那夜凌晨,我坐上了旺角開往大埔的紅van – Pizza

今年書展,從高登除了跑一個向西村上春村外,還跑出了一架紅van。「那夜凌晨,我坐上了旺角開往大埔的紅van」(以下簡稱「紅van」)是另一本人氣網絡小說,跳出了虛擬世界出版成為實體書,結局還末出便已經被903改篇為擴播劇。小說的題材十分特別,香港很少出現的科幻加懸疑作品,可以想像是Lost加28 Days Later的混合香港版。深宵一輛開往大埔的紅van,從出獅子山隊道一刻開始,忽然間香港成為一個死城,街道上沒有汽車所有人也消失了,只剩下車中十七個人。單是看這個叫人耳目一新的設定,已經讓我非要上網找來一讀不可。

作者Pizza正職是編劇,「紅van」的故事電影感很強,營做出未世無助的氣氛,世界只剩下我們的伙伴。一幕接一幕的震撼,不斷拋出的謎團,死亡病毒,不名來歷的電話,帶防毒面具的神秘人,大帽山頂的不知名政府機關,讓讀者不停地追看下去。作者在中段轉入大直路之前,還一口氣例出所有未解的謎團,荒死讀者忘記得他開了頭的眾多伏線。見他把懸疑伏筆玩得這樣大,我很好奇他會如何收線解謎,同時亦有點擔心故事會不會爛尾。

怎樣說好呢,只看小說本篇其實完全看不明白發生什麼時,幸好作者寫了後記The Fact來解釋事件來龍去脈,最後總算也能勉強自圓其說,把大部份謎團解答清楚,留下一個開放式的結局。總之故事結構不是完美無瑕,但已經比很多美劇或日本輕小說好多了。作者初試啼聲第一次寫小說,有此成績已是難能可貴,所以批評時加同情分鬆手一點。

書展只出了上集,心急等不及看結局的朋友,可在網絡上找到全書的內容。謎底我不便在此透露,說穿了便趣味大減。把過往類似作品的公式套入,自以為聰明很去解謎,被作者故佈疑陣欺騙上當,也是看這本書的樂趣之一。記得要看完整本書,才好看The Fact哦。

一路向西 – 向西村上春樹

台灣紅了一個網絡作家九巴刀,香港發展比較慢,現在才跑出一個向西村上春樹。在高登論壇寫咸故,寫到有出版社替他出書,賣斷市再版又賣斷市,還把故事改篇搬上大銀幕,可謂香港網絡的一個小小奇蹟。

上次回香港時剛巧聽到向西兄的大名,在網上找來他的成名作「東莞的森林」一看,不看猶自可一看驚為神作。想不到一個上大陸叫雞的故事,竟然可以寫得這樣充滿文學色彩。老實說論香艷向西兄的咸故遠不及比生果報的風月版,他故事的好看在於他以豐富的知識,隨手拈來各種的明喻音喻,描寫意境心態等不同的文學手法,夾雜地著道香港真實的語言,把與叫雞互不相干的冷知識,化為絡驛不斷的幽默小點子。好笑之餘也帶有反思性,他說出了很多男人,想說又不懂說,懂說又不敢說的心底話。

雖然在網上已經看過,但路過書店看到實物,還是忍不住手要買本回來支持一下。這可是一本十年難得一遇的奇書,錯過了以後要找恐怕找不著。書中隨了「東莞的森林」外,還有另一篇小說「關於去浦,我說的其實是。。。」,名稱同樣也是玩正牌村上春樹的作品。這篇小說是講上深圳落D,誤搭沉船遇上假胸的故事,同樣都是抵死啜咳,不過依手法比「東莞的森林」幹浮,可以視為後者的前傳。

隨了兩篇小說外,本書還收錄了他的一些散文,有些在網上看過有些沒有。除了他大膽把性與色情入文,借花敬佛說些人生道理,有點流水賬的感覺。不過要文字為媒介寫得如此大膽,又有他那枝筆基本功夫的作家,恐怕全香港只有他一人。

