Paragraph 78 2007 Rapidshare

Jan 11, 2009  Download Anything. Free latest movies, mp3, musics videos, applications, games download from Rapidshare and megaupload.

Accountant wrote:I have 35 various dollar amounts (different invoice amounts) and I need a formula that will figure which combination of the amounts will equal 'X'.I'm trying to find which combination of invoices will sum to the amount 'X'.This is a very difficult problem to solve. A solution might need to look at up to 2^35 combinations - about 34E+9, called 34 billion in the US.You can use Solver to do this. Set it up as follows or something comparable.Put the dollar amounts into A1:A35.

Be sure that B1:B35 is empty. Put the target sum into C1. Put the following formula into C2: =SUMPRODUCT(A1:A35,B1:B35). Put the following formula into C3: =ABS(C1-C2).Note: Before you get started, it would be prudent to ensure that SUM(A1:A35) exceeds C1. If not, all of A1:A35 is your best solution. Stop there.Now, set up Solver.

I am not familiar with Excel 2007. In Excel 2003, click Tools Solver. (In Excel 2003, Solver must be installed and selected as an add-in.) Set Target Cell to C3. Select Equal To: Min.

Put B1:B35 into the By Changing field. Addthe constraint B1:B35=binary. It might also be prudent to change some Options, namely Max Time and Iterations. Click Solve, and go out for dinner.Seriously, using random amounts and an arbitrary target, Solver found a solution in under 18 seconds on my ancient laptop. YMMV.Once a solution is found, you can determine which values were selected by looking for 1 in column B. If you want something more automated, that can be provided.Caveat: Solver will find a solution, but not all solutions.

Finding all solutions will require going through all 2^35 combinations. Moreover, the constraint 'min' (minimum difference) convolutes the notion of 'all solutions'. Thanks for your prompt reply! I have a question about setting up the constraint in SOLVER. In 2007, a box opens with 3 information boxes. The first is Cell Reference which I set to B1:B35, the second is a drop down of =, INT, BIN and the third isConstraint.

I've tried BIN in the second and it comes back with the following: Constraint must be a number, simple reference or formula with a numeric value.I hate to sound 'dubm' but should I have a different selection in the middle like = and something in the last, or leave the BIN and put something in the last - and what? I tried = and BINARY in the last, and I get the same error message.I dind't even know about SOLVER until you mentioned it - thanks indeed.Mike. Mike wrote:I have a question about setting up the constraint in SOLVER. In 2007, a box opens with 3 information boxes. The first is Cell Reference which I set to B1:B35, the second is a drop down of =, INT, BIN and the third is Constraint. I've triedBIN in the second and it comes back with the following: Constraint must be a number, simple reference or formula with a numeric value.I wish I could help, but I have tried a number of user mistakes, and I cannot reproduce that error message.What you did sounds right as you describe it. I suspect that your description does not match exactly what you did - probably some typo when using Solver.For what it's worth, I have uploaded an example file atyou go to that URL, click on Free User, then Download.

Perhaps by looking at that example, you might be able to spot your mistake.(Note to other readers: There is a limit of 10 downloads. So please do not use that link yourself, at least not until Mike indicates that he downloaded the file.).

I wrote:You can use Solver to do this. Set it up as follows.Put the following formula into C2: =SUMPRODUCT(A1:A35,B1:B35).Add the constraint B1:B35=binary.Caveat emptor! It is important to use the following formula in C2 instead:=SUMPRODUCT(A1:A35,-(B1:B350))Even though we specify the constraint that B1:B35 is BIN(ary), which should imply 0 or 1 1, I discovered that sometimes the value displayed as 1 is not exactly 1.In my random example, most of B1:B35 is composed of exactly 0 or 1. But in two cells, the values are about 0.77886 and 0.78923 (!).This resulted in a significant difference between my target total and the SUMPRODUCT result - about 4.3E-5 2.After correcting the SUMPRODUCT as above, the difference is about -3.6E-14 - the kind of infinitesimal difference that I would expect, if any.-Endnotes1 Admittedly, I cannot find any documentation that explains that BIN(ary) is 0 or 1. Arguably, 'zero' and 'non-zero' is binary (a dichotomy).2 I might have ameliorated the problem by rounding the original SUMPRODUCT expression to 2 decimal places, which would make sense for a dollar-and-cents result.

