Slashdot Mirror
Hospital Confirms Steve Jobs's Liver Transplant
CNet is reporting that the hospital where Apple's CEO reportedly got a liver transplant two months ago has now confirmed the truth of these reports. "Steve Jobs underwent his liver transplant about two months ago at Methodist University Hospital in Memphis, the hospital confirmed Tuesday. Jobs, who returned to work Apple's campus in Cupertino, Calif., on Monday after a six-month medical leave, 'is now recovering well and has an excellent prognosis,' according to a statement by Dr. James D. Eason, the program director of the Methodist University Hospital Transplant Institute. ... While Eason said the confirmation was being provided with Jobs's approval, he cited patient confidentially in saying that he could not reveal any further information on the specifics of Jobs's surgery."
third party upgrades were approved
Nullius in verba
This is the second story in a few hours we've had talking about some guy's liver transplant. It makes me feel like a voyeur. Can we get back to something wholesome and uplifting, like bashing the RIAA?
Qxe4
I wonder how much trouble Apple may get into for calling Jobs' problem a "hormone imbalance" to their investors.
A hormonal imbalance is one thing, and a liver transplant is a completely different animal.
About the same time this buddy of mine, Eugene Victor Tooms went missing.
I record my sleeptalking
Yes, but the Steve Jobs update adds new features such as cut and paste, MMS, Spotlight search and an improved calendar!
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Are you dense?
From your own quote:
While Eason said the confirmation was being provided with Jobs' approval ...
While Eason said the confirmation was being provided with Jobs' approval, he cited patient confidentiality in saying that he could not reveal any further information on the specifics of Jobs' surgery.
Read your own quote, dumbass.
was that Jobs underwent a brain enhancement procedure which enables him to sufficiently focus his mental RDF energy for use as a telepathic weapon.
Apple will house the new weapon, tentatively codenamed iDontThinkSo in an underground bunker beneath their Cupertino campus.
Because of Mr Jobs' prolific temper, executives were initially concerned about the potential for misuse the weapon presented and the possibility of its use against enemies who were not truly dire. For this reason, a killswitch was installed to be controlled remotely via Phil Schiller's iPhone.
Analysts predict the new weapon will bolster the company's share price by at least 20% and should by them enough time to complete the fully cybernetic Jobs 2.0.
Don't you just love kneejerk investors?
I bet some people with inside knowledge made some decent cash on this.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
That would be 'dumbass, Sir!' to you... And thank Bhudda for /., where people can have a good old fashioned virtual pissing contest without mods getting in the way :)
Maybe now he'll understand why it's so important to be able to install third-party parts and he'll decide to loosen-up the licensing a little bit.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
$10 says his old liver ends up on ebay.
My non-existent medical knowledge tells me there's a long wait for organ transplants. I wonder if Steve received accelerated care thanks to his status.
I'd tend to agree that this is useless voyeurism, except that there are some ethical issues that come up in transplants when the patient is very rich. The NY Times had an article about this today, and they specifically mentioned this hospital as one that had a very short average wait time of 3.8 months, compared to the national average of 12.3 months. "If you had access to a jet and had six hours to get anywhere in the country, you'd have a wide choice of programs," they quote one doctor as saying.
Find free books.
If I view the story here it's fine, but when viewing it at the 'friendly' url it spews crap all over the place. Namely those last three bars and that row of bubbles.
Come on Slashdot, if you at least fix this, I'll stop complaining about idle.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
And when he takes his shirt off you can see the backlit apple logo they installed, which also mysteriously doubled the cost of the operation.
- There is no point, it's like a sphere -
without mods? This is article about the messiah of the Apple cult. Wait till they release their mod army.
3...2...1...
Still absolutely amazed at this. Given Apple said it was a hormone imbalance... Isn't deliberately misleading investors the sort of thing the SEC takes a dim view of? Don't know my US stock market laws and all that but I can't imagine the guy who IS, to many people, Apple, being in a life threatening condition and the shareholders not being told being seen as a good thing. Yes it protected the share price, but didn't they lie?
Whatever, glad Jobs is okay. One of the few people in the tech industry I admire.
Technically, he did have an hormone imbalance. They (very carefully) didn't lie about that. But that's like saying the a burning building has stuffy air problems. Or saying a sinking ship is moving sluggishly.
Glad to see I'm not the only one getting hit with this bug. I'd give you mod points, but I used my last one earlier in the thread.
Anybody want my mod points?
Oh yeah, and Apple lied to investors and the world: the man had cancer and a failing organ, and they claimed it was a "hormone imbalance." I hope the SEC is already working on this...
A few things A) You are not entitled to know everything about Steve Jobs B) The shareholders really only need to know that someone will take the place if Jobs dies C) Steve Jobs, or any other CEO could die of any random cause at any time and D) Perhaps thats all that was confirmed at the time? And I'd say that you would probably have a hormone imbalance if you had a failing organ.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The USA has several organ-transplant centers. In theory, patients can enter their name into the waiting list of any or all centers.
Practically speaking, most patients enter their name into the waiting list of the single most accessible center. The patients then arrange to live near the center as their name approaches the top of the list. Physicians cannot just freeze a liver for a week until you can arrange a plane ticket to reach the center. Livers are perishable items.
Due to the aforementioned cost and logistical issues, patients are effectively restricted to only 1 center. However, Steve Jobs -- with his billions of dollars -- can enter his name into all the waiting lists of all the centers. He can hire a private jet service to take him to any center immediately.
Life just is not fair.
but they couldn't find his old one.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Please point me to all the other press releases where CEO announce they have health issues! The crowd say, "But Steve Jobs is more important to Apple, than other CEOs are to their companies". I say, then why are other companies paying them 10s of millions (and sometimes multiples of that) of dollars in salary then!!
Well a double-dumbass on you, sir!
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
The asshole "moved" to Tennessee to jump into a different organ transplant queue: 295 vs 1,615 people, and a wait of 48 days vs 306.
OK, I agree with your moral point that money should not buy organ transplants. I'm just as bothered about the whole system on that front and strongly support easing our organ shortage via the entire U.S. switching from an opt-in organ donation program to an opt-out one as they have in Europe.
