Archaeologists in France have discovered the oldest known bust of Julius Caesar - at the bottom of a river. Most busts of the Roman leader were made after his death and portray a divinely perfect man. This one is unusual - in fact, unique - in having been made during his lifetime. And it shows a 50-something man with wrinkles and a receding hairline.

Caesar was extremely touchy about his hair. The Romans were very unforgiving about physical imperfection. That's why Claudius was hidden away for so long, the shame of his family. Julius Caesar was taunted about his thinning hair by his enemies, and did his best never to be seen without a concealing laurel wreath.

Which raises an interesting question. It's one thing having one's imperfections revealed by a snapshot. But a laboriously carved marble bust? Was this produced by some kind of paparazzi sculptor?

It is possible that the owner of the bust had a bronze laurel wreath made to disguise the baldness. Roman women often had hairpieces created for their own likenesses, to ensure their busts were sculptures in the height of fashion. Nevertheless, the warts an' all style is intriguing. 

The French archaeologists have a number of ideas about how the bust wound up at the bottom of a river - perhaps, thrown there by the owner of the bust when it became dangerous to be associated with the dictator (possibly after his assassination); or discarded by someone with republican sentiments.

But is it possible Caesar himself was responsible for its disposal? Maybe they should take another look at that river bed. They may find a skeleton with a chisel in its bony fingers.

Maybe it's ironic. Or a prank of some sort. Putting a comedy politician like Boris Johnson in charge of anything would certainly suggest a sense of humour. But as Mayor of London? Come on, that's just not funny.

Not that I was ever entirely a fan of Ken Livingstone. He had the ability to act like a prat. When he did so, however, it was usually because he was pursuing an idea in which he genuinely believed. Ken was always driven by a desire to do the best for London, as he saw it. And he is a political player, a man who knows how to get things done and is willing to be unpopular (viz the Congestion Charge).

But Boris? Oh dear.

Of course, we live in an age of celebrity, an age in which image counts for more than ability. When it comes to choosing a mayor, it would appear that Londoners (and I used to be one of them) prefer someone who can make them laugh (as opposed to someone capable of tackling the problems of housing, congestion, public transport, polution, etc). I'm surprised they even bothered with a full-blown election. Maybe they could have elected him via a radio phone-in or a quiz in a woman's magazine.

I guess time will tell whether Boris turns out simply to be the affable, amusing but largely pointless buffoon he appears to be, or whether he can actually do the job. I'm not making any bets either way. I'm just glad that, after having lived in London for 24 years, I'm now a long, long way from the city.

At first sight, the new logo for the UK Government's Office of Government Commerce (OGC) seems unremarkable. In fact, one might reasonably complain about them having spent money on it. After all, any one of us could have come up with such a dull, text-based design. Here it is:

But wait! As The Register pointed out, the logo is worth another look. Specifically, it's worth a look with your head tilted to the left. Oh hell, we'll save you the trouble. Here it is rotated:

Now what do you see?

According to The Register's story, an OGC spokesthing has claimed that the logo "is not inappropriate to an organisation that's looking to have a firm grip on government spend".

If you pay attention to such things, you'll soon realise, while browsing the blogosphere, that very few of the images you see are created by the people whose pages you're visiting. Image theft is rampant, to the extent that even those who realise it is wrong - that is, actually unlawful - seem to feel that it is now such common practice as to be acceptable. So why care?

Those, like me, who still find the energy to complain about this risk sounding like those godawful anti-piracy videos that annoy everybody watching DVDs. But I can't help feeling there is a qualitative difference. There are no photographers as rich as the Hollywood corporations, and none that pull down fees like the big stars.

And to be honest, it isn't even the potential income loss that bothers me. That's extremely hard to quantify, though it is a worry for anyone trying to carve a living from photography. No, it's the attitude of some of these image thieves that makes me both angry and sad.

Many images are stolen because someone wants a nice picture to illustrate a blog post and they cruise around the net until they find something suitable. I suspect the majority don't even realise they're stealing. This is wrong, but it's still not the kind of theft that annoys me most.

