The information paradox: conflicts and resolutions

Many relativists have been long convinced that black hole evaporation leads to information loss or remnants. String theorists have however not been too worried about the issue, largely due to a belief that the Hawking argument for information loss is flawed in its details. A recently derived inequality shows that the Hawking argument for black holes with horizon can in fact be made rigorous. What happens instead is that in string theory black hole microstates have no horizons. Thus the evolution of radiation quanta with E ~ kT is modified by order unity at the horizon, and we resolve the information paradox. We discuss how it is still possible for E >> kT objects to see an approximate black hole like geometry. We also note some possible implications of this physics for the early Universe.Comment: 26 pages, 8 figures, Latex; (Expanded version of) proceedings for Lepton-Photon 201

Representation of Africa online: sourcing practice and frames of reference

The dominant perspective on the representation of Africa in the western media claims that western media coverage is bias and crisis orientated and the liberal perspective claims that the coverage of Africa is not as negative as is often assumed. However, there is a paucity of literature on the representation of Africa online. This research enquiry is relevant because literature claims that the Internet has the potential to resolve the journalistic predicament of representing other culture through political participation and deliberation. But this requires a re-orientation of the sourcing practice of news organization to embrace sensitivity to and knowledge of African cultures. Moreover, the journalistic predicament can be resolved or not depending on the news gathering approach adopted by the news organization. Literature has identified two approaches, that is, ‘gatekeeping’ used mainly by dominant traditional media and ‘gatewatching’ used by alternative media in their quest to counter mainstream ideology. This study examines the impacts of the ‘gatewatching’ approach adopted by Africa Have Your Say (AHYS) website on its representation and frames of reference of Africa. It uses on-site observation, in-depth interviews and textual analysis to gather data. The study found that although the sourcing practice at the AHYS is elaborate and complex, the ‘gatewatching’ approach makes its susceptible to second level agenda setting. Hence, its frame repeats the attributes and tone used by the mainstream traditional media. However, a minority of users did not use repeat this frame in their comments

Ways to Be Worse Off

Does disability make a person worse off? I argue that the best answer is yes and no, because we can be worse off in two conceptually distinct ways. Disabilities usually make us worse off in one way (typified by facing hassles) but not in the other (typified by facing loneliness). Acknowledging two conceptually distinct ways to be worse off has fundamental implications for philosophical theories of well-being. (This paper was awarded the APA’s Routledge, Taylor & Francis Prize in 2017.

Pornography, Ethics, and Video Games

In a recent and provocative essay, Christopher Bartel attempts to resolve the gamer\u27s dilemma. The dilemma, formulated by Morgan Luck, goes as follows: there is no principled distinction between virtual murder and virtual pedophilia. So, we\u27ll have to give up either our intuition that virtual murder is morally permissible-seemingly leaving us over-moralizing our gameplay-or our intuition that acts of virtual pedophilia are morally troubling-seemingly leaving us under-moralizing our game play. Bartel\u27s attempted resolution relies on establishing the following three theses: (1) virtual pedophilia is child pornography, (2) the consumption of child pornography is morally wrong, and (3) virtual murder is not murder. Relying on Michael Rea\u27s definition of pornography, I argue that we should reject thesis one, but since Bartel\u27s moral argument in thesis two does not actually rely thesis one that his resolution is not thereby undermined. Still, even if we grant that there are adequate resources internal to Bartel\u27s account to technically resolve the gamer\u27s dilemma his reasoning is still unsatisfying. This is so because Bartel follows Neil Levy in arguing that virtual pedophilia is wrong because it harms women. While I grant Levy\u27s account, I argue that this is the wrong kind of reason to resolve the gamer\u27s dilemma because it is indirect. What we want is to know what is wrong with virtual child pornography itself. Finally, I suggest alternate moral resources for resolving the gamer\u27s dilemma that are direct in a way that Bartel\u27s resources are not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR

Not That Button but the Other: Misunderstanding and Non-understanding in Helpdesk Encounters Involving Nonnative English Speakers

Purpose: The internationalization of “technical help over the phone“ is tied to the increasing usage of a lingua franca facilitating the interaction between a call center agent and a caller who are both linguistically different. Researchers have noted that interactions between two parties who are nonnative users of the language employed for the encounter are peppered with understanding problems. This study looks into the causes of understanding problems in helpdesk encounters between nonnative speakers of English and the techniques those interacting parties used to resolve or prevent flaws in the conversation. Method: Conversation analysis was used to analyze 25 recorded phone calls, amounting to 750 minutes of data, made in a commercial call center and in the helpdesk of an international academic institute in Enschede, the Netherlands. Results: Analysis of the phone calls reveals that causes of understanding problems between an agent and a caller who are nonnative users of English go beyond asymmetries in their proficiency with the language. Factors such as incomplete information or erroneous inference from the utterance of the partner in the interaction are important triggers for the occurrence of understanding problems. Consequently, call center agents and callers use varied repair and preventative techniques to ensure that understanding problems will not impede the attainment of the primary goal of the encounter -to resolve the product-related problem of the caller. Conclusion: While understanding problems are inevitable in helpdesk encounters, especially those that involved nonnative users of the language employed for the interaction, such problems are hardly attributable to the linguistic differences characterizing interacting parties. It is apparent that helpdesk agents and callers are equipped with varied techniques to resolve understanding problems or to prevent their inceptio