That said, calling someone an "asshole" for doing what it took to save his own life seems too harsh in the opposite direction. Can you honestly say that if your life were on the line that you would not take whatever steps were within your financial means to stay alive? Really?
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
On that girl a while back that had 6 months to live because she was dying of cancer.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Which is worse:
* The First Poster who blows his own post away by failing to quote out of context to confuse readers into thinking he had a point
or
* The guy with mod points that mods said poster up and then posts as AC to clear said mod?
Signed,
The Second Dumbass
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Why should the SEC be interested? The stockholders are only entitled to know if, say, it is determined that he is going to die or be disabled. If he's getting treatment and it works, nothing has happened that they need to know about. If insider trading is the issue, there's only a problem if insiders use secret information, say by selling short, and then the secret gets out. But there's no evidence that any of the insiders at Apple did anything like that, is there?
Its the same thing with health care. Because there is not an infinite supply of livers, along with an infinite supply of doctors,
As far as I know, selling organs to the highest bidder is still illegal in most countries.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Some people have more money and more power and better opportunities than others, but that doesn't make it automatically unfair. Would you cry "foul" if a sitting President took the same actions as Jobs? It's not like he cheated the system (as a President probably would). Would you be angry with a friend for buying a new TV or laptop that you wanted but couldn't afford?
Practically speaking, most patients enter their name into the waiting list of the single most accessible center. The patients then arrange to live near the center as their name approaches the top of the list.
Given that all centers were equally accessible to him, he did exactly what every patient does. He is smart enough to know that a queue of 295 is significantly lower than a queue of 1615, and all other things being equal the rational choice is to go for the shortest line. If you were in Jobs's place, what would you have done differently?
What is the point of having wealth if you don't use it to your advantage? Of course it can be misused, but you're going to have to work a lot harder to argue that that is the case here.
Your brain is not a computer.
Didn't hurt the stock that much.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Which is worse:
* The First Poster who blows his own post away by failing to quote out of context to confuse readers into thinking he had a point
or
* The guy with mod points that mods said poster up and then posts as AC to clear said mod?
Signed,
The Second Dumbass
The 'Post Anonymously' checkbox did not always consider you completely apart from your login session. So it happened to me once that I replied AC in a discussion and noticed 5 modpoints spill into oblivion. Of course nothing was officially confirmed.
I remember the days working for Apple; it was fun! :)
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
You're assuming Steve told Apple and gave them permission to tell others. Regardless of SEC rules, he's under no obligation to expose his HIPAA-protected data, nor are Apple, it shareholders, or the SEC is in a position to ask. Moreover, even if someone at Apple knew of his actual condition they can't legally reveal it to others without his consent.
Pretty sure liver problems make hormone imbalances
Things will never be completely fair, but the way to make them more fair is to help everyone become more rich and powerful.
To paraphrase Bill Cosby (on "mind-expanding" drugs): But what if you're an asshole?
The same applies here:
Most people are the ones I see littering, driving like idiots, buying stupid junk, getting drunk and vomiting in my sunroof, etc.
Do I want them to be any more powerful than they are? Hell, no!
Futurist Traditionalism
Oh heaven forbid that someone actually uses the money they created to get better faster. Heaven forbid that some people are going to be able to afford things that others cannot. Its the same thing with health care. Because there is not an infinite supply of livers, along with an infinite supply of doctors, its true that some people might not be able to afford a liver transplant. Sure, its sad, but such is life.
Assuming the linked article in GP is true:
Why should someone be given preference on the basis of how much money / power they have? Such an idea is right at home in a country like China, but surely it flies in the face of the idea that "all men are created equal".
I know that in Australia / New Zealand we have a strict national transplant system which means that you can only be on the transplant list for your home state. The system is specifically designed so that "Ethnicity, gender, financial, social, celebrity or political status does not affect the allocation of organs... (and) Organs are given to the person with the greatest medical need who has the best chance of successful transplantation."
The fact is, by using the money you created to buy better drugs or treatment, you are not directly affecting anyone else. With a unique item like an organ, you are depriving someone of a chance at life.
It's a bit like the difference between 'pirating' a movie and 'pirating' a ship off the coast of somalia, in one case no-one is (directly) worse off and in the other, one party forcefully deprives the other of an item.
Anyway, I know where I'd rather get sick. :P
Hah! If Job's body wasn't a multitasking environment he obviously wouldn't have had this system crash :P :rolls eyes:
Come on already... Steve Jobs != Apple, regardless of what some poorly informed investors may have believed.
0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
Here here! I'm with you. People who do what is in their power to keep from dying suck!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
That's not exactly how it went down.
On January 5th, Jobs said that he had a hormone imbalance. On January 14th, he said that he had "learned [his] health issues are more complex than [he] originally thought".
A Whipple procedure really screws up your digestive system and almost everyone afterwards has bouts of weight loss, etc. It's altogether possible that his doctors thought that was going on until metastases were discovered between Jan 5th and Jan 14th.
It's a complicated matter, you know-- how much are stockholders entitled to know versus an executive's right to privacy in his medical information.
They need to do way instain doner> who spilt thar libres. becaise these bibers cabt fight back it was on the news this mronign a boss in memps who had bight on his liber. They ar had him company for two month and back for new liber. Only just now the talm abiyt it! Probly even deed alraidy!
Ask me about repetitive DNA
This is going to go well with Fava beans and a nice Chianti
Task Mangler
What does installing parts have to do with licensing?
The OS X EULA doesn't say anything to forbid replacing parts or upgrading. You can replace, upgrade, or swap out anything you can get your hands on inside that case. In the towers, that's usually a no-screwdriver task, too.
Maybe the stockholders should be given a file about the donor what with the potential of genetic memory influencing Jobs' decisions now. ;)
PM
Well then, I guess it's lucky for Steve Jobs that he wasn't involved in anything of the sort, and nobody with a clue is claiming that he did.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This isn't your fucking business. Steve jobs is not Apple --- I don't care how silly you money hungry jerks get to feeling when you think he might be sick --- its not your fucking business. If you think your investment actually matters based on the health of a person, its probably not a good investment. Get over it and get out of the man's personal life.
