The Google Testing Blog has a good post up right now by James Whittaker called "There, but for the grace of testing, go I" - it's a good read, and a pertinent one for any of you/us who feel strongly about quality.
Even though I've spent more time then not on "the other side" of the table (Developer, noun - "focus on making software (ergo, bugs)") I find that James' words ring pretty loudly for me still, especially his part on risk analysis:
I am thankful that the vast majority of bugs that affect entire user populations are generally nuisance-class issues. These are typically bugs concerning awkward UI elements or the occasional misfiring of some feature or another where workarounds and alternatives will suffice until a minor update can be made. Serious bugs tend to have a more localized effect. True recall class bugs, serious failures that affect large populations of users, are far less common. Testers can take advantage of the fact that not all bugs are equally damaging and prioritize their effort to find bugs in the order of their seriousness. The futility of finding every bug can be replaced by an investigation based on risk.
I'd recommend James' post amongst the others there on that blog - it reminded me of an old rant of mine "The cost of (not) testing software". Anyone in the business of making something is also in the business of making bugs. It's important for us to keep that in mind when we deal with our day to day job - and when we think about our customers. It's also important for us to keep that in mind when criticizing or dragging any person or company or code through the muck.