“Wanted” a Movie Review
Yes, you read the title correctly, I’m doing a movie review. Quite unexpected since I know absolutely nothing about reviewing movies. However, I’m making an exception in this case because I got the opportunity to see the movie Monday and it does not come out in theaters until Friday. What was the occasion? TechCrunch, where I just started my internship, teamed up with MySpace to do a screening of Wanted in San Francisco for 200 lucky TechCrunch readers. Actually let me revise that. 200 TechCrunch readers and get this, the first 50 MySpace users in line who added Wanted to their top 8 friends and printed their profile. Needless to say, the theater was a rare blending of the two completely opposite crowds of people.
So what about the actual movie? Wanted pulls its style from a variety of different action movies. First it borrows a little bit of The Matrix‘s disregard for Physics. Mix in Shoot ‘Em Up‘s abundance of manslaughter. Finally throw in a high speed car chase plus gunfight that is standard for any action movie and you’ve got Wanted.
Luckily the “curving bullets” thing doesn’t end up being as lame as it looks in the preview. Instead it serves as a nice touch that differentiates the movie from every other action movie. Although it’s really entertaining to watch the actors shoot a “curving bullet” because it looks more like they are throwing a baseball sidearmed than shooting a gun.
The movie is such that when it finishes and your sitting in your seat as the credits play your thinking to yourself “either that was really dumb or it was freaking awesome”. Ultimately you cannot decide which it is so you compromise and declare that it was both.
Unfortunately the movie has a piss poor name. After seeing the movie I still cannot determine why they called it Wanted. I am sure that people will remember the movie 5 years from now but absolutely no one will remember its generic title. They’ll say, “Oh yeah! the curving bullets movie with Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman! What was the name of that?”. Ultimately no one will be able to remember and they’ll have to look it up on IMDB.
Despite my criticisms, the occasional cheesy dialog, and not-so-stellar performance by James McAvory, Wanted is a good movie and I recommend seeing it. If nothing else it is very entertaining. But honestly don’t take my word for it because like I said, I know absolutely nothing about reviewing movies. Nor do I have any authority on the matter. Instead I referrer you to Rotten Tomatoes where Wanted is currently at a very respectable 93%.
People I’d like to see on Twitter
Randall Munroe – I’d wager that Mr. XKCD has dozens of ideas every day that he probably does not develop enough to turn into a full on comic. These dozens of little thoughts and ideas Randall has would make for excellent Twitter fodder.
Stephen Colbert – Comedic geniuses create the best Twitter streams. Who better than Colbert? There was a fake Stephen T Colbert who was doing a pretty good job of imitating Colbert until he was ousted.
John Hodgman – “Resident Expert” on The Daily Show and author of the book The Areas of My Expertise, John Hodgman would no doubt make a kick ass Twitter. Plus, I’m pretty sure he would beat Justin Long in a hypothetical fight.
Fake Steve Jobs – Yes, I want the fake Steve Jobs to be on Twitter more than the real one. I have nothing against the real Steve Jobs and I confess I would still follow him on Twitter but I can imagine that the majority of his status updates would be along the lines of “in a meeting”. Judging by his blog, and the fact that he is a professional journalist, Fake Steve Jobs would undoubtably write more entertaining updates.
Mark Cuban – Aside from the small fact that Mark Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks, he writes one of the best weblogs on the Internet. He seems to thrive when it comes to writing long, well thought out entries, but I bet he has a decent short game too.
That is all I can think of for now. And, unlike the aforementioned 5 people, you can follow me on Twitter to see what I’m thinking about.
Ruby-Poker 0.3.0
Ruby Poker has been updated! This release is largely a result of bug reports filed by Jim W. He took ruby poker to areas I had not previously thought to explore and he ran into a couple nasty bugs. They have all been fixed in Ruby-Poker 0.3.0. In addition the following changes were made that users should be aware of.
Book Review: The Ruby Programming Language
For a long time now Dave Thomas Programming Ruby (aka. The Pickaxe) has been the standard in the Ruby community as the book to learn Ruby from. Unfortunately the Pickaxe is not the best programming book ever written. In fact, its bulk and slowness almost killed my inspiration to learn Ruby. I respect Dave Thomas a lot for what he does for the Ruby community but the Pickaxe and I just did not click.
Since I didn’t find the Pickaxe to be excellent reading material, I had been eagerly anticipating David Flanagan’s The Ruby Programming Language to come out and unseat The Pickaxe as the de facto book to recommend to newcomers to Ruby.
I am happy to say that The Ruby Programming Language did not disappoint. I picked up this book solely expecting to just review it since I already comfortable programming in Ruby. However, once I started reading the book I found myself frequently learning things about Ruby that I didn’t know before. Not like little things either like, “oh that’s interesting”. I’m talking significant things like “holy crap that’s sweet”.
This book covers both Ruby 1.8 and Ruby 1.9. Initially this concerned me because as impressive as it is, it must have been quite a headache for the authors and was not sure how they were going to pull it off. It turns out to be pretty much a non-issue. The authors make a note of what is 1.8 or 1.9 only and it does not disturb the flow of the book since it doesn’t come up too frequently. I do hope though that after Ruby 1.9 stable is released they upgrade the book and tear out all the 1.8 specific material. Since I currently use 1.8 on a daily basis I don’t mind having 1.8 material in there but after everything has shifted to 1.9 it would be rather irksome.
The style of the book is fairly straightforward. It starts with an introduction to how Ruby programs work and then goes into an explanation of Ruby datatypes and objects. The later chapters cover advanced topics like reflection and metaprogramming. The authors opted not to go the tutorial route, which I think, was a good approach since the book is not designed to be an “intro to programming” text.
In the preface of the book, the authors state:
[The Ruby Programming Language] is loosely modeled after the classic The C Programming Language by Kernighan and Ritchie and aims to document the Ruby language comprehensively but without the formality of a language specification. It is written for experienced programmers who are new to Ruby, and for current Ruby programmers who want to take their understanding and mastery of the language to the next level.
O’Reilly is hoping that The Ruby Programming Language becomes the equivalent of K&R’s The C Programming Language for Ruby and I hope it succeeds. I think that every language needs their own K&R book for people to turn to as the definitive authority. That’s something that I feel like the Java programming language never had and it creates something of a hurdle when browsing for a Java book.
The third edition of the Pickaxe is in beta and will be coming out soon. I really hope it makes a strong showing when it hits the press because after the bang-up job Flanagan and Matz did with The Ruby Programming Language, there is no reason to look at the Pickaxe till then.
Computer Science Trivia Questions
Today we threw the first annual ICS day at UC Irvine. For the event I helped prepare a bunch of computer science trivia questions for a family feud style game. Since it is kind of an interesting list I am going to make it available to everyone here incase someone else is looking for a huge list of CS trivia questions.
Some of the questions were given to me by a classmate and I don’t know where she got them from. The rest I wrote myself. I dumbed down the questions as much as I could because I wanted to make sure people would get them right. Having a trivia game with questions that no one knew that answer to would not have been much fun.
