA) Chief Innovation Officer and Pugwash Sri Lanka Past President Prof. Ajith De Alwis addressed the dual-use nature of science, technology, and innovation, particularly in the context of autonomous weapons systems and AI. He noted that since the wright brothers’ revolutionary invention of flight in 1903 which within a decade was quickly adapted for bombing, historically technology had been weaponised. He pointed to the futility of questioning whether blame can be apportioned to autonomous weapons used in wars, what is more crucial is that states create the conditions to prevent wars from taking place in the first place. He emphasised the need for better prioritising of the use of AWS, rather than banning per se, and advocated for leveraging AI and autonomous systems for humanity’s benefit rather than their weaponisation. Pointing to the climate issue where time was running out and the emission trajectories being put into wrong trajectories by all the conflicts going on, he asked that researchers must be persuaded to become more socially responsible, as the scientists who walked out of the “Manhattan Project” which pursued the creation of the atomic bomb. He also advocated strengthening a UN led global mechanism supporting whistle blowing and asked that we push ourselves to value humanity more - touching on the Pugwash principles. Ambassador Aryasinha who moderated the panel discussion, reflecting on the challenges faced as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva in presiding over the CCW during Sri Lanka’ Presidency of the CCW in 2015/2016 which secured a consensus to commence the discussion of LAWS at the level of States parties nearly a decade ago, regretted that movement had been slow and that many relevant States needed for effective regulation of AWS, opposed or remained ambivalent in supporting such regulation. While the ethical and legal arguments were not in doubt, greater moral persuasion and compromise would be needed to also carry those who already possess or are on the verge of possessing AWS from using them, as war fronts expand and armies seek to minimise casualties. During an almost hour-long discussion that followed, the audience pointed to the absence of a universal definition, highlighted gaps in International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the politicisation of AWS, the advances and limitations in distinguishing combatants from non-combatants, opaque decision-making, the ethical and legal issues concerned and the slow pace of regulation. They also impressed on the need for a Sri Lanka national policy on AI and AWS, suggested that smaller nations like Sri Lanka press for reforms to protect weaker states. Members of the panel explored the tension between technological innovation and ethical responsibility, emphasising alignment with IHL principles like distinction and proportionality. They underscored transparency in AI’s “black box” decision-making, gaps in IHL related to espionage and information warfare, and the relevance of Article 36 of the Geneva Conventions in reviewing new weapons. The session concluded by stressing collaboration, culturally informed ethical considerations, and practical, legally binding measures to balance technological advances with human oversight.SGR-1505 by Schrodinger for Burkitt Lymphoma: Likelihood of Approval