"Twisted" OAM Beams Carry 2.5 Terabits Per Second 142
MrSeb writes "American and Israeli researchers have used twisted, vortex beams to transmit data at 2.5 terabits per second. As far as I can discern, this is the fastest wireless network ever created — by some margin. These twisted signals use orbital angular momentum (OAM) to cram much more data into a single stream, without using more spectrum. In current state-of-the-art transmission protocols (WiFi, LTE, COFDM), we only modulate the spin angular momentum (SAM) of radio waves, not the OAM. If you picture the Earth, SAM is our planet spinning on its axis, while OAM is our movement around the Sun. Basically, the breakthrough here is that researchers have created a wireless network protocol that uses both OAM and SAM. In this case, Alan Willner and fellow researchers from the University of Southern California, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Tel Aviv University, twisted together eight ~300Gbps visible light data streams using OAM. For the networking nerds, Willner's OAM link has a spectral efficiency of 95.7 bits per hertz; LTE maxes out at 16.32 bits/Hz; 802.11n is 2.4 bits/Hz. Digital TV (DVB-T) is just 0.55 bits/Hz. In short, this might just be exactly what our congested wireless spectrum needs."
I do not like green eggs and ham (Score:1)
Re:I do not like green eggs and ham (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Star Wreck reference (Score:2)
Fukov: It doesn't go to 1000....
Spook: It would be logical to avoid the direction we just came from. The station commander would hardly appreciate it.
Pirk: Hmph. Engage...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPglc3z6r_A [youtube.com]
Will it be practical? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very cool, but the current super high bandwidth demonstration is being done with optical light over very short (1 meter) distances.
The article did point to an article from a couple months ago about the first ever OAM transmission; which was done with radio waves. But the antennas used look very directional and there was no mention of bandwidth.
Optical might be useful to further increase the speed of fibers, and highly directional radio might help for satellite broadcast or to compete with microwave relay towers. But requiring highly directional antennas, on both ends, isn't good for mobile wireless.
Hopefully we'll see another story soon where someone figures out how to detect and transmit OAM encoded radio waves from non-directional antennas.
Re:Will it be practical? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
EM waves have frequency and polarization and phase. Their "orbital angular momentum" is some combination of these parameters so you can't increase bandwidth over what can be done using some combination of these.
That was my take on this the first time I heard about it -- although my breakdown was E and M magnitude and direction. But the further discussions I read, and now this demonstration, seem to indicate otherwise.
BTW, frequency and phase aren't exactly independent, are they?
Re:Will it be practical? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really a scam, or is it just that it can be implemented with MIMO?
The paper states "we conclude that communicating over the sub-channels given by OAM states is a subset of the solutions offered by MIMO, and therefore does not offer any additional gains in capacity."
All the practical implementations of OAM have been implemented with multiple antennas, so perhaps this is no big surprise.
That said, the OAM demos have gotten satellite folks to wake up, perhaps they need to consider more generalized MIMO s
Re: (Score:2)
Oh this kind of sucks though:
"The helical phase of the OAM states remain coherent over vast distances, but the amount of energy that can be received beyond the Rayleigh distance with a limited-size array decays rapidly, as compared to free space attenuation, for all but OAM state 0."
Re: (Score:1)
EM waves have frequency and polarization and phase. Their "orbital angular momentum" is some combination of these parameters so you can't increase bandwidth over what can be done using some combination of these.
Actually, I don't think their OAM is a combination of those parameters. It's about the spatial distribution of the phase around the axis of transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
Axis of transmission? That'll be polarisation. And phase - which I believe the OP mentioned.
Sorry, I'm obviously missing the magic pixie dust property of EM waves here that hasn't been mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Remember the IR data port fad? Thank Jebus THAT never took off. Not for lack of hype, either...
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is that visible light doesn't pass through walls and that the range is short, not that it's directional. I don't see what's wrong with directional, so long as the direction of the antenna can be rapidly digitally reconfigured (and yes, such antennas exist). Seems an obvious way to free up spectrum in the future - data is only being transmitted (apart from weak sidebands) in the direction it's needed.
