Steve Jobs takes another medical leave

Apple CEO Steve Jobs is taking another leave of absence in order to deal with an unspecified medical problem, according to reports everywhere like this one at CNBC. Jobs has already faced multiple health issues in recent years, including a liver transplant and a form of pancreatic cancer.

As before, Apple COO Tim Cook will take on most of Jobs’ responsibilities during his absence, while Jobs will retain the title of CEO and "be involved in major strategic decisions for the company," according to the report.

Comments closed
    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    Must be a slow week at the press room.

    Anyway, I just hope that Jobs is able to continue his battle bravely with cancer.

    • ThorAxe
    • 9 years ago

    “The highest truths cannot be forced into the type of empirical evidence that only applies to material reality.” – Joseph Ratzinger

    • d0g_p00p
    • 9 years ago

    I hate Apple and everything associated with it. However I hope he has a speedy recovery and it’s nothing too serious this time.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    It’s sad, and I know based on experience with family (as do many others here and around the world, as well as many more who have been through it themselves) that cancer sucks, and I hope he beats it. Given his outlook on life and whatnot, I’m 100% positive he doesn’t want prayer and all the talk of it is kind of silly for that reason alone.

    • NeelyCam
    • 9 years ago

    All this God talk in comments on Steve Jobs news report… how fitting.

    Should we draw parallels between RDF and religion?

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      Seems to me the [i<]magical[/i<] iPad can resolve whatever ails Jobs.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        Magic is for pagans, right..? Does that mean Steve Jobs will burn in hell?

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    Why so much childish, opinionated bigotry on TR news comments these days?

    Maybe some account culling or muting is in order.

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      maybe losing the voting system.

    • FireGryphon
    • 9 years ago

    Here’s to hoping Jobs recovers from whatever his ailments are and comes back ready lead Apple again. It is he who made Apple what it is today. Losing him would be a big loss for the computer industry, as it’d likely mean that Apple folds ion short order.

    • oldog
    • 9 years ago

    Gents,

    Mr. Jobs has pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer is bad (very bad). His failing health is not a surprise to anyone who knows about this disease.

    His courage in the face of it is another matter entirely. Although I suspect he does not believe in it, a prayer for his return to good health is warranted.

    • Thresher
    • 9 years ago

    The last leave of absence, he said he would be gone for 6 months.

    This time it’s open ended.

    I am not a betting man, but my guess is whatever the problem is, it’s more serious this time.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      So, Dirk Meyer has a new job lined up now?

        • derFunkenstein
        • 9 years ago

        It’d be interesting 1.) if that panned out and 2.) whether or not that increases Apple’s chances of using AMD CPUs. He can’t be pleased about being booted out the door.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 9 years ago

      I agree, it probably is much more serious. I’m pretty sure pancreatic cancer is almost completely incurable (and Wikipedia seems to agree with my foggy memory).

      This semi-old Macworld bit by John Siracusa is interesting in that light:

      [url<]http://www.macworld.com/article/58770/2007/07/augspotlight.html[/url<]

    • pdjblum
    • 9 years ago

    He is an arrogant a**hole. “The Yellow Emperor’s Book of Chinese Medicine,” written thousands of years ago, stated that arrogance is the highest form of disease. We can hope that he is taking time off to recover from that, and not because his cancer has gone out of remission or his body is rejecting his liver.

    • shank15217
    • 9 years ago

    Job’s strategy isn’t that hard to emulate…

    1. Customer experience is number #1, make it so easy that they cannot look away.
    2. Use quality materials and treat the computer as a piece of art.
    3. Lock in users with a standard user interface.
    4. If it gets expensive, DON’T cut corners.
    5. Make money with EVERYTHING you sell, don’t subsidize one product to help sell another.
    6. NEVER license out OSX or iOS and license whatever technology is needed to make Apple competitive.

    Thats about it.