However: (a) if many more of the non-zero 'binary' values in B1:B35 were not exactly 1, theSUMPRODUCT might be off even to 2 decimal places; and (b) I have encountered problems before when using ROUND with Solver in some contexts. ROUND probably would work in this context, but it is not worth testing given #a.

I wrote:It is important to use the following formula in C2 instead:=SUMPRODUCT(A1:A35,-(B1:B350))Aarrgghh! That is needed for the SUMPRODUCT to return the correct result.

But with that change, Solver no longer works(!).Instead of taking some time find a solution, it quickly finds a very bad solution. By 'very bad', I mean: in my example, with the new SUMPRODUCT, Solver stops when the SUMPRODUCT is about 520.36 for a target total of 1000; with the old SUMPRODUCT, Solverstops when the SUMPRODUCT is about 999.96.All of this is with Excel 2003. I wrote:You can use Solver to do this. Set it up as follows.Put the following formula into C2: =SUMPRODUCT(A1:A35,B1:B35).Add the constraint B1:B35=binary.Then I wrote:Caveat emptor! It is important to use the following formula in C2 instead:=SUMPRODUCT(A1:A35,-(B1:B350))And then I wrote:Aarrgghh! That is needed for the SUMPRODUCT to return the correct result. But with that change, Solver no longer works(!).Sorry about the incessant postings and possible misdirection.

But I feel obligated to clear the air. I do not want to simply delete some of these follow-up postings, first, because people who have read them might not be aware if I delete them, and second,because I think they offer some insight into the use of Solver for this type of problem, even though some of my earlier comments might be a misdirection.In the final analysis, SUMPRODUCT(A1:A35,B1:B35) is the correct formula to use with Solver. But after a solution has been found, use SUMPRODUCT(A1:A35,-(B1:B350)) or some other method to compute the best total that Solver found.Perhaps the inexact 'binary' 1s are due to rounding errors in the binary floating-point computation that Solver performs. I don't know.

Sigh, I should have paid closer attention in Danzig's LP class 40(!) years ago; but there were riots going on at thetime;-).In any case, perhaps the method is indeed valid as long as we do not mess too much with the formulas used to converge on a solution. Rely on 'fuzzy logic' - imprecise formulas - as much as possible for Solver's purposes. Refine formulas later after asolution has been found.Final comment.This Solver approach might not find the best solution. With my example of random data and target total of 1000, Solver found a combination the sums to 999.96 using default options. It does find an exact combination when I change the options to: max Iterations(32767), infinitesimal Precision and Convergence, and 0.01% for Tolerance. Herbert, In looking over the solutions, Worksheet p2, the solutions are using numbers that aren't even in the invoice amounts. Example: the first solution indicates values of 95.90, 94.11, & 68.96 while the invoice amounts are: (sorted from smallest tolargest)11.3614.4316.4316.8918.919.8821.2322.6923.9924.5224.9328.2336.6940.3643.6944.3546.0748.9252.1652.7554.0360.8964.0764.464.5467.9369.1477.380.4983.7386.2186.9288.5590.0595.13I don't get it.

It's true they do equal the amount you are looking for, but the amounts don't exist in the possible invoice amounts. Mike wrote:Unfortunately, I'm not 'sharp' enough to follow Bernd's macro - I can't seem to figure out how to use his example. If anyone would explain a bit qbout what goes where, I'd certainly be appreciative!!I do believe that the solution that Bernd pointed to - it's Michael Schwimmer's macro, translated by Bernd - is the best one suggested so far.But I, too, had problems understanding what to do. I would suggest that Bernd change his web page to say 'download here'. I would also provide a file or worksheet without example data, so the user does not need to figure out what does and does not needto be replaced for his own purposes.My problems were exacerbated by the fact that I have Excel 2003. It should be more straight-forward for you if you use Excel 2007, as you indicated.Click on the link in Bernd's response. On that web page, find the paragraph starting with 'I translated his version into English', and click on the link indicated by the word 'here'.

Download the file or open it in Excel.In the Excel file, delete A2:A55. Paste your values into column A starting in A2, and put your target sum ($45,341.02) into B2. Presumably, you can simply click on Calculate. (I had to execute the macro cmbCalculateClick manually.) The solution willbe put into column D starting in D2.Schwimmer's macro found a solution in about 41 seconds on my ancient laptop. It found:342.0.4.3.6.8.4.261.483.452.8273.40.