The obvious downside you'll get to is that you'll *normally* have a clear line of sight, b
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will it be practical? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because you won't have a 2.5 terabit connection for your laptop or cell phone doesn't make this any bit less cool. There are many applications where point-to-point line-of-sight communication is useful. As some have already suggested, this might help boost the speed of fiber optic networks. This could be useful for more secure networks, such as between military aircraft and satellites. Depending on cost, power requirements, and how well the signal propagates through the atmosphere, this could become an alternative to digging trenches and burying cable. Image a network of repeater towers that could increase the speed of communication across cities or even across continents without the hassle of digging trenches or hanging lines on telephone poles.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the whole basis of OAM is directional so no go there. OAM is a fancy way to use coherent beams for spatial re-use. Its like a laser. A omni-directional laser is an oxymoron.
It's probably not possible because of distance and interference, but satellite links are highly directional as well as ubiquitous; if a technology like this could be used to increase the bandwidth of terrestrial satellite links (by which I mean a dish at your house connecting to a satellite in fixed or predictable orbit), you could get pretty incredible broadband speeds in very remote areas--including internationally.
Re: (Score:2)
The satellite dish on the ground is highly directional, but the receiver and transmitter on the satellite itself has to be rather wide to cover something like rural broadband.
Lasers vs wireless (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article: "fastest wireless network ever created". Since this thing uses lasers and requires line of sight it would perhaps be more relevant to compare to other laser transmission schemes, where the record stands at 26 Tbit/sec
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But laser (I'm assuming optical or IR) uses higher frequency carrier wave. That makes it easier to transmit more data per second. The real achievement here is not bits per second; it's bits per hertz. When OAM is applied to those frequencies, it'd be able even transmit even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Since this thing uses lasers
Why are you bringing up sharks?
OAM Beam (Score:1)
(But then again, I always root for the OAM beam!)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Let us root, root, root for the OAM beam,
If they don't spin it's a shame.
For it's one, two, three terabits,
In a per second frame."
Here is a paper on this (Score:4, Informative)
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/14/3/033001/pdf/1367-2630_14_3_033001.pdf [iop.org]
I am still not sure exactly what the physics is here.
Re: (Score:1)
It's using the spatial variation of the signal. In cylindrical coordinates (r,theta,z) aligned with the axis of transmission z, it uses different phases at different thetas. In particular, a bunch of superposed signals each with phase varying around the z axis as cos(i*theta) for i=0,1,2,... should stay conveniently distinct from transmitter to receiver.
I think the axis of transmission is baked into the idea pretty deeply - it's inherently unidirectional. I also think it's not robust to superposition: anoth
Re: (Score:2)
More like chemistry, actually when discussing the EM spectrum like this. Although the two sort of blur together when it comes to this sort of thing. The mathematicians would probably claim we were both just applied maths folks (a la xkcd comic).
Re: (Score:2)
speed is intoxicating isn't it (Score:5, Funny)
It's our only chance! (Score:1)
Cross the streams!
This is useless for WiFi, GSM, or such. (Score:2, Insightful)
Two reasons:
* This is applicable to point-to-point links, not broadcast.
* This involves a structured beam multiple wavelengths in diameter -- infeasibly large at 1-10 GHz frequencies.
So what is it good for? Free-space optical comms! It could also be applied to sub-THz frequencies for increased range, but not to wavelengths as long as are commonly used today. Applications include backhaul for GSM towers and satellite-to-satellite comms.
It's worth noting, however, that free-space optical comms are not particu
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that means what you think it means (Score:2)
> 95.7 bits per hertz
95.7 bits per cycles per second?
Re: (Score:2)
Spectral efficiency does seem to be measured in bits per herts. At least, Wikipedia says so, so it must be true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency#Link_spectral_efficiency [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I misread, it's bit/s/hertz.
Re: (Score:2)
Additional considerations (Score:1)
Still trying to resolve whether OAM is more than pattern polarization in a regular antenna. If it is not, then:
1) the spatial region of receiving the differently-polarized "streams" will spread out with distance from the transmitter, and
2) there will be a finite isolation between the different polarization states in a real receiving device, essentially setting up a maximum signal to noise ratio (SNR); this sort of finite isolation between states is likely to exist in any event
With any comms system, you can
Re: (Score:2)
1) it's not. This was discussed in the slashdot article that the summary briefly mentions involving a similar experiment done using radio waves instead of light. It is a technique that is additional to polarising the antenna.
Polarisation is like, as the summary mentions, looking at the signal at different rotations on the axis - spin angular momentum. This adds the additional orbital angular momentum component (that axis orbiting something else in the case of the planet and sun analogy which is not perfect
Shoot for the Head! (Score:1)
epic fail in the syllogism of demand (Score:3)
Good judgement comes from experience
:: Experience comes from bad judgement
:::: Abundance comes from alleviating congestion
:: Congestion comes from delivering abundance.
It's pretty much a theorem in transportation systems that you can't alleviate congestion by boosting capacity until the less direct or desirable routes are destitute.
There should have been a Star Trek episode where high-end subspace polarizers keep disappearing from engineering consoles because the Ferengi have taken on a contract from Monster Cable to supply private Holodeck enthusiasts with the finest detail in nose hair.
OAM is scam discredited by IEEE peer review (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
OAM vs circular polarization? (Score:2)
I work in satellite communications, where circular polarization (e.g. LHCP and RHCP) is common, especially in some C-band links. Can someone explain to me how OAM is different from CP? Because it sure sounds like CP to me.
And if they're modulating the data onto the phase, wouldn't that simply be phase shift keying?
I read a short IEEE Spectrum article about this just yesterday, and I'm still puzzled. Tech writers tackling this subject would be well advised to mention CP in their writing and explain how th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes. Light uses wires. I can see it now, through the wires.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Congratulations on your attempt at being pedantic, but the fact of the matter is that the common usage of the term "wireless network" in this article refers the transmission of radio waves. The submitter uses that term three times, and only sneaks in the term "light" once, obviously because visible light "wireless" transmissions are far less exciting than radio wave transmissions.
What is the use case of a visible light "wireless" network? Maybe point-to-point networks between buildings? I can't think of muc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that I had to connect wires to my eyes to perceive that portion of the EM spectrum (which "wifi" is just a different part of, incidentally).
Re: (Score:1)
You have just spectacularly demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the EM spectrum and wave-particle duality.
Re: (Score:2)
And we'll still pay telcos for phone calls instead of switching to SIP :-(
Re: (Score:3)
Did noone else notice the "infinite capacity" in the link? I'm afraid that violates the laws of not just information theory, but of physics itself. Why should we trust any of their reporting when it's clear they don't know the subject matter they are reporting on?
Re: (Score:2)
This post [slashdot.org] sums up the concept well enough. Each OAM value (usually associated with the letter l) means that the phase of the light around the beam centre changes by 2pi. So, l=0 is no change in phase, l=1 is 2pi change in phase and so on. There's no upper limit to OAM values, and light waves with different OAM are orthogonal, so you can theoretically have infinitely many beams with no interference between them. There are no more theoretical problems with this than having say an infinite number of GigE c
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that simple reflections can change the orbital momentum of a signal (in fact the simplest way to create a signal with orbital momentum is with a spiral reflector antenna). Which doesn't matter for line of sight or fiber, but the cross talk means you won't get linear scaling with the number of OAM orientations for something like WLAN.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It most definitely does apply here, even if it happens to not be the current limit. The number of bits you can get through the channel without error is dependent on the S/N ratio, and that's all there is to it. DVB gets so few bits/hz because it's got to work at amazingly bad S/N ratios over huge distances; this is allowed to use 90+ bits/hz because the line is short and because the S/N ratio is very high. Whether or not this is scalable to distances of more than a foot or usable in the real world is a v
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just one word: WOW! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it does limit the number of channels, because the channels are not perfectly orthogonal due to the presence of noise. No single channel coding scheme can bypass Shannon; neither can any combination of elegant channel coding algorithms. Shannon is not a physical 'limit' to be worked around; it is a theoretical limit, and it does not care one whit about the properties of the channel or the modulations used.