閱讀向西兄,讓我不期然想起Susan Sontag的Camp(砍普),他的作品就是這樣的藝術品味,用最低俗來包裝高雅展現出來,用高雅來襯托低俗的價值,挑戰讀者竟有的品味邏輯,高雅和低俗,深度和膚淺再也不能分開了。

護花危情

上一期「心戰」趕走了不少師奶觀眾,今期的「護花危情」百份百師奶劇,無記公式到百份百完全估到劇情,相信應該挽回不少收視。原本看完「心戰」後,不打算晚上再浪費時間看電視,見到主角是靚仔Bosco加靚女鐘嘉欣,便試看一兩集如何,結果變成每晚追看完十九集。

故事老土到不得了,窮小子愛上富家女,被保護的証人愛上保鏢,加多個有錢爸爸從中作梗,還有一個殺人滅口的陰謀。鐘嘉欣的演技認真差,她扮高傲的千女小姐很浮跨,後來她情病回復正常主動追求Bosco,看起來才順眼一點。Bosco騎電單車演特工警察有型又靚仔,沒有什麼可挑剔之處。結局抄「天若有情」認真失敗,懶催淚看到我想發笑,不過總好過大團圓BBQ結局。

這套劇的編劇非常廢,劇本前後犯駁錯漏百出。愛情線已經寫得十分突尤,好像是編劇度好幾場有爆點的主戲,便隨手把故事串連起來,完全沒有考慮角色思想性格的連貫性。Bosco查三十三年前綁架案的大橋則更加離譜。DNA鑑證技術面世才二十多年,三十年前警方又怎會保留DNA證物,更不可能知道兩個兇徙是兄弟。Bosco的推理也很有問題,喬江山根本不是1979年去毛里求斯,他娶妻後生了一子一女,至少過了七八年才離港,那Bosco如何推論喬江山和Sapura幹完大案一起著草呢?

若果不是要抱BB睡覺,除了看電視沒有其事可做,我絕不會看這種直達垃圾水平的劇集。劇中唯一亮點是蔣志光,他最擅長演這類半傻半醒的搞笑角色,如果沒有他的插科打渾,恐怕我挨不過頭一個星期。除了兩個主角和例牌的萬年綠葉外,其他角色全部都是新人。演表妹美少女廚神出身的樂瞳,與演師姐從亞視跳槽過無記的李綺雯,在眾多新人之中比較突出。反正無記花旦也走得七七八八,是時候給新一代演員上位擔正。雖然劇集被鬧爆不過既然收視好,可以考慮開拍續集或電影版,講Bosco吐血但沒有死,警方因為證據年代久遠,被喬江山的律師軍團找出漏洞,判無罪當庭釋放。於是Bosco不再相信法律正義,找Sapura的兒子做靠山,要自已殺死喬江山替巴打報仇。鐘嘉欣夾在中間離做人,可以順便上演一齣殉情記。我想這個新故事,比原本的故事好看多了。

布尿片 vs 紙尿片

最初老婆說要用布尿片,原先我大力反對,心想既骯髒又麻煩,想不到現在我竟然自封成為布尿片宣傳大使,見到新父母便向他們傳教,細說用布尿片的好處。近年布尿片再度流行,我認識的新父母若果是西方人,有超過半使數用布尿片。不過很奇怪,中國人朋友則一個也沒有。大慨他們與很多人一樣,對布尿片普遍存在誤解,思想還停留在我阿媽那個年代,以為布尿片易漏又難用,不小心個扣針拮還會到BB的屁股。

現代的新式布尿片,外觀與紙布尿片相同,一塊過設計,內裏繨有雙層吸水綿,外面則是像防水風褸的質地。替BB上片的方法也和布尿片一樣,用魔術貼或啪鈕扣好,十分方便。晚上過夜用的布尿片可以內加吸水膽,外面再包一多層膠罩,用一整晚八個小時也不會漏。用布尿片的好處,環保這個理由最多人講,紙尿片在堆填區中要不知幾多千年才分解,用布尿片可以減少製造垃圾。不過對我來說,這個並不是理由,堆填區太遙遠,不太關我事。還說些比較實際的好處,讓我仔細羅例出來。

  1. 省錢。一條布尿片大約等於一盒大裝紙尿片的價錢。一盒紙尿片可以用個半星期,而我只需要大約十五條布尿片,計算下來一年省可以回不少紙尿片錢。而且布尿片有二手市場,用完一年後買出去,還可以回收一半成本。
  2. 對BB屁股好。紙尿片不透氣,加上吸水物料含化學物質,BB屁股很容易生熱痱。布尿片純天然材料,透氣通爽又舒服,對BB屁股比較健康。
  3. 好看。紙尿片千篇一律白色,頂多有些少吸水會轉色的圖案。布尿片設計和顏色選擇多,可以每天也替BB屁股轉花款。例如想覺得近來好像頭頭碰著黑,可以替BB著條紅色布尿片旺一旺。
  4. 好手感。若果你試過拍BB屁股,紙尿片輕飄飄打落去冇手感,布尿片則打落去好有質感。
  5. 幫助戒片。我BB還細,不知是否有效。但其他朋友告訴我,用布尿片的BB戒片容易些,因為BB感覺到自已濕了。反而用紙尿片因為吸水吸得太乾,BB自已賴了也不知。

說完這麼多好處,用布尿片的唯一壞處便是要洗尿片,平均二至三天開一機專洗尿片。用過的尿片用有蓋密逢洗衣籃儲起來,放在通風的地方便沒有什麼異味。洗尿片實情沒有想像中的恐怖,又不是要你用手洗,最大挑戰只不過是從洗衣籃放入洗衣機。不過如果帶了膠手套的話也沒什麼好怕,不會比平時換片清理BB屁股時嘔心。先扣好魔術貼和把內膽返出來,放入洗衣機後用冷水洗兩次,並配合特別洗尿片的專用洗衣粉,防止普通洗粉的殘餘微粒破壞尿片的吸水功能。洗完後放在太陽底下曬乾,尿片上的污漬差不多完全退色。收片接好放回BB房,便又可以循環再用了。

潮流興用布尿片兼好處多多,現在還用紙尿片的父母太Out了。

Limitless 逆天潛能

荷里活很多科幻電影,不過是把普通的公式冒險故事,配上特效和電腦動畫的偽科幻,可是觀眾卻總是十分受落。不要被疑似偽科幻的片頭騙了,這套「逆天潛能」可是貨真價實的科幻電影,說一個如何會怎樣的故事,不過公式化的大場面卻久奉,恐怕一些看慣了偽科幻片的觀眾一時間不能適應。原著改篇自新晉作家Alan Glynn的小說The Dark Fields,因為電影票房成績突出的名牌效應,小說再版時索性連書名也改掉,乾脆用電影的名字。

故事的主題很簡單直接,若果有一種藥吃了能夠令人聰明百倍,同時很例牌地藥物有嚴重的副作用,那接下來會發生什麼事呢?聰明藥這個點子是科幻小說的老題材,作者能夠舊刱新酒玩出新花款,泡製出一個刺激懸疑的好故事。書中的聰明並不是萬能,只是快速地把腦袋中的知識連結起來,找出新的應用模式。人腦不是字典或百科全書,死背資料也不可能勝過Google,但Google的資料是死的,只有人腦才有能力把不同的資料連結起來,解答沒有預設答案的開放式問題。

