That's true of any politician that has a legitimate chance of winning a national election, because that's what it takes to win a national election.
That's a bit more cynical than I'd go for. I'd say that Reagan, Bush #1, Carter, and maybe even Bush #2 weren't nearly as manipulative as your typical politician. I agree with you about Romney, though. Reagan, particularly, basically said what he believed, but communicated it in a populist way. Which brings me to...
Do I get moved when Obama speaks? Of course I do, I'm human and I deeply care about this country. But that's manipulation.
I disagree with you here. Fundamentally, what is a President? What is his/her function? I'd say it's to provide leadership to the country, to be the focal point for the overall direction. Part of the President's job is to communicate a direction and to inspire people to change. Say what you want about Reagan or whether you agreed with a specific policy, but the man could lead and inspire.
Bottom line, we don't elect a king. A specific set of policies is not enough -- the president has to have the ability not only inspire the people, but to inspire other politicians to set aside their normal bickering to get to some destination.
I admit it's a fine line between manipulation and inspiration. I think the difference is in the motivation and sincerity. The Clintons say what they say because they want to get elected at any cost. I actually think they don't do it for evil intentions, they're thinking along your same lines: "This is what I have to do to get elected, to win the game. Once I'm there, then I can do what's 'right'." An inspiring leader tells you what they really think, and inspires you to think that maybe it's possible this politician has the right ideas.
Isn't it fairly obvious that Hillary's policies will be exactly the same as Bill Clinton's? It's not like there's a lot of leeway for unexpected surprises here.
I don't think it's obvious at all. In fact, I think Hillary will try and put a stamp on her presidency and go out of her way to try and be seen as NOT just Bill in skirts.
To value merely being alive over the freedom to make choices is to make being alive worthless. I'd rather be dead than existing solely as a breeding machine for the state.
There's no such thing as infinite freedom. Individual freedom is always a balance among the right to freedom for everyone. In other words, your freedom can't take priority over another's freedom -- the rights need to be balanced. And society must defend the rights of those who can't defend them themselves. That's why we have child support laws, for example.
For the same reason Slavery was legal 150 years ago.
Human rights are defined by humans. That's me and I say abortion stays.
Human rights are defined by humans. That's me and I say slavery stays. I pick you, and I'll use my gun and whip to back it up. I'm sure that since you are such a believer in individual rights, you won't mind if the government and police side with me and my right to keep you as a slave.
Yet you ignore the fact that any bitch that evil and crazy, I wouldn't want to be shackled to the rest of my life.
Yeah, better a child should die, than you be inconvenienced. [rolls eyes] Who cares what you want or don't want, compared to a human life? If you don't want the responsibility, then don't have kids.
A natural right in the context of human rights? I don't know what that means.
See here: Natural Rights. And you keep harping on the fact that rights aren't laws of physics. As I said, that's a truism. You seem to think this point is some subtle, powerful concept that no one else understands. Everyone understands that. It's irrelevent to the discussion at hand, which is deciding what is a natural right and what isn't.
There is no such thing as a natural/biological right to anything. The whole concept of a right is a human thing. The only reason anyone has any rights at all is because they can defend them or rely on other people to defend them.
You're stating a truism. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. The right to mother's host body is a natural right in the context of human rights.
They have a natural right to temporary ownership of the woman's body. [...] They do? Why?
Because that's how the whole system works, since the beginning of humans. The first nine months of life use a host body.
Re:We need this type of thing done in the classroo
on
Hand-Made Vacuum Tubes
·
· Score: 1
errm, sorry - was that a rebuff of some kind? Completely went over my head if it was?
I did my best -- sorry, bro. Keep workin' on it.
Re:We need this type of thing done in the classroo
on
Hand-Made Vacuum Tubes
·
· Score: 1
And what, pray tell, would be "useful" to 99% of students? I'm trying to think of something that you'd consider useful, and I'm failing.
Sheesh, I gave you one example: Art skills. But how about reading, writing, math, history, science (principles! F=MA, not things like this), geography, music, philosophy, literature, grammar... Hell, I'm not a fan of teaching computer skills, but that's more useful than teaching the workings of vacuum tubes.
Re:We need this type of thing done in the classroo
on
Hand-Made Vacuum Tubes
·
· Score: 1
God what a fucking stupid comment. [...] Ok, I know this is Slashdot and stupid comments abound, but there's a limit, really!
