Slashdot Mirror
Google Creators Interviewed by Playboy
Cristiano wrote in to say that an interview with the creators of Google is appearing in the latest Playboy Magazine. That in and of itself is of little note, until one realizes that the issue of Playboy in question is already en route to subscribers and hits newsstands tomorrow, the same day that their IPO auction begins. News.com.com speculates that the SEC may be interested, since this could be a breach of the "quiet period" companies must endure before going public. It may also be nothing but a mistake in scheduling, but it has cast doubts on Google's IPO for some.
Google+playboy a geeks wet dream!
quiet period? thought that passed when EVERYONE else started talking about it.
I only buy it for the tech articles.
Bring on the booble jokes...
I think i'll have the one with bigger fun factor :-)
I can now tell my wife:
"See honey, I buy playboy for the interviews"
This
"Honest sir, I was just visiting the site for its informative investment insight. Honest."
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
You might have a bigger problem than Google and the SEC ;)
and this might be one of the only times when geeks are mentioned in the same breath with playboy, hot models, and boobs!
It's been said before (by VCs in my last startup) that an IPO is three things:
- A funding event (which they don't need), and
- A PR event (which is always welcome)
In the meeting they said that, I voluteered that it's also a liquidation event; but they suggested that that doesn't matter to anyone important.Google's IPO is a PR event more than anything; and if this adds controversy, that just makes for better PR.
Note that this interview was done in April - before they filed for IPO.... maybe that makes it a little less difficult for them.
Simpy
Let's have a race to see how many people can make the same joke in the first 100 posts!!!
best interview with kurt vonnegut ever is his one in playboy--yes, i DID read it for the article. interestingly, i hear they let him make up most of the questions himself.
Don't you sense a huge unspoken mutual interest between Google and Playboy?
Sunset over the lake, cool mist over the bridge; A leave upon the ripples, the snow reflects its glow.
involving spectacle makers worldwide. Playboy contains articles, while providing the means to lose your sight sufficiently to be unable to read them.
For those that forgot, Google tried to stop Booble from using nthe 'oogle' term to sell boobies. Parent is _not_ offtopic, and deserves something better than a Funny mod to get his karma back.
Okay, it's time to show some serious geek/nerd muscle. Let's slashdot the biggest prize of all- PLAYBOY!
My Systems
I don't see why the SEC is concerned, I know plenty well you guys don't buy them for the articles; but then again, neither do I.
I may be in soup as I just visited playboy.com
Being tracked for reading an article about google (well it was from playboy)
As porn (fap, fap, fap, kinda porn) Playboy isn't really that useful. It has a small amount of pages with pictures and that's it, and it's ALWAYS softcore. So yes, it IS about the articles. If I wanted porn, I would just fire up whatever p2p client is popular at the time, right now eMule.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
You have to wonder if they perhaps had a deal with the journalist or the magazine not to publish until after the IPO happened, and then they decided to print anyway.
I have seen this happen in science reporting, unfortunately. A journalist wanted to know about some current work at our department, and got the interview on condition that she wait to publish for a week, until a set of experiments on volunteers had been done (so the volunteers couldn't read the interview and get clued in on what the purpose was). She ignored the deal and ran it just a couple of days later ("we really needed a piece that day"). The experiments had to be postponed for six months and new volunteers had to be found.
Moral: never, ever, tell a journalist about anything with other than historical interest. If any aspect of your work or personal life could be harmed by the timing or manner in which something is published, don't share it. If it is ongoing work, don't speak about it - let your papers do the speaking. Another good, hard-won lesson is: don't make guesses, and don't share your beliefs or estimates unless they are very well covered by your data already. If you feel the need to add "perhaps", or "in my view", or "one possibility is" - just keep quiet. Far too often, that conditional will be dropped once the piece sees print, and your personal opinion will suddenly stand there as scientific fact.
My rant seems to have gone offtopic a bit; feel free to moderate down.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Oh wait, that was another Playboy interview...
Are they trying to commit corporate suicide? First they "may have" issued 23 million shares of stock to their own employees illegally and now they "may have" breached the quiet period. Do they even know what they're doing?
I wish I could get Playboy without the softcore porn. This would be one of those times. They occasionally have good political and social commentary in their publication.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Like /.ers would actually read the articles.
Playboy is not pornography (vulgarly called porn, p0rn, pr0n and/or derivatives), it's erotica.
Softcore implies there is some kind of sexual act, usually simulated and not graphic (eg, no signs of any actual sexual intercourse going on, just bodies writhing back and forth and so on).
Playboy has zero content of sexual acts, only a bunch of women in various levels of nudity. There's also no shots of genitalia.
So, please, stop calling Playboy softcore.
who the hell reads playboy for the articles anyway?
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Here is a link to part of the interview: ...Oh wait, I answered my own question...
http://www.playboy.com/magazine/interview.html
FYI: 2 time Olympian High Jumper, Amy Acuff is on the cover.
Obligatory Dumb Question: How the flying F**K does a Playboy cover girl do the high jump?
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
Semantics. It doesn't matter.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
They just did it so that they could up their page ranking on words such as "pr0n".
Am I the only one imagining a new "seasonal" logo for the "oo" in google?
Looking through the comments, it seems to be populated by teenagers titillated at the prospect of having geek content in a softcore porn magazine. But the interesting bit here (as the original poster stated) isn't that they're in Playboy but that they're in Playboy during their quiet period.
/.) has read the full article, I think it is a bit sensationalist to instantly go jumping to the conclusion that this is somehow a breach of SEC rules. They would be breaking the rules if they made forward-looking statements such as earnings or market share, or if they discussed new products and research. From what it looks like from the blurb on the linked article, they are talking about history, which they're allowed to do. They're allowed to talk about their childhood, they're allowed to talk about technology, they're allowed to talk about their lifestyle. They're just not allowed to pump up all the cool things that we haven't seen yet.
Given that nobody here on Slashdot (I am assuming that Playboy employees aren't kernel hackers, and Page and Brin have better things to do than blow time on
Anyway, try not to jump the gun on this. Wait till it comes out before you decide they're being evil.
Please do NOT show their nude pictures!
I'm sorry, I beg to differ, its entirely non semantics. Playboy isn't pornographic -- it has NO explicit sex content. Just a bunch of women in various degrees of undressing. Thats not sex. That's just naked people. Get over your prude self.
A lot of heavy hitters (Time/Warner, Yahoo) and "stars" (Arnold Schwartzenegger, Tiger Woods, Henry Kissinger, etc.) already have a piece of the action and stand to make a lot of cash in the IPO.
...
Between the Dutch auction for the IPO and all of the other snafus repated to the stock, this does not build confidence for Google in the short term. I can't imagine anyone buying shares in the IPO.
On the other hand, maybe in 6-8 months when the shares are trading at around $40-50 it might be worth a look
You were fifth. Were you really trying and just failed miserably, or is it some sort of political statement about how an over consuming desire to be number one actually is more detrimental than beneficial?
yes it does make it easier, because the quiet period doesn't begin when you know when you're going to file. it explicitly begins *when* you file your s1 of sb2 and extends 25 days after the stock starts trading.
On John Dvorak's blog there is a picture of the founder of google in drag accompanying this headline. Perhaps playboy will include this photo in their article?
Because the story submitter absent-mindedly forgot, here's the link to Playboy. ... Like you didn't know it already, lonely geek! (I bet all the images on the site are "mysteriously" pre-cached.)
- sm
Comes from the sealed bid auction that lowers (substantially) the usual profit taking for the IPO backer?
from an article on slate:
"Google's IPO price will thus be set naturally by all interested market participants, not artificially by underwriters. Google--and not well-connected investors--will receive the full benefit of investors' enthusiasm for the stock. To add insult to the injury of the chastened investment bankers, Google has decreed that it'll only pay a 3 percent underwriting fee."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104415
Check it out.
If you buy into the gist of the article (google is running the ipo to maximize *their* profit, not the banker/investment firms) then you could see the Playboy article in two ways.
1. The articles coming out at this point to screw the IPO and prevent the profit loss and possible sea change a sucessful IPO of this sort could lead to. ~ underwriters win
2. The article is coming out early and screws the IPO which allows google to back off this ipo until the storm of bad press passes. ~ google wins.
Or it's just a coincidence.
Interesting thought though.
~G
...when it gets down to fundamentals, do what you have to do and shed no tears. Dr. Matson in Tunnel in the Sky
googleporn.com
If it wasn't the Dutch-style auction that marks the beginning of the end, it will surely be this...
Maybe an honest mistake by someone who didn't consider that most magazines arrive early?
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Next!
C-x C-s C-x k
Given the nature of the magazine, I have to wonder whether interviewer will bring up the inevitable Booble controversy.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Playboy has interviews?
I just buy it for the hot nude women...
http://www.booble.com/booble_IPOlogo.gif
...appropriate.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Actually i was just thinking. Google has Froogle for cheapos, so Google should have Oogle for sickos, er I mean men.
