Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Medicine Apple

Hospital Confirms Steve Jobs's Liver Transplant 402

Posted by kdawson
from the so-just-say-so-already dept.
CNet is reporting that the hospital where Apple's CEO reportedly got a liver transplant two months ago has now confirmed the truth of these reports. "Steve Jobs underwent his liver transplant about two months ago at Methodist University Hospital in Memphis, the hospital confirmed Tuesday. Jobs, who returned to work Apple's campus in Cupertino, Calif., on Monday after a six-month medical leave, 'is now recovering well and has an excellent prognosis,' according to a statement by Dr. James D. Eason, the program director of the Methodist University Hospital Transplant Institute. ... While Eason said the confirmation was being provided with Jobs's approval, he cited patient confidentially in saying that he could not reveal any further information on the specifics of Jobs's surgery."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hospital Confirms Steve Jobs's Liver Transplant

Comments Filter:
  • by bugs2squash (1132591) on Tuesday June 23, 2009 @11:27PM (#28448681)
    third party upgrades were approved
  • I feel dirty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Tuesday June 23, 2009 @11:31PM (#28448699) Journal
    This is the second story in a few hours we've had talking about some guy's liver transplant. It makes me feel like a voyeur. Can we get back to something wholesome and uplifting, like bashing the RIAA?
    • I feel anger. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by reporter (666905) on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @12:04AM (#28448939) Homepage
      Steve Jobs is another example of how wealth buys health and an easy life.

      The USA has several organ-transplant centers. In theory, patients can enter their name into the waiting list of any or all centers.

      Practically speaking, most patients enter their name into the waiting list of the single most accessible center. The patients then arrange to live near the center as their name approaches the top of the list. Physicians cannot just freeze a liver for a week until you can arrange a plane ticket to reach the center. Livers are perishable items.

      Due to the aforementioned cost and logistical issues, patients are effectively restricted to only 1 center. However, Steve Jobs -- with his billions of dollars -- can enter his name into all the waiting lists of all the centers. He can hire a private jet service to take him to any center immediately.

      Life just is not fair.

      • Re:I feel anger. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by phantomfive (622387) on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @12:16AM (#28449001) Journal
        Yes, life is not fair, but honestly this is not a case of someone being rich and privileged because he was born into the right family. Steve Jobs as much as anyone has earned his money. He's worked hard and he's added a lot to society. If we tried to cut him down so things were more fair, then it would be a loss to all of us.

        Things will never be completely fair, but the way to make them more fair is to help everyone become more rich and powerful. The only way that can happen is if everyone is more productive: imagine if everyone accomplished in their life things similar to what Steve Jobs has done. When he got fired from, he started another company that made something cool. That's not easy, but he did it.

        We don't all have to start our own companies, but if we were all just as productive in our respective fields, we probably would already have synthetic liver replacements. We might have green coal plants. We might have more efficient ways to grow food, allowing the existing farmers to focus their attention on more interesting things (oh, well we already have that one to quite an extent).

        This is the way of the future, and it's where the left gets off track: instead of trying to destroy stupid bankers who get rich off naive customers, without producing anything real, the key is to educate those 'stupid' customers to create real things, and to contribute to society in real ways; then the bankers will go off and f*** themselves because everyone will see them for what they are, leeches on society.
        • by hessian (467078) on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @01:07AM (#28449243) Homepage Journal

          Things will never be completely fair, but the way to make them more fair is to help everyone become more rich and powerful.

          To paraphrase Bill Cosby (on "mind-expanding" drugs): But what if you're an asshole?

          The same applies here:

          Most people are the ones I see littering, driving like idiots, buying stupid junk, getting drunk and vomiting in my sunroof, etc.

          Do I want them to be any more powerful than they are? Hell, no!

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by BobMcD (601576)

            "Seeing is believing, but too often we only see what we want to believe."