Those who live in glass houses...
Vacuum tubes are a perfect illustration of electronic amplification. Far simpler to grasp and observe in action than semiconductor devices. They have unique and subtle characteristics which can't be replicated by transistors. This is equivalent to slopping out pigs a hundred years ago and useless to "99% of students" ?
Apparently you missed the part where the original poster wanted this taught to every teenager as core curriculum, alongside Abe Lincoln. It's interesting to someone interested in the subject, but utterly useless mind-filler to anyone else.
Re:We need this type of thing done in the classroo
on
Hand-Made Vacuum Tubes
·
· Score: 1
This isn't really any different from learning about the Industrial Revolution.
Studying the industrial revolution is about studying the *effects* on society from it. They don't waste time teaching exactly what the first steam engine looked like, and then looking how it changed and was improved over time.
So you wouldn't of had a problem with your wife deciding to abort the day before the birth because she changed her mind? After all, it's "her fetus".
The government shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies, but the *fetus* should. They have a natural right to temporary ownership of the woman's body. But since the fetus can't tell us yet, we have to wait until it can. Should the new life decide it didn't want to be born, it can take the necessary steps at that time.
Oh, it's wonderful to see that ultrasound, but is it a person? Nunh-uh.
A newborn isn't a "person" in the sense of having sentience, either. They don't develop that until about three months. So do you support post-birth abortion in the first three months, since there is no "person" involved?
News flash: that isn't your body or your "kid". You don't like it, write your congressman. If a majority of the people want abortion outlawed, it will be. Until then, you're out of luck.
Meanwhile, back in 1865, in Atlanta: "That isn't your slave. You don't like it, write your congressman. If a majority of the people want slavery outlawed, it will be. Until then, you're out of luck. Why don't you ask your friend Lincoln to help you."
By the way, the ethics of abortion have nothing to do with religion, despite many trying to mix the two. The way the law ought to work on this is that a fetus has temporary joint ownership of the mother's body, an easement, if you will. The reason is because there's a natural right because that's how new people are created. That's how the mechanism is set up -- both entities use the same body to survive. Unfortunately, this is too scientific and rational for most people.
"Do you think those were genuine emotions on her part or was it calculated?" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK! Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate?
I'm not going to defend the TV news media (I don't watch them AT ALL, and I don't understand why anyone does), but on this particular point, of course genuine emotions matter! The sincerity and trust of the candidate is paramount to everything. What difference does it make what a candidate *says* they stand for, if you can't believe they speak with any sincerity?
The biggest knock against Hillary (and Bill) is that they'll say ANYTHING to get elected. It's all about manipulation.
I'm not that much of a fan of Ron Paul's ideas, but I believe him when he says that's what he'll do when he's in office. With Hillary, I have no idea what she'll actually do once in office. Her promises mean nothing.
Re:We need this type of thing done in the classroo
on
Hand-Made Vacuum Tubes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You can learn a hell of a lot from vacuum tubes! They are far easier to understand than transistors.
For someone studying electronics, I agree. But as a general subject? Why not teach the theory on how they used to slop pigs 100 years ago? Or the techniques for cutting hair? Or pick your esoteric piece of knowledge that is utterly useless to 99% of students.
Re:We need this type of thing done in the classroo
on
Hand-Made Vacuum Tubes
·
· Score: 1
While vacumn tubes are strictly in the realm of hobbyists and zealous audiophiles, nevertheless it is important for teens and young adults to understand where the electronics industry started from.
I'm all in favor of broad knowledge, but really, what *possible* lesson does someone learn from knowing about vacuum tubes? Talk about an esoteric subject!
There really are a limited number of hours in the classroom, and too many subjects are given short shrift as it is. My pet peeve is that schools don't teach true drawing and art skills (ANYONE can learn to draw realistically). It makes me crazy that what they call "art" in class these days is kids slapping paint on a canvas in imitation of some masterwork. It's like having the kids copy down mathematical symbols with no understanding and making it "look like" they're doing math.
But I digress. Anyone that is interested in the history of electronics will naturally seek it out. Studying the historical influence of radios is important. Studying the history of what exactly made the radio work is not.
Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?
They mostly suck (and ALL online comics that I've seen suck), but one notable exception is Brewster Rockit -- Space Guy!, which is often hilarious. Another that is very funny is In The Bleachers.
