Program on Lebanese cable TV dealt with man's frank sex talk
Inside the bin Laden family
May 13: Steve Coll discusses his book, ‘The Bin Ladens’, which addresses how the wealth and diversity of the family influenced the al-Qaida leader.
NBC News Web Extra
More on Osama bin Laden's family
Intimate look at the Bin Ladens
Images: Rare family photos
Mideast/North Africa video MORE VIDEO
Could lessons from Iraq help in Afghanistan?
Oct. 22: NBC's Steve Wende reports from Baghdad on how cooperation between U.S. and Iraqi military forces might also work in Afghanistan.
Soldiers and envoys help to rebuild Iraq
University blasts target women
World’s thirst for oil
Around the globe countries are drilling for it, trading it and looking for ways to run their economies with replacements for it.
Obama declares swine flu national emergency
Omega-3 deficiency may be hurting our hearts
Bank failures top 100 for year; most since 1992
Saudi female journalist sentenced to 60 lashes
Thousands race in Egypt to fight breast cancer
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi court on Saturday convicted a female journalist for her involvement in a TV show, in which a Saudi man publicly talked about sex, and sentenced her to 60 lashes.
Rozanna al-Yami is believed to be the first Saudi woman journalist to be given such a punishment. The charges against her included involvement in the preparation of the program and advertising the segment on the Internet.
Abdul-Rahman al-Hazza, the spokesman of the Ministry of Culture and Information, told The Associated Press he had no details of the sentencing and could not comment on it.
In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC satellite channel, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes.
The man's lawyer, Sulaiman al-Jumeii, maintains his client was duped by the TV station and was unaware in many cases he was being recorded.
On Saturday, he told the AP that not trying his client or al-Yami before a court specialized in media matters at the Ministry of Culture and Information was a violation of Saudi law.
"It is a precedent to try a journalist before a summary court for an issue that concerns the nature of his job," he said.
200 legal complaints
The program, which aired July 15 on LBC and was seen in Saudi Arabia, scandalized this conservative country where such frank talk is rarely heard in public. Some 200 people filed legal complaints against Abdul Jawad, who works for the national airline.
The program, "Bold Red Line," begins with Abdul-Jawad, dubbed a "sex braggart" and "Casanova" by the media, describing the first time he had sex at 14. He then leads viewers into his bedroom, dominated by red accessories, and then shows off blurred sex toys.
He is later joined by three male friends for a discussion on what turns them on. Abdul-Jawad's lawyer maintains his client was referring to other people's sexual experiences and the toys were provided by the TV station.
The government moved swiftly in the wake of the case, shutting down LBC's two offices in the kingdom and arresting Abdul-Jawad, who works for the national airline.
Three other men who appeared on the show, "Bold Red Line," were also convicted of discussing sex publicly and sentenced to two years imprisonment and 300 lashes each.
The kingdom, which is the birthplace of Islam, enforces strict segregation of the sexes. An unrelated couple, for example, can be detained for being alone in the same car or having a cup of coffee in public.
Saudis observe such segregation even at home, where they have separate living rooms for male and female guests.
Comment
Five years in jail and 1000 lashes for talking about interesting ladies you have met? Incredible. She wasnt even ON the program, just worked for the production company!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
High-speed chase ends when OnStar halts SUV
High-speed chase ends when OnStar halts SUV
Service used for first time since OnStar began offering it with 2009 models
OnStar used to foil carjacking
Oct. 20: A carjacker in California who stole a Chevy Tahoe was stopped when the vehicle's OnStar system disabled the gas pedal as he was being chased by police. NBC's Brian Williams reports. Nightly News
When technology attacks
Check out these weird, funny and startling outcomes of exploring new frontiers, often with technology we're still testing or refining.
10 cars we loved to hate
Some cars are so well-designed that they are almost art. These aren't. Here are 10 cars from the past 50 years that redefined the word 'ugly.'
Senate bill may have public insurance plan
Caterack, among world’s oldest cats, dies at 30
Home sales rise 9.4 percent in September
Officials probe fatigue after jet misses airport
Explosion rocks Gulf gas facility in Puerto Rico
Mother of Somer Thompson: ‘I feel like I failed’
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Latest interest rates
Mortgage Home Equity Savings Auto Credit Cards
See today's average mortgage rates across the country.Loan type Today +/- Last week
30-year fixed 5.15% 5.05%
15-year fixed 4.71% 4.60%
30-year fixed jumbo 6.07% 6.04%
5/1 ARM 4.24% 4.07%
7/1 ARM 4.45% 4.43%
Source: Bankrate.com | View rates in your area
See today's average home equity rates across the country.Loan type Today +/- Last week
$30K HELOC 5.25% 5.25%
$30K home equity loan 8.44% 8.49%
$75K home equity loan 8.54% 8.59%
$50K home equity loan 8.51% 8.56%
$50K HELOC 4.98% 4.99%
Source: Bankrate.com | View rates in your area
See today's savings rates across the country.Savings type Today +/- Last week
Money market 1.06% 1.08%
$10K money market 1.11% 1.12%
Six-month CD 1.16% 1.17%
One-year CD 1.63% 1.64%
Five-year CD 2.67% 2.67%
Source: Bankrate.com | View rates in your area
See today's average auto rates across the country.Loan type Today +/- Last week
48-month new car loan 7.27% 7.33%
36-month used car loan 7.55% 7.55%
36-month new car loan 7.11% 7.12%
60-month new car loan 7.32% 7.40%
Source: Bankrate.com | View rates in your area
By Tom Krisher
updated 10:56 a.m. ET, Tues., Oct . 20, 2009
DETROIT - When two Visalia, Calif., police officers swung their cruisers behind a sport utility vehicle that had been carjacked at gunpoint early Sunday, they prepared for a dangerous high-speed chase.
The 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe roared away with officers in pursuit, but shortly after the suspect made a right turn, operators at General Motors Co.'s OnStar service sent a command that electronically disabled the gas pedal and the SUV gradually came to a halt.
The flustered thief got out and ran, but was quickly nabbed after he climbed several fences and fell into a backyard swimming pool, police said.
It was the first time since OnStar began offering the service in the 2009 model year that it was used to end a chase that could otherwise have had dire consequences.
"He wouldn't have pulled over if OnStar hadn't have shut the vehicle down," said Visalia Police Sgt. Steve Phillips. "Generally pursuits end in a collision."
The whole thing began when Jose Ruiz, 33, of nearby Lindsay, Calif., was sitting in his Tahoe in a lighted parking lot about 3 a.m. Sunday while his cousin was talking on a cell phone in the passenger seat. Out of the corner of his eye, Ruiz saw a man walking toward him.
"He already had a gun out," Ruiz said Monday.
The man pointed a sawed-off shotgun at Ruiz and ordered both men to get out of the Tahoe and empty their pockets. Ruiz's cousin at first refused, but Ruiz told him to obey, knowing that OnStar could find the stolen truck with a global positioning system.
"I was afraid he was going to shoot my cousin. My cousin was arguing with him," Ruiz recalled.
The cousin relented and the man sped off in the truck. Ruiz then sprinted for a nearby pay telephone to call police, but ran into a sheriff's deputy on her break who notified Visalia police.
Officers quickly contacted OnStar and got Ruiz's permission to find the vehicle. Police spotted it a few miles away, but as officers made a U-turn to pursue it, the Tahoe sped off at a high speed, Phillips said.
The suspect made a turn, and police dispatchers told the pursuing officers that OnStar was about to disable the Tahoe. It then rolled to a halt, and the robber was quickly captured.
The 21-year-old suspect was jailed and faces preliminary charges of robbery, carjacking, possession of stolen property and resisting arrest.
OnStar President Walt Dorfstatter said it took only 16 minutes from the time OnStar was notified for the vehicle to be stopped.
6 high-tech boosts for the auto industry
A better economy may lure buyers, but these trends could seal the deal.
Visalia Police Chief Colleen Mestas said the new technology kept officers, other motorists and even the suspect out of a dangerous chase.
"Considering the violent crime that this suspect was wanted for, I was just amazed," she said.
Police chases often end in death, many times for the people in the pursued vehicles, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Last year, 334 people were killed nationwide in crashes that stemmed from police pursuits, including five police officers, 235 people in the chased vehicles and 77 who were in cars or trucks not involved in the chases.
Ruiz said police returned his Tahoe, cell phone and wallet to him that night. The only thing they didn't get back was some cash taken from his cousin.
Click for related content
6 high-tech boosts for the auto industry
$2 million Bugatti Veyron is tech-heavy
GPS for autos starting to get ‘smarter’
The stolen vehicle slowdown feature isn't offered on all GM vehicles yet, but the company hopes to expand it to the entire lineup as models are updated. For 2010, the feature is on 18 of the 30 models equipped with OnStar, a communication service that also can give directions or call for help if a car is in a crash. Dorfstatter said it will take several years for all GM models to get the feature.
Mestas, whose city is about 50 miles southeast of Fresno, hopes that both technology like OnStar and more police aircraft can minimize the dangers of chases.
"It would be nice to have a day in law enforcement that you didn't have to actively pursue suspects at high speeds," she said.
Comment
A great idea. I know the guy who invented the car chip that disables your vehicle if you get behind in your payments, and this is just an outgrowth of that technology. It provides more safety for the officers, and the motoring public. Too much exposure can create problems tho. My brother has a used car lot, and all their cars have a GPS built in so that it is easy to locate their cars once repossession is required. It was a great idea until everybody learned about it. Last month 4 cars went missing-the tardy owners removed the devices from the vehicle. One car was found 6 states away from S Fla., in Indiana. Other cars have been shipped to S America. OnStar is expensive too. A friend of mine says it costs him $28 a month. Wonder if you get a reduction on your insurance if you have OnStar? Wonder if LoJack can do that too?
