Even more absurd, to me at least, is the fact that other professors at the college have been warned that if they do not comply to working together with Rekkedal they may be losing their job since they then “refuse to do their job”, which is ground for firing. One last thing is that they, the other professors and everybody else involved, are not allowed to talk to anybody about this, which obviously includes the media. Recently Rekkedal himself accused on of the college’s leading professors for offensive treatment against him when the professor questioned that Rekkedal’s work was still being used in the education.

Now, why does this affect me and why do I care? Well first of all I was actually thinking about applying for a course in military history at Försvarshögskolan, something I have now decided not to do because of how the board has handled this issue. Secondly, I honestly find this offensive. There are a few rules in scientific research, one of the most basic ones is the fact that you should never plagiarise and always clearly state what work is your own and what you’ve used from other sources. If the professor in a class can’t even follow this really simple and very important rule how will that look to the students? Morally, he would not be able to, in any way, argue with the students on this issue and that’s not how it should be to study on an university level to say the least. Thirdly, I feel sorry for the other researchers at the academy. Any work they do together with Rekkedal will in the scientific community be seen as nothing more than trash and possible even as copyright infringement, there is absolutely no credibility in work that has the name NM Rekkedal next to it. For the rector to say that those that do not work with him may lose their job is so disrespectful to the honest working scientific researchers.

Things like this really pisses me off. Cite your sources, acknowledge the great research that has already been done by others and if you can’t follow this, the last thing you should be doing is teaching classes. Försvarshögskolan, I’m embarrassed by your total lack of scientific research principals and you’ve definitely lost a potential student here.

Sources:
From SR: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
Fron DN: [1]

It’s in no way Chrome’s fault, which in fact is a pretty stable and good browser. But without my add-ons — like Adblock Plus, Greasemonkey and NoScript — the entire experience was so different from what I’m used to. Every page I visited was full of the most horrible flash ads, both with and without audio noise, and on sites like YouTube the comments took up more space than the video for example.

While on that subject, as I assume most people have discovered already, the comments on YouTube almost makes you lose faith in humanity if you still had any. I’m quite serious, during my Chrome test drive I watched some of the j-vlog videos I subscribe to via RSS and even the most helpful and friendly videos were full of several hundred hateful, sexist and just terrible comments.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, but for some reason it did in at least a little bit. I’m so used to having comments hidden (with Greasemonkey) on sites like YouTube, and if anything this is a comment about myself. Anonymity and the mentality that leads to for example Godwin’s Law is something that shouldn’t surprise me, neither should ads do. But for some reason it did.

While writing this article I watched a clip, incidentally on YouTube, of the wonderful Stephen Fry when he was on The Graham Norton Show. Fry is a little bit better with the words than me and his thoughts on this subject sums up mine as well pretty perfectly:

I love the online world [...] but there is a downside, it literally is the downside. If you look at someone’s blog or you look at a YouTube film or something like that it’s filled with comments. People who have decided to be unutterably mean, unutterably resentful and angry and bitter and insulting and rude. That is the unwanted dead caterpillar in the otherwise lovely salad of the Internet. — Stephen Fry

Blinking lime green ads — in 2010?

Ads on the Internet are a joke to be honest, and I see no moral or otherwise problem with disabling them. Some argue that you’re robbing the website from possible revenue, but I’m not in any way going to buy stuff from ads. I’ve never clicked on a single ad since I stopped using Netscape in the mid 90’s or so. When I watch something on the TV I just skip the commercials (since I rarely watch stuff live on the TV) and when reading a magazine I don’t even glance at the ads. Sure, if I see something in the corner of my eye it will get into my subconscious and if I block the ad entirely that won’t happen — but I don’t see that as a valid point.

When I’m reading a magazine the ads are often still photos or of a minimalistic character, but on the net everything is moving, blinking, screaming or if all else fails — everything at once. This is one of the reasons I was surprised when I used Chrome, because I thought we had left most of those ads behind us. That wasn’t the case it seems like, during my rather short test drive I saw several blinking lime green “This is no joke! You’re the 457,254,567,234 visitor to this site, click here to claim your prize” or something along those lines as well as “Punch/Shoot/Hit the [something]” with some crap moving all over the screen.

I know marketing is impossible to figure out, which is why there are so many failed campaigns and oh so many laughable examples. However, when you see some of that you still go What The Fuck. It’s one thing when you are seeing these ads when you’re on an obscure website or someones blog, but when you see them on some of the largest news papers websites it’s just unbelievable. These are companies that have dealt with ads and marketing for decades if not a century.

I’m all for companies making money and selling their product, and without ads many of the websites and podcasts I view/listen to wouldn’t be available. I’m all for new methods of them trying to sell me stuff, I understand the whole capitalistic part. What I don’t understand is why we are stuck with the same concepts and ideas that were present in the 90’s. Sure, back then it was animated GIF-files and now they are using Flash, but they way they are marketing is basically unchanged. This goes more or less for all medias, as I think the commercial breaks on TVs are dying as well.

According to the Qikipedia (the QI Elves Twitter feed) “85% of the clicking on web ads is done by 8% of the people. In the past two years, the number of clicks has halved.” and “A web ad with a 0.44% click-through rate is considered a success“. This if anything goes to show just how much I think this advertisement business model needs to change, it’s outdated and not only has it a low success rate but it negatively affects the web experience for the majority of its users.

All in all I’m glad I have my add-ons, but I would be happier if I didn’t have to use them to have a decent web experience. This goes for comments as well as ads. But then again I doubt the comments bit will change, since humans have always been assholes and combined with the somewhat false sense of anonymity it goes a long way… Just wanted to vent a bit.

New information has surfaced, actually some of this information became known to the local police on the very same day the website went online. The problem is that poachers use the service to track the wolfs in order to hunt them down. Wolfs are always a hot debate topic here in Sweden and there are several groups that would like to see the wolfs gone, or at least diminish them.

I think this is a perfect example of why it’s important to think your design through before you release it. Give people the ability to track certain animals and there are bound to be consequences—I for one would have loved the service so that I could be able to find great locations where I can find and photograph these beautiful animals. Instead of protecting the dogs the result was an illegal hunt of wolfs. It’s crucial in the design process to sit down and try to picture all the different effects the design might produce. Obviously, this is easier said then done—but it’s the designers obligation to do so.

If “we” as designers are narrow minded and only think about one possible usage of the service we are designing, then we have failed. We have an ethical responsibility when we’re designing. It’s impossible to foresee all different affects an application or a system might have. Everybody is individual and due to several varying factors the end user will use the product in unpredictable ways. That being said, even I would have raised my hand in a meeting during the design process if I was developing the aforementioned service. It’s such an obvious vicious usage of the service that I’m right out shocked that it was even released.

Source (in Swedish): SR.se: Tjuvjägare utnyttjade vargwebb