主角是一個潦倒的小說作家,偶然機會下從毒犯手中得到了一大袋的聰明藥。聰明自然想要向上爬,他能寫出暢銷小說,運用機智結交有錢朋友吃喝玩樂,不過向上爬最直接的手段,始終要進入華爾街的權力核心。片中除了主角外,還有其他人得到聰明藥。可是他們卻不見得十分聰明,只是在過著與以往一樣的人生,不過是腦袋轉得快些記多一點事情,只有主角才看出當中機遇,找出達到頂峰的方法。戲中也點出了聰明的死穴,任憑你如何聰明,在現實世界中經驗和關係才是最重要,不然主角那會給大老闆吃得死死,被黑社會追殺至窮途末路。

以下內容含劇透,未看電影的朋友慎入。

電影的結局令人喜出望外,主角逃過黑社會的追殺後,經一事長一智領悟到聰明藥的真正使用方法。雖然已屬於片尾在交代日後事,但結尾那五分鐘畫龍點晴是全片精華所在,一口氣扭轉之前九十分鐘B級動作片留下的壞印像,令電影真正踏進科幻的殿堂。結局完全合理合邏輯,只是大部份荷里活都不會這樣赤祼祼地說故事,因為太正常讓故事真實得不似是小說故事。絕頂聰明的人在得到聰明藥後,必定會做那兩件事情。第一件是研究聰明藥的成份,改良副作用並自行生產,便不用怕藥丸供應給人要脅了。一開始主角向華爾街行的路是錯了,絕頂聰明的人做事只不是為錢,而是為了得到無上的權力。主角競選參議員只是開始,他的路程的終點是美國總統的寶座,世界上最有權力的人。

A Nerd’s Perspective on Software Patents

Software patent cost more harm than good to the society allowing companies patent obvious common things. We should have a patent system that penalize those “fake” patent by imposing a heavity fine if a patent is later shown to be invalid. Part of the fine should award to the person present evidence to over turn the “fake” patent. It lessen the burden of the patent office by outsourcing the validation of patent to the crowd and it will keep those who file patents honest.

by John Larson

As a programmer doing reasonably smart stuff on the web, I’m made a bit uneasy by software patents, namely because the possibility exists that I be sued for infringing upon them.

It’s not that I do anything nasty like meticulously reverse engineering the complex works of another for my own benefit, it’s that I build websites and web applications at all. I haven’t done the boatloads of research to know precisely how much I’m infringing, but, for example, most projects I do contain some sort of menu, and this technically violates Microsoft’s patent on ‘system and method for providing and displaying a Web page having an embedded menu’, which they have already demonstrated willingness to sue another company for. I do stuff that’s WAY more complicated than a bunch of navigation links of at the top of the screen, so I can only imagine how many other toes I’m stepping on when building systems that feature both ubiquitous and niche features.

So this characterizes the implication of patent law upon me personally. Now then, if you scale that up to a community of hundreds of thousands of programmers similarly impacted, and throw in the rising prominence of large companies suing one another over intellectual property[1], you will then have a sense of what the fuss over software patents covers. These are broad strokes, but they convey the gist.

Accordingly, protest has risen and lengthy debates have raged on about how to fix the “software patent problem”. Some of it goes on and on about legal precedent, objective tests for what’s patentable, the so-called “transformation test”, and other things that apt to make the eyes of a more casual reader glaze over (mine included).

What I want to explore is if it makes sense and is defensible to take a completely different tack: the pragmatic view of the average, motivated nerd.

Let us eschew, for a while, all the legal mumbo jumbo of definitions, specificity, precedent and so forth as they are usually applied to the debate of “is X patentable?”, and see if we can’t go closer to the root concepts in an effort to sidestep the whole tangled mess. I want to look through the lens of the reasons and motivations of why have a patent system at all.
The Essence of the Patent System

I’m not saying anything new or profound here, just summarizing to set the stage. The patent system is a societal construct: we all, as a society, agree to abide by certain constraints (namely not infringe upon anothers patented ideas for a fixed period of time), we willingly do this in order to reap benefits as a society, and there are consequences for an individual who breaks this agreement. (The whole thing is not unlike how we all, as a society, agree not to kill one another: we all more or less enjoy the overall benefit and are willing to give up that particular freedom, and there are consequences for an individual who breaks that agreement).

