Slashdot Mirror
InPhase Announces 300GB Holographic Discs
turboflux writes "After rolling out prototype holographic drives last year, ExtremeTech reports that InPhase has announced they intend to ship drives to commercial customers in 2006. InPhase originally intended on shipping the 200GB version of their media this year. Another article on Engadget mentions that 1TB discs will be available in 2009."
at least at this point, its looking like its actually worse than normal magnetic drives, i mean i expected intial drives to be at least 1.5tb
Something that I can fit my music collection on!
Where do i buy an mp3 player that can read these?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
This could be the storage media for delivering HDTV content with extreme bitrates. Maybe not quite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition _VideoUHDV quality but hell of a lot better than even the largest blu-ray discs.
Maybe digital movie theaters could use this to transfer and/or store the movies?
Maybe you didn't read the article properly? The linked article states that "the recording material is 1.5 mm thick and is sandwiched between two 130 mm diameter transmissive plastic substrates". So from my take on this, it seems that they have a plate-like object (possibly see-thru... I can imagine GREAT case-modding...) that is VERY THIN. I could even imagine that perhaps several of these could eventually be sandwiched together into a sort of cube to create massive amounts of storage. You would have several thin read/write "heads" that would read the "plates" on each side of them. They say the timeframe for R/W media is 2-3 years. Exciting!
Ads? What ads?
Does anyone know what the drives and media for this will cost?
At the right price point this could be killer for backups and media storage. 300GB media (even if write once) for less than £10 and a drive less than £200 would have me on board right away.
Unless you want to go tape (yuck) the only home user backups systems with a decent amount of data are DVDs (currently 20+ disks for my needs. ugh) or spare HDs (more expensive and cumbersome than I'd like).
A cheap HIGH capacity near-disposable media would be a godsend.
Oh I don't know. How about Google with its caches, those guys who like burying time capsules, and businesses and governments for backing up their data? I'm sure there are more, I just don't feel like marketing right now.
Nonsense. I have immediate use for at least that much storage, for example. Lossless music storage, ripping of DVDs (I use an eyeHome for streaming to TV), offloaded Tivo recordings, full dumps of DV tapes from my camcorder for later editing - not a torrent or pr0n stash to be had.
There's plenty of legitimate uses for large amounts of storage. Most revolve around AV it's true, but that AV needn't be swiped stuff from dodgy torrents or half of every posting ever to alt.binaries.redheads...
Cheers,
Ian
You, guys, are not going to trust your vital data to someone called Murphy, are you? :)
No, you got it wrong, in stead of each read being 1 bit, each is one megabit. This makes for roughly 1GB (byte) or more per second.
md5sum
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
Huh? How does "one million bits at a time" translate to "one megabit transfer rate"?
.sretfoop
They never mentioned time. You don't know how long those million bits take to write.
To paraphase dilber, you are suffering from total logic disconnect ("I enjoy pasta because my house is made from bricks") with a touch or insanity ("I got my facts from a talking tree"). uoY diputs niatskcuf. todhsalS srotaredom era lla
for later editing not in gen 1 at least. according to the article this tech is only Write Once Read Many (WORM). write many drives won't be available until a few years after.
Eek!
You forget the nerd-status / e-penis points you get by being able to show people your "holo-drive"
I know people who could use this today. What would you rather have, a warehouse full of mag tapes, or a handful of holographic disks on a bookshelf?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
No, *you* got it wrong. They do not state the transfer rate anywhere in the article. They never say that the "one million bits at a time" is "per second". They are simply saying that the mechanism can read 1 million bits at the same time in a single operation, in the same way that a digitial camera CCD "reads" 5 megapixels worth of data at the same time (it uses similar technology to read the holographic information).
The article states that the "200-GB drive, the HDS-200R, would ship this year with a 20-Mbyte transfer rate". I assume the transfer rate will be roughly the same on the 300GB drive and not miracously increase to 1GB per second just because of a minor upgrade in data density.
Forgetting storage space for a moment I thought being optical these drives were supposed to have much better bandwidth however a 20-MByte transfer rate seems pretty puny, what gives?
I don't know what methods this uses, but my money is on the colinear Optware system. It is very simple in theory, and will
provide very high bandwidth. (since it writes 52 bits at a time...) The 20MB/s transfer rate that Inphase lists is very unimpressive when considering discs 1TB in size.
See http://www.optware.co.jp/english/top.htm for more info.
I think you sufferd a logical lapse , They never mentioned time indeed they both mention ammounts , it transfers at the rate of one million bites(or a megabit) at a time ( or transfer rate) not transfer speed ,how long is anyones guess.
Rate can mean ammount , IE the gouvernment rates or im on a middle tax bracket so am charged at the medium rate.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
...that there are persistant rumors in the Mac/Apple community that there the existing line of iPods is about to be enhanced with a new addition, the: iPod 'Brick'. The new iPod will weigh in at a hefty 1,6 Kg but marketing research has indicated that it will nevertheless be popular as an antithesis to the diminutive iPod 'Mini'.
PS. Dont tell anybody else we might get sued.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
If the capacity is kind of "low" by holographic memory standards, it might be because this medium doesn't use any other kind of multiplexing beside spatial multiplexing.
Basically, what we have here is a disc with several "holographic bits", scattered across the disc just like a regular compact disc. The main difference here is that when you read an holographic bit with the reconstruction beam, you get a full page of data (here, a 1024x1024 image - hence 1 Mbit).
What is interesting with holographic memory is that when you use thick layers of holographic materials you can also multiplex the data using the angle of the reconstruction beam, or its wavelength. That means that you can hit the same area on the disc with the reconstruction beam at a different angle, and get a different page of data. Or use a different laser beam, and get again another page of data.
Of course, this process seriously complexifies the hardware that must be used to read an hoographic medium, but it is the key to reach tremendous densities with the holographic technique.
InPhase technology uses a camera chip designed by FillFactory, a Belgian chip maker.
Now if you are British, you are probably thinking of this.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
My WINDOWS directory in Windows 2006 does ;)
hilarious
Will holographic images of porn be visible on the back side of the disc ?
I second this.
I've 2 x 300gb drives in raid 1 (mirroring), i had to raid them after my previous 200gb drive failed and i had no backup (you try backing up 200gb cheaply) losing months of video work. Raid 1 is hardly great for throughput, especially when working on very large files (i now copy everything over to a spare 15k scsi drive to work with)
A WORM system that's similar in size to tape but costs a lot less is a very attractive product to me.
1) Clever Sig 2) ????? 3) Profit!
Optical storage capacities have always lagged hard drive capacities and have always had, of course, much slower access times. This relegates optical to niche applications that absolutely need the removeability aspect for storage for either archival (especially of space-hungry data such as lossless imaging) or security purposes. Examples include periodic ultrasound imaging of nuclear reactor components and, of course, medical applications. This announcement just continues the trend.
Well, 300GB removable medium (CD-R alike), with blank disks for less than corresponding volume in CDs (or even a bit more, convenience factor), I'd say promising.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Does it .. Really .. are you sure .. fancy placing a bet on that
m egabit&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+
your confusing a megabit with mbps(megabits per second), which is 1,048,576 bits(otherwise known as a megabit) transferd per second.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I'm going by common usage. If I told someone I had a 1 megabit cnnection, that generally means I have a 1 megabit/sec transfer rate. You are a lying sack of shit.
If you e.g. have a hologram showing a gallon-sized bottle and you break it into two equally sized pieces, then you have two pictures, each showing a half-gallon-sized bottle.
So Dad would have twice as many files, but he now needs a magnifying lens for masturbating over his pr0n collection :)
Yes but common missuse is not really correct is it though iin this context. .
Lied as in telling the truth , do you work for microsoft marketing by any chance
Anyway , off to your little leauge trolling games , your not ready to play with the big boys yet.
Actualy your wrong ! A 1 Megabit conection does not define how fast your conection is , it defines how much it can transfer in one pass , it just so hapens we know that this pass takes around 1 second.