And F' to your counter arguments based around MONEY. I don't care, and any sane person that isn't self interested (said 'greedy') would recognize that the man's privacy is much more valuable than all of Apple.
Our ability to provide treatment is also finite (it's limited by the number of doctors) so getting treatment also denies someone else the ability to get it when there is a shortage (as there always seems to be). That is why many people say a single-payor system is "more fair". In reality, denying one person access to a treatment in order to provide it to another will always be seen as unfair. There's no reason to think that a nationalized system that essentially hands things out at random is more fair than a private system that provides care to those who can afford it.
:-(
I think the main reason they don't let you buy organs is that the astronomical prices it could create would encourage an illicit organ trade, which would result in poor people being killed to provide organs for wealthy people. Of course, that still exists to some extent
Steve Jobs was more productive than most of us, and he used a small part of the wealth created for himself. I'm fucking broke but I'm not angry at the guy, because I've recently taken the time to educate myself about how money works. A good place to start is Economics in One Lesson.
Health is not a commodity you can buy. By extension, medical care should not be a commodity either. I think most of the people on here are upset not because Jobs used his money to "get better faster." We are upset because you shouldn't be allowed to do so, especially not at the expense of another person.
By the way, "such is life" only in America. There are places where a person doesn't need to worry about being able to afford a liver transplant. To put it another way, a person shouldn't have to be worried whether they will live or die based on how much money is left in their savings account. It's plain wrong and -- I'd argue -- inhumane.
However, I do agree with you on points A-D later in your post
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
By your rationale everyone who receives a transplant is an asshole. I think that may be true, but I thought I'd point it out just in case.
Mods feeling a little cranky today? C'mon, that was hilarious!
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
"Plus really, considering that Apple has plans to appoint a new CEO if Jobs dies, they have done all they need to for their shareholders."
Today's Wall Street Journal made the argument that it is in fact more important to hang onto the guy that's been running the shop in Jobs' absence. Tim Cook has now run Apple twice in Jobs' stead, and has impressed both times. Jobs will inevitably retire (or die) sooner rather than later, and there seems to be no doubt that they want to keep the captain's chair for Cook. While he was never given the "interim CEO" title, the Journal notes that he's pretty much done the CEO job this past year, including negotiations with AT&T on iPhone issues. He's already on Nike's board, and again, according to the same story, Motorola and Dell both tried to snatch him a year ago. Right now, he's making a pittance compared to Jobs, and under his watch, Apple's stock has gone up 60% since January. I agree with the Journal here, and I think Apple would be wise to cough up a lot of cash to keep this guy. Pretty much everyone agrees the guy is indispensable.
WSJ: Stand-In shines at Apple
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Dear McFly:
At a given point in time it was unknown if he was going to die from the procedure. Nostradamus would probably be unable to make a case that some deception was involved, but for the rest of us there was a risk he would die, and we had no way of knowing if he would survive the procedure or not. If I undergo major surgery, and I survive that surgery, does it mean I was never at risk? If Steve Jobs is at risk, then Apple stockholders are at risk financially. You don't get to say, after the surgery, that because it was a success there was never any risk. Stockholders have a right to know the associated risk of owning or purchasing stock in the company, ergo stockholders have the right to know if there is a substantial risk that the company CEO will wake up dead in the morning.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I think the MS part of your MSN citation cites more bias than the N part. Of course, I could be wrong.
The game.
You're nothing but a troll. The Methodist Hospital's own press release states that he had no unfair advantage over anyone else, and everything was in line with official policies:
http://www.methodisthealth.org/static/methodist/doc/Jobs-media-statement.pdf
And the MSNBC article you linked to is an opinion piece, not fact. They clearly do not have all the facts, and are merely speculating.
That was low. Really, really low.
- Dan
Given Apple's history when Jobs was not at the helm it's understandable that so many people would take an interest in his health. Again, given history, it's a safe bet Apple will do well while controlled by Jobs and will do quite poorly should he remove himself. Many people are aware of the past.
Personally I'm inclined to agree with you as I don't care about Apple, I should say, I don't like Apple for many of the same reasons I don't like Sony and have issues with Microsoft. Anti-competitive, litigious, and a pain to integrate. I'm not sure where the law stands on a publicly traded company when it comes to the health of it's board members though. Of course investors can do use any means to help themselves justify their investments so while Jobs may not be legally obligated to share the information it would have been a good idea as investors were being mislead. If management is changing the board is supposed to be notified and if his condition worsened and he actually died then investors may have had a valid claim that they were mislead. Of course that didn't happen and I'm sure he'll be fine and Apple will continue on like it has.
The powerful become powerful with the power of money. If you have the strong financial status then you will do whatever you want. HPV Treatment
A apple a day, doesn't keep the doctor away.
Slashdot. News for livers. Stuff that (hardly) matters.
As someone suggested, can we pay a little less attention to the health of Mr. Jobs and get along with ol'-skool tech news? Seriously, this is probably the third piece of article devoted to the health of the latter. No disrespect to the man at all, he's a proven tech guru and visionary, and I feel sorry for his health issues.. But still, do we need to get through the same pro-Jobs vs. anti-Apple narrative each and every time?
Slashdot has turned into a bastard offspring of a medical journal, a political propaganda rag, and Web 2.0 testing ground.
Perhaps the intention is to turn Slashdot in to a technological tabloid? Sad day..
+ 3.14 Transcendental
Frankly, I find all the "me too, I agree" comments in reply to the parent rather disturbing. Is this the same Slashdot that fiercely "defends" privacy and yet when a corporation publicly states their CEO is suffering from one ailment when it later surfaces that he had a liver transplant, all hell breaks loose and we all demand truth-telling? Honestly, guys, let's be reasonable here: Even CEOs deserve privacy--particularly of medical records. Would you want all of your medical history being released just because you happened to be on the board of a large corporation?
I didn't think so.
Imagine if it were Steve Ballmer. Why, everyone would be rejoicing! Either that or everyone would label him as easily replaceable and it wasn't any of the board's business. (Which I doubt. His chair-throwing prowess is without equal.)