If you transmit bits in the presence of noise, Shannon applies.
-dentin
OAM is rubbish pushed by bad scientists (Score:2)
There's no such thing as a distinct OAM quantum number in photons; it's just a linear combination of eigen modes in a multi-mode coordinate system from "pixels" spread out in space and angle to a mixture of modes described by bessel function (or whatever corresponds to an eigenfunction of R cross P in the wave guide). You can't in the end wind up with more eigen modes than you started with in the original multi-mode fiber.
I cringe every time some says OAM has more degrees of freedom. hold onto your walle
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the US and Israel coming out and admitting they did it [slashdot.org] was proof enough?
Re:Holy Crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't get too excited.
Network technology has been steadily advancing, yet in the U.S. Internet access speeds and costs have remained stagnant.
Re: (Score:1)
yet in the U.S. Internet access speeds and costs have remained stagnant.
lolwut? These are just approximate dates and speeds from memory, so I may be off by a few years but the gist of it is about right:
25 years ago, I had 300 baud dialup.
20 yeas ago, I had 14.4Kb dialup
15 years ago, I had something like 56Kb dialup
12 years ago, I had 256 Kb DSL
10 years ago, I had 3 Mb cable
5 years ago, I had 6 Mb cable
today, I have 15 Mb cable (and some people have stuff like FIOS)
The details will be different for everyone, but unless you're going to tell me everyone but me was using multiple
Re:Holy Crap! (Score:5, Interesting)
yet in the U.S. Internet access speeds and costs have remained stagnant.
lolwut? These are just approximate dates and speeds from memory, so I may be off by a few years but the gist of it is about right:
25 years ago, I had 300 baud dialup. 20 yeas ago, I had 14.4Kb dialup 15 years ago, I had something like 56Kb dialup 12 years ago, I had 256 Kb DSL 10 years ago, I had 3 Mb cable 5 years ago, I had 6 Mb cable today, I have 15 Mb cable (and some people have stuff like FIOS)
The details will be different for everyone, but unless you're going to tell me everyone but me was using multiple Mb connections in the 1980's, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that claim. US access speeds have been steadily increasing every since I've been watching them, and they've continued to do so in the last few years. My connection went from 6 to 15 MB just a year or two ago.
Over here in Finland, just over the past few years my connection speed has gone from 10/1Mb/s to 200/15Mb/s (cable, uncapped) while the price has gone down from 49 euro/month to 14 euro/month. Have the prices dropped similarly in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the price has stayed about the same.
From my memory, those data costs were $30-$50/month for each speed.
Re: (Score:2)
I would also say that the quality of service has also gone down. The cable service providers seem to be attempting to push their next tier services through service degradation and aggressive advertising.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Finland is a small country in Europe. The USA is a big country, comparable to the size of all of Europe and then some more. Comparing what you have for internet in Finland is like comparing what is found in New York City (or one of the other larger cities in the US) (population wise) and then having a few million (3) left over. Yeah, your beloved Finland is smaller than New York City (population).
I'm sick of people in Europe figuring what works for their dinky small country will work here in America. Stop d
Re:Holy Crap! (Score:5, Interesting)
That argument would work if places that matched density with European or Asian cities also matched or approached their internet connectivity. They don't, however, not by a long shot.
Sure, someone living out in Nowhere, Idaho can't expect readily available and inexpensive broadband, but someone living in or around NYC, LA, or DC should. They don't have shit worth comparing either, for the most part. Lucky pockets of population have FTTP services or cable carriers who don't suck, but the vast majority have yet another overpriced Time Warner or guaranteed to be shit DSL.
