Comments for blogofrob

Comment on Crafting the killer product brochure by Bernard Mont-Reynaud

Bernard Mont-Reynaud — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:33:08 +0000

Hi Robert:
1) Clear thinking, crisp writing, brilliant!
2) Does the brochure exist?

I ran into this by accident, while looking for sth else (I will tell you if/when we meet) and got to see bits of your writing. Nice!

Basically, I have a project that needs founder-level assistance. I want to find out if you are interested to discuss it. Email me & we’ll go from there!

Comment on Giving voice to a billion things by Robert Poor

Robert Poor — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:20:29 +0000

Hola Rancel:

I think you are one of four people who read my thesis (and there were three people on my committee) .

You can PM me at my work address: robert [punto] poor [at] nbt-ventures [punto] com.

- rob

Comment on Giving voice to a billion things by Rancel

Rancel — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:36:32 +0000

Hello Mr. Robert, I’m a peruvian telecommunication engineer student who have recently started to learned about wireless networks and read your MIT thesis (GRAd algorithm).I would like to ask you 3 things about GRAd and arbornet do to implement it. Can I? Where can I do it?

- Rancel Varrona

Comment on On being an expert… by dlweinreb

dlweinreb — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:07:16 +0000

I’ve been attending meetings of the Mass Tech Leadership Council’s Robotics Cluster, because I am hoping to find good investments for Common Angels, and because robotics is cool. It turns out that I am the only investor who ever comes to these meetings (almost). In fact one goal of the group is to get more VC’s prepared to invest in robotics. Dan Kara, who comes to the group and was running the RoboBusiness conference, asked me to give a talk on investing in robotics; so I did. Then, about a month later, I was invited to be on a panel to talk on the same topic. Presto: instant “Expert!”. It’s not that I’m really such a hot-shot expert; I’m just the only person who seems to know anything in particular about this from the Boston angel/VC community. Go figure.

Comment on Why haven’t we seen the whole earth yet? by RSweeney

RSweeney — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:57:40 +0000

The pragmatic reason for no Earth pictures was that in 1966, no manned mission had yet climbed high enough to see the entire Earth, taking those lovely Hasselblad images. Weather satellites had also yet to reach high orbit and their imagery wasn’t very pretty.

There had only been a handful of deep space missions capable of viewing the Earth (Venera, Mariner, Luna, Ranger) and these early buses and imaging systems were simply not up to the task of rolling back and getting some ugly low resolution black and white pix of the homeworld on their way out. Many of them didn’t make it without trying anything fancy.

It must also be said that at the time, NASA was run by explorers looking out, not introspectively looking back home. I suspect Columbus spent more time with his telescope looking west than east as well.

Not that I don’t agree as to the value of seeing home as what it is, but we seem to be losing the capacity to look out in wonder and act on the drive to leave home and explore… human attributes as important as the need to nurture home.

Comment on Device Networks Defined by Of points, stars and meshes « The Embedded Internet

Of points, stars and meshes « The Embedded Internet — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:37:15 +0000

[...] intervention even as nodes come and go or the physical environment changes. Since Device Networks by definition need to operate without human intervention, nearly all mesh networking algorithms designed for [...]

Comment on Moore’s Law meets Metcalfe’s Law by jab

jab — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:39:46 +0000

You were indeed ahead of your time. The question is, how do we emulate that performance and build upon this knowledge going forward?

If you believe Irving Wladawsky-Berger he says that, leveraging device networks, congestion management systems are one industry that will grow exponentially over the next decade, particularly within data centers. They are in need of massive breakthroughs in order to 1) integrate with intelligent power grids, 2) monitor consumption of power, and 3) optimize the flow of electricity between grid and data centers. To meet these challenges, he argues that among other things new device network schemes and protocols are needed.

He said all this last week at an event he and I attended together. It was ironic, particularly given our conversation the week prior.

Hmm…

John

Comment on Moore’s Law: Obituaries are premature by Moore’s Law meets Metcalfe’s Law « The Embedded Internet

Moore’s Law meets Metcalfe’s Law « The Embedded Internet — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:27:50 +0000

[...] of devices fabricated using integrated circuits will fall exponentially over time. (That’s not really what it says, but this is a defensible [...]

Comment on Device Networks Defined by Moore’s Law meets Metcalfe’s Law « The Embedded Internet

Moore’s Law meets Metcalfe’s Law « The Embedded Internet — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:17:07 +0000

[...] Law says that networked devices become exponentially more valuable. So it stands to follows that device networks built using wireless silicon radios become cheaper and more valuable over time. Does it get any [...]

Comment on Why haven’t we seen the whole earth yet? by nbtventures

nbtventures — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:04:14 +0000

Thanks. I realize the attribution is ambiguous, but that quote is derived from your musings, not Fuller's, and lifted from the Smithsonian article in Photography changes our relationship to our planet.