How Alternative Medicine (probably) Killed Steve Jobs

October 9th, 2011
submit to reddit Share

It’s often argued that alternative medicine is safe because most of the remedies considered to be “alternative” are in and of themselves harmless. This is certainly true of things like homeopathy, which, if prepared properly, contains absolutely nothing other than the solvent the preparation was based on, which is usually water. However, it does kill by another means: it displaces real, useful and scientifically valid medicine and leads to people harboring the belief that something will cure them when it won’t, directing them down the wrong road for treatment. It does not need to completely stop someone from getting real treatment to kill; just delaying real treatment can be enough.

Such would appear to be the case with Steve Jobs. I do not mean to make light of his death. While I do think his legacy has become extremely inflated, especially in light of his death, he was, by all accounts a nice guy and certainly a good manager. He was a great motivator, he had a pretty good sense of industrial design and he helped provide direction for Apple in the mid to late 1990′s when the company was faltering.

Without diminishing the grief his family and friends are surely feeling, we can still look at this death as an example of why alternative medicine is dangerous. Hopefully it can even save lives.

In 2003, Steve Jobs was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer happens to be one of the most deadly forms of cancer, because it tends to be asymptomatic until it reaches very late stages of development. By the time most pancreatic cancers are discovered, the prognosis is very very poor. Once the cancer has metastasize, it becomes very difficult to treat. Pancreatic cancer is often aggressive and will quickly invade the liver and other organs. Once this happens, simply removing the tumor does little to stop the spread of the cancer and even the most aggressive treatment with chemotherapy and radiation only results in a long term survival rate of a few percent.

Steve Jobs, however, was lucky. His form of cancer was slower in progression and less aggressive than most forms of pancreatic cancer. Even more importantly, it was caught relatively early on in the progression of the disease. The cancer was discovered entirely by chance. Steve Jobs had a history of gastric problems and therefore had been receiving periodic abdominal scans. In October 2003, doctors noticed a growth that was confirmed to be pancreatic cancer.

It’s impossible to know with absolute certainty whether the cancer had begun to spread when it was detected, but based on the early stage it was in and the type of cancer, it probably had not. With any form of cancer, delaying treatment can be deadly, but with a form of cancer like pancreatic cancer, it’s all the more vital. As long as the cancer is confined to the pancreas, it can be operated on and the survival rates are very good. Yet the longer the cancer remains, the greater the odds that it has begun to spread to other organs. In 2003, the time bomb had probably not yet gone off, but it was definitely ticking.

Steve Jobs’ doctors recommended an immediate Pancreaticoduodenectomy, also known as a “Whipple Procedure”. The procedure would have removed a large portion of the pancreas, including the entire tumor along with some of the other structures around the pancreas, such as the duodenum and possibly part of the stomach. Overall, for a person in Steve Job’s stage of the disease in 2003, the prognosis for completely overcoming cancer is excellent for the procedure.

The procedure is fairly drastic, and while most who undergo it successfully are able to lead relatively normal lives, it can include complications like digestive issues and an elevated risk for diabetes. The fact of the matter is that the cancer was not going anywhere and was only going to get worse unless it was operated on. Doctors urged Jobs to have the procedure immediately, but he was understandably apprehensive. Jobs instead perused a course of so-called “alternative” treatments. While these treatments may have been a lot less invasive than major surgery, there’s absolutely no evidence that they actually work.

By some reports, Jobs was “skeptical of mainstream medicine.” His preferred course of treatment was a special diet and various supplements prescribed by a naturopathic practitioner. There was concern by some of Jobs friends as well as board members at Apple, but Jobs stuck with the special diet and herbal remedies for more than nine months.

Unfortunately, scans showed that the tumor was growing at an alarming rate, with the herbal and dietary measures having no apparent effect on the progression of the disease. Finally at the end of July 2004, Jobs had the procedure to remove the cancerous tissue from his pancreas.

It’s not entirely clear from published reports exactly how far the cancer may have progressed, but what is known is that the procedure that was preformed on Jobs did not simply remove the part of the pancreas. Instead, doctors had to remove much the pancreas, gal bladder, bile duct and parts of the stomach and intestines. It therefore appears that by the time the procedure was preformed the cancer had begun to spread at least to the organs closest to the original tumor. None the less, Jobs and his doctors were hopeful that they had gotten every trace of the cancer, although this is impossible to be certain of.

After recuperating from his operation, Jobs began to resume his role at Apple and appeared to be in reasonably good health. However, over the following months and years, he would show additional signs of troubled health. In 2006, Jobs provided the keynote speech at a major apple event. Many observers were surprised by his appearance, which was described as thin, listless and unhealthy. By 2008, his health had apparently deteriorated further, resulting in Jobs taking medical leave for several months.

It was later revealed that Jobs had received a liver transplant. The exact reason for the transplant has not been made public, but it is overwhelmingly likely that it is because the cancer had returned and spread to the liver. In most cases, the standard course of treatment for such liver tumors would be to surgically remove only the parts of the liver where the tumors are located. However, it seems that the cancer was too far progressed for anything less than complete liver transplantation. Such surgery can cure the type of cancer Jobs had, provided it has not spread beyond the liver, but cancer does often return, often within about two years. A liver transplant tends to be the last resort for such situations. Not only is it very major surgery, but it also involves the use of powerful immunosuppressive drugs, which introduce their own risks and reduce the ability of the body to fight both infections and cancer.

In the end, it seems the cancer returned again. Jobs began to show signs of illness again this year, resulting in his taking medical leave in January and finally stepping down last month. His death, though sooner than most had expected, is not shocking given his deteriorating health.

We’ll never be able to know for sure whether it was those nine months of inaction that killed him, but the time lost took him from having an excellent prognosis to having only a mediocre one. If you are lucky enough to catch cancer early, do not squander your opportunity to treat it early. Do what your doctor tells you gives you the best chance of survival, not what some naturepath or yogi tells you will work.


This entry was posted on Sunday, October 9th, 2011 at 6:47 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Misc, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



65 Responses to “How Alternative Medicine (probably) Killed Steve Jobs”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    Stupid is as stupid does; an intelligent person who does stupid things is still stupid. As well I too think that the smoke rising from Job’s altar is a bit much – a monkey could have done better leading Apple than John Sculley.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    drbuzz0 Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Stupid is as stupid does; an intelligent person who does stupid things is still stupid. As well I too think that the smoke rising from Job’s altar is a bit much – a monkey could have done better leading Apple than John Sculley.

    I’ve been considering a post about his inflated legacy, but when I even mention it, people get extremely angry.

    Steve Jobs did a reasonably good job as a corporate leader. He was a good pep-talker and an excellent product spokesperson (although that might be just because he had an inflated reputation). He was an okay CEO and people liked his managing style.

    He has been called a visionary, the greatest inventor of all time, the man who built the tech sector etc. He’s been credited with the invention of the MP3 player, the smart phone and the personal computer.

    Bull****. He was an okay guy by most accounts, but that’s bull****.

    He never invented anything. He had an okay eye for product designs, but never actually made any. Steve Wozniac was the technical brains that built the Apple I, Apple II and Apple Lisa and who headed up the development of the Mac.

    What Jobs had going for him is that he knew Steve Wozniac.

    Steve Jobs was a fairly good CEO at Apple. I don’t see him doing anything stellar, but he was not bad.

    He had little to do with the iPod. He didnt design it. It wasn’t even the first mp3 player. He may have approved the project to develop it, but that’s it. Actually, it seems he may have nearly missed the boat on that, because early on, Apple’s corporate leadership thought the iPod only had a market as an iMac accessory. They took years to come up with a version that worked with PC’s, because they seemed to have been totally unaware it had mass market potential beyond the iMac owners.

    He had nothing to do with OSX. That seems to have come from the internal programing department, which, by the late 1990′s had come to realize their operating system really sucked.

    He did not invent the iPhone, which was an outgrowth of the iPod and the realization that smartphones were going to take over media. Actually, the iPhone was not really that revolutionary. Sure, it did well. The design is okay and it had a builtin following because of all the iPod fans. But the iPhone was not the first of its kind by a long shot. It benefited from the fact that most established competitors had goofed badly. Blackberry was too slow to embrace the consumer and entertainment markets, Windows Mobile just sucks and Palm had a totally awesome phone platform until they completely dropped the ball on development and design and stalled their new OS by a few years. (I used to love my Treo, which did the stuff the iPhone does years earlier, but Palm really missmanaged that into the ground)

    He certainly didn’t invent the iPad and seems to have had almost no role in its design or creation.

    He ran NEXT into the ground by making some unreasonable decisions onto the hardware of the time and not focusing enough on technical development. Also, at NEXT, like at Apple, he seems to have been completely unaware of the importance of sticking to industry standard comparability to actually get into the business world.

    But like I said, he wasn’t bad as a CEO, he was a good spokesperson and seemed to have gotten a good sense of marketing (not early on, but later in life he figured it out). So he was better than mediocre in those respects. Still, nothing really stellar.


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    JP Says:

    >>>> While I do think his legacy has become extremely inflated, especially in light of his death, he was, by all accounts a nice guy and certainly a good manager. He was a great motivator, he had a pretty good sense of industrial design and he helped provide direction for Apple in the mid to late 1990’s when the company was faltering. <<<

    If you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know how wrong this is. Jobs was absolutely not "by all accounts a nice guy and certainly a good manager." This is worse than backwards. He was well-known for not being a nice guy – but a phenomenal manager.

    "Pretty good" sense of industrial design? Is this parody?

    He "helped provide" direction for Apple in the mid to late 1990’s? Again- parody?

    I agree that it was stupid for him to go for the alternative treatment (otherwise I probably wouldn't be one of your readers). But if you're going to criticize Jobs at this juncture, you need to know what you're talking about.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    JP Says:

    >>> He had nothing to do with OSX. That seems to have come from the internal programing department, which, by the late 1990’s had come to realize their operating system really sucked.<<<

    This is pure invention. In fact, OS X came out of NextStep- from Jobs' previous corporation. Next's software architects were put in charge of OS X- primarily Next's Avie Tevanian. Try Wikipedia- you might learn something.

    I could go on. You have no idea what you're talking about, and this throws all of depleted cranium into doubt, as far as I'm concerned. Unbelievable.


