Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
actually, i asked if you had "any connections to the company."
and you admitted that you did.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17634018
robot sunshine!
yeah, that should do it...
i'm sorry, he's in a meeting right now and can't be interrupted.
can i have him call you back?
really, officer, we weren't doin' anything wrong...
it's called sarcasm rockstar...
this is one for the ages though:
"If you work for the company, which I hope you do, then get in there and tell them they need to produce."
we're busy building an empire!
no wifi out here!
we'll get back to ya!
shut up shareholder!
we're busy!
just hand over your money...
and stop being such a whiner.
just another robot rube chunga...
you are merely here to finance weisel's world - now just shut up and buy some stock.
no questions allowed!
you're just an unsophisticated basher!
why should he bother talking to you?
maybe ask Van Delay?
prolly too busy making some big latex deal w/Kramerica.
wasn't Noble International Investments, Inc. (NIII) on the ask in the high 20s and low 30s?
they've been on the bid lately.
BOCA RATON, FL
561-994-1191
TRADING ROOM
561-994-1858
revs doubled on a sequential Q-to-Q basis.
otherwise, gotta concur w/the balance of that list... (but we still don't know if Agoracom quit, were fired, weren't paid, etc.)
Should We Repair Hubble?
Even after its main camera
short-circuited, Hubble was
able to capture an image of
a distant nebula.
A plan to save the Hubble calls for five spacewalks and two shuttles. We asked a four-time shuttle astronaut if it's worth the risk.
By Thomas D. Jones
Published in the May 2007 issue.
NASA has decided to make one final — and controversial — repair call to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), which is slowly dying after more than 16 years in orbit. The telescope was last serviced in 2002. Since then, technical problems have mounted, and a short circuit in January claimed one of its main instruments.
Scheduled for a 2008 liftoff aboard Atlantis, the HST-bound crew have their work cut out for them. During five spacewalks the astronauts will perform an array of repairs and installations, adding a new camera and fixing a half-dozen gyroscopes. If the mission succeeds, Hubble should be in peak observing condition until its replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, is launched in 2013.
But nothing about this servicing job is a slam-dunk — and hence the controversy. Since the 2003 Columbia disaster, shuttles have followed trajectories that would let them dock with the International Space Station (ISS), in the event of the kind of heat-shield damage that doomed Columbia. But Hubble's orbit puts the ISS out of range, so NASA's current strategy includes rolling another shuttle onto the pad in case a rescue is needed. NASA claims this brings the overall risk down to that of recent ISS missions.
No matter what, the mission will be tough — as I learned in 2001, the unexpected is the norm on any spacewalk. Outside the ISS, my spacewalk partner, Bob Curbeam, was showered with highly toxic ammonia coolant when a simple spring-loaded valve stuck open. I had to brush "Beamer" clean of flash-frozen ammonia crystals while he tethered himself in brilliant sunshine for an hour, baking away any remaining contamination.
Some argue that repairing Hubble is pointless, since ground-based observatories have overtaken its capabilities. But terrestrial telescopes fall short of HST's resolution by a factor of 10 or more. So would I take the risk to fly to Hubble? Just after the Columbia crash in 2003, my feeling was no. But spaceflight will always involve risk, and the scientific value and public appeal of Hubble are clearly worth it. Besides, intelligently confronting danger is how we humans have always opened the way for great discoveries.
PM editorial advisor Thomas D. Jones is a planetary scientist, four-time shuttle astronaut and the author of Sky Walking: An Astronaut's Memoir.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4214401.html
After repairing Hubble in 2002, the crew of Columbia took a photo of the telescope.
