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

At its most basic level the Democratic Peace Theory says that democracies behave differently than other countries in the international system. It is generally thought that this is the case because there is something intrinsically good about democracies. David Bosco reports on a study that suggests that democracies do behave differently – but only because it is in their interest to do so. Highlights:

• Compared to non-democratic countries, newly democratic governments are more likely to sign arms control agreements.
• The helps enhance their reputation.
• But more importantly a country’s leader may choose to sign the treaty in a bid to thwart any opposition. By signing onto an arms control agreement the international community will punish anybody who is violating the treaty – and the people violating it are likely to be those that are trying to overthrow the democratic government.
• The strategy is effective. Countries that sign these treaties are less likely to see democracy reversed.

Read more about how arms control treaties are different from human rights treaties, and quotes from the author of the study over here.

Source: Foreign Policy

When you first add somebody on Facebook it turns out that it’s not your profile picture that matters the most in determining how attractive you are perceived as being…it’s the comments underneath. At least according to a study Zoe Fox reported on:

• The more comments on your profile picture the more attractive you’re seen. Not just physically but socially and professionally.
• It’s particularly helpful if the comments are positive.
• This is because we utilize other people’s opinions when forming our own.

Read more about the methodology of the study and what this means for you over here.

Source: Mashable

As the impact of events in Libya continue to reverberate across the United States, Joshua E. Keating looked at how the design of American embassies have evolved over the years:

• An embassy needs to balance between protecting the personnel inside it, and being seen as transparent and open to the people in the host country.
• During the early years America didn’t build its own embassies – it simply bought buildings abroad. This changed in 1926 when an agency was formed to design and build American embassies.
• At the height of The Cold War the United States embraced a modernist architectural design that was the epitome of American swagger.
• Design took a back seat to security in 1983 when 63 people were killed in a suicide bombing at the US embassy in Beirut.
• A committee then created a set of guidelines for embassies to adhere to, to ensure the personnel’s security. However Congress never funded these expensive construction projects, and most embassies didn’t change much.
• This changed in 1998 after 223 people were killed in US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
• After 9/11 the United States ratcheted up security guidelines. A one-size-fits-all “McEmbassy” with stylistically identical designs for “small” “medium” and “large” buildings was created. These designs included high fences and a 100 feet of space between the embassy and the street.
• Since then however America has relaxed its standards a little, allowing for more creative designs that maintain security while elevating form. The planned American embassy in England (pictured above) is an example.

Read more about how architectural norms might change once again in the wake of recent events, examples of the evolution of American embassy design, and what diplomats think about the various developments, over here.

Source: Foreign Policy