If you want an action epic set in ancient times, then 300 with its stylistic overkill is probably a much safer bet. Last Legion is something you'll rent one day when all the good stuff is out or catch late on TV one night.pass. Bilgi:Essentially true story of how Spartan king Leonidis led an extremely small army of Greek Soldiers (300 of them his personal body guards from Sparta) to hold off an invading Persian army more than 20 times as large.

The actual heroism of those who stood (and ultimately died) with Leonidis helped shape the course of Western Civilization, allowing the Greek city states time to organize an army which repelled the Persians. Set in 480 BC.pass. Singin' in the Rain (1952) is one of the most-loved and celebrated film musicals of all time from MGM, before a mass exodus to filmed adaptationsof Broadway plays emerged as a standard pattern. It was made directly for film, and was not a Broadway adaptation.The joyous film, co-directed by Stanley Donen and acrobatic dancer-star-choreographer Gene Kelly, is a charming, up-beat, graceful and thoroughly enjoyable experience with great songs, lots of flashbacks, wonderful dances (including the spectacular Broadway Melody Ballet with leggy guest star Cyd Charisse), casting and story. This was another extraordinary example of the organic, 'integrated musical' in which the story's characters naturally express their emotions in the midst of their lives. Song and dance replace the dialogue, usually during moments of high spirits or passionate romance. And over half of the film - a 'let's put on a play' type of film, is composed of musical numbers.This superb film, called 'MGM's TECHNICOLOR Musical Treasure,' was produced during MGM studios' creative pinnacle.

From the late 1930s to the early 1960s, producer Arthur Freed produced more than forty musicals for MGM. Bilgi:When it comes to horror films, the Saw set a unique standard that has been the sort of film that has been ground-breaking for all the wrong reasons. The first two films have helped changed the way horror films are created in the last couple years on a purely fiscal scale. Both films had tiny budgets by typical Hollywood standards yet managed to gross over $100 million worldwide apiece, making them extremely profitable on budgets that were less than $7 million combined. Horror films since have been made on the cheap, maximizing profits by having smaller budgets and relying more on marketing to generate enough of an opening weekend to turn a profit even before a lengthy stay at the box office or DVD revenues are generated.

The Saw franchise follows the same basic premise as any other horror franchise. Add in one bad guy, in this case the “Jigsaw” killer (Tobin Bell), and a pile of dead bodies to go with a revolving door of authority figures trying to crack the case and one has all the requisites to make a horror film. It also has some terrific cinematography and a good score, which are two musts in a genre known for quick cuts and mood elements derived from music. Coupled with an unusually strong performance from its main star, Tobin Bell, the film has all the elements to be a strong finale to what is allegedly the final film of the franchise.

Saw III follows Jigsaw, now on his death bed from cancer attended to by his assistant/apprentice Amanda (Shawnee Smith). As he’s dying he wants to live for one more game: to try and teach Jeff (Angus Macfadyen) the meaning of forgiveness. To that end he and Amanda have set up a series of tests, complimented by a talented doctor Lynn (Bahar Soomekh) kidnapped by the duo to ensure his survival throughout the contest. It’s a unique entry into the series and, rumors aside, feels like the end of the franchise. The key thing to consider is whether or not it can recapture the frenzied madness of the first. It does not do any of the following; while the series is never known for being witty or creative in any sense, the original Saw had something to see beyond graphic horror sequences.

Sadly that’s all Saw III brings to the table this time around. While it’s an effectively made thriller, it’s not a very entertaining one. It’s almost laughable at moments, if not for the effective use of blood and gore to keep the laughter at bay. It’s a slick-looking film, one of the strong points of the series as a whole, and the film’s scenery and settings are remarkably well done.

One wouldn’t guess that this was an inexpensive film to make based on just how good it looks. The key thing that lets the film down is its dialogue, or lack thereof. The characters aren’t given many words to use beyond multitudes of profanity, and it’s almost as if the script was initially just the hundred or so profanities the production staff wanted to use in the film and they used words around it to try and create something out of it.

It makes many of the scenes, which have plenty of dramatic overtones, come in much more comical than scary. There’s a feeling while watching the film that the actors are forcing the profanity out much like a young adult uses curse words for dramatic effect; it’s not needed or warranted most of the time and doesn’t do anything more than insult the intelligence of anyone unfortunate to actually watch this film.

