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
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
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
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.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
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
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
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.
Nombre total de pages vues
jeudi 23 mai 2019
The Ultimate List of The 8 Best URL Shortener Services
Doctor Who On TV Isn'T Really About Combat, But...
![]() |
| Daleks vs Sontarans, a clash yet to be seen on TV |
Before 2006, most Doctor Who fans of a certain type probably wondered who would come out on top in a clash between the show's two highest profile recurring villains, the Daleks and the Cybermen. Despite appearing in the classic series regularly over it's 26-year run, the Doctor's two most formidable opponents never met, and the show's approach to continuity was very compartmentalized: Dalek stories would often refer to previous Dalek stories, but there wasn't really any sense of a larger, coherent universe. The only classic TV story that featured both the Daleks and the Cybermen was 20th anniversary special The Five Doctors, but they're never seen on screen together.
All that changed in 2006 with the new series episode Army of Ghosts, in which the Daleks and the Cybermen finally met. Doctor Who: Exterminate! from Warlord Games allows players to recreate that clash on the tabletop with "epic scale" 38mm miniatures.
A skirmish game may seem like an odd choice for the Doctor Who license, since the Doctor tends to avoid violence and try to think his way out of problems, which is no doubt why the game emphasizes clashes between the more militant villains of the series such as the Daleks, the Cybermen, and the Sontarans. However, the game's scenarios do each include a sidebar with suggestions for how to involve the Doctor and his companions in the game, giving them objective-based goals to achieve while trying to avoid getting shot at by Daleks.
The game itself uses a simple symbol-based dice mechanic to determine if attacks are successful, with each player also given a hand of "battle cards" that can be used to supplement the dice results. Common miniatures game elements such as range, obstacles and cover are addressed by adjusting the number of dice rolled for attack or defense. Rather than requiring players to keep track of damage to individual miniatures, the game uses a system of different statuses: figures are either fully operational, shocked (temporarily incapacitated) or exterminated on a particularly good roll of the damage dice. It makes losing figures in battle a bit unpredictable, which I think is okay for a game like this where the emphasis is on narrative rather than cold tactics.
One game mechanic I have mixed feelings about is the concept of being "under fire." If a figure is successfully fired upon (even if it doesn't take any damage), that figure is given an "under fire" token, which means it can't return fire on its turn, and has to roll to remove the token at the end of the turn. This can sometimes result in multiple turns where a player can't really do much with their figures, which can be a little frustrating. It also gives characters whose special abilities allow them to ignore "under fire" tokens (such as the Daleks) a huge advantage.
To add additional flavor, the game includes an "Adventure Card" deck with various events and equipment from the show that players can use. We've found that giving the Cyberleader a samurai sword is a particularly winning combination.
Most miniatures game rules systems are really just an excuse to sell the figures, and that's where this game really shines. Right out of the box you get 12 Daleks and 12 Cybermen, requiring some assembly but cast in gold and silver so you can get to playing without taking the time to paint them (although you will probably want to eventually).
![]() |
| A selection of additional figures: an Ice Warrior, a Judoon, a Silent, and a Zygon |
The supplemental figures cover a wide range of both the classic and the new TV series, and they are of exceptional quality. The slightly larger scale allows for a lot more detail, and an apparently rigorous approvals process results in miniatures that are very true to their TV counterparts, and a joy to paint.
Rating: 4 (out of 5) Great miniatures with a reasonably good rules set to go with them.
- Doctor Who: Exterminate! official website
- Doctor Who: Exterminate! on BoardGameGeek
- Doctor Who: Exterminate! Facebook group (very active)
Brainstorming With Transpose
Sometimes I get stuck and look for a way to think about a problem a different way. There are some problems that you can view in the form of a matrix/table. The structure looks like this:
| A | B | C | D | E | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A1 | B1 | C1 | D1 | E1 |
| 2 | A2 | B2 | C2 | D2 | E2 |
| 3 | A3 | B3 | C3 | D3 | E3 |
| 4 | A4 | B4 | C4 | D4 | E4 |
| 5 | A5 | B5 | C5 | D5 | E5 |
There are rows and columns, and I'm trying to work on the cells. Let's try an example from a simple game:
| Attack | Defend | Special | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fighter | sword | armor | slam |
| Mage | fireball | reflect | freeze |
| Thief | dagger | dodge | disarm |
The rows are the character classes: Fighter, Mage, Thief.
