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

J. Andrew Rogers reality.miner at gmail.com
Sat Nov 7 04:15:00 CET 2009

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

More information about the p2presearch mailing list