Top 16 Highest Paying URL Shortener 2019: Best URL Shortener to Earn Money

1. Bc.vc: Bc.vc is another great URL Shortener Site. It provides you an opportunity to earn $4 to $10 per 1000 visits on your Shortened URL. The minimum withdrawal is $10, and the payment method used PayPal or Payoneer.
   Payments are made automatically on every seven days for earnings higher than $10.00. It also runs a referral system wherein the rate of referral earning is 10%.
   
   • The payout for 1000 views-$10
   • Minimum payout -$10
   • Referral commission-10%
   • Payment method -Paypal
   • Payment time-daily
   
   
2. LINK.TL: LINK.TL is one of the best and highest URL shortener website.It pays up to $16 for every 1000 views.You just have to sign up for free.You can earn by shortening your long URL into short and you can paste that URL into your website, blogs or social media networking sites, like facebook, twitter, and google plus etc.
   One of the best thing about this site is its referral system.They offer 10% referral commission.You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $5.
   
   • Payout for 1000 views-$16
   • Minimum payout-$5
   • Referral commission-10%
   • Payout methods-Paypal, Payza, and Skrill
   • Payment time-daily basis
   
   
3. Short.am: Short.am provides a big opportunity for earning money by shortening links. It is a rapidly growing URL Shortening Service. You simply need to sign up and start shrinking links. You can share the shortened links across the web, on your webpage, Twitter, Facebook, and more. Short.am provides detailed statistics and easy-to-use API.
   It even provides add-ons and plugins so that you can monetize your WordPress site. The minimum payout is $5 before you will be paid. It pays users via PayPal or Payoneer. It has the best market payout rates, offering unparalleled revenue. Short.am also run a referral program wherein you can earn 20% extra commission for life.
   
4. Shrinkearn.com: Shrinkearn.com is one of the best and most trusted sites from our 30 highest paying URL shortener list.It is also one of the old URL shortener sites.You just have to sign up in the shrinkearn.com website. Then you can shorten your URL and can put that URL to your website, blog or any other social networking sites.
   Whenever any visitor will click your shortener URL link you will get some amount for that click.The payout rates from Shrinkearn.com is very high.You can earn $20 for 1000 views.Visitor has to stay only for 5 seconds on the publisher site and then can click on skip button to go to the requesting site.
   
   • The payout for 1000 views- up to $20
   • Minimum payout-$1
   • Referral commission-25%
   • Payment methods-PayPal
   • Payment date-10th day of every month
   
   
5. Cut-win: Cut-win is a new URL shortener website.It is paying at the time and you can trust it.You just have to sign up for an account and then you can shorten your URL and put that URL anywhere.You can paste it into your site, blog or even social media networking sites.It pays high CPM rate.
   You can earn $10 for 1000 views.You can earn 22% commission through the referral system.The most important thing is that you can withdraw your amount when it reaches $1.
   
   • The payout for 1000 views-$10
   • Minimum payout-$1
   • Referral commission-22%
   • Payment methods-PayPal, Payza, Bitcoin, Skrill, Western Union and Moneygram etc.
   • Payment time-daily
   
   
6. Linkrex.net: Linkrex.net is one of the new URL shortener sites.You can trust it.It is paying and is a legit site.It offers high CPM rate.You can earn money by sing up to linkrex and shorten your URL link and paste it anywhere.You can paste it in your website or blog.You can paste it into social media networking sites like facebook, twitter or google plus etc.
   You will be paid whenever anyone will click on that shorten a link.You can earn more than $15 for 1000 views.You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $5.Another way of earning from this site is to refer other people.You can earn 25% as a referral commission.
   
   • The payout for 1000 views-$14
   • Minimum payout-$5
   • Referral commission-25%
   • Payment Options-Paypal,Bitcoin,Skrill and Paytm,etc
   • Payment time-daily
   
   
7. CPMlink: CPMlink is one of the most legit URL shortener sites.You can sign up for free.It works like other shortener sites.You just have to shorten your link and paste that link into the internet.When someone will click on your link.
   You will get some amount of that click.It pays around $5 for every 1000 views.They offer 10% commission as the referral program.You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $5.The payment is then sent to your PayPal, Payza or Skrill account daily after requesting it.
   
   • The payout for 1000 views-$5
   • Minimum payout-$5
   • Referral commission-10%
   • Payment methods-Paypal, Payza, and Skrill
   • Payment time-daily
   
   
8. Oke.io: Oke.io provides you an opportunity to earn money online by shortening URLs. Oke.io is a very friendly URL Shortener Service as it enables you to earn money by shortening and sharing URLs easily.
   Oke.io can pay you anywhere from $5 to $10 for your US, UK, and Canada visitors, whereas for the rest of the world the CPM will not be less than $2. You can sign up by using your email. The minimum payout is $5, and the payment is made via PayPal.
   
   • The payout for 1000 views-$7
   • Minimum payout-$5
   • Referral commission-20%
   • Payout options-PayPal, Payza, Bitcoin and Skrill
   • Payment time-daily
   
   
9. Linkbucks: Linkbucks is another best and one of the most popular sites for shortening URLs and earning money. It boasts of high Google Page Rank as well as very high Alexa rankings. Linkbucks is paying $0.5 to $7 per 1000 views, and it depends on country to country.
   The minimum payout is $10, and payment method is PayPal. It also provides the opportunity of referral earnings wherein you can earn 20% commission for a lifetime. Linkbucks runs advertising programs as well.
   
   • The payout for 1000 views-$3-9
   • Minimum payout-$10
   • Referral commission-20%
   • Payment options-PayPal,Payza,and Payoneer
   • Payment-on the daily basis
   
   
10. Clk.sh: Clk.sh is a newly launched trusted link shortener network, it is a sister site of shrinkearn.com. I like ClkSh because it accepts multiple views from same visitors. If any one searching for Top and best url shortener service then i recommend this url shortener to our users. Clk.sh accepts advertisers and publishers from all over the world. It offers an opportunity to all its publishers to earn money and advertisers will get their targeted audience for cheapest rate. While writing ClkSh was offering up to $8 per 1000 visits and its minimum cpm rate is $1.4. Like Shrinkearn, Shorte.st url shorteners Clk.sh also offers some best features to all its users, including Good customer support, multiple views counting, decent cpm rates, good referral rate, multiple tools, quick payments etc. ClkSh offers 30% referral commission to its publishers. It uses 6 payment methods to all its users.
    • Payout for 1000 Views: Upto $8
    • Minimum Withdrawal: $5
    • Referral Commission: 30%
    • Payment Methods: PayPal, Payza, Skrill etc.
    • Payment Time: Daily
    
    
11. Short.pe: Short.pe is one of the most trusted sites from our top 30 highest paying URL shorteners.It pays on time.intrusting thing is that same visitor can click on your shorten link multiple times.You can earn by sign up and shorten your long URL.You just have to paste that URL to somewhere.
    You can paste it into your website, blog, or social media networking sites.They offer $5 for every 1000 views.You can also earn 20% referral commission from this site.Their minimum payout amount is only $1.You can withdraw from Paypal, Payza, and Payoneer.
    
    • The payout for 1000 views-$5
    • Minimum payout-$1
    • Referral commission-20% for lifetime
    • Payment methods-Paypal, Payza, and Payoneer
    • Payment time-on daily basis
    
    
12. Wi.cr: Wi.cr is also one of the 30 highest paying URL sites.You can earn through shortening links.When someone will click on your link.You will be paid.They offer $7 for 1000 views.Minimum payout is $5.
    You can earn through its referral program.When someone will open the account through your link you will get 10% commission.Payment option is PayPal.
    
    • Payout for 1000 views-$7
    • Minimum payout-$5
    • Referral commission-10%
    • Payout method-Paypal
    • Payout time-daily
    
    
13. Ouo.io: Ouo.io is one of the fastest growing URL Shortener Service. Its pretty domain name is helpful in generating more clicks than other URL Shortener Services, and so you get a good opportunity for earning more money out of your shortened link. Ouo.io comes with several advanced features as well as customization options.
    With Ouo.io you can earn up to $8 per 1000 views. It also counts multiple views from same IP or person. With Ouo.io is becomes easy to earn money using its URL Shortener Service. The minimum payout is $5. Your earnings are automatically credited to your PayPal or Payoneer account on 1st or 15th of the month.
    
    • Payout for every 1000 views-$5
    • Minimum payout-$5
    • Referral commission-20%
    • Payout time-1st and 15th date of the month
    • Payout options-PayPal and Payza
    
    
14. Fas.li: Although Fas.li is relatively new URL Shortener Service, it has made its name and is regarded as one of the most trusted URL Shortener Company. It provides a wonderful opportunity for earning money online without spending even a single $. You can expect to earn up to $15 per 1000 views through Fas.li.
    You can start by registering a free account on Fas.li, shrink your important URLs, and share it with your fans and friends in blogs, forums, social media, etc. The minimum payout is $5, and the payment is made through PayPal or Payza on 1st or 15th of each month.
    Fas.li also run a referral program wherein you can earn a flat commission of 20% by referring for a lifetime. Moreover, Fas.li is not banned in anywhere so you can earn from those places where other URL Shortening Services are banned.
    
15. BIT-URL: It is a new URL shortener website.Its CPM rate is good.You can sign up for free and shorten your URL and that shortener URL can be paste on your websites, blogs or social media networking sites.bit-url.com pays $8.10 for 1000 views.
    You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $3.bit-url.com offers 20% commission for your referral link.Payment methods are PayPal, Payza, Payeer, and Flexy etc.
    
