Apple’s bungled attempt at mapping (something that should particularly concern its executives) has put maps in the spotlight. Vanessa Thorpe looked at the role that maps play in our society:

• Throughout history the center of the map was a known cultural landmark such as London or Jerusalem.
• Now however with digital maps the individual is at the center of the map, explaining why they have become so popular in recent times.
• Maps also play an important role in children’s literature. The Hobbit, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Treasure Island all prominently featured maps. The Marauder’s Map in Harry Potter also played a pivotal role.
• Map makers have yielded a lot of influence in history and continue to do so in the present. Google mistakenly assigned some territory in Costa Rica to Nicaragua. Nicaraguans then used that mistake as a justification to invade the territory.

Read more about the mountain range that never was, and the future of maps over here.

Source: The Guardian

It turns out that Barack Obama is related to Rush Limbaugh; Robert Pattinson to the original vampire: Vlad III Dracula; and Emma Watson to an actual witch that was burned at the stake. All of these connections were found by Ancestry.com – a website that has come to dominate the genealogy market. Bruce Falconer wrote:

• After porn, genealogy is the most searched topic on the internet.
• White women 55 and older are the most frequent visitors to genealogy sites.
• Ancestry.com has doubled the number of its subscribers since 2009.
• The site is projected to make $480 million this year – which means that it has grown almost 200% in the last five years.
• Its biggest competitor is itself. It owns five of the top 10 genealogy sites, having acquired the most recent one in April.
• Subscribers pay up to $34.95 a month for access to Ancestry.com’s substantial database, which covers 40 countries and 800 years of history.
• Or they can pay $120 an hour (with a minimum of $2,400) for a personalized consultation with a genealogist.

Read more about the future of the industry, Ancestry.com’s humble origins, and the ancient Egyptian village that produced Hitler, Stalin, Darwin, Churchill, Turning, Austen and Lincoln, over here.

Source: Business Week

We’re immersed in a media crazy culture. Could this be affecting our romantic relationships? The Taylor & Francis group reported on a study that suggests that the answer is yes:

• Individuals who think that television portrayals of romance are realistic are less likely to be committed to their own relationships.
• This also affected how they viewed the ‘cost’ – or the lost time and freedom – of the relationship. Those who believe in TV romances believe that the cost of their relationship is high.
• This is concerning because several of the most popular TV shows this year have had important romantic threads.

Read more about the methodology of the study as well as what the author has to say about it over here.

Source: AlphaGalileo Foundation

There’s been a kerfuffle over topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge (the link goes to a Wikipedia section about the controversy. Not the images themselves. We have boundaries!) The Economist looked at what this tells us about the economics of shooting such photos:

• On the one hand recent developments in lens technology and the rise of camera phones have made the job of the paparazzi easier than ever.
• On the other hand these technologies are now widely available to the public and anybody can publish photos of celebrities.
• This surge in competing supply combined with the dropping demand for gossip magazines means that it’s harder than ever to make a living as a paparazzi photographer.
• The right images can still make some serious money though. The topless photos of Kate Middleton could be worth as much as $1.6 million.

Read more about how Prince Harry fits into this, the increasingly harsh regulatory environment, and why Britain isn’t the haven that it used to be over here.

Source: The Economist

The average police officer in England doesn’t carry a gun. Why not? Jon Kelly reported:

• In Britain’s early years the army wore red. To assuage fears that the police would be an oppressive force, they adopted a blue uniform and avoided the use of guns.
• It’d be difficult to arm all of the police today: weapons are expensive, and periodic training even more so – especially in a time of government austerity.
• Officers would also prefer not to have to make the split-second decision of taking somebody’s life.
• Police feel that they would be seen as less approachable if they carried guns.

You can read more about the police units that do carry guns, as well as what the British public feels about it over here.

Source: BBC