...32,000 techies lost their jobs at various major software development companies on Friday, August 13th, allegedly for visiting a site contianing pornographic material. An anonymous vice president of information technology at a Fortune 500 company had this to say: "This represents a great step in removing these future pedophiles from our workforce. In our analyses we found that 86% of pedophiles had been exposed to pornography before the age of 18. Plain and simple, this proves that pornography is a gateway drug to sexual deviancy. Thank goodness we found these freaks of nature before they could cause any real harm to our enterprise."
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Jokes?
The bOOble search engine for the good stuff.
Please point to any picture ever printed in PLayboy that has softcore porn?
Only women in varies stages of un-dress.
I used to read playboy for the articles and the pictures. Point in fact, my wife bought me a couple of subscriptions through the years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
..."jumped the shark"? I think so. Sure, geeks will never use Microsoft's new search engine, but others will. Most will say that Microsoft's search will be biased and full of adds. But there are some that say Google is already there. Sure, for geeks, we may not see it as much because when we search for deep technical subjects, there just are not going to be that many spammers who have focused on being top Google in that subject. But to the average Googler, it's not that useful anymore because of all the spam. It will take spammers awhile to figure out Microsoft's ranking algorithm, and in the mean time, Goggle will lose market.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Google + Playboy = Booble!
It gets better -- the alt text for the pics of the two Google guys is "Matt Damon." This is surely the first time geeks have been mistaken for hunky Hollywood stars!
I should buy some cement.
This could just be someone on Wall Street stirring up trouble for Google.
There have been a few articles in the trade press about Wall Street being pissed off at (horror) being treated like normal people and missing out on the customary level of graft that accompanies high profile IPO's.
Microsoft is also working behind the scenes to try and throttle their IPO success. (Remember Microsoft's recent news portal unveiling)?
Larry and Sergey get alot of props though from both computer geeks (for linux) and financial nerds (for following Warren Buffett's advice).
I think the IPO is going to go well.
where can a guy get a hold of a pdf for this ?
Go ogle it.
Playboy is not pornography (vulgarly called porn, p0rn, pr0n and/or derivatives), it's erotica.
Are you sure? Maybe I don't like Playboy. According to Wikipedia, "Erotica is what I like. Pornography is what you like, you pervert."
ResidntGeek
And that must of been the second time when geeks are mentioned in the same breath with playboy, hot models, and boobs!
Finally a slashdot post where I can RTFA.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
submitted and rejected today:
Business 2.0 is running a column that speculates that the negative publicity surrounding the Google IPO may be part of a Wall Street campaign to stop more companies from using the Dutch Auction system and bypassing the banks. It quotes such people as Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com , who relates what happened to them when they decided to follow the dutch auction method for their IPO.
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
Try to find a driver got a siemens 1022 USB device. What do you find? 40 pages of resellers for amazon. Google has become freakin worthless.
Zoid.com
Booble should sue Google for using the 'oogle' term to sell boobies.
;-)
Booble is using the 'ooble' term
What do you think the oo's will look like in Google's logo on when this is issue is released?
gUUgle, I'm feeling lucky
With an attitude like yours, you're apparently not getting laid, either.
The Playboy editors misread the news about Google's public offering as "pubic offering" and said, "What the heck ! That's what our models offer every month. Let's get these guys on board as well."
In general the best way to find an updated driver is to contact the hardware vendor. If the hardware is old and no longer supported by the vendor, you may be out of luck. If not, and you were looking for a third party driver, be aware that such a driver might not exist.
However, I think what is happening here is that you are trying to use the product in an environment - like Linux - where the device might or might not be supported. You probably bought an item and are trying to use it in an unsupported manner; now you're getting mad because Google won't help you find a non-existent driver.
Besides, you should learn not to exaggerate. A Google search for 'siemens usb 1022 driver' did return some retail sites. Here's a hint, Sparky: shopping sites/pages generally include the word 'price'. Exclude that from the Google search and you get ~260 pages of what appear to be primarily hints, guides, and how-tos.
In conclusion: Google is fine; you don't know how to use it.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Ya ya ya
De schream beezel de woo de poo, secy we ehwoc! Chocwhy deu fon doo fongool Sopranos evian spring water fall cresecent moon bitch fag whore cunt lier!
Microsoft XP xperience points equal too many hit me hard.
Yeah.
descending to new fauxking lows, trying to steal .com(s) (froogles) from some disabled person(s). not surprising for the next big kludge of stock markup FraUD nazi billyonerrors?
playboy? they should more likely be included in the ever-being-rescheduled va lairIE/robbIE answer yOUR questions interview?
It seems like most results are to Google keyword spa sites.
...the executives have made some very careless mistakes. Personally, I'm a big fan of google search and google apps. However, if I were investing, I would have a lot of difficulty getting over the significant blunders made my google's executives in regards to this IPO. A couple weeks ago they mistakenly sold too much stock and had to buy it back. Now, they may garner the attention of the SEC for this interview that apparently couldn't wait one more day.