It doesn’t hurt that the film has an absurd amount of plot twists and “shocking” dramatic moments; it’s almost as if the script was written by a pair of teenaged horror film fans with bad vocabularies, employing things that have worked in other films as solo items into one bad plot structure, cramming all of these en masse to a blunted effect. Saw III may or may not be the end of the Saw franchise.

While the film’s finale would make for a much more difficult entry into the genre, as a fourth film in the franchise would have to make some logic and plot leaps that would make this film seem reasonable by comparison, it’s a fitting end to the franchise.pass. Caught early on in the proceedings by burned-out (is there any other kind?) detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) and his gorgeous partner (Dina Meyer, reprising her role from the original), Jigsaw taunts them with a live video feed of his latest would-be victims, a group of eight hapless characters that happens to include Matthews' young son. Trapped in a dilapidated house filled with traps that include a pit filled with dirty syringes and a container lined with razor-sharp blades, they attempt to escape by deciphering their captor's twisted clues. As might be expected, the group, which also includes a macho hothead (Franky G) and one of Jigsaw's previous victims (Shawnee Smith), don't exactly prove harmonious in their interactions. Although their plot structure and characterizations are pedestrian, co-screenwriters Darren Lynn Bousman (who also directed) and Leigh Whannell deliver a series of reasonably clever and horrific set pieces. If the machinations don't quite make the startling impact of those in the original, they also far outshine the pedestrian mayhem on display in the current horror glut.

And though the villainous central character looks barely healthy enough to make it into the inevitable next installment, the basic concept is elastic enough to provide for an endless series of 'Saw' follow-ups.pass. Bilgi:40 years ago, Don Haskins went on the recruiting trail to find the best talent in the land, black or white. 7 blacks and 5 whites made up the legendary 1965-66 Texas Western Miners. They were mocked and ridiculed for their showboating and flaunting of black players on the court. Yet, in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, Haskins and his Miners came together as a team united to reach the National Championship game against powerhouse Kentucky.pass. Bilgi:I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for Halle Berry. She is, after all, one of the most beautiful women in the world and her turns in Introducing Dorothy Dandridge and Monster's Ball proved she's got talent.

But for all of her talent and accolades, she has a penchant for getting involved in inane movie projects— Swordfish, Catwoman, Gothika, and now Perfect Stranger.In this 'sexy thriller,' Berry plays Rowena, an investigative journalist for the New York Courier. We pick up her story just as she's exposed a Mark Foley-like scandal. Her paper subsequently squashes the story and Ro quits after a drunken verbal tirade sponsored by the First Amendment.Halle Berry as RoAfter angrily walking out on her job, Ro runs to make the train and is followed by a woman calling out her name. Ro ignores her, as if she doesn't know her. Once Ro misses the train and the woman catches up with her in the station, Ro calls her Grace and tries to ignore her in the way you only can if you do actually know the person.

Faced with conflicting clues, I wondered if Grace was mistaking Ro for someone else; perhaps she was a crazy-streetwalker-cum-sage who was speaking some mysterious prophecy; I even toyed with the idea that this Grace was a ghost.Grace's rendezvous with Ro is an attempt to entice Ro to become an instrument of revenge; Grace's high-profile married lover, Harrison Hill, is now spurning her advances, and she wants Ro to reveal his philandering ways to the world. Rowena demurs with irritation, but Grace forces her to take a stack of incriminating e-mails as Ro gets on the next train. They part as Grace smirks, 'Say hi to your mom.' Bruce Willis as Harrison HillOh-so-gradually we learn that Rowena and Grace are childhood friends whose relationship has turned sour. (Note to self: She's not a ghost.) But when Grace turns up dead a week after their meeting in the subway (Note to self: now she is a ghost!

I knew there was something dead about her), Rowena goes on a crusade to track down the killer. Suspect number one: Harrison Hill.Hill, played by Bruce Willis, is a slick ad man with a soft spot for pretty girls that Ro hits hard. With a wardrobe of tight skirts and low-cut blouses, she goes undercover in his ad agency to gather evidence that he offed Grace in order to keep her from exposing their affair. If his moneybags wife found out, he stood to lose everything. His motives seem obvious. But, are they? ( dun, dun, duuuun)Giovanni Ribisi as MilesRo's accomplice in her undercover effort is her friend and tech guru Miles (Giovanni Ribisi). Amat p5000 cvd manual pdf.

