Fortune magazine–which never met a list it did not like to make–had a solid group of women tech types on its “50 Most Powerful Women 2009” roster, the annual survey it posted yesterday.

Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz made the Top Ten this year, clocking in at No. 8.

Other women geek types–many from Silicon Valley–on the list include:

Ursula Burns, CEO of Xerox (XRX) at No. 9; IBM (IBM) Global Sales and Distribution SVP Ginni Rometty at No. 11; Oracle (ORCL) President Safra Catz at No. 12; Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) Technology Solutions Group EVP Ann Livermore at No. 13; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg at No. 22; Charlene Begley, president and CEO, GE (GE) Enterprise Solutions at No. 27; Lorrie Norrington, president of eBay (EBAY) Marketplaces at No. 40; HP CFO Cathie Lesjack at No. 42; and, finally, Google (GOOG) Search Products and User Experience VP Marissa Mayer at No. 44.

The conference associated with the Fortune issue, spearheaded by Pattie Sellers, will take place next week, starting Monday, in Carlsbad, Calif.

Fortune is part of Time Inc., which is owned by Time Warner (TWX).

Bartz, Sandberg and others will be interviewed onstage, along with Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) chairman and CEO Warren Buffett.

Will BoomTown be in attendance, with my trusty Flip digital video at the ready? Yes, indeedy, so the lady geeks should beware–and I am talking to you, Sandberg!

Until then, here’s a cable television interview Bartz did today on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” Clocking in at almost 12 minutes, it’s classic Carol, with sassy catchphrases and jokes about being a really tough lady, but with little new news–except for her saying she would have sold to Microsoft (MSFT) when it was offering $33 a share way back when, because she is not “stupid.”

Indeed not.

Here’s the video:

So, I have been standing by, trying to make sense of the debate that has swirled around Apple CEO, Co-Founder and font-of-all, Steve Jobs, with regard to his health or, more specifically, the lack thereof.

And after listening to all of the debate about it–mostly indignant declarations by the media, making their case mostly by wheedling milder indignant declarations from stock analysts and corporate tsk-tsk outfits–I have concluded that what is ailing Jobs is exactly no one’s business.

Even if his every breath is critical to the ongoing operations of Apple, the reason most use as their main argument for Jobs to tell all, it goes double.

Why?

Well, any Apple (AAPL) investor has to know by now that Jobs suffered from a rather serious bout with a curable version of pancreatic cancer some years ago and that recovery includes inevitable complications.

That was on display when he took to the stage of Apple’s most recent Worldwide Developers Conference in mid-June and looked really gaunt and unhealthy. It was obviously hard to look away.

People immediately reacted like it was the end of the world–which is no surprise given Apple’s rabid following–and began to suddenly acquire instant medical degrees and diagnose Jobs on the spot.

In its typically secretive style, Apple did not help matters by throwing out a thin gruel of information and noting it was only a common bug.

Of course, that felt like a bigger whopper than usual–even if he did, in fact, also have a cold, it kind of begged the question of what accounted for the rest of his haggard appearance.

In any case, the chatter went on and on, right up until the most recent quarterly earnings call when Apple’s CFO said, when asked that Jobs’s health, that it was a “private matter.”

Immediately, that sent the debate into a frenzy, as armchair word detectives went into overdrive about exactly what that meant. (Personally, I think it meant that Apple was saying Jobs’s health was a private matter.)

This weekend, the noise level reached a quantum level after Jobs made a can’t-make-this-up statement to New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, who was inquiring as to Jobs’s well-being:

“This is Steve Jobs. You think I’m an arrogant [expletive] who thinks he’s above the law, and I think you’re a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong.”

Now that just cracked me up, given all that had gone on before, although some were once again indignant over the gall of a major company CEO making such a statement.

Obviously, they have never met or heard Jobs, who is well known for doing such things pretty much all the time.

And that’s the problem here and my main argument for leaving him be:

1) As I said, Apple investors who have not figured Jobs’s precarious health–after a round with any kind of cancer–into their investment strategies about Apple going forward need some serious reality medication themselves.

Guess what? Jobs has been really sick and it means he is going to have a harder time with any kind of infection or complication for the rest of his life, and he will likely be more delicate than someone who has not had cancer.

By the way, the take-away from the Nocera article and an earlier one last week in the New York Times was that Jobs had been quite ill, but not life-threateningly ill. Which was Jobs’s way of getting out the news.

2) Jobs is one of the most important CEOs, in relation to his company, around. (Warren Buffett, who did choose to reveal all when he was sick, is the other.) And that’s another thing investors should be figuring into their calculations on the worth of the stock.

As Jobs himself said in a famous commencement speech to Stanford University: “No one wants to die. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it.”

You don’t have to get as dramatic as all that to know that when you are talking about such a charismatic and critical CEO as Jobs, any lack of involvement by him–like say going on a year-long yoga retreat–is going to be a problem that investors are buying when they buy the stock.

Of course, there are other Apple employees making things work at the company, although it sometimes feels as if Jobs is crafting every iPhone that goes out.

But it’s obviously the Steve Jobs Show, and investors risk that when they buy such a ticket–kind of like anyone who bought a ticket to Celine Dion’s recent show in Las Vegas and hoped she would not get, like, a common cold!

3) And, of course, we get to the secretive Apple culture story line in every single story, which is trotted out like it is a surprise and we should all be so angry about it and demand change.

Again, have we not been paying attention all these many years? When has Apple not been secretive, except when it suits itself?

Here are a few more shockers for those still stewing about Apple’s secretiveness: Sen. Barack Obama is African-American and Sen. John McCain is old and some people in the country are racist and ageist and may hold those things against them in the upcoming Presidential election!

All kidding aside, it’s the same media that wait in eager anticipation when Jobs doles out the often-disingenuous tidbits about various Apple products coming and then hype them to the high heavens for him when he deigns to unveil them.

In other words, the Steve Jobs you are getting right now is the Steve Jobs you have always gotten–on his terms, what he wants to say and when and how.

So don’t be surprised when he does just that.

Meanwhile, Jobs has come to our D: All Things Digital conference many times and chatted up a storm. Here he is in a highlights reel of the historic joint interview with Microsoft CEO and Founder Bill Gates in 2007.

In it, Jobs is quite voluble about their longtime rivalry and also reveals their secret relationship that dares not speak its name (he is kidding):

While Microsoft’s (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer and Yahoo’s (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang hemmed and hawed about what had happened in their disastrous takeover battle that ended not with a bang, but a whimper, everyone else who appeared onstage at the sixth D: All Things Digital conference last week was a bit more definitive about what should occur now:

Get it done.

From Thomson Reuters’ (TRI) Tom Glocer to IAC’s (IACI) Barry Diller to TiVo’s (TIVO) Tom Rogers to Rupert Murdoch of News Corp. (NWS) (who simply said: “I’d get on with it.”), it seemed obvious to one and all that the only way either had a prayer of catching up with online search leader Google (GOOG) was to join forces.

It seems, according to many sources, that the pair are now in serious talks again, which–if they are smart–will come to some resolution, yes or no, within the next week. (You’ll get first wind of what’s what, as soon as much-frustrated bankers begin their leaking to major news outlets.)

Whatever the case, I dearly hope these discussions are not bogged down as they have been before.

Not in the bits and pieces niggling of some complex partial deal to buy search and spin of this and that here and there in a configuration sure to confuse everyone.

And not continuing with the endless roundelay of price negotiations that seems to have needlessly taken focus off the ball–which is to create a competitive alternative to the incessant brainiacs of Google (and if you want any more proof of that, see this New York Times piece today about the search giant’s data-crunching abilities).

It seems $33 to $34 a share will still wrap the whole thing up and, if Microsoft was serious about its intentions to buy Yahoo when it first made its foray in February, that seems doable.

Because, if Ballmer is serious about his contention, which he made fervently onstage at D6, that the software giant keeps “coming and coming and coming,” it simply cannot make that attack from a piddling 9% market share in the online search business.

One of the most interesting takeaways I had from last week’s interview Walt Mossberg and I did with him and Chairman Bill Gates (who seemed about as underwhelmed by a Yahoo deal as possible without slumping over asleep) was the early focus at the company on fiscal conservatism.

Baked into its DNA, as it turns out, is a fear of bankruptcy even.

While that was funny to hear about–complete with worried financial calculations on sheets of yellow paper stuffed in couches early on–it seems to continue to this day, despite Microsoft’s huge treasure chest of cash.

But Ballmer should slough off that tendency, as Microsoft can afford all of Yahoo and it should if it wants to make the boldest case possible that it will compete with Google.

As for Yahoo, both Yang and President Sue Decker are to be lauded for showing up to answer Walt’s questions (and one by me via remote video about leadership, which neither actually did answer) about the company and its future.

Their sincerity and love of Yahoo and its products and people was clear and even touching, making it clear that companies are a true reflection of its leaders.

But, while making good points about the he-said-she-said nature of the past Microsoft talks, the pair still could not adequately and passionately explain what Yahoo is exactly, which everyone I spoke to in the halls was surprised and even disappointed by.

Moreover, their weariness for the next phase of tumult that will come if Yahoo remains independent was apparent in both their body language and low energy levels, especially when compared to others onstage like Murdoch, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and, of course, the frenetic Ballmer.

Yang and Decker need big-time help and they need it now, help that cannot come from their own dwindling energies and that of their much-beleaguered troops.

Still, they also deserve credit for this very funny spoof video of advice they have been getting.

I especially like the turn by famed investor Warren Buffett best, with his “buy low, sell high” tip.

But I would fiddle with that to change it a little bit for Yahoo today: Just sell high enough.

Here’s the Yahoo spoof video:

At least for those following the Microsoft-Yahoo takeover battle, since silence is maybe not so golden in this case.

Right now, even though Microsoft (MSFT) set a Saturday deadline for starting its proxy battle against Yahoo (YHOO), the waiting game continues as Yahoo hopes Microsoft will flinch and vice versa.

So, can a fun-packed weekend with the folksy Warren Buffett save the day?

In an unusual bit of timing, both Yahoo President Sue Decker and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates will both be in Omaha starting Friday for the famous annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A), which Buffett runs with his longtime partner Charlie Munger.

Decker came onto the board in 2007, while Gates–a close friend of Buffett’s–joined in 2004.

(Gates and Buffett pictured here together; Decker’s head shot here too.)

How awkward is that, since Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer might be slapping Decker’s boss, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, all around Wall Street next week?

At least, the pair are sure to have fun in Nebraska.

Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting is a beloved ritual for its shareholders, who flock to worship Buffett every year at the Qwest Center in Omaha.

The festivities will begin on Friday evening, include a “Baja Beach Bash” on Saturday and finish up with dinner at Gorat’s Steakhouse on Sunday evening.

And perhaps Buffett, nicknamed the Oracle of Omaha, might be just the kind of power broker who can finally bring sensibility to the situation.

Celebrated as the world’s most successful investor, Buffett’s plain-talking advice about the stock market is widely quoted.

My personal favorite is “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”

But maybe this one is more apt, when talking about Yahoo and its value to Microsoft: “It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.”

The question for Gates and company–Is Yahoo wonderful or is it fair?

And until Buffett can work his magic, here’s another unlikely pair–Debbie Harry and Kermit the Frog–singing about making nice in the classic, “Rainbow Connection.”