      • HisDivineShadow
      • 9 years ago

      You forgot:

      7) Dumb everything down to the simplest possible way to do anything.
      8) Remove options. Options are confusing and people would rather not learn about an advanced menu. Better not to make people feel stupid by including one.
      9) DRM everything. Don’t let your files go easily to another platform. The more difficult you make transferring your content, the longer you can go on keeping it exclusive to your platform, the longer you have to get people hooked on another type of media that you can then DRM. Rinse, repeat. Keeping everyone in a cycle of DRM means no one’ll leave you.
      10) Make claims about how you’re against the pr0nz, but secretly allow Playboy and Penthouse apps. Be sure to say the other guys don’t have any kind of approval process, so they must be overrun by pornography.
      11) Patent anything and everything, even things people have been doing for years. If you can get the patent through, you can make your competitors less likely to do something, no matter how obvious or common it was before you came along due to the expense of invalidating said patent.
      12) Force everyone to do things your way. Think of this as thought and design DRM. If you can get everyone programming apps in your specific way for example, then you can limit interoperability or cross-porting, increasing the cost to the developer for bringing an app to other platforms in addition to yours. The greater the cost, the less likely they are to develop for other markets in addition to yours.
      13) Always design your hardware with obvious gaps, things that are needed. If you’re about to release an iPhone 3GS with a built-in wireless N but you’ve already done a CPU and GPU upgrade, don’t also throw in wireless N, even if you put the hardware in that can do it. Save that for next year. If you got Facetime coming for the iPhone 4 and you’re releasing the iPad, don’t add it. Save it. If you got an iPod Touch 3G that has a spot for a camera on the back, save it. If LTE is going to be big this year and you’re pushing out a new iPad for both AT&T and Verizon, save LTE for next year. It might be ready, but only upgrade a few things. Always keep an easy upgrade waiting in the wings. Next year’s product might need the boost.
      14) If a flaw is discovered in your product, describe it as a feature and not a flaw. If possible, redesign any GUI or interface to either reduce the obviousness of said flaw or to create the impression that the flaw is in fact an intended choice.
      15) If a company decides to create competition for your products, realize they MUST be evil. They MUST want to destroy you. If they were not evil and wanting to destroy you, why else would they want to compete with you? Competition is an all-out act of war. Tell everyone in your company how evil they are, letting the gossip filter out to the press through secondhand sources. Shrug and deny if confronted directly.
      16) If a product fails to succeed, call it a hobby. If it is a blockbuster, call it part of the plan.

        • BloodSoul
        • 9 years ago

        If this were facebook, I would “like” that… like a lot.

        • shank15217
        • 9 years ago

        Yea except you’re just babbling opinions vs what they actually do. Crushing your competition isnt evil, its economics. You don’t go into business to play nice.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Tell that to all the AMD fanboys whose favorite company is being crushed by Intel.

        • ssidbroadcast
        • 9 years ago

        ^^This is an obvious fanboy troll. Vote accordingly.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Looks like the votes are in…

        • pdjblum
        • 9 years ago

        Though I try all the time, I have not and could not say it better. There are a few TR readers that are so far up Job’s ass the only thing they hear is Jobs telling them how magic all his products are and how cool they are for using his products. They think they are hardware enthusiasts, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

        • KoolAidMan
        • 9 years ago

        Angry neckbeard tears are the best >:)

    • SomeOtherGeek
    • 9 years ago

    Well, I took a moment of silence for him. I really don’t see what all hoopla is about him. He is just another man that is suffering. Along with millions of other people in the world.

    Nonetheless, I wish him well and hope he bounces back. We still have a need to brilliant people.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      He’s brilliant, sure, but those reports of him being a belligerent ass towards his employees doesn’t really make me like him too much… I hope he survives these health issues, but at the same time learns some humility, and maybe develops a slightly nicer attitude towards others

        • SomeOtherGeek
        • 9 years ago

        Yes, I agree, there is no need for Jobs to be cruel or anything. We can always hope that people like him change a little for the better. But from some of the people I know personally, change is not something they want or even see that they need to change at all.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 9 years ago

        Society needs some jerks with vision, they get stuff done.

          • blastdoor
          • 9 years ago

          This really is true. The bureaucratic hurdles and pressures to conform to groupthink in a modern corporation are substantial. While we may need most people to be team players, we also need some really smart a-holes who have good ideas and the balls to implement them. The more common scenarios are good ideas with no balls and balls with no ideas (ballmer being the best example of the latter).

      • Farting Bob
      • 9 years ago

      If you took a moments silence for someone who youve never met and then say he’s just one of millions suffering (hundreds of millions, maybe billions suffering from various life threatening issues in fact), do you give a moments silence for all of them? You must be a quiet person….

    • oldDummy
    • 9 years ago

    This gentleman is known for being difficult.
    That being said; he is one of the world’s brightest lights in visionary: marketing, computer hardware and software.
    At one time Microsoft gave money to Apple just to have a fake competitor for anti-trust considerations.
    Those times are long past and his company is one of the most important corporations in America.
    At this time, if Jobs is not going to be available due to illness, Apple is a short candidate. With the swift changeover inherent in all things techno the loss of this one man is a death knell for the company. I wish him well and hope all turns out ok but this announcement is not good, not good at all.

