The question is, how do you prevent people picking a child simply based on arbitrary cosmetic reasons? "You're going to have a daughter, but her breasts will develop entirely lopsided" Really? Crap, ditch that one, let's try another.
The situation is worse combined with what I mentioned in another thread... we're all guaranteed to develop a genetic defect that will express itself as us being unable to generate vitamin C... if I didn't like some odd element of my prospective child (say, "he doesn't have blue eyes and blond hair") then I could simply say, "it has a genetic defect, so I can ditch this one, and try again."
Basically, the question is, how much should we play the role of natural selection? Some mutations have a more or less neutral effect upon humans, or even a negative effect upon us, however that negative effect has a positive effect in other cases, and results in an overall increase.
The issue here is, we shouldn't be able to start mandating genetic purity, and we should only be able to dismiss a child for reasons that would cause a medical illness requiring treatment... not simply "they don't match what I want."
What you "want" is to get away from natural selection and move towards some artificial selection, and while some of that is good (preventing down syndrome, and some other disorders) at the same time... we need to be careful what we throw away, or eliminate from the human genome by conscious choice.
But chimps and gorillas have the same genetic defect as we do, too. So, the chimps and gorillas can't be seated in the same place of the boat with us. (Matter within space is governed my mandatory mutexes.) So, it's like there is one boat with us and chimps and gorillas on it, and another boat that just happened to drift up next to us, which has guinea pigs on it. We're both going the same way, we're both just as up the creek, just in different boats.
It's called parallel evolutionary convergence... it's why birds have wings, and bats have wings, too!
Duh, it's because when I am happy, I write it forwards, but when I'm angry, I write it backwards. The fact that you can't tell the difference between those two shows that you don't understand me, therefore, I must be a girl!
My ex-boyfriend drinks a lot of beer now, but pretty much preferred, so called "bitch beers" before being introduced to beer that actually tastes good. (Odd that it could be more acceptable for a guy to drink girlie drinks rather than drink Budweiser, Coors, Miller, et aliae ">cervissiae culae.)
He actually prefers Rieslings, because, well, they taste good if you don't have a distinguished palette. My palette for Rieslings is a little better than "it's sweet", I like a dry component for it to be "refreshing", and if it doesn't have that, it feels a bit like milk in that it coats, but doesn't refresh.
Basically, anyone who doesn't like sweet wines won't like many Rieslings, and Ice Wines, but anyone who has a sweet palette, would definitely like those. My palette isn't dry enough to support drinking most other wines, but I wouldn't say I have a "sweet" palette.
If EU women/girls didn't play as many video games as here in the USA, then there would be a significant lack of female characters on those servers.
The most common reason I hear from guys about why they play a female toon: "If I'm going to stare at a butt for 8 hours a day every day...", that or "girls get free stuff from guys..." Both of those are patently obvious to me that they're driven by the sexually repressive regime.
To link the comment from the other respondent to yours... "Maybe US males are more secure in their sexuality and don't have a problem playing as female characters", however "I figure anyone that enjoys looking at guys for 2000 hours must be gay"... perhaps US males are even LESS secure about their sexuality, and thus feel that they MUST place a female character on their screen, for fear that they might be labeled "gay".
Oddly, presenting an interesting situation... is it more acceptable for a guy to women's clothing at long as they're straight, or more acceptable for them to be gay?
I always play female toons. I figure anyone that enjoys looking at guys for 2000 hours must be gay.
... or they're girls... but then we don't really like playing guys so much... while you all may enjoy staring at a girl's butt all day long while you're playing your game... I don't know... it just feels weird to me to pick a character exclusively because I am attracted to it.
Well, since the girls in MMORPGS usually are just fat guys with all their hair on their backs instead of their heads, it probably feeds the stereotype about slashdotters, too.
if it makes any difference, I managed to notice.
I swear, when I started reading this I expected "in their hands" not "on their backs"... >_ lol
Girls can't enjoy drinking beer?:P Sometimes I do, but usually, unless it's a German light beer, it tastes so bad that I'd usually rather have something that I can stand drinking.
It isn't a "girls drink wine" and "boys drink beer/hard alcohol" world. My friend refuses to drink wine anymore, because she's moved on to strictly vodka. (Personally, I find hard alcohol much too annoying to buy here in Washington what with the state-controlled liquor stores.)
