[p2p-research] Building Alliances (history of computer networking)

[J. Andrew Rogers]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:47 PM, J. Andrew Rogers <reality.miner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> >From my own perspective, their most distinctive trait is that their
>> understanding of technology and its potential is about a decade ahead
>> of the commercial markets, and they fund things based on that
>> perspective.
>>
>
> Based on what?  What measure can be used to say one sort of research is
> "ahead" of another?  Science is either known and applied or it isn't.  There
> must be some common aim for something to be compared.


>From the standpoint of theoretical computer science it is the most
literate audience I ever talk to, bar none. While some academics may
have theoretical expertise in a narrow area, these guys are polymaths.
You usually can't put something new and exotic in front of them that
someone there can't immediately wrap their heads and understand the
long-term ramifications and implications. By contrast, most VCs get a
deer-in-the-headlights look if you start talking about technology that
is anything but vanilla mainstream.

They start working on most long-term interesting theoretical and
implementation design problems long before it is on anyone else's
radar, primarily because they develop the need for a solution long
before anyone else realizes there is a problem.


> Industries and
> universities don't try to build armors that block shaped charges.


The military funds a lot of very advanced mathematics, applied
science, and engineering research. In fact, most of the  military R&D
has nothing to do with weaponry or anything overtly military at all.
Modern trauma medicine as it exists today was almost singlehandedly
developed under the auspices of US military research.


-- 
J. Andrew Rogers
realityminer.blogspot.com