    • Hattig
    • 9 years ago

    Good time to buy Apple shares, as they’ll drop because of fickle investors.

    Hopefully it’s a break to fatten him up and get him to relax and de-stress. But I think Apple now has a reasonable amount of ‘jobsian’ vision in the other top team members so it won’t affect the offerings too much.

      • Peffse
      • 9 years ago

      watching his stock drop is not good for de-stressing.

    • Grigory
    • 9 years ago

    Okay, now I feel bad for making some bad jokes. Actually I wish Jobs all the best! Fight, you can do it!

    • blastdoor
    • 9 years ago

    Two thoughts:

    1. It is a sad irony that the best decade of his professional life has also been the decade that he had to fight to stay alive

    2. When Jobs ultimately does have to step down as CEO of Apple (which I hope is in the distant future), I think people will be surprised by how well Apple does, for two reasons. First, Jobs is not an infallible god — he does make some mistakes. The first few years after he leaves, his successor can focus on the low hanging fruit of fixing the things that Jobs got wrong. Second, I have a hunch that Jobs’ DNA is in Apple now in a way that it hadn’t been when he left the first time. Just as the British Empire managed to do ok after Queen Elizabeth #1 left, I think Apple will do ok after Jobs leaves. This is a testament to his greatness — he has created something that will last.

      • ludi
      • 9 years ago

      [i<]1. It is a sad irony that the best decade of his professional life has also been the decade that he had to fight to stay alive[/i<] Some might seen irony, others might see cause and effect -- either direction, depending on the person and circumstances.

        • blastdoor
        • 9 years ago

        In Jobs circumstances, it’s irony. I don’t see any logical argument for how Pancreatic cancer causes success or how success causes Pancreatic cancer.

        edit — on second thought, I can see your point. It is possible that in facing the challenges of his cancer, Jobs was changed in ways that might have made him more successful. I guess that’s one of those things we can never really know.

          • Sargent Duck
          • 9 years ago

          There have been many studies done (please don’t ask me for links, I just read them in passing and filed them away in the “interesting, but I kinda already knew that” category in my brain) that said cancer can be caused by heavy amounts of stress (or at least heavy stress can be a large contributing factor). If Steve spent all of his life at the office ensuring the ipod, iphone, ipad, OSX.x and others were launched and was sleeping at the office/spent 24/7 thinking about it, that could play a factor.

          I’m not saying this for sure, so just take this post as a “pluasable”

          edit: You edited your post while I was still tryping, essentially saying the exact thing I did.

    • Grigory
    • 9 years ago

    Here’s the problem: Apple is not going to upgrade Jobs. They will just get a new one.

      • TaBoVilla
      • 9 years ago

      oprah?

        • Grigory
        • 9 years ago

        Hm? No, I am not Oprah. I wouldn’t fit in this little box if I were.

    • tejas84
    • 9 years ago

    I hope he is OK. I am praying that the cancer has not come back. Apple is Steve Jobs and vice versa.

    Steve Jobs is very important for computing in general and this is coming from a PC fanboy.

      • Meadows
      • 9 years ago

      I’m pretty sure [i<]praying[/i<] is what's going to make all the difference.

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        science says it does. argue with science.

          • internetsandman
          • 9 years ago

          What branch of pseudoscience has proven that prayer indeed works for everything, as it’s supposedly supposed to do? The only reason I can see for it working is the subconscious belief that you’re getting better, and only in some cases can I picture that optimism actually working. Using prayer to combat cancer? Highly unlikely. Using prayer to combat depression? Not the best way to go about it but it’s better than nothing, as a mental illness is best combatted with the mind. But no matter what, the only thing prayer is, is the subconscious hope and optimism that things will get better. Anything more that can result from it is mere coincidence.

            • WaltC
            • 9 years ago

            That’s all irrelevant. The fact is that “science” cannot save this man’s life (in fact, “science” cannot in the literal sense save anyone’s life since everyone dies), so the expression about “prayer” is merely a wish for something [i<]more effective[/i<] than science to come to the fore and effect the cure that science cannot deliver. You will note that in life the wish for "prayer" is often invoked for exactly that reason--because science fails so abysmally on so many fronts.

