Mind-Space Continuum

Today I started working on the problems on the Project Euler website. Which I first heard of the other day. Since I want to learn Ruby, thought it would be the best to approach the problems using it. I'm gonna be posting regularly about my progress and, naturally, my subsequent progress with ruby. I also created a GitHub repository to share the source.

The Problem (#1)

If we list all the natural numbers below 10 that are multiples of 3 or 5, we get 3, 5, 6 and 9. The sum >of these multiples is 23.

Find the sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000.

Being a new comer to ruby, my first approach was a bit odd, considering the ruby style of doing things.

count = 0 # Counter variable result = 0 # A variable to hold the result 1000.times do # Call this block a 1000 times result += count if count % 3 == 0 # Add count if it's multiple of 3 || count % 5 == 0 # or or 5 count += 1 # increase the counter end puts result # print the result

This code outputs the correct answer, but I don't think it looks very nice. Besides, it reminded me of Pascal. I checked some solutions from other people using ruby and one of them got my attention.

p (1...1000).select {|i| i % 3 == 0 II i % 5 == 0 }.inject(0) {|r, i| r + i} # which is the same as: p (1...1000).reject {|i| i % 3 != 0 && i % 5 != 0}.inject {|r, i| r + i}

Comparing these peaces of code to my first approach we see a whole lot of differences. Lets not consider the size of the snippets, which is obviously different. Lets try to see how the code works, or reads.

The first peace of code counts (loops) through a block from 1 to 1000, verifies the counter (current element) matches the criteria (is it multiple of 3 or 5?), in the case it does it's added to the the variable holding the result.

With the second approach we see a significant reduction of size, but it's also more appealing. We can even read it out laud.

"In a range of 1 to 999 select those values that are multiples of 3 or 5 and then inject them into a block that adds them"

Though I could read and interpret what the code was doing I had to investigate about ranges, the select and inject methods. That is how I arrived at the opposed version of the previous snippet, which does exactly the same except that it excludes (reject) the values that does not match the criteria.

Ruby is a very powerful language, It's simple and smart. With this example I got a glance of its versatility. I'll keep you posted as I progress through the problems.

Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and Carlty (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) his new girlfriend I enjoyed Transformers. In fact, I didn't even notice the movie was bad until later. I was so excited watching Optimus and Ironhide that I didn't mind when Prime said he found Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) through eBay. I forgot most of Revenge of the Fallen; barely remember a Decepticon climbing the great pyramid which was just awful. At least had Megan Fox.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon is very different. Is not a movie, I can say. Is a carnival, a celebration of stupidity and incoherence. A blatant mockery on the moviegoers. Sincerely, the most exasperating 150 minutes, didn't make it to the last scenes. But I guess Buzz Aldrin did not know.

Just like I didn't know either if there was an actual plot in the film. Apparently Michael Bay and Ehren Kruger had an idea involving Apollo 11, Chernobyl and the Trump International Hotel and Tower. They got $195 millions dollars and went through with it. I'm sure they didn't even ask an astrophysics before thinking of teleporting a planet into our exosphere. Absolute madness, some sort of vulgar comedy mixed up with a hottie (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), a lot of special effects and useless characters without persona, that is what this movie is made of.

A little bit of light came from Bruce Brazos (John Malkovich), Sam's boss who was genuinely funny. Sad his appearance was kind of short. John Turturro was also entertaining during some point but took big part into the senseless madness as well.

Definitely, we've seen the darker side of transformers, not the moon's. These people only cared about their $43,225,329 and this is the film they understood they had to make to achieve them. Congratulations!

I know you may think I did not speak about the movie, but trust me is not necessary. If you want to go watch it, go. I did. I just don't think your reaction will be any different than mine if your passionate about movies.

Today I got my invitation for Google+ and felt so good. I'm not a social network person. I go to Facebook check the updates and bounce. But I spent more time on Google than I do on any other site. I use Google Chrome, Gmail, Buzz, Calendar, Gtalk, Google Apps and Youtube on a daily basis and even though I use Facebook, I still upload my pictures to Picasa. I am totally Googlized.

What I'm trying to say is I have plain faith that this social network will come handy to centralize all my Google experience. But I'm still sure they may have some more things in mind.

I'll keep you posted as I explore and expect a review as soon as I can.

From Wikipedia

The nature of death has been for millennia a central concern of the world's religious traditions and of philosophical enquiry, and belief in some kind of afterlife or rebirth has been a central aspect of religious belief. In modern scientific enquiry, the origin and nature of consciousness has yet to be fully understood; any such view about the existence or non-existence of consciousness after death therefore remains speculative.

Personally, I've always considered the idea of an afterlife to be silly. Like monsieur Didier (Thierry Neuvic), I think that the "lights go out" and "there's nothing else". In this story Clint Eastwood and Peter Morgan invites us to contemplate a different perspective.

No human can say what's awaiting us after we die; yet there's a whole lot people who is certain there will be something, or at least they wish. Somehow I believe all of us do. Not always out of a selfish need to perpetuate our ego, sometimes out of pure love.

