ZooRush is a collaboration between the School of Communication and the School of Public Health at the University of Miami. Everyone involved is a student or faculty member of our school. Clay Ewing, the game designer of ZooRush and Assistant Professor, and Nancy, the head of PR for the project, talk about the game the development of the game. The game is part of a larger project at the School of Public Health. The larger project, lead by Dr. Lanetta Jordan, is a patient registry for sickle cell disease. The purpose of the game is twofold: create awareness about sickle cell disease as well as reduce the stigma associated with the disease amongst teenagers that have it.
Posts Tagged ‘News’
Kadie Black and Issa Hosein explain in broad terms the foster care system and how Our Kids, as the administrative agency, plays into the scheme of things. Among the topics discussed during the show are the misconceptions surrounding foster care/adoption and the children in the system, who are the children in the foster care system and most importantly, how the community can get involved. The Florida Department of Children and Families has awarded Our Kids a Community Based Care (CBC) Lead Agency Status. It is through dedicated and devoted workers that Our Kids is able to oversee and lead a coordinated system of care delivering excellence to abused, abandoned and neglected children and their families in Miami-Dade and Monroe counties.
Alice Billman, Executive Director of Heroes Unite, speaks about the struggles of low-income families and deficiencies of the public school system where their children attend. In defiance of the state cuts on arts funds, she has set up an after-school program that teaches kids, 2nd grade to 5th grade, Chinese Martial Arts. The function of Chinese Martial Arts is to teach assertiveness not aggression. Funding support for the arts has decreased dramatically in recent years. Alice has devoted herself to promoting the revival of the arts through the nurturing of new and established artists and actors in the South Florida region. Apart from the after-school program, Heroes Unite provides the community with the Heroines Choir and the Mobile Micro Theater.
For more information visit www.heroesunite.org.
Founded by a mother whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver, Mothers Against Drunk Driving® (MADD) is the nation’s largest nonprofit working to protect families from drunk driving and underage drinking. MADD also supports drunk and drugged driving victims and survivors at no charge, serving one person every eight minutes through local MADD victim advocates and at 1-877-MADD-HELP. Learn more at www.madd.org or by calling 1-877-ASK-MADD.
Sunday, February 9th, 2014, MADD will be holding a certified 5K walk/run and family festival at Tropical Park. For more information or to register, visit www.walklikemadd.org/miami or call (305)-273-3744
Steve Gomez is the author of an opinion piece in the Miami Hurricane newspaper that caught our eye this Veteran’s day, titled: “Make An Effort to Talk to, Thank Veterans”. The article, as the title suggests, made an appeal for fellow students to acknowledge the veterans studying and/or walking among them. Gomez himself served in the Air Force, and he also started to inform himself of the incredibly important subject of PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, after one of his brother-in-arms was diagnosed with it.
This is a serious issue facing our nation’s veterans, but what do we know about it and what can be done to best serve those who have served us?
The Weekly Voice is WVUM’s weekly current affairs discussion show. It airs Fridays at 10 a.m. and is hosted by Hyan F.
Rolly Aberion, Miami Area Coordinator, spoke with Shelly Lynn about the recent disaster in the Philippines and the necessity of everyone coming together, supporting the relief efforts going on right now. The situation is time sensitive, the sooner we get supplies to the devastated regions, the faster the damage will be repaired.
WVUM News had the opportunity to participate in a student media Q and A with UM President Donna Shalala. She answered questions and provided insights on President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare. President Shalala is the former Secretary for Health and Human Services under President Bill Clinton.
Afterwards, Meg, Jordan and Matt from ‘Counterpoint’ weighed in with their own thoughts.
‘Counterpoint’ airs Fridays at 1pm EST.
(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.
Unsurprisingly, I’m writing about Bradley Manning this week. In case you missed it, Bradley Manning has finally been given a verdict: guilty of more than a handful of crimes, but not guilty of one very important charge– aiding the enemy. I’ll get more into the specifics of that charge later, but the remaining 20 charges carry a combined maximum of 136 years in prison, so PFC Manning is anything but in the clear. The sentencing has already begun, and could last into the last days of August.
I’ve written on Manning before, so I won’t go into the back-story again, but I think it’s worth mentioning that he has already spent three years in prison before his trial, so it has been agreed upon that his sentence should be reduced by 1,274 days. Anyway, time to move onto the big charge: aiding the enemy and why even though he has been found guilty of other crimes, this one is a win for whistleblowers. Most of the logic behind going after Manning as harshly as the military did was something along the lines of “if it’s available for everyone in the world to see, then that includes our enemies, so therefore public disclosures are equal to giving the information directly to the enemy.” As I’ve argued before, this is not the case here, even though that line of reasoning may seem valid, one must take intent into account: if one’s intention is to truly “aid the enemy,” then it follows that one would not inform one’s own side of such aid, as making information public would. Instead, by releasing information publicly, it allows both sides to see it, giving a “heads-up” to both parties: the “enemy” side gets information X and the “non-enemy” side gains the information that the “enemy” side has information X, which could be useful to the “non-enemy” side.
Further to that point, Manning’s information was not immediately disclosed; it was given to Wikileaks, providing a window of time in which the military could have changed tactics, had any even been compromised in the first place. Given those two points, I believe Manning when he says that he was merely a whistleblower rather than a traitor.
As for the other charges: any wrongdoing Manning may have done is far outweighed by the benefit to the public’s right to know. This should be true of all whistleblowers: exposing something that needs to be exposed should not come with a life imprisonment threat.
More on the PFC Manning case this Friday during the show [1pm EST].