More so, the indicator that I drink Rieslings shows that I have a more refined palette than "meat, potatoes, and beer" which seems to dominate the male diet. *laugh*
You're not one of those guys who play as a girl on online games are you?
*sigh* I've apparently found out that such guys don't exist on European servers. It's likely that Europeans being less sex-retentive than us don't provide such fundamental benefits to females that we enjoy here in America that they don't see a benefit to acting like girls to get stuff.
Here's how to tell the boys from the girls when they're both playing female characters: girls don't expect nor ask for stuff from guys. If you give us stuff after we've gotten to know each other, then hey, cool... but if you have a "girl" hounding you online to give her stuff... well, either she's a boy, or a prissy little princess that makes the rest of us look bad. So, just assume it's a guy... you won't hurt anyone that matter's feelings.
But the Supreme Court has ruled very often that not rights are not unlimited. The question on when an illegal activity becomes legal by protest is limited, and a grey area... certainly no court has given a definitive demarcation line to say "even though it's legal to protest that something is illegal, certain acts don't allow you to protest by doing that act." I think primarily of murder, theft, etc. Of course, I know that protesting that it's illegal WITHOUT doing it, is legal most certainly. "We should have the right to kill other people! Our government is taking away our liberties!"
On the other hand... what if an illegal act is done to demonstrate protest of something else... this is like the condition that protesters cannot delay an individual seeking to enter an establishment longer than X seconds. Could you protest that you can't hold someone longer than X seconds, and then actually hold them longer?
I think it comes down to, if it's a statement of protest that doesn't violate someone's rights, then it's ok... unfortunately for most people, they don't have a right to not experience offense... even if they wish they did. You can't block someone, because it violates their rights of free movement and that's a good enough reason to restrict someone's right to free speech (Jesus's law: "Don't be a dick"), but you could flash your tits to them, because "I don't want to see/hear it" is not a good enough reason to restrict someone's right to free speech. If it were, then no one would be able to profess or preach Christianity near an atheist. Fortunately, atheists are a little more sensible about hearing opposing views than the typical Christian knee-jerk reaction of "___ is bad! I don't want to experience it!"
Can we get back our Vitamin C gene again? I would love being able to eat less fruit... Scurvy sucks.
Have you ever tried coconut rum and fresh OJ? You'll never bitch about drinking your fruits again.
Sorry, I prefer my alcohol in the form of Riesling wines. I haven't suffered from Scurvy yet, so I'm apparently getting enough vitamin C, but I don't really eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, so... not so sure.
Anyways, making fruits and veggies a more optional part of our diet, since we can make our own vitamin C might have a positive impact on our quality of life. (Of course, it puts the Vitamin C Herbal Supplement people out of business, but hey, they're just the new patent medicine anyways, so...)
Hahahah, it's so funny, because reading about the history of Scurvy, people actually thought this way for awhile.
Personally, I really think it'd be awesome if we could just repair our Vitamin C gene, and generate Vitamin C ourselves again... but then we also need to fix the gene that processes uric acid, so that we don't fill up on stuff doing the job of Vitamin C... since high uric acid levels have been associated with Type II diabetes, it might just effect a reduction in diabetes in humans.
Oh, and from Penn & Teller's Bullshit, apparently women can go topfree in areas that don't allow them to go topfree only if they're protesting that they can't go topfree legally.
So, only as an act of protest against it being illegal, is it ok to do what is illegal. I wonder if this would work for murder?
The issues are oddly complicated in the United States. This sort of law is definitely something that couldn't be passed Federally, and so every state has different laws. In New Mexico there is a restriction on showing the female "aerola, and/or nipple" although showing the rest of the breast is ok. In Washington, while there are specific statements regarding genitalia, there is no specific prohibition of a woman's breasts except that the definition of indecent exposure says basically "anything a reasonable person would construe as inappropriate".
"Occam's Razor" isn't "the simplest answer is usually the best" it's "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily" or in more modern language: "don't make stuff up to explain something if you don't have to."
The situation here, is that there had to exist some sort of Jesus for the Christian Jesus to be modeled from. In a way, the Christian Jesus exists just as pertinently in history as many other historical figures.
However, just like with all historical figures, the truth is obscured, extended, embraced, and sometimes extinguished. No doubt a number of ideas of any actual Jesus have been, to quote an interesting movie I saw before, "By people much more intelligent and insightful than [Jesus]".
Everything about Jesus can be explained by fanatical followers justifying their beliefs, than that Jesus is an entirely new entity in the universe.
We have true historical accuracy of an unbroken imperial line of Japan until we reach the last mortal, who is claimed to be born of a god. The best explanation for this, is not that that god exists, and create a whole new entity, but that he had mortal human parents like everyone else, came to power, revised history, and claimed his lineage from gods. This is known to have occurred in Egypt with the Pharaohs, even when we know for sure that they were born of humans.
"Bigus Dickus" most certainly didn't exist, because in Latin, "k" was only used for Greek loanwords to correspond to "Kappa", while "c" was used (hard only) for all native uses.
"History is written by the Winners" is a common statement used in the world. It's not exactly true though... history is written from multiple different sources.
We know that Julius Caesar existed, because historical references to him abound. Not just Roman literature, but Greek, etc. Cleopatra? Latin, Greek, and Egyptian for sure.
While the Wikipedia page for the historicity of Jesus presents a list of all of the early sources to prove his existence, Julius Caesar has so many things that you can't count them. Literally, every coin minted in his age, should they survive today attest to his existence.
Oddly as well, the lineage of the Caesars is without doubt from the abundance of language terms derived from the name for terms of power. "Kaiser" is German for "Caesar" (which was actually pronounced just like the German), and means "emperor", while Russian word "Tsar" derives from "Caesar".
We have more historical evidence dating back the Japanese emperor to the Gods than supporting Jesus as actually existing.
So, looking at your beloved Wikipedia, we have... the Bible, early Christian teachings, a bunch of works in the late 1st and early 2nd century by non-Christians, but they really just talk about Christians, rather than historical Jesus himself, and again, one Jewish text saying a guy named "Yeshu" was hung for being a witch.
Meanwhile, I don't remember his name, and can't seem to find it, but Penn and Teller point out that there was someone nearly IDENTICAL to what Jesus is claimed to be, who was actually documented by census, etc.
Recall, Jesus was said to have been born during a trip due to census... if he were born as such, then there wouldn't be a latter census that would establish his existence?
Or is there some sort of conspiracy to remove Jesus's actual records from history, unlike, you know, the other guy.
Well, I'm sure you'd be surprised that Windows Vista would compile for Itanium, it just didn't package anything.
The reason why is to check for basic errors in algorithms exposed by running them on a different architecture. There are still enough Itaniums out there in the hands of people who are willing to pay the money to continue Server 2008 support.
Interesting things to note about Windows 2003/2008 for Itanium: There is no single-cpu version of the kernel. This makes certain checks for the validity of an install disc really hard to do, because you can't just look for the kernel file, as the multi-cpu one has a different name. There are also a few odd-ball binaries that don't get sent out.
There's one and only one valid key for any particular version of Windows for Itanium. Obviously, if you can spend $3000 on your motherboard alone, they figure there's no danger of software piracy.
No, I'm advocating that recompilablity is a good thing.
Unlike you, I have seen Windows source code, and it's a mess, and it looks like crap, and the entire build process is so complicated that it takes a team of about 10-15 just to support the tools to compile it, and it is a full 8-hour shift of work to compile the source, with on-call 24-hours a day. The build tools are complicated, expansive, poorly written, poorly supported, inconsistent, and nearly opaque as to the process going on.
As stated, Microsoft could save a ton of money if they didn't have to recompile the entire Vista kernel every time just to be sure that things even compile, and link, when the only change made was say to random library #4 which few built-in apps actually use.
When I was there, I heard a speech by a Manager about how Windows XP/2003 at the time had about 100 people dedicated to "servicability" while Red Hat had like maybe 7. I really wanted to get up there and ask everyone to stand up, then tell various groups to sit down as they aren't needed in the model that Red Hat is able to use. I would start with the build group. Ten people right there out, because Red Hat can setup daily builds with scripts, and don't need an entire subteam devoted to making sure that things stop breaking, and that building processes run smoothly.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is, how do you prevent people picking a child simply based on arbitrary cosmetic reasons? "You're going to have a daughter, but her breasts will develop entirely lopsided" Really? Crap, ditch that one, let's try another.
The situation is worse combined with what I mentioned in another thread... we're all guaranteed to develop a genetic defect that will express itself as us being unable to generate vitamin C... if I didn't like some odd element of my prospective child (say, "he doesn't have blue eyes and blond hair") then I could simply say, "it has a genetic defect, so I can ditch this one, and try again."
