Bucknell Homecoming 2007. A student cornered me and expertly coaxed this marketing plug from me.
Monthly Archives: October 2007
Microsoft to Pay $240 Million for Stake in Facebook – New York Times
The two companies said on Wednesday that Microsoft would invest $240 million for a 1.6 percent stake in Facebook. The investment values the three-year-old Facebook, which will bring in about $150 million in revenue this year, at $15 billion.
I’ll have to add more on this later…
Found this very nice slide show overview of SL…
Michael Dell famoulsy siad about ten years ago that appls should shut down and liquidate. Ahhh, such hubris. Fortune has the scoop on the intervening ten years.
Seems a resounding endorsement of a value-oriented, innovative company. Of course, Michael Dell is personally wealthier than Steve Jobs. So how do you measure success? Which company is doing more for the overall prosperity of the country? You could argue that Dell does a lot by making PCs so cheap. Point taken, but that would have happened anyway. It woudl be good to know wthe relative numbers of employees as well.
This very thoughtful post on DailyKos (a must read) jolted me into thinking about a kind of dormant idea that came to me listening to Steve Barley’s OMT scholar of the year paper in 2006. Barley was calling on OMT scholars to engage more with the key publiic interest quetsions of our day. He had a few case studies that reflected how much the nexus of outsource government functions, lobbyists, and special interests have emerged as a thick organziational ecology or field between citizen concerns and policy-making.
At the time, what popped into my head was “network proto-fascism.” Why 1) overlap of state and corporate interests; 2) ideological nationalism as the rationale for #1; 3) development of authoritarianism.
Some friends last night at a party made me realize that plutocracy (state for benefit of corporations versus corporations controlled by state) may be a better term. I’ll have to ponder this. Maybe what has evolved in the US is even better than fascism because it achieves state control of corporate agendas (and vice versa?) through small world dynamics. Being network fascist makes the apparatuses of authoritarianism more robust and less visible.
The Kos post by DinMN (?) points out that National Socialism was not well thought out and often involved a kind of improvisation. Maybe there is some provocative comparisons to make between that kind of improvisation (as Kossack discusses a certain Neumann wrote about) and the adaptation of a small world network.