For those of you claiming that Apple was out-right lying, I seriously call into question whether any of you have had or know someone who has suffered from an unusual and difficult to diagnose ailment. Sometimes the symptoms are all the doctors have to go by and for all we know, perhaps it really was a hormonal imbalance! Yes, it was most probably caused by his troubled liver, but there's no silver bullet in medicine for unusual circumstances. Given Jobs' previous battle with cancer, it's certainly no stretch to imagine that his doctor may not have immediately suspected a failing liver until other symptoms began to arise. Hence, what we have received in the past is true. His liver transplant is also true. We have never as a species ever been blessed with perfect knowledge--hell, science is based on what essentially amounts to partial knowledge which is then built upon by subsequent discoveries.
I'm glad people like you aren't in charge of privacy laws in this country. This stuff is seriously none of our business--shareholders or otherwise.
(Disclosure, I'm not an Apple fanboy, and the only Apple device I have ever owned is an iPod. Nevertheless, I feel it is important to defend Jobs' right to privacy.)
He who has no
Here's the Guardian's take on the New York Times' reporting of the Wall Street Journal's story.
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
Steve Jobs is another example of how wealth buys health and an easy life.
Yeah, cause being rich kept him from getting pancreatic cancer in the first place, right?
Oh, wait.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I dunno about everyone else but when I heard "hormonal imbalance", and Steve Jobs had dropped out of sight, I figured he was in big trouble.
;) ).
e.g. cancer or AIDS or something else as serious as that.
You don't announce a hormonal imbalance that's not serious that way (he couldn't even appear in public!). Well unless he was changing gender (either voluntarily or involuntarily
So if you would sell/buy Apple stock just because Jobs is very sick, you should have done it the day they said "hormonal imbalance". But most "investors" won't do that - they'll just wait for someone to start first.
It's just like when Alan Greenspan says "irrational exuberance". He's not going to come out and say "Uh everyone, sell! Sell! Sell!". That would be irresponsible and stupid of him.
You want the sheep to move in a particular direction, but not rush off the cliff together.
well, we all have a right to everything equally... i'm not gonna get into the you have more money thing. i think jobs should sue the pants off the hospital who released this HIPAA info.
Yeah, and investors who would sell just because Jobs is really sick should have sold when they read this line:
:).
"During the past week I have learned that my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought"
What else do you need? Especially after getting that "hormonal imbalance thing" and no public appearance of Jobs.
What do they want? Jobs to tell them "Hey stupid sheep, if you're going to sell, sell NOW!"?
On the bright side, that means there's money to be made
...slashdot was a tech news service, not a tabloid. Changing profile?
-- we're here you're not
A few things A) You are not entitled to know everything about Steve Jobs B) The shareholders really only need to know that someone will take the place if Jobs dies C) Steve Jobs, or any other CEO could die of any random cause at any time and D) Perhaps thats all that was confirmed at the time? And I'd say that you would probably have a hormone imbalance if you had a failing organ. while generally true there are exceptions. people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Warren Buffet etc have there names intricately tied to the financial wellbeing of the company they run, look at how carefully MS extracted Bill Gates from the company over many years to ensure no drastic price drops. The loss of any of those people through death, retirement, getting the arse or whatever would be a major blow to the companies respective shareprices (even if they don't do anything but sit in the boardroom and smoke cigars all day). Companies are obligated to report any information or news that may significantly impact the shareprice of there company, especially something where people outside the company will be able to find it out anyway and take financial advantage of it. eg. a doctor shorting the stock when jobs operation looks like it failed.
But will he turn yellow like some of his Macbooks?
Apple recently introduced a new exclusive product, the iDonor card. While more expensive than existing cards, its stylish design and unique branding ensured there was a queue of fanbois stretching round the block at every Apple store on the planet.
Home fucking is killing prostitution.
There are assumptions in this article, the most important of which was that SJ had liver cancer, metastasized from his earlier pancreas cancer. For all we know this is not the case and SJ really had an illness that can be cured effectively with a liver transplant.
5k kidney is 5k because donor actually survives that kind of operation. So there is enough poor people that go under knife.
Check prices of non-pair organs. You know, the ones where you actually have to butcher someone to get merchandise.
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
The asshole "moved" to Tennessee to jump into a different organ transplant queue
Wouldn't you?
...6 months ago, Jobs offered Woz $3150 if he'd sell him his liver. Looks like Jobs finally got sick of waiting for Woz to "think about it".
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
On the 5th of January it was announced he had a minor hormonal imbalance, on the 14th it was announced that things had become more complex and Jobs was taking extended leave with no elaboration given.
On the 5th the diagnosis was hormonal imbalance caused by nutritional issues, between then and the 14th that diagnosis changed. Everyone with more than 2 brain cells worked that out, they just weren't told until now exactly what had changed.
confidentially? Doesn't anybody proofread this stuff or do we just accept the INS (Idiocracy News Service)?
As someone who has worked with a hospital transplant team, Steve Jobs did absolutely nothing wrong. There is nothing that stops people from doing something similar to what Jobs did - finding the best center with the shortest waiting line; in fact, people do it all the time. Sure, there are plenty of people who cannot afford to do what he did but there are many who can - I saw (and still see it) all the time.
He could pay for the procedure with cash but people who use insurance get transplants all the time. Further, because of Jobs' socioeconomic status - as a transplant team you'd want to give him an organ because he would be able to maintain it. That can be a huge factor in who gets organs and who doesn't. If someone does not have any family to help take care of them or money to hire nursing help and if that person has questionable self-health care and practices (like they are still drinking alcohol and need a liver transplant), then they probably will not get an organ. Jobs will most likely really take care of his transplant, especially because he can pay for additional help.
In no way did he con the transplant system.
If all men really are created equal, why were there still slaves in the United States for another almost 100 years after that was written?
Why should Jobs be punished and have a liver denied him just because he is rich?
What do they want? Jobs to tell them "Hey stupid sheep, if you're going to sell, sell NOW!"? On the bright side, that means there's money to be made :).
Gee, that would have been stupid: AAPL +52.78% since Jan 14th - ohh, you mean money to be made for smart people who buy.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
All your rant has nothing to do with Steve Jobs' productivity. No one ever said anyone else was less of human being because they weren't CEO of a big company.