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    drbuzz0 Says:

            JP said:

    This is pure invention. In fact, OS X came out of NextStep- from Jobs' previous corporation. Next's software architects were put in charge of OS X- primarily Next's Avie Tevanian. Try Wikipedia- you might learn something.

    I could go on. You have no idea what you're talking about, and this throws all of depleted cranium into doubt, as far as I'm concerned. Unbelievable.

    NextStep was part of the foundation of what went into OSX, although it was very very heavily modified and actually turned out to be completely removed from the kernel (apple in the end decided to use BSD as the basis for the kernel)

    Jobs founded Next in 1985 using the money he made at Apple. The company never did that well. They did create some okay products, but that was more because of the people they hired than Jobs.

    Apple bought out Next in 1996. It had been really faltering. It seems Jobs may have had enough friends back at Apple to work that one out.

    It worked out okay for Apple. They knew their OS sucked and needed to get a start for their new OS, which is where Next came in, despite the fact that they rejected the kernel in the end.

    But regardless, Steve Jobs didn’t actually build the NextStep OS. He hired people who did. That’s about it.

    Look, Steve Jobs was never a technical guy. He didn’t actually do any of that stuff. He had very limited experience in programing and computer engineering.

    There are people who worked at both Next and Apple who are higher ups and did have a hand in the design of these products: Bud Tribble is a good example. Rich Page is another, and of course Steve Wozniac.


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    What Jobs had going for him is that he knew Steve Wozniac.

    What he also had going for him that helped in his beatification is he wasn’t Bill Gates.


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    Anon Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I’ve been considering a post about his inflated legacy, but when I even mention it, people get extremely angry.

    Macintosh does seem to be something of a religion for a lot of people (OK, all three mac users on the planet).

            drbuzz0 said:

    He was an okay guy by most accounts, but that’s bull****.

    He had a reputation for having a rather bad temper.

            drbuzz0 said:

    He never invented anything. He had an okay eye for product designs, but never actually made any.

    Steve Wozniac was the technical brains that built the Apple I, Apple II and Apple Lisa and who headed up the development of the Mac.

    Woz would’ve been quite happy for every computer to just be a circuit board in a wooden case, Jobs was the one who insisted on the Apple II being made in a plastic case and designed to actually look like something a normal person would want.

    Whilst Steve Wozniac was a brilliant engineer (his name has to go in on any list of best engineers) Jobs was competent at engineering but could combine that engineering judgement with marketing.

            drbuzz0 said:

    What Jobs had going for him is that he knew Steve Wozniac.

    Whilst there never would have been an Apple II (the IIe BTW was the last decent computer Apple made) without Woz there also never would’ve been an Apple II without Steve Jobs (or at least if there were it would’ve been a circuit board in a home-made wooden box).

            drbuzz0 said:

    He had nothing to do with OSX. That seems to have come from the internal programing department, which, by the late 1990′s had come to realize their operating system really sucked.

    Actually it came from Next which Apple bought (and which was founded by Steve Jobs).

            drbuzz0 said:

    Also, at NEXT, like at Apple, he seems to have been completely unaware of the importance of sticking to industry standard comparability to actually get into the business world.

    NextStep was based on Unix and did seem to have some compatibility (not sure how much but I’d be surprised if it were much worse than the other proprietary Unix vendors).

            drbuzz0 said:

    NextStep was part of the foundation of what went into OSX, although it was very very heavily modified and actually turned out to be completely removed from the kernel (apple in the end decided to use BSD as the basis for the kernel)

    The NextStep kernel was a bit outdated so replacing it with the one from FreeBSD was probably better than trying to update it (though much of the rest of the NextStep OS and APIs still survives in Mock OS X (along with the kind of compatible GnuStep)).

            drbuzz0 said:

    The company never did that well. They did create some okay products, but that was more because of the people they hired than Jobs.

    Jobs managed to get a lot of very good people from Apple who actually wanted to work on new things.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Apple bought out Next in 1996. It had been really faltering. It seems Jobs may have had enough friends back at Apple to work that one out.

    Be (founded by a former Apple exec) were also in the running (though Apple really looked far and wide for a new OS, even considering WinNT (though probably only as a formality)).

            drbuzz0 said:

    It worked out okay for Apple. They knew their OS sucked and needed to get a start for their new OS, which is where Next came in, despite the fact that they rejected the kernel in the end.

    The kernel is only a relatively small part of an OS and Apple didn’t have much success at developing a Mock OS replacement (they should never have cancelled A/UX).

            DV82XL said:

    What he also had going for him that helped in his beatification is he wasn’t Bill Gates.

    That probably helped him a lot.


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    Depleted Cranium » Blog Archive » How Alternative Medicine … | Treatment Cancer Symptoms Says:

    [...] under Bad Science, Misc, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. [...]


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Anon said:

    Woz would’ve been quite happy for every computer to just be a circuit board in a wooden case, Jobs was the one who insisted on the Apple II being made in a plastic case and designed to actually look like something a normal person would want.

    Whilst Steve Wozniac was a brilliant engineer (his name has to go in on any list of best engineers) Jobs was competent at engineering but could combine that engineering judgement with marketing.

    Yeah, I suppose, but that was hardly a brilliant move. I’m pretty sure if I had been the one who was hanging with him I would have said “You know, Woz, if you actually want people to buy this you’re going to have to enclose the circuit board in a case. I think something like metal or plastic would be easier to actually make in quantity than wood”

    I mean, really, if his big contribution was realizing that the thing would do better in a reasonable looking case, that hardly qualifies as genius.

            Anon said:

    NextStep was based on Unix and did seem to have some compatibility (not sure how much but I’d be surprised if it were much worse than the other proprietary Unix vendors).

    The NextStep kernel was a bit outdated so replacing it with the one from FreeBSD was probably better than trying to update it (though much of the rest of the NextStep OS and APIs still survives in Mock OS X (along with the kind of compatible GnuStep)).

    Be (founded by a former Apple exec) were also in the running (though Apple really looked far and wide for a new OS, even considering WinNT (though probably only as a formality)).

    The kernel is only a relatively small part of an OS and Apple didn’t have much success at developing a Mock OS replacement (they should never have cancelled A/UX).

    Point taken. I remember OS9, really not much to be proud of as far as operating systems go. They had been lagging on that end for a while and seemed to know it. I think it was a foregone conclusion before Jobs even came back to Apple that they needed a full rebuild and Unix was the obvious choice for the start (although it would have been very interesting if they went with Be or even something like Amiga OS)

    Yeah, they did get a lot from Next that went into the OS. It ended up being based on Darwin, which is Unix version that is an extension of BSD, but a lot of the other workings did come from Next. Jobs did found Next, which does count for something.

    I mean, he had achievements. He did some things that were important. I just don’t think any of this actually lives up to some of the crap being said about him. “The greatest innovator since Edison” has been thrown around a bit. Another one is “The man who taught us how computers and humans could co-exist.” I heard one pundant call him “The greatest genius of our time.” A politician said his loss was “A terrible tragedy for our country”

    I mean… really?

    Actually, what really takes the cake has to be one of my Facebook friends who said nobody in the world had a greater influence on his life than Steve Jobs. (he never knew Steve Jobs personally btw) I should probably add that this guy was married. I’m sure his wife is really happy to hear that the guy who headed the company that made the guy’s cell phone is more important to his life than she is.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    Gordon Says:

    Even if he had single-handedly created Apple, the mac and ipod and iphone, that would hardly qualify him as being the greatest genius of our time.

    Does nobody notice that the Apple II never even gained widespread use except for education and a few isolated uses and the Mac is still seen mostly in graphic and video applications?

    I’ve worked in settings with personal computers since the early 1980′s and never had an apple in any office.

    They never had a big market share.

    Was the Apple II truly the first desktop PC for that matter? As I recall, there were a number of them that came out around that time. Tandy made some early on. I know there were desktop computers even before that but it was not targeted at personal use.


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    Engineering Edgar Says:

            Gordon said:

    Was the Apple II truly the first desktop PC for that matter?

    As I recall, there were a number of them that came out around that time. Tandy made some early on. I know there were desktop computers even before that but it was not targeted at personal use.

    Tough call. They had some before that but the Apple II is sometimes cited as the first one that got it all right in a PC we would recognize. However, Commodore had one come out earlier in the year than Apple called the PET and yeah, Tandy (Radio Shack) had some real early ones too, possibly predating the Apple ][ You could easily say Commodore was as much an inventor as Apple.

    There was a real computer with a CRT that did basic stuff all the way back in like 1974 though, but it was hyper expensive.

    I think the time was ripe for it. If apple didn’t do it, others would anway because they were independently developed.

    I used Apples when I was in grade school. They were really versatile machines for their time.

    Steve Jobs did have a good vision of where to take the company.

    I think “Greatest Genius of Our Time” is pretty ridiculous, just the same.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    Engineering Edgar Says:

    IMHO, the earliest mass produced computer you could really call a PC by today’s definition:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_2200


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    DV82XL Says:

            Engineering Edgar said:

    IMHO, the earliest mass produced computer you could really call a PC by today’s definition……

    Please – let us not go spiraling the thread into THAT particular vortex.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Anon Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Yeah, I suppose, but that was hardly a brilliant move.

    I’m pretty sure if I had been the one who was hanging with him I would have said “You know, Woz, if you actually want people to buy this you’re going to have to enclose the circuit board in a case.

    I think something like metal or plastic would be easier to actually make in quantity than wood”

    I mean, really, if his big contribution was realizing that the thing would do better in a reasonable looking case, that hardly qualifies as genius.

    Apple did end up being the first really big microcomputer company and the idea of selling them to normal people very likely had a pretty big part in that.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Point taken.

    I remember OS9, really not much to be proud of as far as operating systems go. They had been lagging on that end for a while and seemed to know it.

    Yeah, even Windows 9x whilst crap even by Microsoft standards was more advanced and Microsoft had planned on replacing it with NT 5 (they ended up not being quite ready and waited until NT 5.1 before killing 9x but were still in a much better position than Apple).

            drbuzz0 said:

    I think it was a foregone conclusion before Jobs even came back to Apple that they needed a full rebuild and Unix was the obvious choice for the start (although it would have been very interesting if they went with Be or even something like Amiga OS)

    Not sure if the Amiga OS would’ve been useful if they could get it (though better than classic Mock OS).

            drbuzz0 said:

    Actually, what really takes the cake has to be one of my Facebook friends who said nobody in the world had a greater influence on his life than Steve Jobs. (he never knew Steve Jobs personally btw)

    I should probably add that this guy was married.

    I’m sure his wife is really happy to hear that the guy who headed the company that made the guy’s cell phone is more important to his life than she is.

    I’m sure.

            Gordon said:

    Even if he had single-handedly created Apple, the mac and ipod and iphone, that would hardly qualify him as being the greatest genius of our time.

    Does nobody notice that the Apple II never even gained widespread use except for education and a few isolated uses and the Mac is still seen mostly in graphic and video applications?

    The Apple II was the standard business computer (with S-100 bus CP/M systems also used a lot) before the IBM PC.

            Gordon said:

    I’ve worked in settings with personal computers since the early 1980′s and never had an apple in any office.

    The early 80s was when the IBM PC took over the role of standard business computer from the Apple II.

            Gordon said:

    They never had a big market share.

    The Apple II claim closest to dominating the 8 bit era.

            Gordon said:

    Was the Apple II truly the first desktop PC for that matter?

    No, but it was one of the first and the first to sell in really big numbers (having Visicalc be developed on the Apple II also helped there).

            Gordon said:

    As I recall, there were a number of them that came out around that time. Tandy made some early on. I know there were desktop computers even before that but it was not targeted at personal use.

    Tandy’s were somewhat later.

            DV82XL said:

            Engineering Edgar said:

    IMHO, the earliest mass produced computer you could really call a PC by today’s definition:

    Please – let us not go spiraling the thread into THAT particular vortex.

    Well now that you mention it what we mean by PC is 8088 compatibility and an XT bus so that would make the first PC the IBM PC.

    :-P


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    JP Says:

    I have no problem with skeptical views of Jobs or Apple per se – if they’re based in fact and argued well. You’ve had real problems on both counts. I’ve lost confidence in Depleted Cranium, and am unsubscribing.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    Engineering Edgar Says:

            JP said:

    I have no problem with skeptical views of Jobs or Apple per se – if they’re based in fact and argued well. You’ve had real problems on both counts. I’ve lost confidence in Depleted Cranium, and am unsubscribing.

    What do you have a problem with? I don’t think he made much effort to argue it to any extent. I mean, it’s not even the topic of the posting. It’s just one of those things that came up, and so I don’t know you can hold it to the same standards if it’s a thing mentioned in passing.

    I more or less agree. I would not sell Steve Jobs short as having a good vision of what user interface is about, but he was not some kind of super genius who invented the computing world as we know it. I think he was a good leader and maybe Buzz sells him short a little on how well he was able to organize people at places like Next to get a good thing going, but it still wasn’t like a big innovation, because even if he was single handedly responsible for OSX, it’s not like OSX is that revolutionary anyway.

    I don’t want to put him down, he sure did more than me in his life, but he sure did less than Henry Ford or Gandhi or Einstein or any of the others people seem to be comparing him to recently.

            Anon said:

    Apple did end up being the first really big microcomputer company and the idea of selling them to normal people very likely had a pretty big part in that.

    Sure, but was that really a genius idea or is it the kind of idea that would have pretty much happened on its own anyway? At the time, video games like Atari were coming on the scene and computers were being used in more and more offices and the idea of computer terminals for the home was floated.

    Wasn’t it just a matter of time before one of the microcomputer companies made the leap to home and small office usage? It was also a big expense thing and the cost was coming down with or without Apple. Like the Wang computers, for example, it wasn’t so much that they didn’t want to have average people buy them so much as it was just too expensive.

    Any technology you always get geeks as early adopters anyway. There were home microcomputers that were targeted at geeks, like the kit ones like the Altair, but that’s how anything starts.

            Anon said:

    The Apple II was the standard business computer (with S-100 bus CP/M systems also used a lot) before the IBM PC.

    The early 80s was when the IBM PC took over the role of standard business computer from the Apple II.

    The Apple II claim closest to dominating the 8 bit era.

    No, but it was one of the first and the first to sell in really big numbers (having Visicalc be developed on the Apple II also helped there).

    Wouldn’t it simply mean that if not for Apple, some other company would have dominated the 8-bit era? As I remember, Commodore had very respectable sales that were almost as good and Atari sold a lot of computers too, with mostly targeting at consumers. Plus you have Tandy and then IBM by 1981, with the IBM becoming the standard in the business world very quickly and then having amazing staying power.

            DV82XL said:

    Please – let us not go spiraling the thread into THAT particular vortex.

    Why not?

    I think it’s a good question. To me, I think for a personal computer to be used in the way we think, it needs a CRT or some other screen, because if you only use a printer for output then it isn’t going to be able to manipulate text and do even basic graphic stuff.

    I think the Wang 2200 comes closest to having everything in a single-user desktop system. That’s in 1973.

    The Datapoint 2200 came out in 1970 and also could be considered the first one. I’m split between the Datapoint 2200 and Wang 2200.

    Then in 1975, there was the IBM 5100, which is a bit oddball, because it basically as a PC, but IBM seems to not have marketed it as that because they thought it was more of a portable low-power computer for special applications.

    Then 1977 there was the Commodore PET, which was definitely a personal computer. That was the same year as the Apple II, so I don’t know which one would be the first, but both compared well and the commodore product line was pretty good from then on. I don’t know why it is never given anywhere near the respect of Apple, because it sold almost as many with the C64 and C128 coming out later and in the 80′s being higher end than the Apple ][ was.

    Also, you have to mention the Xerox Alto, which was amazing. It was miles above everything else including Apple ][ eventhough it came out in 1973. It had a mouse and real usable mouse tracking. Also had bitmapped graphics and high quality text editor. It was a total gui interace. Really was not surpassed until the early to mid 80's. Not considered a PC mainly because the price and marketing made it way too high end and professional to be that kind of end user.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    Blubba Says:

    You could have written an excellent blog whose sole purpose was to use Jobs as a case study on the dangers of alternative medicine. You could also have written a blog that put his legacy in its proper perspective. But combining the two frankly doesn’t work very well (as evidenced by the fact that nearly all of the comments have been about his place in history and not about the folly of betting on a piscean diet rather than modern health care). Opining about his acomplishments, or lack thereof, was a distraction and ad hominem.


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    Engineering Edgar Says:

            Blubba said:

    Opining about his acomplishments, or lack thereof, was a distraction and ad hominem.

    He only mentioned in passing that “I do think his legacy has become extremely inflated.” Especially considering that he continues on to say he was a good manager and helped Apple. How is that a big deal? Nobody says he did not have acomplishments

    The comemments are comments. People comment whatever they want. Comment threads go in whatever direction they are taken.


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Simon Says:

    It’s really no surprise Steve Jobs went for alternative medicine. He was just never a technie or a science nut. He was more of a hippie than a geek. He always was. He converted to Budhism and was all into the raw food movement and so on. It is no surprise he embraced woo or at least considered it. Being skeptical of mainstream medicine fits his character.

    For his acomplishments, it is unfair to compare him to the great inventors of the world because he wasn’t an inventor. he was not a technologist. He was a product manager and he was good at that. Compare his acomplishments to someone like Lee Iacocca (similar to Jobs, saved a company by knowing where to focus product development) and he comes out looking very favorable.

    Genius or visionary is a very strong word to apply to Jobs or Iacocca or anyone in that camp, but he was still a damn fine manager. His inovaton was realizing that creative design can and should be integral to a computing company. If he had not done that someone else would have, but he did and they didn’t and he deserves some credit for that.

    He was smart. He made good decisions and bad decisions like anyone else. He made some bad decisions at Apple and at Next, but he made good decisions too and most of them were pretty good. It’s sad that he made a very bad decision with his health. It’s okay to “think different” and question the mainstream and usually that’s fine, because if it turns out you’re wrong you can always change, but this was a unique situation because there was no time to change his mind. You can try one buisiness model and if it does nto work, switch back to the other. Not so easy with cancer, because it’s too late to defer the treatment.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    DV82XL Says:

            Engineering Edgar said:

    Why not?

    I think it’s a good question.

    Because it is drifting way off topic, and in reality there was enough of a continuum between ‘micro computer’ and ‘personal computer’ to make the question moot. In the end the argument becomes one over definitions, and is thus sterile.

            Blubba said:

    Opining about his acomplishments, or lack thereof, was a distraction and ad hominem.

    First it wasn’t ‘ad hominem’ please look up the definition of that phrase. Second why shouldn’t the hyperbole and exaggeration over his contributions to computing be aired? Because he is dead? Inflating someone’s accomplishments are usually done at the expense of trivializing the contributions of others, in this case many who are still alive. Death doesn’t give you a bye over the rights of the living.


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    Gordon Says:

    Nothing wrong with being a bit counter-culture, especially given that Western culture had plenty of unreasonable limits back in the 1960′s and 1970′s and still does today. I never became buddhist or went to India or anything, but I did smoke some weed and party harder than most do when I was younger and it may well have helped me in the long run to see past my narrow cultural upbringing. Steve Jobs no doubt benefitted from this.

    Medicine is science and science is not culture. Science is universal, cultural-independent. That is the whole point. The same medicine that works here works in China and Australia and Germany and a study done there to exacting scientific standards is perfectly valid for any place as it is here. That’s the difference, and sometimes you have to pull yourself away from your desire to expand past the norms and realize that a fact is a fact.

    They say alternative medicine is an alternative to the kind of medicine that works. That makes it different than other kinds of alternatives. Alternative music or art or lifestyles are no less real or valid than the mainstream kind. Nobody can quantify or say that one is not effective. Medicine is different. That’s the problem. His thinking didn’t help there even if it works well elsewhere,.


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    Q Says:

    Agreed: counter thinking has a good and bad side and should be applied differently in different situations.

    Going counter to the mainstream means unknown and sometimes large risks of failure. If you are going to explore counter and non-mainstream buisiness models that’s all fine as long as you know the risks and only invest money you are willing to risk losing. Most new and inovative buisiness ideas fail. They are still worth trying because sometimes they work and sometimes are amazingly successful. Inovation like that always has risks.

    Cancer treatment has higher stakes. You can’t afford to fail a few times before you get it right.


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    Gordon Says:

            Q said:

    Cancer treatment has higher stakes. You can’t afford to fail a few times before you get it right.

    Failure is the price of inovation. Try a few new ideas and most fail but one succeeds and you can say it was worth it. I think Steve Jobs would agree. Except for with your life you only get one shot.


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    SteveK9 Says:

    Have to agree with JP here. ‘Inflated legacy’? That would be very hard to do. At this point there isn’t a computer, phone, or music player that doesn’t have Jobs fingerprints on it. And, that doesn’t include the influence on a host of other products. No one person does everything alone, just as Henry Ford did not invent the automobile. But, I find it hard to think of another ‘businessman’ that was more influential in how we live today.


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    Engineering Edgar Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Because it is drifting way off topic, and in reality there was enough of a continuum between ‘micro computer’ and ‘personal computer’ to make the question moot. In the end the

    Okay, I get your point. It hardly matters though, because Apple, whether the first company to make a PC or not certainly made enough of them to be considered highly successful and a good and inovative company. People seem to forget that it went through a very dark peroid in the 90s though.

            Anon said:

    Not sure if the Amiga OS would’ve been useful if they could get it (though better than classic Mock OS).

    It would have been interesting if they went with some alternative operating system like Amiga or beOS or something else that was basically independent from other operating systems. That was a big problem with MacOS though, and I think they made the right in going with Unix. It might have meant some compromises, but the important thing is it gained them credibility with the computing sector. They would not have had that if they kept totally propriotary. Unix has the establishment and respect they needed.


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    drbuzz0 Says:

            SteveK9 said:

    Have to agree with JP here. ‘Inflated legacy’? That would be very hard to do. At this point there isn’t a computer, phone, or music player that doesn’t have Jobs fingerprints on it. And, that doesn’t include the influence on a host of other products. No one person does everything alone, just as Henry Ford did not invent the automobile. But, I find it hard to think of another ‘businessman’ that was more influential in how we live today.

    Trying very hard to bite my tongue, because this is exactly the kind of debate I did not want to get into.

    Okay, here I go anyway…

    I have an Android phone. I guess the iPhone had some influence on it, but then again, I also have had phones that predate iPhone, including a Palm phone, which did most of what the iPhone does and had basically zero influence from Apple directly on it. Palm, despite being run into the ground, deserves a lot more credit than Apple for making the portable computing platform ubiquitous and user friendly.

    I’ve never owned an Apple. I have a couple PC’s. They run Windows (which I suppose was somewhat influenced by Apple, but was based on the DOS kernel) and various Unix flavors. Unix existed long before Apple and if Apple contributed anything, I suppose it did popularize some GUI elements that found their way into Windows and then into KDE and Gnome.

    The music player in my car is CD-based (CD’s predate apple, developed by Sony and Phillips). It also works with MP3 Cd’s. MP3 was a format of growing popularity before Jobs returned to Apple and long before the iPod. The MP3 was designated as an audio format for MPEG-1 by the Motion Picture Expert Group circa 1991, based on codecs developed by Bell Labs and ultimately adopted by ISO.

    I’m pretty sure there are plenty of music players and phones that don’t have his finger prints on them, considering both telephones and music playing devices existed many decades before he was born.

    But now I’m sounding like I am belittling his accomplishments, which I don’t mean to do, because they’re certainly more impressive than my own and than most people’s, even if not rising to the level of being astonishing or absolutely world class. I mean, they are better than Orville Redinbocker’s accomplishments Better than Paris Hilton’s. I’m not sure if they’re as good as Col Harland Sanders though.

    Did I mention I didn’t even want to get into this debate?


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    Givemeabreak Says:

    I am astounded at the turn this entire subject took.

    First, the survival rate for pancreatic cancer is: 20% – year 1. the five year rate is 4%.

    With surgical resection the survival rate is 10% for 5 years.

    Am I correct that he was diagnosed in 2003. That was 8 years ago. Seems he beat the odds.

    Also there is scientific research that Apple users & PC users think differently. What’s the problem?

    You absolutely meant to turn this into a bate.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    DV82XL Says:

            Givemeabreak said:

    First, the survival rate for pancreatic cancer is: 20% – year 1. the five year rate is 4%.

    No – for all stages combined, the 1- and 5-year relative survival rates are 25% and 6%, respectively; for local disease the 5-year survival is approximately 20%. Source: American Cancer Society, see pg 4

    I would also like to know how he qualified for a new liver while he was still fighting pancreatic cancer. Under current transplant protocols he would not have been considered a candidate.

            Givemeabreak said:

    Also there is scientific research that Apple users & PC users think differently. What’s the problem?

    And that has to do with any of the points made upthread how?


    Quote Comment
  29. 29
    Engineering Edgar Says:

            Givemeabreak said:

    Also there is scientific research that Apple users & PC users think differently. What’s the problem?

    Uh…. So? I’d like to see this research, but we all know that PC’s are pretty much the dominant platform in business and finance and most office workers use them and that Apple users are more likely to be doing things like creative work or possibly students studying humanities or something.

    I don’t know any engineering majors who use Apples, except perhaps for notebooks and of course iPhones and iPads. Desktop computers are mostly x86 with techies. They are more hardware hackable and you can build them yourself.

    You see Apples all the time in design studios and recording studios and classrooms.

    Different worlds favor one or the other. So why does this matter?

            SteveK9 said:

    Have to agree with JP here. ‘Inflated legacy’? That would be very hard to do. At this point there isn’t a computer, phone, or music player that doesn’t have Jobs fingerprints on it. And, that doesn’t include the influence on a host of other products. No one person does everything alone, just as Henry Ford did not invent the automobile. But, I find it hard to think of another ‘businessman’ that was more influential in how we live today.

    He has a good legacy, maybe even a great one, but you are doing the perfect job in inflating it.

    Had a hand in all computers phones and music players? No. He contributed, but he is not the central force in all them.

    You know the iPhone only came out in 2007, right? That was only four years ago. Before that we already had camera phones. We already had phones that took videos and had 3G and could view videos and websites. There was already Windows Mobile, Palm, Blackberry, Symbian, BREW. Already media rich phone apps existed. I had a blackberry back around 2005.

    Yeah, the iPhone added some good interface options and made apps easier to get. That’s evolutionary but not revolutionary.

    Same thing with the iPod. The current iPod is a PDA really, it’s an iPhone without a phone connection. The original iPod was just an mp3 player. It was a good mp3 player, but not anything that stood head and shoulders above all the rest. It was not the first or the best.

    Funny thing is if he died ten years ago he would not have been celebrated nearly as much as this. Ten years ago (which, btw, we had music players and phones ten years ago) he would have just been remembered for being part of creating the Mac, which had some influence on computing and might even be credited with creating the home pc GUI revolution, but that’s still nowhere near what you claim.

    I think it’s annoying people have such trouble thinking that cutting down his legacy to an appropriate size is somehow making him seem meaningless. He had a big impact and bigger than most of us out there, but it was not *that* big. It wasn’t like Sir Isaac Newton big or Martin Luther King big. It was like.. I don’t know… maybe Ted Turner big? Which is still bigger than me or anyone I know personally.


    Quote Comment
  30. 30
    drbuzz0 Says:

            SteveK9 said:

    Have to agree with JP here. ‘Inflated legacy’? That would be very hard to do. At this point there isn’t a computer, phone, or music player that doesn’t have Jobs fingerprints on it. And, that doesn’t include the influence on a host of other products. No one person does everything alone, just as Henry Ford did not invent the automobile. But, I find it hard to think of another ‘businessman’ that was more influential in how we live today.

    Did I mention people treat this guy like such a god they get outrageously offended if I dare question whether all the things that are said about him are really proportional to his actual contribution?

    I mean seriously, I could probably question any other person’s contribution or call them inflated and not get this kind of hate.

            Simon said:

    For his acomplishments, it is unfair to compare him to the great inventors of the world because he wasn’t an inventor. he was not a technologist. He was a product manager and he was good at that. Compare his acomplishments to someone like Lee Iacocca (similar to Jobs, saved a company by knowing where to focus product development) and he comes out looking very favorable.

    Genius or visionary is a very strong word to apply to Jobs or Iacocca or anyone in that camp, but he was still a damn fine manager. His inovaton was realizing that creative design can and should be integral to a computing company.

    If he had not done that someone else would have, but he did and they didn’t and he deserves some credit for that.

    Fair enough. Lee Iaccoca was also a good corporate leader, a great product manager and a very effective marketer. It’s a good comparison.

    Lee Iaccoca was also not a visionary genius and god amongst mortals who revolutionized the entire world and how humanity functions. He was not the driving force behind the world economy. He did not change everything everyone ever does. He didn’t revolutionize all technology from the top down and bottom up. He did not invent the modern industrial world.

    He did a good job at Chrysler, though. And Steve Jobs did a good job at Apple.

            DV82XL said:

    I would also like to know how he qualified for a new liver while he was still fighting pancreatic cancer. Under current transplant protocols he would not have been considered a candidate.

    Money. Lots of money.

    He could not use his money to buy a liver outright. He couldn’t use his money to jump the que.

    In the United States, organ transplants work by a system where there are regions where the organs are available and candidates to get the organs. You are put on a list of those who need the organ and the rank on the list depends on your odds of survival, how badly you need it etc. So you will get the organ if nobody else in the region where it is available is considered a better candidate and has a compatible blood type.

    Steve Jobs lived in California. No way he’d get a liver there. Too many people need a liver in California. If one becomes available, someone else will rank higher on the list. The same would be true in New York, Texas etc. Most places, if a liver becomes available, he would not get it.

    He got his liver in Tennessee, a relative backwater of transplants where there were not many on the list.

    It seems he applied to all (or at least most) the regions of the United States in this way.

    This is legal, but most people can’t do this. The thing is that you can’t just apply online or something. You have to be an official patient of a transplant center in the region, which means you actually have to go there and be physically evaluated and such.

    So if you want to apply for a liver in all 50 states, you have to go to a hospital in all 50 states and spend a day getting a workup and have a doctor agree to take your case and transplant a liver when it becomes available. You also have to physically be there within hours of the organ becoming available. In fact, the organ will go to you even if someone else is higher on the list if they cannot make it in on time to be prepped for the operation. Thus it might be worth your while to go there if the organ becomes available, even if someone else outranks you, because if you show up at the hospital and the other person can’t make it in, you get it.

