AI can be used to create job promotion, not be a job replacement, says AWS vice presidentReps pass Bill to establish Federal College of Education in Kwara
AI will force tech investors to become macro aware
What did you Google in 2024? From the elections to Copa América, here's what search trends showNavigating Winter: NFR's High-Tech Approach to Rail Safety
(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Peiris, Secretary to the Prime Minister) In June 1975, the Prime Minister was honoured by the international community with two important assgnments. The first was by the International Labour Organization (ILO), where she was invited to make the keynote address to the new ILO sessions opening in Geneva. The second was by the United Nations where she was invited to make the keynote address at the First UN International Conference on Women to be held in Mexico City, Mexico. She was also due to address The Group of 77 in Geneva. Manel Abeysekera of the Foreign Ministry and I, accompanied the Prime Minister. We had three major speeches to work on. We already had drafts ready, which were the result of much work and many refinements. But we had decided to finalize them in Geneva after two of our ablest diplomats, Susantha de Alwis and Karen Breckenridge perused them. Gamani Corea was to go through the Group of 77 speech in particular. Geneva We left for Geneva on June 8, 1975 by Swissair. En route we landed at Karachi at 1 a.m. and were met at the airport by the Minister of Education and Planning of the Province of Sindh and Mr. Aga Shahi, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, who had been specially dispatched from Islamabad for the occasion. After an interesting conversation, we re-boarded and took-off. I worked through the Prime Minister’s Group of 77 speech on the plane. We couldn’t land in Geneva due to fog and were diverted to Zurich. That didn’t work either. Zurich was also fog bound. Finally, we landed at Basle. This of course meant hassle and delay. For me, this was a worry because we didn’t have much time to finalize the speeches. Susantha and his charming wife, Achala, put us all up in their official residence. Thanks to them, we were relaxed and comfortable. Breckenridge joined us later to work on the speeches. With so many important speeches, coming up so rapidly, work was hectic. Finally, by the time we finished working on the Group of 77 speech, It was 2.15 in the morning. On June10, at 10 a.m. the Prime Minister addressed the ILO and that afternoon at 3.45 p.m. the Group of 77. To our relief and satisfaction, both addresses were well received. There were several other appointments over the next couple of days, including meetings with the Director General of ILO and senior officials, as well as with various persons knowledgeable on issues of development. We had also to put the finishing touches on the Prime Minister’s address to the conference on Women. Manel and I worked on that. Mexico City We next left for Mexico. The journey took us through Houston where there was a refueling stop. Shirley Amerasinghe, our Permanent Representative at the UN was at the airport when we landed. I took the opportunity to show him the speech and inquired whether he had any views. Shirley thought the speech “excellent.” We were pleased that an experienced internationalist like Shirley had this opinion. At the airport at Mexico City, the Prime Minister and party were met by the Foreign Minister; Minister of the Interior; and the Minister for the Presidency and their wives. We were lodged at the Hotel Camino Real, which was both spacious and comfortable. On June 18 at 10.30 a.m. the Prime Minister called on President Ecchevaria. Talks between the two sides went on till I p.m. and encompassed both bilateral affairs and trade, as well as international affairs. The discussions were friendly and open. There was some delay due to translations. At 1.30 p.m. the President hosted the Prime Minister and delegation to lunch. The Mexican Cabinet; the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court; other local dignitaries and the diplomatic corps were present. After coming back to the hotel I telephoned Jayantha Dhanapala of the Foreign Service, at our Embassy in Washington and read out the text of a long statement, which I had drafted for the Sri Lanka newspapers. Since we didn’t have an embassy in Mexico, communications were a problem. The Prime Minister’s address itself to the conference went off very well and we believe that she received somewhat more than the customary compliments paid to speakers on such occasions. Our stay in Mexico, though brief was a crowded one with lunches, cultural shows and some sightseeing thrown in which included a visit to the excellent national museum. At one of these lunches hosted by Princess Ashraf, the sister of the Shah of Iran, and which included Ms. Imelda Marcos, I was one of the very few males present. The conversation was wide ranging and interesting with an emphasis on art, culture and social issues. Just before we left for home, Mr. Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden called on the Prime Minister in her hotel. The youthful looking Mr. Palme had a reputation for being a radical. He had participated in marches and demonstrations in Sweden against the American intervention in the Vietnam War. At the discussions, he displayed a quiet, soft-spoken style. The Mexican Minister of Trade called on the Prime Minister before her departure. At this discussion Mexico agreed to issue licenses for a larger quantity of Sri Lankan cinnamon. At the airport, Valentina Teresckova, the Soviet woman cosmonaut came to meet the Prime Minister. It was a meeting between the first woman in space and the first woman Prime Minister. Katchativu and the settlement of issues with India From, about 1973, the Prime Minister was turning her attention to solving the only two outstanding issues with India, that of the ownership of the Island of Katchativu off the Northern coast of Sri Lanka; and that of the remaining 150,000 settlers of Indian origin in the country, which had not been covered by the Sirima-Shastri Pact. Katchativu was a tiny barren island in a part of the sea between Sri Lanka and India where fishermen of both countries engaged in fishing. At certain times of the year, Indian fishermen used to dry their nets on this rocky island. There was also a Catholic festival held there annually by the Sri Lanka Church, attended mostly by fishermen and their families. Katchativu was therefore being used for different purposes by the fishermen of both countries. Traditionally, however, Sri Lanka always considered the tiny island hers. The difference of views with India lay in the fact that there was no legal resolution of ownership. The issue was most important to a small country like Sri Lanka. India was one of the largest countries in the World. To Sri Lanka, it was considered vital to demarcate her maritime boundary in the North, and for this too the status of Katchativu was important. This was furthermore an area, which due to fishing by people of both countries, it was very necessary to properly demarcate the maritime boundary in order to minimize disputes. The law of the Sea Conference and the proposed 200 mile limit of sea which was to come within the sovereignty of countries was a factor which added to the importance of the resolution of this issue. Official contacts were therefore made with India, and a process of discussions begun. To complicate matters for us, it was discovered that some vitally important papers on the subject were missing from the Foreign Ministry files. One would not however like to speculate on a matter such as this. However, papers available in the National Archives helped. The Prime Minister in her meetings and contacts with Mrs. Gandhi had broached the necessity of resolving the outstanding issues with India. The two Prime Ministers got on well together and had established considerable rapport, a relationship going back the good relations between the Bandaranaike and Nehru families. Mrs. Bandaranaike was therefore keen that the existing favourable political configuration in the two countries should be used without delay to resolve our common problems. The Indian Prime Minister agreed. She had enormous problems on her hands including political turmoil, separatist tendencies and guerilla action in several parts of the country. The problems with Sri Lanka were not intractable ones, and she herself obviously thought that the time had come to get them out of the way and have some degree of stability and peace on her Southern border. A friendly Sri Lanka was in India’s interest. The virulent anti-Indian rhetoric by the JVP during 1969-71 which included the holding of clandestine classes for its cadres where an important lesson was on “Indian domination”, was a recent demonstration of the potential to inspire fear and hatred. This was another factor taken into account by Mrs. Bandaranaike in developing a policy on the quick resolution of problems with India. The two sides therefore, engaged in a process of discussions. These discussions were ongoing in a quiet manner when in mid-1974 India exploded a nuclear device in the Rajasthan desert. A cacophony of condemnation arose all over the world. The shrill condemnation that followed could not be dignified with the word “chorus.” India was depicted in the world’s press, and particularly in the Western press as some kind of sanctimonious humbug which preached non-violence, Ahimsa and arms control on the one hand, but practiced something else on the other. It was at the height of this situation that one day I dropped in at Temple Trees in the morning to get some urgent letters signed by the Prime Minister. When I reached there, I found the Prime Minister seated at the large dining table attending to work with W T Jayasinghe. I was about to take a seat in the verandah, when she saw me and invited me in. I found that WT was also finishing his work. He asked me whether I could give him a lift back to the Ministry, since he had sent his car somewhere else. I said that it wouldn’t be a problem. Both of us finished soon thereafter and WT loaded a large number of files into my car. We set off soon thereafter for the five-minute run to Republic Square. During the trip, WT told me that the Prime minister was sending a tiff note about the testing of the nuclear device and that she had signed the letter. I was quite appalled. I told WT, that I did not know the content and tone of the letter, since I had not seen it, but that I hoped that the close relationship between the two Prime Ministers and the on-going discussions on Katchativu and other matters had been taken into account in drafting the letter. I ended by saying that I hoped that our overall national interest had been