Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Paul-Robert Archibald
Geek... need I say more?
Geek... need I say more?


Action Launcher 3 mini-review
Lots of features gone...

Backup & Restore (can't even restore/import from AL2)
Icon pack support
Dock separator style
Screen padding

Home screen page limited to 1? WTF! (This I can't understand at all, unless I'm just being dense and can't figure it out)

On the upside, chromecast credit meant this shocking upgrade didn't actually cost me anything.

One last thing, IAP means no refund, so be warned!
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
While I appreciate the calm tones I feel that this video does not give an accurate assessment of the situation and furthermore continues to push a harmful narrative that really doesn't seem to have too much basis in reality.

So it's important to really know the history behind it. The catalyst was a long post by an ex of an indie developer called Zoe Quinn. In this post, it alleged a conflict of interest between a Kotaku journalist and the developer. This information turned out to be inaccurate to a point, it alleged that the journalist (Nathan Grayson) had written a positive review of the game while in a romantic relationship with the developer. This is not true, however what is true is that Grayson wrote an article using Quinn as a source on March 31st of this year, regarding a game jam, in which he promoted her game. In "early April", the two began a romantic relationship. Editor in Chief at Kotaku Stephen Totilo claims he does not see a problem with this, since the romantic relationship began after the article was written, however many people including myself disagree, since it is unlikely that the relationship suddenly sprang out of nowhere and that a friendship was in place prior to this. I and many supporting Gamergate believe this should have been disclosed or that Grayson should have recused himself from writing this article. Kotaku disagrees. However, while this and many other examples of corruption and nepotism are core to what keeps Gamergate moving along, it wasn't even called Gamergate back then, it was called Quinnspiracy or later, Burgers and fries. These two names were abandoned because people wanted to disassociate with Zoe Quinn and any trolling and harassment that had gone on and focus on ethical issues. After 10+ articles were released in the course of one day, claiming "gamers are dead" and using hurtful and incendiary language to condemn the identity of many innocent people, #Gamergate exploded, after the term was coined by actor Adam Baldwin. It was a consumer backlash against anti-consumer articles. Many people felt angry and alienated by them and in my opinion rightfully so.

In the course of this, Anita Sarkeesian released her latest video and inserted herself into the discussion. She published alleged death threats from an anonymous internet troll and then decided to go on the offensive, repeatedly associating these threats with the entirity of those involved with Gamergate and getting directly involved in the hashtag by posting constantly negative attacks. She has nothing to do with journalistic ethics, however she inserted herself into the discussion. I personally have no doubt that she received these threats, death-threats are unfortunately very common online but I do doubt their credibility and who exactly sent them. We simply do not know. The problem with a hashtag is that there are no entry requirements. Anyone can post and claim to be associated with the movement, however it is leaderless and the actions of one person being tied to the entire movement seem fairly illogical and require some serious use of the guilt by association fallacy. In response to a one-sided narrative by the media, proclaiming all those involved to be misogynist, disgusting white male sexists, groups of those claiming to be part of Gamergate raised money for charity, hunted down and reported harassment efforts and even tracked down someone who had been sending Sarkeesian death-threats. Unfortunately Sarkeesian has refused to take this information and use it to press charges for some reason.

The idea that in order to discuss journalistic ethics you must disassociate yourself from harassment is a frustrating one. These people already tried that multiple times. They raised over $70,000 for a campaign by the Fine Young Capitalists to help women make videogames. Critics called it "weaponised charity". They raised money for anti-bullying causes after Gawker employee Sam Biddle, tweeted to his tens of thousands of followers that he endorsed the bullying of nerds. They changed hashtags twice to disassociate from harassment but what good does that do when the entire media is against them? Ashly, you say that we cannot talk about ethics until we stop harassing people. I say, we cannot talk about ethics because you won't stop talking about us allegedly harassing people. What is the first law of the internet? DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. By pushing this harassment narrative, you are giving these awful people victory and marginalizing the moderate majority who do want a serious conversation to happen about journalistic ethics. I would strongly urge you to come to the table and discuss ethical issues, freeze out those who would harass others, just as popular Gamergate forums like Kotakuinaction on Reddit have been doing for months. This industry has problems that need addressing but this is not the way to go about it. The longer the harassment narrative goes on, the worse this gets, the more frustrated alienated gamers of all races, genders, sexual orientations and creeds involved in this to improve their hobby and passion become.

Do we honestly believe this is an organized effort to drive women out of the industry? If that were true, why on earth would the targets be a controversial Youtube critic and two practically unknown indie developers? Wouldn't people be trying to drive out women of note in the industry who work at major studios and have real influence over the direction of games? If this is a harassment campaign aimed at driving women out of gaming, it is the single most unsuccessful one in the history of mankind.

Indeed, there is far more to this. Harassment has happened, I will not deny that, but it is not the responsibility of the moderate majority to apologise for the behavior of trolls. It is indeed partly the responsibility of the media for encouraging said trolls and rewarding their behavior. 

Yes, we want to talk about ethics. There are plenty of examples that need resolving. This all started with Nathan Graysons relationship, Kotaku believes he did nothing wrong, some of us disagree. Patricia Hernandez of Kotaku wrote glowing articles about developers she was close friends with and in one case, even lived with as a roommate. No apologies were given, disclosure was given retroactively. Said journalist also wrote an article accusing a card game developer (nothing to do with videogames btw) of rape and after he defended himself, complained that he hadnt done enough to start a positive conversation about "rape culture". This is a man who had a potentially life-destroying allegation held over his head and Kotaku had no issue writing about it and presuming his guilt. Danielle of Polygon gave Gone Home, a game which her friend was the sound designer of, a 10/10 perfect score, she did not disclose her relationship with said person. Destructoid reviewed Borderlands 2 for which the brother of Ashley Burch was a writer and also an ex-staff member of Destructoid. This was only disclosed much later when they fell under scrutiny, they had not thought to disclose it prior. A group called GamejournoPros with a large number of "competiting" journalists allegedly colluded to blacklist a journalist called Alistair Pinsof and also discussed sending letters of support and gifts to Zoe Quinn, clearly not realising the wall that should exist between subject and journalist. Indeed one of them even referred to her as a colleague. The release of so many articles proclaiming gamers dead on the same day raised questions of collusion that have yet to be answered. 

However, if you need real proof that this is about ethics, you need only look at the following. The Escapist, Polygon and Kotaku all revised their ethics policies soon after this began in direct response to it. IGN and various Youtubers have either published ethics codes or intend to do so. If this wasn't about ethics, why would you do that? 
I call on everyone to reject harassment in all its forms, but simultaneously realise that the few do not represent the many. Do not engage in guilt by association and instead treat people as people, not some labeled box of sub-humans online for you to attack and dismiss. Gamers are very much alive and they are more diverse than ever. It disturbs me greatly that anyone would claim otherwise or even worse, attack their identity. Gamers deserve better media, everyone deserves better media. Let's discuss how to make that happen and let's not indulge the whims of trolls and bigots.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Vulnerable man starved to death after benefits were cut
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
People seriously need to see the facts not the FUD of mass media
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Scottish independence: currency union warning 'backfires' on Westminster
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Powerful Image of Kiev's Independence Square Before and After the Riots
Add a comment...

Post has attachment


Scotland is at long last ready for independence.

After 307 years of a failed union - failed for Scotland and not London - the people are now ready to accept the future.

During the last referendum on devolution, which was only derailed by the 40% clause, Scots voted by a majority FOR and got nothing.

The country was ill-informed, misled and browbeaten by both the politicians in power and the media.

Exactly like now.

Well, no nothing like now really. Scotland as a nation and as a people have fundamentally changed from those "too wee, too poor" dark days of deceit. They are more confident, they have self-belief in making their own choices in how they want their country to be run.

Scotland's economy, largely re-shaped and improved since the SNP gained power - and many Yes supporters are not fans of the party nor their leader we know- has transformed how Scots actually view politics. Not individual personalities, politicians nor parties.