    • The payout for 1000 views-$8.10
    • Minimum payout-$3
    • Referral commission-20%
    • Payment methods- Paypal, Payza, and Payeer
    • Payment time-daily
    
    
16. Adf.ly: Adf.ly is the oldest and one of the most trusted URL Shortener Service for making money by shrinking your links. Adf.ly provides you an opportunity to earn up to $5 per 1000 views. However, the earnings depend upon the demographics of users who go on to click the shortened link by Adf.ly.
    It offers a very comprehensive reporting system for tracking the performance of your each shortened URL. The minimum payout is kept low, and it is $5. It pays on 10th of every month. You can receive your earnings via PayPal, Payza, or AlertPay. Adf.ly also runs a referral program wherein you can earn a flat 20% commission for each referral for a lifetime.
    

Storium Theory: Questions And Answers

A while back, I wrote a post on making trouble: The technique by which players could elaborate on the dangers or problems their characters encounter as they wrote the story of a challenge, rather than just leaving the troubles to what the narrator initially established.


When you're writing on a challenge, you're writing not just your own character's story but the story of the challenge itself. I've already written a great deal on the need to write not just your character's actions, but the results of those actions, and how those results impact the challenge going forward.

I've also written on the need to leave things open for other players to use.

Today, I'd like to take another look at that, from a slightly different angle: Questions.

When you are writing any story, the thing that gets readers involved is questions. You establish questions early on, and as the story goes on, you provide answers to those questions. That's the cycle of a story. Create mystery or uncertainty in the early going, and provide truth and certainty later on. I think we tend to understand that in writing pretty naturally - it's easy to get the idea that for the story in general, for instance, I would be starting out a story asking the question of "Who can defeat Doctor Fear?" and end up answering it with "Bravery Man can defeat Doctor Fear!" by the end.

Silly superhero names aside...we get that part, right?

But smaller parts of a story follow the same cycle. Challenges, for instance, are all about questions and answers.

The existence of the challenge itself presents a question. Usually, the answer is in the form of one of the final outcomes of the challenge, as written by whoever plays the final card. But that isn't the only question and answer cycle that can be contained in a challenge.

As I've mentioned in prior articles, telling the story of the challenge is up to the players once it is established...and thus, the players have the opportunity to define further questions asked by the challenge, and to answer those questions.

This goes back, somewhat, to the concept of making your own trouble, but questions aren't always about trouble. They're about mystery, or about the unknowns of a challenge. They might be about what's going to happen next...but they might also be about what just happened. Why did it happen? What was the cause? Or, what is the consequence?

The early moves of a challenge are about questions. The later moves are about answers.

To put it another way, you don't want to get too definitive too early.

If you're playing a Strength card on a challenge, you want to move the challenge in a positive direction related to the Outcomes. That's fine, that's expected, that's what you should do. But you also want to look at where, exactly, you are in the challenge's story.

Is this late in the challenge's story, or early?

Should you be wrapping up challenge elements? Or is this the point where the story of the challenge is still being established?

If this is the second card play of a nine-card challenge, well, you're probably still more at the establishing point of the challenge's tale. Everything still feels uncertain, unclear. Even if you're moving the challenge in a positive direction, it shouldn't feel stable. The gains shouldn't feel firm.

There should be questions.

The gains made by Strength plays feel uncertain, perhaps even risky. There are open questions about how they can be maintained. The positive movement of the challenge feels tentative.

Save solid gains for later in the challenge, or especially for points where based on the Strength/Weakness balance of a challenge, it feels unlikely (or even impossible) for it to turn back to Weak. Late in a challenge, when there's three Strengths on it and only one Weakness with one or two cards left to go, that's the time to do something like managing to fell the enemy commander and drive the army into disarray, or find the one solid lead that gets you to the person who knows what you need to know - and all you have to do is convince him to share.


The same can be said of Weaknesses, too! When a challenge is in the early going, Weakness plays are about establishing the potential for things to become very bad. They're about putting your character into trouble, or having your character cause a problem that might become truly devastating in time. If the second card play of a nine-card challenge leaves the allied lines entirely routed, or leaves one of the player characters down and out...that might be pushing things too far. But towards the end of a challenge, especially when the Weaknesses have the Strengths outnumbered, well, those might just be exactly what is called for.

Depending, of course, on the nature of the challenge and the outcomes!

So...what you want, in the early going, are questions. Uncertain situations, things that are still a little up in the air. Maybe they're trending one way, or maybe the other. Or maybe, especially with neutral cards, they're totally uncertain. But...they're questions. They're situations that still need to be resolved. Mysteries that still need their truth.

When I say "questions," now...I don't mean literal, straight-up questions, worded as such. I don't mean that you write in, "Mighty Arnbjorg struck forth into the enemy lines and drove the defenders back, but has he dared too much? Will the enemy swarm in around him?" That's actually a great question to ask...but that's not how I'm suggesting you write it. If the end of your move leaves you thinking you should really tag on "Find out next episode!" you're probably being a little bit too direct.

Questions are things you draw from a story, not things the story shoves in your face.

So if you're writing that bit, instead, what you do is write about how Arnbjorg's attack drives back the enemy, and they are temporarily stunned and confused by the sudden ferocity of their foe. But the commanders are shouting orders, and the enemy ranks are starting to form up again. The enemy general is shouting to regain order, and pointing his sword at Arnbjorg. The enemy's attention is on him.