If the Europeans can deploy these nice networks in cities that were never built to be friendly to modern infrastructure, why can't we seem to figure it out even in new construction?
Re: (Score:2)
Where do the packets come from? Magic?
Your observation would only hold water if a high population density area was only sharing information with itself.
The challenge with the US are the huge distances you need to traverse to connect high population density areas. Costs of running new fiber with this technology through the deserts in California, through Las Vegas, etc. are not cheap.
Bottom line is that the US needs to deploy orders more meters of fiber to achieve the same level of service that Finland, or s
Re: (Score:2)
Notice the cities I chose. They're all cities that have or are the nearest major city to massive internet exchange points. They have plenty of backbone available, the lacking portion is 100% in the last mile.
Your choice of Las Vegas as an example point is amusing, since it's one of the places seeing a boom in connectivity and datacenters due to being a major city in a place with little potential for natural disasters.
Re: (Score:2)
People in Las Vegas need to absorb the high costs of peering and transit through the deserts though.
I would think that would explain why even a place with high population density like the cities you mention still have a high cost. It's paying for those long distance connections once you get out the cities.
Between Las Vegas and California, just what exactly is paying for that huge pipe?
Re: (Score:1)
And by friendly he means tunnels with fiber running throughout New York City all paid by the federal government. Verizon has been throwing out one excuse after another as to why they can't wire buildings in NYC and the majority turns out to be false. In fact the need for something other than DSL or T1 in this building was so huge that it's tenants were will to pay for the run from the street to the building. Verizon balked because that meant losing over 20+ T1 lines. Thank god TimeWarner took the opportunit
Re:Holy Crap! (Score:4, Informative)
I live 3 miles outside a city of 12,000, and 10 miles from Madison, WI. My choices are either, Satellite, local Wireless ISP (I currently pay $65/month for 1mb using 802.11b) or cellular (with 5GB data caps). There is no cable in my neighborhood of 100 homes (they say they will put it in if every single house signs a 2 year contract) and the phone company says we are somehow 40,000 feet from the central office, and won't even get us anyone to talk to about the fact that there are 8 fibers running a half mile down the road to connect areas..
Public service commission lists 20 communications providers for our zip code and says we are well covered. 17 of those are long distance phone/dialup providers. A regional telco (TDS) bought up all the rights to Wi-Max frequencies in the area, then decided after putting up 2 towers in the middle of madison, it was a pain, and seemingly abandoned all plans for it.. (and so far, still holds all the wi-max frequencies)
Re:Holy Crap! (Score:5, Informative)
> crappy country
Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning...
Finland is 338,424 km2. That makes it bigger than all but the four largest US states: Alaska, Texas, California and Montana. Providing great internet over an area that size is a decent accomplishment, one that the other 46 states apparently can't match despite being smaller than Finland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long are those links? How many? How much capacity do they have?
The US is big and has pockets of high population density. It's not as simple as getting to the border.
All that space you need to interconnect, and in many cases, each state can have populations comparable to EU countries. That means a lot of high capacity fiber runs need to connect up each population center.
Additionally, even with CDNs making it more efficient, you still have some very high traffic segments traversing the US that need to
Re: (Score:2)
Just compare the US to Europe as a whole. Nearly all EU members have faster and cheaper internet available for the large majority of their population compared to any US state. I'm paying 39 Euro for 50 Mbps cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read your comment and another one a little above and I must say i'm impressed. If you don't get why please read your comment again.
Re: (Score:2)
Finland does require an uplink as well. And most European countries (including Finland) have MASSIVE pipes just like the US has massive pipes (already) between and to most states. Do you think the Internet right now works without? The fiber is there, since it's fiber, it has unlimited bandwidth (although currently practical links are ~40-100Gbps per fiber pair)
Re: (Score:2)
The total peering and transit costs for Finland are going to be orders less than the US. That was my point. Finland is not trying to absorb the costs of other countries uplinks to each other.
How much bandwidth does Finland really have going to other countries?
