Good luck Larry.
It has often been noted that Google's CEO Larry Page comes across as somewhat muted when speaking, which he took a break from entirely last year with an unexplained throat issue. Now he has revealed what the problem is. His vocal issues began 14 years ago after a heavy cold left him very hoarse. His condition was diagnosed as …
Good luck Larry.
I can't believe someone would vote you down for wishing him good luck. The internet can be scary place.
It might have been a scary (or more accurately, very, very sad) person who is responsible for the down vote, or alternatively, it might have been a very clumsy person.
I'm not being facetious! His organisation's mission statement is: "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". Surely the answer's there?
If you read the second to last paragraph you can see that's exactly what he is trying to do.
<quote>Vocal paralysis isn't a widespread condition, and there is a lack of case-study evidence for the condition. Page, therefore, is asking members of the public to contribute their experiences of the condition to the Voice Health Project.</quote>
Some jobs seem to be really dangerous for one's vocal abilities. Opera singer, football trainer, CEO of a multibillion company, ...
Beer - the best cure for a rough voice is good lubrication!
...in the world is capable of collecting and collating enough information on a subject it is he. Maybe it will encourage a mood swing within Google to open its doors to allowing universities full access to it's anonymised data for research.
Get a research team to find out where the best place is in the US for vocal cord transplants. And then move there.
If the underlying issue is the virus or autoimmune reaction the translation won't fix the issue -- hence data needed.
Do no evil, speak no evil, what ever next. A pirate style patch over his google glass perhaps?
Bill Gates, funding research for malaria.
Larry Page, funding research for his sore throat.
It's good to have priorities.
I would bet a considerable sum that if you had a medical problem, and a shit load of cash, you also would spend it on your medical problem. You should judge people by your own standards, not some arbitrary moral standpoint you would not adhere to yourself.
Seconding James's point.
I have it on good authority that Bill Gates once bought sticking plasters for a paper cut on his hand. That $2.49 he squandered on his own health care could have contributed to cancer research. So Page is not the only one whose priorities are wrong! What a couple of selfish gits!
Odd that - "twat" was exactly the word that came to my mind when I read the miserablist's comment.
Scot Adams has written about his own vocal problems and has speculated in the past that Page might have the same issue... seems he was right. And of course, Google can be used to find the information:
This business about fresh-faced Mr. Page and the other young and carefree co-founder of Google whose name I forget - is it some kind of soap opera or what? They are so cute and cuddly, you would be forgiven for thinking that it is really just a front to make people look kindly on what is a huge mega-corporation which strikes deals with governments and security agencies worldwide and which, apart from providing some very useful tools as bait, which are used by countless people on a day-to-day basis, engages in what we might see as very nasty business practices that seriously dent our freedom, and shamelessly uses our behaviour and day-to-day activities as a product from which it profits. Is this an unpopular thing to say, or do other people share this view?
Er, what has your post got to do with the fact the LP has a medical problem with his voice box which explains why he has been unable to make many long speeches recently?
Or are you using someone's medical misfortune to make some unrelated point?
Here's my unrelated point. If you don't like Google's business practice, don't use them. Will no-one think of the mosquitoes?
I'm not using someone's misfortune to make an unrelated point. I'm pointing out that occasional news about super-rich and powerful personalities, who seem ever so friendly and innocuous and victims of circumstances, but just happen to also be running massive, corporations which potentially threaten our freedoms, could be mere propaganda intended to make us view these huge and powerful companies in a kinder light than we should. They appear to be a smokescreen. It's not necessarily unrelated. I apologise if it sounds offensive to you, but if you consider the matter carefully, it shouldn't be.
Was it a bad case of Larryngitis?
Erm, I seem to have lost my voice....