        • Re:I feel anger. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by timeOday (582209) on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @01:38AM (#28449383)
          Here's a list of random rationalizations you could use to argue either way:
          1. If this story [msn.com] is true, he apparently received a liver instead of somebody else who was a better candidate (in the sense of a better prognosis). That is, in expectation (actuarially), his actions took years from somebody's life.
          2. Most of us with health coverage and some money will, at some point, receive some expensive treatment where the money could have instead been used to provide more basic, life-saving treatment to several poor people. Especially if you re-consider this analysis on a global basis, given that people in Africa die every day die from want of a few dollars in health care, or even clean water.
          3. Due to Jobs ingenuity and force of will, the economy is probably larger than it would otherwise be by a few billion dollars, with some fraction of that (i.e. hundreds of millions of dollars) providing thousands of hard-working nerds and their families with money for life-saving health care services.
          4. Distrust in the equity of organ distribution may decrease the number of donors. Some people won't like the thought that their organs are most likely to live on in rich old white guys with short life expectancies who clawed their way to the front of the line like aristocrats boarding lifeboats at the sinking of the Titanic (whether or not that is a myth).
        • by gillbates (106458) on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @08:46AM (#28451237) Homepage Journal

          Things will never be completely fair, but the way to make them more fair is to help everyone become more rich and powerful. The only way that can happen is if everyone is more productive: imagine if everyone accomplished in their life things similar to what Steve Jobs has done.

          Disclaimer: I am a conservative. So I recognize the above as a variation on "the free market cures all ills" and the conservative notion that more wealth will make all of society better.

          It won't.

          The reason is basic economics. If everyone were rich and powerful; if everyone could create cool things like Steve Jobs does, then being a CEO would pay minimum wage. Compared to the rest of the world, America is rich on a GDP basis. However, compared to the rest of the world on a quality of life basis, America does little better than some third world countries. Consider:

          • Even though I have a "good" job as an engineer, making close to the median salary in the field, I:
            1. Cannot afford to buy a house in the same community I where work.
            2. Had my first child at a decade older than my father.
            3. Have no real, viable retirement plan. No, a 401k is not a retirement plan; it is a retirement gamble. Some people win, some don't (like my mother, who was forced into retirement after her 401 lost half its value.)
          • If I lose my job, I can lose both my home and my healthcare. Compare this with some of the poorer socialist countries where this is not even a possibility. One would think that making hundreds of times what my third world counterparts do would afford me a greater degree of social security, but sadly it does not.
          • The fact that urban America has transitioned from single-earner households to dual-earner households makes it much more difficult to live in urban areas. Families with only a single income find that they cannot afford the house they need. Sure, I could move to a less expensive rural area - that is, if I could find a job there.

          I went to college. I made the grade. But so did millions of others. Every three years, the US University system grants college degrees to the equivalent of the population of Chicago. These are the people with whom I compete for jobs. Even though my father was an unskilled laborer, he had far less competition and enjoyed a far greater standard of living than I do. Yes, we're all educated now. Did our education solve the problem of limited resources? No, it just allows us a greater understanding of economics, of why, after decade of career preparation, we are now worse off than our parents' generation.

          Does the rising tide lift all boats? Sure, to some degree. I can afford gadgets that would have amazed my parents' generation. But yet, for all my education - for changing careers from programming to engineering to get a better salary; in spite of doubling my net worth in the last decade - I am still struggling to afford the basic necessities of life. It means little to be able to buy that killer laptop when I can't afford to put a roof over my head. This isn't an education problem; it isn't a problem of productivity. It is a problem of economics and of corporate greed.

          In the 90's, the conservative harping about the loss of morality fell on deaf ears. Who cared if couples opted not to marry and have children? Who cared if corporations became greedy? (Greed was good, right?) Now we reap the harvest we've sown: corporate greed has reduced the effective wages to poverty level, and we're now finding that the economic boom dependent on an ever increasing consumer base is unsustainable, largely in part because the necessary consumers were never born.

