For Veterans Day, we want to honor and thank all who serve and have served in the United States Armed Forces. One of the many service members is Navy Lt. Louis Sanchez, a true hometown hero serving his country, he is a 1989 Miami Killian Senior High School graduate and for the past 5 years, has served as a clinical social worker in the Navy. He is deployed right now on the USS Bataan, the flagship of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group. The deployment is part of a regular rotation of forces to support maritime security operations, provide crisis response capability, increase theater security cooperation and forward naval presence in the U.S Navy’s 5th and 6th Fleet area of responsibility. As the only clinical social worker serving in the BATARG, Sanchez supports more than 4,200 Sailors and Marines.
Posts Tagged ‘College’
In advance of the 2014 University of Miami Student Government Elections, both tickets (Amplify U and Unite the U) joined a WVUM panel to discuss their platforms in depth and explain their vision for the future of The U.
Their conversation with WVUM’s Maggie Waala, Elena Tayem and Mathew De La Fe is below. Stay tuned to the end of the podcast for their analysis of the tickets’ responses.
Voting is open Monday, February 17 through Wednesday, February 19 from 10:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m
The next leaders of Student Government will be announced on Thursday, February 20th at 5:30pm on the UC Rock
Originally aired February 14, 2014
David Leal is a young man with high career aspirations. Every day he gets closer to finishing his novel despite not being able to physically write it himself. By no means defined by the disease that weakens his muscles daily, David must still work around the effects muscular dystrophy has on his body. There can be no doubt as to the strength of his character and fortitude of mind and though his body grows weaker, his mind only increases in perception and creativity. David and his team join Shelly Lynn on an episode of ‘Not For Profit’ to talk about his upcoming novel.
(Image credit: iDownloadBlog)
You might be wondering “what on Earth is a patent troll?”, so I’ll tell you– “patent troll” is a label for any person/company/firm/etc. that makes a business of threatening to people for alleged patent infringement: almost homogeneously, these people buy patents from other companies/inventors with absolutely zero intention of using the patents for anything other than ammunition for litigation (not to be confused with the MPAA, the RIAA, or the copyright system in general). Rather than using patents in their intended manner– to ensure an inventor has time to complete his/her invention– the patent troll uses the temporary legal monopoly granted with a patent as a means to extort money from inventors who come up with new ideas/inventions or extensions on previous ideas/inventions that may at first glance seem similar to the patents which the patent trolls hold. It is estimated that any actual litigation that is brought by patent trolls and does not get settled before a court battle leads to the patent trolls losing over 75% of the time.
The patent trolls are not a new phenomenon, but they certainly have grown to prominence since the rise of big software. Software development is unique in that software’s “life” goes by considerably faster than most physical items and it is often the case that something becomes standardized in a fraction of the time of physical items. This creates the opportunity for mass patent trolling: if someone obtains a patent for a piece of software that has become a standard before the patent has expired, it is incredibly likely that someone somewhere has made an improvement on that standard, and since this improvement was not done by the patent holder, the patent troll has a prime opportunity to launch a legal missile. Another litigation-mongering opportunity occurs when a piece of closed-sourced software (not free for everyone to tinker with) resembling an open-sourced software (free for everyone to tinker with) that is not well known gets a patent, and since the open-sourced software wasn’t patented, the new patent owner can try to sue, even if the closed-source software was developed after the invention or even adoption as a standard.
These scenarios sound perfectly viable for patent trolls, but in reality, the “perfect patent troll situation” rarely occurs. Most often, the later example– of closed-source software patents being used to attack open-sourced software– is the case. Or not at all; sometimes the patent trolls simply choose someone who has just enough money to pay a settlement, but not enough to want to go to war with the patent trolls, which can get pretty costly, easily reaching the millions mark for a regular patent case. This is where the problem lies: the immoral patent trolls lose over 75% of the time, but simply by bringing a suit, they are almost guaranteed a settlement because the target often won’t be able to afford a lawsuit, even if they are innocent.