Service used for first time since OnStar began offering it with 2009 models
OnStar used to foil carjacking
Oct. 20: A carjacker in California who stole a Chevy Tahoe was stopped when the vehicle's OnStar system disabled the gas pedal as he was being chased by police. NBC's Brian Williams reports. Nightly News
When technology attacks
Check out these weird, funny and startling outcomes of exploring new frontiers, often with technology we're still testing or refining.
10 cars we loved to hate
Some cars are so well-designed that they are almost art. These aren't. Here are 10 cars from the past 50 years that redefined the word 'ugly.'
Senate bill may have public insurance plan
Caterack, among world’s oldest cats, dies at 30
Home sales rise 9.4 percent in September
Officials probe fatigue after jet misses airport
Explosion rocks Gulf gas facility in Puerto Rico
Mother of Somer Thompson: ‘I feel like I failed’
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Latest interest rates
Mortgage Home Equity Savings Auto Credit Cards
See today's average mortgage rates across the country.Loan type Today +/- Last week
30-year fixed 5.15% 5.05%
15-year fixed 4.71% 4.60%
30-year fixed jumbo 6.07% 6.04%
5/1 ARM 4.24% 4.07%
7/1 ARM 4.45% 4.43%
Source: Bankrate.com | View rates in your area
See today's average home equity rates across the country.Loan type Today +/- Last week
$30K HELOC 5.25% 5.25%
$30K home equity loan 8.44% 8.49%
$75K home equity loan 8.54% 8.59%
$50K home equity loan 8.51% 8.56%
$50K HELOC 4.98% 4.99%
Source: Bankrate.com | View rates in your area
See today's savings rates across the country.Savings type Today +/- Last week
Money market 1.06% 1.08%
$10K money market 1.11% 1.12%
Six-month CD 1.16% 1.17%
One-year CD 1.63% 1.64%
Five-year CD 2.67% 2.67%
Source: Bankrate.com | View rates in your area
See today's average auto rates across the country.Loan type Today +/- Last week
48-month new car loan 7.27% 7.33%
36-month used car loan 7.55% 7.55%
36-month new car loan 7.11% 7.12%
60-month new car loan 7.32% 7.40%
Source: Bankrate.com | View rates in your area
By Tom Krisher
updated 10:56 a.m. ET, Tues., Oct . 20, 2009
DETROIT - When two Visalia, Calif., police officers swung their cruisers behind a sport utility vehicle that had been carjacked at gunpoint early Sunday, they prepared for a dangerous high-speed chase.
The 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe roared away with officers in pursuit, but shortly after the suspect made a right turn, operators at General Motors Co.'s OnStar service sent a command that electronically disabled the gas pedal and the SUV gradually came to a halt.
The flustered thief got out and ran, but was quickly nabbed after he climbed several fences and fell into a backyard swimming pool, police said.
It was the first time since OnStar began offering the service in the 2009 model year that it was used to end a chase that could otherwise have had dire consequences.
"He wouldn't have pulled over if OnStar hadn't have shut the vehicle down," said Visalia Police Sgt. Steve Phillips. "Generally pursuits end in a collision."
The whole thing began when Jose Ruiz, 33, of nearby Lindsay, Calif., was sitting in his Tahoe in a lighted parking lot about 3 a.m. Sunday while his cousin was talking on a cell phone in the passenger seat. Out of the corner of his eye, Ruiz saw a man walking toward him.
"He already had a gun out," Ruiz said Monday.
The man pointed a sawed-off shotgun at Ruiz and ordered both men to get out of the Tahoe and empty their pockets. Ruiz's cousin at first refused, but Ruiz told him to obey, knowing that OnStar could find the stolen truck with a global positioning system.
"I was afraid he was going to shoot my cousin. My cousin was arguing with him," Ruiz recalled.
The cousin relented and the man sped off in the truck. Ruiz then sprinted for a nearby pay telephone to call police, but ran into a sheriff's deputy on her break who notified Visalia police.
Officers quickly contacted OnStar and got Ruiz's permission to find the vehicle. Police spotted it a few miles away, but as officers made a U-turn to pursue it, the Tahoe sped off at a high speed, Phillips said.
The suspect made a turn, and police dispatchers told the pursuing officers that OnStar was about to disable the Tahoe. It then rolled to a halt, and the robber was quickly captured.
The 21-year-old suspect was jailed and faces preliminary charges of robbery, carjacking, possession of stolen property and resisting arrest.
OnStar President Walt Dorfstatter said it took only 16 minutes from the time OnStar was notified for the vehicle to be stopped.
6 high-tech boosts for the auto industry
A better economy may lure buyers, but these trends could seal the deal.
Visalia Police Chief Colleen Mestas said the new technology kept officers, other motorists and even the suspect out of a dangerous chase.
"Considering the violent crime that this suspect was wanted for, I was just amazed," she said.
Police chases often end in death, many times for the people in the pursued vehicles, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Last year, 334 people were killed nationwide in crashes that stemmed from police pursuits, including five police officers, 235 people in the chased vehicles and 77 who were in cars or trucks not involved in the chases.
Ruiz said police returned his Tahoe, cell phone and wallet to him that night. The only thing they didn't get back was some cash taken from his cousin.
Click for related content
6 high-tech boosts for the auto industry
$2 million Bugatti Veyron is tech-heavy
GPS for autos starting to get ‘smarter’
The stolen vehicle slowdown feature isn't offered on all GM vehicles yet, but the company hopes to expand it to the entire lineup as models are updated. For 2010, the feature is on 18 of the 30 models equipped with OnStar, a communication service that also can give directions or call for help if a car is in a crash. Dorfstatter said it will take several years for all GM models to get the feature.
Mestas, whose city is about 50 miles southeast of Fresno, hopes that both technology like OnStar and more police aircraft can minimize the dangers of chases.
"It would be nice to have a day in law enforcement that you didn't have to actively pursue suspects at high speeds," she said.
Comment
A great idea. I know the guy who invented the car chip that disables your vehicle if you get behind in your payments, and this is just an outgrowth of that technology. It provides more safety for the officers, and the motoring public. Too much exposure can create problems tho. My brother has a used car lot, and all their cars have a GPS built in so that it is easy to locate their cars once repossession is required. It was a great idea until everybody learned about it. Last month 4 cars went missing-the tardy owners removed the devices from the vehicle. One car was found 6 states away from S Fla., in Indiana. Other cars have been shipped to S America. OnStar is expensive too. A friend of mine says it costs him $28 a month. Wonder if you get a reduction on your insurance if you have OnStar? Wonder if LoJack can do that too?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Keeping pirates at bay
Sep 3rd 2009
From The Economist print edition
Policing the internet: The music industry has concluded that lawsuits alone are not the way to discourage online piracy
Illustration by Belle Mellor
THREE big court cases this year—one in Europe and two in America—have pitted music-industry lawyers against people accused of online piracy. The industry prevailed in each case. But the three trials may mark the end of its efforts to use the courts to stop piracy, for they highlighted the limits of this approach.
The European case concerned the Pirate Bay, one of the world’s largest and most notorious file-sharing hubs. The website does not actually store music, video and other files, but acts as a central directory that helps users locate particular files on BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing network. Swedish police began investigating the Pirate Bay in 2003, and charges were filed against four men involved in running it in 2008. When the trial began in February 2009, they claimed the site was merely a search engine, like Google, which also returns links to illegal material in some cases. One defendant, Peter Sunde, said a guilty verdict would “be a huge mistake for the future of the internet…it’s quite obvious which side is the good side.”
The court agreed that it was obvious and found the four men guilty, fining them a combined SKr30m ($3.6m) and sentencing them each to a year in jail. Despite tough talk from the defendants, they appear to have tired of legal entanglements: in June another firm said it would buy the Pirate Bay’s internet address for SKr60m and open a legal music site.
The Pirate Bay is the latest in a long list of file-sharing services, from Napster to Grokster to KaZaA, to have come under assault from the media giants. If it closes, some other site will emerge to take its place; the music industry’s victories, in short, are never final. Cases like this also provoke a backlash against the music industry, though in Sweden it took an unusual form. In the European elections in June, the Pirate Party won 7.1% of the Swedish vote, making it the fifth-largest party in the country and earning it a seat in the European Parliament. “All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free,” says its manifesto.
So much for that plan
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has pursued another legal avenue against online piracy, which is to pursue individual users of file-sharing hubs. Over the years it has accused 18,000 American internet users of engaging in illegal file-sharing and demanding settlements of $4,000 on average. Facing the scary prospect of a federal copyright-infringement lawsuit, nearly everyone settled; but two cases have proceeded to trial. The first involved Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single mother from Minnesota who was accused of sharing 24 songs using KaZaA in 2005. After a trial in 2007, a jury ruled against her and awarded the record companies almost $10,000 per song in statutory damages.
Critics of the RIAA’s campaign pointed out that if Ms Thomas-Rasset had stolen a handful of CDs from Wal-Mart, she would not have faced such severe penalties. The judge threw out the verdict, saying that he had erred by agreeing to a particular “jury instruction” (guidance to the jury on how they should decide a case) that had been backed by the RIAA. He then went further, calling the damages “wholly disproportionate” and asking Congress to change the law, on the basis that Ms Thomas-Rasset was an individual who had not sought to profit from piracy.
But at a second trial, which concluded in June 2009, Ms Thomas-Rasset was found guilty again. To gasps from the defendant and from other observers, the jury awarded even higher damages of $80,000 per song, or $1.92m in total. One record label’s lawyer admitted that even he was shocked. In July, in a separate case brought against Joel Tenenbaum, a student at Boston University, a jury ordered him to pay damages of $675,000 for sharing 30 songs.
According to Steven Marks, general counsel for the RIAA, the main point of pursuing these sorts of cases is to make other internet users aware that file-sharing of copyrighted material is illegal. Mr Marks admits that the legal campaign has not done much to reduce file-sharing, but how much worse might things be, he wonders, if the industry had done nothing? This year’s cases, and other examples (such as the RIAA’s attempt in 2005 to sue a grandmother, who had just died, for file-sharing), certainly generate headlines—but those headlines can also make the industry look bad, even to people who agree that piracy is wrong.
