<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Michael Mol <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mikemol@gmail.com">mikemol@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Bob Kline <<a href="mailto:bob.kline@gmail.com">bob.kline@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Speaking of in principle, if by<br>
> "wired" one means fiber, nothing<br>
> will be faster in practice. 20 years<br>
> ago researches had put over 1,000<br>
> wavelengths on a single fiber, with<br>
> 5 nm spacing. Each wavelength<br>
> can support 10 Gbps or so with<br>
> today's technology.<br>
> Wireless can be fast, but not that<br>
> fast, and there might not be enough<br>
> available frequency today to support<br>
> lots of bandwidth.<br>
<br>
</div>You missed the joke. Broadcast and fiber optic both operate on the<br>
principle of channeling EM radiation.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br></font></blockquote><div>It's a distinction without a difference.</div><div>So does coax, and the cord to your</div><div>lamp. As we know, a lamp cord provides</div><div>a path for a Poynting vector. You can</div>
<div>check out the details at</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vec">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vec</a></div><div><br></div><div>A belated ha ha in any case.</div><div><br>
</div><div> -- Bob</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><font color="#888888"> </font></blockquote></div><br>