Granted there are a lot of unknowns in this matter, but I'd be on my guard if I were an investor right now. Google isn't the first company with a lot of promise, and it won't be the last.
The interview, as well as Playboy centerfold pics (just kidding) is now available online at the SEC. It seems once something is relevant to the law, Playboy's commercial interests are thrown out the window. I wonder how this might work to make music freely available over the Internet. Oh yeah, the interview
Is someone willing to copy the content for those of us not willing to risk their jobs?
I'm not clicking any links until I get assurance that their clothes will remain on.
Apparently, a guy can't dream.
Read the full text of the Playboy interview, compliments of the SEC. (Warning: It is a very long HTML file; wait for it to load. If your browser (such as IE) loses the fragment anchor, do a text search to find the beginning of Appendix B.) Of course, if you want the pretty pictures, you're going to have to buy it.
I've also picked up the Google/Playboy issue on my flagship blog.
Microsoft Windows is, fittingly, the official Desktop OS of Olig
to get to my playboy. She is always reading it.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
It looks like Google's IPO would be great for deal for investors
According to News.com
If I was one of Google's competitors (with deep pockets cough Microsoft) I would bid up the price of the IPO and then dump the stock right after if they get convicted. It would be a good way to deplete their cash reserves from the IPO.
if you're a day late with the info?
from here
PLAYBOY INTERVIEW: GOOGLE GUYS
A candid conversation with America's newest billionaires about their oddball company, how they tamed the web and why their motto is "Don't be evil"
Just five years ago a googol was an obscure, unimaginable concept: the number one followed by 100 zeros. Now respelled and capitalized, Google is an essential part of online life. From American cities to remote Chinese villages, more than 65 million people use the Internet search engine each day. It helps them find everything from the arcane to the essential, and Google has become a verb, as in, "I Googled your name on the Internet and, uh, no thanks, I'm not interested in going out Friday night."
In addition to being the gold standard of Internet search engines, Google is setting a new example for business. It's difficult to imagine Enron or WorldCom with a creed similar to Google's: "Don't be evil," a motto the company claims to take seriously.
This maxim was perhaps most apparent in May when the company announced it was going public. Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page explained their lofty ambitions. "Searching and organizing all the world's information is an unusually important task that should be carried out by a company that is trustworthy and interested in the public good," they wrote in an unprecedented letter to Wall Street. With the release of the letter, Newsweek reported, "The century's most anticipated IPO was on, and the document, revealing the search giant's financial details, business strategy and risk factors, instantly eclipsed Bob Woodward's Iraq book as the most talked about tome in the nation."
Page, 31, is the son of Carl Page, a pioneer in computer science and artificial intelligence at the University of Michigan. Larry was surrounded by computers when he was growing up and once built a programmable ink-jet printer out of Legos. Reticent but wide-eyed and reflective, he is Google's clean-cut geek in chief, the brilliant engineer and mathematician who oversees the writing of the complex algorithms and computer programs behind the search engine. His partner, Brin, 30, is a native of Moscow, where his father was a math professor. As Jews, the Brins where discriminated against and taunted when they walked down the street. "I was worried that my children would face the same discrimination if we stayed there," his father told Reuters. "Sometimes the love for one's country is not mutual." The family emigrated to the U.S. when Brin was six. A part-time trapeze artist. Brin is the company's earnest and impassioned visionary--a quieter, nerdier Steve Jobs. Early on, when Google CEO Eric Schmidt was asked how the company determines what exactly is and is not evil, he answered, "Evil is whatever Sergey says is evil."
Page and Brin met as graduate students at Stanford University. After years of analyzing the mathematics, the computer science and the psychological intricacies involved in searching for useful information on the ever-growing World Wide Web, they came up with the Google search engine in 1998. It was far superior to existing engines, and many companies, including Yahoo and MSN, licensed it. (Yahoo recently severed its ties with Google, introducing its own search engine. Bill Gates, who once admitted that "Google kicked our butts" on search-engine technology, has announced that Microsoft will launch its own search engine next year.) With its simple design and unobtrusive ads, Google has quickly become one of the most frequented websites on the Internet, and the company is one of the fastest growing in history. The financial press has estimated that after the initial public offering, Google will be valued at $30 billion, and Brin and Page, each of whom owns about 15 percent, will be worth more than $4 billion apiece.
The two are unlikely billionaires. They seem uninterested in the accoutrements of wea
How is that a troll exactly? It was a joke about Google folk living the Playboy lifestyle ala Hefner...
Of course you probably buy FHM and Maxim since you're too scared to buy REAL porn.