Jump to content
Razor Boy

Steve Jobs

Recommended Posts

He's 54 today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's 54 today

 

The big question is whether he'll reach 55...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistics 101

 

All statistics are meaningless

 

1. Sample size - In medical studies, as with all scientific testing, results should withstand rigorous scrutiny. Studies should therefore be based on an adequate sample size.

 

2. Average - Is just a word in the dictionary. Forget qualitative, think quantitative.

 

Example: The Gaussian distribution

 

normal.gif

 

A symmetrical distribution based around a mean. This means that 50% of the population lie ABOVE the mean. If the average survival rate of disease X was 5 years then 50% of the population would, on average, live longer than five years, assuming of course the population follows a Gaussian distribution. (The distribution could be wider than that with confidence intervals set many years after that "average magic year of death".

 

3. 57% of statistics are made up on the spot.

 

4. Statistics in the hands of laymen can and generally are (mis)interpreted any which way they like. The media are especially evil in this respect (revisit MMR sites for confirmation).

 

5. 65-85% five year survival rate means that between 65 to 85% live to AT LEAST five years beyond diagnosis. Steve Jobs having being diagnosed in 2004, arbitrarily lets say Jan 2004, means that he has survived 5 years so far and thus not in the 15-35% of population that are expected to die before the fifth year. From this statement we do not know what the distribution is like nor can we infer anything more. Seeing all the data is critical, diagrams help, though stats can be manipulated just ask any government. Qualitative statements do not give the full picture.

 

6. Steve Jobs is on my DDP team ;)

 

All statistics are meaningless. QED

 

 

 

 

Statistically speaking, and you should never use statistics to determine your unique case, the type of cancer Jobs had/has has a 65-85% five year survival rate.

 

Yeah, but he was diagnosed in 2004.... :unsure:

 

Unless you cut and pasted this (and I can't be asked to check) I'm impressed. 98% of all statistics are wrong would have been sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't be asked to check

Please check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips.

 

Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips.

 

Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us?

Mostly dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips.

 

Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us?

 

Not giving a sh*t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips.

 

Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us?

 

Not giving a sh*t?

 

He has HIV, not cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips.

 

Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us?

 

Not giving a sh*t?

 

He has HIV, not cancer.

 

He is known to have cancer. The HIV status is unprovem.

 

There is "leaked document" information on Wikileak that purports to be his medical records. Wikileak says, "Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value."

 

Page here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunday Times profile. Not too much on the health front, but an interesting read nonetheless (imo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve iPod appear to have had a heart attack

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/03/st...t_attack_rumor/ That is you can trust these sources LOL

 

Razor

 

(the WYSIWYG editor appears broken :+( )

 

 

I just read that Richard Burton died in Switzerland of a heart attack.

 

Really, I thought he died of a brain hemorrhage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think Steve Jobs looked decidedly unwell at today's iPad launch?

Compare this

pad3-600x400.jpg

with this image two years ago

Steve-Jobs-Reuters-5843207.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone else think Steve Jobs looked decidedly unwell at today's iPad launch?

 

That's one strike against the US health system at least! He's obviously had to spend so much of his vast wealth on his treatment he hasn't been able to afford a new outfit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, not looking good for him...."medical leave". I'd say he should last a while though, but he's definitely a potential Deathlist iLight for 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, not looking good for him...."medical leave". I'd say he should last a while though, but he's definitely a potential Deathlist iLight for 2012.

 

Me thinks he has escaped the clutches of DL, he won't be around to get on the list !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Mail have just removed a story from their website which said Steve Jobs has been told he only has six weeks to live.

 

Edit - they've republished the article, I don't think the original paid sufficient props to their source - the ever reliable National Enquirer!

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...weeks-live.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use