Hey scortchey! maybe they just got tired of people like you, IHaul, MoeMan, etc. asking too many tough questions!!
never saw anything disclosing any payments via shares by either Agoracom or the weisel crew, although i s'pose that doesn't rule it out as a possibility.
glad to have you here!
thanks Dr., but i thought a post-bankruptcy Refco board was worthwhile (especially after RFX sold off the main brokerage unit to Man Group) and different enough from the old RFX board (that has been dormant for about a year).
did you see that Man Group is going to take the Refco broker biz public AGAIN? and yep, it's gonna IPO on the NYSE (again).
btw, really like your SEC monitoring board - have searched through it a couple times while researching, just as the stated purposes of the board indicates.
Force Control and Machine Vision Guide Robots
Advanced force control techniques and machine vision systems help precision robots cope with imprecise assembly and manufacturing environments
Joseph Ogando, Senior Editor -- Design News, April 3, 2007
Vision guided robotic systems, such as the ABB TrueView system shown here, incorporate lights and cameras in the robot’s end effector. Images from the camera ultimately help position the robot in 3D space.
Modern articulated arm robots are precise, capable of repeatedly making movements within a few thousandths of an inch day after day. That precision is one reason why engineers like them. Precision, however, has a downside too. In the real world, dimensions and surfaces can vary enough from part to part to throw off a robot whose movements have been programmed relative to nominal size or surface. So would finishing or assembly operations that require a sense of "feel," such as assembling finely meshed gears, polishing a metal component, and some types of machining operations.
If you've ruled out assembly or finishing robots for these reasons, it may be time to take another look at them. Over the past couple of years, robot vendors have developed two technologies that improve robots' tolerance of the variability found in real-world assembly and finishing operations. One of these technologies gives robots a sense of "feel" by adding force control capabilities. The other uses machine vision systems to let robots "see" and adapt to variation in part dimensions and locations.
Taken together, force control and vision not only raise the technical capabilities of robots but also improve the economics of using them. Here's a closer look at both technologies and at some applications where they're starting to make a difference:
Force Control
The addition of force sensors near the end-of-arm tooling and enhanced control software gives some robots the ability to adjust to the forces they encounter as they do their jobs.
ABB Robotics, for instance, has developed a system it calls Advanced Force Control, which can be added as an option to a variety of the company's robot arms. The system uses a force and torque sensor from ATI Industrial Automation at the wrist of the robot. "We feed information from the sensors into our axis controller and adjust force and speed," says Jerry Osborne, vice president & general manager of ABB Robotic Assembly in North America. "There's a lot going on in the controller to make this happen."
Force control allows robots to perform finishing operations as in this grinding cell for chain saws.
According to Osborne, the system can sense forces in six axes with a sensitivity of +/- 2.5 Newtons and with a response time of 4 millisec. The system can also work in conjunction with the robot's speed and position control – for example, by first running a search pattern to locate a feature or object and then switching into force control as the assembly proceeds.
In the past, Osborne says, one option for assembly applications in which the robot's contact force would cause problems was to add a compliant mechanism into a traditional position-controlled robot arm. Mostly, though, these force-sensitive applications literally stayed in human hands or went into complex, dedicated assembly machines.
Force control lets robots adapt to irregular part dimensions and surfaces during assembly and machining operations.
ABB started to develop its force control system about three years ago, as a way to assemble the spline gear assemblies within automotive torque converters. "This work was manual because you had to feel the meshing of the spline gears," Osborne says, noting that 12 of these systems are now in operation worldwide.ABB is also pitching force control for tricky assembly tasks such as piston stuffing and spark plug assembly. Osborne says the system could make sense "wherever you have a press fit assembly."
Though developed three years ago for automotive assembly, the force control system seems to have even bigger implications for machining and finishing. Osborne says the majority of the systems have gone into finishing operations – such as polishing. "We have about 50 systems involved in finish applications. Some of them are involved in polishing magnesium laptop housings," he says. In these cases, the force control gets the nod for its ergonomic and quality advantages – it can provides a more constant force than a human being and not risk the injuries inherent in a long day of hand polishing.