Seriously though , grow up . If your going to troll you need to keep a level head and know the facts.
Fcat
All together now...
Corporate Data Backups! Anything has to be better than restoring from tape!
I think you mean Windows 2010 ;)
Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps instead of pushing for greater capacity it is time to develop FASTER storage solutions? Yes, its nice to have a ton of storage, and there is (somewhat expensive) solutions already for those who need it, but if you want a FAST storage system you are pretty much stuck. Just as an afterthought, if (for some reason) I had a fast optical connection to a site I could theoretically transfer files to my PC faster than I could write to my disk.
We've been reading about holographic storage systems that are due out any time now for the last 15 years... gives us a call when (at very least) a respected review organization has gotten its hands on a prototype. Then at least we can have a wee bit of validation.
Until then, blow your stock/VC-pumping hype out of your asses.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
So realistically how long until we see information stored on crystals ala Babylon 5. All I'm seeing so far is technology increasing the capacity of spinning discs. Drives with such high speed parts tend to have low MTBF.
Don't forget people like me who have lots of audio recordings and sample libraries that we need online access to.
I remember these things called CD-ROMS from the early 90's. They had a whooping 650 megabytes compared to the 256-500 megabyte harddrives at the time. Can you imagine it? Harddrives being *smaller* than the removable media? Sure, it wasn't writable by end-users, but it was at least available in read-only form.
In the late 90's all the harddisk manufacturers scrambled to build the biggest and fastest disks. Unfortunately, our removable media has fallen behind. I'm sorry, but the maximum DVD size is what? 15.9 gb -- if we use both sides of the medium. This just isn't enough when there are portable music players sporting 80gb harddrives.
Actually, I watched this technology for some time... 8 years ago, a Russian company claimed to have the same thing, labelled FM-ROM.
Waited and waited... dunno if it was all just a scam, or perhaps this company is the new incarnation. C3D's stock went into OTC/Penny-stock status and changed symbols countless times.
Buy external 300GB Firewire/USB2.0 drive, backup data to it, reinstall computer. Believe me, you'd be out a LOT less money than you would be buying the drive and media for this thing. I'd imagine the starting price over $5000 for a drive.
um, no. You'd still have a hologram showing a gallon-sized bottle, it would simply have half the resolution as before. The refraction of the light doesn't suddenly change simply because the plate broke - think about it for a moment. Does it make sense to you that if you break the plate, the light would get displaced to a porportionally smaller area, that the outline of the bottle would shift inward? No. It merely loses clarity.
Yes. I think that if you aren't doing backups every day, that using removable hard drives is the way to go. They are much more reliable than optical media, and can store much more information in a single place. Managing backups gets to be a pain when it's on 100 different discs. If you're really that concerned, get dual external drives and mirror them. It will save you a lot of hassle.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Ah, so you'd end up with blurry porn
I would most likely like a warehouse full of mag tapes. If one of these discs goes bad, you've lost 300 GB of data. If a tape goes bad, you've lost quite a bit less. Unless you're using 300 GB tapes, which do exist.
Tapes are used because we know they are reliable. Optical data seems to have problems with being reliable. When you can't afford to lose the backup information, you will use the tried and tested technology, instead of the new whiz-bang technology.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The purpose of this media is to make money. Obviously they can make much more money by making a simplified version at first that has more space than all but the largest hard discs, and then space the release of larger versions. This model is used to make more money... which is the purpose of any commercial venture.
yeah, which would quickly lose it's (ahem) luster.
For WORM applications, this is not that big a deal. However, for R/W applications, some serious file system and virtual memory redesign is needed.
Not to worry - these holo drives wear out quickly with repeated rewriting just like CD-RW, so they are not providing paging space anytime soon. But it is fun to think about.
Depends what you're backing up. For movies and TV shows, optical media is generally superior. It's the kind of stuff that you often give out copies of, and it's very easy to duplicate a data DVD-R or CD-R and give the copy out. As far as reliability goes, make 2 copies. At 25-40 cents a blank, they're dirt cheap.
As a side bonus, you can throw those DVD-Rs in just about anything - including DVD players - and they generally will play just fine.