That helps explain why, in late 2008, the RIAA abandoned the idea of suing individuals for file-sharing. Instead it is now backing another approach that seems to be gaining traction around the world, called “graduated response”. This is an effort to get internet service-providers to play a greater role in the fight against piracy. As its name indicates, it involves ratcheting up the pressure on users of file-sharing software by sending them warnings by e-mail and letter and then restricting their internet access. In its strictest form, proposed in France, those accused three times of piracy would have their internet access cut off and their names placed on a national blacklist to prevent them signing up with another service provider. Other versions of the scheme propose throttling broadband-connection speeds.
All this would be much quicker and cheaper than going to court and does not involve absurd awards of damages and their attendant bad publicity. A British study found that most file-sharers will stop after receiving a warning—but only if it is backed up by the threat of sanctions.
It sounds promising, from the industry’s perspective, but graduated response has drawbacks of its own. In New Zealand the government scrapped the idea before implementation, and in Britain the idea of cutting off access has been ruled out. In France the first draft of the law was savaged by the Constitutional Council over concerns that internet users would be presumed guilty rather than innocent. Internet service-providers are opposed to being forced to act as copyright police. Even the European Parliament has weighed in, criticising any sanctions imposed without judicial oversight. But the industry is optimistic that the scheme will be implemented in some form. It does not need to make piracy impossible—just less convenient than the legal alternatives.
But many existing sources of legal music have not offered what file-sharers want. “In my view, growing internet piracy is a vote of no confidence in existing business models,” said Viviane Reding, the European commissioner for the information society, in July.
The industry is desperately searching for better business models, and is offering its catalogue at low rates to upstarts that could never have acquired such rights a decade ago. Services such as Pandora, Spotify and we7 that stream free music, supported by advertising, are becoming popular. Most innovative are the plans to offer unlimited downloads for a flat fee. British internet providers are keen to offer such a service, the cost of which would be rolled into the monthly bill. Similarly, Nokia’s “Comes With Music” scheme includes a year’s downloads in the price of a mobile phone. The music industry will not abandon legal measures against piracy altogether. But solving the problem will require carrots as well as sticks.
From The Economist print edition
Policing the internet: The music industry has concluded that lawsuits alone are not the way to discourage online piracy
Illustration by Belle Mellor
THREE big court cases this year—one in Europe and two in America—have pitted music-industry lawyers against people accused of online piracy. The industry prevailed in each case. But the three trials may mark the end of its efforts to use the courts to stop piracy, for they highlighted the limits of this approach.
The European case concerned the Pirate Bay, one of the world’s largest and most notorious file-sharing hubs. The website does not actually store music, video and other files, but acts as a central directory that helps users locate particular files on BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing network. Swedish police began investigating the Pirate Bay in 2003, and charges were filed against four men involved in running it in 2008. When the trial began in February 2009, they claimed the site was merely a search engine, like Google, which also returns links to illegal material in some cases. One defendant, Peter Sunde, said a guilty verdict would “be a huge mistake for the future of the internet…it’s quite obvious which side is the good side.”
The court agreed that it was obvious and found the four men guilty, fining them a combined SKr30m ($3.6m) and sentencing them each to a year in jail. Despite tough talk from the defendants, they appear to have tired of legal entanglements: in June another firm said it would buy the Pirate Bay’s internet address for SKr60m and open a legal music site.
The Pirate Bay is the latest in a long list of file-sharing services, from Napster to Grokster to KaZaA, to have come under assault from the media giants. If it closes, some other site will emerge to take its place; the music industry’s victories, in short, are never final. Cases like this also provoke a backlash against the music industry, though in Sweden it took an unusual form. In the European elections in June, the Pirate Party won 7.1% of the Swedish vote, making it the fifth-largest party in the country and earning it a seat in the European Parliament. “All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free,” says its manifesto.
So much for that plan
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has pursued another legal avenue against online piracy, which is to pursue individual users of file-sharing hubs. Over the years it has accused 18,000 American internet users of engaging in illegal file-sharing and demanding settlements of $4,000 on average. Facing the scary prospect of a federal copyright-infringement lawsuit, nearly everyone settled; but two cases have proceeded to trial. The first involved Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single mother from Minnesota who was accused of sharing 24 songs using KaZaA in 2005. After a trial in 2007, a jury ruled against her and awarded the record companies almost $10,000 per song in statutory damages.
Critics of the RIAA’s campaign pointed out that if Ms Thomas-Rasset had stolen a handful of CDs from Wal-Mart, she would not have faced such severe penalties. The judge threw out the verdict, saying that he had erred by agreeing to a particular “jury instruction” (guidance to the jury on how they should decide a case) that had been backed by the RIAA. He then went further, calling the damages “wholly disproportionate” and asking Congress to change the law, on the basis that Ms Thomas-Rasset was an individual who had not sought to profit from piracy.
But at a second trial, which concluded in June 2009, Ms Thomas-Rasset was found guilty again. To gasps from the defendant and from other observers, the jury awarded even higher damages of $80,000 per song, or $1.92m in total. One record label’s lawyer admitted that even he was shocked. In July, in a separate case brought against Joel Tenenbaum, a student at Boston University, a jury ordered him to pay damages of $675,000 for sharing 30 songs.
According to Steven Marks, general counsel for the RIAA, the main point of pursuing these sorts of cases is to make other internet users aware that file-sharing of copyrighted material is illegal. Mr Marks admits that the legal campaign has not done much to reduce file-sharing, but how much worse might things be, he wonders, if the industry had done nothing? This year’s cases, and other examples (such as the RIAA’s attempt in 2005 to sue a grandmother, who had just died, for file-sharing), certainly generate headlines—but those headlines can also make the industry look bad, even to people who agree that piracy is wrong.
That helps explain why, in late 2008, the RIAA abandoned the idea of suing individuals for file-sharing. Instead it is now backing another approach that seems to be gaining traction around the world, called “graduated response”. This is an effort to get internet service-providers to play a greater role in the fight against piracy. As its name indicates, it involves ratcheting up the pressure on users of file-sharing software by sending them warnings by e-mail and letter and then restricting their internet access. In its strictest form, proposed in France, those accused three times of piracy would have their internet access cut off and their names placed on a national blacklist to prevent them signing up with another service provider. Other versions of the scheme propose throttling broadband-connection speeds.
All this would be much quicker and cheaper than going to court and does not involve absurd awards of damages and their attendant bad publicity. A British study found that most file-sharers will stop after receiving a warning—but only if it is backed up by the threat of sanctions.
It sounds promising, from the industry’s perspective, but graduated response has drawbacks of its own. In New Zealand the government scrapped the idea before implementation, and in Britain the idea of cutting off access has been ruled out. In France the first draft of the law was savaged by the Constitutional Council over concerns that internet users would be presumed guilty rather than innocent. Internet service-providers are opposed to being forced to act as copyright police. Even the European Parliament has weighed in, criticising any sanctions imposed without judicial oversight. But the industry is optimistic that the scheme will be implemented in some form. It does not need to make piracy impossible—just less convenient than the legal alternatives.
But many existing sources of legal music have not offered what file-sharers want. “In my view, growing internet piracy is a vote of no confidence in existing business models,” said Viviane Reding, the European commissioner for the information society, in July.
The industry is desperately searching for better business models, and is offering its catalogue at low rates to upstarts that could never have acquired such rights a decade ago. Services such as Pandora, Spotify and we7 that stream free music, supported by advertising, are becoming popular. Most innovative are the plans to offer unlimited downloads for a flat fee. British internet providers are keen to offer such a service, the cost of which would be rolled into the monthly bill. Similarly, Nokia’s “Comes With Music” scheme includes a year’s downloads in the price of a mobile phone. The music industry will not abandon legal measures against piracy altogether. But solving the problem will require carrots as well as sticks.
Consumer electronics - GPS Devices
Rational consumer
The road ahead
Sep 3rd 2009
From The Economist print edition
Consumer electronics: Your next satellite-navigation device will be less bossy and more understanding of your driving preferences
Illustration by Allan SandersDO YOU get a quiet sense of satisfaction in deviating from the route recommended by your satellite-navigation device and ignoring its bossy voice as it demands that you “make a U-turn” or “turn around when possible”? A satnav’s encyclopedic knowledge of the road network may justify its hectoring tone most of the time, but sometimes you really do know better. The motorway might look like the fastest way but it can be a nightmare at this time of the day; taking a country lane or a nifty shortcut can avoid a nasty turn into heavy traffic; or sometimes the chosen route is simply too boring.
Fortunately your next satnav will be more understanding, because it will allow a greater level of personalisation. It may well, for example, try to learn your motoring foibles, such as your favourite route into town. This is just one of the features being readied for inclusion in the next generation of devices. If you want them to, they will help you drive more economically by offering the route that requires the least fuel, or provide tips on how to adjust your driving style to be more frugal. Access to real-time traffic information will also become more widespread.
Avoiding hold-ups is the most effective way a satnav can help a driver save both time and fuel, and devices are getting better at doing this. By taking data from special FM radio signals or via a built-in cellular-data connection, satnavs can take account of current traffic conditions into route calculations. The actual traffic data can come from a variety of sources including traffic sensors, the anonymous monitoring of mobile phones moving along stretches of road and information collected (also anonymously) from satnavs in other vehicles. Access to real-time data will generally mean paying for a subscription, but it turns a navigation device into a live information system. This makes it useful not just when you do not know where you are going but also on familiar journeys, when you want to know which of several possible routes you should take.