Controlling forces at the end of the robot arm also have implications for robotic machining. Kuka Robotics Corp., which also has force-torque sensors available for its robots, has delivered systems that perform grinding and milling operations. According to Kevin Kozuszek, the company's marketing director, the force controlled robots are starting to become more popular in "pre-machining" applications--or the use of robots to perform rough machining operations, leaving only a single pass on CNC machine for finish machining. In this case, force control helps the robot close the gap with machine tool feeds and speeds by optimizing the contact forces between the robot-borne tool and the workpiece. Kozuszek says this approach can save significant amounts of money in reduced set-up and fixturing costs as well as in possible avoidance on capital expenses. “If you pre-machine with a robot, you may require fewer CNC machines for a given throughput," he says.
ABB's Osborne makes a similar case for pre-machining and adds that applications without tight tolerances may get away with robotic machining as a replacement for CNC. No one is suggesting that robot arms, which inherently lack the stiffness of a machine tool, will take precision machining operations. But Osborne and others see room for robots with force control to machine to tolerances near robotic repeatability – usually within a few thousandths of an inch
Kuka, meanwhile, currently advocates robotic machining for soft materials--such as aluminum or plastic. "It makes a lot of sense in prototyping and low-volume production applications, especially when you consider the time saved by avoiding complex fixtures and machine set-ups" says Kevin Kozuszek, the company's marketing director.
Kuka’s robots increasingly tackle machining operations, guided by the company’s CAMRob software. Right now, the company favors soft materials, but harder materials are a possibility too, depending on desired tolerances.
Still, one of Kuka’s customers has developed a new robotic machining cell that works on a hard material – stone. USMechatronics and the Seis Group, a pair of systems integrators that work on robotic and other electromechanical projects, recently created a stone-cutting robot called RoboJet. This stone cutting robot arm runs an abrasive water jet cutter, rotary saw and 3D milling head. Driven by proprietary control software from USMechatronics and by Kuka's CAMRob robotic machining software, this robot can switch between cutting methods automatically.
The stone industry already uses all three of these cutting methods--but on separate machines. "This is the first time they've had a robotic system like this," says Chris Barbazette, Seis' president. "There's been a tremendous amount of interest in it," he continues, explaining that the system can potentially replace all or some of the conventional, stand-alone cutting machines for a significant savings in capital costs. He adds that there's a utilization advantage associated with the robot. "The robot is always doing something, whether it’s cutting or moving materials into place," he says. That's not always true with stand-alone machines, which would typically have some idle time. And there's an obvious floor space savings, too.
Barbazette foresees the RoboJet approach becoming important in other industries that perform operations on stand-alone machines or processes. He thinks that composites fabrication is one application ripe for more robotic finishing and machining operations.And he's looking at metal machining applications too. "The whole idea of a robot as a machine tool is still in its infancy. I don't see it competing against CNC in precision applications because of the stiffness issue, but there are applications where robotic machining has a bright future," he says.
Robotic Vision
The other key enabling technology starting to gather steam is vision-guided robotics. These systems add a CCD cameras and lighting to the robot's end effector while specialized software translates images from the camera into move commands for the robot. Braintech Inc. has developed just such a system for ABB Robotics. Called TrueView, this off-the-shelf Windows-based vision guidance system can locate objects in 3D space with "sub-millimeter" accuracy, according to Jim Dara, vice president of Braintech.
Braintech has delivered TrueView systems to Ford, GM and various automotive suppliers. The common thread in many of these automotive applications – and in non-automotive uses too--is that vision can eliminate the cost of putting parts in correct position and orientation for robotic assembly. Dara points out that custom fixtures, precision dunnage and other positioning methods that "cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in a typical automotive plant."Robotic vision systems, by contrast, range from $10,000 to about $100,000, depending on their complexity.
"Robots can be too precise for their own good," Dara says. Vision helps them deal with objects as they are rather than as they should be.
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6430249.html#_self
well, maybe "IHaul" will post over here... s/he raised some good questions, many of which were ignored and some were deleted. (MoeMan and R2D2 were also among some of the pretty good posters over there imo).