            • internetsandman
            • 9 years ago

            But unlike prayer and religion, science is at leat working to advance itself and better itself. Nobody ever said science was perfect, and that’s the exact reason it exists, to improve our knowledge and our abilities, to better the human race on numerous fronts. Science can be applied to damn near everything, with research and development constantly searching for and making improvements. Wishing for something more effective than science is completely redundant, because science itself is constantly making itself more effective.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]so the expression about "prayer" is merely a wish for something more effective than science to come to the fore and effect the cure that science cannot deliver[/quote<] Hah! Good luck with that.

            • Grigory
            • 9 years ago

            “in fact, science cannot in the literal sense save anyone’s life since everyone dies”

            Make that: “Science cannot save everyone’s life yet.”

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            OBVIOUSLY JUST PRAYING IS NOT GOING TO CURE CANCER. what is wrong with you?

            [url<]http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/comp_med/types/spirituality.jsp[/url<] talk to these guys.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Linky?

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            find it in my above post.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Doesn’t show anything about the power of prayer for someone else – especially someone who doesn’t know (s)he is being prayed for.

            • hapyman
            • 9 years ago

            Look up the work done by Masaru Emoto. His research shows that positive intentions/thoughts do have the power to effect our surroundings. The work mainly deals with water but we are 80% water anyhow. Emoto is the most popular one that is frequently mentioned although there are many others, even more reputable ones, that are doing similar work. The Cleveland Clinic is doing research on certain types of meditation pre-surgery and for muscle strength/memory.

            I forget where I read it but there was another study done to test the power thought. They took 3 groups of people and took a baseline reading of free-throw percentage. The first group practiced free throws a few times per week. The second group was instructed to go home and do visualization exercises for free-throws. The third group went home and did nothing. After the study was completed they took another average for free-throws and 2 of the 3 groups improved their percentage…. the practicing group and the visualization group.

            It is completely possible that science will discover how religion works and the best forms of prayer. There is another Dr. up here near Cleveland that is researching the frequencies emitted during prayer. His work is getting so much attention that NASA scientists came in to get additional measurements. The saddest thing about all of this is that it isn’t mainstream news. The news networks would have you believe that all the breakthroughs are coming from Baxter, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer et al. These companies throw millions of dollars lobbying to get there drugs through ropes (and worse to become mandatory) all the while spending millions more to get things like food forms of vitamin B6 outlawed all because they are developing an analogous pharmaceutical that is 10x more expensive.

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            Emoto has never done work in his life and what he calls “[i<]work[/i<]" is useless witchcraft and wizardry. He has never proved the effectiveness of his nonsense in any kind of peer reviewed scenario, has never been able to show anything of substance, and to make matters worse, he's actively cashing in on what basically amounts to tap water with a funny label. Disgusting person, but the people I really frown on are the idiots following him.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            hmmm. I’m not familiar with emoto, but that’s really a separate thing than prayer’s effects on human health anyway.

            • hapyman
            • 9 years ago

            My last paragraph talks about this. There is a doctor that can measure the frequency of prayer. I know him personally and NASA confirmed this whether they published it or not. This just wasn’t self prayer. It was done with him praying over another person. On top of that the person was over 120 miles away and they were still able to measure the instant the prayer started. The person was placed in a box to block out competing frequencies such as WIFI and mobile phone bands.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            If this isn’t published (so it could be scrutinized), it has zero credibility. Dropping NASA’s name doesn’t make it any more credible.

            Publish it, and we’ll talk.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Your examples are about self-influence – not about influence on others, which is what are (or should be) discussing here.

            Mythbusters research clearly disproves that thoughts can affect things surrounding you.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            I’d hardly quote anything from mythbusters in a discussion on science. if nothing else, that mustache should be illegal.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            It does however, prove that prayer has effects. even if we’re not aware of it. 5 seconds ago, everyone was saying “prayer is a lie!” and now, it’s been shown otherwise. At this point, I expect other research to show prayer and meditation being helpful in all sorts of ways/situations.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Self-hypnosis has been used for ages to improve all sorts of medical/mental conditions. Prayer and meditation sort of fall into that category.

            What I have not seen proof of: 1) any improvement from prayer can be attributed to influence by a greater entity (e.g., God) instead of self-influence/hypnosis, or 2) an individual can be helped by prayers/meditation/etc. by others if the individual doesn’t know it.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            I never implied that it was caused by a greater entity. Merely that a belief in such a thing, and the application of spirituality will improve health. As a scientist, the end result is enough for me.

