I felt the parent already made that point, but of course you are right - the better the technique, the greater the range of interpretation. Put differently, ones technique is just a means to an end, with the end being the interpretation.
Precisely. Basically, technique and interpretation are not the same thing. When a score indicates a mood, it is giving an emotional direction for the given interpretation; it is not, as I understand it, detailing how to produce said interpretation. For example, a piano performance would always be unique because each performance brings an interpretation unique for that moment.
With regards to oratory skills, I couldn't agree more. A friend once read a poem he wrote which I completely fell in love with. When I tried reading it, giving my best effort, all beauty conveyed that first time was all but demolished...
You have a point, there is no comprehensive version numbering scheme that is universally accepted. I think you are also wrong as the issue is about the very well accepted beta, RC and final release scheme, not simply number sequences.
No number sequence, such as 8.10 or whatever comes to mind, is going to tell you that the release is a beta, RC or final release. However, outside developer circles, people are going to assume a final release, and that is precisely why one should label a version as beta or RC if confusion is to be avoided. Obviously, confusion was not avoided with 4.0, and again, not everyone keeps track of developer blogs and announcements.
Obviously, KDE 4.0 was barely a release candidate to end users, so one could at least have expected the RC label. Had it been "properly" named, I would find it hard to imagine distros like Kubuntu or Fedora shipping a first release candidate in the manner 4.0 was delivered. It would have been an embarrassment to them. Instead, KDE was embarrassed. Needlessly.
It would be absurd of me to expect Google's morality to be identical with mine.
You must be confused... corporations have no morality. Whatever "morality" you see is just a another component of a larger ever changing corporate strategy. I could agree that corporations exhibit a tendency towards some set of values, but the word morality ascribes to them a quality that I find to be out of context.
You reap what you sow - except when you have limited liability, in which case you can sow something entirely different. Hard to construct a code of conduct based on right and wrong in the normal sense under those circumstances...
Of course, with the ability to neutralize ICBM attacks, one could also launch first-strike attacks without fear. Consequently, this capability would make a nuclear attack initiated by the US far more likely. Somehow, that doesn't make me feel any safer.
Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!
