I find different answers as to whether they won the case or not. I'm not a lawyer, so it may be the judgement was nuanced such that interpretation by us mortals can be dicey.

By some accounts, documents of their internal tests showed that the extra plastic reduced the problem, yet they didn't act on it. It may turn out down the road in the course of history it didn't actually help in production, but their "sin" was ignoring their own best evidence of the time. They did a cost/benefit analysis internally on early test models.

The people in your TV set

All are welcome.

I for one don't want to give Physics research a blank check to investigate some unobservable math fantasy.

Why not? And who exactly is asking for a "blank check"?

Another fool who doesn't consider documentation as being productive. Also, being able to proofread has helped me spot and fix lots of bugs in other people's code, whether c, c++, php, whatever. Doing a compile just to find a typo is lame. I stopped doing that decades ago.

So keep minimizing the damage your bad reading skills bring to the table ... because stupid is as stupid does.

Just don't freak out when you find you can pass your hand through your cat.

It only works on cats. I don't know why, ask Schrodinger. Something to do with Youtube fame particles (YFP), I think.

God's Linux box. Just hope he didn't back up the universe to Hillary's server.

I believe Ford lost the Pinto case because internal tests discovered the problem and also found an inexpensive fix: a $5 plastic wall between the gas tank and the impact zone of the tank.

In other words, the jury decided the company consciously bypassed a cheap and easy fix to shave a few bucks from manufacturing cost. It was a pretty simple tradeoff. I have to agree with Jury in that case. The car's statistical risk compared to other brands is moot (unless the other brands also discovered and skipped the easy fix, in which case, they may also be liable).

To most slashdotters it remains only a theory

"Honey, does this projection make my ass look 4D?"

Just about any dimensional space can be represented in fewer dimensions, or even 1 dimension, if you accept some lossy-ness or fuzziness. Imagine a string of digits and codes with the structure: x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type, etc... Where x, y, and z are coordinates in 3D space and "type" is the type of particle. Example single particle encoding: "3629342.3442, 4872042.3987, 193203.0482, Electron". There may need to be more "state" info about a given particle to make it workable, but you get the general idea.

Oops, I forgot a confirmation button or pause. I probably shouldn't bother to care, but some readers flip over such.

if (client.ie6) {
  document.write("This is your IE6 page. It's limited because we are moving to mobile-friendly pages and don't want to keep this old one up. ");
  document.write("And no, we're not getting off your lawn.");
  window.location("ie6.html");
}

You mean ignore the customers with spare cash to burn in favour of those with no (spare) cash?

Let's say old browser users spend twice as much money at your site as new browser users (typically mobile). Then the break-even point would be when you have twice as many new browser users as old browser users. Example:

IE 8 or less users:

-- 200 transactions per month.

-- Average expenditure: $80.00

-- Total revenue: $16,000

Mobile users:

-- 405 transactions per month.

-- Average expenditure: $40.00

-- Total revenue: $16,200

In this scenario, it's probably time to focus on mobile-friendly sites/apps and dump legacy IE support.

(I'm assuming your org doesn't want to re-code the same app/site for multiple browser versions.)

I installed that app, and it took me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...