Success!

I have saved zelda. Under the monicker Fitz, I have defeated both versions of the original legend of zelda without dying. Including but not limited to not dying after I beat the first version, but before i beat the second. I also defeated the SNES version a link to the past without dying in my first atempt. Not having played either version for a long time it was interesting to contrast them. The SNES version is much easier to beat without dying for 3 reasons. First the guys are much easier, and if you ever end up in a room with multiple hard guys you can just use your magic to kill them all at once. Second you have a mirror that will take you to the start of a level immediately if you get in any trouble, and most importantly you can get up to 4 bottles, and you can trap fairies that will bring you back to life if you forget to use your medicine in time. I feel like the SNES version is more about puzzles/figuring stuff out than fighting guys. In the NES version you have to find stuff, but there are no hints or clues, you just kind of wander around and try everything you can think of. In the SNES version there clues/riddles that you are supposed to figure out to advance in the game. In conclusion the SNES version would have been better if some of the guys/bosses were harder to kill and the NES version would have been better if there were some more hints about what you are supposed to do, especially about finding levels which can be very difficult (especially level 7 in the second version.)

Do i qualify for a home loan?

I've recently read some articles on the sub-prime loan situation in the US, and i couldn't tell if they were intended to be serious or what, but the were just terrible. basically sub-prime loans are made to people who have a sub optimal chance of paying back the loan, people with bad credit/low income/etc. But if they are willing to pay a higher percentage the bank might be willing to take on the extra risk of giving them a loan that might not be payed back. The first article was talking about how many people were losing their homes all because the banks hadn't done their due diligence in determining who could pay back the loans. There were people who were unemployed but lied and said they had job, and it's the banks fault for giving them money they could never pay back. The bank has ruined their lives by giving them money. It's obviously not the fault of the person who borrows money and then can't repay it. There was another one that described the financial apartheid evident in this situation because blacks are three times more likely to have a sub-prime loan (or something i don't remember exactly.) So basically the banks have gone out of their way to ruin the lives of the black people in this country by loaning them money and allowing them to buy houses. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from this article is that in the future banks should stop giving money to blacks, or at least give far fewer loans to blacks because not only will they not repay the loans they will be much worse off for having gotten the loan. These articles make it seem as if these banks are preying on low income people, as if the banks are taking all these people's money and then their homes too. Banks aren't making any money here, they have lost 10s of billions, maybe already over the 100 billion dollar mark in this sub-prime snafu. Nothing in america is ever somebody's fault. It's always some corporation's fault because they make for good villains. I don't know when this mentality started, but this is where the road leads when a person can spill coffee on themselves and successfully sue because there wasn't a warning that the coffee was hot. Now people are talking about suing banks for giving them money that they then couldn't pay back.