There are two really great benefits we reap as a society for having and honoring the patent system.

The first is that it encourages people to come up with new great things. The protection offered by patents effectively says “Hey, nice job coming up with that great new thing! Listen, we know you put a lot of hard work and investment into doing so, and for being the one who did all that we’ll give you a window of time in which you can be the only one who gets to reap the reward of that effort, without having some copy cat come along and bootstrap off of your blood and sweat.” An innovator, knowing that benefit lies on the other side is encouraged to invest time/effort/money up front. The rest of society gets to enjoy the fruits of that work, and for it pays the price of allowing a temporary monopoly.

The second benefit is that it encourages disclosure of really smart work. In this sense, the patent system effectively says “Wow, that’s something really smart that you did! Listen, we’re thinking long term for the expansion of the fabric of human knowledge, and so we’d love to know how you did that rather than see you take those secrets to the grave, or have your heirs forever keep it under lock and key. If you teach us how that works, we’ll get to expand as a civilization and in return we’ll make sure you have a window of time in which to benefit from your novel creation. Thanks for bettering the rest of us for the long haul.” Again, a nice benefit to society: it speeds up the proliferation of ingenuity and all the fruits that come with it, gained at the cost of allowing a temporary monopoly.
Evaluating Patents as a Cost/Benefit Proposition

From a clear understanding of the trade-off made when a patent is given, one can view it as a transaction willingly entered into by two parties. A patent application can be viewed as a business proposal that a society might freely choose to enter into (or politely decline) according to its interests and values, much like any business deal between two free-willed entities.

I propose that the debate no longer center around IF a given idea is patentable, but instead whether or not we WANT to grant a patent for a given idea: in other words, transform the debate to a value judgment as to whether we as a society care to pay the price of issuing a patent for the expected benefit, or would rather pass on the opportunity altogether. When it comes to software, I believe the best choice, as a culture, is to say “thanks but no thanks” to the opportunity of issuing patents, and it takes a look into the nature of software and the nerd culture that surrounds it to see clearly why.
Nerd Culture and Innovation

I love creating cool and interesting stuff with technology, and there are 100,000 others like me. There is no shortage of things out there in software that could be (or are) patented that a smart nerd with a little bit of gumption could look at and recreate without trouble. And by “look at” I mean simply get the view as an end user, not trolling through source code or employing sophisticated tools of reverse engineering.

Consider, for example, Amazon’s patent on one click ordering. When a customer is logged in, and has items in their cart, with one click they can place a completed order for those items. Kinda nifty, but anyone who’s done e-commerce programming can immediately work out how to implement such a feature using a customer’s information on file. I say society got a raw deal for issuing this patent: Amazon shared nothing of value with the rest of the world, and effectively earned the right squat on a generally useful idea because they ponied up some cash for lawyers and got some paperwork in first.

I would categorize ideas like that as “inevitable disclosure”: an idea that, by its very existence in user-facing software, reveals everything needed to reproduce it. The benefit of having information about how a such an idea was implemented in software disclosed is moot: one look and (or even sometimes hearing of the idea) is all a smart nerd needs to work out the rest. Apple’s patented “slide to unlock” widget is another example of an inevitable disclosure idea. So are rollover images:

We smart nerds are always thinking of and building new stuff to razzle-dazzle, be it for the pure fun of it, personal pride and reputation, or a great portfolio piece by which to impress the next prospective client for a contracting gig. And nerd culture, with its drive to innovate and share runs much deeper than small projects. Volunteer, collaborative open source projects have created top notch, large scale innovation in all realms of software, such as full-fledged operating systems, open web standards, content management platforms, e-commerce packages, audio and video compression schemes, office productivity suites, and more.

