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!
I only buy it for the tech articles.
Bring on the booble jokes...
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!!!
Google for porn and you get over 8 million hits, buy playboy for google and you get only one issue.
I'd put my money on google...
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
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.
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'm not a westerner, but please don't tell me there's something entrenched in law about buying a playboy before 9am.
Sorry to disappoint, but in sixteen states it is illegal to buy pornography on all of sunday, or between 2am and 9am unless it's a saturday.
Good luck with that man. Playboy has teh bandwidth to spare. Hugh punds hot babes on stacks of cash nightly. Whatever falls off the bed goes to the ISP.
Uphill battle indeed.
everything in moderation
who the hell reads playboy for the articles anyway?
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Am I the only one imagining a new "seasonal" logo for the "oo" in google?
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?
...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)
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.
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