Steve Jobs Resigns as CEO

[merjet]

WSJ article. "....I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple...."

Here is an article about his personal life.

Here is more about his sister.

Here is his commencement speech at Stanford University in 2005.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Merlin Jetton

[BaalChatzaf]

WSJ article. "....I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple...."

Here is an article about his personal life.

Here is more about his sister.

Here is his commencement speech at Stanford University in 2005.

Alas! Dead man walking.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Backlighting]

From Steve Jobs commencement speech at Stanford (2005)

"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice".

Here, here. Right out of AS.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Las Vegas

[Backlighting]

Photo taken 2 days after resignation:

http://ll-media.tmz.com/2011/08/26/0826-steve-jobs-02pcn-credit-1.jpg

[Brant Gaede]

RIP

[Jerry Biggers]

Steve Jobs - dead at 56.

Obviously, a creative innovator and extremely savvy businessman.

Perhaps not coincidentally, he was not an Objectivist (or was he?).

[BaalChatzaf]

Photo taken 2 days after resignation:

http://ll-media.tmz....cn-credit-1.jpg

Dead man walking.

He is only 56 and he clearly has little time left.

Damned shame.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

He's the John Galt who didn't go on strike.

I hate to imagine, because I can't, what 20 more years of his life would have brought the world.

But, I think we'll find out from those whom he'll inspire.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

I'm reminded of him constantly. I use an IMAC.

Thanks Steve for all your creations.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yesterday was a sad day with the passing of Steve Jobs.

Michael

[Selene]

Steve Jobs - dead at 56.

Obviously, a creative innovator and extremely savvy businessman.

Perhaps not coincidentally, he was not an Objectivist (or was he?).

We do know that he was a Buddhist. Remarkable individual. Changed the world in significant ways.

[merjet]

"Pirates Of Silicon Valley" (1999), about Steve Jobs And Bill Gates, will allegedly air on TNT today at 8 pm and 10 pm (Eastern time).

[Guyau]

Another real-life inspiration is the subject of this recent book:

Instant: The Story of Polaroid

Christopher Bonanos

[jts]

Dr. John McDougall attempts to figure out when and how Steve Jobs got cancer. According to his speculation, Steve Jobs got cancer when he was a teenager working in a computer factory where he got exposed to certain chemicals. The cancer took some decades to develop (according to speculation). Contrary to what most people believe, Dr. John McDougall thinks Steve Job's weird diet slowed down the cancer and prolonged his life, did not shorten it.

41:48

http://youtu.be/gdap4PbiwbY

[BaalChatzaf]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jts" data-cid="177032" data-time="1359066590">Dr. John McDougall attempts to figure out when and how Steve Jobs got cancer. According to his speculation, Steve Jobs got cancer when he was a teenager working in a computer factory where he got exposed to certain chemicals. The cancer took some decades to develop (according to speculation). Contrary to what most people believe, Dr. John McDougall thinks Steve Job's weird diet slowed down the cancer and prolonged his life, did not shorten it.

<p>41:48</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did others at this factory  with similar exposure  not get cancer?  If so,  how can the good Doctor assert the exposure caused Job's cancer?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And  you are correct to call the doctor's opinion on the matter speculation.  He did not do an autopsy on Jobs nor did he examine him medically when he was working at the factory.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It were better if the good doctor kept silent since he apparently had no clinical evidence on which to base his opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And what laboratory evidence do you have the Job's diet slowed down his cancer?  Can you quote a carefully constructed double blind study that supports this contention.   If you can,  please provide a reference.  If you can't,  you are exhaling warm air.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ba'al Chatzaf </p>

[Brant Gaede]

Doctors aren't generally smart generally speaking. There are exceptions. The same can be said of other specialists' professions for they are so fixated on what they are doing (for money or whatever).

--Brant

[jts]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jts" data-cid="177032" data-time="1359066590">Dr. John McDougall attempts to figure out when and how Steve Jobs got cancer. According to his speculation, Steve Jobs got cancer when he was a teenager working in a computer factory where he got exposed to certain chemicals. The cancer took some decades to develop (according to speculation). Contrary to what most people believe, Dr. John McDougall thinks Steve Job's weird diet slowed down the cancer and prolonged his life, did not shorten it.