The pipes crisscrossing the US need more bandwidth than just the populations they traverse need. Even with CDNs, there is a considerable amount of bandwidth that we require, and not all of that originates in the US either.
It's just not a fair compari
Re: (Score:2)
I am not supporting the corporations, or parroting their "talking points".
It is simply logistics. In order to deploy the same network, with the same capacity, the US will require far far more fiber per person than Finland.
It is just not a fair comparison and you would be simplistic to make it.
Does the US have problems? Sure. That does not take away from the fact the logistics of providing that much fiber is more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhh, yeah. Unlike Finland though, we have to connect up all the states together. That's how the Internet workie workie.
Quoted for sheer, mind-buggering stupidity. You are officially too dumb for slashdot. Please seek immediate medical attention.
Holy fuck, how do these people even breathe?!
Re: (Score:2)
You are officially too dumb for slashdot.
Right back at you.
Finland is 338,424 km2. That makes it bigger than all but the four largest US states: Alaska, Texas, California and Montana. Providing great internet over an area that size is a decent accomplishment, one that the other 46 states apparently can't match despite being smaller than Finland.
Trying to compare Finland against a single US state, and then claiming that all other smaller states are deficient, solely based on size, is ignorant. Meaning, that it is an observation lacking in sophistication.
The population density of Finland is 16/km2. Trying to compare that against the entire US is not correct. If you are going to compare states, the closest is Maine, or Oregon.
If you look at it as pools of people (areas of high density populations), connecting up each pool require
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to compare Finland against a single US state, and then claiming that all other smaller states are deficient, solely based on size, is ignorant. Meaning, that it is an observation lacking in sophistication.
You did that comparison first. He just shot down another one of your "facts" with data.
Go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Go away?
Why?
Because I am shooting down all the incorrect and ridiculous comparisons of small EU countries against the entire US when it comes to the logistics of broadband deployment?
Sure. Derp. Derp. They're all the same. If Finland can do it, the US can do it. Derp Derp Derp.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but the population density mantra just does not cut it:
Population density:
Finland: 16/km2
USA: 32/km2
(source: Wikipedia)
Let me explain: population density of USA is DOUBLE that of Finland. Yes, even in sq. miles
So, every mile of deployed cable is --in average-- twice as efficient in the USA...
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close. America's sitting around 103%, above us there is
according wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt [wikipedia.org] (CIA/Eurostat)
Barbados ~104%
Ireland ~108%
Portugal ~108%
Singapore ~118%
Italy ~120%
Jamaica ~126%
Antigua and Barbuda ~130%
Iceland ~130%
Greece ~165%
Saint Kitts and Nevis ~200%
Japan ~208%
and Zimbabwe ~230%
Re: (Score:1)
Out of the states for a while but from what I see the average starting rate/speed is around $30 a month for 12mb.
Now in Canada, the start is around 6mb and $80 a month. + taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Shh, you're just supposed to parrot the meme, even if it's not true.
Re: (Score:3)
I pay AT&T $25 a month for DSL at 760Kb.
Compared to other countries, I understand that is pathetic.
I could pay $50 to Time Warner for 5Mb. But I can wait for my porn.
Re: (Score:3)
here is my progression and why some us are talking about higher cost:
1988 : 9600 : cost by byte = 200$/(total bytes downloaded and uploaded for the modem life; free bbs)
1993 : 24.8k 30$ for 60hr of net
1995: 33.6k for 30$/100hr of net
1997: 5/1Mb unlimited cable for 40$/month
1998: 10/2Mb cable for 55$/month
2000: 5/.768 unlimited dsl for 30$/month cable was at 80 for 10/2 and it had a cap of 100Gb
2002 3/.768 unlimited dsl 27$/month
2002 5/1 unlimited dsl 28$/month
2012 5/.768 unlimited dsl 29$/month
To me the
Re: (Score:2)
How much did your bandwidth needs increase, though? The average size of a web page has increased by a factor of ten in t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)