The classic motorway dilemma provides an example. An overhead sign gives warning of an accident ahead. You could turn off now but you might then get stuck in a busy town because so many other drivers are following the same alternative route. Or you could stay on the motorway in the hope that the tailback will soon clear—only to find that it has got worse. A satnav that knows the average speeds on particular roads at different times of the day, as many now do, does a good job of predicting which route is the fastest under normal circumstances. But one that can also use real-time data would be able to tell that the traffic on the alternative route, say, is moving at a snail’s pace while vehicles near the site of the accident are beginning to pick up speed, suggesting that the emergency services have started clearing the road. So it could then advise you to stay on the motorway.
Keep on going
Journey planning using a satnav usually allows for a limited choice: you can pick the fastest route, the shortest, the one that avoids motorways or a route that passes through or avoids a particular point. Future devices will learn about a driver’s preferences and adjust accordingly. MyDrive, for example, is a piece of software developed by Journey Dynamics, a British company, for satnav providers. It analyses the behaviour of an individual driver on different types of road. Some people always prefer motorways and drive quickly, others would much rather drive on local roads and some like to keep moving even if that means a long detour around a traffic jam. Understanding a driver’s foibles can ensure that the right sort of route is chosen, and can also double the accuracy of the predicted time of arrival, says John Holland, the company’s chief executive.
Satnavs with built-in data connections are also becoming more widespread, making other new things possible. TomTom, which is based in the Netherlands, lets users of its systems update maps and add points of interest. With two-way communication, satnavs no longer have to be taken out of the car and plugged into a computer to update their maps. “The screen becomes a connected computer in the car,” says Mark Gretton, TomTom’s chief technology officer. He expects other companies to develop software that can be downloaded by satnavs, just as small programs, or apps, can be added to mobile phones.
Another trend is towards greater integration between the satnav and the car’s other systems. Bosch, a German car-component company, is working on a satnav that can give warning of a sharp bend ahead, for example. If the car is being driven too fast, it can prepare the brakes to slow the vehicle swiftly when the driver realises—or pretension the seat belts if he does not.
But such features are only possible with built-in satnav systems. These can be far more convenient than portable units, but they also tend to be much more expensive. Portable devices cost less and are easier to update, but they often get stolen from cars. The distinction may be starting to blur, however. Portable satnavs that plug into vehicle-information systems are starting to appear. And TomTom has done a deal that allows its devices to be specified as the built-in satnav in Renault cars.
All these innovations should give drivers more choice and flexibility. There is still plenty of scope, it seems, for satnavs to learn new tricks.
Comment
I was also thinking that this could be a Green tool to avoid traffic snafus and wasted gasoline at red lights, etc. I was going to get a factory-installed GPS with my Prius but they wanted $900 to do it. I can get a good GPS that is portable for $300 or less. it may just be a GUY thing, but I think these are pretty cool.
The road ahead
Sep 3rd 2009
From The Economist print edition
Consumer electronics: Your next satellite-navigation device will be less bossy and more understanding of your driving preferences
Illustration by Allan SandersDO YOU get a quiet sense of satisfaction in deviating from the route recommended by your satellite-navigation device and ignoring its bossy voice as it demands that you “make a U-turn” or “turn around when possible”? A satnav’s encyclopedic knowledge of the road network may justify its hectoring tone most of the time, but sometimes you really do know better. The motorway might look like the fastest way but it can be a nightmare at this time of the day; taking a country lane or a nifty shortcut can avoid a nasty turn into heavy traffic; or sometimes the chosen route is simply too boring.
Fortunately your next satnav will be more understanding, because it will allow a greater level of personalisation. It may well, for example, try to learn your motoring foibles, such as your favourite route into town. This is just one of the features being readied for inclusion in the next generation of devices. If you want them to, they will help you drive more economically by offering the route that requires the least fuel, or provide tips on how to adjust your driving style to be more frugal. Access to real-time traffic information will also become more widespread.
Avoiding hold-ups is the most effective way a satnav can help a driver save both time and fuel, and devices are getting better at doing this. By taking data from special FM radio signals or via a built-in cellular-data connection, satnavs can take account of current traffic conditions into route calculations. The actual traffic data can come from a variety of sources including traffic sensors, the anonymous monitoring of mobile phones moving along stretches of road and information collected (also anonymously) from satnavs in other vehicles. Access to real-time data will generally mean paying for a subscription, but it turns a navigation device into a live information system. This makes it useful not just when you do not know where you are going but also on familiar journeys, when you want to know which of several possible routes you should take.
The classic motorway dilemma provides an example. An overhead sign gives warning of an accident ahead. You could turn off now but you might then get stuck in a busy town because so many other drivers are following the same alternative route. Or you could stay on the motorway in the hope that the tailback will soon clear—only to find that it has got worse. A satnav that knows the average speeds on particular roads at different times of the day, as many now do, does a good job of predicting which route is the fastest under normal circumstances. But one that can also use real-time data would be able to tell that the traffic on the alternative route, say, is moving at a snail’s pace while vehicles near the site of the accident are beginning to pick up speed, suggesting that the emergency services have started clearing the road. So it could then advise you to stay on the motorway.
Keep on going
Journey planning using a satnav usually allows for a limited choice: you can pick the fastest route, the shortest, the one that avoids motorways or a route that passes through or avoids a particular point. Future devices will learn about a driver’s preferences and adjust accordingly. MyDrive, for example, is a piece of software developed by Journey Dynamics, a British company, for satnav providers. It analyses the behaviour of an individual driver on different types of road. Some people always prefer motorways and drive quickly, others would much rather drive on local roads and some like to keep moving even if that means a long detour around a traffic jam. Understanding a driver’s foibles can ensure that the right sort of route is chosen, and can also double the accuracy of the predicted time of arrival, says John Holland, the company’s chief executive.
Satnavs with built-in data connections are also becoming more widespread, making other new things possible. TomTom, which is based in the Netherlands, lets users of its systems update maps and add points of interest. With two-way communication, satnavs no longer have to be taken out of the car and plugged into a computer to update their maps. “The screen becomes a connected computer in the car,” says Mark Gretton, TomTom’s chief technology officer. He expects other companies to develop software that can be downloaded by satnavs, just as small programs, or apps, can be added to mobile phones.
Another trend is towards greater integration between the satnav and the car’s other systems. Bosch, a German car-component company, is working on a satnav that can give warning of a sharp bend ahead, for example. If the car is being driven too fast, it can prepare the brakes to slow the vehicle swiftly when the driver realises—or pretension the seat belts if he does not.
But such features are only possible with built-in satnav systems. These can be far more convenient than portable units, but they also tend to be much more expensive. Portable devices cost less and are easier to update, but they often get stolen from cars. The distinction may be starting to blur, however. Portable satnavs that plug into vehicle-information systems are starting to appear. And TomTom has done a deal that allows its devices to be specified as the built-in satnav in Renault cars.
All these innovations should give drivers more choice and flexibility. There is still plenty of scope, it seems, for satnavs to learn new tricks.
Comment
I was also thinking that this could be a Green tool to avoid traffic snafus and wasted gasoline at red lights, etc. I was going to get a factory-installed GPS with my Prius but they wanted $900 to do it. I can get a good GPS that is portable for $300 or less. it may just be a GUY thing, but I think these are pretty cool.
Unmanned military aircraft
Attack of the drones
Sep 3rd 2009
From The Economist print edition
Military technology: Smaller and smarter unmanned aircraft are transforming spying and redefining the idea of air power
Reuters - FIVE years ago, in the mountainous Afghan province of Baghlan, NATO officials mounted a show of force for the local governor, Faqir Mamozai, to emphasise their commitment to the region. As the governor and his officials looked on, Jan van Hoof, a Dutch commander, called in a group of F-16 fighter jets, which swooped over the city of Baghlan, their thunderous afterburners engaged. This display of air power was, says Mr van Hoof, an effective way to garner the respect of the local people. But fighter jets are a limited and expensive resource. And in conflicts like that in Afghanistan, they are no longer the most widespread form of air power. The nature of air power, and the notion of air superiority, have been transformed in the past few years by the rise of remote-controlled drone aircraft, known in military jargon as “unmanned aerial vehicles” (UAVs).
Drones are much less expensive to operate than manned warplanes. The cost per flight-hour of Israel’s drone fleet, for example, is less than 5% the cost of its fighter jets, says Antan Israeli, the commander of an Israeli drone squadron. In the past two years the Israeli Defence Forces’ fleet of UAVs has tripled in size. Mr Israeli says that “almost all” IDF ground operations now have drone support.
Of course, small and comparatively slow UAVs are no match for fighter jets when it comes to inspiring awe with roaring flyovers—or shooting down enemy warplanes. Some drones, such as America’s Predator and Reaper, carry missiles or bombs, though most do not. (Countries with “hunter-killer” drones include America, Britain and Israel.) But drones have other strengths that can be just as valuable. In particular, they are unparalleled spies. Operating discreetly, they can intercept radio and mobile-phone communications, and gather intelligence using video, radar, thermal-imaging and other sensors. The data they gather can then be sent instantly via wireless and satellite links to an operations room halfway around the world—or to the hand-held devices of soldiers below. In military jargon, troops without UAV support are “disadvantaged”.
The technology has been adopted at extraordinary speed. In 2003, the year the American-led coalition defeated Saddam Hussein’s armed forces, America’s military logged a total of roughly 35,000 UAV flight-hours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year the tally reached 800,000 hours. And even that figure is an underestimate, because it does not include the flights of small drones, which have proliferated rapidly in recent years. (America alone is thought to have over 5,000 of them.) These robots, typically launched by foot soldiers with a catapult, slingshot or hand toss, far outnumber their larger kin, which are the size of piloted aeroplanes.
Global sales of UAVs this year are expected to increase by more than 10% over last year to exceed $4.7 billion, according to Visiongain, a market-research firm based in London. It estimates that America will spend about 60% of the total. For its part, America’s Department of Defence says it will spend more than $22 billion to develop, buy and operate drones between 2007 and 2013. Following the United States, Israel ranks second in the development and possession of drones, according to those in the industry. The European leaders, trailing Israel, are roughly matched: Britain, France, Germany and Italy. Russia and Spain are not far behind, and nor, say some experts, is China. (But the head of an American navy research-laboratory in Europe says this is an underestimate cultivated by secretive Beijing, and that China’s drone fleet is actually much larger.)