    This is totally doable if you’re a billionaire with a private jet.

    The other thing is different doctors and transplant centers will evaluate you differently and some might be more generous than others in assessing your odds. That helps you get higher in the queue. Again, if you’re a billionaire with a private jet, it’s not hard to shop around for the most favorable prognosis.

    I live in Connecticut. If I needed a liver, I’d apply on the Connecticut organ donation list. I would probably do New York too and I might do Massachusetts and Rhode Island, if I could get enough money together and get to the hospitals. But I could never do Tennessee or Idaho or Nebraska. I also could not go from doctor to doctor looking for the most favorable prognosis.
    If i were a billionaire I could.


    Quote Comment
  31. 31
    Anon Says:

            JP said:

    I have no problem with skeptical views of Jobs or Apple per se – if they’re based in fact and argued well. You’ve had real problems on both counts. I’ve lost confidence in Depleted Cranium, and am unsubscribing.

    Had you actually bothered to read you’d notice that the ones not based on fact haven’t been bought up again after being corrected.

            Engineering Edgar said:

    Sure, but was that really a genius idea or is it the kind of idea that would have pretty much happened on its own anyway?

    Eventually someone probably would’ve come up with the idea (Atari and Commodore got it eventually) but then again, most ideas even from geniuses (like say, Einstein) tend to be of the kind that they are inevitable.

            Engineering Edgar said:

    At the time, video games like Atari were coming on the scene and computers were being used in more and more offices and the idea of computer terminals for the home was floated.

    Though computers for offices back then meant mainframes with microcomputers being hobbyist machines (until Visicalc came along).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    Wasn’t it just a matter of time before one of the microcomputer companies made the leap to home and small office usage?

    Almost all of them tried eventually but only Apple, IBM (a bit later on) and the S-100 bus CP/M systems got significant business usage (though there were probably a lot of people doing business stuff on whatever they had at home).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    It was also a big expense thing and the cost was coming down with or without Apple. Like the Wang computers, for example, it wasn’t so much that they didn’t want to have average people buy them so much as it was just too expensive.

    The cost of memory was such that Woz thought he’d have to live in an apartment to be able to afford a computer (using DRAM instead of SRAM did help Apple come in at a lower cost).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    Any technology you always get geeks as early adopters anyway. There were home microcomputers that were targeted at geeks, like the kit ones like the Altair, but that’s how anything starts.

    The Altair of course invented the S-100 bus.

            Engineering Edgar said:

    Wouldn’t it simply mean that if not for Apple, some other company would have dominated the 8-bit era?

    Quite likely, not sure who though or whether it’d just be more S-100 systems (which I guess would place DR in position of control assuming CP/M were still the main OS for those).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    As I remember, Commodore had very respectable sales that were almost as good and Atari sold a lot of computers too, with mostly targeting at consumers.

    They did do very well though not all that many of those ended up in business use (Commodore also didn’t have the kind of backwards compatibility the Apple II line did).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    To me, I think for a personal computer to be used in the way we think, it needs a CRT or some other screen, because if you only use a printer for output then it isn’t going to be able to manipulate text and do even basic graphic stuff.

    A modified electric typewriter could do the job well enough (and was in fact used in the early days of minicomputing) though using a TV is probably cheaper (also another cost cutting move by Woz).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    Then 1977 there was the Commodore PET, which was definitely a personal computer. That was the same year as the Apple II, so I don’t know which one would be the first, but both compared well and the commodore product line was pretty good from then on.

    I don’t know why it is never given anywhere near the respect of Apple, because it sold almost as many with the C64 and C128 coming out later and in the 80′s being higher end than the Apple ][ was.

    The C64 had better graphics and sound hardware than the Apple IIe but less expandability (though it did have more things built in and thus less need for expansion cards) and also being unable to run software from Commodore's previous computers. The C128 was an attempt at a business computer which didn't so so well because the IBM PC was already becoming the standard though it did become well liked by hobbyists (better programming environment than the C64).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    Also, you have to mention the Xerox Alto, which was amazing. It was miles above everything else including Apple ][ eventhough it came out in 1973. It had a mouse and real usable mouse tracking. Also had bitmapped graphics and high quality text editor. It was a total gui interace. Really was not surpassed until the early to mid 80's. Not considered a PC mainly because the price and marketing made it way too high end and professional to be that kind of end user.

    That would probably come under workstation.

            Q said:

    Agreed: counter thinking has a good and bad side and should be applied differently in different situations.

    Going counter to the mainstream means unknown and sometimes large risks of failure. If you are going to explore counter and non-mainstream buisiness models that’s all fine as long as you know the risks and only invest money you are willing to risk losing. Most new and inovative buisiness ideas fail. They are still worth trying because sometimes they work and sometimes are amazingly successful. Inovation like that always has risks.

    Cancer treatment has higher stakes. You can’t afford to fail a few times before you get it right.

    As a society (as a whole) we can afford to fail a few times before we get it right though even then you shouldn’t try to do something that has been proven to be a failure multiple times in the past.

            SteveK9 said:

    Have to agree with JP here. ‘Inflated legacy’? That would be very hard to do. At this point there isn’t a computer, phone, or music player that doesn’t have Jobs fingerprints on it.

    Right, so a Linux server which doesn’t have X installed and has never had a mouse connected to it has Jobs fingerprints on it?

    So an old green screen Nokia (or whatever older than iPhone phone) has Jobs fingerprints on it?

    So a Diamond Rio PMP300 (predates the Ipod) has Jobs fingerprints on it?

            SteveK9 said:

    And, that doesn’t include the influence on a host of other products.

    Such as?

            Engineering Edgar said:

    It hardly matters though, because Apple, whether the first company to make a PC or not certainly made enough of them to be considered highly successful and a good and inovative company. People seem to forget that it went through a very dark peroid in the 90s though.

    Not kidding about a dark period, personally I don’t think the future looks good for Apple without Jobs in control, it won’t be a sudden implosion in which Apple is one day really successful and everyone in the business world wants to be the Apple of their industry and then the next day they announce bankruptcy, more of a gradual loss of market share similar to what happened in the 90s leading to the company fading out of existence (had Jobs not come back to Apple when he did it’s likely that would’ve already happened) with no one really taking much notice.

            Engineering Edgar said:

    It would have been interesting if they went with some alternative operating system like Amiga or beOS or something else that was basically independent from other operating systems.

    That was a big problem with MacOS though, and I think they made the right in going with Unix.

    It might have meant some compromises, but the important thing is it gained them credibility with the computing sector. They would not have had that if they kept totally propriotary.

    Unix has the establishment and respect they needed.

    Be probably would’ve given them the credibility they needed as well (Be was sort-of Unix anyway) and there were a lot of people who thought back then that Apple should have bought Be instead of Next (though it was probably more important for Apple to get Steve Jobs back).

    Besides, Windows NT is basically independent from other OS’s (though very heavily inspired by VMS) although that independence (along with some of Microsoft’s anti-competitive behaviour and some of the things they did to improve performance) did cause NT to go through a bit of teething trouble on the stability and security point of view.

            drbuzz0 said:

    I’ve never owned an Apple. I have a couple PC’s. They run Windows (which I suppose was somewhat influenced by Apple, but was based on the DOS kernel) and various Unix flavors.

    I’m pretty sure those would be Windows NT based systems (unless they are a decade old).

            drbuzz0 said:

    Unix existed long before Apple and if Apple contributed anything, I suppose it did popularize some GUI elements that found their way into Windows and then into KDE and Gnome.

    The Windows 95 GUI seems to me to have been inspired by NextStep (and the NextStep alike window managers for X have pretty decent reputations, though Mac like interfaces don’t seem to be doing so well, just look at the crap that is Unity).

    Though it is worth noting that version 1 of Windows had a Special menu.

    Though Apple did ‘contribute’ something to DR GEM, namely forcing them to redesign their GUI.

            Givemeabreak said:

    I am astounded at the turn this entire subject took.

    First, the survival rate for pancreatic cancer is: 20% – year 1. the five year rate is 4%.

    With surgical resection the survival rate is 10% for 5 years.

    Am I correct that he was diagnosed in 2003. That was 8 years ago. Seems he beat the odds.

    He did do pretty well, but would likely have done quite a bit better had he gotten treatment earlier.

    Also most people in his situation wouldn’t be given a Liver transplant (there was actually some controversy as to whether he should have been given one along with what he did to get it, though if I were in the same situation I’d have probably tried much the same thing).

            Givemeabreak said:

    Also there is scientific research that Apple users & PC users think differently. What’s the problem?

    Would this happen to date from back when PCs all run DOS and only DOS?

            DV82XL said:

    I would also like to know how he qualified for a new liver while he was still fighting pancreatic cancer. Under current transplant protocols he would not have been considered a candidate.

    He put his name down in many different states, turned out that Tennessee had a shorter waiting period and were more willing to take the risk while he was rich enough to be able to meet their requirements.

            Engineering Edgar said:

    I’d like to see this research, but we all know that PC’s are pretty much the dominant platform in business and finance and most office workers use them and that Apple users are more likely to be doing things like creative work or possibly students studying humanities or something.

    Probably pretty much right (though it’s worth noting that even Adobe sell more windows versions of Photoshop than Mac versions).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    I don’t know any engineering majors who use Apples, except perhaps for notebooks and of course iPhones and iPads.

    Back when I was a physics postgrad there were more Linux users among the postgrads than Mac users (though a few of the academics used Macs, though not confined to one department).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    Desktop computers are mostly x86 with techies. They are more hardware hackable and you can build them yourself.

    I just checked at the Apple site to see what I could get a similar configuration to a computer I just built myself for and do Apple overcharge for hardware (something like 4 times the price for inferior hardware) and they’re selling a puny 27″ screen for almost as much as I got a 30″ for (though admittedly I did buy the 30″ when a special was on, great screen btw).

            Engineering Edgar said:

    You see Apples all the time in design studios and recording studios and classrooms.

    Primary education still seems to be one of the strongholds of Apple (though most secondary schools abandoned Apple, they seem to be more interested in teaching what’s actually out there and used in the real world).