As all movie tech gurus do, Miles performs impossibly fast feats involving firewalls and passwords and secret files. And also as all movie tech gurus do, he's crushing hard on the leading lady. He is both the most likeable and the creepiest character in the movie—a testament to Ribisi's always complex take on even the most peripheral people in any plot. A scene in which Ro stumbles into a secret room in his apartment is one of the most disturbing in the whole movie.Perfect Stranger has a convoluted, dream-like quality. Whole scenes, like one in which Ro appears to be at an accident investigation scene (her job might have provided some reason for her to be there, but she's already quit by this point), aren't explained at all. Characters come in and out of view with few concrete details about how they're connected to one another. Grace's introduction is porous.

And the friendly intimacy between Miles and Ro has no context. When Ro starts again to see the boyfriend who cheated on her with Grace, we start to wonder how well we've been introduced to our intrepid journalist herself.Harrison and Ro rendez-vousI think this amorphous quality is meant to be a creative driver for tension. Instead, when the twists start twisting, I, quite frankly, didn't care about the outcome. It's not exactly the experience one hopes to have 90 minutes into a 'who done it?'

And it wasn't surprising to learn that the director filmed three different endings to the movie, each with a different character as the killer. The plot is so ridden with holes that anyone could have done it.

Cue moral ambiguity.Interestingly, this hole-ridden, morally ambiguous tale was penned by a Christian, Todd Komarnicki (whose first movie was Elf, which he produced). In a 2003 interview with, Komarnicki emphasized the importance of telling a good story: 'We have a savior who was a storyteller, so I think there is great value in story I think it's a very powerful tool. Certainly, like any tool, it can be misused.' He concluded by saying that 'storytelling is what makes the movie business work.'

This is the third computer-animated film to be made by Disney since the studio abandoned hand-drawn animation altogether a few years ago. (The first two were the moderately successful Chicken Little and the huge flop The Wild.) It's also the first Disney cartoon to come out since the studio merged with Pixar and handed the reins of the animation department over to Toy Storydirector John Lasseter, who has made no secret of wanting Disney to revive some of its older traditions—including making short cartoons and, ironically enough, drawing cartoons by hand.Lewis is looking for the family he never knewAs a result, for all its cutting-edge technology, Meet the Robinsons is peppered with self-conscious nods to the studio's past. The film is preceded by Boat Builders, a 1938 short in which Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy try to build a ship using a do-it-yourself kit; the way the components unfold and snap into place prefigures the way buildings sprout up instantaneously in Meet the Robinsons' more futuristic setting. (By the way, it is delightful to see such a vintage cartoon on the big screen, and to hear kids laugh at gags that are probably older than their grandparents.)Then the film itself begins, and we see that the new Disney logo begins with a series of hand-drawn sketches that evolve into a clip from Steamboat Willie, the 1928 cartoon that got Disney off the ground in the first place. And finally, the film ends with a title card bearing an inspirational quote from Uncle Walt himself.So there is a strong sense around Meet the Robinsons that the folks at Disney are trying to find their bearings.

Which leaves the film itself—well into production before Lasseter took over last year—looking kind of lost.Wilbur has some time travel-tips, and trips, for LewisThe story concerns Lewis, an orphan on the cusp of adolescence (which may explain why his voice is credited to two young actors, Daniel Hansen and Jordan Fry, instead of just one—did someone's voice break in mid-production?). The boy is also a prodigy, an inventor of gizmos that, so far, have not been all that successful.

However, Lewis is on the verge of creating a memory-scanning device out of everyday components, and with this machine, he hopes to retrieve any memories he might have of the mother who left him on the orphanage's doorstep when he was just a baby.But first, he has to take his invention to the science fair. There, his efforts are interrupted by two people: a boy named Wilbur Robinson (Wesley Singerman), who claims to be a time cop from the future; and a dastardly, extremely neurotic, moustache-twirling villain wearing a cape and a bowler hat, who is known simply as Bowler Hat Guy (voiced by director Stephen J. Anderson).Bowler Hat Guy is emblematic of all that works and doesn't work in Meet the Robinsons. The film is inspired by William Joyce's book A Day with the Robinsons, and on a certain level it retains the book's cheerful, flamboyant absurdism.

Like so many other Disney films of late, it is ultimately forgettable, and it is noteworthy mainly as an historical footnote during a time of transition at the studio. One line the characters use a fair bit in Meet the Robinsons is 'Keep moving forward!' It's an odd thing to hear in a film that spends so much time looking to the past.

But presumably it is also the studio's way of letting us know that better movies are around the corner.pass.