Basically, the question is, how much should we play the role of natural selection? Some mutations have a more or less neutral effect upon humans, or even a negative effect upon us, however that negative effect has a positive effect in other cases, and results in an overall increase.
The issue here is, we shouldn't be able to start mandating genetic purity, and we should only be able to dismiss a child for reasons that would cause a medical illness requiring treatment... not simply "they don't match what I want."
What you "want" is to get away from natural selection and move towards some artificial selection, and while some of that is good (preventing down syndrome, and some other disorders) at the same time... we need to be careful what we throw away, or eliminate from the human genome by conscious choice.
But chimps and gorillas have the same genetic defect as we do, too. So, the chimps and gorillas can't be seated in the same place of the boat with us. (Matter within space is governed my mandatory mutexes.) So, it's like there is one boat with us and chimps and gorillas on it, and another boat that just happened to drift up next to us, which has guinea pigs on it. We're both going the same way, we're both just as up the creek, just in different boats.
It's called parallel evolutionary convergence... it's why birds have wings, and bats have wings, too!
Duh, it's because when I am happy, I write it forwards, but when I'm angry, I write it backwards. The fact that you can't tell the difference between those two shows that you don't understand me, therefore, I must be a girl!
978879
It's not the _SAME_ boat, it's a completely part of the gene!
It's more like they're in a different boat that just happens to be drifting the same way as ours.
My ex-boyfriend drinks a lot of beer now, but pretty much preferred, so called "bitch beers" before being introduced to beer that actually tastes good. (Odd that it could be more acceptable for a guy to drink girlie drinks rather than drink Budweiser, Coors, Miller, et aliae ">cervissiae culae.)
He actually prefers Rieslings, because, well, they taste good if you don't have a distinguished palette. My palette for Rieslings is a little better than "it's sweet", I like a dry component for it to be "refreshing", and if it doesn't have that, it feels a bit like milk in that it coats, but doesn't refresh.
Basically, anyone who doesn't like sweet wines won't like many Rieslings, and Ice Wines, but anyone who has a sweet palette, would definitely like those. My palette isn't dry enough to support drinking most other wines, but I wouldn't say I have a "sweet" palette.
If EU women/girls didn't play as many video games as here in the USA, then there would be a significant lack of female characters on those servers.
The most common reason I hear from guys about why they play a female toon: "If I'm going to stare at a butt for 8 hours a day every day...", that or "girls get free stuff from guys..." Both of those are patently obvious to me that they're driven by the sexually repressive regime.
To link the comment from the other respondent to yours... "Maybe US males are more secure in their sexuality and don't have a problem playing as female characters", however "I figure anyone that enjoys looking at guys for 2000 hours must be gay"... perhaps US males are even LESS secure about their sexuality, and thus feel that they MUST place a female character on their screen, for fear that they might be labeled "gay".
Oddly, presenting an interesting situation... is it more acceptable for a guy to women's clothing at long as they're straight, or more acceptable for them to be gay?
I always play female toons. I figure anyone that enjoys looking at guys for 2000 hours must be gay.
... or they're girls... but then we don't really like playing guys so much... while you all may enjoy staring at a girl's butt all day long while you're playing your game... I don't know... it just feels weird to me to pick a character exclusively because I am attracted to it.
Well, since the girls in MMORPGS usually are just fat guys with all their hair on their backs instead of their heads, it probably feeds the stereotype about slashdotters, too.
if it makes any difference, I managed to notice.
I swear, when I started reading this I expected "in their hands" not "on their backs"... >_ lol
I don't hate the fruit! I just hate that every other animal in the world can synthesize their own Vitamin C, but we can't!
It's about EQUALITY, not wanting to get rid of fruit. I do like fruit; I have some cherries right now, and they're absolutely divine.
So, in all, I love fruit, I don't want to get rid of it... I just want to get rid of Scurvy...
Girls can't enjoy drinking beer? :P Sometimes I do, but usually, unless it's a German light beer, it tastes so bad that I'd usually rather have something that I can stand drinking.
It isn't a "girls drink wine" and "boys drink beer/hard alcohol" world. My friend refuses to drink wine anymore, because she's moved on to strictly vodka. (Personally, I find hard alcohol much too annoying to buy here in Washington what with the state-controlled liquor stores.)