The question is understood. Will Arnbjorg's gains be able to be held? Or will the enemy swarm back in and put him in danger now?

And late in the challenge? That's when the answers start coming in force. The final few moves of the challenge introduce answers to the lingering questions of the challenge - the questions asked along the way by other player moves, and finally the questions that established the challenge in the first place.

When you're making moves in the latter half of a challenge, or further, that's when you need to take a good look at what is still out there to be answered. What doesn't feel like it has been resolved? If you aren't writing the final move, don't resolve everything, but maybe there are still some things that are lingering out there and you can wrap something up. Maybe earlier, Arnbjorg was shown fighting for his life and for the line against the enemy after he managed to break in among their defenses...and that situation still feels like it needs an answer. Now's your chance. Do your character's actions stabilize Arnbjorg's gains at last? Or does something go wrong in the attempt and lead the enemy to swarm in at last?

Transform uncertainty to certainty. This situation has now definitely gone right...or definitely gone wrong. There's no longer a feeling that this element of the story can go a different way. Arnbjorg and Skjoldis hold the line solidly, preventing the enemy from gaining access that way...or, Arnbjorg and Skjoldis are forced to withdraw, and the enemy breaks through and can't be driven back that way. An answer.

Now...there's nothing wrong with answering something earlier in the challenge, or questioning something later. This isn't a hard and fast rule. It's a guide. Early in the challenge, tend towards questions. Late in the challenge, tend towards answers.

The reason is...questions provide opportunities. They leave things open for other players. They give inspiration, so someone can further the story of a challenge. Answers, meanwhile, close doors. When a situation is resolved, the part it played in the story is over and players need to look elsewhere for inspiration. So: By asking questions early in a challenge, you provide lots of inspiration for other players to use. But late in a challenge, you don't want to risk leaving dangling plot threads or forcing the final player to wrap up every little bit of a challenge...so it's time to start closing some of the extra doors so that the final player only has the main challenge questions (or close to that) left to resolve.

This isn't the only way to think of a challenge's story, and I don't think it's something you should hold in your head as some kind of sacred, infallible rule...but it's a helpful way to think about how you can write on a challenge, and I think if you take a look at moves - yours, and others - and ask yourself, "What questions are asked?" and "What answers are given?" you will find your challenge writing feeling more like a full, cohesive story.

Ace In The Hole (Wilder, 1951)

"It has the crystal ball, it has the future correct in terms of the impact of the media and how influential and dangerous it would become"
- Spike Lee

Before Alan Pakula depicted how the brave work of investigative journalists Woodward and Berstein helped to expose corruption at the highest level in America, Billy Wilder created a dark and scathing story where dishonesty and immorality laid at the feet of the reporters themselves. Kirk Douglas' Chuck Tatum is a ruthless opportunist who will exploit any situation if it means he can sell more papers. In Ace In The Hole, Chuck is an alcoholic reporter who takes a job at a low key Albuquerque paper after being fired from several other jobs; after months of boring and uneventful assignments, he finally stumbles on his big scoop - a cave-in which traps a local man, Leo (Richard Benedict). Despite rescuers being hours from freeing Leo, Chuck seeks to delay these efforts by convincing them to try a longer, alternate method which will prolong Tatum's media frenzy that he's whipped up. Before long, the area around the cave becomes a circus, quite literally. Hot dog stands and carousels are set up and locals charge visitors entry to the area as it soon becomes a tourist spot where hundreds of people are vying to make a quick buck out of a human tragedy.

Upon it's release, Ace In the Hole was met with less than favourable reviews, no doubt from journalists who believed the portrayal of Chuck Tatum was an exaggerated and unfair representation of their own profession, with the Hollywood Reporter arguing that it offered a 'distorted' study of corruption (Quoted in Sikov, 2017: 326). But was Ace in the Hole really as misanthropic and unrealistic as some critics suggested or was it based on much more truth than people realised? Andrew Sarris said in his famous (now retracted) assessment of Wilder, that the director was "too cynical to believe even his own cynicism" (Quoted in Patterson, 2012), but as Wilder, a man who had worked in the journalism industry himself whilst living in Berlin had realised first hand, Ace In the Hole wasn't at all that far from fact. In Phillip's book Some Like It Wilder: The Life and Controversial Films of Billy Wilder, the author writes about how the director, at at least two points in his life, witnessed the callousness of the media first hand. In one instance, he saw a newspaper cameraman taking pictures at the scene of an auto accident, when Wilder told the man to call an ambulance, the photographer replied "I've got to deliver these pictures to the LA Times". Another encounter involved the moment when a reporter asked Wilder an incredibly insensitive manner "how he felt" when he found out that his mother had died at Auschwitz. With this in mind, it's not difficult to see why the director would take such a pessimistic stance against the industry and the immoral practices by which it sometimes operated.

"Ace in the Hole disturbs journalists because they recognize too much of themselves and their colleagues in the film's loathsome protagonist" - (Shafer, 2007)

Wilder had a knack of course for getting great comedic performances out of his actors, but as was evident with Ray Milland in the Lost Weekend (1945) and Fred MacMurray in The Apartment (1960) & Double Indemnity (1944), he was equally capable of directing actors so that they could expertly portray desperate and dishonourable individuals. Chuck Tatum is immorality personified, and Kirk Douglas plays him as perhaps Wilder's most loathsome 'protagonist'. Soon enough, simply threatening Leo's life to draw out the story isn't enough, he has to fabricate aspects of it to ensure it's as absorbing as possible. Cultural critic William A Henry admitted himself that 'only a few stories, as star reporters have sadly learned, contain enough bite or controversy to impel normal readers' (1981: 138)'. Leo's wife Lorraine (Jan Sterling) selfishly sees her husband's plight as a chance to finally escape her dull life which she resents, as a bored waitress in a run-down New Mexico diner she plans on running away from the small town now that Leo is out of the picture. However, such a desire doesn't fit in with Tatum's own narrative that he's trying to craft - that of the devastated wife longing for the safe return of the man that she loves. Tatum knows that his own carefully crafted narrative will appeal to the masses who are following the story, so he forces her to attend church to pray for him and keep up a loving charade of the distressed wife even though she can't stand Leo, going so far as to slap her so she appears more distressed. Duerfahrd writes that Tatum 'does not want to devour his prey once and for all, the tabloid journalist seeks to endlessly skin his prey through repeatable transmission and consumption' (2010:14), this is because the sensationalism of the story is what is going to enable its longevity, and this is what is going to drum up interest and time for Leo to ensure his work reaches the desks of other more reputable news organisations that he would like to work for.  

"The media follow established narratives. Once there is a storyline, or an ark, the media likes to pick up on it and continue with it" - (Gardner, 2010)

It's clear that negative news sells better than good news does, we have a desire to absorb traumatic events by watching how they unfold. Sixty years down the line it doesn't seem that much has changed when we look at titles such as Nightcrawler (Gilroy, 2014) in which Jake Gyllenhaal's cameraman Lou Bloom acts in a manner that makes him look like Chuck's protege. Here, much like his counterpart, Bloom realises how valuable a story can be if it's manipulated in a manner that preys upon the public's greatest fears. By tailing a group of murderers to a busy area before alerting the police, Bloom makes certain that the ensuing shootout footage he captures will be more exciting for news audiences. Again, is Wilder being too pessimistic when he went down a similar road in 1951? We have seen that the director does recognise the good in individuals when Jack Lemmon's CC Baxter selflessly stands up to his boss Sheldrake in The Apartment, but at the same time, Wilder isn't so naive as to think that everyone is a person of integrity: "They call it [Ace In the Hole] cynical. But you see thousands of people turning up to Idlewild airport to see a plane coming down with a bad landing gear. People clog the runway waiting for it to crash" he has said. Today in 2018, we can look at the most popular news stories of the past 12 months, which includes the Las Vegas shooting, the UK terrorist attacks and North Korea's missile tests and fully acknowledge what Tatum means when he says that "good news is no news".

"We pay attention to bad news, because on the whole, we think the world is rosier than it actually is... this pleasant view of the world makes bad news all the more surprising and salient" - (Stafford, 2014)

At the same time as being an attack on the journalism profession, Billy Wilder seems to be equally mocking us as audience members. No one is safe here. We witness a corrupt sheriff who uses the extra crowds surrounding the mountain as a propaganda opportunity for his own political agenda, draping a banner that says 'Re-Elect Sheriff Kretzer' over the mountain that is holding a man hostage inside. The cars that drive to the site all line up in a fashion resembling a drive-in theatre, and they're all here to gawp at Leo's suffering as if it were a prime-time soap. Before long, 'well wishers' establish what can only be described as a theme song for Leo; as singers perform this music on loudspeaker we might, for a second believe that the song was created in order to raise money for the rescue efforts. However, as eager venders sell the sheet music to the gathering tourists in order to make a penny themselves, it's clear that it's simply a case of people profiting off of a tragedy. Shocking perhaps, but by no means an exaggerated distortion of reality. The recent example of Sony raising the prices of Whitney Houston albums thirty minutes after her death in 2012 is evidence of Wilder's prophetic depiction of how people would react to certain types of news. 

Our morbid fascination with bad news and our tendency to shift our interests depending what ever story is currently getting the most coverage is represented in these 'thousands of heartless dopes' (Sikov, 2017: 313) who flock to the town. Once Tatum announces that Leo has died, the crowds that so quickly descended upon the scene to catch a glimpse of the cave-in rapidly scamper away as if nothing happened at all. They'll go home, soon to forget everything they've seen once the next big tragic story breaks in the papers. In today's era of rolling news, we seem to be particularly susceptible to the same phenomenon; news trends come and go and our interests shift with it. Sunset Boulevard (1950) came just one year before Ace in the Hole, and like it's successor, Wilder showed how audiences, have a tendency to simply forget and move on, in this case, the washed up silent film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) who movie-goers loved at the peak of her career, but who is now seen as an afterthought. Burdeau (2004: 21) writes that these two pictures do in essence tell the same story, 'that of a man who violates a tomb and thinks that he's found a treasure'. 

The opening title cards of Ace In The Hole and the film that came directly before it,  Sunset Boulevard. 

Just as the existence of Sunset Boulevard's title on a curb next to a gutter foreshadows the film's portrayal 

of the sordid side LA, Ace In the Hole's title presence on soil means that it 'establishes itself immediately 

as a gritty film featuring characters with hearts of stone' (Sinyard, 2016).

When Leo's death finally does arrive, it's off screen. A cold and un-sentimental move on Wilder's part that cements truth running through the picture: no-one truly cared about the fate of Leo. This is a lot different to the manner in which Tatum's death is played out. Wilder wasn't particularly known for flashy cinematography or attention grabbing camerawork, especially with Ace in the Hole, here he wanted to simply act as a documentarian since the director was portraying a fictional event that could in his eyes be happening somewhere right now. Yet the last shot, described by director Spike Lee as 'One of the greatest final shots in cinema', is indeed memorable and shocking in its abruptness. Tatum needed Leo to be rescued to ensure his happy ending completed the human interest story he was trying to sell. But instead, Chuck drags himself back to his office in a vain attempt to redeem himself by confessing his crimes; only to collapse from a knife wound, full of remorse and resentment only inches from the camera. While usually such a low angle shot will be employed to make a character appear more powerful, here it's used for the opposite reason; to visually articulate Chuck's fall from grace. 

John Simon said Wilder's cynicism had "no therapeutic, moral, or artistic validity" (Quoted in Kurtz,  1999), but looking back on Ace In The Hole in 2018 one might find that that the reason some people don't find it shocking isn't because it has nothing to say, but because the practices that it depicts are so familiar to us now that we don't find it odd. Ace In The Hole was a personal for Wilder not just because he wrote, directed and produced it, but because he was effectively telling a story that reflected his own profession. Armstrong writes that Tatum's story is a fictional analogy of what Wilder was doing in bringing the story to the screen: 'pulling off his scheme is for Tatum as important as pulling off the film was for Wilder' (2000, 55). In 2018, news has increasingly become a form of entertainment, not merely a distributor of information. From the justifiable reporting of the JFK assassination in 1963 to the modern obsession with nonsensical celebrity gossip like the Brangelina break-up, Charlie Brooker has spoken of this transformation, describing it as a 'grotesque reality show'. The frenzy that Tatum causes at that New Mexico mineshaft could easily happen in 2018, and Billy Wilder knew this himself in 1951. 

References

Armstrong, R. 2004. Billy Wilder, American Film Realist. Jefferson: McFarland and Company

Burdeau, E. 2014. Ace in the Hole: A Circulation Builder. London: Eureka Video. 

Chaplain, C. 2017. From the devastating Grenfell Tower fire to the UK's shock General Election result: The biggest news stories of the year in 2017. The Evening Standard. [Online] Available here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/from-the-devastating-grenfell-tower-fire-to-the-uks-shock-general-election-result-the-biggest-news-a3724106.html

Duerfahrd, K. 2011. 'What Exposure Is the World? The Desert Noir of Ace in the Hole' in K. McNally (Ed) Billy Wilder, Movie-Maker: Critical Essays on the Films. Jefferson: McFarland and Company pp. 11-26. 

Henry, W. 1981. 'News as Entertainment: The Search for Dramatic Irony' in Abel. E (Ed) 

What's News: The Media in American Society. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers pp. 133-159

Kurtz, S. 1999. Hollywood Cynic. Reason. [Online] Available here: http://reason.com/archives/1999/06/01/hollywood-cynic

Patterson, J. 2012. Billy Wilder, still less than meets the eye. The Guardian. [Online] Available here: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/jun/09/john-patterson-billy-wilder

Phillips, G. 2010. Some Like It Wilder: The Life and Controversial Films of Billy Wilder. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. 

Shafer, J. 2007. Presence of Malice: Billy Wilder tours journalism's pus-filled heart in the long-lost Ace in the Hole. Slate. [Online] Available here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2007/07/presence_of_malice.html

Sikov, E. 2017. On Sunset Boulevard: The Life and Times of Billy Wilder. Mississippi: University of Mississippi Press.

Sinyard, N. 2016. Ace in the Hole: A Commentary. Neil Sinyard On Film. [Online] Available here: http://neilsinyard.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk/?p=442

Stafford, T. 2014. Why Bad News Dominated the Headlines. BBC News [Online] Available here: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140728-why-is-all-the-news-bad

Thoughts On Super Mario Run: Remix 10 And The Nature Of Rewards

#Nintendo #gamedev #indiedev #SuperMarioRun

In September of 2017, Nintendo released an update to Mario Run which, amongst other things, introduced players to a new way to play, dubbed Remix 10.

Read more »

Louard's game design sounding board and home of the Pro's and Con's reviews.

Three Guys Talking About Scales

What follows below is the result of an online discussion I had with psychologists Brent Roberts (BR) and Michael Frank (MF). We discussed scale construction, and particularly, whether items with two response options (i.e., Yes v. No) are good or bad for the reliability and validity of the scale. The answers we came to surprised me--and they might surprise you too!

MK: Twitter recently rolled out a polling feature that allows its users to ask and answer questions of each other. The poll feature allows polling with two possible response options (e.g., Is it Fall? Yes/No). Armed with snark and some basic training in psychometrics and scale construction, I thought it would be fun to pose the following as my first poll:

Said training suggests that, all things being equal, some people are more "Yes" or more "No" than others, so having response options that include more variety will capture more of the real variance in participant responses. To put that into an example, if I ask you if you agree with the statement: "I have high self-esteem." A yes/no two-item response won't capture all the true variance in people's responses that might be otherwise captured by six items ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. MF/BR, is that how you would characterize your own understanding of psychometrics?

Read More->

Tekken 7 Android PPSSPP Alpha File

Download Tekken 7 Alpha File

Views Of Leaders On Demonetisation :-

You are visitor no.
Find IP 1. Rahul Gandhi :-

 Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi over  demonetisation during his rally in Jaunpur. The Congress leader said that the decision to demonetise high value currency was not against corruption or black money but against farmers and poor people. Gandhi, however, remained silent over the proof of corruption against prime minister.
The Congress leader had recently said that he has proof of personal corruption by the prime minister that will explode his balloon. He had said that he wanted to reveal the corruption proof against Modi in Parliament but was prevented by the ruling majority from speaking there. He had also called demonetisation of high value currency a "Modi-made disaster" while insisting that it has "ended the future of hundred of workers''.

2. Lalu Yadav :-
Breaking his silence on the Centre's decision to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, RJD chief Lalu Prasad today asked the Prime Minister whether every individual would get the 'promised' Rs 15 lakh each in their bank accounts after the completion of 50 days. "Modi ji, you are talking about limited inconvenience for 50 days. Will every individual get Rs 15 lakh each in his/her bank account after the completion of 50 days as promised by you," he said in a series of tweets.
 

3. Nitish Kumar :-
(Nitish backs demonetisation, but says Centre should have done its homework)
 
Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar on Friday again backed Centre's demonetisation move, terming it "a bold and positive step in the fight against black money", even as the Opposition parties tried to corner the Centre.
He, however, said the Centre should have done its homework to prevent unnecessary hassles for the common people. "I am always for any step to fight corruption. I am not the kind who will talk of roll-back. Most parties are for it. I feel ultimately it will yield benefits, but demonetisation alone is not enough. It will have to be taken to another level with crackdown on benami property and transactions in gold/diamond," Kumar said interacting with the media in the Bihar assembly. "The Centre should also take into account illicit liquor trade in the country."

 4. Mamata Banerjee :-

(Mamata Banerjee takes on Narendra Modi, emerges as new face of opposition to demonetisation)

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee continued to stay put at the state secretariat on Friday protesting against army presence at toll plazas in several parts of the state and asked whether it was an "army coup".

Speaking to reporters late Thursday night at 'Nabanna', the state secretariat, she said, "I will stay at the secretariat to guard our democracy". "Is this a military coup?" she asked.

She said that army personnel were there in different districts like Murshidabad, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling, North 24 Paraganas, Burdwan, Howrah, Hooghly etc. "The army is deployed without informing the state government. This is unprecedented and a very serious matter," she had said.

5. Rajnath Singh :-

(Currency Ban A Step To Make India Economic Superpower: Rajnath Singh)

 

Describing demonetization as a step towards making India an economic superpower, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh today said that only a courageous and far-sighted Prime Minister could have taken such a bold decision.

"Demonetization of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 notes is a decision taken in national interest. Can't people of the country bear with a little inconvenience if that leads to better things?"

"It is a step that will help the country become an economic superpower. Only a courageous and far-sighted Prime Minister could have taken a decision like that," Mr Singh said.

Asking people to have some more patience, he said that within about a month they would be able to withdraw as much money from their accounts as they want.

                                                 (source- various.)

posted by:- 

Narayan Patel (Author)

Narayan Patel;

student of:-ST Paul's school 

sasaram;

contact author:-

narayanpatel.904911@gmail.com;

narayanrajpatel@outlook.com;

mobile:- (+91)7322932296.
follow on facebook :- 

https://www.facebook.com/npatel904911/

Apex Legends

Apex Legends System Requirements (Minimum)

• CPU: Intel Core i3-6300 3.8GHz / AMD FX-4350 4.2 GHz Quad-Core Processor
• CPU SPEED: Info
• RAM: 6 GB
• OS: 64-bit Windows 10
• VIDEO CARD: 1 GB NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 / Radeon HD 7700
• PIXEL SHADER: 5.0
• VERTEX SHADER: 5.0
• FREE DISK SPACE: 30 GB
• DEDICATED VIDEO RAM: 1 GB

Apex Legends Recommended Requirements

• CPU: Intel i5 3570K or equivalent
• CPU SPEED: Info
• RAM: 8 GB
• OS: 64-bit Windows 10
• VIDEO CARD: 8 GB Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 / AMD Radeon R9 290
• PIXEL SHADER: 5.1
• VERTEX SHADER: 5.1
• FREE DISK SPACE: 30 GB
• DEDICATED VIDEO RAM: 8 GB

DOWNLOAD GAME

600MB PARTS

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

PART 5

PART 6

PART 7

PART 8

PART 9

PART 10

PART 11

PART 12

PART 13

PART 14

PART 15

PART 16

PART 17

PART 18

PART 19

PART 20

PART 21

No Need Password

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGIN DOWNLOAD

-----------------------------------------------------------------

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

PART 5

PART 6

PART 7

PASSWORD

------------------------------------

WARNING:

• WE DO NOT ENCOURAGE PIRACY. THESE LINKS ARE INTENDED FOR BACKUP PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT DOWNLOAD THE FILES IF YOU DO NOT OWN THE ORIGINAL MEDIA.
• FOR VISITORS OF THIS WEBSITE, PLEASE DONT FORGET TO SUPPORT THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS, IF YOU LIKE ANY GAME, BUY IT!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BYE.

Heroin Hero

heroin hero

FuCAblE | Video MySpace



Guarda la puntata di south park in italiano cliccando QUI

watch the south park's episode "guitar queer o"

All 'Jacked Up!

Magnetizing The Cygnar Avenger - Centurion - Hammersmith Warjack Kit!

By Randy
@coffeeswiller

Hiya, folks! I some more miniature hobby stuff to talk about concerning one of my favorite games, Warmachine by Privateer Press. In a recent post I did on playing Warmachine on a budget, one thing that came up after a helpful comment by a reader was that using magnets to be able to quickly convert  one warjack or warbeast to another was one way to save money. I had been itching to try this for months! I finally got a warjack kit, and wanted to share my first attempt at building a model this way. So here's the model:

And here it is all laid out to show the parts:

This kit allows you to build three different warjacks: the Centurion (with spear & shield), the Hammersmith (with 2 matching hammers) and the Avenger (with a sword & a seimic cannon arm). So planning ahead, we primarily need to have the ability to swap out the arms. Each warjack also has a different head, and while this isn't necessary, we'll magnetize those, too. Finally, there are two sets of shoulder pads. It is perhaps completely frivolous, but I'll magnetize those, too.

Here are my tools:

There shouldn't be anything surprising there. From left to right, we have magnets, brass rod, a file for removing mold lines, liquid green stuff, superglue, a pin vise/drill, an X-acto knife and tweezers. Not pictured is epoxy putty (I prefer ProCreate putty) and a Sharpie. Here are the magnets (3mm x 1mm neodymium):

The first step after planning is to drill holes for the magnets. Many model builders will already be doing a bit of this to add pins or brass rods to support heavier parts of models. What I am going to do here is make holes large enough to set in a magnet.

I used epoxy putty and superglue to set them in.

That one is the right arm. That one I pinned to the shoulder, since all the right arm does is hold a weapon in all the possible configurations. Here's one of the weapons (the sword for the Avenger). Each of the right arm weapons has the hand molded to them, and here is what an inset magnet looks like on one of them.

The left arm was a little more tricky. First of all, there are two separate arms: one is a cannon, and the other an arm like the right that has two different weapon combos (a hammer and a shield). The arm and shield combination is fairly heavy, and one magnet (at least of the size I have) will not suffice to hold the whole assembly. So here's what I did

:
I drilled a hole for a brass rod, and I set in one of the magnets slightly farther back. I tested positions for where to place them and this seemed the best.  Here are the two arms:

And here is wrist of the left forearm:

The red dot notes where the magnet is (it is covered by putty, which matches the grey of the plastic) and there is also a hole for a brass peg. And here are the shield and the hammer hands:

Each has an inset magnet on the top and a brass peg below. The hammer hand didn't really need it, but I figured it wouldn't hurt. And here is the finished kit, laid out in all its separate pieces:

And here are each of the warjacks it makes:

The Avenger!

The Centurion!

The Hammersmith!

Update! I made a brief YouTube video showing how this works together. The video isn't the greatest but it should give you an idea of how it works:


This was a fun kit to build! It will, of course, be painted and set on a finished base. But right now, my painting queue is pretty large. One observation I will share that you should note for your magnetized projects is that magnets have positive and negative sides, and your pieces will need to match up. I recommend using a Sharpie to place a dot on a magnet, and be sure to test before gluing. That's it!

Do you have any model projects that you are particularly proud of? Tell us below!