>Your point (a) is basically a philosophical one (is there a place for ROI in software QUALITY (accuracy)) and I simply cannot agree that ROI has any place in this (testing).

Your argument would then have to assume that a project has unlimited budget. Most projects do not.

> It is the beginning of a slippery slope where even worse trade-offs will undoubtedly be made. I imagine the day that processor makers, HD makers, NIC makers, printer makers, etc. adopt the same approach and the "fun" that will then ensue.

Those trade-offs are already being made, or else we wouldn't have bugs in processors, HDs (witness the recent Fujitsu fiasco), and printer drivers. Obviously someone didn't test every scenario. That's because in the world of finite budgets and ship dates, it has to go out the door at some point.

>Your point (b) I simply don't understand. Code that 'cannot be reached' CAN BE REMOVED without consequence.

You sure about that? Are you 100% sure you've proven the negative statement that "the code cannot be reached"?