        • ludi
        • 9 years ago

        “Praying” in abstract, no. “Faith” in abstract, another no, as well. Better make sure you know and trust whomever or whatever you are praying to.

      • HisDivineShadow
      • 9 years ago

      Computing got along fine before Steve Jobs, got along fine when he was off fooling around after he got punted by Apple, and it’ll get along fine after him, too. Liver transplants are no joke. Most don’t last very long after them, so I’ve been wondering how long he had left in him. I hope he did not burn himself out pushing Apple to the top of its game because it MAY not last long without him.

      However, one man should not have the power to let his opinions dictate absolute control over the content so many people view. I’d say the same of Rupert Murdoch or Mark Zuckerberg, too. A corporation ruled by a single, unifying voice is a somewhat terrifying prospect and always leads to ill. I trust the confused, rambling arguments of boards of directors watching over a CEO more for the fact that when power is shared, each person who holds that power is afraid of the others as potential usurpers, keeping them semi-honest. Keeping the guy in chart honest, lest he create an opening for someone to replace him.

      With Jobs, he knows he can do whatever he wants and there are no consequences. He can answer his emails honestly and flippantly because he knows no matter what he says, what he does, who he screws, there’ll be a thousand more sycophants waiting in the wings. I suppose it is reassuring that even someone as high as he is can have earthly ills, even if he can redeye his way through at least some of them with lots and lots of money.

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        “Computing got along fine before Steve Jobs, got along fine when he was off fooling around after he got punted by Apple, and it’ll get along fine after him,”

        Are you serious? my mp3 player had an UGLY LCD. SOMETHING’S I CAN NOT ABIDE. SERIOUSLY. IT WAS LIKE ALARM CLOCK QUALITY. I WANTED TO DIE.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          I remember those. And the 64-128MB of memory.. I got really good at compressing MP3s while minimizing damage to sound quality

    • danieldasilva
    • 9 years ago

    Haters gonna hate.

      • crabjokeman
      • 9 years ago

      How vapid… Translation: “I’ll use a catchy slogan to put down anyone with a different opinion than me.”

        • danieldasilva
        • 9 years ago

        Haters gonna hate.

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    God be with him. Here’s hoping he makes a speedy recovery. If it werent for this man, we’d all be using windows mobile 6.0, and loving it. I wish good health on any man.

      • TaBoVilla
      • 9 years ago

      long live the stylus

        • A_Pickle
        • 9 years ago

        HEAR! HEAR!

      • anotherengineer
      • 9 years ago

      “I wish good health on any man.”
      Even if that man was your boss, and had an affair with your wife then canned you???

        • [TR]
        • 9 years ago

        Wait, who’s laid with who in that story?

        • trackerben
        • 9 years ago

        To wish ill of another is predictable, even expected. Wishing others well no matter what is rarer, but saner.

      • Duck
      • 9 years ago

      God be with him?? So what does that mean? Just go home, Jobs. You don’t need a Dr cause god with you now…

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        No. obviously that would be crazy. I just think having God, AND a Doctor is a good idea. I’m religious, but rational. I’m not going to apologize for that, as there’s nothing to apologize for.

        love the minus

          • BloodSoul
          • 9 years ago

          I hate to be an @ss, but “I’m religious, but rational”? I feel like that is a stab at both sides (although in your defense, most likely unintentional). Those who are strictly religious would see it as “you are calling us irrational”. Those who are strictly rational would see it as “So you claim that you can be rational while still believing in the man-made fantasy called religion?” I will not say which side I am on in that fictional scenario, but just know that your statement could be widely viewed as offensive haha.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            Rational:”A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem”

            I suppose rather than an attack, I just meant it as a way of saying “i like science too”

            • nanoflower
            • 9 years ago

            BloodSoul, I think you may be misunderstanding sweathshopking. What he said isn’t a swipe at religious people. However it is a swipe at those that are so convinced in the all mighty power of God that they refuse to utilize the tools that man has at hand like simple medicines that can cure disease. When someone refuses to utilize any of the tools of modern medicine that can be seen as being irrational. I think sweatshopking was saying that he believes in God and prayer but if he or someone in his family gets seriously ill he is rational enough to see that isn’t enough and will be calling the doctor to get medical help. That way he can get the best of both worlds.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          I must say, you’re quite brave announcing that you’re religious on a site whose readers are predominantly scientific atheists…

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            i’ve said it before. it’s not a concern for me. I’m a baha’i. google it, or don’t. I don’t expect to be attacked.