<p>41:48</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did others at this factory  with similar exposure  not get cancer?  If so,  how can the good Doctor assert the exposure caused Job's cancer?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And  you are correct to call the doctor's opinion on the matter speculation.  He did not do an autopsy on Jobs nor did he examine him medically when he was working at the factory.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It were better if the good doctor kept silent since he apparently had no clinical evidence on which to base his opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And what laboratory evidence do you have the Job's diet slowed down his cancer?  Can you quote a carefully constructed double blind study that supports this contention.   If you can,  please provide a reference.  If you can't,  you are exhaling warm air.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ba'al Chatzaf </p>

It is ridiculously easy to search [ cadmium tumors ] and [ broccoli tumors ] and many other things on Google Scholar. If you are truly interested, you can spend a few hours finding pro-tumor things and anti-tumor things and you can find all the peer reviewed references you want. Which study do you want? There are zillions. Take your pick.

I have a little Mickey Mouse Javascript program that enables me to search a whole shitload of stuff without any typing. If I can make it useful enough to people other than me, maybe I will put it on my website. What search engines would you add to: Google Web, Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Images, Yahoo?

[BaalChatzaf]

It is ridiculously easy to search [ cadmium tumors ] and [ broccoli tumors ] and many other things on Google Scholar. If you are truly interested, you can spend a few hours finding pro-tumor things and anti-tumor things and you can find all the peer reviewed references you want. Which study do you want? There are zillions. Take your pick.

I have a little Mickey Mouse Javascript program that enables me to search a whole shitload of stuff without any typing. If I can make it useful enough to people other than me, maybe I will put it on my website. What search engines would you add to: Google Web, Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Images, Yahoo?

I am interested in a laboratory proven causal connection between these noxious things and cancer. Since some people exposed to these noxious thing do get cancer and others so exposed to not get cancer I conclude that these noxious substance are not necessary causes of the disease.

Apparently any causes of cancer are more complicated than mere exposure.

I will not read anything that is not written by a qualified clinical researcher. Amateur investigations not nailed solidly by properly designed double blind studies are vapor ware. Bupkis. Kadachis. Nada. Zilch. Horse-patties.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

I am interested in a laboratory proven causal connection between these noxious things and cancer. Since some people exposed to these noxious thing do get cancer and others so exposed to not get cancer I conclude that these noxious substance are not necessary causes of the disease.

That's not the way I see causes of cancer. Observe this scale.

On one side are pro-cancer things. On the other side are anti-cancer things.

[Selene]

I am interested in a laboratory proven causal connection between these noxious things and cancer. Since some people exposed to these noxious thing do get cancer and others so exposed to not get cancer I conclude that these noxious substance are not necessary causes of the disease.

That's not the way I see causes of cancer. Observe this scale.

On one side are pro-cancer things. On the other side are anti-cancer things.

Jerry:

Wonderful picture of a scale.

Your argumentation point is...??????

A...

[jts]

I am interested in a laboratory proven causal connection between these noxious things and cancer. Since some people exposed to these noxious thing do get cancer and others so exposed to not get cancer I conclude that these noxious substance are not necessary causes of the disease.

That's not the way I see causes of cancer. Observe this scale.

On one side are pro-cancer things. On the other side are anti-cancer things.

Jerry:

Wonderful picture of a scale.

Your argumentation point is...??????

A...

It's not argumentation. It is merely a statement of my understanding of causes of cancer and some other diseases. How can you not understand? I don't know how to say it better than I did.

Bob Kolker said:

I am interested in a laboratory proven causal connection between these noxious things and cancer. Since some people exposed to these noxious thing do get cancer and others so exposed to not get cancer I conclude that these noxious substance are not necessary causes of the disease.

N is a necessary cause of T. That means T can't happen unless N happens.

S is a sufficient cause of T. That means if S happens, T happens.

I doubt there is any such thing as a necessary cause of a tumor, at the everyday life level. Maybe there are many sufficient causes of a tumor. I suspect most likely the cause of a tumor is the total effect of a bunch of causes, none necessary and none sufficient, minus the total effect of anti-tumor things. And 'total effect' includes synergy, synergy of good things and synergy of bad things. (So the scale analogy is not quite accurate.)

[BaalChatzaf]

My error. I meant to say that these noxious things are not necessarily a cause of cancer. If they were, every one exposed to them would get the disease.

My error. My apologies.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

Zap ahead to 8:45.

I always heard that Jobs was into Eastern mysticism, this is the first Ayn Rand reference I can think of related to him.