this post was submitted on
19 points (73% like it)
30 up votes 11 down votes
all 7 comments

[–]Ferrofluid 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We could use a combination of candles and mechanical shutters, to transmit data down fibreoptics.

[–]cecilkorik 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My TV remote does this too -- just very, very slowly in comparison.

[–]kaiise 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

great war driving at night through your windows

[–]ashadocat 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

check out the ronja project. I'd like to point out that all this is is a local ronja set up.

[–]LaughingMoose 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This website contradicts itself; It says "Though it would provide much lower speeds than Wi-Fi signals"

And yet at the end of the article they say "Using the visible wireless system they built, the team downloaded data at up to 230 megabits per second." That's clearly faster than 802.11n

[–]Taladar 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am reasonably sure current 802.11n devices claim 300 MBit/s but I couldn't find a reference link.

[–]LaughingMoose 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They claim it can, however actual throughput tests (sustained speed) indicate of speeds up to 150Mbit/s Source: experience and wiki

Though, there still could be various drafts of 802.11n that have their own ways of accelerating throughput. Just like Belkin's "super g".