Our Miami Report summarizes the findings of an intensive research project focused on Miami’s complex issues. By identifying areas in need of further development, Our Miami Report creates common goals for community improvement. The Report identified eight key quality of life issues affecting Miamians: transportation, housing, arts and culture, health and safety, civic engagement, economy, environment and public space, and education.
Posts Tagged ‘Radio’
Ann Levine graduated from the University of Miami’s Law School in 1999. Since then, she has helped more than 2,000 law school applicants. Law school is challenging, with a lot of pressure placed on the students to succeed academically. So why does one go to law school? For the money, for the magical $160,000 that recent law school grads made fresh out of school? There is so much good that can be done, actual changes that can be made with a law degree.
The Historic Preservation Association of Coral Gables (HPACG), is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1991. HPACG promotes the understanding of the importance of historic resources and their preservation and supports an environment in which its members and all community citizens can understand, appreciate, exchange information and live with Coral Gables history. The President of the Association, Dr. Karelia Martinez Carbonell, speaks with Shelly Lynn about the different volunteer opportunities available to the community.
At Branches, the Achieve family of programs provides a continuum of financial services that equips and enables families to achieve increased financial stability and long-term success in life. Achieve programs create opportunity, stimulate productivity and ultimately lead to stability.Financial freedom cannot come through knowledge alone but necessitates an opportunity to exercise that knowledge. Branches opens up new opportunities for clients to improve their situations and lives. The coaching process reorients the expectations of a client to overcome self-imposed barriers while also navigating external barriers through access to uniquely targeted tools and services.
In the latest edition of The Weekly Voice’s “Let’s Talk” segment, the topic of in-depth discussion is the ongoing diplomatic crisis between US/EU/Russia/Ukraine over Crimea.
Kamila Orlova is a student from Russia majoring in political science.
Dr. Roger Kanet is a International Studies professor and longtime academic focussing on all things related to Russia and Europe.
Hyan Freitas is the host of “The Weekly Voice” which airs Fridays at 10am on 90.5FM and online at WVUM.org
[Show originally aired March 21, 2014]
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
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.
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.