I point this all out to demonstrate a simple observation: innovation [in software] isn’t going to dry up if the incentive of patent protections were to disappear tomorrow. More than most (all?) industries, software grants much more space for hobbyists and enthusiasts to get involved. The overhead to major achievement is much smaller. We are numerous, we are smart, and we are hungry to create brilliant things for both personal and altruistic reasons.
Secrets in Software

The world of software won’t turn into the wild west of pillaging and stealing ideas in the absence of software patents, because things that are genuinely hard to do and which represent painstaking work and novel innovation can be kept a secret[2].

Come to think of it, the desire to file a patent to protect a software innovation may be a sign of admittance on the part of the applicant that the idea itself will be easy to replicate by a community of smart people (or even maybe your average nerd), which is a sure good reason to be disinterested in issuing a patent at all. “Thanks but no thanks”, I would rather we collectively say as a society: “keep it to yourself because the larger world will figure out how to execute and enjoy this idea sooner or later, and get there sooner without paying the price.”

Notes:

[1] Which breaks my heart, because as a casual observer it appears as though legal strong-arming is becoming a passable substitute for actual marketplace competitiveness.

[2] Google’s proprietary index and ranking algorithms that power their web search are presumably breathtakingly brilliant. They constitute a large portion of the secret sauce which gives Google its competitive edge, and they reap the rewards of that not because they came first and get to squat on medium-obvious ideas, but because they do it better than your average smart person can figure out on their own. Contrast this against Apple’s slider thingee.
John Larson

The Adjustment Bureau 天網逆緣

論資排背Philip K. Dick未必是最出名的科幻小說作家,但他肯定是荷里活最受歡迎的科幻小說作家。改篇自他小說的科幻電影,從最早期的Blade Runner,到大隻佬的Total Recall,靚佬湯的Minority Report,套套也是科幻電影的經典作品。這套「天綱逆綠」改篇自他的小說Adjustment Team,由靚仔明星麥迪文主演,是少數集合科幻動作懸疑愛情於一身,男女觀眾通吃的最佳拍拖電影。

何謂命中注定,電影給命中注定重新下一個定義。在我們看不見的社會每一個角落,也有命運調節局在暗地裏工作,從細微不足到的地方著手,修正我們命運的方向。在公園中不小心碰跌你咖啡的路人,是為了讓你趕不上搭那班公車,防止你偶然在公車上遇到那個不該遇到的人。主角麥迪文是年輕的眾議員,在競選連任失敗的晚上,遇上了命中注定的女子。原本他們不應該再遇上,可是因為命運調節局特工的小小失誤,他們一發不可收拾結下情緣,更讓麥迪文得悉命運調節局存在的秘密。縱使命運調節局全力阻止,麥迪文總不其然地再三碰上她。最後高級特工告知麥迪文他們不能在一起的真相,麥迪文的命運是預定當美國總統拯救世界,女主角則會成為世界有名的舞蹈家。若他們堅持二人在一起,他只會成為一個普通打工仔,而她則在社區中心教小朋友跳舞。麥迪文為了她好為了世界,忍痛不辭而別。時隔幾年新一屆大選來臨,麥迪文成為呼聲最高的侯選人,而她如預言所料憑跳舞揚威國際。他們在命運差使下又再重遇,引發命運調節局新一輪的行動。一路負青這個案件的好心特工尋根究底,發現他們二人在之前版本的命運原是在一起,因為其他的命運修改後產生的副作用把他們拆開,可是舊版本的命運影響力還在。特工決定暗中幫麥迪文,讓他可以避過命運調節局的追捕,趕到婚禮的會場搶新娘。