IHaul was also one of the first (if not the first) of the Florida locals to start asking around about Weisel's construction project -- which was deleted.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=16072967
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=16106460
R.I.P. Agoracom
Coroware
Posted by lhaul on April 02, 2007 at 7:45PM
I may not have a clue. But, Is there a reason there in no reference to investor relations linking Coroware to INRA? Perhaps this is not possible. I did however go to Microsoft Robotics Studio and looked at their partners and was able to find a couple of other company's to invest in. If you dig real deep you will eventually find INRA a place to invest in, Coroware the only success in the Innova arsenal.Walt I must truly express my disappointment with you and the apparent lack of performance of our company. The reverse split was and should have been a positive. But, logic tells you that you should have something to follow it up with. The notion of putting all this talent on board our board, for what? If you did a sales job on them, I'm sure by now they must feel like a bunch of morons by now. Your/Our stock price is a reflection of you and Your/Our team. These guys appear to have a lot of talent WHY are they here.Hey Guy we are tanking. You've been tanking for several years. I hope you have something with some meat, We don't want to try to have to bring this back from .01 post split. You can only do so many reverses before everyone believes this is a scam. To the board members. Why are you here? Why do you lend your Credibility And Good Name to this sinking ship, Perhaps its time to start bailing water or bail the company.
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/innova/message/538243
Re: ARE WE HALTED ??????
Posted by lhaul on April 02, 2007 at 8:01PM
In response to Re: ARE WE HALTED ?????? by MoeMan
If I'm not mistaken I think this is a question. You do know we have a holiday coming up, Good Friday then Easter Sunday then Moms Day The company doesn't respond around holidays.You do remember this response from AgoraCON.
Re: MasaPosted by AGORACOM on February 20, 2007 at 2:46PM In response to Re: Masa by lhaul Dear lhaul, the question has been forwarded to Innova management. Please remember the question was submitted Saturday. Yesterday U.S Markets were closed for Presidents Day, making today is the first day of business since the question was posted, that said we anticipate a response by the company shortly.
Regards,
AGORACOM Investor Relations
I did finally get a response 28 hours later.
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/innova/message/538248
no response to my past question
Posted by MoeMan on April 02, 2007 at 8:52PM
I've ask questions and recieved no response other that Agora would send my question to Innova and a response would be posted when they recieve one. Still waiting.......
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/innova/message/538255
Re: What does the future hold betweem INRA & ABB?? this one!
Posted by MoeMan on April 02, 2007 at 8:52PM
In response to What does the future hold betweem INRA & ABB?? by MoeMan
What does the future hold between INRA & ABB? They must now pay INRA for all future use of their tech. correct? When can we expect the next news release?? I know while 3 million is alot of money for a small co. many investers are disappointed and suprised by that amount given ABB made 50 to 80 million using what they stole from INRA.Unless there is more good news to come soon I fear the pps will at best get stuck where it is today .20. Thank you for a prompt response.
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/innova/message/538256
March 5th I ask it & still waiting
Posted by MoeMan on April 02, 2007 at 8:54PM
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/innova/message/538257
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Posted by AGORACOM on April 03, 2007 at 12:21PM
Dear Innova Shareholders,
Please be advised that AGORACOM will no longer be providing investor relation services for Innova Robotics and Automation. The Innova IR HUB will no longer be monitored. Should you have any inquiries, please contact the Company directly.