          I find myself in the oddest of paradoxes: I can afford whatever electronic toys I wish, yet cannot afford the basic necessities of family life.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Zakabog (603757)

            • The fact that urban America has transitioned from single-earner households to dual-earner households makes it much more difficult to live in urban areas. Families with only a single income find that they cannot afford the house they need. Sure, I could move to a less expensive rural area - that is, if I could find a job there.

            That's not it at all, it's the fact that a dual income family will think "Oh hey we've got all this money coming in since we're both working, why buy that $150,000 house when we can "easily" afford that $300,000 house in the nicer part of town."

            Then one person loses their income, then the family can't make the house payments, then they're forced to sell. It's all due to people wanting nice things, and not budgeting for future problems.

            Does the rising tide lift all boats? Sure, to some degree. I can afford gadgets that would have amazed my parents' generation. But yet, for all my education - for changing careers from programming to engineering to get a better salary; in spite of doubling my net worth in the last decade - I am still struggling to afford the basic necessities of life. It means little to be able to buy that killer laptop when I can't afford to put a roof over my head. This isn't an education problem; it isn't a problem of productivity. It is a problem of economics and of corporate greed.

            Not too long ago I was in the market for buying a house, I was ma

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by rjhubs (929158)

            However, compared to the rest of the world on a quality of life basis, America does little better than some third world countries.

            Wow, are you serious? Have you ever visited a third world? Your post is almost too melodramatic to respond to, but let me provide you with a little perspective.

            Your measures of a high standard of living are quite interesting. You want to be able to live in the same community where you work? You know what that is in the third world? Living in a farming community. You think commuting 3 hours a day to your 8 hour job is bad? Perhaps you'd prefer to have to walk two miles up a mountain to retrieve fre

          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @12:10PM (#28453735)

            Posting anonymously to avoid undoing moderation, but this just had to be answered. You're making a pretty serious error in logic here:

            In the 90's, the conservative harping about the loss of morality fell on deaf ears. Who cared if couples opted not to marry and have children? Who cared if corporations became greedy? (Greed was good, right?) Now we reap the harvest we've sown: corporate greed has reduced the effective wages to poverty level, and we're now finding that the economic boom dependent on an ever increasing consumer base is unsustainable, largely in part because the necessary consumers were never born.

            Those same conservatives that were screaming about unmarried couples (an issue to social conservatives) were pushing for deregulation of corporations (an issue for fiscal conservatives). You're conflating a concern with social morality (gay marriage, marriage of couples that live together and/or have children, abortion, etc) with a concern for corporate morality. In general (and there are exceptions on both sides) liberals tend to more less concerned about the latter, but more concerned about the former, while conservatives are the opposite.

            Liberals (in general) don't care whether or not a couple is married, because their marriage or lack of one is not impacting society in general. It's a matter of personal choice. I lived with my wife for 6 years before we formalized the arrangement with a wedding. How were we hurting anyone? By contrast liberals (in general) care whether a company is trying to screw its customers, because that problem DOES impact society in general. It's hurting the customer or customers being screwed in an unfair way.

            Conservatives (in general) care whether a couple is married, because for them to live together otherwise is a violation of the moral code of the conservative. They seem willing to make and enforce laws that require individuals to follow the moral code that they themselves have chosen to follow. Hence laws against gay marriage. It won't hurt society in any way to let couples of the same sex join together in the same way that couples of the opposite sex do, but it's against a moral code that conservative believe in so they want to stop it. Conservatives also (in general), I will grant you, care whether a company is screwing it's customers, but they seems to care about this in a abstract way. They might say it's immoral, but because they believe that market forces will eventually weed out the immoral or unfair in the market they are unwilling to directly legislate against it much of the time.

            "Morality" is not really the problem here. Everyone has different ideas of what is or is not moral. I have no moral problem with two people marrying or not marrying as they they see fit, but you clearly do. The problem is that our government is not trying to do the most good for the most people. It's trying to do the most good for big companies and hoping that THEY will do the most good for the most people. Companies, however, are almost totally without either morals or scruples. It's a side affect of being made up of too many people for anyone of them to take responsibility for the actions of the whole.

          • by NtroP (649992) on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @12:14PM (#28453791)

            in spite of doubling my net worth in the last decade - I am still struggling to afford the basic necessities of life. It means little to be able to buy that killer laptop when I can't afford to put a roof over my head. This isn't an education problem; it isn't a problem of productivity. It is a problem of economics and of corporate greed.

            Although I can sympathize with the frustration and apparent hopelessness of your situation, I have to disagree. The reason our parents had a better standard of living is that they did not live in the same "credit-based" society. In fact, my parents were still very much influenced by the great depression and the frugality that entailed.

            Disclaimer: I was struggling under a huge load of debt that I'm still crawling out of, but have come to realize a few things as I have become debt-free and a master of my own destiny.

            A vast percentage of our income goes to taxes and covering our debt-load. There is little I can do about my taxes, but I can have an impact on my debt and the interest I pay on it. Look at it this way: Last year I paid over $20,000 in interest on my mortgage. The year before that I paid almost that much interest on my credit card debt. Those two things were basically eating up a whole person's income in our household budget. That isn't even considering the interest we were paying on student loans, car loans, personal lines of credit, etc.

            Two years ago I realized I was spending so much of my time working to just pay interest on my lifestyle that I wasn't able to make any headway. So my family went cold turkey. We went to a cash basis. We scraped together $1,000.00 cash that we locked in our safe for emergencies and put every other penny we could scrape together into paying off our debt. We sold our toys. We worked extra hours. We stopped eating out. We turned down the heat and bought second-hand sweaters. We made a strict written budget and stuck with it.

            Over the last two years we've been able to pay off almost $90,000 in debt. Debt! Money we were borrowing to help us live the lifestyle we deserved but were unwilling to pay for up front. Had we lived this frugally from the beginning we would have just put that same $90,000.00 to use working for us and investing in our future. In two more years we could have paid cash for a $180,000.00 house and not had a house-payment! When I see that, it makes me sick to realize how much money I've been wasting on interest and "toys" that could have gone toward giving my family the lifestyle they really deserve. We've been living on a borrowed lifestyle. Well, no more!

            We should be completely debt-free in about another year if things were to stay the same. However, we just learned that my wife will be taking a huge pay-cut in order to keep her job (to the tune of $30,000.00 a year). It terrifies me to think what sort of financial position we'd have been in if we hadn't started paying off debt two years ago. Back then, we were "doing fine" in that we were easily able to make our monthly payments and have some left over for "fun". But had we kept on that path a $30K reduction in income would have bankrupted us. Now it just means it will take us a little longer to get out of debt. But get out we will and I will never borrow another cent from anyone in my life.

            Just thinking about the sort of life I could have had for my family had I lived the way my parents did and followed their example. Instead I criticized them for being so "stingy" and not getting the things they could "afford" and not "leveraging" their assets. Well, looks like the laughs on me. They are retired now. Last year they paid cash for a house. Paid cash to fix it up. and now have it rented out. Their money is working for them. They have no debt. They are taking their profits and looking for the next good opportunity to come along. They are positioned well to take advantage of the many deals this economy has for them.

            I've sat both my kids down (they're 19, and 20) and laid out to them w

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by BitZtream (692029)

            I find myself in the oddest of paradoxes: I can afford whatever electronic toys I wish, yet cannot afford the basic necessities of family life.

            Thats because your idea of 'necessities' is not actually what real necessities of life are: Food and Shelter. Are you saying you can't afford food and shelter, or that you can't afford the food and shelter that they other guy has?

            Just because you are jealous of someone elses assets and position in life doesn't mean your life sucks, it just means your perspective suc

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by gillbates (106458)

              Okay, I'll try to say this is in the least trollish way possible: you completely missed the point of my post. The problem is not that I don't have enough toys. I could honestly care less - a $30 microcontroller kit is more entertaining to me than the big-screen plasma tvs everyone seems to think they need. The problem is that children are far more expensive from a resource perspective than that iPhone or new laptop you've got your eye on. Sure, I could forego a new laptop this year. But I'd have to fo

      • by FiloEleven (602040) on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @12:41AM (#28449101)

        Some people have more money and more power and better opportunities than others, but that doesn't make it automatically unfair. Would you cry "foul" if a sitting President took the same actions as Jobs? It's not like he cheated the system (as a President probably would). Would you be angry with a friend for buying a new TV or laptop that you wanted but couldn't afford?

        Practically speaking, most patients enter their name into the waiting list of the single most accessible center. The patients then arrange to live near the center as their name approaches the top of the list.

        Given that all centers were equally accessible to him, he did exactly what every patient does. He is smart enough to know that a queue of 295 is significantly lower than a queue of 1615, and all other things being equal the rational choice is to go for the shortest line. If you were in Jobs's place, what would you have done differently?

        What is the point of having wealth if you don't use it to your advantage? Of course it can be misused, but you're going to have to work a lot harder to argue that that is the case here.

        • by Xtravar (725372)

          Let's not forget: any number of Apple fans would probably readily line up to give their liver to Steve! Fame can be more useful than wealth.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by relguj9 (1313593)

            Let's not forget: any number of Apple fans would probably readily line up to give their liver to Steve! Fame can be more useful than wealth.

            There's probably an iPhone app for it.

      • Get over yourself. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jcr (53032)

        Steve Jobs is another example of how wealth buys health and an easy life.

        Yeah, cause being rich kept him from getting pancreatic cancer in the first place, right?

        Oh, wait.

        -jcr

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sorak (246725)

          Steve Jobs is another example of how wealth buys health and an easy life.

          Yeah, cause being rich kept him from getting pancreatic cancer in the first place, right?

          Oh, wait.

          -jcr

          WTF? So, your standard of fairness is that anything goes as long as rich people are not immune to disease?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by syousef (465911)

        Life just is not fair.

        Yep. Get over it. Your only other option is to stay angry and forfeit the good things that life can give you.

        Someone in the 3rd world, who can't afford to eat every day would look at you whining about potential health issues and think it's unfair that you have the luxury to be angry instead of slaving away 16 hours a day for subsistence wages, or starving for lack of work.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 (626475)
        "Steve Jobs is another example of how wealth buys health and an easy life....

        Due to the aforementioned cost and logistical issues, patients are effectively restricted to only 1 center. However, Steve Jobs -- with his billions of dollars -- can enter his name into all the waiting lists of all the centers. He can hire a private jet service to take him to any center immediately.

        Life just is not fair."

        Wow..bulletin, this just in:

        Apparently being rich is better, you can afford things non-rich people cannot

      • Re:I feel anger. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @08:12AM (#28451065)

        You guys have a private health care system. Forget about Steve Jobs having a plane so he can fly to a transplant centre and start worrying about the large portion of your population that can't afford basic health care.

        Yeah, that means YOU are the rich and privileged one.

    • Now you know why magazines such as OK!, US Weekly, etc. are so annoyingly popular among the masses. Most people are voyeurs; they just don't want to admit it.

    • by QuantumG (50515) *

      I heard Jobs was an alcoholic, and that they don't allow alcoholics to have liver transplants. What's the deal?

      That's just what I heard.

    • by djupedal (584558)
      > Can we get back to something wholesome and uplifting, like bashing the RIAA?

      Well, there is that story about the RIAA attempting to take back a transplanted liver based on prior ARTerial scrofulousus anemia. You can flame on all you want with that one...
    • I agree. GET OUT OF THIS MAN'S PERSONAL BUSINESS!

      If your counter-response to this post has anything to do with money, look in the mirror: you're a turd.

  • I wonder how much trouble Apple may get into for calling Jobs' problem a "hormone imbalance" to their investors.

    A hormonal imbalance is one thing, and a liver transplant is a completely different animal.

    • Do we know that there's absolutely no truth to the claim? How do we know there wasn't some connection?

      • by reverseengineer (580922) on Tuesday June 23, 2009 @11:52PM (#28448865)
        Well, if Jobs was experiencing liver failure, it probably was accompanied by hormone imbalances- the liver is responsible for breaking down a wide variety of hormones, most notably the steroid hormones. So the idea that he was suffering from a "hormone imbalance" is probably true, but omitting the proximate cause of that hormone imbalance, if it happened to be liver failure, is being less than completely honest to the public and to Apple's investors.
        • by caladine (1290184)

          Thank you, this is what I was driving at.

        • by MaXintosh (159753)
          Exactly what the parent said. Saying he has a hormone imbalance is technically true, but it's akin to saying a car that's been in a horrible wreck has dirty oil. I don't think even if they /did/ lie about it... I don't think it's technically criminal mis-information. But IANAL?
        • Agreed.

          Many are calling it lying, but that is not what it is. It is certainly intentionally misleading and deceptive, and can probably be called disinformation or even a lie by omission (the qualifier is required). Whether or not it was an ethical thing to do is very much up in the air. If it were me I would have either said nothing or told the whole truth. I don't think shareholders or investors have a right to know about such events unless it's in a contract somewhere, but I would be uncomfortable pla

    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday June 23, 2009 @11:46PM (#28448817)
      ...And theres no way that if you have something wrong with your liver you won't have a hormone imbalance? Plus really, considering that Apple has plans to appoint a new CEO if Jobs dies, they have done all they need to for their shareholders. Just because you are a CEO of a publicly traded company doesn't mean that your shareholders have to know every detail of your life.
      • "Plus really, considering that Apple has plans to appoint a new CEO if Jobs dies, they have done all they need to for their shareholders."

        Today's Wall Street Journal made the argument that it is in fact more important to hang onto the guy that's been running the shop in Jobs' absence. Tim Cook has now run Apple twice in Jobs' stead, and has impressed both times. Jobs will inevitably retire (or die) sooner rather than later, and there seems to be no doubt that they want to keep the captain's chair for Cook.

    • by metlin (258108)

      Little to none, I'd imagine.

      Apple could always make the argument that prematurely alarming the investors wouldn't be in the best interest of the company.

      This will easily fly, especially given that Apple is one of those companies that are frequently shorted on rumors (remember the short clip of Cramer talking about how easy it is to short Apple?).

      So, no. Either way, Apple will have a good case.

  • Funny that (Score:5, Funny)

    by sleeponthemic (1253494) on Tuesday June 23, 2009 @11:33PM (#28448717) Homepage
    About the same time this buddy of mine, Eugene Victor Tooms went missing.
  • Yes, but the Steve Jobs update adds new features such as cut and paste, MMS, Spotlight search and an improved calendar!

  • by ravenspear (756059) on Tuesday June 23, 2009 @11:38PM (#28448757)
    was that Jobs underwent a brain enhancement procedure which enables him to sufficiently focus his mental RDF energy for use as a telepathic weapon.

    Apple will house the new weapon, tentatively codenamed iDontThinkSo in an underground bunker beneath their Cupertino campus.

    Because of Mr Jobs' prolific temper, executives were initially concerned about the potential for misuse the weapon presented and the possibility of its use against enemies who were not truly dire. For this reason, a killswitch was installed to be controlled remotely via Phil Schiller's iPhone.

    Analysts predict the new weapon will bolster the company's share price by at least 20% and should by them enough time to complete the fully cybernetic Jobs 2.0.
  • Parts (Score:5, Funny)

    by Scutter (18425) on Tuesday June 23, 2009 @11:42PM (#28448781) Journal

    Maybe now he'll understand why it's so important to be able to install third-party parts and he'll decide to loosen-up the licensing a little bit.

    • by GF678 (1453005)

      Maybe now he'll understand why it's so important to be able to install third-party parts and he'll decide to loosen-up the licensing a little bit.

      Hey, at least he didn't get his liver sourced from Microsoft. He'd have 30 days to activate it before his liver shuts down, and if he needs another transplant in the future, his body configuration might change enough that he has to call up Microsoft again to reactivate his internal organs.

      • Re:Parts (Score:5, Funny)

        by turing_m (1030530) on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @07:18AM (#28450825)
        He should have gotten the Linux liver. He'd be operated on for free by an enthusiastic student doctor. After his body starts going into shock from rejecting the transplant, he gets on the forums and PMs the doctor. He is briefly told that his new organ is a "fork of the porcine liver" and that dampening the auto-immune response of the body is a feature that is not even at alpha stage yet but assuredly, quite high in the queue. If he wants to develop the feature himself, he's welcome to, in fact, he can easily obtain a similar liver to study for free. If that is too hard, he could always recompile his DNA so that it won't conflict with his new liver, but hey, he better have a spare body in case his system hangs during reboot. Until then, he could do what most people do and take a concoction of drugs to work around that bug, unfortunately, he has to learn to live with being housebound and crawling around on his hands and knees.

        After becoming irate, he is told to STFW and RTFM. At 8:00am, bleary eyed from searching endless forums he calls up work and tells them he's sick and won't be coming in until he's better. 6 months later, he takes a shower, ready to head back to work after finally fixing his problem himself.

        He gazes up at the enormous face of the penguin. Eighteen years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark feathers. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Linux.
    • What does installing parts have to do with licensing?

      The OS X EULA doesn't say anything to forbid replacing parts or upgrading. You can replace, upgrade, or swap out anything you can get your hands on inside that case. In the towers, that's usually a no-screwdriver task, too.

  • A good bet (Score:4, Funny)

    by plague911 (1292006) on Tuesday June 23, 2009 @11:43PM (#28448791)
    $10 says his old liver ends up on ebay.
  • by bcrowell (177657) on Tuesday June 23, 2009 @11:45PM (#28448805) Homepage

    I'd tend to agree that this is useless voyeurism, except that there are some ethical issues that come up in transplants when the patient is very rich. The NY Times had an article [nytimes.com] about this today, and they specifically mentioned this hospital as one that had a very short average wait time of 3.8 months, compared to the national average of 12.3 months. "If you had access to a jet and had six hours to get anywhere in the country, you'd have a wide choice of programs," they quote one doctor as saying.

    • But with any non-infinite commodity, not everyone can get them, not everyone can afford them, and some people do have advantages. How exactly do you get someone who is dirt-poor who needs a new liver that lives in NYC across the country to a hospital in Seattle that has livers? They can't afford a plane, they can't afford to drive it, so they really can't get there. Such is the way with non-infinite commodities. We can't really "grow" livers quite yet, and they aren't like kidneys that someone can just dona
  • If I view the story here [slashdot.org] it's fine, but when viewing it at the 'friendly' url [slashdot.org] it spews crap [fsdn.com] all over the place. Namely those last three bars and that row of bubbles.

    Come on Slashdot, if you at least fix this, I'll stop complaining about idle.

  • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @12:17AM (#28449007) Homepage Journal

    but they couldn't find his old one.

  • by koan (80826)

    Didn't hurt the stock that much.

  • by Centurix (249778) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .xirutnec.> on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @01:43AM (#28449399) Homepage

    This is going to go well with Fava beans and a nice Chianti

  • by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <elmuerte AT drunksnipers DOT com> on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @02:47AM (#28449783) Homepage

    A apple a day, doesn't keep the doctor away.

  • by Cornwallis (1188489) * on Wednesday June 24, 2009 @06:27AM (#28450643)
    confidentially? Doesn't anybody proofread this stuff or do we just accept the INS (Idiocracy News Service)?

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...