Steve Jobs has been hugely productive in the sense that the poster mentioned, his company (that he co-founded with 1 other person if I remember correctly) has produced thousands of jobs, helped revolutionize our society into a "post industrial" society (yes that has happened mostly over the last 30 years) and has influenced that society in more than just technology.
Very few people put on a desert island alone would have much impact on society... because it takes more than one person to make a society. As for the plumbers etc, sure they're very important and no body is denying that. But to say they've had the same impact as Steve Jobs is simply short-sighted.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Poor people receive transplants all the time in the US. In fact I know of several, personally, and I'm not related to the medical field in any way. I have several friends, one of whom has a daughter with a transplanted heart (at the age of 1) and another adult with a transplanted kidney. I have a friend of a friend with a transplanted liver. These people all made less than $40K (yes I know not "poor") and the family with the daughter was literally all ready in debt nearly $100K from her previous hospital bills.
Being able to afford a liver transplant without going into debt is nice, but it has no bearing on whether or not you get the transplant. If you're next on the list to receive and you type-match then you receive. If you happen to have enough money to be on multiple lists, that's the only way you can legally use your money to your advantage in the USA's system.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Rehab is for quitters
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
In my experience (I'm a doctor), almost all cancer patients go into denial and will downplay the severity of their symptoms. Steve Jobs is a billionaire, a tech guru, and all that, but he's also a human being. Based on what's publicly known, I'd say that his pancreatic islet cell cancer spread to his liver and that his liver tumour was non-resectable, and now he's ended up with a new liver by way of getting rid of the metastases. He describes his situation as a 'hormone imbalance' because that's one of the consequences of his condition, but the underlying diagnosis is far worse than that. Bottom line is that he's a very sick man... a cancer patient with a liver transplant has a limited life expectancy, and his role is now going to be figurehead/part time inputter of ideas more than being the day-to-day boss. Richard
He went to the head of the line and in return, they will recieve millions in donations - and name a building after him too. And every doctor, specialist, and nurse who royally attended to him hand and foot will never have to buy another Apple trinket again.
The man is a cancer survivor, and got a liver transplant. Why have I read in the media and on the forums and even here on the Slashdot rather inhumane, mean-spirited and sometimes even ill-conceived suppositions as to what happens to Apple if Mr. Jobs dies. I have not read not one, NOT ONE comment that would express concern and well wishes. So even though I am not a Mac user and I could care less about Apple or NeXT or all the "i*" products, I pray for speedy and good and painless recovery for Steve Jobs and many more wonderful and happy years in life.
That is for the warranty. When the battery goes out they'll have to replace the whole thing.
In honor of Job's return, the geniuses at your local Apple store will be handing out complimentary jello shots to everyone (with purchase of a Macbook Air or other qualifying Apple product, see store for details)
Take the same generic stuff that we all already have, slap it in a trendy new case, and all of us sudden it's big news....
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Things will never be completely fair, but the way to make them more fair is to help everyone become more rich and powerful. The only way that can happen is if everyone is more productive: imagine if everyone accomplished in their life things similar to what Steve Jobs has done.
Disclaimer: I am a conservative. So I recognize the above as a variation on "the free market cures all ills" and the conservative notion that more wealth will make all of society better.
It won't.
The reason is basic economics. If everyone were rich and powerful; if everyone could create cool things like Steve Jobs does, then being a CEO would pay minimum wage. Compared to the rest of the world, America is rich on a GDP basis. However, compared to the rest of the world on a quality of life basis, America does little better than some third world countries. Consider:
I went to college. I made the grade. But so did millions of others. Every three years, the US University system grants college degrees to the equivalent of the population of Chicago. These are the people with whom I compete for jobs. Even though my father was an unskilled laborer, he had far less competition and enjoyed a far greater standard of living than I do. Yes, we're all educated now. Did our education solve the problem of limited resources? No, it just allows us a greater understanding of economics, of why, after decade of career preparation, we are now worse off than our parents' generation.
Does the rising tide lift all boats? Sure, to some degree. I can afford gadgets that would have amazed my parents' generation. But yet, for all my education - for changing careers from programming to engineering to get a better salary; in spite of doubling my net worth in the last decade - I am still struggling to afford the basic necessities of life. It means little to be able to buy that killer laptop when I can't afford to put a roof over my head. This isn't an education problem; it isn't a problem of productivity. It is a problem of economics and of corporate greed.
In the 90's, the conservative harping about the loss of morality fell on deaf ears. Who cared if couples opted not to marry and have children? Who cared if corporations became greedy? (Greed was good, right?) Now we reap the harvest we've sown: corporate greed has reduced the effective wages to poverty level, and we're now finding that the economic boom dependent on an ever increasing consumer base is unsustainable, largely in part because the necessary consumers were never born.
I find myself in the oddest of paradoxes: I can afford whatever electronic toys I wish, yet cannot afford the basic necessities of family life.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
MOD PARENT UP!!
Thanks. In my opinion, that's the most sensible discussion of Steve Jobs' illness that I've seen.
Jobs has a great sense of design. It seems to me that he has also helped create a culture of abusiveness at Apple, and that there may be a connection between his abusiveness and his illness. See the comment, Deliberately dishonest?, and the comments added beneath that comment.
It is open to debate whether that larger share is warranted.
If you think he's overpaid, then buy a share of AAPL, come to the shareholders' meeting, and propose an executive pay cut. I'll vote against it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Such an idea is right at home in a country like China, but surely it flies in the face of the idea that "all men are created equal".
I don't see the contradiction. Why should I, as an organ donor, not be able to determine who my body parts go to? What moral right does some bureaucracy have to determine what happens to my body parts? What right do you have to view my body parts as a natural resource? And if I want to sell my liver to the highest bidder after my death, why not?
And when he takes his shirt off you can see the backlit apple logo they installed, which also mysteriously doubled the cost of the operation.
haha, Steve Jobs is actually a cyborg.
He runs on OSX though so he's incapable of playing games.
More to the point, Steve Jobs could almost certainly be a plumber, and a successful one. The reverse is not true.
...Carrottop. In fact, he made it his life-long goal to make people happy.
Many clowns do that very thing too.
And let us not even go in to the realm of adult industry entertainers and workers.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Just click on "Change", underneath the story, without or with changing something, and the junk goes away.
