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.
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.
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.
My last company didn't mind people visiting playboy (we ran ads there); and the current one wouldn't even care so long as the work gets done.
Philosophy = the Computer/Internet is a benefit in the same way that the Lunchroom, the Bathroom and the Fitness Room is -- you can use any of those for personal business if you don't bother others.
That moderation up there... It doesn't say "Offtopic", does it? I really hope I'm misreading it...
ResidntGeek
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.
You know, I thought the same thing, at first. But then I realized that I think these guys are smart, and not just in computer science. One speculation I have is that they are trying to compensate for the predicted over-pricing of the stock that the auction-style IPO will create. Google doesn't want their stock dropping immediately after the IPO, so why not devalue it a bit prior the IPO.I don't think these kinds of tactics are smart in the long run, but I'm pretty confident there are some good reasons behind their seemingly strange actions.
Yeah, 'cause everyone knows more Internet bandwidth is used on geek-news sites than porn sites.
Jokes aside, Playboy does have some of the best articles around. Don't be ashamed to own a subscription. If you don't have it, you want it.
--
Check this out
If it wasn't the Dutch-style auction that marks the beginning of the end, it will surely be this...
Mmmm, land of the free.
Go ogle it.
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
Oh, fuck off. Even if you were planning on investing, I doubt you're the type they're after anyway.
These "blunders" are inflated because Wall Street is mad about Google's IPO format. We all knew they'd be mad, and this is the fallout. As many companies in as many IPOs have similar "blunders" but they're not reported as widely in the press. The reporting is a vendetta, and, you're either in on it or too stupid to be investing anyway. Come to think of it, invest, you poor sod, invest.
Most likely this was just taken in order to avoid having it reserved by some pr0n domain straggler.