電影不乏緊張刺激的動作場面,在紐約街頭用隨意門追逐很有新意,唯一不變的只是麥迪文套套電影總是在跑來跑去。電影中雖然沒有明確說明,但暗示得很明顯命運調節局的主席是上帝,載黑超穿西裝的特工其實是天使。他們改變命運是為世人好,防止世界因為人類愚昧帶來大災難。這套電影的主軸是預定論與自由意志之爭,上帝放手給人類去決定自已的命運,便弄出了中世紀的黑暗時期,要上帝出手推動文藝復興。經過了啟蒙運動以為人類成熟再試放手,轉頭又搞出了世界大戰美蘇冷戰差點世界未日,又要勞煩命運調節局來收捨殘局。電影最後大團圓結局,麥迪文的堅持戰挑命運感動了上帝,決定再試放手讓人類自已選擇未來。

這套電影娛樂性豐富,但背後也帶出對命運的探討,何謂命運,何謂豐盛的生命。在愛情與名利,甚至拯救世界之間,人應該如何去作出取捨。大部份人可能會選擇名利,浪漫的人選擇愛情。只有不相信命運的人,才會自已開創一條新的道路,愛情與名利兩者兼得。這電影亦給一些相信凡事也有神安排的人當頭捧喝,就算神安排了這樣的命運給你,只要你不斷爭扎努力去改變,誰說神不會改變心意再作安排。

保衛戰隊之出動喇!朋友!

黃精甫加麥浚龍,已經成為香港cult片的代名詞。去年「復仇者之死」玩色情暴力玩得很盡,今年的「保衛戰隊之出動喇!朋友!」則改行玩日本漫畫的熱血和正義。可能看這套電影前心中已經有個譜,我對他們兩個的電影不會奢望有完整合理的劇情,所以今次倒看得十分開心。特別是在片中穿插的宇宙大帝,是我們七十後長大那代人的共同回憶。電影的主題曲用張國榮版本先有一陣親切感,片尾那幾秒全新製作的宇宙大帝電腦動畫更是驚喜。只是看完整套戲,也不明白為什麼要揀宇宙大帝,宇宙大帝的主題講並不是正義邪惡,而是講外星人侵略地球啊。

故事天馬行空跳線得十分離譜,不用深究任何前因後果和合理性。一個看來像是香港公共屋村的地方,竟然有邪惡黑社會的秘密基地。壞人還要壞出汁到寫在面上,個個都帶著個面具走來走出,十足十小時候看日本卡通的邪惡黨。麥浚龍演戲不錯,他那幾場打鬥身手之得外,文戲方面也交足功課。天不怕地不怕只信自已的拳頭,窮小子愛上黑幫千金,打輸斷手後意志消尋,為救好友跪地求饒,也能演活主角小雙的心理。翻版周星馳溫超真係好似周星馳,他這種演譯方式放讓人覺得很煩,只不過以前周星馳是做主角才不覺得。鄧麗欣的角式可塑性很高,她少了麥浚龍那份熱血和衝勁,給她來演只是勉強合格。她有一幕騎電單車拿長槍造型,原本應該很型很有風格,放在她上姐手姐腳就缺少了那份魅力。

電影每一幕也印上黃精甫暴力美學的標記,初時麥浚龍赤手空拳的幾場對打,拍得很有速度感和寫實感。音樂會的追逐戰雖然短,但起承轉合做足拍得最出色。保標聯手背叛黑幫大佬那幕,畫面很華麗眩目,但太快看不出在發生什麼事。最後一場保衛戰隊坐小巴出動,除了有點黑色幽默外,與之前的動作場面相比下就遜色了。最大問題還是成本寒酸,用地下停車場扮惡黨大本營,假到連小朋友也騙不到,花點錢搭個廠景嘛。

黃精甫很有潛質成為大器,只差他還未遇上一個好劇本。

令人噴飯的謝飯 – 施諾

我不是基督教徒,但大學年代返了多年基督教會,也曾活躍於當年臥虎藏龍的基版。對於一些基督教會特別的華人教會的荒唐事,不只是略有所聞甚至有第一手經歷。當年基版也曾有人發起過把這些荒唐事記錄下來,不過基版關門之後大家不了了之。剩下只是幾個學術性較重的網站,如基版FAQ基督教人文學會離教者之家等等。想不到十年後的今天,竟然有個有心人的笨蛋自資出書,忠言逆耳指地出基督教會的陋習。

從作者的文筆之間,我感受到他對信仰的熱誠,隱固的聖經學問基礎,以及對現今的基督教會感到失望,正所謂愛之深責之切。幸好他是用筆名出書,不然恐怕他早已給牧師捉去問話,說什麼家醜不該外傳,不要給教外人找著痛腳來攻擊基督教。然而這個種教會中報喜不報憂,缺乏自省能力的不負青任文化,正正便是本書其中一個批評重點。

作者把問題歸納為三個主要問題,神職人員和教徒的「三無」態度,無知,無能,無責任感。耶穌教會的生命內容被抽空掉,只餘下形式上的軀殼徙然存在。作者分為九十多個章節,逐一細數教會中充斥著各式各種的荒謬。與癈話無異的屬靈官腔,被教外人訕笑扮虔誠的愚行,想要做騷但又不濟的見證,不能適應社會的教會沉澱物,自以為是獨佔恩寵把耶穌當成黃大仙,重量不重質地盲目追求人數增長,讓正常人反感的薄涼借苦難傳教手法。教會變成了中產階級俱樂部,教徙集體自我催眠以為在信耶穌,原來只是得把口講耶穌,完全沒有行動去章顯耶穌的愛心。其實這本書的內容也不是新鮮事,基督教會內的腐化非一日之寒。返教會日子久但依然能保持獨立思考的教徙,讀這本書會倍覺身同感受,一邊看一邊讚嘆說出了心底話。

這本書不是神學作品,不涉及教義正統異端之爭,只是以平常心,像國王的新衣中那個小孩一樣,說出教會長久以來的問題。筆者的文筆有點長氣,不過他在序言也說過,若不這樣長氣慢慢地解說,恐怕便給別人斷章取義,說他在生安白造攻擊教會,然後把書中的勸告掃進垃圾筒,繼續依然故我地自我感覺良好。全書最後兩章有簡單的問答,說說作者寫這本書的原因和目標,想批評這本書的人應該看一看。作者只是看不過眼教內的情況想出一分力,他不是要人離開教會,也不是很徫大地提倡要改革教會,只是如果有教徙看過這本書後有所得著,從自已開始不再做令人噴飯的教徙,他便已經功德圓滿了。

若果當年有這本書,又若果當年我返的教會看了這本書改正過來,說不定今天我會是個基督教徙呢。

Bluetooth mini keyboard

I have a Logitech wireless keyboard for my living room computer that hooks up to my TV. It is working fine for a long time but now I have a small problem. It is too big for me to hold the baby and type at the same time. Moreover, the keyboard is sitting on the coffee table when not used. If I bend over to pick it up with the baby sleeping on me, this motion makes the baby uncomfortable and very often wakes him up. I need a smaller wireless keyboard that is easy to use.

I got this Made in China Bluetooth mini keyboard on eBay fro $15. It is pretty small, smaller than my palm. The keys feel like cheap calculator, but it gets the job done. It is very easy to setup, just plug in the Bluetooth dongle and pair the device. I didn’t test explicitly the range of operation, but it works fine with the distance between the couch and the TV. It uses built-in Li-ion battery that charges via micro USB cable. The battery can last 3-4 hours of non-step use when fully charged. Since I usually only need to type in something quick, the battery can last pretty long if I remember turn off the keyboard after each use.

With this latest addition, now my baby station is fully equipped. It is a rocking recliner chair with very comfortable armrest and built-in footrest. There has a pouch sitting on armrest that enables me to have full control of the TV and the living room computer within arms reach. The pouch houses the TV remote, the cable box remote, a wireless mouse and the Bluetooth mini keyboard. Now I can keep myself entertained even if I have to hold the baby for the whole night.