In total, more than three dozen countries operate UAVs, including Belarus, Colombia, Sri Lanka and Georgia. Some analysts say Georgian armed forces, equipped with Israeli drones, outperformed Russia in aerial intelligence during their brief war in August 2008. (Russia also buys Israeli drones.)
Iran builds drones, one of which was shot down over Iraq by American forces in February. The model in question can reportedly collect ground intelligence from an altitude of 4,000 metres as far as 140km from its base. This year Iranian officials said they had developed a new drone with a range of more than 1,900km. Iran has supplied Hizbullah militants in Lebanon with a small fleet of drones, though their usefulness is limited: Hizbullah uses lobbed rather than guided rockets, and it is unlikely to muster a ground attack that would benefit from drone intelligence. But ownership of UAVs enhances Hizbullah’s prestige in the eyes of its supporters, says Amal Ghorayeb, a Beirut academic who is an expert on the group.
Eyes wide open
How effective are UAVs? In Iraq, the significant drop in American casualties over the past year and a half is partly attributable to the “persistent stare” of drone operators hunting for insurgents’ roadside bombs and remotely fired rockets, says Christopher Oliver, a colonel in the American army who was stationed in Baghdad until recently. “We stepped it up,” he says, adding that drone missions will continue to increase, in part to compensate for the withdrawal of troops. In Afghanistan and Iraq, almost all big convoys of Western equipment or personnel are preceded by a scout drone, according to Mike Kulinski of Enerdyne Technologies, a developer of military-communications software based in California. Such drones can stream video back to drivers and transmit electromagnetic jamming signals that disable the electronic triggers of some roadside bombs.
In military parlance, drones do work that would be “dull, dirty and dangerous” for soldiers. Some of them can loiter in the air for long periods. The Eagle-1, for example, developed by Israel Aerospace Industries and EADS, Europe’s aviation giant, can stay aloft for more than 50 hours at a time. (France deployed several of these aircraft this year in Afghanistan.) Such long flights help operators, assisted with object-recognition software, to determine normal (and suspicious) patterns of movement for people and vehicles by tracking suspects for two wake-and-sleep cycles.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, almost all big convoys are preceded by a scout drone.Drones are acquiring new abilities. New sensors that are now entering service can make out the “electrical signature” of ground vehicles by picking up signals produced by engine spark-plugs, alternators, and other electronics. A Pakistani UAV called the Tornado, made in Karachi by a company called Integrated Dynamics, emits radar signals that mimic a fighter jet to fool enemies.
UAVs are hard to shoot down. Today’s heat-seeking shoulder-launched missiles do not work above 3,000 metres or so, though the next generation will be able to go higher, says Carlo Siardi of Selex Galileo, a subsidiary of Finmeccanica in Ronchi dei Legionari, Italy. Moreover, drone engines are smaller—and therefore cooler—than those powering heavier, manned aircraft. In some of them the propeller is situated behind the exhaust source to disperse hot air, reducing the heat signature. And soldiers who shoot at aircraft risk revealing their position.
But drones do have an Achilles’ heel. If a UAV loses the data connection to its operator—by flying out of range, for example—it may well crash. Engineers have failed to solve this problem, says Dan Isaac, a drone expert at Spain’s Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology, a government research agency in Madrid. The solution, he and others say, is to build systems which enable an operator to reconnect with a lost drone by transmitting data via a “bridge” aircraft nearby.
Eyes in the sky, pilots on the ground
In late June America’s Northrop Grumman unveiled the first of a new generation of its Global Hawk aircraft, thought to be the world’s fastest drone. It can gather data on objects reportedly as small as a shoebox, through clouds, day or night, for 32 hours from 18,000 metres—almost twice the cruising altitude of passenger jets. After North Korea detonated a test nuclear device in May, America said it would begin replacing its manned U-2 spy planes in South Korea with Global Hawks, which are roughly the size of a corporate jet.
Big drones are, however, hugely expensive. With their elaborate sensors, some cost as much as $60m apiece. Fewer than 30 Global Hawks have been bought. And it is not just the hardware that is costly: each Global Hawk requires a support team of 20-30 people. As the biggest UAVs get bigger, they are also becoming more expensive. Future American UAVs may cost a third as much as the F-35 fighter jet (each of which costs around $83m, without weapons). The Neuron, a jet-engine stealth drone developed by France’s Dassault Aviation and partners including Italy’s Alenia, will be about the size of the French manned Mirage fighter.
Small drones, by contrast, cost just tens of thousands of dollars. With electric motors, they are quiet enough for low-altitude spying. But batteries and fuel cells have only recently become light enough to open up a large market. A fuel cell developed by AMI Adaptive Materials, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, exemplifies the progress made. Three years ago AMI sold a 25-watt fuel cell weighing two kilograms. Today its fuel cell is 25% lighter and provides eight times as much power. This won AMI a $500,000 prize from the Department of Defence. Its fuel cells, costing about $12,000 each, now propel small drones.
Most small drones are launched without airstrips and are controlled in the field using a small computer. They can be recovered with nets, parachutes, vertically strung cords that snag a wingtip hook or a simple drop on the ground after a stall a metre or two in the air. Their airframes break apart to absorb the impact; users simply snap them back together.
With some systems, a ground unit can launch a drone for a quick bird’s-eye look around with very little effort. Working with financing from Italy’s defence ministry, Oto Melara, an Italian firm, has built prototypes of a short-range drone launched from a vehicle-mounted pneumatic cannon. The aircraft’s wings unfold upon leaving the tube. It streams back video while flying any number of preset round-trip patterns. Crucially, operators do not need to worry about fiddling with controls; the drone flies itself.
Send in the drones
Indeed, as UAVs become more technologically complex, there is also a clear trend towards making their control systems easier to use, according to a succession of experts speaking at a conference in La Spezia, Italy, held in April by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), an industry association. For example, instead of manoeuvring aircraft, operators typically touch (or click on) electronic maps to specify points along a desired route. Software determines the best flight altitudes, speeds and search patterns for each mission—say, locating a well near a hilltop within sniping range of a road.
This is most certainly not a computer game
Next year Lockheed Martin, an American defence contractor, begins final testing of software to make flying drones easier for troops with little training. Called ECCHO, it allows soldiers to control aircraft and view the resulting intelligence on a standard hand-held device such as an iPhone, BlackBerry or Palm Pre. It incorporates Google Earth mapping software, largely for the same reason: most recruits are already proficient users.
What’s next? A diplomat from Djibouti, a country in the Horn of Africa, provides a clue. He says private companies in Europe are now offering to operate spy drones for his government, which has none. (Djibouti has declined.) But purchasing UAV services, instead of owning fleets, is becoming a “strong trend”, says Kyle Snyder, head of surveillance technology at AUVSI. About 20 companies, he estimates, fly spy drones for clients.
One of them, a division of Boeing called Insitu, sees a lucrative untapped market in Afghanistan, where the intelligence needs of some smaller NATO countries are not being met by larger allies. (Armed forces are often reluctant to share their intelligence for tactical reasons.) Alejandro Pita, Insitu’s head of sales, declines to name customers, but says his firm’s flights cost roughly $2,000 an hour for 300 or so hours a month. The drones-for-hire market is also expanding into non-military fields. Services include inspecting tall buildings, monitoring traffic and maintaining security at large facilities.
X marks the spot
Drone sales and research budgets will continue to grow. Raytheon, an American company, has launched a drone from a submerged submarine. Mini helicopter drones for reconnaissance inside buildings are not far off. In China, which is likely to be a big market in the future, senior officials have recently talked of reducing troop numbers and spending more money developing “informationised warfare” capabilities, including unmanned aircraft.
There is a troubling side to all this. Operators can now safely manipulate battlefield weapons from control rooms half a world away, as if they are playing a video game. Drones also enable a government to avoid the political risk of putting combat boots on foreign soil. This makes it easier to start a war, says P.W. Singer, the American author of “Wired for War”, a recent bestseller about robotic warfare. But like them or not, drones are here to stay. Armed forces that master them are not just securing their hold on air superiority—they are also dramatically increasing its value.
Comment
It seems to me that drones could be employed along our borders for immigration purposes also. In Iraq it could be employed as a sentinel along the oil pipelines for security purposes. The ones used by small units dont require a pilot to fly them either. It would also be possible to arm a little one for tactical purposes.
Sep 3rd 2009
From The Economist print edition
Military technology: Smaller and smarter unmanned aircraft are transforming spying and redefining the idea of air power
Reuters - FIVE years ago, in the mountainous Afghan province of Baghlan, NATO officials mounted a show of force for the local governor, Faqir Mamozai, to emphasise their commitment to the region. As the governor and his officials looked on, Jan van Hoof, a Dutch commander, called in a group of F-16 fighter jets, which swooped over the city of Baghlan, their thunderous afterburners engaged. This display of air power was, says Mr van Hoof, an effective way to garner the respect of the local people. But fighter jets are a limited and expensive resource. And in conflicts like that in Afghanistan, they are no longer the most widespread form of air power. The nature of air power, and the notion of air superiority, have been transformed in the past few years by the rise of remote-controlled drone aircraft, known in military jargon as “unmanned aerial vehicles” (UAVs).
Drones are much less expensive to operate than manned warplanes. The cost per flight-hour of Israel’s drone fleet, for example, is less than 5% the cost of its fighter jets, says Antan Israeli, the commander of an Israeli drone squadron. In the past two years the Israeli Defence Forces’ fleet of UAVs has tripled in size. Mr Israeli says that “almost all” IDF ground operations now have drone support.
