|
You still don't get it.
Software Design is based on logic, and is not the result of thousands of years of cases that piled upon and contradicted each other. It is also not deliberately designed to be obscure. It is quite simple for someone to teach themself how to design software, as it is a relatively simple and straightforward discipline (especially when compared to the law).
The Law is not based on logic much of the time, it IS the product of thousands of years of cases piling on top of each other (often contradicting each other), and it is also (very often) written to be deliberately obscure (so lawyers can maintain their utility). The law is filled with elements that defy logic due to a desire to fulfill a political or public policy purpose.
Your comparison is absolutely absurd and is a very clear example of how little you know about the law. The fact that you even try to compare software design to legal analysis makes ANY legal analysis you do dubious at best.
By that you mean legal sources you do not fully comprehend, are not trained to comprehend, and from which you provide tiny citations rather than the full text. The law doesn't work like stock DIKU code snippets.
Again, the problem is not just that you are discussing a matter you are not even remotely qualified to discuss authoritatively. The problem is that you make absolute declarations as if you are CERTAIN how the law would operate here. It is your excessive certainty and absolutism that makes your posts utterly ridiculous.
In other words, you would be wise to stop acting like a know-it-all regarding a subject area in which you are untrained, uneducated, and inexperienced. A little more humility and acknowledgement that you might be wrong is in order.
|