300 GB ought to be enough for anyone
All your Sybase are belong to us.
Don't you find this is HUGE ??? 0.2s to access a piece of data !!! I wouldn't be surprised if my USB Key was faster than that ! I think this is gonna be a serious problem ...
how much porn can college students store.
If you e.g. have a hologram showing a gallon-sized bottle and you break it into two equally sized pieces, then you have two pictures, each showing a half-gallon-sized bottle.
yeah, and if you broke those in half again, it would change into a quart bottle, and if you did it again, you would end up with 8 pictures of a pint glass.
it gets really wacky if you keep going, you end up with a whole collection of little pictures of tablespoons.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
I think that is what the original poster tried to say. Well, except for that fact that he should have written 1/4 gallon sized bottle. Not that I realy know much about holograms, simply that if what you stated is true then it would be legitimate to see the end result as a smaller bottle.
Example Original Picture Of a Square Bottle:
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
Example End Result of the Broken Picture
XX
XX
See, same size bottle with half the resolution OR 1/4 sized bottle with the same resolution (simply fewer pixels).
Again, given the fact that what you stated is true. I have no idea if it is.
Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
This technology has the potential to vastly outstrip the storage capacity of magnetic media. Even if there are tapes that can match it now, it seems likely they won't keep up with it forever. Any reliability problems can be solved by using error correcting codes. It's just a matter of sacrificing some storage capacity for redundancy so that the probability of an error after a given length of time is sufficiently small. If the data densities this technology is supposed to be capable of are achieved then using up more storage space for redundancy shouldn't be an issue.
That was CmdrTaco's assessment of the iPod.
See, the problem with optical is that because it is removeable media, the format is stuck in time. First, there is the vaporware period where an optical drive is announced. Favorable comparisons are made to hard drives available during the vaporware period. Then the optical drives are actually released, and the capacity is about the same as hard drives of the day -- but, hey, it's removeable (thus the niche applications I referred to). Then the optical drives can't incrementally upgrade capacity (manufacturers wait until a full doubling of capacity before making their customers upgrade), and the optical drives lag in capacity.
Back up the 300 to another 300. Pure data backup, not RAID.
How is this better than RAID? RAID duplicates data in real time. If you lose/delete/corrupt a file, there's no real backup. A dodgy raid controller can also hose everything. Backing up to another drive maintains a second copy of the data. Odds are you will not lose both the main and backup drives at the same time.
How is it worse than RAID? It's not real time so daily or even hourly backups are required, but even a slightly old backup is better than losing everything.
I clone my drives on a weekly basis and apply incremental backups on the other 6 days. Each system has a pair of identical drives. One backs up to the other. When I used 80GB drives, each system had a pair of 80s. Now I prefer to use pairs of 160s or 300s.
Recently had one system lose one 80 out of a pair. In this case the backup drive rather than the primary was the failed drive. Had it been the other way around, I still would not have lost much data.
Sig for hire.
The problem is that it costs money to keep those tapes in a warehouse. Every year that passes, the tapes deteriorate a little bit, and it becomes harder to find tape transports that can read them. Many scientific projects have produced libraries that have tens of thousands of tapes. Tapes don't last forever.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
it can't be tried and test technology until people start trying and testing it
no. The resolution is all that changes. The *size* doesn't change.
The projected image, if originally 2 inches tall in a certain setup, will still be 2 inches tall in that same setup even with a smaller part of the plate...it will simply not be as *clear*. The resolution will have changed, nothing more.
You're thinking of "resolution" in the wrong way. When I change the resolution on my computer screen, does my monitor get smaller/larger? No, the clarity of the image is all that changes. Where there were once 640 pixels, there are now 800, or 1024, or 1280, or 1600...and so on. The screen itself has not changed size, however.
Resolution and size are entirely different things.
Here's your corrected example:
Original Broken
XXXX X X
XXXX X X
XXXX X X
XXXX X X
more or less. The theory is that all the way down to the smallest bit of that plate, the entire image would be there, it would just have no clarity (well, 1/infinity). The size of the projected image never changes - just the resolution.