    Quote Comment
  32. 32
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Anon said:

    The Windows 95 GUI seems to me to have been inspired by NextStep (and the NextStep alike window managers for X have pretty decent reputations, though Mac like interfaces don’t seem to be doing so well, just look at the crap that is Unity).

    Though it is worth noting that version 1 of Windows had a Special menu.

    I suppose. But really, if you look at all the various independently developed GUI’s out there, it’s pretty clear that there are only so many ways you can do it without being similar to one another. Like icons on a background and windowed programs for multitasking. There are other ways of visual multitasking, like using tabs or multiple virtual screens. But there are only so many ways out there.

    I would have a very hard time trying to come up with a functional GUI that looked absolutely nothing like any of the standardized ones in any way shape or form.

            Anon said:

    Probably pretty much right (though it’s worth noting that even Adobe sell more windows versions of Photoshop than Mac versions).

    Yes, but there are a lot more PC’s as well. I bet if you looked at what percentage of Apples versus PC’s have it installed, Apples would win.

            Anon said:

    I just checked at the Apple site to see what I could get a similar configuration to a computer I just built myself for and do Apple overcharge for hardware (something like 4 times the price for inferior hardware) and they’re selling a puny 27″ screen for almost as much as I got a 30″ for (though admittedly I did buy the 30″ when a special was on, great screen btw).

    Since they went to the x86 platform, they no longer have the same hardware control.

    You can install and run OSX on your own self-built PC. They do not officially support it and they may even actively discourage it, but that never stopped anyone. Hardware support may be imperfect, but it usually works fine, and you can get it to load generic Unix drivers if you need to get any of the hardware to work that way,

            Anon said:

    Primary education still seems to be one of the strongholds of Apple (though most secondary schools abandoned Apple, they seem to be more interested in teaching what’s actually out there and used in the real world).

    Apple also is no longer apparently making the desktop computer the focus of their product development. They are far more known and far more prone to marketing their portable devices and such. It would not surprise me if the trend were to continue to the point where they would start to try to make their laptops more and more like iPads with keyboards and then possibly carry it on to their desktops in the future. It’s just not their focus.


    Quote Comment
  33. 33
    Anon Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I suppose. But really, if you look at all the various independently developed GUI’s out there, it’s pretty clear that there are only so many ways you can do it without being similar to one another.

    Quite true, also worth noting that the X Window System was being developed at about the time the Mac went on sale and was based on the even earlier W Window System (and everything can probably claim to be descended from the work of Doug Engelbart).

            drbuzz0 said:

    Like icons on a background and windowed programs for multitasking. There are other ways of visual multitasking, like using tabs or multiple virtual screens.

    Tiled window managers work for some people and you could probably do it all using text (the Alto was a lot like that, so was Visi-On) and maybe use a touch-screen instead of a mouse (or rely more on the keyboard or voice recognition, lack of ability to use a Mac from the keyboard is one of the things I dislike about them).

            drbuzz0 said:

    I would have a very hard time trying to come up with a functional GUI that looked absolutely nothing like any of the standardized ones in any way shape or form.

    It’d be like trying to come up with a plane that doesn’t look like any other plane out there in anyway, pretty much impossible.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Yes, but there are a lot more PC’s as well. I bet if you looked at what percentage of Apples versus PC’s have it installed, Apples would win.

    Doubtful, Photoshop is an expensive program so I’d expect most of the customers to install it (especially the repeat ones).

            drbuzz0 said:

    Since they went to the x86 platform, they no longer have the same hardware control.

    You can install and run OSX on your own self-built PC.

    Why would I want to though? If someone gave me a Mac I’d probably end up putting Linux on it (at least sloppy focus works properly there).

            drbuzz0 said:

    They do not officially support it and they may even actively discourage it, but that never stopped anyone.

    You’ll also need to crack it (doable) and it’s illegal as well (the DMCA like law which bans it is wrong, and also bans me from watching a DVD under Linux so I’ve already broken it).

            drbuzz0 said:

    Hardware support may be imperfect, but it usually works fine, and you can get it to load generic Unix drivers if you need to get any of the hardware to work that way,

    If I were to ever want to build a hackintosh I’d just make sure to specify the right hardware (which would mean whatever Apple were using) though I suspect what I’ve got would work pretty well (though the AMD chipset and Realtek Network and Sound chips might not be supported by Mock OS X).

            drbuzz0 said:

    Apple also is no longer apparently making the desktop computer the focus of their product development. They are far more known and far more prone to marketing their portable devices and such.

    They can’t get the kind of market share in desktop computing (or even notebook computing) they’ve got with phones and tablets (though it’s open to question whether they’ll be able to keep that market share, especially if they stay a premium brand).

    Though given their prices I wouldn’t hesitate to say that they make a lot more money selling a Mac than an iPhone.

            drbuzz0 said:

    It would not surprise me if the trend were to continue to the point where they would start to try to make their laptops more and more like iPads with keyboards and then possibly carry it on to their desktops in the future. It’s just not their focus.

    There’ll probably remain a place for the traditional desktop computer and laptop computer (at least among those who can actually type).

    Though there is a lot of commonality between tablets and laptops so moving them closer together doesn’t seem like such a bad idea although to not alienate laptop buyers (who want a full featured computer it’d have to be done as making the tablet more powerful).


    Quote Comment
  34. 34
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Anon said:

    Why would I want to though? If someone gave me a Mac I’d probably end up putting Linux on it (at least sloppy focus works properly there).

    Because it can be done. And because one might be curious about OSX and be interested in playing around with it a little bit and seeing the various hackabilities of it. Someone might be interested in messing with it in bizarre ways like replacing Aqua with KDE and seeing if you can run it basically like a Linux box and at the same time run native OSX software. Or one might be interested in benchmarking the computer running different OS’s for fun.

            Anon said:

    You’ll also need to crack it (doable) and it’s illegal as well (the DMCA like law which bans it is wrong, and also bans me from watching a DVD under Linux so I’ve already broken it).

    Oh yeah, and that would like, totally stop me. It always has, you know? I mean I don’t even have a copy of any Bit Torrent clients, I’ve copied a CD for a friend, recorded off the radio, downloaded an Mp3 without paying, edited commercials out of a tv show or any of those other horrible acts that only hardened criminals would do.

            Anon said:

    If I were to ever want to build a hackintosh I’d just make sure to specify the right hardware (which would mean whatever Apple were using) though I suspect what I’ve got would work pretty well (though the AMD chipset and Realtek Network and Sound chips might not be supported by Mock OS X).

    You might be surprised how easy it works and how much of the hardware just works without any complaints.

    Not that I’ve ever done anything like that or would do anything so horrible…


    Quote Comment
  35. 35
    Barkley Says:

    “I have no problem with skeptical views of Jobs or Apple per se – if they’re based in fact and argued well. You’ve had real problems on both counts. I’ve lost confidence in Depleted Cranium, and am unsubscribing.”

    Yes… Because that is exactly how it was presented… As fact and not opinion. Please show me where one can find rigorously peer reviewed articles on Steve Jobs’ character and inflated public opinion of him after his death? You unsubscribed? Good riddance, we don’t need some Steve Jobs worshipping sycophant posting inane drivel about his master.


    Quote Comment
  36. 36
    Michael Says:

    Getting back to the topic of Steve Jobs’ health decisions, this article has everything backwards.

    Steve Jobs died of cancer, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, not natural treatments.

    Natural treatments, such as those pioneered by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, would have saved his life.


    Quote Comment
  37. 37
    Anon Says:

            Michael said:

    Getting back to the topic of Steve Jobs’ health decisions, this article has everything backwards.

    Steve Jobs died of cancer, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, not natural treatments.

    Actually he died because he didn’t get proper cancer treatment (which in this case meant surgery, probably also including some chemo and radiation) soon enough, the reason he didn’t get that was because he wanted to try some ‘natural’ crap first.

    Had he not ended up using real medicine eventually he’d have died a lot sooner than he did.

            Michael said:

    Natural treatments, such as those pioneered by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, would have saved his life.

    His treatments don’t have any scientific support so it wouldn’t really matter if Jobs had gone to him instead of the quacks he did try (i.e. it would’ve gotten just as much worse had he gone there).


    Quote Comment
  38. 38
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

    Everyone talks about Jobs’s legacy in terms of the iPod and iPad and iPhone and hardware. Personally, I think that’s a poor call.

    In just about every aspect of their hardware, Apple weren’t there first, but I don’t deny that they often provided the first fully polished package, the seminal product which brought a concept to the fore. You can see this in a dozen industries. The Ford Model T. The Hoover vacuum cleaner. World of Warcraft even.

    And as everyone has already said, Jobs is no technological / scientific genius, no Stephen Hawking etc. And more critically the man-hours put into making these products possible did not come from him at any real level, they simply couldn’t in the modern day – we’re no longer in the era of Isembard Kingdom Brunel or Thomas Edison.

    Having said that, there’s a whole new debate about product flops, and Steve Jobs oversaw relatively few, which has put him in good stead.

    But you want to know what my impression of Jobs’s legacy is? The App Store & the iTunes store.

    Here you have two business concepts which really pushed the boundaries. They brought to the mass market the idea of micro-transactions; of buying music, video and programs over the internet.

    Until the App Store, I wasn’t familiar with the idea of upgrading my phone’s capabilities by buying programs over the internet (I’ve never owned an iPhone btw, but Nokias at that point and my price level didn’t have such features).

    Until the iTunes store, no-one had really (legitimately) brought paid music downloads to the people. But Apple did. And within a few years the download market was bigger than the CD single sales market – we’re now reaching the stages where a physical release isn’t necessary to top the charts and the CD single is fast becoming as much a collector’s piece as the vinyl single was a decade ago.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m no Mac fanboy. I’ve never actually bought music off iTunes because I didn’t want to buy music on their proprietary m4a format given it would not be compatible if I moved off an iPod. I think iTunes is a deeply average music players with horrendous memory overheads and dodgy video playing capabilities – I use it because I have an iPod and I can’t be bothered to find another program.

    I own an Android phone and an Android tablet, which I connect on occasion to my Windows PC – because I quite like gaming and, on occasion, right-clicking.