properly assessed in sending this communication at this time. W T became somewhat agitated by what I said. He had the objectivity to say, “No I don’t think we had thought about matters to that extent.” I shrugged. He then pulled out the file and showed me the letter. I took one look and said that we might as well abandon our on-going discussions with India. The letter was a typical foreign Ministry sectoral, one-dimensional draft, which had only a thought of the issues of non-proliferation and non-alignment. It was clear that no thought had been given to the course of bilateral relations, strategic considerations, or an assessment of Sri Lanka’s overall national interest. WT by now was considerably alarmed. We had now reached the end of our short journey. He said, he wanted to come to my room to discuss matters further. Indeed, by now, he was convinced that the letter was a mistake. He wanted me to do an alternate draft. I said that I would do so only if he would place both drafts before the Prime Minister, not telling her who drafted the alternative, until she had decided which one to send. This was too important a matter for any bias to creep in. I thereupon changed the whole tenor of the letter from one of protestations and criticism to what I thought was a more balanced approach. India was congratulated on her achievements in Science and Technology and our satisfaction at this record mentioned. But the Prime Minister urged caution on going the nuclear route and she said that she was encouraged by the Indian Prime Minister’s statement that India would not develop a nuclear arsenal. (The various reasons why India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons later would be a matter for study, debate and even controversy. But this was 1974, and we had to react at that time.) Suitable reference was also made to the issue of the Non-Aligned stance on nuclear proliferation. The whole tenor or the letter was an expression or admiration and recognition of India’s achievements in science and technology, but at the same time a friendly expression of concern about the prospect of nuclear proliferation. WT’ thought that my draft was much better. I soon forgot about it amidst other work. A few days later WT walked into my room. He had done what I had suggested and the two drafts had been placed before the Prime Minister. She had immediately reacted, and had angrily asked, who had done the first draft. She had stated that the second draft was the one that really reflected her views, and that she was misled into signing the first. It was only at this point that WT had mentioned who the author of the second draft was. This whole episode brings up some interesting points. In the first instance, it was by sheer accident that there was ever a second draft. The earlier letter would have been disastrous. This surmise indeed was subsequently proved by the Indian Prime Minister’s warm and lengthy response to the Prime Minister’s letter. This was a time, when Mrs. Gandhi was having serious internal problems in India too. The reply was an outpouring from the heart of a beleaguered leader to one whom she could trust. Amongst many candid and personal matters contained in the reply, there was gratitude expressed for Mrs. Bandaranaike’s understanding and vision. The relationship could have ended up being quite different.
Netflix 'totally ready' for XMas NFL games, WWE
NoneWhile history has softened the harsh view of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, there is one part of his legacy that looks worse as the years pass. Carter, who died Sunday in Plains, Georgia at the age of 100 , called to boycott the 1980 Olympics because of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, and the pressure he exerted on the U.S. Olympic Committee to comply, was wrong and naïve. It accomplished nothing other than to further entrench the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union, and inserted politics where it didn’t belong. Worse, it punished hundreds of athletes, robbing them of the moment and opportunity for which they had trained and sacrificed. Not just American athletes, either. Other countries joined the United States in boycotting the Summer Games in Moscow, including Canada and Japan, and the Soviet Union and much of the Eastern bloc retaliated four years later in Los Angeles. Carter, raised the possibility of a boycott in January 1980, a month after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, hoping the embarrassment of the world staying home from the Summer Games would convince the communist powerhouse to leave Afghanistan. After the Soviets ignored a February deadline, Carter officially announced the boycott March 21, 1980. But it is the USOC, not the White House, that sends teams to the Olympics. In an April speech to USOC leaders, Vice President Walter Mondale painted the boycott as a moral imperative, saying "no less than the future security of the civilized world" was at stake in Afghanistan. He likened the Soviet invasion to Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and said the United States could not make the same mistake it had in 1936, when Jesse Owens led an American team to the Berlin Games. "As Joseph Goebbels boasted on the eve of the Olympics, the Reich expected the Games 'to turn the trick and create a friendly world attitude toward Nazi political, economic, and racial aims.' It worked," Mondale told the USOC. "... Neither Jesse’s achievements in Berlin nor any words spoken at the Games prevented the Reich from exploiting the Olympics toward their own brutal ends." A few hours after Mondale’s speech, the USOC agreed to Carter’s demand and said it would not send a team to Moscow. While athletes were hailed as patriots and praised for their sacrifice, that was little consolation for the harsh reality of Olympic sports. With the Games held once every four years, most athletes get only one shot when they’re in their prime. Four years earlier and they’re probably too young. Four years later and they’re probably too old. The boycott meant hundreds of athletes missed out on the opportunity to be recognized by the entire world as the best in the sports to which they’d devoted their entire lives. Given this was still in the days before professionals could compete in the Olympics, those athletes who would have won medals lost out on post-Games economic opportunities, including lucrative speaking engagements for which they’d still be in demand long after their days as an athlete had ended. Take Bill Rodgers, arguably one of the greatest distance runners ever. Rodgers was 40th in the marathon at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. But beginning with the New York Marathon later that year, he won 15 of his next 19 races at the 26.2-mile distance, including Boston in 1978, 1979 and 1980. He set an American record at Boston in 1979, and Track & Field News ranked him No. 1 in the marathon for a third time that year. Had the United States gone to Moscow, he would have been a favorite to join Frank Shorter (1972), John Hayes (1908) and Thomas Hicks (1904) as the only U.S. men to win the Olympic marathon, a feat that would have made him a commercial superstar. But the United States didn’t go to Moscow. And by the time the Los Angeles Games arrived, Rodgers’ career was in decline. He finished eighth at the 1984 Olympic trials and didn’t even make the U.S. team for L.A. "We're simply a tool, an implement," Rodgers told the Washington Post at the time. "No one cares at all, until we can be used for their purposes. Then they can use it." At least Rodgers could still call himself an Olympian, having competed in Montreal. But there were other athletes for whom Moscow was their only chance. They remain in a weird sort of athletic purgatory, Olympians without an Olympics. "I feel like a doctor who knows the specialty, but I don't have that M.D.," wrestler Lee Kemp, who would have been the heavy favorite for gold at 74 kilograms in Moscow after winning the world title in 1978 and 1979, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune in 2010. Kemp retired after finishing second at the 1984 Olympic trials. Had the boycott accomplished what Carter hoped, maybe athletes could have taken some comfort in knowing their sacrifice had brought about change. But many of the United States’ closest allies – Britain and France among them – refused to join the boycott. The politics Carter hoped to keep out of the Olympics are now endemic to the Games. And not until February 1989, almost a decade later, would the Soviet Union leave Afghanistan. "There was not one positive," Kemp told the Times-Picayune. "Not one." Forty-four years later, it’s even more apparent Carter made the wrong decision. Follow Nancy Armour on Twitter @nrarmour
Ducks hope to snap 3-game skid in Ottawa or Toronto
Dallas Cowboys star guard Zack Martin is doubtful for Sunday's game against the Washington Commanders due to ankle and shoulder injuries. Martin didn't practice at all this week. He also physically struggled during Monday night's loss to the Houston Texas. Martin, who turned 34 on Wednesday, has started all 162 games played in 11 seasons with the Cowboys. He's a nine-time Pro Bowl selection and a seven-time first-team All-Pro. Tight end Jake Ferguson (concussion) and safety Markquese Bell (shoulder) have been ruled out. Neither player practiced this week after being hurt against the Texans. Cornerback DaRon Bland (foot) practiced in full this week and will make his season debut. He was injured in August. Star wideout CeeDee Lamb (back/foot) was a full practice participant on Friday and is good to go. Cornerback Trevon Diggs (groin/knee) and receiver Brandin Cooks (knee) are among six players listed as questionable. The others are offensive tackle Chuma Edoga (toe), guard Tyler Smith (ankle/knee), defensive end Marshawn Kneeland (knee) and linebacker Nick Vigil (foot). --Field Level Media
President-elect Donald Trump paid tribute to former President Jimmy Carter , who passed away Sunday at the age of 100. What To Know "I just heard of the news about the passing of President Jimmy Carter," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday shortly after news of Carter's death broke. "Those of us who have been fortunate to have served as President understand this is a very exclusive club, and only we can relate to the enormous responsibility of leading the Greatest Nation in History," Trump wrote. "The challenges Jimmy faced as President came at a pivotal time for our country and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude. "Melania and I are thinking warmly of the Carter Family and their loved ones during this difficult time," he added. "We urge everyone to keep them in their hearts and prayers." This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.