After years of nothing with the desperately impotent Labour- Liberal coalition hiding in a building named Scottish Executive we were shown how politicians who actually gave a damn about their country and not their careers could actually make a difference to the lives of all Scots. Not just the select few in positions of privilege.

For decades voters would stay at home using the excuse that "nothing changes", "my vote makes no difference".

And then it did.

Out with Executive. In with Parliament.

When the SNP gained a landslide, a vote which gave them more seats than all three pro-unionist parties combined, Scotland was not just voting for a Nationalist Party. They were already voting Yes. They were voting for fairness in politics.

We wanted free personal care for the elderly. We wanted to preserve the NHS. We wanted free education. 

And we were willing to pay for it.

If that meant using the only tool in the bag, the SNP, to get it, so be it. The entire Better Together campaign and Westminster in particular cannot see the difference in voting IN the SNP while not voting FOR the SNP. It has long been recognised Scots vote in a more intelligent and somewhat complicated way. 

And it's why the Nos are "ahead" in the polls. The Yes campaign was designed to work in exactly the same way as the SNP landslide - behind in the polls and deliver a massive victory.

Another change from the dark days of deceit has been the invention of the internet.

Scots no longer have to accept either side of the argument, they can research it for themselves. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the younger voter who arms himself with information and then asks the question. And spots a lie a mile off.

Watch any debate and the standard of question from audiences has risen beyond anything we ever had in devolution debates. One particular one which stumped the unionists in BBC 2's Referendum Debate on Tuesday was "If Scotland votes No what powers and plans do you have?"


Scots are not understood by many. The Irish "get us", Yorkshire seems to, Northern England do too.

Westminster politicians and their advisers do not.

Which is why each time they deliver a hugely expensive "paper" on such and such telling us we are better sticking with them the swing to Yes increases. When they tell England to phone Scotland and say "Please stay" the phones remain silent. And the Yes support increases.

But nothing can ever increase an Undecided or No voter's decision to Yes faster than the threat of a bully and unfairness.

After 307 years of loyalty in every UK war ever fought, of providing more in tax revenue than we ever see coming back north, of suffering the insult of having nuclear weapons sitting next to the largest centre of population in our Country, (but you get 400 jobs and a pat on the head) of our manufacturing base being destroyed and our oil revenues used to fund 30 years of unemployment and being told we are better together now we get the truth.

"If you decide you want to democratically vote to become a sovereign nation like over 60 others have done before you go ahead.

But you are not having a currency union. You cannot use the pound. You are out of the EU."

We love you (last week).

You are toast (this week).

And here is the problem for No.

This worked in Canada- just - with Quebec.

It worked to a degree with devolution.

It did not work with Norway's 99.5% Yes.

It cannot work now.

The 12 months of scaremongering on higher mobile phone charges on the day the EU announced a cut - failed. 

The threat that inward investment would drop during the run-up to the referendum did not just fail, it was a lie. Inward investment is up, new business start-ups at their highest level.

Scotland's exports are rising.

Our GDP is higher per head than rUK.

We run a balanced budget, Westminster does not.

You could not have named a No campaign any worse than using the word "Better".

It is not in the DNA of Scots to consider themselves better than anyone.

But in 2014 they need only consider themselves equal.

So when they vote Yes it's because they want fairness and equality for 5.3 million people. Not a land of milk and honey.

It's because they no longer want (71%) nuclear weapons on their soil.

They do not want to see the highest fuel prices freezing old people to death whilst surrounded by the largest natural resources in Europe.

They will no longer tolerate having the finest of foods in a country perfectly able to feed itself while food-banks increase.

They will not put up with "austerity" only 40% of which has been applied.

They do not want to see their friends sitting in floods in Somerset for 8 weeks whilst Westminster puts out to tender £1.5-3bn contracts to tart up the Houses of Parliament.

They do not accept a tax on empty rooms on people with nothing and nowhere to move to.

No is unfair.

Yes offers the hope to change.

Without hope, what have we?
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded