|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
| nothing to see here. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:27 AM EDT |
Going by Boies' argument, it would be better for lawyers to be ignorant of
everything, since they can then argue for or against anything and everything
without impunity and just claim ignorance when questioned. It is a stupid system
to allow such arguments to stand without penalty.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
Jacobs responded by saying that as a lawyer, he has tried two Java
cases and
couldn't do it - ignoring completely the fact that the judge coded in
OTHER
languages in the past. Of course Jacobs couldn't do it - he doesn't
program at
all!
It would be no different than a lawyer stating that he
couldn't design an engine
mount even though he tried multiple cases on engine
failures, when a judge, with
a background in mechanical engineering could easily
do it after hearing a case.
Programming REQUIRES a level of
rigor that most people don't know how to handle. There is NO SLIPPERINESS in
language use. Meanings are exact and limited to what the computer understands
them to be. While I bet most people could eventually be taught that exactness
is mandatory with computers, some people are so used to twisting language use
that they will highly resist that and still try to twist meanings with a
computer. The nice thing is the computer is infinitely patient and will
consistently slap them one way or another when they try to twist meanings with
it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