But... What is Slashdot management thinking???
MOD PARENT UP!!
Thanks for bringing some logic into the conversation.
I did not think that third party upgrades were approved
Cut and paste operations are enabled in the newest version.
Pretty sure brain cancer gives headaches.
I am the lawn!
If it's private Apple should have said 'no comment'.
They did. Repeatedly. The press hounded them until they felt compelled to say something.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Assuming the linked article in GP is true:
Why should someone be given preference on the basis of how much money / power they have? Such an idea is right at home in a country like China, but surely it flies in the face of the idea that "all men are created equal".
They are created equally, that does not mean they live equally.
"Just a fox, a whisper."
He may not have been a great candidate for this, since the anti-rejection drugs may make it more likely he has additional cancer issues down the road.
I do suspect Jobs hasn't come to terms with his own mortality, and he has the money to try to stave off the inevitable. And that's fine - as long as he didn't end up with an organ that could have gone to someone with a better chance for a positive outcome.
I'd certainly vote Steve Jobs as the "most likely to end up as a Futurama-style Head in a Jar".
So is the idea that organs belong to the State. It should be up to the donor to decide how they want it distributed, since it's their organ.
As someone who has worked with a hospital transplant team, Steve Jobs did absolutely nothing wrong. There is nothing that stops people from doing something similar to what Jobs did
Uhh, just FYI: that doesn't make it right.
The simple fact is there *is* an ethical dilemma here. What Jobs did is a blatant example of how money directly determines one's access to the US healthcare system. If you don't see the ethical issues with that, you're blind.
Wow, I'm surprised this hasn't made the mainstream news. When did Apple open/buy a hospital?
Sent from my iPhone
I think this debate is somewhat confused.
If a poor man is starving, I do not condemn him for stealing a loaf of bread. There might be something noble about starving to death rather than stealing, but I don't expect that from anybody.
If the ship is going down, I do not condemn a man for pushing women or children out of his way so he can get a seat in the lifeboat. It would be admirable for him to wait his turn, or give up his place so a child can take it. But I don't expect that.
If a rich man needs an organ transplant, I don't blame him for working the system to get one. Some people are fortunate to live some place where the queue is short, and the rich man can join multiple queues. I don't see any particular nobility to joining only one list and possibly letting a tissue match go unused. So I certainly wouldn't expect that; in fact I'd expect the opposite. But that is beside the point.
It may be reasonable for a rich man to game the system, but that doesn't mean that the system itself is necessarily reasonable.
You say there is not an infinite supply of livers. That's a ridiculous standard. There isn't an infinite supply of anything. But there are three hundred million people in this country, so there are three hundred million livers. At some point every one of those livers is going to be given up in some way by its owner, and quite a few cases those livers will be in perfectly good order. Probably a lot more usable livers are cremated or thrown out than put into the organ donation system. It's also quite conceivable that better preventive care would preserve more livers in functioning order not so much so that they can be donated, but that the need for donations would be reduced. That would have precisely the same effect on people waiting for transplants as increasing the number of livers, not even counting the benefit of not needing to get a liver transplant in the first place.
There are lots of ways this situation could be made better, except that it's nobody's job to make this situation better. It's not that the rich benefit from this, because they don't. They just suffer less than everyone else.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
According to the hospital press release. The score depends on how ill you are and how well the available organ matches. Steve probably had the advantage he could be on more center lists than the average patients due to access to transport.
Good luck, Steve. Get well.
So since Steve Jobs was placed on a shorter waiting list does that mean everyone in front of him who was an exact same match for the liver go before him?
Maybe because he is such a public figure that we judge the actions of his wealth. I guess since there are no other stories to compare to this expedient and miraculous transplant and his wonderfull recovery that we make him a pariah of what wealth can produce?
I can say with all honesty that I am only jealous of the fact he was able to get on the list (Which we don't know how long he was on it)while a good friend of mine floundered in the system of Red tape and died before she got hers.
"He who has the gold makes the rules"
Why should someone be given preference on the basis of how much money / power they have?
What the heck is money for, if not to get you things that people with less money can't get? Perhaps you meant it solely in the context of organs, but in general the entire point of money is to be able to use it to get things that you can't without it.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
You do know that just because all men are created equal does not mean that all men stay equal. The phrase 'all men are created equal' was stated to support the abolition of nobility. You aren't someone special just because you were born into a family with money and power. But it also doesn't mean we have to stay that way. Steve Jobs has done amazing work and has become worth every bit that he is. 'All men are created equal' is not about socialism/communism.
OPTN Statement Regarding Liver Transplant Waiting Times and Allocation: http://www.unos.org/news/newsDetail.asp?id=1265 Release Date: 06/24/2009
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
helped revolutionize our society into a "post industrial" society (yes that has happened mostly over the last 30 years) and has influenced that society in more than just technology.
Post industrial? As if high tech has replaced industry.
Post industrial would be after the oil runs out (unless we wake up about Peak Oil) and we are back in the 1800s again.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
They specifically said in the article/pdf that he was not given any special treatment. The fact that in the US you can be on multiple states' transplant lists might be a little bit of a loophole that some people can get ahead with but there's no evidence that he somehow beat out some other person on a transplant list in Tennessee.
Jobs, who returned to work Apple's campus...
The Jobs-meister, working the campus!
FYI, TFA has the word "at" inserted in that sentence.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I thought you couldn't upgrade apple products; you just threw them out and bought a new one...
Steve Jobs 4G! Now with more gigs of brain and DRM!
Not to reflect on what Mr. Jobs did one way or the other, but probably population density doesn't have much to do with it (maybe a little). Tennessee has really pushed signing donor cards wherever people renew their driver's, vehicle or voter registrations. Billboards, TV ads, posters all around government offices. It seems to be working.
I wish I could say we have more healthy donors, but our alcohol abuse rate is a bit above the national average, and statewide we definitely have a problem with Meth that, I'm sure, matches any drug problems CA has. Maybe we're doing better on some industrial pollutants than CA, but all in all, the available donor/need ratio is probably a wash. it's just that more of them here have checked the little box.
Who is John Cabal?