Where Apple falls down is in hardware. They lack an affordable and expandable desktop.
I'm actually wondering what percentage of that increase is due to Hackintoshes. I've been toying with the idea of building one to play around with OS/X, so I don't have to buy Apple's hardware. I bet there are a lot of them out there under the radar.
'After many millions of years of evolution, mammals, birds and reptiles have evolved some resistance to these diseases,' says Researcher George Poinar. 'But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new and invasive, and vertebrates had little or no natural or acquired immunity to them.'
Uh, exactly why would mammals have some natural resistance to these diseases such that they would survive better than the dinosaurs? Especially considering that some mammals (e.g., humans) don't have resistance to Malaria.
Curiosity makes me ask, what is this innovative part of the iPhone?
It's the first phone with a truly useful browser, that's more-or-less equivalent to a desktop browser. It's basically the idea of scaling a 1024-wide browser window and being able to stretch the part you're interested in (it also has a nifty feature where double-tapping on a frame auto-scales that frame into the window). The was actually the reason I bought the iPhone. I've been waiting a long-ass time for a very small browsing device. The fact that it has a phone is a bonus.:)
I should say, I HATE Apple the company, so I'm no fanboy. I'm predisposed to discount anything they claim as innovative, but the iPhone really is the real deal. Apple didn't invent multi-touch, but it's not like we have devices everywhere with the capability. It seems like a gimmick until you use the thing everyday, then you find out that every other device seems barbaric without it. The touch algorithms are pretty damn good, too. It seems to figure out the centroid of your finger touch region to decide where you're touching on the display. It's a subtle thing, but the accuracy of the centroid is one of the keys that make the thing work even for fat fingers. I have this little drawing program, and it's remarkable how well you can draw thin lines with your fingers.
I recommend to anyone who thinks the iPhone is just typical worthless Apple hype to borrow one from a friend and live with it for a few days. It actually replaced my laptop for casual living room browsing. I actually like it better -- it's light and easy to hold. The only thing I miss is that you can't cut and paste text for Slashdot posting.:) Of course, the fact that it's a real copy of OS/X and I can drop down to a shell anytime I want is a nice bonus (once I jailbroke it, of course).
Oh, and visual voice mail seems like a gimmick too until you use it. Then you wonder WTF you've been doing all these years drilling down into insane voicemail menus and you realize how much standard voicemail truly sucks.
Then you factor in the excellent iPod capabilities, and the truly great Google Maps integration...
And you can't imagine how much it pains me that this post sounds like a fanboy rant.:)
Unfortunately, too many people have this attitude, and it's just very naive. If poverty could be solved by mere money, it would've been solved a long time ago. The real problem is infrastructure. When money is sent, a large proportion ends up in corrupt hands. The problem of poverty is not a lack of money, it's the lack of stable political systems. Or, to put it another way, a lack of stable Capitalism.
I've never understood the appeal of beer. If FOSS started coming with beer then I'd switch back to microsoft.
I agree with you. Beer is totally disgusting. I have no idea why there is such widespread popularity. The only thing I can figure is that most people have a desensitized "bitter taste sense" and they just don't know that it tastes really bad.:)
But did they make it? Nope. And I suspect that the "Closed Source" incumbents played a role in making sure that BeOS never got to the marketplace.
Well, the reason BeOS didn't make it is for the same reason that all the operation system companies didn't make it... they think the operating system matters to people, and it doesn't. People use applications, not operating systems.
If BeOS had been smart, they would've a) put in a compatibility layer for either Windows or MacOS apps and hardware drivers, and b) gone out and paid companies to port their apps to BeOS to achieve a critical mass of applications/drivers.
But they weren't smart, as usual, so they died. I keep hoping that someday we'll have someone with a clue take Linux and spend 100 million dollars developing a Windows compatibility layer, as well as pay people to port their apps. (And no, Microsoft can't just "change the API". They can certainly break their own applications, but third parties apps are under no obligation to break themselves to not run on a new platform, and they'd have every reason to want to embrace the new platform.)
If people had a well supported, mainstream alternative to Windows with mainstream application compatability, they'd get 30% marketshare overnight. Alas, no one is coming along who is that smart (and I don't want to run the company nor raise the V.C. capital).
How many universities run supercomputing clusters based on open source operating systems, with open source clustering tools, open source compilers, open source visualization suites, and open source analytics tools?
I think that's more a function of the innovation being in the project itself, and they more-or-less need a program loader with some standard libraries. Again, no one argues that OSS isn't useful, but it's not the OSS that enhances the innovation in a university project.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true of any politician that has a legitimate chance of winning a national election, because that's what it takes to win a national election.
That's a bit more cynical than I'd go for. I'd say that Reagan, Bush #1, Carter, and maybe even Bush #2 weren't nearly as manipulative as your typical politician. I agree with you about Romney, though. Reagan, particularly, basically said what he believed, but communicated it in a populist way. Which brings me to...
Do I get moved when Obama speaks? Of course I do, I'm human and I deeply care about this country. But that's manipulation.
I disagree with you here. Fundamentally, what is a President? What is his/her function? I'd say it's to provide leadership to the country, to be the focal point for the overall direction. Part of the President's job is to communicate a direction and to inspire people to change. Say what you want about Reagan or whether you agreed with a specific policy, but the man could lead and inspire.
Bottom line, we don't elect a king. A specific set of policies is not enough -- the president has to have the ability not only inspire the people, but to inspire other politicians to set aside their normal bickering to get to some destination.
I admit it's a fine line between manipulation and inspiration. I think the difference is in the motivation and sincerity. The Clintons say what they say because they want to get elected at any cost. I actually think they don't do it for evil intentions, they're thinking along your same lines: "This is what I have to do to get elected, to win the game. Once I'm there, then I can do what's 'right'." An inspiring leader tells you what they really think, and inspires you to think that maybe it's possible this politician has the right ideas.
Isn't it fairly obvious that Hillary's policies will be exactly the same as Bill Clinton's? It's not like there's a lot of leeway for unexpected surprises here.
I don't think it's obvious at all. In fact, I think Hillary will try and put a stamp on her presidency and go out of her way to try and be seen as NOT just Bill in skirts.
To value merely being alive over the freedom to make choices is to make being alive worthless. I'd rather be dead than existing solely as a breeding machine for the state.
There's no such thing as infinite freedom. Individual freedom is always a balance among the right to freedom for everyone. In other words, your freedom can't take priority over another's freedom -- the rights need to be balanced. And society must defend the rights of those who can't defend them themselves. That's why we have child support laws, for example.
Then why is abortion legal?
For the same reason Slavery was legal 150 years ago.
Human rights are defined by humans. That's me and I say abortion stays.
Human rights are defined by humans. That's me and I say slavery stays. I pick you, and I'll use my gun and whip to back it up. I'm sure that since you are such a believer in individual rights, you won't mind if the government and police side with me and my right to keep you as a slave.
Yet you ignore the fact that any bitch that evil and crazy, I wouldn't want to be shackled to the rest of my life.
Yeah, better a child should die, than you be inconvenienced. [rolls eyes] Who cares what you want or don't want, compared to a human life? If you don't want the responsibility, then don't have kids.
A natural right in the context of human rights? I don't know what that means.
See here: Natural Rights. And you keep harping on the fact that rights aren't laws of physics. As I said, that's a truism. You seem to think this point is some subtle, powerful concept that no one else understands. Everyone understands that. It's irrelevent to the discussion at hand, which is deciding what is a natural right and what isn't.
There is no such thing as a natural/biological right to anything. The whole concept of a right is a human thing. The only reason anyone has any rights at all is because they can defend them or rely on other people to defend them.
You're stating a truism. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. The right to mother's host body is a natural right in the context of human rights.
They have a natural right to temporary ownership of the woman's body. [...] They do? Why?
Because that's how the whole system works, since the beginning of humans. The first nine months of life use a host body.
errm, sorry - was that a rebuff of some kind? Completely went over my head if it was?
I did my best -- sorry, bro. Keep workin' on it.
And what, pray tell, would be "useful" to 99% of students? I'm trying to think of something that you'd consider useful, and I'm failing.
Sheesh, I gave you one example: Art skills. But how about reading, writing, math, history, science (principles! F=MA, not things like this), geography, music, philosophy, literature, grammar... Hell, I'm not a fan of teaching computer skills, but that's more useful than teaching the workings of vacuum tubes.
God what a fucking stupid comment. [...] Ok, I know this is Slashdot and stupid comments abound, but there's a limit, really!
Those who live in glass houses...
Vacuum tubes are a perfect illustration of electronic amplification. Far simpler to grasp and observe in action than semiconductor devices. They have unique and subtle characteristics which can't be replicated by transistors. This is equivalent to slopping out pigs a hundred years ago and useless to "99% of students" ?
Apparently you missed the part where the original poster wanted this taught to every teenager as core curriculum, alongside Abe Lincoln. It's interesting to someone interested in the subject, but utterly useless mind-filler to anyone else.
This isn't really any different from learning about the Industrial Revolution.
Studying the industrial revolution is about studying the *effects* on society from it. They don't waste time teaching exactly what the first steam engine looked like, and then looking how it changed and was improved over time.
Do you get that? It's a woman's fetus.
So you wouldn't of had a problem with your wife deciding to abort the day before the birth because she changed her mind? After all, it's "her fetus".
The government shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies, but the *fetus* should. They have a natural right to temporary ownership of the woman's body. But since the fetus can't tell us yet, we have to wait until it can. Should the new life decide it didn't want to be born, it can take the necessary steps at that time.
Oh, it's wonderful to see that ultrasound, but is it a person? Nunh-uh.
A newborn isn't a "person" in the sense of having sentience, either. They don't develop that until about three months. So do you support post-birth abortion in the first three months, since there is no "person" involved?
News flash: that isn't your body or your "kid". You don't like it, write your congressman. If a majority of the people want abortion outlawed, it will be. Until then, you're out of luck.
Meanwhile, back in 1865, in Atlanta: "That isn't your slave. You don't like it, write your congressman. If a majority of the people want slavery outlawed, it will be. Until then, you're out of luck. Why don't you ask your friend Lincoln to help you."
By the way, the ethics of abortion have nothing to do with religion, despite many trying to mix the two. The way the law ought to work on this is that a fetus has temporary joint ownership of the mother's body, an easement, if you will. The reason is because there's a natural right because that's how new people are created. That's how the mechanism is set up -- both entities use the same body to survive. Unfortunately, this is too scientific and rational for most people.
"Do you think those were genuine emotions on her part or was it calculated?" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK! Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate?
I'm not going to defend the TV news media (I don't watch them AT ALL, and I don't understand why anyone does), but on this particular point, of course genuine emotions matter! The sincerity and trust of the candidate is paramount to everything. What difference does it make what a candidate *says* they stand for, if you can't believe they speak with any sincerity?
The biggest knock against Hillary (and Bill) is that they'll say ANYTHING to get elected. It's all about manipulation.
I'm not that much of a fan of Ron Paul's ideas, but I believe him when he says that's what he'll do when he's in office. With Hillary, I have no idea what she'll actually do once in office. Her promises mean nothing.
You can learn a hell of a lot from vacuum tubes! They are far easier to understand than transistors.
For someone studying electronics, I agree. But as a general subject? Why not teach the theory on how they used to slop pigs 100 years ago? Or the techniques for cutting hair? Or pick your esoteric piece of knowledge that is utterly useless to 99% of students.
While vacumn tubes are strictly in the realm of hobbyists and zealous audiophiles, nevertheless it is important for teens and young adults to understand where the electronics industry started from.
I'm all in favor of broad knowledge, but really, what *possible* lesson does someone learn from knowing about vacuum tubes? Talk about an esoteric subject!
There really are a limited number of hours in the classroom, and too many subjects are given short shrift as it is. My pet peeve is that schools don't teach true drawing and art skills (ANYONE can learn to draw realistically). It makes me crazy that what they call "art" in class these days is kids slapping paint on a canvas in imitation of some masterwork. It's like having the kids copy down mathematical symbols with no understanding and making it "look like" they're doing math.
But I digress. Anyone that is interested in the history of electronics will naturally seek it out. Studying the historical influence of radios is important. Studying the history of what exactly made the radio work is not.
Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?
They mostly suck (and ALL online comics that I've seen suck), but one notable exception is Brewster Rockit -- Space Guy!, which is often hilarious. Another that is very funny is In The Bleachers.
Where Apple falls down is in hardware. They lack an affordable and expandable desktop.
I'm actually wondering what percentage of that increase is due to Hackintoshes. I've been toying with the idea of building one to play around with OS/X, so I don't have to buy Apple's hardware. I bet there are a lot of them out there under the radar.
