Home › Posts tagged sorry

sorry

love (and professional practice) means never having to say you’re sorry

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

On that note, apologies to my loyal readers whom I’ve forsaken for quite some time now. I’ve recently transitioned to another firm which always entails a fair bit of work. At least I can rest assured that now can rest assured that no one will sue me for apologizing, as Ontario passed into law last year the Apology Act, 2009.

Laws governing apologies are not the usual subject matter of this blog, but I thought it might be of some interest.

I’ve always inclined to apologize, not with any intent whatsoever of admitting fault, liability or wrongdoing, but rather as a question of polite and well-mannered. However, before the passage of this act, saying your sorry could lead to the very unfortunate result of being construed as the former. Even apart from the legal ramifications, I recall a few years ago some advice one of my colleagues (who I respected very much gave me), which was never to apologize in the course of negotiations, for anything, as it could be interpreted as a sign of weakness.

While I think the introduction of this act is a good thing, it seems to me to be rather unfortunate that the law and society generally have led to a situation where a statute must be enacted so that people can apologize to each other without fear of recrimination. As a lawyer, I understand why professionals should be advised not to apologize, but as a human being, I find it very unfortunate (and non-intuitive) that the law has evolved to equate (or at least run the risk of equating) an expression of sorrow with an admission of liability.  If a patient dies on the operating table due to no fault of the doctor performing the surgery, it would nonetheless seem perfectly human to me that the doctor would feel some sense of remorse or sorrow. In fact I’d probably find it somewhat disturbing if he or she didn’t. Expressing that sorrow would, to me, also seem to be a natural extension of that – not because of a desire to admit fault or liability, but because it is a natural extension for those that feel sorrow for the loss of a life and have some reasonable measure of empathy or compassion.

In any event, that’s just my $0.02 on the matter. It’s also perhaps worth mentioning that the Act doesn’t quite give you carte blanche to apologize – there are a number of exceptions, such as traffic violations or testifying at civil proceedings (PDF).

Sorry!

A Real Quantum Computer – This Week!

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Sorry, been off sick. One very quick entry from Techworld, about a BC company, D-Wave, that will be debuting a real Quantum computer this week!!

Twenty years before most scientists expected it, a commercial company has announceda quantum computer that promises to massively speed up searches and optimisation calculations.

D-Wave of British Columbia has promised to demonstrate a quantum computer next Tuesday, that can carry out 64,000 calculations simultaneously (in parallel “universes”), thanks to a new technique which rethinks the already-uncanny world of quantum computing. But the academic world is taking a wait-and-see approach.

If it turns out to be true, this will be revolutionary news. I mean, truly revolutionary. If it works, well, say goodbye to most of the cryptography industry, as a quantum computer should easily be able to defeat the most sophisticated encryption methods currently known by simple brute strength. Amongst other things. This is nearly unlimited computing power in a box. Stunning. Assuming, of course, it actually works.

Wikiality

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Interesting post on the Wellington Financial Blog about “Wikiality” – the practice of taking stuff in Wikipedia as the truth, or, to quote: ““a reality where, if enough people agree with a notion, it becomes the truth.”

JN notes that Wikipedia has been cited by the courts, and this is reason for concern. A snippet:

The practice poses two problems:

  1. The references may be inaccurate; and
  2. Even if accurate, the references are subject to change at any point in the future, making it difficult for any future decisions to refer back to the original or understand the context in which it was made.

Given recent reports of Microsoft offering to pay individuals to make changes to certain Wikipedia articles in which they have a vested interest, the credibility of the site as a definitive reference source again comes into question.

A few of my colleagues at the firm also expressed bemusement when a recent case in Ontario (don’t have the citation, sorry) also cited Wikipedia.

I am quite a big fan of Wikipedia. It is, I think a rather useful and handy tool to refer to from time to time. Do I take it as the gospel? No. Would I use it if I were trying to concoct an antidote for a poison that was about to kill me? Probably not. Would I cite it in a legal research paper? Possibly. In fact, quite likely.

Although Wikipedia is by no means without its weaknesses, it also has its strengths. Sure, there is a possibility of inaccuracy. But then again, isn’t something less likely to have inaccuracies if it is reviewed (and edited) by more eyes (and more minds)? Isn’t it more likely that if there is a dispute about what is and isn’t correct, it will come to light, just like the Microsoft incident?

And what source, can it be said, is free of inaccuracies? Certainly not The New York Times. Although the Gray Lady is quick to point out that it was “deceived” by an errant reporter, it is less quick to reflect on the fact that it published fabricated stories. That of course is the clearest example, but history is rife with examples of inaccurate or misleading stories in the press. Less clear, of course, is media bias. And one only needs to refer to Manufacturing Consent. I don’t necessarily agree with all that book has to offer, but it certainly provides some food for thought.

What about scientific publications? Hmmm. Well. Again, truth is quite often relative. The clearest examples, are, of course, outright fabrication. Nonetheless, Dr. Hwang Woo-suk’s paper on producting the first cloned stem cell line was considered the truth for several years, until he was discredited. And more generally speaking, is it not true that, in the world of science, what is considered to be the truth is what most scientists believe to be true? Is that not the system of peer review? A great read on this topic is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (as an aside, its also the book that introduced the phrase “paradigm shift” into popular parlance). I won’t bore you with details, but suffice it to say that, at the end of the day, science, at least in concept, may not be that far from wikiality.

My point isn’t necessarily to skewer existing sources of “truth” but rather to point out that such sources aren’t necessarily more reliable or accurate, or less fallible, than something like Wikipedia.

And as for things changing? Make a copy.