Of course, small and comparatively slow UAVs are no match for fighter jets when it comes to inspiring awe with roaring flyovers—or shooting down enemy warplanes. Some drones, such as America’s Predator and Reaper, carry missiles or bombs, though most do not. (Countries with “hunter-killer” drones include America, Britain and Israel.) But drones have other strengths that can be just as valuable. In particular, they are unparalleled spies. Operating discreetly, they can intercept radio and mobile-phone communications, and gather intelligence using video, radar, thermal-imaging and other sensors. The data they gather can then be sent instantly via wireless and satellite links to an operations room halfway around the world—or to the hand-held devices of soldiers below. In military jargon, troops without UAV support are “disadvantaged”.
The technology has been adopted at extraordinary speed. In 2003, the year the American-led coalition defeated Saddam Hussein’s armed forces, America’s military logged a total of roughly 35,000 UAV flight-hours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year the tally reached 800,000 hours. And even that figure is an underestimate, because it does not include the flights of small drones, which have proliferated rapidly in recent years. (America alone is thought to have over 5,000 of them.) These robots, typically launched by foot soldiers with a catapult, slingshot or hand toss, far outnumber their larger kin, which are the size of piloted aeroplanes.
Global sales of UAVs this year are expected to increase by more than 10% over last year to exceed $4.7 billion, according to Visiongain, a market-research firm based in London. It estimates that America will spend about 60% of the total. For its part, America’s Department of Defence says it will spend more than $22 billion to develop, buy and operate drones between 2007 and 2013. Following the United States, Israel ranks second in the development and possession of drones, according to those in the industry. The European leaders, trailing Israel, are roughly matched: Britain, France, Germany and Italy. Russia and Spain are not far behind, and nor, say some experts, is China. (But the head of an American navy research-laboratory in Europe says this is an underestimate cultivated by secretive Beijing, and that China’s drone fleet is actually much larger.)
In total, more than three dozen countries operate UAVs, including Belarus, Colombia, Sri Lanka and Georgia. Some analysts say Georgian armed forces, equipped with Israeli drones, outperformed Russia in aerial intelligence during their brief war in August 2008. (Russia also buys Israeli drones.)
Iran builds drones, one of which was shot down over Iraq by American forces in February. The model in question can reportedly collect ground intelligence from an altitude of 4,000 metres as far as 140km from its base. This year Iranian officials said they had developed a new drone with a range of more than 1,900km. Iran has supplied Hizbullah militants in Lebanon with a small fleet of drones, though their usefulness is limited: Hizbullah uses lobbed rather than guided rockets, and it is unlikely to muster a ground attack that would benefit from drone intelligence. But ownership of UAVs enhances Hizbullah’s prestige in the eyes of its supporters, says Amal Ghorayeb, a Beirut academic who is an expert on the group.
Eyes wide open
How effective are UAVs? In Iraq, the significant drop in American casualties over the past year and a half is partly attributable to the “persistent stare” of drone operators hunting for insurgents’ roadside bombs and remotely fired rockets, says Christopher Oliver, a colonel in the American army who was stationed in Baghdad until recently. “We stepped it up,” he says, adding that drone missions will continue to increase, in part to compensate for the withdrawal of troops. In Afghanistan and Iraq, almost all big convoys of Western equipment or personnel are preceded by a scout drone, according to Mike Kulinski of Enerdyne Technologies, a developer of military-communications software based in California. Such drones can stream video back to drivers and transmit electromagnetic jamming signals that disable the electronic triggers of some roadside bombs.
In military parlance, drones do work that would be “dull, dirty and dangerous” for soldiers. Some of them can loiter in the air for long periods. The Eagle-1, for example, developed by Israel Aerospace Industries and EADS, Europe’s aviation giant, can stay aloft for more than 50 hours at a time. (France deployed several of these aircraft this year in Afghanistan.) Such long flights help operators, assisted with object-recognition software, to determine normal (and suspicious) patterns of movement for people and vehicles by tracking suspects for two wake-and-sleep cycles.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, almost all big convoys are preceded by a scout drone.Drones are acquiring new abilities. New sensors that are now entering service can make out the “electrical signature” of ground vehicles by picking up signals produced by engine spark-plugs, alternators, and other electronics. A Pakistani UAV called the Tornado, made in Karachi by a company called Integrated Dynamics, emits radar signals that mimic a fighter jet to fool enemies.
UAVs are hard to shoot down. Today’s heat-seeking shoulder-launched missiles do not work above 3,000 metres or so, though the next generation will be able to go higher, says Carlo Siardi of Selex Galileo, a subsidiary of Finmeccanica in Ronchi dei Legionari, Italy. Moreover, drone engines are smaller—and therefore cooler—than those powering heavier, manned aircraft. In some of them the propeller is situated behind the exhaust source to disperse hot air, reducing the heat signature. And soldiers who shoot at aircraft risk revealing their position.
But drones do have an Achilles’ heel. If a UAV loses the data connection to its operator—by flying out of range, for example—it may well crash. Engineers have failed to solve this problem, says Dan Isaac, a drone expert at Spain’s Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology, a government research agency in Madrid. The solution, he and others say, is to build systems which enable an operator to reconnect with a lost drone by transmitting data via a “bridge” aircraft nearby.
Eyes in the sky, pilots on the ground
In late June America’s Northrop Grumman unveiled the first of a new generation of its Global Hawk aircraft, thought to be the world’s fastest drone. It can gather data on objects reportedly as small as a shoebox, through clouds, day or night, for 32 hours from 18,000 metres—almost twice the cruising altitude of passenger jets. After North Korea detonated a test nuclear device in May, America said it would begin replacing its manned U-2 spy planes in South Korea with Global Hawks, which are roughly the size of a corporate jet.
Big drones are, however, hugely expensive. With their elaborate sensors, some cost as much as $60m apiece. Fewer than 30 Global Hawks have been bought. And it is not just the hardware that is costly: each Global Hawk requires a support team of 20-30 people. As the biggest UAVs get bigger, they are also becoming more expensive. Future American UAVs may cost a third as much as the F-35 fighter jet (each of which costs around $83m, without weapons). The Neuron, a jet-engine stealth drone developed by France’s Dassault Aviation and partners including Italy’s Alenia, will be about the size of the French manned Mirage fighter.
Small drones, by contrast, cost just tens of thousands of dollars. With electric motors, they are quiet enough for low-altitude spying. But batteries and fuel cells have only recently become light enough to open up a large market. A fuel cell developed by AMI Adaptive Materials, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, exemplifies the progress made. Three years ago AMI sold a 25-watt fuel cell weighing two kilograms. Today its fuel cell is 25% lighter and provides eight times as much power. This won AMI a $500,000 prize from the Department of Defence. Its fuel cells, costing about $12,000 each, now propel small drones.
Most small drones are launched without airstrips and are controlled in the field using a small computer. They can be recovered with nets, parachutes, vertically strung cords that snag a wingtip hook or a simple drop on the ground after a stall a metre or two in the air. Their airframes break apart to absorb the impact; users simply snap them back together.
With some systems, a ground unit can launch a drone for a quick bird’s-eye look around with very little effort. Working with financing from Italy’s defence ministry, Oto Melara, an Italian firm, has built prototypes of a short-range drone launched from a vehicle-mounted pneumatic cannon. The aircraft’s wings unfold upon leaving the tube. It streams back video while flying any number of preset round-trip patterns. Crucially, operators do not need to worry about fiddling with controls; the drone flies itself.
Send in the drones
Indeed, as UAVs become more technologically complex, there is also a clear trend towards making their control systems easier to use, according to a succession of experts speaking at a conference in La Spezia, Italy, held in April by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), an industry association. For example, instead of manoeuvring aircraft, operators typically touch (or click on) electronic maps to specify points along a desired route. Software determines the best flight altitudes, speeds and search patterns for each mission—say, locating a well near a hilltop within sniping range of a road.
This is most certainly not a computer game
Next year Lockheed Martin, an American defence contractor, begins final testing of software to make flying drones easier for troops with little training. Called ECCHO, it allows soldiers to control aircraft and view the resulting intelligence on a standard hand-held device such as an iPhone, BlackBerry or Palm Pre. It incorporates Google Earth mapping software, largely for the same reason: most recruits are already proficient users.
What’s next? A diplomat from Djibouti, a country in the Horn of Africa, provides a clue. He says private companies in Europe are now offering to operate spy drones for his government, which has none. (Djibouti has declined.) But purchasing UAV services, instead of owning fleets, is becoming a “strong trend”, says Kyle Snyder, head of surveillance technology at AUVSI. About 20 companies, he estimates, fly spy drones for clients.
One of them, a division of Boeing called Insitu, sees a lucrative untapped market in Afghanistan, where the intelligence needs of some smaller NATO countries are not being met by larger allies. (Armed forces are often reluctant to share their intelligence for tactical reasons.) Alejandro Pita, Insitu’s head of sales, declines to name customers, but says his firm’s flights cost roughly $2,000 an hour for 300 or so hours a month. The drones-for-hire market is also expanding into non-military fields. Services include inspecting tall buildings, monitoring traffic and maintaining security at large facilities.
X marks the spot
Drone sales and research budgets will continue to grow. Raytheon, an American company, has launched a drone from a submerged submarine. Mini helicopter drones for reconnaissance inside buildings are not far off. In China, which is likely to be a big market in the future, senior officials have recently talked of reducing troop numbers and spending more money developing “informationised warfare” capabilities, including unmanned aircraft.
There is a troubling side to all this. Operators can now safely manipulate battlefield weapons from control rooms half a world away, as if they are playing a video game. Drones also enable a government to avoid the political risk of putting combat boots on foreign soil. This makes it easier to start a war, says P.W. Singer, the American author of “Wired for War”, a recent bestseller about robotic warfare. But like them or not, drones are here to stay. Armed forces that master them are not just securing their hold on air superiority—they are also dramatically increasing its value.