'After many millions of years of evolution, mammals, birds and reptiles have evolved some resistance to these diseases,' says Researcher George Poinar. 'But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new and invasive, and vertebrates had little or no natural or acquired immunity to them.'
Uh, exactly why would mammals have some natural resistance to these diseases such that they would survive better than the dinosaurs? Especially considering that some mammals (e.g., humans) don't have resistance to Malaria.
Curiosity makes me ask, what is this innovative part of the iPhone?
It's the first phone with a truly useful browser, that's more-or-less equivalent to a desktop browser. It's basically the idea of scaling a 1024-wide browser window and being able to stretch the part you're interested in (it also has a nifty feature where double-tapping on a frame auto-scales that frame into the window). The was actually the reason I bought the iPhone. I've been waiting a long-ass time for a very small browsing device. The fact that it has a phone is a bonus. :)
I should say, I HATE Apple the company, so I'm no fanboy. I'm predisposed to discount anything they claim as innovative, but the iPhone really is the real deal. Apple didn't invent multi-touch, but it's not like we have devices everywhere with the capability. It seems like a gimmick until you use the thing everyday, then you find out that every other device seems barbaric without it. The touch algorithms are pretty damn good, too. It seems to figure out the centroid of your finger touch region to decide where you're touching on the display. It's a subtle thing, but the accuracy of the centroid is one of the keys that make the thing work even for fat fingers. I have this little drawing program, and it's remarkable how well you can draw thin lines with your fingers.
I recommend to anyone who thinks the iPhone is just typical worthless Apple hype to borrow one from a friend and live with it for a few days. It actually replaced my laptop for casual living room browsing. I actually like it better -- it's light and easy to hold. The only thing I miss is that you can't cut and paste text for Slashdot posting. :) Of course, the fact that it's a real copy of OS/X and I can drop down to a shell anytime I want is a nice bonus (once I jailbroke it, of course).
Oh, and visual voice mail seems like a gimmick too until you use it. Then you wonder WTF you've been doing all these years drilling down into insane voicemail menus and you realize how much standard voicemail truly sucks.
Then you factor in the excellent iPod capabilities, and the truly great Google Maps integration...
And you can't imagine how much it pains me that this post sounds like a fanboy rant. :)
Unfortunately, too many people have this attitude, and it's just very naive. If poverty could be solved by mere money, it would've been solved a long time ago. The real problem is infrastructure. When money is sent, a large proportion ends up in corrupt hands. The problem of poverty is not a lack of money, it's the lack of stable political systems. Or, to put it another way, a lack of stable Capitalism.
I've never understood the appeal of beer. If FOSS started coming with beer then I'd switch back to microsoft.
I agree with you. Beer is totally disgusting. I have no idea why there is such widespread popularity. The only thing I can figure is that most people have a desensitized "bitter taste sense" and they just don't know that it tastes really bad. :)
But did they make it? Nope. And I suspect that the "Closed Source" incumbents played a role in making sure that BeOS never got to the marketplace.
Well, the reason BeOS didn't make it is for the same reason that all the operation system companies didn't make it... they think the operating system matters to people, and it doesn't. People use applications, not operating systems.
If BeOS had been smart, they would've a) put in a compatibility layer for either Windows or MacOS apps and hardware drivers, and b) gone out and paid companies to port their apps to BeOS to achieve a critical mass of applications/drivers.
But they weren't smart, as usual, so they died. I keep hoping that someday we'll have someone with a clue take Linux and spend 100 million dollars developing a Windows compatibility layer, as well as pay people to port their apps. (And no, Microsoft can't just "change the API". They can certainly break their own applications, but third parties apps are under no obligation to break themselves to not run on a new platform, and they'd have every reason to want to embrace the new platform.)
If people had a well supported, mainstream alternative to Windows with mainstream application compatability, they'd get 30% marketshare overnight. Alas, no one is coming along who is that smart (and I don't want to run the company nor raise the V.C. capital).
How many universities run supercomputing clusters based on open source operating systems, with open source clustering tools, open source compilers, open source visualization suites, and open source analytics tools?
I think that's more a function of the innovation being in the project itself, and they more-or-less need a program loader with some standard libraries. Again, no one argues that OSS isn't useful, but it's not the OSS that enhances the innovation in a university project.