Think about light for a moment. If the two halves each have the whole image, why would it make sense that the images from the seperate halves would be smaller? The light will still be hitting the surface in the same way, still reflecting the same way...still creating the same image.
Hmm...just thought of a way to make this make more sense. Lets say we each have a flashlight with a narrow beam. You shine your flashlight onto a wall. I shine mine onto the same wall in such a way that the area that is lit up does not change, nor is it smaller. 8 other people do the same thing. What happens? That part of the wall is going to be really bright - 10 people will have flashlights on it. Now, imagine a plate where every molecule is capable of projecting an image. Another molecule joins in projecting the same image on the same place. So on and so forth, until there are millions of molecules doing it.
...Microsoft announced today that it's next major release of Windows will require 290G of disk space to be installed.
crap. /. took away my spaces!
;)
that should look like(imagine the "-" are spaces):
original | broken
XXXX | X-X-
XXXX | -X-X
XXXX | X-X-
XXXX | -X-X
meh, its a bad example anyway
> you try backing up 200gb cheaply
A stack of DVDs. You said cheaply, not quickly.
How will the 400mbs firewire handle it or the 600mbs SATA?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
IIRC, holographic media has long been heralded as the future of storage, not for space reasons so much as the fact that holograms degrade gracefully. That is, if you take a holographic plate and scratch it, you don't eliminate information (the image) where the scratch is, you degrade the quality of the information across the whole image in proportion to the area of the scratch over the area of the entire hologram (which should be very small).
This makes sense because if you take a hologram (play with a key fob if you have one, this is inherently true of holograms) and cover half the image, you can still rotate the uncovered half in a way that allows you to see the remainder of the hologram, so you haven't deleted that sector of information--however, the resolution is half what it would be otherwise. In this way, small amounts of damage are undetectable, and don't result in errors until the "resolution" of the bits drops low enough that they can't be read.
So, my understanding was that in digital media, bits aren't stored in discrete positions, but the information for each bit is spread across the entirety of the medium, and thus the media would be much more resistant to damage. However, for such an amazing benefit, I don't see any mention of this, so maybe this works on a different principle--does anybody else know about this?
Imagine the data loss when someone thoughtlessly dictates "Computer. End Program" into their speech recognition software and the disc ceases to exit.
Does this mean I can get a 1TB 'ancient mechanical electronic drive' for 20 bucks in a few years? *yay, no more deleting my precious.. p^Z^Zdata*
So what? Write-once is great for keeping the original, unedited copy around. Gurantees some idiot won't erase it someday.
Copy raw DV to disc for backup -> copy back to hard drive when needed -> edit -> burn final cut to another disc.
Of course, for any sort of archival use, we need to know how long the media lasts.
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
I'm curious - how sensitive are these discs to scratches that could corrupt their information? In other words, what's their reliability? (No I didn't RTFA, sorry)
Right, but your FLAC files only have 2 audio channels. If they had 5.1(6) audio channels, were lossless and did cross channel redundancy checking you'd probabbly get about 2025/kpbs. DVD-audio hasn't become widely popular yet, however Since DVD-audio playing devices can all play normal audio CDs I think it's only a matter of time before 5.1 channel replaces 2-channel music. Some legitimate music download sites are already offering 5.1 channel audio version of music that comes in a 5.1 format. Ogg vorbis allows 5.1 channel music to be shared over p2p networks at a small files size.
If you think your music library is large, imagine if the files were nearly 3x as large? I have a very small collection (10gb) of mostly 128 kbit (ugh) mp3s. Mostly I ripped from CD's so the audio quality is 'good enough.' However if my collection were magically replaced with 5.1 channel lossless it would take 160 GB This is a 'small' (around 250 albums) collection. Imagine a 5,000+ album collection like many small time DJs own (and generally they own all that music 'legitimately') That's some 3.2TB in 5.1 channel, lossless compression.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
For some, AV is another word for "home movies". I've 15 minidv tapes of my kid that I'd really like to be able to get onto a random-access medium.
The cake is a pie
CD-ROM drives, as well as DVD-ROM drives, both started out as heinously expensive, with limited availability. CDRs and DVDRs too.
I honestly wouldn't make any bets right now. This could be huge, it could be useless. However things turn out, it's going to go through the same process that has lead to 10 cent CDRs and 50 dollar CDR drives today.
It's been a long time.
Which will be the standard? *frets* Maybe HOLO*RW?
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a '77 Chevy Stationwagon loaded to the brim with holographic discs barreling down the freeway at 70 MPH.
The "holography" in this media is kind of like the focus on a dual-layer DVD, only this new media uses more than two "layers".. In fact they're not layers because you're burning into one cohesive chunk of plastic, rather than gluing two separate substrates together for DVD.
Essentially the laser is split into two weaker beams, one of them shoots down at the disc, the other strikes it at an angle. Where those two beams intersect, the combined power is enough to alter the state of the media and that's how you accomplish this special kind of depth focusing.
Holography isn't just those 3D engravings you see at the science fair. It's actually closer to Star Trek..
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Here's a link to the company's web site.
I loaded it but hadn't read it. This media device Is planning on using optics as opposed to physical movement. It's currently targted at removable storage, because it's currently write once. However, the technology this device uses could pave the way for optical hard drive replacements, theoretically with capacities in the hundreds of terrabytes..
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Guess what?
Optware are using the InPhase media.
where's the catchy school house rock rip off explaining this with a disco analogy?
However if my collection were magically replaced with 5.1 channel lossless it would take 160 GB This is a 'small' (around 250 albums) collection.
That is, you can fit 250 super high quality albums on slightly over half of a single holographic disk. So, you've got slightly less than 500 albums on a little disk. You could put a small record store in a briefcase, at that rate.
That's pretty darned good, if you ask me.
--
AC
A warehouse of mag tapes isn't a collection, it's an obsession.
I don't get it.
If the data is stored in a 3-D volume, then why are they quoting storage density as bits/area? Doesn't the thickness matter?
I took a tour of InPhase recently, so I do know about this product in general (definitely not an expert though). There is not really any "high speed parts". The disk doesn't spin much at all. It rotates *very* slightly to reach a new "book", or area on the platter. The beams do their interference burn of the data and then there is a very slight rotation to the new book. Hard part is holding the disk and the beams steady while burning.
Could take a long time to write one of these suckers to capacity though:
The HDS-200R, would ship this year with a 20-Mbyte transfer rate
OK, so 200GB=200,000MB.
200,000MB / 20MB/sec = 10000 sec 10000 sec / 3600sec/hour = 2.8h (2h48m approx).
Not a bad speed considering that my first DVD-writer took about 15 minutes to write a disc... but still a long time if you're making a live backup, etc.
Going by this logic, I rather have a warehouse full of hand etched stone tablets than tapes. If you loose a stone tablet, it's much less data lost than a tape.
Capacity is going to increase - resistance is futile. The solution has always been off-site duplicates, or some other sensible storage solution when the media is mature.
I just like hearing holographic is insensitive to scratching data loss compared to current optical media.
The just read the "h" silently... an'olographic [object], an'istoric [object]
Really? Well, do you have a CD-ROM or DVD drive? Guess what jack-ass, that's smaller than magnetic hard drives too.
if you bothered to rtfa... or hell just read the damn title, "disc" should have clued u in... you'd realize these are competing with DVD drives being WORM, NOT HARD DRIVES. You won't even be able to write to these making them worthless to 99% of /. readers.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
i think your right. hows my english as well.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
also i am an aussie but live in the uk. I have heaps of data. i will be going home one day and need something more reliable to back up than a hard drive for the long 3 month sea journey home.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
introduce at 1TB... they may be worrying too much about saturating consumer markets. At this point, I think that they could max out whatever they're planning to use for assembly lines for a 1TB writable drive almost regardless of production capacity. Imagine. . . no more tape backups. Video archiving. Low-hassle data warehouses. Or the ability to put 200 TB into a desktop jukebox.
Tech Public Policy stuff