Some bloggers find an image they think is amazing and put it on their own site. Of course, they could have simply pointed visitors to the photographer's site: that way, the photographer, whose work the blogger so admires, would benefit from the traffic. But no, I guess that wouldn't satisfy the blogger's sense of self-importance. 

But the really annoying petty thievery is the kind where someone fills a post with a selection of images, adds a brief comment that amounts to little more than "hey look at these, they're cool" and then sits back to watch the Diggs or the Google Adsense clicks build up. (Incidentally, this means that Google itself is benefiting from this theft.)

The sheer indolence is breathtaking. What they are saying is this: "I have no thoughts in my head, I have nothing to say, I cannot create anything original of my own, but here's some excellent work by other people - now you can admire how brilliant I am for showing you this." 

Often, this is couched in terms of 'honouring' the photographers concerned. Right. As if these talented people will feel the slightest honour from having some creatively challenged, slackass blogger steal their work. And all too often, the thief doesn't even have the decency, or IQ, to credit the photographers. (Though let's be clear, a credit, even a link to the photographer's site, is not sufficient recompense. This is still theft.)

All these worthless bloggers are doing is attempting to cover themselves in glory using the hard work, talent, imagination and skill of other people - presumably because the blogger registers zero on the scale for all those attributes. War pictures feature frequently, which means that the bloggers are also taking advantage of the risks and hardships the photographer has endured in creating these images.

Most, if not all, of the photographers whose work is exploited in this way are freelance. They survive by being paid for the images they create. The general rule with stock photography is that the value of an image is diminished each time it is used - because potential buyers of imagery do not want to use photographs that everyone has seen before. By stealing photographers' work in this way, bloggers are making it harder for those photographers to earn a living from their efforts.

This is especially ironic with those blog posts that purport to show the images because they 'respect' or 'admire' either the photographer or the work. I saw one particular post where the blogger displayed a number of documentary images - many of them quite famous and iconic - alongside some pompous piffle about bringing the images to the world's attention and 'supporting' the work of the photographers. In fact, the cumulative effect of this kind of lazy pilfering is to make it more difficult for documentary photographers to make a living. In other words, these bloggers are helping to kill the kind of photography they claim to admire. This is no exaggeration: editorial photography is under threat of extinction (the subject of a blog post I'm preparing at the moment).

These bloggers fall into a number of categories. Some are simply ignorant of copyright laws. That's no excuse, but occasionally, when their transgression is pointed out to them, they are at least willing to correct it.

Others have a dangerously little knowledge. When challenged, they will claim that the pictures are being used under 'fair use' provisions. This is, of course, complete nonsense. Fair use does not allow such publication of complete images, and never has. Even where the image is being 'reviewed', permission is needed to reproduce it. These bloggers can be among the more arrogant because they think they know something about copyright law when, in fact, they are almost entirely ignorant of how it operates.

Then there are those who know they are committing copyright theft and simply don't care. Occasionally, they will try to justify their arrogance with some internet-era gibberish like 'information wants to be free' (the mantra of those whose livelihood does not depend on intellectual property rights - that is, people who only take and consume, who don't create). Typically, these people regard copyright itself as somehow old-fashioned or even evil. I suspect the majority are adolescents (in mental capacity, if not age) who feel they should have whatever they want, when they want it.

From time to time, I leave a comment on these sites pointing out what the blogger has done. The response is often the kind of sub-literate, adolescent outburst that makes one wonder whether the internet is the natural habitat of Tourette Syndrome sufferers. Of course, given the degree of laziness, arrogance and stupidity that the bloggers have already demonstrated in making these posts, a high level of immaturity in dealing with those who point out their errors isn't really surprising.

All ecosystems have their parasites, and the internet is no different. What's needed is some mechanism for pest control. Quite what that would be, I've no idea, but perhaps it's time to stop putting up with this particular nuisance. 

The fact that Boeing lost a multi-billion dollar military contract to a European organisation, EADS, has caused near apoplexy among some Congressmen. This must be because they are ignorant of how today's military hardware market operates. It is also deeply hypocritical.

The $35 billion deal for airborne tankers went to a consortium of EADS and US firm Northrop Grumman. The aircraft itself will be based on an Airbus airframe.

The most immediate sign of hypocrisy comes from Boeing itself. It has long railed against what it seems as unfair state subsidies that it says Airbus receives from the French and German governments. These, they claim, give Airbus an unreasonable advantage in the civil aircraft market. But Boeing has always refused to acknowledge that it is itself sustained by its own government. Military contracts have often kept Boeing afloat and overseas competitors know that they can't compete with the Seattle-based firm in that market. Until now.

And, of course, the first time Boeing is beaten in such a competition it starts whining and demanding the same kind of protectionism it has so often denounced in Europe. 

There are other double standards at play here, too.

For many years, the US has been selling - some might say pushing - its military systems to foreign countries. That's why you see US fighters being flown by Dutch or Spanish pilots. And it's not just the big stuff, such as planes and missiles. Communication systems, command and control systems, sensors, right down to component sub-systems, have found their way from the US into military forces around the world.

Indeed, the US relies on this. Foreign sales don't just bring in foreign currency, they also help achieve economies of scale, so that America's own military can better afford these systems. Some products, like the upcoming F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (which has attracted many millions in foreign investment) would be prohibitively expensive otherwise.

It's not quite as simple as flogging foreign armies some kit. There are plenty of items that US firms are not allowed to export, for simple and understandable reasons of national security. Or they can export them only to certain countries. These restrictions are covered by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which have been known to cause immense frustration and irritation among the allies of the US - but mostly when they are prevented from obtaining some useful piece of equipment they would dearly love to buy.

In addition, most deals involve some - often quite considerable - 'offset'. This is the principle by which at least some portion of the money paid by the foreign government gets to stay in their own country. Typically, a local subcontractor will be given the task of manufacturing parts, assembling systems or acting as a consultant or integrator. There are times when the offset reaches 100 per cent, but the US vendor still benefits from the sustainment of jobs in the US through support and development contracts, as well as those economies of scale. 

So it's a complex picture, but one from which the US has greatly benefited for years. Occasionally, this has been at the expensive of indigenous defence companies who find themselves outpriced or simply outmanoeuvred politically. Home-grown technologies have sometimes been sacrificed for no better reason than maintaining some perceived 'special relationship' with the US. And there are those who fear that this reliance on US-based technology undermines the ability of a country's armed forces to act in an independent manner. In fact, such 'sovereign capability' is now very high on the agenda of most governments: the UK, for example, is making very sure that, even if it does buy some F-35 aircraft, it will be able to maintain and develop them itself.

For some people in the US to complain that the flow of arms has been reversed is therefore somewhat arrogant. It is also somewhat too late.

The US is the bastion of globalisation, and one effect of this is to erode protectionism - the very kind some Congresscritters seem keen to maintain. And the US armed forces already shop abroad. The Stryker armoured vehicle, for example, is a mainstay of the US Army. And while it might be built and sold by General Dynamics, it actually originates from MOWAG, a Swiss firm.

Similarly, the US President (whoever he or she may be) will soon be dropping on to the White House lawn in an Italian helicopter. Lockheed Martin won the contract to replace the current, ageing 'Marine One' helicopters with the US101. And while they trumpeted its benefits for US industry (and it will be largely US-made), one can't escape the fact that it is, at heart, an Agusta EH-101. That airframe, as part of a joint venture between Agusta and the UK's Westland,  also formed the basic platform for the Merlin helicopter, operated by the British Army and Royal Navy. And the development of that project created skills and jobs in the UK which will be used to support the US101. So the US programme is good news for both British and Italian jobs.

Boeing itself, made a huge number of offset deals for both the 777 and 787 Dreamliner. Large parts of these aircraft are now made outside the US. Airlines, many of them part- or wholly-owned by foreign governments, see no reason why the millions or billions of dollars they're spending on the aircraft should not go some way to supporting their own jobs and industries.

Offset and multinational projects are a fact of life and the inevitable outcome of globalisation. It's about time some people in the US woke up to the fact that they can no longer dictate terms - they are members of a global market, not its owner.