The solution? Make it so that it’s in the patent trolls best interest to be actually right about bringing a suit. Make it so that the plaintiff pays the fees if the case is found to be a pile of garbage. This would make it so that the average target of the patent trolls would be able to go to court and win ~75% of the time. This isn’t a fix in itself, but it’s a start. To be honest, I think the entire patent system is far outdated and needs to be updated from scratch to the modern world. Somewhere in that reform, I think the best way to stop wrong patent lawsuits is to place risk on the accuser as opposed to how it is now where the risk is all on the defendant. As a side note, it would be nice if there were no software patents, given the building-block nature of software itself, but I seriously doubt that a majority would go along with removing patents for software.
Indie Film Club Miami is a non-profit organization that fosters the growth, skills and cohesiveness of the South Florida film industry, by working closely with filmmakers and digital media content creators. It hosts a variety of events including monthly screenings, as well as regular workshops, and networking events that bring together our diverse community. Diliana Alexander, Executive Director at Indie Film Club, spoke with us about the importance of independent cinema and transmedia. Shelly Lynn alongside Natasha Mijares and Diliana Alexander talk about the different facets of film and how crucial it is to our community, to encourage creativity and build upon it for a more expressive society.
(Image Credit: Tor Project)
Before I start, here’s a reference for those who aren’t totally sure about what Tor is or how it works–
(Image Credit: EFF)
Near the end of the weekend, somebody (I’ll get to who later) compromised Freedom Hosting, a hosting service that was heavily invested in Tor (The Onion Router). The company was responsible for a huge chunk (about half) of the hidden network’s sites and many of the more well-known ones including Tor Mail, a completely anonymous email service. The details of the attack are starting to be sorted out, but a few facts have already been nailed down. The move comes after Freedom Hosting’s founder, Eric Eoin Marques, was arrested on suspicion of child pornography, so many are speculating that the two events are related.
So: who did it? Many (myself included) initially speculated that the exploit was the work of the FBI, citing the arrest of Eric Marques, and the fact that it’s the FBI’s job (more or less) to take down child pornographers. As the matter was looked into it became apparent that the server receiving the non-encrypted IP addresses was owned by a corporation in Virginia that routinely leases server space to agencies like the FBI and NSA, prompting more speculation. However, at time of writing, nobody has stepped forth to claim credit for the exploit, leading some to wonder if it was a non-official entity. The latest evidence in the exploit points toward its purpose to be solely identifying and not actually hacking, so at this point, it’s anyone’s guess. Hopefully more will become known later this week.
If a state actor is responsible, I seriously question the motives. We can all agree that child pornography and abuse is bad by any measure, but taking down essential services that people the world over use to keep safe from tyranny or even just to keep private is not the way to go about removing it. Take Tor Mail mentioned earlier: with the recent revelation that the NSA is monitoring literally everything on the Internet, is it not reasonable that there was a push towards anonymous encrypted email? Heck, I myself have/had (depending on the outcome of this situation) a Tor Mail for the simple reason that I don’t like being spied on. Even if Eric Marques is guilty of hosting and distributing child pornography, I believe a more effective and efficient way to go after those responsible would have been to target the specific websites which are accused of doing so rather than the entire company that may or may not have hosted them. The FBI has previously been allowed to run a child pornography site before, and doing so in this instance would have made for a much shorter list of names than half of Tor network.
While this story is still developing, I want to end on a slightly inquisitive note: this happened during DEF CON (a hacker’s convention), meaning a good number of the people who bother to look into this kind of thing were busy out of town, and also on the heels of the NSA’s XKeyscore revelation, which “collects nearly everything a user does on the Internet.” These combined make me somewhat suspicious of this incident; more so than I normally would be for a compromise of a major anonymity service.
While I am sure it will come up on the show at some point, I want to give a quick stance on the recent doubling of student loan interest rates. Congress recently failed to block a doubling of interest rates on federal student loans from the then-current 3.4% to the new 6.8%. Currently, both houses are trying to put something together to bring the rate back down, but there has been no official movement at the time of writing.