Regards,
AGORACOM Investor Relations
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/innova/message/538404
Refco resources
http://www.refcosleuth.com/viewforum.php?f=2
Austrian Natl Bank Audit Report - BAWAG
http://www.refcosleuth.com/data/BAWAG_Report.pdf
who scolded you for that?
ever seen the iRobot patent portfolio? it's scary big.
my guess is the Mesa thing ended because the govt had no interest in those units vs. Foster-Miller, iRobot, etc.
of course the company could easily inform the market of this stuff, but they instead continue with a BS "stealth" strategy.
as good a question as any... eom.
iRobot Awarded Additional $14 Million from U.S. Navy for Bomb-Disposal Robots
BURLINGTON, Mass., 3 April 2007. iRobot Corp. has received a delivery order from the U.S. Navy to build additional bomb-disposal robots for shipment to the U.S. forces overseas. This latest award of $14 million from the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) brings the total value of the orders placed to date to $66 million. Under the terms of the contract order, iRobot will deliver an additional 101 iRobot PackBot Man Transportable Robotic System (MTRS) robots, plus spare parts to repair robots in the field.
iRobot shipped the initial lot of PackBot robots for this order in late March 2007, and the company expects to deliver the remaining robots pursuant to this delivery order before Dec. 31, 2007.
Under the terms of the previously existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, the military could order up to the full $264 million value in robots, spare parts, training, and repair services. The U.S. military's MTRS program has requirements for up to 1,200 robots through 2012.
"NAVSEA has been visionary in its advocacy for robots as valuable, life-saving tools that help keep U.S. troops out of harm's way," says Vice Admiral Joe Dyer (U.S. Navy, Ret.), president of iRobot Government & Industrial Robots. "As the threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) continues to grow, iRobot is committed to delivering these PackBot MTRS robots quickly so they can be deployed to our warfighters overseas."
http://mae.pennnet.com/display_article/288784/32/NEWS/none/none/iRobot-Awarded-Additional-$14-Millio...
iRobot Awarded Additional $14 Million from U.S. Navy for Bomb-Disposal Robots
BURLINGTON, Mass., 3 April 2007. iRobot Corp. has received a delivery order from the U.S. Navy to build additional bomb-disposal robots for shipment to the U.S. forces overseas. This latest award of $14 million from the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) brings the total value of the orders placed to date to $66 million. Under the terms of the contract order, iRobot will deliver an additional 101 iRobot PackBot Man Transportable Robotic System (MTRS) robots, plus spare parts to repair robots in the field.
iRobot shipped the initial lot of PackBot robots for this order in late March 2007, and the company expects to deliver the remaining robots pursuant to this delivery order before Dec. 31, 2007.
Under the terms of the previously existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, the military could order up to the full $264 million value in robots, spare parts, training, and repair services. The U.S. military's MTRS program has requirements for up to 1,200 robots through 2012.
"NAVSEA has been visionary in its advocacy for robots as valuable, life-saving tools that help keep U.S. troops out of harm's way," says Vice Admiral Joe Dyer (U.S. Navy, Ret.), president of iRobot Government & Industrial Robots. "As the threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) continues to grow, iRobot is committed to delivering these PackBot MTRS robots quickly so they can be deployed to our warfighters overseas."
http://mae.pennnet.com/display_article/288784/32/NEWS/none/none/iRobot-Awarded-Additional-$14-Millio...
Comparing some numbers.
from yesterday's NT-10K:
"For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, the registrant had revenues of $0 and a net loss of $(2,030,883). For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, the registrant currently estimates that it had revenues of $1,340,222 and a net loss of $(5,541,581). Results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 remain subject to further adjustment and actual results may differ significantly from the foregoing estimates."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1156784/000114420407016086/v070379.txt
From 10QSB for Q3:
Total 9 months revs (Services and Products) = $850,491
Net loss for 9 months of 2006 = $(5,287,258)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1156784/000114420406049255/v058526.htm
Backing out the 9 months (Q1-Q3 2006) results from yesterday's NT-10K statement:
Net Loss for Q4 2006 = $(254,323)
Total Q4 revs = $489,731 (Q3 revs = $255,717) = 92% sequential Q-to-Q revs increase
It looks like they are approaching cash flow breakeven operations, and here's a remark from early March 2007 on the subject:
"...$400K-$600K for the Q for an FY total in a range of around $1.2M to $1.4M, and hopefully doubling Q[3] revs..."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=17613899
and in the Ashcroft arena:
Ashcroft to discuss domestic war on terror
LEWISBURG — John Ashcroft, former attorney general of the United States and U.S. senator from Missouri, will speak at 7:30 p.m. April 9 at Bucknell University in the Weis Center for the Performing Arts.