            And you’ll have trouble finding something we don’t agree on. Science is fundamental to my beliefs.

            • Anomymous Gerbil
            • 9 years ago

            Science isn’t about beliefs.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 9 years ago

            Everyone has beliefs. You can’t logically determine truth from the ground up every time some stimulus reaches you.

            • Anomymous Gerbil
            • 9 years ago

            Sure, science can’t answer all questions yet (but who knows where we’ll get one day?), and some questions are just stupid (“Why are we here?” springs to mind).

            But that wasn’t my point, which was that science is about hypotheses, observations, refinement, replication, peer review etc — not beliefs.

            • trackerben
            • 9 years ago

            Organized science is the best way we have of devolving lesser explanations of how things work in favor of stronger ones. It is strong in experimental discovery and its best practicioners are influential in describing the material domain, but is far less useful outside context. Scientific methods cannot discover meaningful answers for a five-year old who asks why he is alive, what will become of him, what must be his priorities, and why he should listen to anyone. What “fitness” or “error-compensation” schema can explain how the species evolved such common “immaterialities” or “errors” as a formative expression of genetic or memetic processes? There are observable, recordable artifacts of our consciousness which are hard to explain or even dimension with the methods available, and it is wishful thinking to believe that this continued unavailability will some day be resolved within context.

            Experimental science helps little in explaining the teleologies which irregularly inform our hearts and minds as we each measure our lives in the face of a maddening universe. Scholars of history, ethics, and law have the descriptive and predictive powers in the non-materialist domain. Steve Jobs, like any of us, is a unique person in history with a complex yet valued existence that no rational model of mechanisms and behaviors could have explained or predicted.

            • Anomymous Gerbil
            • 9 years ago

            Questions like “why am I alive?” or “what will become of me?” are easy to answer: “Mummy and Daddy had sex, you were conceived, born and grew up” and “You will live for a certain amount of time, and then you will die”. Answering meaningless and/or value-based “questions” is not what science is about. Why people feel that these questions need to be answered, and why they attempt to use them to criticise science, is beyond me. Maybe it’s because you feel the need to “measure” your life (whatever that means) in a “maddening” universe (whatever that means).

            I admit to having no idea what you mean by scholars with “predictive powers in the non-materialist domain”, but I’m pretty sure it also has nothing to do with science. And I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Steve Jobs being unique; every one of us is a “unique person in history”.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            “Answering meaningless and/or value-based”

            That’s your belief. some people find meaning in them.

            • Anomymous Gerbil
            • 9 years ago

            What I mean is, they’re totally meaningless in the context of science. That’s a fact, not a beleif. It makes no sense to use non-examples like those to discuss the validity of the scientific method.

            If you choose to believe in non-scientific things like religions and spirituality, then those questions (and the inifinte number of answers that make religious belief possible) are perfect.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            Your point assists the argument that science doesn’t/can’t have all the answers.

            “If you choose to believe in non-scientific things like religions and spirituality, then those questions (and the inifinte number of answers that make religious belief possible) are perfect.”

            where else can you turn to to find those answers, if they are “meaningless” to science?

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]where else can you turn to to find those answers, if they are "meaningless" to science?[/quote<] If its not science, then its religion.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            i find that to be incorrect by my definition. what ever science proves is false, is superstition. religion is something else. by my definition anyway. MY beliefs should be based on logical conclusions, and should be analyzable. if science proved that God can’t/doesn’t exist, then I wouldn’t believe in God. At this point, and in the near future, I’m not sure that’s going to be possible. Since we can only go back to right after the creation of the universe, and not before.

            • trackerben
            • 9 years ago

            I agree with your “…science can’t answer all questions yet…” thus the disclaimer on the limits of empirical study in explaining why a common question like “Why are we here?” is normally outside scientific scope. In your charactization of such questions as “stupid”, it was not obvious if you meant that such ought to be asked elsewhere. So I put in why we should be looking to other fields of inquiry for what you might term “value-based” answers. Interestingly, one of the answers you will get from the jurists and philosophers (at least those who aren’t gullible postmodernists) is that justifying the worth of advancing science on its own philosophical merits is basically a question of value and meaning.

            Progress in scientific inquiry depends on scientists and their constituencies having faith that the work is worth the effort and rewards. This in turn is based on a strong consensual belief – based on historical evidence which supports that belief – that the paradigms, the methodologies, the entire scheme of rationality and mathematics underlying the work of the hard sciences is valid and liberating, and thus will always be useful.