Contract Meta-Interpretation

This Article provides a general framework for resolving the contract law’s ambivalence between textualism and contextualism, one of the most difficult questions in modern contract interpretation. Simply put, the Article’s argument is that courts need to determine the parties’ preferences as to how their contracts should be interpreted; this “meta-interpretive” inquiry can then direct the court’s interpretation or construction of the parties’ substantive rights and duties. Moreover, the Article argues that while contextualist interpretation is not, and should not be, mandatory for all interpretive questions under contract law, contextualism is necessary to resolve the initial “meta-interpretive” question: What interpretive regime do the parties prefer? Recognizing this distinction, and applying this twostep inquiry, can resolve some of the academic and practical debates between textualists and contextualists, and it can also explain some features of modern contract law

12 Confused Men: Using Flowchart Verdict Sheets To Mitigate Inconsistent Civil Verdicts

The finality of jury verdicts reflects an implicit societal acceptance of the soundness of the jury\u27s decision. Regardless, jurors are not infallible, and the questions they are often tasked with deciding are unfortunately neither obvious nor clear. The length of trial, complexity of subject matter, volume of factual background, and opaqueness of law can converge in a perfect storm that may confound even the most capable juror. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide decision rules to resolve inconsistent verdicts, the current remedies authorized by Rule 49—notably, the resubmission of the verdict to the jury and the ordering of a new trial—impose time and money costs on the jury, litigants, and judicial system. The increasing complexity of civil litigation raises the stakes by increasing the likelihood of juror error and the costs of relitigating the case. This Note proposes the creation of flowchart verdict sheets as a prophylactic against juror confusion. The flowchart verdict sheet builds upon current legal reform proposals to increase juror understanding while decreasing juror confusion and incorporates principles of effective visual design. By mitigating the confusion that can result in inconsistencies before the verdict is rendered, the flowchart verdict sheet enables the judicial system to avoid the costs associated with remedying inconsistent verdicts

Clause Construction: A Glimpse into Judicial and Arbitral Decision-Making

For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has insisted that forcing a plaintiff to arbitrate—rather than allowing her to litigate—does not affect the outcome of a dispute. Recently, the Court has invoked this “parity assumption” to expand arbitral jurisdiction. Reasoning that it does not matter whether an arbitrator or a judge resolves a particular issue, the Justices have allowed arbitrators to decide important questions about the arbitral proceeding itself. The parity assumption has proven impossible to test. First, cases that are arbitrated differ from those that end up in the judicial system, complicating efforts to compare outcomes from each sphere. Second, arbitral awards are rarely published and thus remain shrouded in mystery. However, one important topic defies these limitations. Jurisdictions are divided over whether courts or arbitrators should perform a task known as “clause construction”—determining whether an arbitration clause that does not mention class actions permits such procedures. As a result, both judges and arbitrators have been weighing in on the same question. Moreover, because class members are entitled to notice of rulings that impact their rights, the American Arbitration Association requires arbitral clause-construction awards to be available to the public. For once, then, it is possible to assess how the two kinds of decisionmakers resolve the same issue. This Article capitalizes on this opportunity by analyzing a dataset of 150 recent judicial and arbitral clause-construction decisions. Its logit regression analysis concludes that arbitrators are nearly 64 times more likely than judges to allow class actions. This Article then uses its findings to propose a solution to the circuit split over clause construction and to inform the broader debate over the boundaries between judicial and arbitral power

Contract Meta-Interpretation

This Article provides a general framework for resolving the contract law’s ambivalence between textualism and contextualism, one of the most difficult questions in modern contract interpretation. Simply put, the Article’s argument is that courts need to determine the parties’ preferences as to how their contracts should be interpreted; this “meta-interpretive” inquiry can then direct the court’s interpretation or construction of the parties’ substantive rights and duties. Moreover, the Article argues that while contextualist interpretation is not, and should not be, mandatory for all interpretive questions under contract law, contextualism is necessary to resolve the initial “meta-interpretive” question: What interpretive regime do the parties prefer? Recognizing this distinction, and applying this twostep inquiry, can resolve some of the academic and practical debates between textualists and contextualists, and it can also explain some features of modern contract law