The subject of Ashcroft’s talk will be, “Today and the Future of Homeland Security: Offering Strategic Perspectives on Homeland Security and the Issues Currently Affecting our Nation’s Safety.”
The free talk is the Bucknell University Conservatives Club’s fourth annual Alumni Lecture, a series supported by Bucknell alumni and former BUCC members from every decade back to the 1950s.
As attorney general in the Bush administration from 2001 to 2005, Ashcroft led the post-Sept. 11 reform of the Justice Department and helped write the USA Patriot Act. He served in the U.S. Senate and as governor of Missouri before being appointed attorney general. His book, “Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice,” was released in 2006.
The Conservatives Club’s annual alumni lecture was established by Richard Werther, a 1979 Bucknell graduate. Past speakers have included noted columnist and self-described contrarian Christopher Hitchens; New York Times bestselling author Christina Hoff Sommers; and syndicated columnist Walter E. Williams.
Ashcroft’s speech is sponsored by the Bucknell University Conservatives Club and Young America’s Foundation. The Bucknell Student Government, Residence Hall Association, Office of the President, Provost, Dean of Students, and the political science, management and sociology departments are co-sponsors.
Posted: 4/2/2007
http://www.sungazette.com/lifestyles/education/articles.asp?articleID=16596
Robots navigate maze, surgery
Robotic Systems Challenge draws students from area schools
By Gadi Dechter Sun reporter
Originally published April 1, 2007
The Poly boys figured they had the "petite slalom" all sewn up when their robot was the only one to clear the first heat without jostling any cones - in a blistering 18 seconds.
Likewise, last year's "mystery course" champions from Hereford High School were predicting an easy repeat victory - a full hour before the secret course was unveiled.
"I'm pretty sure we're going to win," said Justin Zelinsky, 15, with a shrug, as he plunked a pair of infrared sensors into his car-like "bot."
Happily for the competition - and their nervous parents and coaches - the day had in store thrilling upsets, spectacular crashes, even disqualification for illegal robot enhancements.
More than 30 middle and high school students representing about 10 schools faced off yesterday in the second Robotic Systems Challenge at the Johns Hopkins University.
"Our goal is to entice middle and high school students to become interested in the sciences, because the numbers of students enrolling is very low right now," said Cyndi Ramey, education director of the Computer Integrated Surgical Systems and Technology division at Hopkins, whose students organized the competition.
Before the games began, Daniel Creasy, assistant admissions director at Hopkins, assured the pre-college crowd they would have a leg up in admissions to elite colleges such as his if they plan to pursue engineering-related studies.
The contest required student contestants to program and assemble unmanned vehicles called "boe-bots," which are self-contained rolling-robot kits often used in classrooms.
In addition to the slalom and maze contest, there was also a "robotic brain tumor surgery" challenge - designed to mimic a nanotechnological medical application - in which students programmed bots to detect colored spots (tumors) in an enclosed space (brain).
Most of the contestants were high school boys, reflecting the gender imbalance in engineering, but some female contestants said the event encouraged them to pursue the sciences.
"I feel like I belong here, really," said Becky Vickers, an eighth-grader from Dumbarton Middle School. "Everybody is nice and they include you, and if you don't understand something they explain it to you and don't make you feel dumb."
The atmosphere in Hopkins' Glass Pavilion started out calm yesterday morning, with groups of students quietly assembling robots and putting finishing touches on programs via laptops.
But things heated up quickly, beginning with the slalom event.
"The slalom course depends on 'dead reckoning,'" explained Chip DiBerardino, a robotics engineer with General Dynamics, whose son is on the Hereford team. "That means the robot is driving a preprogrammed course without sensing its environment. The problem is, small errors add up."