The columns are the types of actions: Attack, Defend, Special.
The matrix contains all the code to handle each of these types of actions for each of the types of characters.
What does the code look like? The usual thing to do is to organize this into three modules:
Fighterwill contain code to handle sword attacks, damage reduction from armor, and slam special attacks.Magewill contain code to handle fireballs, damage reflect, and freeze special attacks.Thiefwill contain code to handle dagger attacks, damage avoidance from dodge, and disarm special attacks.
Sometimes it's useful to transpose the matrix. I can organize along the other axis:
| Fighter | Mage | Thief | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attack | sword | fireball | dagger |
| Defend | armor | reflect | dodge |
| Special | slam | freeze | disarm |
Attackwill contain code to handle sword attacks, fireball attacks, and dagger attacks.Defendwill contain code to handle damage reduction, damage reflect, and damage avoidance.Specialwill contain code to handle slam, freeze, and disarm.
I was taught that the one style is "good" and the other style is "bad". But it's not obvious why this should be so. The reason is that there is an assumption that we will often add more character classes (nouns) but rarely add more types of actions (verbs). That way I can add more code with a new module, without touching all the existing ones. It may or may not be true for this game. By looking at the transpose, it makes me aware of the assumption, and I can question it. I'll then think about what kind of flexibility I want, then decide on the code structure.
Let's consider another example.
In programming language implementations, there are different types of nodes corresponding to the primitives: constants, operators, loops, branches, functions, types, etc. I need to generate code for each of these.
| Generate Code | |
|---|---|
| Constant | |
| Operator | |
| Loop | |
| Branch | |
| Function | |
| Type |
Great! I can have one class for each type of node, and they can all derive from a superclass Node. But this is based on the assumption that I will often add more rows and rarely add more columns. What happens in an optimizing compiler? We add more optimization passes. Each one is another column.
| Generate Code | Data flow | Constant folding | Loop fusion | … | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | |||||
| Operator | |||||
| Loop | |||||
| Branch | |||||
| Function | |||||
| Type |
If I want to add a new optimization pass, I would need to add a new method to each class, and all the code for an optimization pass is spread out all over the place. This is the situation I was trying to avoid! So some systems will add another layer on top of this. Using "visitors" I can keep all the loop fusion code in one module instead of splitting it up among lots of files.
If I look at the transpose of the matrix, it reveals another approach:
| Constant | Operator | Loop | Branch | Function | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generate code | ||||||
| Data flow | ||||||
| Constant folding | ||||||
| SSA | ||||||
| Loop fusion |
Now instead of classes with methods, I can use tagged unions with pattern matching (not all languages support this). This keeps all the code for each optimization pass together without requiring the indirection of visitors.
It's often useful to look a a problem in terms of a matrix. Applied to the object-oriented structure that everyone thinks about, it might lead me to use something different, such as an entity-component-systems, relational databases, or reactive programming.
It's not just for code. Here's an example of applying the idea to products. Let's suppose there are people with various interests:
| Nick | Feng | Sayid | Alice | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cars | X | X | ||
| politics | X | X | ||
| math | X | X | ||
| travel | X | X |
If I were designing a social web site, I might let people follow other people. Nick might follow Alice because they're both interested in cars and Feng because they're both interested in travel. But Nick would also get Alice's math posts and Feng's politics posts. If I consider the transpose of this matrix, I might let people follow topics. Nick might join a cars group and also a travel group. Facebook and Reddit started around the same time, but they're transposes of each other. Facebook lets you follow people; Reddit lets you follow topics.
When I get stuck, or when I'm wanting to consider alternatives, I look at the problem to see if there are multiple axes of organization. Sometimes approaching the problem from a different direction can yield a better approach.
Mega EverDrive X7 - Almost Everything You'd Want In A Flash Cart
![]() |
| Mega EverDrive X7, courtesy of Amazon.com |
Read more »
Storium Theory: Limiting Your Limitations
Limits are good. Limits, at their base, are a way of ensuring that the scene has focus. When we set up a challenge at all, we are putting limits on the scene in general - limits of saying "the scene is now about this problem, and it needs to be addressed." We're defining what the actual problem is, and to some extent unavoidably defining the sort of things that can be done to address the problem.
But it's important to recognize when we take these definitions too far.