    Quote Comment
  39. 39
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

    Sorry to double post, but felt I should post something on-topic, which is actually as simple as this:

    Given the standard doctor-patient confidentiality, I don’t really think it is at all fair to speculate on the treatment options that one person received given that his medical history has not been made public and that a sample size of one is totally unrepresentative.

    We don’t know precisely what treatment Jobs did and didn’t select, we don’t know the details of his case (there are a lot of “probably”s in the above article, including the title) and frankly probability means nothing to the individual. He could just have easily been the victim of a lightning strike after a session of chemo and we’d be here discussing whether chemo turns you into a lightning rod.

    Did alternative therapy kill Steve Jobs? No, quite clearly cancer killed Steve Jobs. Did alternative therapy help or hinder? We don’t know. If you want to discuss a new trial on the topic just published then great – if you want to treat Steve Jobs as your trial sample then I don’t feel it’s sensible.


    Quote Comment
  40. 40
    Anon Says:

            Michael said:

    Getting back to the topic of Steve Jobs’ health decisions, this article has everything backwards.

    Steve Jobs died of cancer, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, not natural treatments.

    Natural treatments, such as those pioneered by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, would have saved his life.

    Stating that Jobs died of cancer is a fairly reasonable claim. Claiming it was the chemotherapy or radiotherapy without any corroborating evidence is about as sound as Dr. Burzynski’s treatments which have failed utterly in the peer review process and which the doctor himself cannot provide ample data to support. Asserting that these treatment would have indeed saved his life demonstrates the same mentality that may have got Jobs killed. It also shows a blind conviction of faith in the unproven as even Dr. Burzynski would not have given his treatments the seeming life saving guarantee you provide. Perhaps you have some psychic powers you’d like to add to your growing mountain of fallacy.


    Quote Comment
  41. 41
    Michael Says:

    Are you not aware that chemotherapy can kill an individual even if the the cancer is cured?

    Watch the documentary “Burzynski” and you will see ample proven data to support the doctor. Unless you’re on the payroll of Big Pharma, of course.

    Refer to Mike Adams, The Health Ranger, for information about Steve Jobs’ chemotherapy treatments. Or is he also a “quack” because he doesn’t kill for profit?

    Your immediate flee to insults shows your lack of valid arguements.


    Quote Comment
  42. 42
    drbuzz0 Says:

            I’mnotreallyhere said:

    Everyone talks about Jobs’s legacy in terms of the iPod and iPad and iPhone and hardware. Personally, I think that’s a poor call.

    In just about every aspect of their hardware, Apple weren’t there first, but I don’t deny that they often provided the first fully polished package, the seminal product which brought a concept to the fore. You can see this in a dozen industries. The Ford Model T. The Hoover vacuum cleaner. World of Warcraft even.

    And as everyone has already said, Jobs is no technological / scientific genius, no Stephen Hawking etc. And more critically the man-hours put into making these products possible did not come from him at any real level, they simply couldn’t in the modern day – we’re no longer in the era of Isembard Kingdom Brunel or Thomas Edison.

    And I never said that he didn’t do a good job as the leader of his company, which made a lot of products that people liked a lot and bought many of.

    Still, even that does not make him the greatest genius of our time. Even Henry Ford, who actually did invent some of the components of his automobiles and who was, in general, a brilliant industrialist and visionary when it came to understanding the role of industry in society and economics does not even come close to living up to the things I’ve heard recently about Steve Jobs.

    Actually, there are very few people I can think of who ever walked the earth who could live up to what many seem to think of Steve Jobs. Sir Isaac Newton might be one. Maybe Louis Pasteur and probably Charles Darwin. Although, given how inflated the claims about Steve Jobs are, I don’t think even all three of those persons combined could live up to the kind of admiration Jobs has garnered.


    Quote Comment
  43. 43
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Michael said:

    Are you not aware that chemotherapy can kill an individual even if the the cancer is cured?

    Let me try to explain this. Cancer is not a forign invader to the body. It’s the body’s own cells dividing out of control. It is literally ones own body becoming the enemy. This is what can make it so difficult to treat.

    Those cells are too numerous and they’re corrupt. They can’t be kept around or they will divide again and produce more cancer. You have to get rid of them. They must be killed.

    It’s as simple as that: Kill the cells and cure the cancer. You have to get all of them.

    The way this is done depends on the type of cancer and the extent to which it is progressed. Killing the cancer cells is easy, of course, if that’s all you care about, but obviously just killing the cancer cells won’t help if your method of killing them kills the rest of the person too.

    So this is done by targeting the cancer. There are three primary ways to do it. The first is surgery. Surgery is the best way if the cancer is localized. If it’s all in one contained mass that you can get to, then it’s pretty simple. It just needs to be cut out.

    Second is radiation. Radiation has the useful property of being more damaging to rapidly dividing cells like cancer cells, but it also can be targeted to an area where a cancer that can’t be operated on is located. It can be used to kill off those cells by using a precise beam of radiation or using radioactive seed implants or a pharmaceutical that migrates to that part of the body.

    Then there’s the chemical method. Chemotherapy is poison. That’s the whole point. The goal of chemotherapy drugs is to kill the cancer cells more than they kill most other cells. This is not an easy thing to achieve. Because cancer cells are the so similar to other cells, there’s no way to perfectly target them. All chemo drugs are poisons in general, but they’re designed to have a greater effect on rapidly dividing cells and especially cancer cells than on most cells. This is not a perfect black and white separation, of course, and that’s why chemo makes people feel sick, because it is poisoning them.

    If you give someone enough chemo, you will poison them to death. There’s no doubt about that and nobody would argue it. Hence, the goal is to give as much as they can tolerate to maximize the effect on the cancer.

    Admittedly, it’s very imperfect. Cancer is a very very tough nut to crack. We’ve made enormous progress and brilliant minds are working very hard to make more progress. If you want some magic pill that makes all cancer go away without side effects, that’s not going to happen. There are all kinds of routes being perused that include drugs that target genes expressed more by cancer cells or that target cancer while having less damage to the immune system. They’ll all do some damage to the body. That’s just the way it is.

    Chemo does not kill, at least not except for when a horrible medical error occurs. People who are receiving chemo do die, but not from the chemo. They die because it was not completely successful, which it often is not. It does, however, quite often increase life spans by stunting the growth of the cancer, even if it is not curative in the end.

            Michael said:

    Watch the documentary “Burzynski” and you will see ample proven data to support the doctor. Unless you’re on the payroll of Big Pharma, of course.

    Seen it. Unimpressed, but it was about what I expected.

    I have a video camera. If I make a video of lies, will you believe that too? Any idiot can lie into a video camera and call it a documentary.

    Nope, I don’t work for big pharma.

            Michael said:

    Refer to Mike Adams, The Health Ranger, for information about Steve Jobs’ chemotherapy treatments. Or is he also a “quack” because he doesn’t kill for profit?

    Whether or not he kills for profit is open to debate. It depends on whether one considers it to be “killing” when someone causes deaths by encouraging inaction.

    The reason he’s a quack is he’s dishonest or an idiot or, most likely, both.

            Michael said:

    Your immediate flee to insults shows your lack of valid arguements.

    What? The man died of cancer. Where is the argument? Chemotherapy is used to treat cancer. Many lives have been saved by it. This is not something that is open to debate, at least not to anyone with the slightest competence or understanding of things.

    You want to have an argument about the Holocaust while you’re at it?


    Quote Comment
  44. 44
    Anon Says:

    “Are you not aware that chemotherapy can kill an individual even if the the cancer is cured?

    Watch the documentary “Burzynski” and you will see ample proven data to support the doctor. Unless you’re on the payroll of Big Pharma, of course.

    Refer to Mike Adams, The Health Ranger, for information about Steve Jobs’ chemotherapy treatments. Or is he also a “quack” because he doesn’t kill for profit?

    Your immediate flee to insults shows your lack of valid arguements.”

    Concerning chemotherapy killing people, I clearly said unless you have corroborating evidence in is an unfounded claim, I never said it was harmless in all cases. Last I checked, documentaries are not scientific evidence. This is fairly ratinal considering the slew of documentaries that directly contradict one another. Mike Adams is also a very suspect source for evidence. He has posted articles that go against some of the very foundations of biology and writes on a website (naturalnews.com) that maintains the claim that gamma irradiation of food will make it radioactive. Fortunately for the gullible person, they provide links to where one can purchase radiation miracle cures. I didn’t realize asking someone if they had psychic powers was an insult. If you are referring to pointing out that your statements are fallacious, then you don’t understand the difference between insults and valid criticisms. Your attempts at evasion and diverting attention from the topic as well as inability to refute a single one of my points shows your lack of argument. Fell free to respond, just don’t get upset when I don’t respect a weak and flawed answer or your continued attempts to mask your lack of argument.


    Quote Comment
  45. 45
    Anon Says:

    “Are you not aware that chemotherapy can kill an individual even if the the cancer is cured?

    Watch the documentary “Burzynski” and you will see ample proven data to support the doctor. Unless you’re on the payroll of Big Pharma, of course.

    Refer to Mike Adams, The Health Ranger, for information about Steve Jobs’ chemotherapy treatments. Or is he also a “quack” because he doesn’t kill for profit?

    Your immediate flee to insults shows your lack of valid arguements.”

    Concerning chemotherapy killing people, I clearly said unless you have corroborating evidence in is an unfounded claim, I never said it was harmless in all cases. Last I checked, documentaries are not scientific evidence. This is fairly rational considering the slew of documentaries that directly contradict one another. Mike Adams is also a very suspect source for evidence. He has posted articles that go against some of the very foundations of biology and writes on a website (naturalnews.com) that maintains the claim that gamma irradiation of food will make it radioactive. Fortunately for the gullible person, they provide links to where one can purchase radiation miracle cures. I didn’t realize asking someone if they had psychic powers was an insult. If you are referring to pointing out that your statements are fallacious, then you don’t understand the difference between insults and valid criticisms. Your attempts at evasion and diverting attention from the topic as well as inability to refute a single one of my points shows your lack of argument. Fell free to respond, just don’t get upset when I don’t respect a weak and flawed answer or your continued attempts to mask your lack of argument.


    Quote Comment
  46. 46
    Anon Says:

    Sorry about the double post…


    Quote Comment
  47. 47
    s.p. jobs Says:

    Why do you libel me?