Comment
It seems to me that drones could be employed along our borders for immigration purposes also. In Iraq it could be employed as a sentinel along the oil pipelines for security purposes. The ones used by small units dont require a pilot to fly them either. It would also be possible to arm a little one for tactical purposes.
Hacking goes squishy
Sep 3rd 2009
From The Economist print edition
Biotechnology: The falling cost of equipment capable of manipulating DNA is opening up a new field of “biohacking” to enthusiasts
Illustration by Brett Ryder
MANY of the world’s great innovators started out as hackers—people who like to tinker with technology—and some of the largest technology companies started in garages. Thomas Edison built General Electric on the foundation of an improved way to transmit messages down telegraph wires, which he cooked up himself. Hewlett-Packard was founded in a garage in California (now a national landmark), as was Google, many years later. And, in addition to computer hardware and software, garage hackers and home-build enthusiasts are now merrily cooking up electric cars, drone aircraft and rockets. But what about biology? Might biohacking—tinkering with the DNA of existing organisms to create new ones—lead to innovations of a biological nature?
The potential is certainly there. The cost of sequencing DNA has fallen from about $1 per base pair in the mid-1990s to a tenth of a cent today, and the cost of synthesising the molecule has also fallen. Rob Carlson, the founder of a firm called Biodesic, started tracking the price of synthesis a decade ago. He found a remarkably steady decline, from over $10 per base pair to, lately, well under $1 (see chart). This decline recalls Moore’s law, which, when promulgated in 1965, predicted the exponential rise of computing power. Someday history may remember drops in the cost of DNA synthesis as Carlson’s curve.
A growing culture
And as the price falls, amateurs are wasting little time getting started. Several groups are already hard at work finding ways to duplicate at home the techniques used by government laboratories and large corporations. One place for them to learn about biohacking is DIYbio, a group that holds meetings in America and Britain and has about 800 people signed up for its newsletter. DIYbio plans to perform experiments such as sending out its members in different cities to swab public objects. The DNA thus collected could be used to make a map showing the spread of micro-organisms.
Strictly, that is not really biohacking. But attempts to construct micro-organisms that make biofuels efficiently certainly are—though it will be impressive if a group of amateurs can succeed in cracking a problem that is confounding many established companies. Amateur innovation, nevertheless, is happening. When a science blog called io9 ran a competition for biohackers, it received entries for modified microorganisms that, among other things, help rice plants process nitrogen fertiliser more efficiently, measure the alcohol content of a person’s breath and respond to commands from a computer.
The template for biohacking’s future may be the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGem) competition, held annually at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This challenges undergraduates to spend a summer building an organism from a “kit” provided by a gene bank called the Registry of Standard Biological Parts. Their work is possible because the kit is made up of standardised chunks of DNA called BioBricks.
As Jason Kelly, the co-founder of a gene-synthesis firm called Ginkgo BioWorks, observes, there is no equivalent of an electrical engineer’s diagram to help unravel what is going on in a cell. As he puts it, “what the professionals can do in terms of engineering an organism is really rudimentary. It’s really a tinkering art more than a predictable engineering system.” BioBricks are, nevertheless, an attempt to provide the equivalent of electronic components with known properties to the field—and using them is part of Ginkgo’s business plan. Information on BioBricks is kept public, helping the students understand which work together best.
Illustration by Brett RyderWhat the students actually create, however, is left to their imaginations. And the results are often unexpected. A team from National Yang-Ming University in Taiwan conceived a bacterium that can do the work of a failed kidney; another, from Imperial College, London, worked on a “biofabricator” capable of building other biological materials.
From relatively simple beginnings in 2003, iGem has grown to a competition involving 84 teams and 1,200 participants, most of whom leave with enough knowledge to do work at home. They are limited mainly by the novelty of the pursuit. Although there are no laws banning the sale of DNA, reagents or equipment, such items are usually priced for sale to large institutions. Indeed, it is this problem of finding ways to manage without expensive equipment, rather than a desire to work on “wetware”, or living organisms, that motivates many biohackers.
Tito Jankowski, now a member of DIYbio, became interested in toolmaking for biohackers after taking part in iGem with a team from Brown University that had set itself the goal of modifying bacteria to detect lead in water. After graduating, Mr Jankowski was interested in doing more, but found his access to equipment restricted. He decided to create a cheaper version of the gel-electrophoresis box, a basic tool used in a wide range of experiments. Despite its simple construction, which can be as spare as a few panes of coloured plastic over a heating element, a gel box can sell for over $1,000. But according to Mr Jankowski, “this equipment is only expensive because it has never been used for personal stuff before.”
Mr Jankowski likens the current state of biohacking to the years in which amateurs first began working with personal computers, a metaphor that Dr Kelly also uses. Computers were once both expensive and arcane. Today, they are built mostly from off-the-shelf components, and even a relatively non-technical person can assemble one. If hobbyists like Mr Jankowski can help reduce the cost of equipment, say, tenfold, while BioBricks or something similar become cheaper and more predictable, then the stage will be set for a bioscience version of Apple or Google to be born in a dormitory room or garage.
But what about viruses?
The computer metaphor, though, is a reminder that there is no shortage of fools and criminals ready to construct viruses and other harmful computer programs. If such people got interested in the biological world, the consequences might be even more serious—because in biology, there is no rebooting the machine.
More than any other detail of biohacking, this is the one that laymen grasp. And the resulting fear can have unpleasant effects, as Steve Kurtz, a professor of art at the State University of New York in Buffalo who works with biological material, found out. In May 2004 he awoke to find that his wife, Hope, was not breathing. The police who accompanied paramedics to his home found Petri dishes used in his art displays, and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which brought in the Department of Homeland Security and charged him with bioterrorism. The authorities claimed the body of his wife, who had died of congenital heart failure, for examination. This took place over the protestations of Mr Kurtz, his colleagues and the local commissioner of public health, all of whom insisted that nothing in the exhibit could be harmful.
The right way to regulate biohacking may not become apparent for some time.The initial reaction of the local police was hardly surprising. The motives of the FBI, which has experts capable of examining Mr Kurtz’s art scientifically, are harder to decode. After a grand jury refused to indict Mr Kurtz, the bureau then pursued him with a mail-fraud charge carrying a sentence of up to 20 years, which a judge dismissed this year. Mr Kurtz, known for his anti-establishment art, may simply have become the target of harassment for his views. But the FBI may genuinely be wary of biohackers; rumour suggests it has followed up the case by discreetly instructing reagent suppliers not to sell to individuals, despite the lack of any law against their doing so.
So far legislators have shown little interest in regulating individuals. When they choose to do so, it will not be easy. If groups such as DIYbio are successful, the basic tools of biohacking will be both cheap to buy and easy to construct at home. Many DNA sequences, including those for harmful diseases, are already widely published, and can hardly be retracted. The falling cost of DNA synthesis suggests that there will be automated “printers” for the molecule before long. There are some substances that can be controlled, like the reagents used to modify DNA. But a strict government policy regulating the chemical components of biohacking might have much the same effect as laws banning gun ownership—ordinary citizens will be discouraged, while criminals will still find what they want on black markets.
In all likelihood, the right way to regulate biohacking will not become apparent for some time. But some people think that any regulation at all could be harmful. Dr Carlson, who has a book on biohacking coming out later this year, is a proponent of light regulation at most. “If you look at our ability to respond to infectious diseases at this point in time, we’re essentially helpless,” he says. “The quandary we face is that we need the garage hackers, because that’s where innovation comes from.” Freeman Dyson, a venerable and polymathic physicist who has been thinking about the problem, is also a believer in biological innovation. He has written about a variety of futuristic possibilities, including modified trees that are better than natural ones at absorbing carbon dioxide, and termites that can eat old cars. If regulation of biohacking is too tight, such innovations—or, at least, things like them—might never come to pass.
From The Economist print edition
Biotechnology: The falling cost of equipment capable of manipulating DNA is opening up a new field of “biohacking” to enthusiasts
Illustration by Brett Ryder
MANY of the world’s great innovators started out as hackers—people who like to tinker with technology—and some of the largest technology companies started in garages. Thomas Edison built General Electric on the foundation of an improved way to transmit messages down telegraph wires, which he cooked up himself. Hewlett-Packard was founded in a garage in California (now a national landmark), as was Google, many years later. And, in addition to computer hardware and software, garage hackers and home-build enthusiasts are now merrily cooking up electric cars, drone aircraft and rockets. But what about biology? Might biohacking—tinkering with the DNA of existing organisms to create new ones—lead to innovations of a biological nature?
The potential is certainly there. The cost of sequencing DNA has fallen from about $1 per base pair in the mid-1990s to a tenth of a cent today, and the cost of synthesising the molecule has also fallen. Rob Carlson, the founder of a firm called Biodesic, started tracking the price of synthesis a decade ago. He found a remarkably steady decline, from over $10 per base pair to, lately, well under $1 (see chart). This decline recalls Moore’s law, which, when promulgated in 1965, predicted the exponential rise of computing power. Someday history may remember drops in the cost of DNA synthesis as Carlson’s curve.
A growing culture
And as the price falls, amateurs are wasting little time getting started. Several groups are already hard at work finding ways to duplicate at home the techniques used by government laboratories and large corporations. One place for them to learn about biohacking is DIYbio, a group that holds meetings in America and Britain and has about 800 people signed up for its newsletter. DIYbio plans to perform experiments such as sending out its members in different cities to swab public objects. The DNA thus collected could be used to make a map showing the spread of micro-organisms.
Strictly, that is not really biohacking. But attempts to construct micro-organisms that make biofuels efficiently certainly are—though it will be impressive if a group of amateurs can succeed in cracking a problem that is confounding many established companies. Amateur innovation, nevertheless, is happening. When a science blog called io9 ran a competition for biohackers, it received entries for modified microorganisms that, among other things, help rice plants process nitrogen fertiliser more efficiently, measure the alcohol content of a person’s breath and respond to commands from a computer.