Solomon Ajetunmobi, 15, and George Dinglas, 15, of Baltimore's Polytechnic Institute discovered that lesson quickly. Their seemingly ingenious use of diagonal patterns - which helped them breeze through the first, simple slalom - caused their bot to veer wildly off-course in the second, more challenging heat.
The most hotly contested event was the so-called mystery course, in which the robot had to rely on sensors to navigate a previously unseen maze-plus-obstacle course.
Some bots were outfitted with infrared sensors to detect walls and various course hazards; others relied on metal "whiskers" that brushed up against barriers. But all had problems.
Many robots flipped over, became stuck in corners or simply spun in place. The judges gave all the teams extra time to refine their code, adjust their sensors and brainstorm.
In the end, only the robot from Chopticon High School in St. Mary's County successfully reached the end of the course, but it was disqualified for being equipped with a bumper-like sensor that is not part of the boe-bot's basic package.
Ultimately, teams from the Park School in Brooklandville won the most points in both the mystery course and slalom events, while another Chopticon squad took the top spot - and the digital camera prize - in the brain tumor hunt.
Even if they didn't win, the competition and camaraderie seemed to overcome some of their discomfort with being regarded as budding nerdy engineers.
"This is the complete opposite of what we normally do," insisted Poly's Ajetunmobi early in the day.
"Yeah, we play sports," added his teammate, Dinglas. Both are members of the school's undefeated lacrosse team.
But after the scores were tallied and the Poly boys joined their fellow bot-heads in a pizza lunch, attitudes had mellowed somewhat. "It was challenge, and it brought out a different side of me," said Ajetunmobi. "I met some cool people."
gadi.dechter@baltsun.com
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.robots01apr01,0,6795242.story?coll=bal-local-headl....
"does that mean I am a mortgage broker,..."?
no, but this likely does:
"I'm a mortgage guy, anyone can call my number."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=14158783
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=14156550
this guy?
how do you explain this post?
Posted by: demetri
In reply to: Arrow335 who wrote msg# 6292
Date:3/7/2007 12:06:14 PM
Post #of 6964
I think this is due to small dilution coming regarding Altronics, however I agree with spin that it will be small and a none event, I also think that Altronice might have a lot of revenue ( am I right spin) If they have fortune 500 clients then they are making millions, so this stock is way under valued now. I wonder if there is something else going on with stock, warrents, options or something that is making this stock act of market, sometimes stocks do this right before a big move. Alos have to wonder why Walt settled for 3m instead of trial, Could the answer be that this is a payment(if it was whole settlement it would have said cash to settle) I think 2.9 is a payment. Probably 10 payments or so. If you look at the contract it says if there is more to the contract than it is seperate and when together it is one.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=17667818
fish in a barrel, mortgage boy...
did you retire sometime after Jan. 31st?
"I sell more mortgages then [sic] they sell .20 cent rings."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=16676427
of course you wouldn't buy a URC3, or an IRC5.
seriously, what use would a guy working at a florida mortgage broker, that has prolly seen its business plummet in the last 6 months, have for a robotics controller?
so now you "have a few shares left"?
i see... so my belief that most of your posts are filled with lies and manipulation is somehow mistaken?
that's mostly right weo (imo), 'cept the ABB revs figure for the IRC5 product was an estimated aggregate of approx. $78M up to March 2007, according to the RWT/INRA trial brief.
yeah, it really looked like they had the goods on ABB, but how a trial woulda played out is unfortunately something we will never know.
and absent a confidentiality request, i just don't see how they could properly avoid the SEC's disclosure requirements.
but scott's criticisms aren't designed to trick people!
you keep using the pronoun "we" in terms of the fate of this stock, yet in this message below from yesterday you claimed to have already sold all your shares.
"I have now sold and am out of here."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=18360103
and in this message below, also from yesterday, you claimed you would not be buying any more.