    You know nothing of the details of my medical condition, but that doesn’t stop you from making a disparaging long distance medical diagnosis even in light of the fact that I beat my survival prognosis for five years.

    So you don’t like me, that’s one thing, but a “scientist” can have his analytical skills compromised by emotions, base and petty emotions at that.

    Your blog is ironically named because this article is not only bad medicine, it is bad science.

    And let’s compare accomplishments. You are are nasty, bitter pseudoscientis and I changed the world. Big difference, punk.


    Quote Comment
  48. 48
    Anon Says:

            Michael said:

    Watch the documentary “Burzynski” and you will see ample proven data to support the doctor. Unless you’re on the payroll of Big Pharma, of course.

    You don’t get proof from TV shows, you get them from scientific journals and the oncologists who’ve examined Burzynski’s methods were not impressed.

            Michael said:

    Refer to Mike Adams, The Health Ranger, for information about Steve Jobs’ chemotherapy treatments. Or is he also a “quack” because he doesn’t kill for profit?

    Mike Adams makes a pretty decent profit killing people, he doesn’t kill them directly but every person who goes and sees a quack like Burzynski instead of a real doctor because of reading naturalnews and everyone who dies because some naturalnews reading parent exempts their child from necessary vaccines is a victim of his.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Although, given how inflated the claims about Steve Jobs are, I don’t think even all three of those persons combined could live up to the kind of admiration Jobs has garnered.

    Wait a hundred years and most people will have completely forgotten who he was (a few historians of technology might know of him, but that’s about it).

            drbuzz0 said:

    Cancer is a very very tough nut to crack. We’ve made enormous progress and brilliant minds are working very hard to make more progress. If you want some magic pill that makes all cancer go away without side effects, that’s not going to happen.

    Maybe advanced medical nanotech could do that although we’re still a decent way from that.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Chemo does not kill, at least not except for when a horrible medical error occurs.

    People who are receiving chemo do die, but not from the chemo. They die because it was not completely successful, which it often is not.

    Not to mention what it does to the immune system.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Whether or not he kills for profit is open to debate. It depends on whether one considers it to be “killing” when someone causes deaths by encouraging inaction.

    Some of the methods he promotes could kill his readers directly.

            drbuzz0 said:

    The reason he’s a quack is he’s dishonest or an idiot or, most likely, both.

    Agree with you on this.

            s.p. jobs said:

    Why do you libel me?

    Nice try Apple Fanboy but we don’t really believe you’re Steve Jobs (though your rather disgusting attempt at impersonation may be the most insulting thing towards him all thread).

            s.p. jobs said:

    And let’s compare accomplishments. You are are nasty, bitter pseudoscientis and I changed the world. Big difference, punk.

    No you didn’t, the person you are trying to impersonate changed part of the world though.


    Quote Comment
  49. 49
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Obviously this is not Steve Jobs, but might as well play along just to make the point…

            s.p. jobs said:

    You know nothing of the details of my medical condition,

    Yes, I know all about your condition. It’s called death. The prognosis is rather bad. Nobody gets better from it.

            s.p. jobs said:

    And let’s compare accomplishments. You are are nasty, bitter pseudoscientis and I changed the world. Big difference, punk.

    This is what I’m talking about. First “changed the world” is not only chiche, it’s stupid. Everyone changes the world.

    I said many times, I have nothing against the guy and I acknowledge that he was important in his field and did accomplish a respectable amount.

    However, this is more than fanboyism. This is a damn cult of personality. I am of the opinion (and it is an opinion, since it’s not falsable) that Steve Jobs legacy is over-hyped and his accomplishments are not enormous.

    I could say that about just about anyone else. Any other famous person and people would nod or politely disagree. “Yeah, I think Meryl Streep is a good actress, but not quite as good as people seem to always be saying.” or “I think Churchill gets more credit than he’s really due” or anything like that. It’d be fine.

    But Steve Jobs? No, that’s blasphemy. I don’t think it’s not just the fact that he died recently. He has been elevated to the level of secular deity.


    Quote Comment
  50. 50
    Matthew Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Yes, I know all about your condition. It’s called death. The prognosis is rather bad. Nobody gets better from it.

    Well, there was supposedly this one guy a couple thousand years ago…


    Quote Comment
  51. 51
    BMS Says:

            Matthew said:

    Well, there was supposedly this one guy a couple thousand years ago…

    Yeah, but apparently, even he went out of remission after a few days.


    Quote Comment
  52. 52
    Anon Says:

            Matthew said:

    Well, there was supposedly this one guy a couple thousand years ago…

            BMS said:

    Yeah, but apparently, even he went out of remission after a few days.

    Wasn’t that fiction?


    Quote Comment
  53. 53
    BMS Says:

            Anon said:

    Wasn’t that fiction?

    Well, it did come out of a book. Decide for yourself.


    Quote Comment
  54. 54
    BMS Says:

            BMS said:

    Well, it did come out of a book. Decide for yourself.

    Did I mention that the book was a bestseller?


    Quote Comment
  55. 55
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

            BMS said:

    Did I mention that the book was a bestseller?

    Apparently it’s been peer reviewed, but there are still doubts over the experimental method used.


    Quote Comment
  56. 56
    BMS Says:

            I’mnotreallyhere said:

    Apparently it’s been peer reviewed, but there are still doubts over the experimental method used.

    While members of an ecumenical council do meet the general definition of “peers” — hence, the book was indeed “peer reviewed” — experimental evidence really isn’t their thing. They prefer ipse dixit.


    Quote Comment
  57. 57
    Doug Says:

    You have everything absolutely backwards.

    Author of this blog, you are a complete idiot, and a shill for the AMA

    It is precisely the slice-n-dice that killed him.


    Quote Comment
  58. 58
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Doug said:

    Author of this blog, you are a complete idiot, and a shill for the AMA

    Yeah, that must be it. If I actually support science-based cancer treatment then clearly I’m just a shill for someone.

    Where the hell is my check anyway? I’ve been at it for years and still haven’t gotten anything.


    Quote Comment
  59. 59
    Anon Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Yeah, that must be it.

    If I actually support science-based cancer treatment then clearly I’m just a shill for someone.

    Where the hell is my check anyway?

    I’ve been at it for years and still haven’t gotten anything.

    Yeah, I’m still waiting for my checks (and not just from big pharma).

    Really the shills that come around here tend to be those who make money off treatments that don’t work (i.e. people like Doug).


    Quote Comment
  60. 60
    Soylent Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I’m not sure if they’re as good as Col Harland Sanders though.

    Did I mention I didn’t even want to get into this debate?

    Nor as good as the achievements of Dennis Ritchie; who passed away just few days ago on the 12th of october.


    Quote Comment
  61. 61
    Anon Says:

            Soylent said:

    Nor as good as the achievements of Dennis Ritchie; who passed away just few days ago on the 12th of october.

    And who the media probably won’t even notice, despite him being more influential than Steve Jobs.


    Quote Comment
  62. 62
    Doug is Retarded Says:

            Doug said:

    It is precisely the slice-n-dice that killed him.

    You are absolutely right. The cancer had nothing to do with it. Tell me, do you choke on your own drool you stupid mouth-breather?


    Quote Comment
  63. 63
    Julian Says:

    This seems to pretty much confirm this article:

    http://www.quora.com/Steve-Jobs/Why-did-Steve-Jobs-choose-not-to-effectively-treat-his-cancer


    Quote Comment
  64. 64
    Mister Reader Says:

    People all admire Steve Jobs and feel bad for him dying of cancer.

    I find it hard to feel sympathy for his cancer knowing he cared so little about the cancer others could get from the things he manufactured. He made the iPhone with some of the highest radiation of any phone and almost twice that of a regular phone and he never spent any money on how to reduce that or direct it away from the head eventhough he got letters from doctors and scientists pleading with him. He refused to allow radiation monitoring apps and would not ship radiation blockers or scramblers even though he was urged to do this. He also tried to stop warnings about children and he allowed child games to be sold for the phone to encourage children with developing braisn to use it.

    Do you not find this dispicable? He had cancer and I don’t see that as being something to cry about when he didn’t mind giving it to other people.


    Quote Comment
  65. 65
    Anon Says:

            Mister Reader said:

    I find it hard to feel sympathy for his cancer knowing he cared so little about the cancer others could get from the things he manufactured.

    I didn’t know Apple was in the nuclear industry.

            Mister Reader said:

    He made the iPhone with some of the highest radiation of any phone and almost twice that of a regular phone and he never spent any money on how to reduce that or direct it away from the head

    So you finally expose yourself as the scientifically incompetent idiot that you are?

    Let me put it to you in simple words:
    * There is no evidence linking mobile phones with cancer (this has been studied repeatedly, no solid link has been found).
    * There is no reason to suspect that non-ionising radiation such as a mobile phone transmits could possibly cause cancer.
    * No mobile phone transmits at high enough power level to cause significant thermal effects (only way such radiation could harm you).

            Mister Reader said:

    eventhough he got letters from doctors and scientists pleading with him.

    No he didn’t, because scientists don’t send letters pleading for an imaginary health concern to be dealt with (they wouldn’t deserve to be called scientists if they did).

    A few quacks may have sent such crap, but quacks should be ignored, not listened to.

            Mister Reader said:

    He refused to allow radiation monitoring apps

    How could an app even measure it? Not that it’s relevant.

            Mister Reader said:

    and would not ship radiation blockers or scramblers even though he was urged to do this.

    Two things to note here:
    1. They aren’t needed as the scary radiation given off isn’t dangerous (the legal limits on transmit power are set low).
    2. Those things don’t even work (unless you just want the battery flattened).

            Mister Reader said:

    He also tried to stop warnings about children

    Baseless warnings should not exist.

            Mister Reader said:

    and he allowed child games to be sold for the phone to encourage children with developing braisn to use it.

    The only problem with encouraging children to use an iPhone or iFad is that it is encouraging a child to use an Apple product which may make them excessively fashion conscious and unwilling to experiment.

            Mister Reader said:

    Do you not find this dispicable? He had cancer and I don’t see that as being something to cry about when he didn’t mind giving it to other people.

    Yes, I find you claiming he caused other people to get cancer with no good reason despicable, but then again, I’m apparently more moral than you.


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string mJs3tI to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam