A vegan diet can be healthy, but often is not, depending on who the vegan is. When animal products are replaced with processed food, of which there is an abundance in America, all bets are off.
Some vegans take a step or two forward by getting meat, loaded with antibiotics and growth hormones, out of their diet, but then add soy-based products, sugar, and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.
I'm glad this has finally been put to rest, it was just being used as phony ammunition by wankers trying to short the stock, you know the types - they will stick a headline on Digg like Steve Job does not have CANCER, and capitalize the CANCER instead of not. What foul creatures.
FINALLY, we get on to the interesting stuff, like the new Macbooks or mystery product!
It is apparently (very) slightly different if the individual's contribution in question is a major factor in the value of the stock. There are some SEC regulations regarding notification if the health affects a CEO's ability to serve, but they still get privacy protection in terms of not being allowed to give any clues or details at all about what is wrong and how it's treated without permission. Apparently it's not really enforced much, if at all, but the regulations are there. But clearly, those demanding to know anything about what's going on or even physician physicals are just out of line with regards to the law.
These two regulations don't over rule one another. the SEC just states that they report if there is an ABILITY not to serve. Not if he has a medical condition. Many folks have medical conditions and work every day. So unless there was mental instability or was in a coma no inability to serve.
As far as I know, people can be perfectly healthy as a vegan. In fact it is more unnatural for humans/mammals to consume dairy products after infancy (mother's milk), than it is to live on a vegetarian diet.
You have to be quite well educated in health and what you are eating to eat healthy as a vegan. If you lack this knowledge you are definitely not eating what your body needs. Certain things like protein require a deliberate effort to take in at proper amounts for someone with this type of diet. Our bodies are not designed to eat this way. It can definitely be done, though, and done well.
I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.
The human body is amazingly adaptive. Sure, veganism is far from an optimum diet, but many people who eat mostly but junk food somehow manage to live reasonably healthy lives too.
There is a syndrome called malabsorption that can occur when the small bowel is shortened that can cause several things to happen- including profuse GI symptoms and weight loss. Personally I am relieved that Mr. Jobs is healthy and doing well. As to all the public comments, there is a federal law called HIPAA - Health Information Privacy Act, which make it a federal crime, punishable by a $10,000 for any healthcare person to divulge personal information- that was put in place because privacy is privacy. This does not relate to SEC issues, but the whole issue of privacy is a serious one that should be respected. AS long as his health is OK and his board is OK with what is going on, that should be good enough for everyone. The guy seems a bit over the top on privacy, since he loves to manipulate the press, but how or whether to announce his health issues IS his perogative.
Finally (forgot to post earlier) there is an issue of taxes, if he had cancer, he would be selling stock for his family because capital gains are much less than estate taxes, although a clever estate lawyer can help with that. And that has to be disclosed.
For Nocera, the notion that Jobs would rather settle a score with a journalist (one who was initially labeled a "slime bucket" making factual errors) than make an official statement to defend his company is baffling. If anything, the writer believes, one would expect Jobs to do what it took to have shareholders hold on to their investments in the company.
"You would think he’d want them to know before me," Nocera says. "But apparently not."
This is yet another way for Steve Jobs to dismiss his responsabilities. Given that he appropriated more than $1 billion for himself in illegal, backdated stock options, and another $1 billion to reward his hand picked Vice-Presidents, one would think that Steve Jobs could feel a duty to obey the law and show some respect to the shareholders who made the dreams of a high school graduate possible.
But, apparently not.
Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
This is yet another way for Steve Jobs to dismiss his responsabilities. Given that he appropriated more than $1 billion for himself in illegal, backdated stock options, and another $1 billion to reward his hand picked Vice-Presidents, one would think that Steve Jobs could feel a duty to obey the law and show some respect to the shareholders who made the dreams of a high school graduate possible.
But, apparently not.
Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
WTF?? Are you that much of a catastrophic tool? He's been cleared of all crimes by the SEC on the backdating issues. More importantly, he doesn't have to reveal any health issues as it's protected by law, all they have to report is his ability to serve as CEO, that's it, period, end of argument.
T Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
If not telling the truth is what got your products and your stock where it is today, please Steve, do more of the same!!!!!!
In the meantime, I'll just bask in the afterglow of the (obviously phony) stock price rise since the time you retook Apple, and the (obviously phony) product introductions such as iPhone, iPod, MBP/MB, MBA, Intel processors, iLife, iWork, and OSX.
Ughh, this thread makes my head hurt. I'm going to do this in bullet points since some of you are clearly reading impaired.
1) Apple is Steve Jobs.
2) Jobs' health is materially relevant to the future of Apple.
3) If you were a stock holder you'd want to know whether Jobs, a cancer survivor, was in trouble again. He dies, Apple stock would, rightly or wrongly, crater. His fate matters, and it's the house he built.
4) It's a gray area about whether such issues are required to be reported, but given Apple's culture of secrecy, it's doubly-difficult to know what's going on there.
5) Of course the NY Times reporter verified he spoke to Jobs, otherwise Apple's flacks would have shit a brick and there'd be a big fat retraction in the paper. Come folks, don't be so stupid.
6) The NYT is a complicated institution, but this reflexive press bashing is scary. It's as if you want to live in a world of nothing but Fox News, i.e. state sponsored propaganda, delivered unquestioned. I've got my beefs with the NYT, but thank god it and other newspapers exist.
7) Those of you who think Jobs was innocent of the backdating thing probably think OJ was innocent. 'Nuff said on that.
The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.
Yey, there's a bright contribution! Its true, all those sickly skeletal gaunt glassy eyed people walking around in a daze... they're all vegan. They are usually feverishly hungry (for MEAT!) and tend to make REALLY bad decisions, a symptom of constantly living in utter denial. Really it's true, as my five year old would say.
I wonder what a 'natural' life style would be in this day and age? Hey, Matt Alex, any thoughts?
Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
What Steve Jobs must have believed was that the surgical cure would be horrific and would have significant, lasting effects, not to mention a short-term 1-3% risk of death from the procedure. Steve Jobs did everything he could to avoid the surgery. Pretty smart and responsible, in my opinion. It doesn't require "true belief" that a dietary solution will necessarily work, just well-placed fear of the surgical approach and a desire to try an alternative therapy for an unusual form of cancer.
ughh, this thread makes my head hurt. I'm going to do this in bullet points since some of you are clearly reading impaired.
1) apple is steve jobs.
2) jobs' health is materially relevant to the future of apple.
3) if you were a stock holder you'd want to know whether jobs, a cancer survivor, was in trouble again. He dies, apple stock would, rightly or wrongly, crater. His fate matters, and it's the house he built.
4) it's a gray area about whether such issues are required to be reported, but given apple's culture of secrecy, it's doubly-difficult to know what's going on there.
5) of course the ny times reporter verified he spoke to jobs, otherwise apple's flacks would have shit a brick and there'd be a big fat retraction in the paper. Come folks, don't be so stupid.
6) the nyt is a complicated institution, but this reflexive press bashing is scary. It's as if you want to live in a world of nothing but fox news, i.e. State sponsored propaganda, delivered unquestioned. I've got my beefs with the nyt, but thank god it and other newspapers exist.
7) those of you who think jobs was innocent of the backdating thing probably think oj was innocent. 'nuff said on that.
Yahtze!
Jobs couldn't do sh!t without all of the talented people at Apple. The NY Times is blogging the subject of Jobs' health, not investigating. If I was a shareholder, I could do a better job of investigating than those dweebs.
Comparing Steve Jobs to OJ Simpson is like comparing Apple to Orange. As if you know it all because you saw all of the evidence presented at Steve's trial on the options charges. Oh, wait, there was no trial and there will be no charges.
Finally (forgot to post earlier) there is an issue of taxes, if he had cancer, he would be selling stock for his family because capital gains are much less than estate taxes, although a clever estate lawyer can help with that. And that has to be disclosed.
I think you are off-base here. Converting stock to cash doesn't by itself get it out of his estate. Both cash and stock are just as easily manipulated by a lawyer. It is a vastly complicated subject (here in the US). Lack or presense of action is not a good indicator of anything.
A possible exception would be to sell high. This is of course insider trading and would lead to all kinds of problems for both him and estate.
Jobs couldn't do sh!t without all of the talented people at Apple. The NY Times is blogging the subject of Jobs' health, not investigating. If I was a shareholder, I could do a better job of investigating than those dweebs.
Comparing Steve Jobs to OJ Simpson is like comparing Apple to Orange. As if you know it all because you saw all of the evidence presented at Steve's trial on the options charges. Oh, wait, there was no trial and there will be no charges. idiotic.