            A legal or theological historian, sociologist, or intelligence analyst would generally be better suited to predicting the trends of a person’s or even a society’s life-cycle than your average physicist. Unless the physicist had also acquired similar experiences, training, and knowledgebases, and therefore was more than just the expert in his material-reductionist field and little else.

            That many unique persons of all ages throughout history would predictably seek common teleological answers is a central paradox. It points to the exceptional nature of our improbable levels of sentience and self-awareness, in a universe demonstrably full of anything but. I would not dismiss the relevance of such questions given the metaphysics, nor the great many who have voiced them seriously given their untold numbers. I would agree that those who see this phenomena as reason to diminish support for the hard sciences are not doing themselves nor civilization any good. There are no real contradictions, if one understands that the difficulties are found in the contest between worldviews.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]It points to the exceptional nature of our improbable levels of sentience and self-awareness, in a universe demonstrably full of anything but.[/quote<] Perhaps you have greater knowledge of the rest of the universe than the rest of us do. However I suspect you simply read more philosophy.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            you know of any other intelligent species? I don’t.

            That’s not to say that I don’t think there are any, as simple math says that’s unlikely. It would be rather arrogant to think the entire universe was created for me. but at this point, we’re the only self aware species we know of. and self awareness seems to have little use in evolution, so whether it’s easily repeatable or not, I don’t know.

            • trackerben
            • 9 years ago

            I can only post about stuff I’ve seen or were told or reported by others who are authoritative, preferably testably authorative. Until recently I was steeped in a type of scientism, a faith in the power of reason in natural philosophy to ultimately explain everything with empirical evidence gained through objective scientific and historical research. Not to mention lessons from certain post-Enlightenment freethinkers.

            Nowadays I know better than to fully rely on just these precepts. Mostly I do resort to these at first if skepticism is warranted.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Organized science sounds great in principle, but is all too often corrupted to advance individual egos or political agendas.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            LOL.

            • Anomymous Gerbil
            • 9 years ago

            In the short term, sure it can be corrupted. The Joy of Science (TM) is that in the medium term, failure to replicate bogus results disproves them, and All Is Well.

            If you’re referring to science being used for bogus means for political purposes, then science is hardly alone there – some politicians will use anything they can to get elected, favour themselves or their friends or electorates, and get re-elected. The common-yet-frightening misunderstanding of science (as evidenced in this thread, even on a tech-savvy site like this one) makes it a wonderful playground for politicians, charlatans etc.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            misunderstanding? what misunderstanding? there’s no misunderstanding here, people just don’t agree with you.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 9 years ago

            You mean you don’t agree with him.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            actually, not really. I even agree with him. Mostly. definitely science can be misunderstood, and used incorrectly, and that over the long term, it generally sorts itself out. we agree there. I even agree that science sucks at explaining “why am i here” questions.

            I’m just not sure what he thinks i’m misunderstanding.

            I don’t understand people saying “no you’re wrong! science says it’s a lie! there is nothing else!” about something like prayer having an effect on health, and then when you say “here’s the science”, they say “you don’t understand science!”. I’m not saying he said that, just that it’s those kind of consultations that a guy gets used to hearing.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 9 years ago

            Its amazing what happens when science comes into conflict with certain political groups.

            • Anomymous Gerbil
            • 9 years ago

            Reply fail.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            I see google is too complicated for you. not surprising given your history of posts.

            also, science is TOTALLY about belief. science is wrong all the time. it gets updated, and then you believe the “new” science. for years, formula was more nutritious than breast milk, in the 70’s they counseled taking it easy, and not exercising, as your heart “only had so many beats”. all proven with science. Next couple of years we’re going to believe other things, that turn out false. lies, damned lies, and statistics, and all that.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            You’re talking about [i<]bad[/i<] science. I've stopped trusting medical doctors - they rarely seem to know what's going on... or care. There's good science too. Like evolution.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            There is good science, and bad. But it’s hard to know the difference at the time. My point was that it’s all relative, and we make THEORIES, because we can’t actually prove anything. Just what we think might be happening. of course, it’s more complicated then that, but science, like religion, changes, and gets updated.

            And I believe in evolution, nice try 😛 If you’re not familiar with my faith, it’s rather surprising, and worth a look.

            I’m waiting for the inevitable -‘s

            • Anomymous Gerbil
            • 9 years ago

            This is a pretty good example of what I mean about people not understanding science.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            ad hominem, with no explanation. also known as “I have no point to make, but I disagree”.

            what part don’t I understand? please, enlighten me.