"I would not buy this thing for any price. not even with your money"
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=18359110
so all this rhetoric about how "we are screwed," and "we are f*ed," etc., seems to be part of the same game you played in January, 2007.
regular readers of this board know what you are attempting to accomplish, and a month or two from now you're about 99.9% likely imo to come back with the same tired "let's be friends" messages that you've used before.
we know what you're doing and we also know that phone number you posted in October really is your number.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/profile.asp?user=84593&PrevStart=16640961
or my speculation
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/10/2007 2:29:05 PM
what I am saying is that the company
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/10/2007 2:28:24 PM
no they (the company ) will be issuing
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/10/2007 12:39:41 PM
no, they will be issuing shares for the
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/10/2007 11:36:25 AM
remember never a clown, because I was right.
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/10/2007 10:55:47 AM
o.k. spin I will stay in the guidelines.,
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/10/2007 12:07:13 AM
hey I like the pic, that guy must
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 2:38:11 PM
hey hows your stock? did it skyrocket to
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 2:36:46 PM
wait I'm not unhappy you guys are. You
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 2:35:16 PM
which is it
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 2:28:03 PM
maybe but you guys loved this stock at
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 2:27:48 PM
funny how you delete the e-mails to fit
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 2:26:23 PM
I told you I was waiting for .06,
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 1:49:12 PM
you guys thought it was so good at
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 1:47:03 PM
no life is good
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 1:12:59 PM
what you smell is something you stepped in,
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 12:01:04 PM
thats it grap for straws, You guys have
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/9/2007 8:38:24 AM
make it easy for yourself to understand. Why
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 5:42:27 PM
To be 100 percent ruthful I am just
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 5:39:27 PM
nope, I am not buyin this stock ever.
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 5:34:57 PM
why is this hogwash, I have been right.
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 5:21:18 PM
O ya, Chow forever
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 5:06:17 PM
no need I'm out of here, just rubbing
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 5:05:55 PM
whats wrong, truth hurts, can't take it. I
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 5:03:19 PM
O I know nothing, I sold at .35
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 5:00:18 PM
I am probably your best friend someone needs
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 4:56:23 PM
dumb ass, ya right, no Walt will get
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 4:52:54 PM
you know someone trys to help, which is
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 4:51:49 PM
I warned you guys when this stock was
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 4:49:57 PM
again, so if you were running a compnay
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 4:48:42 PM
I took my order out today for 400,000
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/8/2007 4:22:35 PM
are you guys still hoping on this one.
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/7/2007 5:55:13 PM
well I did, I sold some at .04
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/4/2007 12:48:45 PM
no, I sold at .40 or .04 pre
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/4/2007 12:40:12 PM
see you guys are mean to me and
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/4/2007 12:20:52 PM
I have an order in for 400,000 at
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/4/2007 10:44:42 AM
wow, never saw a stock go down so
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
1/3/2007 8:13:25 PM
yes I am a female and yes I
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
12/28/2006 8:15:08 PM
I have been here before and I have
Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA)
12/28/2006 6:57:53 PM
look kids #1 again on the breakout boards!
1 Innova Robotics and Automation Inc (INRA) 654% 85 03/30/2007 11:47:50 PM
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/HotBoardsRelative.asp
'cept now it's for a very different reason.
just a bunch of "unsophisticated" "bashers."
"not for one minute do I believe all the[y] recieved is 2.925,000 million"
if your premise is correct, then would there not also be certain disclosure requirements?
would love to see someone explain a way in which they could have possibly received > $2.925M, properly, without disclosing anything. ABB and RWT/Innova can't just make up securities disclosure requirements as they go along to fit their needs.
that sorta post should be censored rockstar!
"I'm starting to believe that he is living off of us shareholders."
"asset," lots of conjecture there and the lack of transparency makes it tough to respond to any of it with any degree of reliability. DD isn't a destination, it's an ongoing journey imo.