Is not easy for me to describe this film. I don't think I could. I can only say it is so peaceful, beautiful. It evolves around the life of three people and the events that will bring them together. With a thematic so controversial and yet it is impossible to say it disrespect any religious belief. In fact, the film is not religious at all, what I like the most. Clint Eastwood give us a very pleasant experience moving around these lives. The movie takes care not to past the line, what, in my opinion, makes it very smart. Is natural for people to be curious about death and this movie explores it gently.

John Brennan contemplating his plan

The Next Three Days works very well as a drama. The romance in it is somehow moving. Even though it was not as enthralling as I would expect from Paul Haggis it was interesting to watch John Brennan (Russell Crowe) go desperate through the plot and inspiring that he never lost hope. I must say it did not turn out to be very convincing but I bought it. I'm sorry, I happen to believe on resilience.

John Brennan lives a happy life with his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) and child. One morning the police calls their door and arrest Lara accusing her of the murder of her boss, with whom she argued the previous day. This certainly turns John's life upside down. Who will past the next couple of years rising his little boy, teaching at a community college and trying by all means available to proof Lara's innocence, but the evidence is compelling. She is not coming out.

Seeing his family come apart, he becomes desperate and envisions an ambitious plan to break Lara out of prison. To do this he seeks advice from Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson), an ex-convict that successfully escaped prison seven times.

Considering he has no experience on criminal activity is funny to see John trying to get IDs and passports from drug dealers; or buying a gun and saying "show me where the bullets go". Could this man be up to the task?

Paul Haggis keeps us in suspense most of the time and manages very well to thrill us in the process. The acting, as expected, is very good. Russell Crowe naturally fits comfortably in this kind of role and dominates. Equally does Elizabeth Banks. We get Olivia Wilde as the most beautiful single mother you could possibly find taking your kid to the park. She doesn't have much to add to the plot, she just looks good on it, very good. There is also a little conversation with Moran Atias at the beginning of the film I enjoyed a lot.

The wolf pack is back... with a lot more of screen for Mr. Chow and a monkey to do the same movie. I am sure I'll remember The Hangover my whole life. I'm not the only one. Truth is it was Classic! So sad I can't say the same about the new installment. Though the pack is too cool to let us down, who ever wrote it managed do so. In fact, I am not even sure they did something at all. Oh wait, now Bangkok has them.

I've been so confuse since I saw the movie yesterday, how can you make a movie for the second time and fail epicly? Or why would Todd Phillips want to intentionally do the movie over? Did they think I wouldn't notice? I guess I'll never find an answer for that. Only two things are clear, they charge me two tickets for the same movie and there can't be anymore bachelor parties.

I guess I'm being rude, I laughed. But who doesn't with Alan (Zah Galifianakis)? Who has proven to be very a talented comedian. Bradley Cooper fits naturally as Phil; equally does Ed Helms as Stu. The problem is I already knew this. It was fresh having Ken Jeong (Mr. Chow) more time on screen, but barley enough. Paul Giamatti had a couple of minutes and it was really cool, though still not enough.

Something that really disappointed me was that I was looking forward to seeing Liam Neesom's cameo. Instead we get Nick Cassavetes who is almost as cool. But that was not their fault.

Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) writing his novel at ultra speed under the influence of NZT-48 I don't know how to say this without going too far or being very misunderstood. Limitless is a terrible, terrible movie. Not the kind of movie that should burn but the one that is disappointing because of a lot of stupidity. Okey, I went too far. Despite all I disliked from the film, it is very entertaining. I loved the concept story, I just think it's poorly constructed and some how insulting to my intelligence.

Bradley Cooper plays Eddie Morra an unemployed writer who has lost his track. He has a book contract but no inspiration. His life is so unorganized he simply looks like he's living in the street. Not even his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish) is up for this anymore. All this suddenly changes when he is introduced by his ex-brother in law (Johnny Whitworth) to an experimental drug the guys in the lab call NZT-48.

What this drug does? It let's you use 100% of your brain. First, it is not true that humans only use certain portion of brain power. What I guess they mean is it makes you smarter. Something that is possible, though not in the present time.

Needless to say, under the influence of the drug Eddie becomes some sort of Übermensch. He writes his novel in a few days, he's constantly focus, learns foreign languages with ease and remembers everything he has ever read, seen or heard. He is the man! NZT-48 enhanced him.

As any modern male with no girlfriend, at first, Eddie used his new powers to get chicks and outshine experts in cultural circles he would've never been allowed. He's just running wild until he forms the idea where to use his abilities. The financial market.

Without going into more details I'll just add that here we are presented Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), apparently one of the most powerful man in the country, who is naturally interested in Eddie's abilities. As expected, he plays his part very cool.

I also liked Andrew Howard occasional appearances as the gangster who tasted Eddie's secret power pill and torments him in search for more.

Director Neil Burger did some very cool takes with the fish lens, though I didn't get the use (maybe he wanted to show that Eddie had a wider perception?). Also the use of intermittent full color gives the film a very nice touch. Except for some totally unnecessary scenes, I think he did good job delivering an entertaining summer flick.

Ever thought how odd your online life is? Ever thought what could go wrong?