More so, the indicator that I drink Rieslings shows that I have a more refined palette than "meat, potatoes, and beer" which seems to dominate the male diet. *laugh*
You're not one of those guys who play as a girl on online games are you?
*sigh* I've apparently found out that such guys don't exist on European servers. It's likely that Europeans being less sex-retentive than us don't provide such fundamental benefits to females that we enjoy here in America that they don't see a benefit to acting like girls to get stuff.
Here's how to tell the boys from the girls when they're both playing female characters: girls don't expect nor ask for stuff from guys. If you give us stuff after we've gotten to know each other, then hey, cool... but if you have a "girl" hounding you online to give her stuff... well, either she's a boy, or a prissy little princess that makes the rest of us look bad. So, just assume it's a guy... you won't hurt anyone that matter's feelings.
lol, funny :P
But the Supreme Court has ruled very often that not rights are not unlimited. The question on when an illegal activity becomes legal by protest is limited, and a grey area... certainly no court has given a definitive demarcation line to say "even though it's legal to protest that something is illegal, certain acts don't allow you to protest by doing that act." I think primarily of murder, theft, etc. Of course, I know that protesting that it's illegal WITHOUT doing it, is legal most certainly. "We should have the right to kill other people! Our government is taking away our liberties!"
On the other hand... what if an illegal act is done to demonstrate protest of something else... this is like the condition that protesters cannot delay an individual seeking to enter an establishment longer than X seconds. Could you protest that you can't hold someone longer than X seconds, and then actually hold them longer?
I think it comes down to, if it's a statement of protest that doesn't violate someone's rights, then it's ok... unfortunately for most people, they don't have a right to not experience offense... even if they wish they did. You can't block someone, because it violates their rights of free movement and that's a good enough reason to restrict someone's right to free speech (Jesus's law: "Don't be a dick"), but you could flash your tits to them, because "I don't want to see/hear it" is not a good enough reason to restrict someone's right to free speech. If it were, then no one would be able to profess or preach Christianity near an atheist. Fortunately, atheists are a little more sensible about hearing opposing views than the typical Christian knee-jerk reaction of "___ is bad! I don't want to experience it!"
Have you ever tried coconut rum and fresh OJ? You'll never bitch about drinking your fruits again.
Just wait until he starts bitching about his liver. :P
Why does no one look at my name? Is it just standard presumption that everyone on slashdot is a guy, even when their login is "snowgirl"?
Can we get back our Vitamin C gene again? I would love being able to eat less fruit... Scurvy sucks.
Have you ever tried coconut rum and fresh OJ? You'll never bitch about drinking your fruits again.
Sorry, I prefer my alcohol in the form of Riesling wines. I haven't suffered from Scurvy yet, so I'm apparently getting enough vitamin C, but I don't really eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, so... not so sure.
Anyways, making fruits and veggies a more optional part of our diet, since we can make our own vitamin C might have a positive impact on our quality of life. (Of course, it puts the Vitamin C Herbal Supplement people out of business, but hey, they're just the new patent medicine anyways, so...)
Hahahah, it's so funny, because reading about the history of Scurvy, people actually thought this way for awhile.
Personally, I really think it'd be awesome if we could just repair our Vitamin C gene, and generate Vitamin C ourselves again... but then we also need to fix the gene that processes uric acid, so that we don't fill up on stuff doing the job of Vitamin C... since high uric acid levels have been associated with Type II diabetes, it might just effect a reduction in diabetes in humans.
Can we get back our Vitamin C gene again? I would love being able to eat less fruit... Scurvy sucks.
Oh, and from Penn & Teller's Bullshit, apparently women can go topfree in areas that don't allow them to go topfree only if they're protesting that they can't go topfree legally.
So, only as an act of protest against it being illegal, is it ok to do what is illegal. I wonder if this would work for murder?
The issues are oddly complicated in the United States. This sort of law is definitely something that couldn't be passed Federally, and so every state has different laws. In New Mexico there is a restriction on showing the female "aerola, and/or nipple" although showing the rest of the breast is ok. In Washington, while there are specific statements regarding genitalia, there is no specific prohibition of a woman's breasts except that the definition of indecent exposure says basically "anything a reasonable person would construe as inappropriate".
"Occam's Razor" isn't "the simplest answer is usually the best" it's "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily" or in more modern language: "don't make stuff up to explain something if you don't have to."
The situation here, is that there had to exist some sort of Jesus for the Christian Jesus to be modeled from. In a way, the Christian Jesus exists just as pertinently in history as many other historical figures.
However, just like with all historical figures, the truth is obscured, extended, embraced, and sometimes extinguished. No doubt a number of ideas of any actual Jesus have been, to quote an interesting movie I saw before, "By people much more intelligent and insightful than [Jesus]".
Everything about Jesus can be explained by fanatical followers justifying their beliefs, than that Jesus is an entirely new entity in the universe.
We have true historical accuracy of an unbroken imperial line of Japan until we reach the last mortal, who is claimed to be born of a god. The best explanation for this, is not that that god exists, and create a whole new entity, but that he had mortal human parents like everyone else, came to power, revised history, and claimed his lineage from gods. This is known to have occurred in Egypt with the Pharaohs, even when we know for sure that they were born of humans.
"Bigus Dickus" most certainly didn't exist, because in Latin, "k" was only used for Greek loanwords to correspond to "Kappa", while "c" was used (hard only) for all native uses.
At best, it would have been "Bigus Dicus"
"History is written by the Winners" is a common statement used in the world. It's not exactly true though... history is written from multiple different sources.
We know that Julius Caesar existed, because historical references to him abound. Not just Roman literature, but Greek, etc. Cleopatra? Latin, Greek, and Egyptian for sure.
While the Wikipedia page for the historicity of Jesus presents a list of all of the early sources to prove his existence, Julius Caesar has so many things that you can't count them. Literally, every coin minted in his age, should they survive today attest to his existence.
Oddly as well, the lineage of the Caesars is without doubt from the abundance of language terms derived from the name for terms of power. "Kaiser" is German for "Caesar" (which was actually pronounced just like the German), and means "emperor", while Russian word "Tsar" derives from "Caesar".
We have more historical evidence dating back the Japanese emperor to the Gods than supporting Jesus as actually existing.
So, looking at your beloved Wikipedia, we have... the Bible, early Christian teachings, a bunch of works in the late 1st and early 2nd century by non-Christians, but they really just talk about Christians, rather than historical Jesus himself, and again, one Jewish text saying a guy named "Yeshu" was hung for being a witch.
Meanwhile, I don't remember his name, and can't seem to find it, but Penn and Teller point out that there was someone nearly IDENTICAL to what Jesus is claimed to be, who was actually documented by census, etc.
Recall, Jesus was said to have been born during a trip due to census... if he were born as such, then there wouldn't be a latter census that would establish his existence?
Or is there some sort of conspiracy to remove Jesus's actual records from history, unlike, you know, the other guy.
Well, I'm sure you'd be surprised that Windows Vista would compile for Itanium, it just didn't package anything.
The reason why is to check for basic errors in algorithms exposed by running them on a different architecture. There are still enough Itaniums out there in the hands of people who are willing to pay the money to continue Server 2008 support.
Interesting things to note about Windows 2003/2008 for Itanium: There is no single-cpu version of the kernel. This makes certain checks for the validity of an install disc really hard to do, because you can't just look for the kernel file, as the multi-cpu one has a different name. There are also a few odd-ball binaries that don't get sent out.
There's one and only one valid key for any particular version of Windows for Itanium. Obviously, if you can spend $3000 on your motherboard alone, they figure there's no danger of software piracy.
No, I'm advocating that recompilablity is a good thing.
Unlike you, I have seen Windows source code, and it's a mess, and it looks like crap, and the entire build process is so complicated that it takes a team of about 10-15 just to support the tools to compile it, and it is a full 8-hour shift of work to compile the source, with on-call 24-hours a day. The build tools are complicated, expansive, poorly written, poorly supported, inconsistent, and nearly opaque as to the process going on.
As stated, Microsoft could save a ton of money if they didn't have to recompile the entire Vista kernel every time just to be sure that things even compile, and link, when the only change made was say to random library #4 which few built-in apps actually use.
When I was there, I heard a speech by a Manager about how Windows XP/2003 at the time had about 100 people dedicated to "servicability" while Red Hat had like maybe 7. I really wanted to get up there and ask everyone to stand up, then tell various groups to sit down as they aren't needed in the model that Red Hat is able to use. I would start with the build group. Ten people right there out, because Red Hat can setup daily builds with scripts, and don't need an entire subteam devoted to making sure that things stop breaking, and that building processes run smoothly.