The simple fact is that the US health system is screwed up badly. The proof can be found in how much we pay for health care as a society, and our public health numbers, compared to other similar countries. There are plenty of ethical problems there.
The other simple fact is that Jobs did what he could, within the existing rules, to keep on living. Where is the ethical dilemma there? If you're arguing that he should have restricted his options to those of somebody with less money, how much money? Lots of people die here because they can't get a transplant, lacking both money and insurance. If I need a transplant, my insurance will pay for it; if my liver fails and I get a transplant I'll be taking advantage of my ability to get a good job. Heck, I take advantage of my insurance on a regular basis, and so I'm lots better off than somebody with lower pay and no insurance. Is this a moral failing on my part?
If you're going to criticize Jobs for what he did, criticize me for taking advantage of ready access to medical professionals and limits as to how much I have to pay for medications I need. We're doing exactly the same thing, but he has more money and greater needs.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
By the way, if we allowed payment for the sale of organs, there would be a lot more of them available and a lot fewer people dying due to lack of organs!
Here is a link to the case for selling human organs.
And F' to your counter arguments based around MONEY. I don't care, and any sane person that isn't self interested (said 'greedy') would recognize that the man's privacy is much more valuable than all of Apple.
What does that even mean? Jobs should be able to run the company into the ground rather than step down or disclose his health problems? Not that that's what happened here, but this is the sort of overinflated rhetoric that prevents us from having rational discussions about these subjects. No, my privacy is not infinitely valuable, and neither is my life.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Especially when one willingly steps into the public spotlight. There's a difference between public figures such as Jobs and someone like me. I can keep these type of secrets without repurcussions because people's livelihoods are not on the line. Jobs is different, he took a public role willingly. He needs to communicate with people that he effects, everyone else he can give the shine.
For instance, if the President of the US is sick, do US citizens deserve to know? Yes of course because it effects them. Details can be vague, but he/she must at least be honest with the citizens. Downplaying the issue is most likely not a good idea. The reality comes out and then it appears dishonest. It's called the "whole truth" for a reason.
I think most of the people on here are upset not because Jobs used his money to "get better faster." We are upset because you shouldn't be allowed to do so
That's one of those things that sounds reasonable, but upon further thought really isn't. Should rich people not be allowed to see dieticians and personal trainers, or buy more expensive and healthier food? Should they not be allowed to buy cars with extra safety features or home security systems?
To put it another way, a person shouldn't have to be worried whether they will live or die based on how much money is left in their savings account. It's plain wrong and -- I'd argue -- inhumane.
The only way to make it impossible to spend money for better health outcomes is to criminalize anything beyond very basic care.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
And this is why I will never be an organ donor. I don't want to be spare parts for the wealthy.
Thank you for illustrating that envy is more destructive than greed.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
As well as Isaac Hayes and Jeff Buckley.
I think Jobs was really in Memphis to consult with Elvis Presley Enterprises on how to become even richer after ones' death - or faked death for the conspiracy theorists.
At least he didn't end up like Australia's former prime minister Malcolm Fraser when he visited Memphis.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
The other simple fact is that Jobs did what he could, within the existing rules, to keep on living. Where is the ethical dilemma there?
So ethics are defined by the established rules? Huh... so, I guess the perfectly legal behaviours that led up to the banking collapse were completely ethical?
Lots of people die here because they can't get a transplant, lacking both money and insurance.
Right. And that is the heart of the moral dilemma. Why should one's income determine whether or not one lives or dies? That's the key. Just because the existing system works that way, doesn't make it right.
Heck, I take advantage of my insurance on a regular basis, and so I'm lots better off than somebody with lower pay and no insurance. Is this a moral failing on my part?
Right. And I'm saying there's an ethical issue with that. Who says healthcare should be provided only to those over a sufficient income threshold? Is healthcare a human rights issue? If so, why should income factor in to accessibility?
If you're going to criticize Jobs for what he did, criticize me for taking advantage of ready access to medical professionals and limits as to how much I have to pay for medications I need. We're doing exactly the same thing, but he has more money and greater needs.
And I'm not criticizing Jobs. I'm criticizing a system that makes what he did possible in the first place. Similarly, I don't criticize you for gaining preferential access to the system. But I think there's an ethical issue with the fact that you *can* gain preferential access to the system based purely on your income or the people you know.
So, is what Jobs did "wrong" in the sense that it broke the rules of the system? No. But the fact that he was able to buy preferential access to the system *is* an ethical issue.
I've no clue if that's how it works, I've never gotten mod points on this site but metamoderate all the time.
You really never get mod points? That's astonishing. What is your karma level?
/...
That's one of those things that sounds reasonable, but upon further thought really isn't. Should rich people not be allowed to see dieticians and personal trainers, or buy more expensive and healthier food? Should they not be allowed to buy cars with extra safety features or home security systems?
That's not buying health. That is buying an active, healthy lifestyle. Again, there are people all over the world that outlive the healthiest-living (read: big-money spenders on health crap they don't need) Americans, without spending that kind of money. That's not the point, anyway. I guess it's impossible to understand unless you have lived in a culture where the well-being of a human being is equal whether you're a janitor or a CEO.
The only way to make it impossible to spend money for better health outcomes is to criminalize anything beyond very basic care.
That's not the only way. How about taking the profit out of health care and concentrate on actually providing health???
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
If you happen to have enough money to be on multiple lists, that's the only way you can legally use your money to your advantage in the USA's system.
That's the whole point of this conversation. You should not be allowed to have your name on more than one list. There are several problems:
1. Imagine if everyone suddenly did this. The kind of an administrative nightmare alone this would create is mind-bottling. Not to mention that it could lead to a possibility of losing donor livers because they couldn't figure out who's next because of the backlog.
2. Even if only a select few did this, they take away hope from every single person on that donor list (on which they don't belong in the first place) by pushing them down. Imagine you're the guy first on the list with only 2 months to live, and some dude randomly takes your only chance of survival. I know I would be utterly depressed at that point.
Aside all that, as I mentioned in my reply down below, taking the profit out of health care would make it much more balanced, fair, and humane.