You went back and edited your comment and this was the best you can do?
This is horrible. This is so private and should not had exploded into this size. This is just as bad as showing Hollywood life on E! or Access Hollywood. ohhh media in this country.....
This is yet another way for Steve Jobs to dismiss his responsabilities. Given that he appropriated more than $1 billion for himself in illegal, backdated stock options, and another $1 billion to reward his hand picked Vice-Presidents, one would think that Steve Jobs could feel a duty to obey the law and show some respect to the shareholders who made the dreams of a high school graduate possible.
But, apparently not.
Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
WTF?? Are you that much of a catastrophic tool? He's been cleared of all crimes by the SEC on the backdating issues. More importantly, he doesn't have to reveal any health issues as it's protected by law, all they have to report is his ability to serve as CEO, that's it, period, end of argument.
Christ, you make my head hurt.
At least he didn't say this this time. A few choice quotes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
"I have read the insightful story on Steve Jobs published by Fortune and I am left with the same uneasy feeling I had before I read it. How can the Apple board of directors be so blind to the shortcomings of Steve Jobs?
(material elided)
Second of all, Steve Jobs is a high school graduate who should never have been allowed to serve as the CEO of an international company listed on the NASDQ stock exchange. Steve Jobs didn't have the brains, mental health and self discipline required to undertake and complete a university degree, a common characteristic of schizophrenia patients with an overblown ego.
(material elided)
One could say that Steve Jobs has accomplished everything that he could ever do for Apple. As an orphan born out of wedlock in 1955, a child rejected by his biological mother and a Syrian father, a high school graduate raised in a blue collar family, Steve Jobs has accomplished more than could be expected from him....."
He posts a similar rant any time the subject of Steve Jobs, his health, or shortcomings of any Apple products come up. I'm not exactly a blind worshipper of Steve Jobs; he has several bees in his bonnet that I personally disagree with from a design and marketing point of view. (Of course, with my opinions and $2.00 you can buy a cup of coffee.) However, I think these kind of statements are really beyond the pale of polite discourse. (I have a feeling if Jobs were black, this post would have been deleted at the time.)
I'm sure Bill Gates would be interested to hear ouragan's psychological diagnosis of anyone who didn't complete a university degree, for whatever reason. Seriously, where does anybody get this kind of arrogance? Surely he must be richer than Jobs and Gates put together! And he deserves it, because I'm sure he was legitimately conceived and "completed a university degree." It really is an outrage that someone so much lower on the social scale than the great ouragan should have achieved the success Steve Jobs has! The world is really out of joint, isn't it?
Comments
I want Apple to continue, and Jobs to continue.
Amen, and the best way for one to boost one's health is to:
(1) get onto the ancestral diet, as described by Dr. Joseph Mercola, at:
http://www.mercola.com
http://www.mercola.com/townofallopath/index.htm
(2) take three bottles of ViaViente per month
http://www.viaviente.com/
http://www.12weeks.info/
A vegan diet can be healthy, but often is not, depending on who the vegan is. When animal products are replaced with processed food, of which there is an abundance in America, all bets are off.
Some vegans take a step or two forward by getting meat, loaded with antibiotics and growth hormones, out of their diet, but then add soy-based products, sugar, and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.
FINALLY, we get on to the interesting stuff, like the new Macbooks or mystery product!
It is apparently (very) slightly different if the individual's contribution in question is a major factor in the value of the stock. There are some SEC regulations regarding notification if the health affects a CEO's ability to serve, but they still get privacy protection in terms of not being allowed to give any clues or details at all about what is wrong and how it's treated without permission. Apparently it's not really enforced much, if at all, but the regulations are there. But clearly, those demanding to know anything about what's going on or even physician physicals are just out of line with regards to the law.
These two regulations don't over rule one another. the SEC just states that they report if there is an ABILITY not to serve. Not if he has a medical condition. Many folks have medical conditions and work every day. So unless there was mental instability or was in a coma no inability to serve.
As far as I know, people can be perfectly healthy as a vegan. In fact it is more unnatural for humans/mammals to consume dairy products after infancy (mother's milk), than it is to live on a vegetarian diet.
You have to be quite well educated in health and what you are eating to eat healthy as a vegan. If you lack this knowledge you are definitely not eating what your body needs. Certain things like protein require a deliberate effort to take in at proper amounts for someone with this type of diet. Our bodies are not designed to eat this way. It can definitely be done, though, and done well.
I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.
The human body is amazingly adaptive. Sure, veganism is far from an optimum diet, but many people who eat mostly but junk food somehow manage to live reasonably healthy lives too.
For Nocera, the notion that Jobs would rather settle a score with a journalist (one who was initially labeled a "slime bucket" making factual errors) than make an official statement to defend his company is baffling. If anything, the writer believes, one would expect Jobs to do what it took to have shareholders hold on to their investments in the company.
"You would think he’d want them to know before me," Nocera says. "But apparently not."
This is yet another way for Steve Jobs to dismiss his responsabilities. Given that he appropriated more than $1 billion for himself in illegal, backdated stock options, and another $1 billion to reward his hand picked Vice-Presidents, one would think that Steve Jobs could feel a duty to obey the law and show some respect to the shareholders who made the dreams of a high school graduate possible.
But, apparently not.
Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
This is yet another way for Steve Jobs to dismiss his responsabilities. Given that he appropriated more than $1 billion for himself in illegal, backdated stock options, and another $1 billion to reward his hand picked Vice-Presidents, one would think that Steve Jobs could feel a duty to obey the law and show some respect to the shareholders who made the dreams of a high school graduate possible.
But, apparently not.
Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
WTF?? Are you that much of a catastrophic tool? He's been cleared of all crimes by the SEC on the backdating issues. More importantly, he doesn't have to reveal any health issues as it's protected by law, all they have to report is his ability to serve as CEO, that's it, period, end of argument.
Christ, you make my head hurt.
T Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
If not telling the truth is what got your products and your stock where it is today, please Steve, do more of the same!!!!!!
In the meantime, I'll just bask in the afterglow of the (obviously phony) stock price rise since the time you retook Apple, and the (obviously phony) product introductions such as iPhone, iPod, MBP/MB, MBA, Intel processors, iLife, iWork, and OSX.
1) Apple is Steve Jobs.
2) Jobs' health is materially relevant to the future of Apple.
3) If you were a stock holder you'd want to know whether Jobs, a cancer survivor, was in trouble again. He dies, Apple stock would, rightly or wrongly, crater. His fate matters, and it's the house he built.
4) It's a gray area about whether such issues are required to be reported, but given Apple's culture of secrecy, it's doubly-difficult to know what's going on there.
5) Of course the NY Times reporter verified he spoke to Jobs, otherwise Apple's flacks would have shit a brick and there'd be a big fat retraction in the paper. Come folks, don't be so stupid.
6) The NYT is a complicated institution, but this reflexive press bashing is scary. It's as if you want to live in a world of nothing but Fox News, i.e. state sponsored propaganda, delivered unquestioned. I've got my beefs with the NYT, but thank god it and other newspapers exist.
7) Those of you who think Jobs was innocent of the backdating thing probably think OJ was innocent. 'Nuff said on that.
FINALLY, we get on to the interesting stuff, like the new Macbooks or mystery product!
Wishful thinking. It will back to 10 iPhone threads daily which is an incurable disease in itself so it seems.
The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.
Yey, there's a bright contribution! Its true, all those sickly skeletal gaunt glassy eyed people walking around in a daze... they're all vegan. They are usually feverishly hungry (for MEAT!) and tend to make REALLY bad decisions, a symptom of constantly living in utter denial. Really it's true, as my five year old would say.
I wonder what a 'natural' life style would be in this day and age? Hey, Matt Alex, any thoughts?
Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
What Steve Jobs must have believed was that the surgical cure would be horrific and would have significant, lasting effects, not to mention a short-term 1-3% risk of death from the procedure. Steve Jobs did everything he could to avoid the surgery. Pretty smart and responsible, in my opinion. It doesn't require "true belief" that a dietary solution will necessarily work, just well-placed fear of the surgical approach and a desire to try an alternative therapy for an unusual form of cancer.
ughh, this thread makes my head hurt. I'm going to do this in bullet points since some of you are clearly reading impaired.
1) apple is steve jobs.
2) jobs' health is materially relevant to the future of apple.
3) if you were a stock holder you'd want to know whether jobs, a cancer survivor, was in trouble again. He dies, apple stock would, rightly or wrongly, crater. His fate matters, and it's the house he built.
4) it's a gray area about whether such issues are required to be reported, but given apple's culture of secrecy, it's doubly-difficult to know what's going on there.
5) of course the ny times reporter verified he spoke to jobs, otherwise apple's flacks would have shit a brick and there'd be a big fat retraction in the paper. Come folks, don't be so stupid.
6) the nyt is a complicated institution, but this reflexive press bashing is scary. It's as if you want to live in a world of nothing but fox news, i.e. State sponsored propaganda, delivered unquestioned. I've got my beefs with the nyt, but thank god it and other newspapers exist.
7) those of you who think jobs was innocent of the backdating thing probably think oj was innocent. 'nuff said on that.
Yahtze!
Jobs couldn't do sh!t without all of the talented people at Apple. The NY Times is blogging the subject of Jobs' health, not investigating. If I was a shareholder, I could do a better job of investigating than those dweebs.
Comparing Steve Jobs to OJ Simpson is like comparing Apple to Orange. As if you know it all because you saw all of the evidence presented at Steve's trial on the options charges. Oh, wait, there was no trial and there will be no charges.
Finally (forgot to post earlier) there is an issue of taxes, if he had cancer, he would be selling stock for his family because capital gains are much less than estate taxes, although a clever estate lawyer can help with that. And that has to be disclosed.
I think you are off-base here. Converting stock to cash doesn't by itself get it out of his estate. Both cash and stock are just as easily manipulated by a lawyer. It is a vastly complicated subject (here in the US). Lack or presense of action is not a good indicator of anything.
A possible exception would be to sell high. This is of course insider trading and would lead to all kinds of problems for both him and estate.
Yahtze!
Jobs couldn't do sh!t without all of the talented people at Apple. The NY Times is blogging the subject of Jobs' health, not investigating. If I was a shareholder, I could do a better job of investigating than those dweebs.
Comparing Steve Jobs to OJ Simpson is like comparing Apple to Orange. As if you know it all because you saw all of the evidence presented at Steve's trial on the options charges. Oh, wait, there was no trial and there will be no charges. idiotic.
You went back and edited your comment and this was the best you can do?
You went back and edited your comment and this was the best you can do?
Will that be your last silly question, sir?
This is yet another way for Steve Jobs to dismiss his responsabilities. Given that he appropriated more than $1 billion for himself in illegal, backdated stock options, and another $1 billion to reward his hand picked Vice-Presidents, one would think that Steve Jobs could feel a duty to obey the law and show some respect to the shareholders who made the dreams of a high school graduate possible.
But, apparently not.
Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?
WTF?? Are you that much of a catastrophic tool? He's been cleared of all crimes by the SEC on the backdating issues. More importantly, he doesn't have to reveal any health issues as it's protected by law, all they have to report is his ability to serve as CEO, that's it, period, end of argument.
Christ, you make my head hurt.
At least he didn't say this this time. A few choice quotes:
"I have read the insightful story on Steve Jobs published by Fortune and I am left with the same uneasy feeling I had before I read it. How can the Apple board of directors be so blind to the shortcomings of Steve Jobs?
(material elided)
Second of all, Steve Jobs is a high school graduate who should never have been allowed to serve as the CEO of an international company listed on the NASDQ stock exchange. Steve Jobs didn't have the brains, mental health and self discipline required to undertake and complete a university degree, a common characteristic of schizophrenia patients with an overblown ego.
(material elided)
One could say that Steve Jobs has accomplished everything that he could ever do for Apple. As an orphan born out of wedlock in 1955, a child rejected by his biological mother and a Syrian father, a high school graduate raised in a blue collar family, Steve Jobs has accomplished more than could be expected from him....."
He posts a similar rant any time the subject of Steve Jobs, his health, or shortcomings of any Apple products come up. I'm not exactly a blind worshipper of Steve Jobs; he has several bees in his bonnet that I personally disagree with from a design and marketing point of view. (Of course, with my opinions and $2.00 you can buy a cup of coffee.) However, I think these kind of statements are really beyond the pale of polite discourse. (I have a feeling if Jobs were black, this post would have been deleted at the time.)
I'm sure Bill Gates would be interested to hear ouragan's psychological diagnosis of anyone who didn't complete a university degree, for whatever reason. Seriously, where does anybody get this kind of arrogance? Surely he must be richer than Jobs and Gates put together! And he deserves it, because I'm sure he was legitimately conceived and "completed a university degree." It really is an outrage that someone so much lower on the social scale than the great ouragan should have achieved the success Steve Jobs has! The world is really out of joint, isn't it?