Maybe everyone else knew, but I was surprised to learn that the University of Miami has its own Android/IPhone app.
Of course it’s a bloated 10MB monster, but even so. Rumor has it you can use it to check out books from the library, but I haven’t figured out how yet. The map looks useful, but a search for “Architechture School” and “Law School” returned not found.
First impression: Looks slick, but it isn’t very efficient, and it’s not terribly user-friendly. In other words, all very Miami?
U Miami Political Science Professor Gregory Koger knows how to get way ahead of the curve, and has published a comprehensive treatment of what will someday be a major political issue — Should we build a Death Star?:
I wish to address the most important policy question of the millenium: should we build a Death Star? This debate picked up this year after some Lehigh University students estimated that just the steel for a Death Star would cost $852 quadrillion, or 13,000 times the current GDP of the Earth. Kevin Drum suggests this cost estimate is too low but, in the context of a galactic economy, a Death Star is perfectly affordable and “totally worth it.” Seth Masket and Jamelle Bouie highlight the military downside of the Death Star, suggesting that more people might rebel against the wholesale genocide of the Empire, and that the Death Star would be the prime target of any rebellion. I have two thoughts to add. First, the Death Star is a bit misunderstood. It is primarily a tool of domestic politics rather than warfare, and should be compared to alternative means of suppressing the population of a galaxy. Second, as a weapon of war, it should be compared to alternative uses of scarce defense resources. Understood properly, the Death Star is not worth it.
And there’s lots more where that came from.
I look forward to subsequent articles about the costs, benefits, and ethical ramifications of building a time machine, a Stargate, and a transporter.
Florida Supreme Court Adopts Recommendations By Miami Law Students:
In a recent opinion regarding children’s appearances in dependency court proceedings, the Florida Supreme Court adopted parts of a proposed amendment to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure that was written by two law students from the University of Miami.
The students, Melissa Rossman and Caitlin Saladrigas, members of the law school’s Children & Youth Law Clinic, prepared a brief in which they commented on rules proposed by the Florida Bar Juvenile Rules Committee. In the brief, Rossman and Saladrigas laid out the constitutional, statutory, human rights, therapeutic jurisprudence, and public-policy reasons for mandating that children appear in their own dependency court proceedings.
The court adopted a rule requiring state dependency court judges to ensure that children be given an opportunity to appear and be heard in such hearings. Although the court did not adopt the precise language proposed on behalf of the clinic and three other child-advocacy organizations, the adopted amendment incorporates many of the suggestions made in the law students’ brief. Justice Barbara Pariente’s concurring opinion echoes several policy arguments in the brief that favor strengthening a child’s right to be present and heard in dependency proceedings.
Rossman, a third-year student, and Saladrigas, who graduated from the School of Law last year, worked on the brief with the director of the Children & Youth Law Clinic, Bernard P. Perlmutter, and in conjunction with Florida’s Children First, a statewide legal aid program that fights for the legal rights of at-risk children; Florida Youth SHINE, a youth-run, peer-driven organization working to change the culture of Florida’s foster care system; and Legal Aid Service of Broward County, which provides free legal advice, representation, and education to the disadvantaged of Broward County.
Bravo!
Our first day of We Robot 2012 was, I think, about as great as it could be. It was particularly interesting to see papers from very different perspectives,a bout often quite different topics, converging on a set of shared concerns.
One of them is how we should think of a robot — is it a tool, like a hammer, or it something more?
The question of ‘robot agency’ will in fact be the lead-off for today’s program.
The Miami Herald did a write-up of our final panel yesterday, Brave new world of robot litigants, soldiers, escorts, which plays up the sensationalist aspects of the conference, but makes good reading. You’d never guess though that we also talked about whether robot ethics should have a deontological perspective. Then again it’s not as sensationalist as this concoction, in which the New Times took a stray remark of mine, in which I observed that it was a good thing the drones purchased by Miami-Dade police were not armed, and ran with it (We Robot 2012 Conference at UM Plans for Violent Machine Uprising).
Remote participation is easy: use the Live Video Stream or the Live Video Stream For Mobile Devices. There are links to all the papers for We Robot 2012. And we’re tweeting up a storm with hashtag #werobot.
The newly minted editors of the University of Miami Law Review are offering an expedited review system for authors willing to commit to accepting publication offers:
The University of Miami Law Review will be offering expedited review of articles to be published in Volume 67.
Articles submitted between April 18 and April 27 will be evaluated by May 4th.
By submitting the article during this window, authors agree to accept publication offers should one be extended.
Any articles accepted through this expedited review will be published in Volume 67.
If you have an article that would like to submit, please e-mail a copy of the article, CV, and cover letter to lawreview@students.law.miami.edu with the subject line “Volume 67 Expedited Review.”
Bill Henderson’s The Legal Whiteboard: What is Law Without Walls? Why does it matter? is a paean to UM Law Prof Michele DeStepano‘s innovative Law Without Walls program.
Does it scale?
Jotwell Blenderlaw