The template for biohacking’s future may be the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGem) competition, held annually at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This challenges undergraduates to spend a summer building an organism from a “kit” provided by a gene bank called the Registry of Standard Biological Parts. Their work is possible because the kit is made up of standardised chunks of DNA called BioBricks.
As Jason Kelly, the co-founder of a gene-synthesis firm called Ginkgo BioWorks, observes, there is no equivalent of an electrical engineer’s diagram to help unravel what is going on in a cell. As he puts it, “what the professionals can do in terms of engineering an organism is really rudimentary. It’s really a tinkering art more than a predictable engineering system.” BioBricks are, nevertheless, an attempt to provide the equivalent of electronic components with known properties to the field—and using them is part of Ginkgo’s business plan. Information on BioBricks is kept public, helping the students understand which work together best.
Illustration by Brett RyderWhat the students actually create, however, is left to their imaginations. And the results are often unexpected. A team from National Yang-Ming University in Taiwan conceived a bacterium that can do the work of a failed kidney; another, from Imperial College, London, worked on a “biofabricator” capable of building other biological materials.
From relatively simple beginnings in 2003, iGem has grown to a competition involving 84 teams and 1,200 participants, most of whom leave with enough knowledge to do work at home. They are limited mainly by the novelty of the pursuit. Although there are no laws banning the sale of DNA, reagents or equipment, such items are usually priced for sale to large institutions. Indeed, it is this problem of finding ways to manage without expensive equipment, rather than a desire to work on “wetware”, or living organisms, that motivates many biohackers.
Tito Jankowski, now a member of DIYbio, became interested in toolmaking for biohackers after taking part in iGem with a team from Brown University that had set itself the goal of modifying bacteria to detect lead in water. After graduating, Mr Jankowski was interested in doing more, but found his access to equipment restricted. He decided to create a cheaper version of the gel-electrophoresis box, a basic tool used in a wide range of experiments. Despite its simple construction, which can be as spare as a few panes of coloured plastic over a heating element, a gel box can sell for over $1,000. But according to Mr Jankowski, “this equipment is only expensive because it has never been used for personal stuff before.”
Mr Jankowski likens the current state of biohacking to the years in which amateurs first began working with personal computers, a metaphor that Dr Kelly also uses. Computers were once both expensive and arcane. Today, they are built mostly from off-the-shelf components, and even a relatively non-technical person can assemble one. If hobbyists like Mr Jankowski can help reduce the cost of equipment, say, tenfold, while BioBricks or something similar become cheaper and more predictable, then the stage will be set for a bioscience version of Apple or Google to be born in a dormitory room or garage.
But what about viruses?
The computer metaphor, though, is a reminder that there is no shortage of fools and criminals ready to construct viruses and other harmful computer programs. If such people got interested in the biological world, the consequences might be even more serious—because in biology, there is no rebooting the machine.
More than any other detail of biohacking, this is the one that laymen grasp. And the resulting fear can have unpleasant effects, as Steve Kurtz, a professor of art at the State University of New York in Buffalo who works with biological material, found out. In May 2004 he awoke to find that his wife, Hope, was not breathing. The police who accompanied paramedics to his home found Petri dishes used in his art displays, and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which brought in the Department of Homeland Security and charged him with bioterrorism. The authorities claimed the body of his wife, who had died of congenital heart failure, for examination. This took place over the protestations of Mr Kurtz, his colleagues and the local commissioner of public health, all of whom insisted that nothing in the exhibit could be harmful.
The right way to regulate biohacking may not become apparent for some time.The initial reaction of the local police was hardly surprising. The motives of the FBI, which has experts capable of examining Mr Kurtz’s art scientifically, are harder to decode. After a grand jury refused to indict Mr Kurtz, the bureau then pursued him with a mail-fraud charge carrying a sentence of up to 20 years, which a judge dismissed this year. Mr Kurtz, known for his anti-establishment art, may simply have become the target of harassment for his views. But the FBI may genuinely be wary of biohackers; rumour suggests it has followed up the case by discreetly instructing reagent suppliers not to sell to individuals, despite the lack of any law against their doing so.
So far legislators have shown little interest in regulating individuals. When they choose to do so, it will not be easy. If groups such as DIYbio are successful, the basic tools of biohacking will be both cheap to buy and easy to construct at home. Many DNA sequences, including those for harmful diseases, are already widely published, and can hardly be retracted. The falling cost of DNA synthesis suggests that there will be automated “printers” for the molecule before long. There are some substances that can be controlled, like the reagents used to modify DNA. But a strict government policy regulating the chemical components of biohacking might have much the same effect as laws banning gun ownership—ordinary citizens will be discouraged, while criminals will still find what they want on black markets.
In all likelihood, the right way to regulate biohacking will not become apparent for some time. But some people think that any regulation at all could be harmful. Dr Carlson, who has a book on biohacking coming out later this year, is a proponent of light regulation at most. “If you look at our ability to respond to infectious diseases at this point in time, we’re essentially helpless,” he says. “The quandary we face is that we need the garage hackers, because that’s where innovation comes from.” Freeman Dyson, a venerable and polymathic physicist who has been thinking about the problem, is also a believer in biological innovation. He has written about a variety of futuristic possibilities, including modified trees that are better than natural ones at absorbing carbon dioxide, and termites that can eat old cars. If regulation of biohacking is too tight, such innovations—or, at least, things like them—might never come to pass.
Air Batteries In The Future
From The Economist print edition
Energy: Batteries that draw oxygen from the air could provide a cheaper, lighter and longer-lasting alternative to existing designs
Illustration by Belle Mellor
MOBILE phones looked like bricks in the 1980s. That was largely because the batteries needed to power them were so hefty. When lithium-ion batteries were invented, mobile phones became small enough to be slipped into a pocket. Now a new design of battery, which uses oxygen from ambient air to power devices, could provide even an smaller and lighter source of power. Not only that, such batteries would be cheaper and would run for longer between charges.
Lithium-ion batteries have two electrodes immersed in an electrically conductive solution, called an electrolyte. One of the electrodes, the cathode, is made of lithium cobalt oxide; the other, the anode, is composed of carbon. When the battery is being charged, positively charged lithium ions break away from the cathode and travel in the electrolyte to the anode, where they meet electrons brought there by a charging device. When electricity is needed, the anode releases the lithium ions, which rapidly move back to the cathode. As they do so, the electrons that were paired with them in the anode during the charging process are released. These electrons power an external circuit.
Peter Bruce and his colleagues at the University of St Andrews in Scotland came up with the idea of replacing the lithium cobalt oxide electrode with a cheaper and lighter alternative. They designed an electrode made from porous carbon and lithium oxide. They knew that lithium oxide forms naturally from lithium ions, electrons and oxygen, but, to their surprise, they found that it could also be made to separate easily when an electric current passed through it. They exposed one side of their porous carbon electrode to an electrolyte rich in lithium ions and put a mesh window on the other side of the electrode through which air could be drawn. Oxygen from the air took the place of the cobalt oxide.
When they charged their battery, the lithium ions migrated to the anode where they combined with electrons from the charging device. When they discharged it, lithium ions and electrons were released from the anode. The ions crossed the electrolyte and the electrons travelled round the external circuit. The ions and electrons met at the cathode, and combined with the oxygen to form lithium oxide that filled the pores in the carbon.
Because the oxygen being used by the battery comes from the surrounding air, the device that Dr Bruce’s team has designed can be a mere one-eighth to one-tenth the size and weight of modern batteries, while still carrying the same charge. Making such a battery is also expected to be cheaper. Lithium cobalt oxide accounts for 30% of the cost of a lithium-ion battery. Air, however, is free.
Energy: Batteries that draw oxygen from the air could provide a cheaper, lighter and longer-lasting alternative to existing designs
Illustration by Belle Mellor
MOBILE phones looked like bricks in the 1980s. That was largely because the batteries needed to power them were so hefty. When lithium-ion batteries were invented, mobile phones became small enough to be slipped into a pocket. Now a new design of battery, which uses oxygen from ambient air to power devices, could provide even an smaller and lighter source of power. Not only that, such batteries would be cheaper and would run for longer between charges.
Lithium-ion batteries have two electrodes immersed in an electrically conductive solution, called an electrolyte. One of the electrodes, the cathode, is made of lithium cobalt oxide; the other, the anode, is composed of carbon. When the battery is being charged, positively charged lithium ions break away from the cathode and travel in the electrolyte to the anode, where they meet electrons brought there by a charging device. When electricity is needed, the anode releases the lithium ions, which rapidly move back to the cathode. As they do so, the electrons that were paired with them in the anode during the charging process are released. These electrons power an external circuit.
Peter Bruce and his colleagues at the University of St Andrews in Scotland came up with the idea of replacing the lithium cobalt oxide electrode with a cheaper and lighter alternative. They designed an electrode made from porous carbon and lithium oxide. They knew that lithium oxide forms naturally from lithium ions, electrons and oxygen, but, to their surprise, they found that it could also be made to separate easily when an electric current passed through it. They exposed one side of their porous carbon electrode to an electrolyte rich in lithium ions and put a mesh window on the other side of the electrode through which air could be drawn. Oxygen from the air took the place of the cobalt oxide.
When they charged their battery, the lithium ions migrated to the anode where they combined with electrons from the charging device. When they discharged it, lithium ions and electrons were released from the anode. The ions crossed the electrolyte and the electrons travelled round the external circuit. The ions and electrons met at the cathode, and combined with the oxygen to form lithium oxide that filled the pores in the carbon.
Because the oxygen being used by the battery comes from the surrounding air, the device that Dr Bruce’s team has designed can be a mere one-eighth to one-tenth the size and weight of modern batteries, while still carrying the same charge. Making such a battery is also expected to be cheaper. Lithium cobalt oxide accounts for 30% of the cost of a lithium-ion battery. Air, however, is free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)