Students go to college more so now than ever before; it is almost expected that an applicant for most jobs have a college degree. Unfortunately, and I think many people can relate, college isn’t exactly cheap, so the government was nice enough to help out. Of course, like all loans, the government charges interest, which used to be a bearable 3.4%, but which is currently 6.8%. As it is, the stereotype is that after graduation, the students start working at the lowest rung and earn just enough to eek out a living after paying their rents/mortgages/bills and loans back.
This shouldn’t be a partisan issue: you can’t take money from people who don’t have any. As I said above, the stereotype is that college students don’t have much money, since they are most likely going to school to be able to get a job in the first place. But on the other hand, the government has no obligation to give these loans, nor does it have an obligation to keep them at 3.4%, but since it has offered, and considering the other offers, like banks getting loans with near-0% interest, interest should at least be allocated appropriately.
Ultimately, it is still up to the student to accept the loan, and it isn’t wrong for the government to ask for the double rate, but it simply doesn’t make sense to. Either private lenders will beat the government, like any free market has the capacity to do, or the percentage of students going to school may drop for fear of being unable to repay. We certainly don’t want to end up with a generation deeply indebted from their college educations, but at the same time, there is no obligation for the government to make it cheap. The government guarantees 12 years of schooling; a high school diploma, and everything else is optional, even if it is preferred.
I think I can sum up my stance here with an simple analogy: if you want orange juice, you’ll likely get more from the fat, juicy, plump orange than you will from the one that’s yet to ripen and still green.
Student loans mean a lot to a lot of people. I personally will be taking out some loans for law school, and many of the people I know at school are taking out undergraduate loans. Student loan interest rates for most undergraduate students doubled from 3.4% to 6.8%. Members of Congress found this unacceptable but were not able to stop it. I spoke with Senator Angus King’s office last week and a key congressional aide to understand the specific legislation.
Here’s my rundown of the different proposals in Congress:
There are 3 major types of student loans: subsidized Stafford loans (for undergraduates-formerly 3.4%), unsubsidized Stafford loans (for some undergraduates and most graduates-now 6.8%), and GradPlus plans for graduates with other expenses, that is at 7.9%.
Most of the reform plans involve calculations using the 10-year Treasury-Bill rate, which fluctuates with economic growth. The current T-bill rate is 1.81% (for the sake of calculations, let’s say 1.8%). It rises with growth and falls with economic decline. Let’s get into the bills. I’ll offer my political prognosis on some of the bills, but not my policy recommendations. I think that all of the proposals are imperfect.
The House Republican bill would set all rates at 2.5% above the T-Bill rates (4.3%). It offers the lowest current rate for graduate students, but reflects an increase in the rate for undergraduates. However, interest rates are scheduled to rise as the T-bill rate rises along with economic growth, with a cap at 8.5%. The interest rates reset after every year. It appears to reduce the deficit. It passed the House but only had 4 Democratic votes. It is opposed by the Senate Democrats and the President. It would be dead on arrival.
President Obama’s plan is very similar to the Republicans’ (gaining Democrats’ scorn for pushing it to the right in the process). Obama’s plan offers fixed rates for the life of the loan, and caps obligations at 10% of their discretionary income. It does not yet cap interest over the life of the bill, but would start subsidized rates around 2.74%. Graduate rates would start about 4.7%. The President is trying to negotiate a solution for all parties involved.
The Senate Democrats plan is to extend the 3.4% unsubsidized rate for one more year. It does not use the T-Bill rate and would be the most expensive. It would have a difficult time passing the Republican House.
The Bipartisan Loan Certainty Act (S. 1241) is an attempt to bridge these gaps. It sets rates around 3.7% for undergraduates and 5.2% for graduates. It has a cap of 8.25%. It has 5 Republican Senate sponsors and 3 Democrat Senate sponsors. Interest is fixed from the beginning of the loan. It has support from the Senate Republicans, but is opposed by the majority of the Democratic caucus, due to the probability of increased rates as the economy improves. For a deal to be made, I believe that the cap needs to be lowered and other arrangements made to have the necessary Democratic support.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) has a plan out to tie rates to the Federal Reserve lending rates, but it doesn’t look like it has the votes to pass. Regardless, Congress needs to act to keep rates low. The Government made over $50 billion last year on student loans, siphoning money from hard-working middle-class families and students.