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
How about taking the profit out of health care
Again, what does that actually mean? Should it be illegal to purchase health care outside of the national system? If not, then somebody's going to be making a profit.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
So there's nothing like "Full Disclosure" or anything to force them too? Interesting. That's why I said I didn't know how it worked and wondered if Apple had done anything wrong.
I'm actually impressed by the trollishness of your post. And you managed to fool the moderators! You are quite the master troll. Let's take a look at your post:
Just because you are jealous of someone elses assets and position in life doesn't mean your life sucks, it just means your perspective sucks and you're a whiney little bitch.
Ah, the hook. Infer jealousy and call someone names in the first paragraph. Normally, this would be a sure sign that you're a troll, but you managed to do it with such elegance that you fooled the moderators. Good job! I'd give you +2 for overgeneralization and stupid platitudes. You deftly transformed the GP's concern for his family into a matter of jealousy and whining. A good turn, perhaps not as subtle as it could have been, but good nonetheless.
No Americans life is hard...
Now this is a little disappointing. You pull out the straw man, "You wouldn't be comparing yourself to someone with real issues..." instead of going for the throat. You could have gone on for a bit longer, and perhaps suggested that the GP had never worked a day in his life, never had to suffer loss like ${FAMOUS DEAD PERSON}, never had to overcome obstacles like [Normandy|Bataan|Auschwitz|Paralysis|Blindness| etc...], but you didn't. I must admit, I'm rather disappointed, and somewhat confused that you forfeited this paragraph. So it's -1 for this bit, and perhaps you can do better later.
Your father enjoyed a better life because he had perspective, which you do not
Okay, so you're starting to recover. Again, the name calling. This is classic troll, not a lot of originality here. I must say, you started off good, and then faltered - next time, try using an implication of something undesirable, rather than an outright attack.
Try managing your money better...
Now you're really getting going here. You've deftly obscured the argument here - you've transformed an argument about economic conditions into one about money management, personal character, and managed to blame the victim, all in one paragraph. This is truly a work of art - it requires a certain ignorance of the world to get this part of a troll correct. To keep creating work like this, you're going to have to avoid anything, however slight, that suggests the world is more complicated than a set of over-generalized, good-sounding platitudes. For reducing an otherwise intellectual argument to a mundane question of the personal fitness of the poster, I grant you +5. Truly remarkable.
STOP BUYING...
Now this part is required for every troll. You suggest the solution to the problem is so simple that only a moron could have missed it. I'm personally not impressed by this; you didn't execute it well (CAPS? - what were you thinking?!), and there's nothing particularly spectacular about it. Yes, it contains the implications of incompetence, and the inevitable name calling, but is otherwise lackluster in execution. Experienced trolls would scoff as such a poorly executed invective. -1, bad form.
The problem here is you, sorry.
Gah! What was that?! You had such a good troll going, and then you blew it! There's no subtlety here. It's plain as day you're just trolling. Seriously, spend some time with the masters. Learn the Apple troll. No, wait - that's too advanced for you. Go with the Steven King is Dead troll, and start from there. Be patient. Let the feelings flow. But - learn self control; learn subtlety. S-U-B-T-L-E-T-Y. -10, giving up without a fight. You're 13 down by now.
You finally grew up and had to start dealing with responsibility...
And the recovery is slow, and painful. At this point, your best bet is to convince the reader that you are really sincere. You go on like this for a few more paragraphs, a few more straw men, a few more conflations. After this point, you're about even. And then:
The fact that urban America has transitio
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I'm not claiming ye did, merely replying to gp.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
I pay about a dollar to go to the doctor. Any doctor of my choice. Emergency procedures are covered at 100%, and our doctors are damned good. With my third-party private insurance that covers extras not covered by government insurance, I also get 100% free dental and eye coverage. I can get a free pair of eyeglasses every single year (so long as I have a prescription for them, and getting that prescription is free).
What is this non-mythical first-world country I live in?! Why, it's France!
Sure, life isn't fair. But sitting there barking "life isn't fair! get over it!" is pretty damned lazy when it IS possible to do something to help make it more fair. No one decides "oh hey, I think I'd like to get breast cancer today" or "damn! I'm so happy that guy ran a red light and turned me into a quadraplegic!" So why the hell should their lives be ruined, when all it takes is everyone pooling a bit of money? For eff's sake, I only pay 80 euros a month towards national health care and 20 a month for the private insurance. One hundred euros a month. That's it. And I get to choose my doctors, my hospitals, my laboratories, everything.
As for the inevitable cries of "omg socialism!!" Americans (I am one, so don't anyone take it the wrong way) seriously need to grow up and realize that in the case of European democracies, they are, um, you know, DEMOCRACIES. As in the people voted for governments that set up these programs, and continue to vote for them.
...Michael Dell was found today at a Memphis hotel in a bathtub full of ice with strange incisions on his body.
Wow. The /. literal-interpretation brigade is almost never this bad.
>If we were all just as productive ... We might have green coal plants
I don't know about you, but I was kind of expecting the fusion guys in the 1980s to have developed
workable fusion power plants by now.
I guess 'Back to the Future' wasn't inspirational enough.
>>You like OS X and Cocoa?
>>That was the kind of platform that Xerox PARC had developed in the 1970's,
>>only what PARC had was even easier to develop for and better integrated.
>Troll please. I'm not even reading the rest of this comment.
That's a shame, because the new generations keep repeating the mistakes of the old. If re-use was really happening, how many versions of Unix would we need?
As Santyana said: "'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
He's worked hard and he's added a lot to society. If we tried to cut him down so things were more fair, then it would be a loss to all of us.
Yeah, but all I want is to be able to replace the battery in my iPod myself.
It's not liking am asking to do my own liver surgery....
I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me here.
I completely agree that there are moral problems with the US health care industry, along with a whole host of others.
What I am saying is that, despite that, I have no quarrel whatsoever with Jobs for using the system as it was meant to be used. If there's no moral reason why Jobs should get the liver rather than somebody with low income, there's equally no moral reason why Jobs should not have gotten the liver. He went through the system honestly.
Life isn't perfect. Sometimes a system has serious moral issues, but can't be reformed in a useful timespan (in Job's case, before he died from not getting a liver transplant). In that case, I find it hard to fault somebody for using the system honestly (and, in response to your question about the financial system, that was not used honestly).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes