Larry Page's Vocal Cords Are Partially Paralyzed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Larry Page's Vocal Cords Are Partially Paralyzed

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday May 14, 2013 @09:11PM from the strong-silent-type dept.

theodp writes "Last summer, unspecified voice problems caused Google CEO Larry Page to miss Google's Annual Shareholder Meeting, the I/O conference, and a quarterly earnings call. Now, Page has come forward and revealed that he suffers from partial paralysis of each of his vocal chords, an 'extremely rare' condition. Not unlike what Sergey Brin and his wife are doing with Parkinson's research, Page and his wife will be funding and overseeing 'a significant research program' led by Dr. Steven Zeitels of Harvard Medical School."

189 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Get well by unityofsaints · 2013-05-14 21:22 · Score: 0

Get well soon Larry! Although I don't know how realistic that wish is with this condition :(
1. Re: Get well by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Next up:
  Anonymous Coward has Haemorrhoids; Vows to Pay for Suppository!
2. Re: Get well by TWX · 2013-05-15 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe all that he has to do is to get a kiss from the pretty girl...
  
  After all, it worked for Chris Stevens on Northern Exposure.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

all the rich people get all the world diseases, will the funding start..
1. Re:Only when by swamp_ig · 2013-05-14 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  If only the rich would get malaria. That's killed more people in history than any other cause, and there's very little research.
2. Re:Only when by ciderbrew · 2013-05-14 22:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Bill Gates is looking into it and said if there was a cure he would buy it for everyone. So as much as people hate windows ... ... ... is the amount of cure he has to make up for.. :)
3. Re:Only when by mds820 · 2013-05-14 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  If only the rich would get malaria. That's killed more people in history than any other cause, and there's very little research.
  Malaria is a top priority of the The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in both funding R&D and practical prevention.
  
  http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Malaria#OurStrategy
4. Re:Only when by werewolf1031 · 2013-05-14 23:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  all the rich people get all the world diseases, will the funding start..
  Not everything that improves health and quality of life for many, needs to be done for purely altruistic motivation. Better to have research funded for selfish reasons - which then benefits others as well - than to not have the research done at all.
5. Re:Only when by Charliemopps · 2013-05-14 23:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Specifically the Gates foundation is working on eradicating polio at the moment, he just put $50 million in the pot and the taliban have finally given health workers paperwork to let them pursue their goal. He said on NPR the other day that his next stop after polio would be Malaria. You can say what you want about his Microsoft days, but given what he's doing now he's a great guy in my book.
6. Re:Only when by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-05-15 00:03 · Score: 2
  
  I suspect to see more CEOs will be developing this condition . . . right around the time to report earnings and analyst conference calls.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
7. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  You really need to see Bill Gates do his presentation on Malaria.
8. Re:Only when by Inda · 2013-05-15 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Don't confuse your liking Gates and liking his money.
  
  His money does great things.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
9. Re:Only when by h4rr4r · 2013-05-15 01:00 · Score: 2
  
  Does this come with any of those rumored patent agreements?
  I would hate to see people who avoided polio because of Mr. Gates generosity die of something else that could have been treated but patent agreements prevented them from getting affordable treatment. Buying patents on some drugs and making them free to produce would likely save a great many lives. It would also prevent the situation where a charity kills off jobs the locals need by killing the market for that good.
10. Re:Only when by LordLimecat · 2013-05-15 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  How much did you care about this disease, 12 hours ago?
11. Re:Only when by Sun · 2013-05-15 01:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I loath a lot of what he's done, but I don't think divorcing "Bill Gate's money" from "Bill Gates" has any merit. I think this is response is just you trying to handle your cognitive dissonance.
  The man was a ruthless copycat and a predator who set the computer world back at least a decade. For that he deserves (and, to a certain degree, receives) scorn.
  He is also a man who decided that his wealth should go to help make the world a better place for people whose trouble do not, usually, receive funds. For that the man deserves (and, to a certain degree, receives) praise.
  Learn to live with these two facts, contradicting though they may seem.
  Shachar
12. Re:Only when by Cutterman · 2013-05-15 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Very little research??? My Pa (a physician epidemiologist) spent his whole life researching malaria and I can assure you that there is PLENTY of malaria research. The Cutter
13. Re:Only when by the_B0fh · 2013-05-15 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  So, if I steal a dollar, and give it away, I should go to jail.
  But if I steal billions, and then proceed to give that away, I should be held in awe?
  The only reason he started doing this was because his wife convinced him that he needed to leave a legacy behind. That once he started doing it, he embraced it is not a problem, but his "doing good" is still laced with problems. For example, the Gates Foundation is now trying to monopolize donations. They want to channel all donations through them, and take a small % of the donations. And manage the donors. For some reason, all the major foundations hate that idea, especially the part where they give up the donors to the Gates Foundation. Gee, I wonder where that behavior came from.
  You have a truly fucked up perspective.
14. Re:Only when by jhoegl · 2013-05-15 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  correction, 1.5 billion. He estimates 4 or 6 billion to eradicate it.
15. Re:Only when by jhoegl · 2013-05-15 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  It is a detriment to society that a 3d gun was printed before a 3d medical scalpel.
16. Re:Only when by Sun · 2013-05-15 01:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think it is important (though, I would be the first to agree, not common) to read comments in the context in which they are given.
  If you steal a billion dollars, and then proceed to do good things with them, then you should be applauded for the good you did, while going to jail for the billion you stole.
  Shahcar
17. Re:Only when by dcooper_db9 · 2013-05-15 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  In many cases the money to develop pharmaceutical treatments is readily available but people cannot afford them. I have a disease, Polyarteritis Nodosa, that paralyzed my vocal chord, my left arm and my right shoulder. I've since recovered my vocal chord and use of my left arm. I also have Crohn's disease. I'm tired most of the time and limited in my ability to work. My disease is entirely controllable with a range of biologic drugs (Remicade, Humira, etc). Unfortunately, even though I now have heath insurance I cannot afford the drugs. I've spent about $200K of my own money just to survive, now I don't have the money to live.
  
  --
  I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
18. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  Will he buy everyone a cure for Windows?
19. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  the tolerances for machining scalpels are incredibly smaller than the tolerances in making gun parts. That a gun could be made before a scalpel when refining the technology is a matter of limitation not a matter of moral choice.
20. Re:Only when by Sulphur · 2013-05-15 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  They want to channel all donations through them, and take a small % of the donations. And manage the donors. For some reason, all the major foundations hate that idea, especially the part where they give up the donors to the Gates Foundation. Gee, I wonder where that behavior came from.
  Monopolizing philanthropy next?
21. Re:Only when by citizenr · 2013-05-15 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  He does this because malaria was killing his cheap OIL RIG labor in Africa.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
22. Re:Only when by ciderbrew · 2013-05-15 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  The rumored patent agreements do sting; but if you pour money into something I'm sure you'd want a receipt. I would be in his business mind set to do that.
  
  If he gets a cure for those things (he's got the money to get it done). Then I'm happy that he fucked off a load of geeks for 30+ years with some software. Remember with 99.9% of mosquito malaria gone we get 0.01% for aids zombies. /lerning wivf siyence is fun
23. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Harm vs good Bill Gates wins. He will do more for the world than all the whiners on Slashdot combined.
24. Re:Only when by h4rr4r · 2013-05-15 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Then it is no longer charity and all the tax repercussions that go with that change. If there is quid pro quo then it is not charity.
25. Re:Only when by jd2112 · 2013-05-15 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  Don't confuse your liking Gates and liking his money. His money does great things.
  You mean his money escaped from his bank account and started a charitable foundation all in its own? His money must be a lot better than mine. My money frequently escapes never to be seen again.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
26. Re:Only when by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-05-15 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  I am not convinced that Microsoft "set the world back at least a decade."
  If anything, Microsoft's dominance in the personal computer market actually was a good thing in the beginning. Microsoft achieved its dominate position by delivering what people wanted during a time when the multitude of IBM PC clone manufacturers were pushing their machines out the door and needed an OS to install on them. The market flooded with cheap clones and the technical support for most of these machines were non-existant. Microsoft saw a market and took the lead by marketing directly to the users as well as the OEMs. At first these machines were marketed as "MS-DOS compatible" later the marketing became "Windows compatible". Consumers considered having Windows installed as a good thing. I think most consumers today still feel that way.
  It was Microsoft's methods of maintaining that dominance that had detrimental effects to upstarts and smaller companies I saw the writing on the wall when Microsoft started using its operating system dominance to dominate the office software application market. While I detest the tactics that they used, one product in particular was actually good - Microsoft Excel. It was their bundling of Excel into 'Office Suites' and sabotaging the Windows API in order to give third-pary applications a disadvantage that was pretty "evil". Of course there is more to computing than word processing and spreadsheets and Microsoft's dominance in this area forced independent developers to work on other applications.
  Microsoft's ability to unify all the device drivers into a Windows API combined with their work in delivering affordable compilers and development suites made it possible for a lot of independent software vendors to exist. This offsets any damage they may have theoretically caused in the office or OS space.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
27. Re:Only when by ciderbrew · 2013-05-15 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  From wikipedia:
  "To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must donate at least 5% of its assets each year.[17] Thus the donations from the foundation each year would amount to over US$1.5 billion at a minimum."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
  
  [17] http://www.savewealth.com/planning/estate/foundations/
28. Re:Only when by MozeeToby · 2013-05-15 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Another thing to keep in mind, he sees the big picture with his charity work. Most rich donors would have looked at polio and said there's only a few thousand lives to save here, lets spend the money somewhere else where the impact will be bigger. But he looks at it and says we have the chance to wipe the disease off the planet and remove the threat forever. Not to say he's the first person to see things that way by any means. I just mean that most people in his position wouldn't think in those terms.
29. Re:Only when by jhoegl · 2013-05-15 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  It was a metaphorical correlation dipshits.
30. Re:Only when by operagost · 2013-05-15 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  It was a pretty lousy one. It was basically like criticizing Apple for releasing the inferior Apple I, II, IIe, and III before the Macintosh.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
31. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  You ought to go read up on how 3D printers have been successfully used in medical treatment and medical research for quite a while now (long before the stupid printed-gun stunt). Researchers have been printing personalized models and molds to make replacements and implants for missing bones, and more recently they've been printing scaffolding to grow replacement tissue from the patient's own cells.
32. Re:Only when by X0563511 · 2013-05-15 03:52 · Score: 2
  
  Let's also be fair - the Bill Gates of the 80s and 90s is not the Bill Gates of today. People can and do change - and honestly, I would put money down that he always thought he was doing what was right.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
33. Re:Only when by Sun · 2013-05-15 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  If anything, Microsoft's dominance in the personal computer market actually was a good thing in the beginning.
  Which is precisely why I didn't say "two decades".
  I'll also add that I believe that the consolidation would have happened on its own, and might have consolidated on a better platform. The smartphones industry sure seem to go this route without a monopolistic overlord to guide it.
  Everything else you describe happened around 1995. This is 2013.
  Shachar
34. Re:Only when by h4rr4r · 2013-05-15 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, but when those 5% come with strings attached designed to make money for pharma companies they invest in, that is not really charity.
35. Re:Only when by ciderbrew · 2013-05-15 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think the 95% are full'o'stings and the 5% is bargain is the crap left over give away. and I don't think he gives a tit about the 'charity' part - still fucking loaded if he give 99% away.
36. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  So you would trust a plastic knife likely to be toxic to your system to be cutting you up as opposed to a hand made precision metal knife? Or are you saying you think everyone should be able to perform cheap surgery in a back alley?
37. Re:Only when by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-05-15 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'll also add that I believe that the consolidation would have happened on its own, and might have consolidated on a better platform.
  Evidence suggests that the market did consolidate. You just didn't like the results.
  
  The smartphones industry sure seem to go this route without a monopolistic overlord to guide it.
  What? I guess I'm suppose to ignore the 800 lb gorillas named Apple and Google.
  
  Everything else you describe happened around 1995. This is 2013.
  Sorry the MS-DOS thing happened in the 80's and survived the first watershed event where the small home computers couldn't compete with the deluge of 8086 machines. I don't know why you feel that you need to remind me that it's 2013, you appear to be the one with the short-term selective memory.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
38. Re:Only when by Sun · 2013-05-15 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Evidence suggests that the market did consolidate. You just didn't like the results.
  I was under the impression that the consolidation was the good thing you attributed to MS. If that was, indeed, your point, claiming that it would happen without MS means they did not contribute to that end as much as you gave them credit, hence my point. If that was not your point, then I didn't get what was.
  
  What? I guess I'm suppose to ignore the 800 lb gorillas named Apple and Google.
  I refer you to what "Monopoly" means (hint - mono is Greek for "single"). I am fizzy with anticipation to see your explanation of how two and competing entities might be considered a monopoly.
  
  Sorry the MS-DOS thing happened in the 80's and survived the first watershed event where the small home computers couldn't compete with the deluge of 8086 machines. I don't know why you feel that you need to remind me that it's 2013, you appear to be the one with the short-term selective memory.
  Juvenile ad hominem insult aside, 2013 minus 1995 gives us almost two decades, while you were trying to claim that my "a decade" statement was too much. If anything, it was too little.
  Shachar
39. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  george clooney got malaria galavanting across africa pretending to give a shit about the people so he can impress more 28 year old coke whore waitresses. does that count?
40. Re:Only when by timmyf2371 · 2013-05-15 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you steal billions and proceed to give that away, you should go to jail.
  If you earn billions through a successful business and then proceed to give that away, then yes, you should be held in awe.
  Out of interest, what percentage of your total lifetime earnings have you committed to giving to charity?
  
  --
  
  Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
41. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Why are we using stealing examples with Bill Gates?
42. Re:Only when by Raenex · 2013-05-15 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Let's also be fair - the Bill Gates of the 80s and 90s is not the Bill Gates of today.
  Yeah, now he's an old man concerned about dying and his reputation.
  Where was Bill Gates when Microsoft and Intel were trying to undercut the One Laptop Per Child movement?
  What kind of person is Bill Gates when he buys up some awesome Feynman lectures and decides to only release them on a proprietary Windows format, that being Microsoft's latest attempt at the time to own the Web?
  Fuck Bill Gates. Hopefully his money will be used for some good, but the man is still an asshole.
43. Re:Only when by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-05-15 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  I was under the impression that the consolidation was the good thing you attributed to MS. If that was, indeed, your point, claiming that it would happen without MS means they did not contribute to that end as much as you gave them credit, hence my point. If that was not your point, then I didn't get what was.
  Your assertion is that Microsoft somehow set back computing by a decade. I've yet seen any evidence proving this assertion. My point is that Microsoft hastened the consolidation of the personal computer market. I never claimed that it would not have happened without Microsoft. The concept that the market would do anything on its own is silly since consolidation implies a market winner. Again market consolidation took place and you aren't happy with who came out on top. Don't misinterpret my telling of historical events as my approval of the outcome. It is what it is.
  
  I refer you to what "Monopoly [wikipedia.org]" means (hint - mono is Greek for "single").
  
  I'm well aware of what a monopoly is and don't see how this is relevant. I never even used the word monopoly. Straw man argument aside, Microsoft was a dominate player in the personal computer field and used its dominate position to influence the personal computer market. Apple and Google are dominate players in their markets as well. Apple saw the potential in the smart phone market and took an early and very dominate lead. Google using its resources from being the dominate web company has become the other dominate member of this smart phone market. Apple defined what was expected from a smart phone and Google is refining it. The current smart phone market is basically iOS, Android, and other.
  
  Juvenile ad hominem insult aside, 2013 minus 1995 gives us almost two decades, while you were trying to claim that my "a decade" statement was too much. If anything, it was too little.
  Let me elaborate on why I find your assertion that Bill Gates using his company Microsoft to "set the computer world back at least a decade" not even applicable.
  In order to get where we are today, two things had to take place:
  Advances in hardware - Microsoft and Intel (aka Wintel) created demand for more powerful computers with more RAM, large hard drives, and better graphics by adding features to the Windows OS and marketing them to the consumer. Unlike personal computers prior to its introduction, PC clones encouraged third-party hardware manufacturers which open the door for ATI, Nvidia, Crucial, Hitachi, WD, and others to sell their devices directly to the consumer. This thriving market resulted in the powerful computing devices we have today.
  Advances in communications - I believe the lion's share of the "delay" was due to governmental constraints and a monopoly that existed outside of personal computing. It took the eventual breakup of AT&T and the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (aka the Gore Bill) to get to the current state of computing.
  If your definition of the current state of computing includes a open and competitive market for operating systems then that delay was due to the retarding of growth in communications and not any particular software company.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
44. Re:Only when by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-05-15 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Bill Gates is looking into it and said if there was a cure he would buy it for everyone.
  The cure for malaria is called DDT. He can start right now. :-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
45. Re:Only when by erice · 2013-05-15 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  If you steal billions and proceed to give that away, you should go to jail.
  If you earn billions through a successful business and then proceed to give that away, then yes, you should be held in awe.
  Out of interest, what percentage of your total lifetime earnings have you committed to giving to charity?
  The relevant question would be what be what percentage beyond that required for a comfortable existence have you committed to give to charity. The saints give over 100%. They live in poverty so that others may live better. Bill Gates is able to give a large percentage of his total income to charity because his has far far more than he needs. What remains after his charitable donations is still much more than most of us here can hope to earn.
46. Re:Only when by Flere+Imsaho · 2013-05-15 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well put. At least he's using his fortune to do good. I wonder if Jobs would have gone down this road had he lived. Somehow I doubt it.
  
  --
  It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
47. Re:Only when by jhoegl · 2013-05-15 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  I guess... I am pointing out our moral compass is sadly broken.
  Nothing even close to technical... which cant contain morality, because it is technical.
48. Re:Only when by mattack2 · 2013-05-15 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike personal computers prior to its introduction, PC clones encouraged third-party hardware manufacturers
  Uhh, what? Apple IIs have slots in them, with IIRC, the manuals that come with them giving the pinouts of the slots and how to build new cards for them.
  (....and the same comment probably applies to all of the other pre-IBM PC 8 bit computers).
49. Re:Only when by datavirtue · 2013-05-15 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  I wish my wife would get this disease.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
50. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  I was hoping someone would call you on your bullshit. The whole "Microsoft set the PC world back decades" line IS bullshit. You lack the crystal ball necessary to predict how future events would have unfolded given different circumstances. Like saying, "Atari set the console world back a decade." It's fanboy/zealot/troll language and you seem to be quite proficient using it.
  
  Juvenile ad hominem insult aside
  Grow up.
51. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  (....and the same comment probably applies to all of the other pre-IBM PC 8 bit computers).
  Actually no. Commodore and Atari used proprietary connectors and expansion protocols.
52. Re:Only when by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-05-16 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that I may have made a too general of a statement. Apple II did have expansion slots and there were plenty of third-party accessories for that platform. Coincidently, Apple DOS made use of a licensed version of Microsoft BASIC and most of the functionality was provided by it.
  The x86 clones and CP/M machines were unique in that the manufacture wasn't creating a turnkey system completely in-house. Tandy, Commodore, Atari, and Apple made the OS for their systems while the clones depended on a third-party. I worked for a company that sold Kaypros and Osbornes. These CP/M based systems were available around the same time, but they were expensive and couldn't compete with the big five manufacturers and didn't have the cache of being compatible with the IBM machines found at work.
  The x86 platform's popularity attracted the most hardware improvements and the platform grew into 64 bits. Contrast that with the other 8-bit systems that are relegated to being footnotes in computer history.
  Anyway the main point is that we had to wait around for the government to finally make an effort to improve our communication infrastructure before we could reach the level of computing we have today.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
53. Re:Only when by mattack2 · 2013-05-16 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that I may have made a too general of a statement. Apple II did have expansion slots and there were plenty of third-party accessories for that platform. Coincidently, Apple DOS made use of a licensed version of Microsoft BASIC and most of the functionality was provided by it.
  AppleSoft BASIC is MS. Integer isn't.
  What do you mean "most of the functionality was provided by it"? DOS obviously refers to the *disk* interaction, and BASIC has none of that.
  There may be other parts I don't know about.. (Like it was only recently that I saw the news articles about Apple DOS being originally written under contract!)
54. Re:Only when by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  In Britain it is said that if you steal $10,000 they send you to jail: If you steal $10 million they make you a Knight.
55. Re:Only when by the_B0fh · 2013-05-17 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  And even if I don't give anything to charity means that I cannot criticize him for being an asshole and for stealing billions, and trying to use that to clean up his reputation?
56. Re:Only when by RockDoctor · 2013-05-17 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think that you need to go and actually learn about the problem.
  (1) DDT has lots of real, and significant, problems of it's own.
  (2) Mosquitoes are developing significant degrees of resistance to DDT.
  and (3) whatever you substitute for DDT is almost certain to eventually suffer from problem 2, if it's used as a single solution to the problem ; suffering from problem (1) is not so hard to avoid.
  Actually, writing that, I realised there's another problem with your analysis of the problem. with at least two different species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, and several (at least 3) different strains of malaria parasite, then you've actually got around a half-dozen malaria problems. And you're looking for a one-size-fits-all solution?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
57. Re:Only when by sjames · 2013-05-17 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  Really, no. DOS wasn't that big of deal in itself. If not for the big leg up from IBM, it is quite likely that something better would have come along. Windows didn't even get usable until 3.1 and wasn't actually any good until NT/95. Until tghen, if you wanted real multitasking, you needed Desqview.NT and '96 did OK at tasking but if you wanted to use that passing fad called the Internet, you needed Trumpet winsock and a browser.
  Even back in the '80s, Xenix blew DOS away and even included a DOS box that performed well.
58. Re:Only when by sjames · 2013-05-17 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  The BASIC interpreter provided by MS could be dumped out of the Apple entirely as long as you loaded something such as integer basic to provide a command prompt. More advanced users could use the machine language monitor. MS BASIC provided BASIC, the rest was Apple's doing.
  MS had nothing to do with the design of the PC or the follow-on XT, AT, and various AT386 machines. IBM atsrted it, and tyhen went into the weeds w/ the PS/2 while various consortiums of clone makers took over on the PC side. The expansion slots were nice, but hardly original. The Altair had slots too. In later years, MS did start throwing it's weight around wrt the standard specs of a PC. They also brought us Plug'n'Pray which was thankfully replaced witgh a proper spec once the PCISIG got involved.
  The '86 did take over, but MS certainly had nothing to do with it's design. Amusingly, Intel didn't actually intend for the 8086 to be a CPU, it was to be the I/O co-processor for a nmuch more advanced CPU with the sort of memory protection and such that the x86 line later gained. However, the CPU was dog slow and expensive while the 'co-processor' was fast and cheap.
  Had MS not gotten involved at all, we would have used DOS86 (which became MS-DOS) or CP/M on the PC. Linux would still have happened, and perhaps become dominant on the desktop in the '90s. OS/2 probably would have lasted a little longer than it did.
  As far as the net goes, DARPA did some really good work, but it became our communications structure mostly due to hackers (in the old sense of the word) doing an end-run around ma-bell.
59. Re:Only when by sjames · 2013-05-17 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  Do you REALLY want to put Bill Gates in charge of eradicating bugs?
60. Re:Only when by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-05-18 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  The BASIC interpreter provided by MS could be dumped out of the Apple entirely as long as you loaded something such as integer basic to provide a command prompt. More advanced users could use the machine language monitor. MS BASIC provided BASIC, the rest was Apple's doing.
  It could but it wasn't. Mentioning that by coincidence that Apple licensed the BASIC from Microsoft does not diminish Apple's work by one iota.
  
  MS had nothing to do with the design of the PC or the follow-on XT, AT, and various AT386 machines...
  I did not say that MS designed the original PC. However, I do believe that, as the platformed aged, MS did influence the subsequent designs of the platform. The demand generated by the MS Windows upgrade machine gave Intel enough revenue to continue investing more R&D into the platform. You don't honestly believe that the x86 platform survived solely by some technological advantage?
  
  As far as the net goes, DARPA did some really good work, but it became our communications structure mostly due to hackers (in the old sense of the word) doing an end-run around ma-bell.
  The '91 did more to increase access to the internet than any supposed work by a few hackers...
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
61. Re:Only when by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-05-18 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  AppleSoft BASIC is MS. Integer isn't.
  True, but AppleSoft BASIC, which came in the ROM of Apple II+ and later, brought floating point libraries and higher resolution graphics.
  
  What do you mean "most of the functionality was provided by it"? DOS obviously refers to the *disk* interaction, and BASIC has none of that.
  You assume that all the functionality required by the software at the time was solely provided by the DOS. AppleSoft BASIC being in ROM provided some functions to programs that called them (like the aforementioned FP routines). A practical example being that unlike the Franklin which didn't survive the lawsuit, the Laser was a "clean room" clone of the Apple II+. The feature that made Vtech's Laser compatible was their ability to license AppleSoft BASIC directly from MS. This was important since, despite most commercial programs were not in BASIC, they did take advantage of some functions provided by the ROM including AppleSoft routines.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
62. Re:Only when by sjames · 2013-05-18 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  You claimed that the bulk of the Apple DOS functionality was provided by MS BASIC. I refuted that.
  Any OS and apps would have driven the continued demand for more computing power. Or did you not notice that the 4K TRS-80 was no longer seen as adequate even before the IBM PC was available. Or that very few people running Linux today are interested in a used '386 with 1MB of ram.
  Without the hacker's end-run, modems wouldn't have existed. That is what practically everyone used to access the internet in the '90s.
63. Re:Only when by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-05-18 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  You claimed that the bulk of the Apple DOS functionality was provided by MS BASIC. I refuted that.
  The library calls that provided FP support and other things were provided by AppleSoft BASIC.
  
  Or did you not notice that the 4K TRS-80 was no longer seen as adequate even before the IBM PC was available.
  Yet the TRS-80 Color Computer (aka CoCo) lived on through the 80s and still have an active community today.
  
  Without the hacker's end-run, modems wouldn't have existed.
  I doubt that. Modems are old technology and had heavy use outside of the home market. I used them to send telexes back in the day. I ran a BBS back in the late 80's and I wouldn't confuse FidoNet with the modern internet. GEnie was pretty novel at the time. Prodigy (Sears + IBM), Compuserve, and AOL were an okay data service but they controlled what was offered to their users. It was the communications act of 1991 that broke their strangle hold and gave us the more free form internet we have today.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
64. Re:Only when by sjames · 2013-05-18 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  FP support in an OS? That's a stretch, especially when you could dump the lot of it and still have a functional OS (to the extent AppleDOS was an OS anyway). Had MS BASIC not been there, any number of people would have hacked together something to do floating point math in some flavor of BASIC. It wasn't exactly a hard problem.
  Sure, there were some fanatic devotees of the CoCo, just as there are still some C64 devotees today, but that's not the market. The continued use of the CoCo didn't stop the PC, the Mac, or the Amiga from coming into existance as more powerful replacements.
  There is simply nothing MS did that wouldn't have been done anyway and likely better had Gates not been at the right place at tghe right time with money in his pocket.
65. Re:Only when by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-05-20 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  There is simply nothing MS did that wouldn't have been done anyway and likely better had Gates not been at the right place at tghe right time with money in his pocket.
  Which brings us back to the beginning of the thread where the assertion was that Microsoft impeded the advancement of computers. I asserted that there is no proof of such a thing. If someone else had came out with a popular OS (due to timing or whatever) we would be arguing about their name instead of MS, which is the basis of my "the market did consolidate but the winner isn't the one the poster liked."
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
66. Re:Only when by sjames · 2013-05-20 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  I have laid out reasons that MS made no significant positive contributions that wouldn't have been done s well or better than others. The question then is would those others have done as much to impede progress as MS? Let's face it, MS has multiple convictions on every contenant but Antartica for various illegal business practices.
Lip reading software would be good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:26 · Score: 0

And probably not too far off with current technology.
And what do we learn from this ? by Foske · 2013-05-14 21:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

No matter the number of digits in your bank account, in the end you're still human... A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering, way above the complexity that we understand. Kudos for funding research, and all the best for this man...
1. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  ...A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering, way above the complexity that we understand...
  You're talking about perl here, right?
2. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  Replying to myself: That would be 'Page', not 'Wall'. D'oh!
3. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by SpaghettiPattern · 2013-05-14 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  And what do we learn from this ?
  No matter the number of digits in your bank account, in the end you're still human...
  You mean to tell us you never expected this until today's epiphany?
  And all the best wishes to Larry from me too.
  
  --
  
  I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
4. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by katsh · 2013-05-14 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  i believe he said "wonderful". clearly he's talking about bash
5. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by fazig · 2013-05-14 23:09 · Score: 0
  
  No matter the number of digits in your bank account, in the end you're still human... A very complex and wonderful piece of evolution, way above the complexity that we understand. Kudos for funding research, and all the best for this man...
  With that I can agree. The term 'engineering' implies some kind of intent.
  
  Even if there isn't any deeper intrinsic meaning in our existence it doesn't make make the effects evolution caused less fascinating.
6. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by GauteL · 2013-05-15 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  "A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering"
  On the contrary. We suffer from severe race conditions in the brain, we have obsolete and potentially dangerous "features" (i.e. the appendix). Replacement parts are hard to come by and we are very, very difficult to service. A simple service procedure can lead to catastrophic system failure. We're also got extremely poor interoperability with each other, leading to very large knowledge loss in transmission between systems and often disastrous and destructive intra-system interaction.
  We perform impressive tasks in the same way that a PC running Microsoft Windows and Autodesk Inventor can perform impressive tasks. But like those two systems we are not so much engineered as stuck together with gaffa tape from millions of smaller components developed over a large number of years. Perhaps the best way to describe us is that we arose organically without any real engineering oversight.
7. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by michaelmalak · 2013-05-15 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  No matter the number of digits in your bank account, in the end you're still human.
  
  No matter how many digits King Louis XIV had in his bank account, he was still limited by the speed of horses for transportation and communication.
  "Immortality" will probably happen within this century or millennium.
  But then, we're ultimately limited by available matter/energy in the universe.
8. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by tgd · 2013-05-15 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  you're still human... A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering...
  Ummm... (maybe a particular case of Poe's law...) anthropomorphising or "intelligent creation"-ist?
  As far as I can tell at most software companies, random experimentation and tweaking does pass for engineering...
9. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by VortexCortex · 2013-05-15 01:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  in the end you're still human... A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering, way above the complexity that we understand.
  Look up human. It means something that is exhibits some of the characteristics of a human, any stricter definition excludes folks with disabilities, which are actually human. That lowers the bars for machine intelligence to become human... I digress.
  Humans are pretty complex, but it's not above the ability for us to understand the complexity. A single human can specialize on familiarity with a small part of the human structure, there are enough such humans to divide humans into small enough pieces that their complexity can be fully knowable. We do know something of humans, we learn more every day, and what we have discovered doesn't point to them being engineered.
  If you were an engineer, would you supply blood to an eye's retina's cones from the back side, to allow the detection cones to be unobstructed, and avoid needing to route the blood through a hole in the visual field? It would seem a cephalopod is more likely to be engineered than a human, their retinas aren't flippin' upside down, so they don't have blindspots in their retinas like humans do!
  If you were an engineer, would you use larger longer vertebrae in one's vertical spine structure or a bunch of smaller ones? The advantage of the smaller bones is that they can swivel more, yet humans can turn only around 90 degrees due to the muscle and tendon configuration; The effect is just a series of small weak links in the spine's chain -- why are those lumbar vertebrae so damn small that they don't hold up over the intended lifetime of use and thus cause back problems? It would seem a giraffe is more likely to have been engineered than a human.
  The list of horribly inept design flaws in a human is staggering. Nerves, under the feet?! Hair that gets so oily you must wash it regularly? Embryonic yolk sacks that waste energy developing then disappear, unused? No. There is no evidence for an intelligent designer; I just can't believe that ANYONE would be this daft, especially when they supposedly created BETTER designs in other species first -- I mean, unless.... Unless Humans were meant to be the butt of some cruel genetic joke?!
  It would seem that if humans were engineered, it was a job undertaken by a malicious spite filled asshole, or an utterly unintelligent designer. This design looks like it was done haphazardly, perhaps by pure random chance, just slapping together features and picking the first model that doesn't break and meets the basic needs.
  Humans are not finely crafted organic machines, they're a hodge podge of tacked together features shipped to mother nature with apologies and promises of a patch for the bugs in the next version! It's foolish to think humans are a piece of engineering wonder. Oh, humans are complex, one marvels at the scale of things -- but the wonder is not at the beauty in engineering elegance, it's that they even function at all given the design flaws!
10. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-05-15 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  What sort of work are they being taken away from to deal with his insignificant little problem, I wonder.
  In determining the eitology and perhaps a therapy for this condition, what other medical conditions will be subsequently solved by the newly gained knowledge?
  None of us knows. It could be zero, it could be dozens. It could have no bearing, it could cure heart disease.
  If only the Pages and Huntsmans of the world were the common model of spending by the wealthy, the world would be better off.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
11. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  "If you were an engineer, would you supply blood to an eye's retina's cones from the back side, to allow the detection cones to be unobstructed, and avoid needing to route the blood through a hole in the visual field?"
  Thanks for the gratuitous anti-ID rant, but your reasoning on this and your further "examples" is ridiculous.
  Question one: Does the design work? Answer: Yes. Therefore, in terms of anything you can reference as an objective metric, the "design", were it design, is fully satisfactory. Your aesthetic sensibilities, adjusted to whatever you need to feel assured a given biological structure would not meet your made-up criteria, is irrelevant. Per the only meaningful criteria you can reference, evolution, the organism has survived, and thus by definition it is wholly sufficient, case closed--whether discussing from an evolutionary or "design" perspective. Avoid hypocrisy. Use your own criteria consistently.
  Secondly, I assume you've done full "regression testing" of all the second, third, fourth, N-order consequences of modifying the biological system to something "better", on all its biological interdependencies, -and- verified the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the "design" across the entire timeframe at which it needed to function, in conjunction with all adaptive modification happening to related systems and organs over that time--as an absolute precondition to your characterization being more than completely worthless from an engineering standpoint?
  Pfft.
12. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  Ah yes, bash... where 'eq' is for numeric comparison, and '==' is for string comparison. Wonderful.
13. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Yaaaaaawn. Smartass comment.
14. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Faaaaaaart. Dumbass comment.
15. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  If you were an engineer, would you supply blood to an eye's retina's cones from the back side, to allow the detection cones to be unobstructed, and avoid needing to route the blood through a hole in the visual field?
  The optic nerve innervates the eye but does not supply blood or nutrients. Your blindspot is mitigated and compensated for by stereo vision.
  The problem with what you are suggesting is that there are better possible solutions.
  Nerves, under the feet?!
  How else would you feel the ground?
  Hair that gets so oily you must wash it regularly?
  Oils and sebum serve a protective effect.
  Embryonic yolk sacks that waste energy developing then disappear, unused?
  I disagree with you on this point.
  Despite amazing elegance and a vast number of multiple role substances in the body, there is certainly room for improvement. Humans are very new to this planet, temporally speaking.
16. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by ShieldW0lf · 2013-05-15 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  What sort of work are they being taken away from to deal with his insignificant little problem, I wonder.
  In determining the eitology and perhaps a therapy for this condition, what other medical conditions will be subsequently solved by the newly gained knowledge?
  None of us knows. It could be zero, it could be dozens. It could have no bearing, it could cure heart disease.
  If only the Pages and Huntsmans of the world were the common model of spending by the wealthy, the world would be better off.
  It's offensive.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
17. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Jmc23 · 2013-05-15 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Do not confuse unengineered for your inability to understand the engineered decisions.
  You do know the problems with most of the human body is not the design of the body itself, but the inability of the humans to use it properly. USian focus on 'individuality' compounds the stupidity drastically. Compare group gymnastics by the USA to any asian country.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
18. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by mattack2 · 2013-05-15 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Nerves, under the feet?! Hair that gets so oily you must wash it regularly?
  What is wrong with nerves under the feet?
  Also, you *must* wash your hair? Yes, of course I wash it too, but most likely wetting it would do most of the same work. We're just being brain (and head) washed by the shampoo companies.
19. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 13:31 · Score: 0
  
  Only to idiots.
Shouldn't have made that deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:38 · Score: 0

He gets billions, and Ursula gets his voice.
Oh well, lots of people would take that deal!
1. Re:Shouldn't have made that deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:50 · Score: 0
  
  If only he'd kissed the girl when he had the chance.
2. Re: Shouldn't have made that deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  Larry Page was a former merman. It all makes sense now.
So? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:42 · Score: 0

News for fanboys, stuff that doesn't matter?
I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:44 · Score: 5, Funny

We go out and get those top 10 richest people on the planet... You know the ones that own 60% of the world and all the stuff in it...
Infect them with aids.. Give them all cancer. Heck a whole bunch of diseases.. Toss in the flu and common cold.
We'll have cures for all of it by the end of the year.
It's time we start exploiting a valuable resource. Rich people.
We're not currently using them for anything but placeholders...
1. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 22:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No we won't. You obviously have no concept of the amount of money and time it takes to develop "cures" for most diseases. The personal wealth of these people is close to the order of magnitude of money that can be spent researching one of these diseases over the course of a single year and that doesn't even factor in the number of years (man hours and simply waiting for enough accurate data to be collected) it takes in the end to find a "cure," if there is one. [I wrote it as "cure" because I think the word is frequently used to infer a quick-acting, life term treatment when in many cases that is not and may never be possible]
2. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Splab · 2013-05-14 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  Erm, Steve Jobs died of cancer; a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure.
  Not only do you need funding, you also need someone who believes in science (like Bill Gates, whom by the way does a heck of a lot for research).
3. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Viol8 · 2013-05-14 23:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure."
  Yeah, its ironic isn't it that the man who ran such a high tech company reliant on cutting edge science would head off down the hippy bullshit road to cure himself of cancer instead of taking advantage of 50 years of medical research. It just shows that having a high IQ doesn't necessarily prevent someone from being a complete imbecile.
4. Re:I'm tellin ya... by sg_oneill · 2013-05-15 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  Jobs was kind of always into the hippy shit. 60s lsd head and all that. He did realise eventually that it was time to hand it over to the pros. Unfortunately by that stage it was too late.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
5. Re:I'm tellin ya... by sg_oneill · 2013-05-15 00:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  He had pancreatic cancer. Its generally one of those cancers where your fucked no matter how you try and attack it. He certainly didnt help his case with the daft hippy crap, but its unlikely a full science approach would have saved him.
  Pancreatic cancer is a death sentence generally.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
6. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  I think you need to be a bit more like Bill Gates and do some of your own research. Pancreatic cancer isn't very "treatable" at all. The 5 year survival rate is 6%. Foregoing regular treatment and trying something different makes perfect sense in this case. If you found out you had pancreatic cancer and were given the choice between trying the standard treatment that has a 6% survival rate and trying something else which would you choose?
7. Re:I'm tellin ya... by tgd · 2013-05-15 00:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Erm, Steve Jobs died of cancer; a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure.
  Not only do you need funding, you also need someone who believes in science (like Bill Gates, whom by the way does a heck of a lot for research).
  One problem with very successful people -- they equate success in one field with success and expertise in all fields. Its a common problem, even among things like Nobel winners. They assume success (or luck) in their field makes them somehow an expert in anything they take an interest in.
  IMO, that's always been one of Gates' strong points -- he knew what he knew and knew what he didn't know, and always surrounded himself with people who could compliment his expertise. Jobs always seemed the exact opposite.
8. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  If you found out you had pancreatic cancer and were given the choice between trying the standard treatment that has a 6% survival rate and trying something else which would you choose?
  The one with the higher percent survival rate. If no percent survival rate can be found, one should assume it to be zero. You're telling me you'd do something different?
9. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  And its one of a couple types of Cancers one can contract - thus on the 'conspiracy theory' sites is claimed to be an assassination method.
10. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Ryanrule · 2013-05-15 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but who cares? We are interested in the result here. One dies? Infect the next in line.
11. Re:I'm tellin ya... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-15 01:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The one with the 6% survival rate, vs the 0% one the alternative offers.
12. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Ash+Vince · 2013-05-15 01:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No we won't. You obviously have no concept of the amount of money and time it takes to develop "cures" for most diseases. The personal wealth of these people is close to the order of magnitude of money that can be spent researching one of these diseases over the course of a single year and that doesn't even factor in the number of years (man hours and simply waiting for enough accurate data to be collected) it takes in the end to find a "cure," if there is one. [I wrote it as "cure" because I think the word is frequently used to infer a quick-acting, life term treatment when in many cases that is not and may never be possible]
  Most medical research nowadays is done by drug companies. They are not interested in "cures" they are interested in finding a drug to manage a particular condition, that way they get to make tons of money from all the repeat prescriptions of their creation. If they came up with a cure for that condition they only get the money from a single prescription.
  If they created a single pill that would cure and vaccinate you against all the worlds diseases they would all go bankrupt within a decade, even if they could sell the pill for $1 million.
  So who knows what is possible when the corporations who fund (and hence choose the direction of) most medical research are not interested in looking? Instead they come up with crap like Viagra as that is where the money is.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
13. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Ash+Vince · 2013-05-15 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Erm, Steve Jobs died of cancer; a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure.
  Not only do you need funding, you also need someone who believes in science (like Bill Gates, whom by the way does a heck of a lot for research).
  It is worth remembering that the only treatments for Pancreatic Cancer are: Surgery, Radiation Therapy or Chemotherapy. Ok, he probably should have gone down the surgery route sooner than he did (he waited nine months) but the other two options both suck.
  Many people choose to die of cancer rather that go through the shit of Chemo or Radiation Therapy as they both utterly ruin your quality of life for the time you have left for a very low probability of success anyway. By choosing to avoid these two treatments you can actually make the most of the time you have left and remain relatively active.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
14. Re:I'm tellin ya... by the_B0fh · 2013-05-15 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  What's the survival rate for this thing called life anyway?
15. Re:I'm tellin ya... by pseudofrog · 2013-05-15 01:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Steve Jobs had a rare form of pancreatic cancer that can actually be cured in some cases, according to this interview and other sources. His doctors recommended a radical surgery to prevent it from spreading, but he delayed surgery for nine months because of his belief in non-scientific alternatives. It is unclear if this delay made a difference, but it's possible that he could have been full-blown cured had he opted for surgery right away.
16. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anastomosis · 2013-05-15 02:50 · Score: 2
  
  The "death sentence" pancreatic cancer you are thinking of is pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which arises from the ducts, usually isn't detected until it has metastasized, and yes, has an average life span measured in months.
  Jobs had a neuroendocrine cancer, which arises from the islet cells, is generally detected earlier because it causes a variety of symptoms (too much insulin which leads to hypoglycemia, etc), and has a varying but generally fairly good prognosis. In fact in some cases, surgeons can just "shell" the thing out of the pancreas and done. Other options can include an interventional radiologist embolizing the artery that supplies the tumor, killing it.
  I don't know his level of metastasis at detection, but a full science approach here would almost certainly have saved him.
17. Re:I'm tellin ya... by operagost · 2013-05-15 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Pancreatic cancer is no joke, but can be survived. My dad did, and one of the factors his doctor attributed it to was his good overall health despite being in his 60s. Jobs was health conscious from early in his life, and should have been able to beat this.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
18. Re:I'm tellin ya... by dpiven · 2013-05-15 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  "It is worth remembering that the only treatments for Pancreatic Cancer are: Surgery, Radiation Therapy or Chemotherapy."
  You forgot bacon, raising puppies, chocolate, Monty Python, sex, and Irish whiskey. Those are all great ways of dealing with pancreatic cancer, most of them don't require extensive periods of hospitalization, and the long-term outlook after these regimes is similar to the long-term outlook after the three quoted above (i.e., you're gonna die anyway).
19. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anastomosis · 2013-05-15 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Haha, I love when people tell others they need to do research when they actually need to do some of their own.
  Multiple different types of pancreatic cancer. See my above post. Adenocarcinoma = really bad. Neuroendocrine tumor = variable, but often curable.
20. Re:I'm tellin ya... by wiredlogic · 2013-05-15 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW Viagra was an accident. It was originally developed as a treatment for hypertension.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
21. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  If they came up with a cure for that condition they only get the money from a single prescription.
  If they came up with a cure, they would only get money from a single prescription while the company that came up with a drug to manage the condition would now get zero. If I ran a company, I would not want to risk being undercut like that by a competitor, and would want the chance to undercut a competitor myself. And it wouldn't bankrupt the company unless the disease is actually eradicated, as new people would be getting sick all the time. And even if the disease were eradicated, there are plenty of other ones out there, and other conditions that can't be eradicated due to being inherent in the structure and workings of the human body.
22. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Always fun to read this sort of paranoia. Yeah, the drug companies have this big long-term plan where although all the /people/ who make up the drug company are mortal and suffer from diseases the /company/ overrides their wishes to secretly plot against curing disease and increase their suffering. Sure, that makes LOADS of sense.
  Even if you were stupid enough to believe that huge international corporations have no purpose beyond trying to collect up all of the world's money and put it in some ridiculous pile you run into the simple game theoretic problem. If drug company X steadfastly refuses to invent your Panacea (no, go ahead, look it up) then drug company Y will invent it and take all the money that drug company X could have got if they'd bothered to invent it first. So guess what, they'd all love to invent a Panacea and the reason you can't buy one is because they haven't not because of some ridiculous TV Drama plot involving cackling evildoers.
  Of course there IS a big international industry that claims to sell panaceas, they call themselves things like "Herbal supplements" manufacturers or "Alternative medicine" companies and they are distinct from Big Pharma in really two main observable ways. 1. They aren't effectively regulated. So long as they don't poison "too many" people at a time they can sell whatever dangerous nonsense they like 2. Most of their products don't work and they don't care at all.
23. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  You're misinformed - he aggressively pursued most current treatment methods, and had a team of top cancer researchers working on his case. The "natural" remedies were a sideshow, because unfortunately we don't really have methods to cure or even stabilize such cancers.
24. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  Currently, only about 93% of humans have died. That's actually not such bad odds.
  Source: http://what-if.xkcd.com/9/
25. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Pigeon451 · 2013-05-15 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you know how actual research works. There are many researchers working independently and even with drug companies to develop cures. A magic bullet that can cure a multitude of disease would make the people/company rich regardless of how much it actually costs.
  Unbelievable you actually got modded to +5...
26. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Nugoo · 2013-05-15 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  According to this, only around 108 billion people have ever lived. Given that about 7 billion are still alive, the survival rate of life is roughly 6%.
  
  --
  I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
27. Re:I'm tellin ya... by deimtee · 2013-05-15 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's not an evil genius type muhaha plan to suppress cures. It's just a bias in where they direct their research funds.
  A treatment that looks like it will manage a condition and make a large profit will get the hundreds of millions spent on it to get it through the regulatory process.
  Something that looks like one-shot cure that will only make a small (or no) profit simply won't be invested in.
  
  --
  I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
28. Re:I'm tellin ya... by deimtee · 2013-05-15 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming you're talking about the human race, it's currently somewhere between 5 and 10 percent.
  http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzalivetoday.htm/
  
  --
  I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
29. Re:I'm tellin ya... by steelfood · 2013-05-15 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  So who knows what is possible when the corporations who fund (and hence choose the direction of) most medical research are not interested in looking?
  I do. They'll just buy up the research when it's completed and bury it.
  Oil companies have been doing that for decades.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
30. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  "reliant on cutting edge science"
  Mwhahaha. Good one.
31. Re:I'm tellin ya... by bluegutang · 2013-05-15 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  IMO, that's always been one of Gates' strong points -- he knew what he knew and knew what he didn't know, and always surrounded himself with people who could compliment his expertise. Jobs always seemed the exact opposite.
  You probably mean people who could complement his experience. It is more normal, and less worthy, to surround yourself with people who continually give you compliments.
32. Re:I'm tellin ya... by loftarasa · 2013-05-15 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  +5 Funny if only I had mod points to give and knew how they worked
33. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(book)
  You're correct that he had a team of experts working on his case, coordinated by his wife. However, OP is also correct that he did delay treatment the second time to explore alternatives.
34. Re:I'm tellin ya... by mattack2 · 2013-05-15 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  You may have to tighten the tinfoil hat to find the "evidence", though.
35. Re:I'm tellin ya... by the_B0fh · 2013-05-17 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  "Survival" means won't die from it.
  Are you sure this 6% will live for ever?
36. Re:I'm tellin ya... by the_B0fh · 2013-05-17 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  And this 5% to 10% will not die from this thing called life...?
37. Re:I'm tellin ya... by deimtee · 2013-05-17 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  Some of them will. Not necessarily all. See http://www.fantastic-voyage.net//
  
  --
  I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Slightly Unethical Plan by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:50 · Score: 0

If more influential billionaires and/or their relatives come down with obscure diseases, then think of how much money and awareness will go to those causes.
I suffer a similar and more serious condition by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I have PPP (partially paralyzed penis), my penis only works some of the time.
1. Re:I suffer a similar and more serious condition by cjjjer · 2013-05-15 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that typical of all Anonymous Coward's?
Prostate cancer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 21:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Brin, who began donating to Parkinson’s research in 2005, accelerated that giving after he learned in 2008 he has a flawed gene that presents him with a 50 percent chance of getting the disease by age 70.
But, regardless of genetic background, there's a higher probability of developing prostate cancer by the age of 70. From Wikipedia:

Autopsy studies of Chinese, German, Israeli, Jamaican, Swedish, and Ugandan men who died of other causes have found prostate cancer in thirty percent of men in their 50s, and in eighty percent of men in their 70s.
Also,

People with prostate cancer generally encounter significant disparities in awareness, funding, media coverage, and research—and therefore, inferior treatment and poorer outcomes—compared to other cancers of equal prevalence. In 2001, The Guardian noted that Britain had 3,000 nurses specializing in breast cancer, compared to only one for prostate cancer. It also discovered that the waiting time between referral and diagnosis was two weeks for breast cancer but three months for prostate cancer. [it goes on...]
Given these disparities, and since prostate cancer is far more prevalent than any of these genetic diseases, IMHO prostate cancer research would be a far better target for any donations.
1. Re:Prostate cancer by Kiwikwi · 2013-05-15 00:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Prostate cancer is very common among older men, but it's more often an annoyance than a killer, since people usually die of other causes before the cancer can kill them.
  To quote the doctor treating one of my relatives, it's a cancer you die with, not of.
  
  The relative 5-year survival rate is nearly 100%. The relative 10-year survival rate is 98%. The 15-year relative survival rate is 93%.
  (US numbers)
  That's why prostate cancer has low priority, compared to e.g. breast cancer, which has a relative 1-year survival rate of 96%, and 85% for 5 years (UK numbers).
2. Re:Prostate cancer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  People also don't usually die from paralyzed vocal chords.
  Would you really rather extend your life than improve its quality?
Some advice. by nospam007 · 2013-05-14 22:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Don't yell as much at your employees, throw a chair once in a while.
1. Re:Some advice. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  I know this is a joke, but I don't think Larry Page has ever yelled at a person in his life. It's just not in his character.
2. Re:Some advice. by Sulphur · 2013-05-15 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Don't yell as much at your employees, throw a chair once in a while.
  I thought people were not listening.
3. Re:Some advice. by swillden · 2013-05-15 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  I know this is a joke, but I don't think Larry Page has ever yelled at a person in his life. It's just not in his character.
  +1
  It's certainly not in his management style.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
4. Re:Some advice. by multi+io · 2013-05-15 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  I know this is a joke, but I don't think Larry Page has ever yelled at a person in his life.
  Maybe at his mom, when he was little.
The difference is obvious. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 22:16 · Score: 0

Hey i'm going to specialize in tittys!
Hey i'm going to specialize in assholes!
One of those you don't wanna hang around... or fund.
Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 22:32 · Score: 0

...there goes all of Googles Star-Trek-Computer-style voice-activated interface research projects.
omg get well larry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 22:35 · Score: 0

i thinkin about u
Nothing wrong with it, but... by oldhack · 2013-05-14 22:38 · Score: 1

Some rich people get sick with a rare condition, they fund research addressing it. Sure, others may benefit from it as well, but it's not exactly selfless philanthropy, is it.
BTW, wired is nothing but bullshit hype. It always has been, and fuck me if I can figure out how they managed to still be in business.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
1. Re:Nothing wrong with it, but... by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-05-14 22:46 · Score: 2
  
  So what? No one is asking you to kiss his backside because of his good deeds. If his cash helps find a cure for his disease, good for him, and we'll benefit as well. Better than spending it on another butt-ugly yacht.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:Nothing wrong with it, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  Reminds me of when I got solicitations from the Christopher Reeve to "help find a cure so that spinal cord injury victims will be able to walk again in my lifetime." I didn't donate. Maybe he would've been better off teaming up with a celeb with a different disability so they could pitch each other's causes.
3. Re:Nothing wrong with it, but... by AvitarX · 2013-05-15 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wired is in business because they figured out that basically free print ($.50 an issue) laden with adds translates really well to actually free and laden with adds on the internet.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
4. Re:Nothing wrong with it, but... by Sarten-X · 2013-05-15 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Humans aren't evolved for philanthropy. Our brains care most about our own situation. When we hear "Millions of people suffer from this condition", we shrug and move on. It's just vocal cords, or it's just a stroke, or it's just depression. Once a particular condition affects us personally, we become fully aware of just how bad it really is. That's when we realize how much we take our voices for granted, or how difficult our life is without even a small part of our cognition, or how crushing sadness can affect our daily lives. That's when our brain now only allows us to donate time or money, but compels us to do something in the hope of getting relief. This is why so many nonprofits have awareness campaigns. The average person is utterly unaware of how bad life can be, because our brains aren't built for empathy.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Yup... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 23:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

I had partial vocal cord paralysis for almost a year...it was miserable. It hurt to talk. I went to specialists, got scoped multiple times, and they said if it didn't clear up after a month or so, it was likely permanent. They put me on all kids of drugs, and then prepared speech therapy for me. I read up about it, but it's just crazy to understand first-hand how how of a gift it is to have the ability to speak. To simply communicate. I had to write down everything I wanted to say to people - and half my job was to speak and teach.
That year was _not_ fun.
There is a good ending: near the end of that year, I went to a dev camp for a week, but, I was diagnosed with a sinus infection right before I left. They gave me the regular jar of antibiotics. I got a chance to rest that week, and take my meds.
Then I came home...the next day I went to the grocery store and gave them my order. The deli lady said "Oh...you've got your voice back...when did that happen?". I went home and said "Honey, I'm home". My wife was cried tears of joy, jumped up and gave me one of the biggest hugs of my life. I could talk again.
It sounds like his case is more severe in nature, but here's hoping...you never know.
-jm
1. Re:Yup... by blackest_k · 2013-05-14 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know which antibiotic, you never know it might have a specific application to this problem.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
2. Re:Yup... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  I honestly don't remember, but it sounded generic...probably just amoxicillin.
3. Re:Yup... by dcooper_db9 · 2013-05-15 01:18 · Score: 2
  
  Your story is remarkable in similarity to my own. One of my vocal chords was paralyzed as a result of Polyarteritis Nodosa, an autoimmune disease that affects the vascular system. A few months after the paralysis I got bronchitis. My vocal chord recovered two days after I started taking antibiotics. I'd have to dig through my records to see if they bumped up my prednisone before or after the recovery. Maybe the medicine caused the recovery, or maybe the bronchitis somehow triggered my body to repair the cells. I don't know but I'm grateful to have my voice back. At the time my left arm was fully paralyzed and my right arm was at risk (and it hurt to use it). I pretty much couldn't type, write or speak. I'm not sure that Mr. Page's condition is worse than yours or mine. Most people suffer full paralysis of one chord or the other. He evidently has partial paralysis of both. Perhaps his was caused by an injury.
  
  --
  I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
4. Re:Yup... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  I hope by biggest hugs you mean she dropped to her knees. If you don't get a spontaneous blow job for that your marriage lacks passion.
Speak No Evil? by Bob_Who · 2013-05-14 23:23 · Score: 3, Funny

Just couldn't resist....
1. Re:Speak No Evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  It would be ironic if Brinn went blind and Schmidt went deaf.
2. Re:Speak No Evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  And Gates got constipation?
3. Re:Speak No Evil? by game+kid · 2013-05-15 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't recall seeing "shit no evil" in the list.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
same problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 23:36 · Score: 0

Is this the same thing that scott adams and RFK jr. suffer from or is it different?
Why worry be happy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-14 23:43 · Score: 0

You can always find things to worry about, things that might kill you. I can guarantee you SOMETHING WILL kill you, and worrying about what that something will be isn't productive!
Enjoy the life you have while you have it.
New product opportunity. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 00:32 · Score: 0

Can we expect to hear about Google Mouth Beta soon?
Google Glass by Schreckgestalt · 2013-05-15 00:58 · Score: 1

I bet this will dramatically speed up the process of implementing thought-commands for Google Glass.
1. Re:Google Glass by Cyko_01 · 2013-05-15 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not thought commands, but new types of input for the device for sure
If only it'd been Steve Ballmer... by Cyfun · 2013-05-15 00:59 · Score: 1

If only it'd been Steve Ballmer...

--
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
Potassium, Potassium, Potassium by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 01:24 · Score: 0

He needs to increase his potassium intake.
Should have started months ago, but it's not too late.
Good luck Larry!
Oblig. Mad TV by EGenius007 · 2013-05-15 02:07 · Score: 1

How has this not come up yet? http://youtu.be/va71a7pLvy8

"Perhaps your greatest achievement, sir, was your cure for cancer?"
"How did I cure cancer?"
"Well, you took 9 of the heads of the world's largest corporations and gave them all cancer. Within 7 months we had 4 different cures."

--
I know what you did last summer. Just kidding, I don't work at the NSA.
God obviously wanted him to shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 02:27 · Score: 0

Christians: 1 Atheists: 0

u mad athiestfags?
yuck by Pumpkin+Tuna · 2013-05-15 02:44 · Score: 1

This sucks for him. I had a colleague go through this last year. Luckily in her case it was temporary, stemming from a bad cold. Still, she couldn't speak above a whisper for 3 months.
Rabies vaccine by Miamicanes · 2013-05-15 02:48 · Score: 1

I wonder whether Larry got vaccinated for rabies a month or two before the laryngeal paralysis became apparent.
There's growing evidence that indiscriminate annual rabies vaccinations commonly performed on dogs & cats might be the root cause of the growing number of cases of laryngeal paralysis seen among pets in the US.
At the macro level, the evidence is pretty compelling:
* Laryngeal paralysis was practically unheard of in cats, and rare in dogs, until about 10 years ago... right around the time vaccines that use live modified rabies virus started to be used in cats as an alternative to adjuvanted rabies vaccines made from inactivated rabies virus.
* Laryngeal paralysis is usually accompanied by rear hindquarters lameness, and other symptoms that are basically mild versions of the same symptoms on a rabies screening checklist.
* More to the point, if you were to read about the symptoms of rabies, then describe a hypothetical variant that's mild, chronic, and non-communicable... you'd almost *precisely* describe the symptoms observed in cats with laryngeal paralysis.
The live-vs-adjuvanted distinction is important, and part of the reason why the theory is so controversial. Adjuvanted vaccines have a long, well-documented history of inducing vaccination-site sarcomas (cancer) in cats. A small number, to be sure... but enough to be unmistakable and visible (it's hard to argue that a vaccine didn't induce a tumor when one spontaneously appears in the *exact spot* where a vaccine was injected a few months earlier, even if the precise ingredient of the injection that caused it is unknown). The arrival of non-adjuvanted rabies vaccine was hailed as a major step forward, because it's presumably safer for cats... unless, of course, a small number of cats exposed to it end up developing chronic lab-induced rabies.
Making matters worse, the revenue vets get from those vaccinations is a major part of their annual income. Because most vets do, in fact, love cats and dogs and want to do what's right for them, this presents them with a terrible choice they're forced to make. Some simply ignore the problem, blindly cite legal compliance as an excuse, and wash their hands of moral responsibility. Others will now provide annual waivers for elderly and debilitated cats who would be risky to vaccinate at all (illness appears to be a MAJOR risk factor in post-vaccination LP), and will offer clients the option of titer-tests instead in an effort to roll the dice fewer times and reduce the likelihood of VAS or LP in that manner.
In any case, there's already strong (if anecdotal) evidence that live rabies vaccines are a major (if not THE) risk factor behind feline laryngeal paralysis, and it's not inconceivable that something similar might happen to humans who are vaccinated with live, modified rabies virus as PEP.
Same as Scott Adams (Dilbert) problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-15 03:15 · Score: 0

Scott Adams weighs in:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/larry_pages_voice_problem/
gene tests not very reliable yet by peter303 · 2013-05-15 03:17 · Score: 1

James Waston, the 3rd man to have genome sequenced, had 28 serious genetic diseases according to the published article in Nature. Yet none of them had expressed. Steve Pinker said had the gene for male pattern baldness.
Is it contagious? by Megahard · 2013-05-15 03:39 · Score: 1

Maybe he could meet my wife.

--
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
1. Re:Is it contagious? by OhSoLaMeow · 2013-05-15 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he could meet my wife.
  Or Gilbert Gottfried.
  
  --
  They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Scott Adams yet by knobboy · 2013-05-15 04:18 · Score: 1

It's not clear to me since I'm not a doctor, but I recall he speculated on his blog a few months ago that Larry Page had a similar condition that he himself suffered from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams#Personal_life
Use recorded data by somejeff · 2013-05-15 05:21 · Score: 1

If it helps, I can offer a wide range of prerecorded sound bytes for Larry to use. He can record them from Google Voi... oh, nvm.
Serious, but not fatal. by Bucko · 2013-05-15 05:52 · Score: 1

Long time NPR host Diane Rehm has suffered from the same condition. It kept her off the air for some months back in the '90s, but not permanently. The solution then, apparently, was an injection of something akin to botox.
Hopefully getting enough sunlight and vegetables? by Paul+Fernhout · 2013-05-15 12:01 · Score: 1

Suggested last year: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/openvirgle/QukA-eEPXVg/_7XkmJ1iHA8J
I just posted this comment to that page:
----
For some health advice on how to reduce the risk of further illnesses making this worse, please search for my post to the OpenVirgle Google group from 2012-06-23 entitled "Larry Page & Sergey Brin hopefully getting enough sunlight and vegetables?"
An excerpt: "I can wonder if, like so many indoor-types people in the technology field, those two hard working guys are both at risk from sunlight (vitamin D3) deficiency and vegetable deficiency disease? Or possibly some other nutritional issues (omega 3 deficiency, iodine deficiency, etc.) that can be caused by "The Pleasure Trap" and easy access to "Supernormal Stimuli"? (Both the names of good books BTW related to 20th and 21st-century health challenges.)"
Good luck with your new initiative. Google could someday become a leader in health sensemaking.

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Re:I'm surprised no one has mentioned Scott Adams by Smurf · 2013-05-15 13:11 · Score: 1

To be fair, a couple of AC did mention Scott Adams before you (1, 2. One even linked to Scott Adams' take on Larry Page's problem.
Steve Jobs 2.0? by peter303 · 2013-05-16 01:49 · Score: 1

Whats it with tech CEOs hidign serious health inssues?
Gates by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 07:52 · Score: 0

Gates like almost all humans is a mix of good and bad. Not one of us has lived the perfect life. Most people who attain great wealth step on others to get it. Many never get enough and are stuck in the cycle of more, more, more. At least Gates isn't all bad. Eradicating polio is quite a nice thing to do for the rest of humanity.
Tom
Water Filters