            • mattthemuppet
            • 9 years ago

            then you don’t know much about science. Scientists believe in their theories just as devoutly as people believe in God and can do so just as irrationally when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

            There are countless examples of dogmas (the “DNA>RNA>protein and never any other way” dogma is a great example) that have been defended tooth and nail, even when it’s clear that they are flawed. In fact, scientists that point out flaws in scientific dogmas are often decried as heretics – the lucky ones succeed, the unlucky ones are excommunicated.

            So, how is science different again?

            • A_Pickle
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]...dogmas (the "DNA>RNA>protein and never any other way" dogma is a great example)...[/quote<] fwhat.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            or this:
            [url<]http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life[/url<]

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    Look at you, Jobs. You’re coming apart.

      • tejas84
      • 9 years ago

      @Meadows

      You are a scum lowlife prick and I hope you die..

        • derFunkenstein
        • 9 years ago

        “hope you die” is just as bad, if not worse, than the jokes. Seriously. Folks that make the cracks may be bottom feeders, but you have to be better than that.

        • pdjblum
        • 9 years ago

        I hope you choke, but do not die, on his “scum lowlife prick.” That is, at least until Jobs recovers and you can go back to sucking on his.

          • sweatshopking
          • 9 years ago

          whoa boys. let’s take it easy.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Homophobic?

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            me? I’m not. I just don’t like people losing their minds. we’re all friends, even if all my posts get -‘ed

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            I didn’t think pdjblum was losing it; I think there was some veiled but mildly clever humor embedded in his comment.

            tejas84 might have been losing it, though..

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            We’re all friends? So you’re not homophobic [i<]after all[/i<].

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            no dude. i’ve told you that before. plus, don’t forget, you’re a 20 year old hot babe.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Ah, so [i<]that's[/i<] why Meadows hates me! It all makes sense now.

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            No, I hate you because you’re stupid.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            IQ >150, baby!

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            I have no idea what my iq is. Though I hear it’s a poor measure of intelligence.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Depends on what “intelligence” means.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            intelligence: “how clever you are at TRICKING WOMEN SO YOU CAN GET LAID!”

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            seems i’m rather stupid by that definition 🙁

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Are you implying that your wife is too busy studying?

            In all fairness, all that cleaning should score you something, right?

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            i wish. she’s happy, it just doesn’t translate as action for me.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Well, then it should translate as house not getting clean.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            lol. i’d be stabbed. seriously.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            She sounds like a ninja that has you under her thumb… if the sex was worth it, I’d understand, but what you say above makes me wonder what you get out of this…

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            I get to give away my paychecks! !!

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Stupid double post.

            • TaBoVilla
            • 9 years ago

            IQ>150 people don’t double post =)

            • TaBoVilla
            • 9 years ago

            DAMMIT!!

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            DAMN IT!! *

        • ludi
        • 9 years ago

        Lo, for I suddenly understand what the “Thumbs down” button is for!

        You are an effective, if unusual, teacher.

    • Grigory
    • 9 years ago

    iCoffin

      • BlackJammy
      • 9 years ago

      That’s just not right…SMH

      • ludi
      • 9 years ago

      Wait for version 2, it’s much better equipped and somewhat cheaper.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        It also gets you to the grave faster.

        • Grigory
        • 9 years ago

        Yeah, but it still locks you in. 😉

          • Meadows
          • 9 years ago

          This man achieves victory.

      • tejas84
      • 9 years ago

      Grigory = douchebaggio

        • Grigory
        • 9 years ago

        I love you too, sweetie! 😀

      • ClickClick5
      • 9 years ago

      This made me laugh. Kudos!

      At least it will come with 3G and a brushed metallic case.

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    If you need me, I’ll be insuring my bodily organs from theft.

    edit: First to post, first to hate.

      • axeman
      • 9 years ago

      Maybe HE needs new organs because Bill Gates stole them. Did you think about that before all the hate?

        • HisDivineShadow
        • 9 years ago

        Maybe HE stole them from someone at Xerox before Bill Gates snuck in one night and stole them from him. Then a handful of Chrome developers used a cannon to mow Gates down and then put a youtube video up showing the whole thing.

        Unfortunately, everyone was too busy “liking” each other on Facebook to notice all the twitters about that youtube vid.

      • twizttid13
      • 9 years ago

      I don’t believe your the first poster, where’s the 1 next to your name? 😛

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This