I've been playing a roleplaying game outside of Storium recently, using some pre-prepared scenarios that I found, and I've been struck by something in reading those scenarios: Oftentimes, they focus extensively on what definitely won't work. They spend a lot of time discussing why the players should absolutely not try a particular tactic with a situation, and how many brick walls can be thrown in their way should they dare to attempt such a thing. They're not quite set up to allow only one path forward, but they dwell a lot on why solutions A, B, C, D, E, and F are all terrible ideas that will only increase the scenario's difficulty. They show the walls, not the paths forward.
I've noticed a similar mindset subtly sneaking into Storium games at times. In our challenge setups or narration, we can sometimes spend time focusing on what won't work - on the walls set up in the way of particular solutions. Maybe we show the player characters trying a solution and discovering it won't work in the opening narration. Maybe we just describe something as impossible on the card or in the outcomes or in the narration.
Sometimes, this is fine. Sometimes, this is appropriate.
But it is definitely something we should question.
Storium works best, I have found, when players have enough information to focus their writing without limiting their ideas. That is: The problem is well-defined, but the solutions are left as open as possible given the problem at hand.
If the problem is a powerful wizard who the heroes need to get past to get to their goal, the solutions could potentially involve all sorts of things - maybe the heroes manage to fight the wizard and drive him away, maybe they evade his attacks and race beyond him into the fortress. Sometimes, limiting those options is perfectly appropriate...but it's important to be careful just how far you take the limitations. For instance, it might be appropriate to say that the party has to fight the wizard, because he's set up a magical barrier over the exit or because it's just too dangerous with him raining magic around the area. But further defining that the wizard is absolutely invulnerable to non-magical attacks himself is probably going to take it too far - it'll most likely make players of non-magical characters struggle a bit to figure out how to participate in the fight. Or, alternately, it might be appropriate to say that the wizard can't be killed and the characters need to escape - the wizard is just too powerful and his defenses too strong. But it'd take it too far to say that his attacks are unstoppable and his defenses are so strong he can't even be shaken by the characters at all, most likely, because again, it seriously limits what players can write and the ideas they can come up with for the scene. Some characters might have things they can realistically write to make just running away interesting, but others might really need to be able to provide some cover for the others or manage to disrupt the wizard for just a moment (or at least, attempt to do so and get turned aside, if they're playing a Weakness).
Similarly, consider an investigation. Maybe you're asking players to find information on a criminal gang that has troubled the area. That's fine. But if you go to the extent of saying that the other gangs in the area definitely won't share their information, or that police contacts are totally mystified and have no knowledge of the gang at all, well, that's probably going to cause people some trouble. You're limiting the ways that players can write the scene, and that's likely to make it tougher for them to come up with ideas.
Remember: Storium is about helping people write. The things that you put in your narration should encourage writing, not oppose it.
That's not to say that you should totally avoid limitations. Yes, there are times that they fit the story. If it's expressly established that the gang is totally new to the area, for instance, it makes sense that the heroes might not be able to trust contacts that would be working from existing knowledge...but how are the heroes able to get the information? Word the challenge in such a way that you reveal the possibilities rather than set up the walls. And don't just give one option! Show a wider field of openings, something that lets the players still have room to get creative on their own.
And remember to ask yourself: What is this challenge actually about?
In the case of the gang, for instance: Is the question really about who the heroes are able to go to for the information they need? Or is it just about what they are able to find out? If the latter...does it really matter whether they are able to use their contacts with the police? Or is the question just about whether they find information about the gang in the first place?
I want to be clear: Sometimes it does matter how the players are able to accomplish something. Sometimes that can be a problem you need to address as narrator. Sometimes it can cause trouble for a plot if players are allowed to do things a certain way, even if that way fulfills the overall concept of the challenge. That's very true.
But not all the time.
Not even the number of times we as narrators think it is true.
So...when you're setting a challenge up, take a good look over the card and narration associated with it. Look over what you've written, and ask yourself:
- Have I set up any limitations here I didn't intend to? Are there places where I suggest something is impossible where I didn't mean to?
- Have I set up limitations that I intended to...but that on second thought, really don't matter? Are there places where I have put limits that will make my players struggle to write, rather than providing useful focus?
Upcoming Presentations At Fyrecon 3
I am receiving more opportunities to be a presenter at conferences and conventions. Thank you to everyone reading my articles. It is because of the support I'm receiving from you that I am able to share more about the geeky things I like to do, and thus making a bigger community of friends sharing in these same interests.




