夏日大作戰 Summer Wars

「夏日大作戰」零九年上映,一口氣奪取當年日本所有動畫大獎,與及和多個外國影展的動畫獎項。導演是「穿越時空的少女」的細田守,時隔三年他說故事的技巧又更精進了。原著改篇自岩井恭平的輕小說,故事大橋說出來很老土,類似的題材日本和外國的科幻戲拍過很多次。人工智能病毒控制虛擬世界,把丟衡星落核電廠要毀滅世界,主角一行人巧合地置旋渦中心。不過科幻只是電影外衣,親情才是故事的精髓。因為這場世界級的大騷動,讓陣內家族解開多年的心結,男女老少一家團結齊心,打底病毒拯救世界。

電影在技術層面上無懈可擊,Madhouse的電腦動畫技術,讓觀眾為戲中Oz虛擬世界驚歎。其中幾場打鬥追逐的動作場面,有著極高作畫水準,色彩斑爛萬物亂舞之餘,角色的計謀和招式亦清晰能見。細田守導演的功力更是超卓,把大家族眾多人物一一描寫,有條不絮層層遞進,沒有一個角色是紙板路人。每個角色不論戲份多寡,均讓他有盡情表演發揮的機會,只是簡單一句說話一個鏡頭,便已經捉模到角色的精神。

戲中高潮以花牌對決的設計,讓人耳目一新拍案叫絕。用武力硬攻不能打贏病毒,便病毒投其所好利用病毒愛玩遊戲的心理。用一家大小帳戶作為賭注,爭奪擁有衛星控制權的帳戶。除橋段出人意表但又合情合理外,更讓盡得陣內老太花牌真傳的女主角一顯身手,讓身為女主角的她站在拯救世界大作戰的中心。最後一場花牌更是場面十分熱血感人,女主角因為一個失誤把先前贏回來帳戶輸光,還差一個帳戶不夠數目下注。這時世界各地眾人借出帳戶作籌碼,讓她在最後一局反敗為勝。

這幾年日本動畫有點青黃不接,鬼才今敏離世,大友克洋,押井守也相繼淡出,宮崎峻則已呈現老態。細田守以前曾在吉卜力工作,看來他盡得宮崎峻的真傳,他拍的動畫有宮崎峻早年的味道,把科幻和人情味結合得天依無繨,最有資格成為新一代的動畫大師。

The Baby Owner’s Manual – Louis Borgenicht, Joe Borgenicht

還有個多月孩子便要出世了,我初為人父不懂照顧嬰兒。看見別人照顧嬰兒看似很簡單,不外乎餵奶換片,但輪到自已時肯定手忙腳亂。其實育嬰是一問很深澳的學問。所以趁嬰兒未出世前,要看多些書育嬰書藉做足準備,雖然沒有實戰經驗,但有些理論打底總好過沒有。

「嬰兒使用手冊」與上次介紹的「孕婦使用手冊」屬同一係列作品,同樣也是以輕鬆幽默的手法,模妨電器使用手冊的文字和插畫風格,教導讀者零至一歲育嬰的基本知識。兩位作者一位是作家,另一位是兒科醫生,所以可以放心書中資料正確。內容與其他嬰兒書差不多,從準備嬰兒房,如何接出院,如何抱嬰兒,餵奶換片沖涼,哄嬰兒睡覺,和嬰兒玩耍幫助發育,常見的嬰兒疾病,一切父母需要知道的東西也應有盡有。

現在我已經開始緊張,不知到時如何應付嬰兒。不過每個父母經歷過這個階段,船到橋到自然直,嬰兒生下來自然懂得湊。我的朋友已經忠告了我,趁現在嬰兒未出世,有得睡好睡多點,有想做想玩的事好去做,嬰兒來到後,沒覺好睡什麼地方也不用去。所以現在我把握機會,和老婆過多些二人世界時光。

照顧嬰兒是一項能功多藝熟技能,只要對著清單分辨他為何哭,讓嬰兒舒舒服服不哭按時吃睡,跟著標準肥肥白白長大,多點和他玩耍刺激他的腦部和手腳發展,應該不會太難。育嬰理論沒有太多爭議性,餵人奶比奶粉健康,嬰兒頭一年應該在父母房睡,但要有自已的嬰兒床,是人所共知的最新醫學研究結果,其他的理論則主要強調嬰兒的安全。反而到了孩子開始上學,應該按那一套教育哲學理論,找出一套最好的教育理念,則比較讓人頭痛,不過我還有幾年時間去研究教育哲學。

Serendipity 情有獨鍾

想當年初次約會老婆時看的電影,時隔十年找來翻看,與老婆重溫住日情懷。電影的很典型甜到膩的荷里活愛情片,由當年很靚仔的John Cusack和當年很靚女的Kate Beckinsale主演。電影的故事老土到不得了,靚仔靚女主角偶然相遇,大家很夾得來過了很開心的一夜。不過女主角腦袋有問題,硬是要考驗大家有沒有緣份。把男主角的電話寫在鈔票上,去花掉說然後如果鈔票回到手上就代表有緣。而她則把自已的電話寫在一本舊書上,男主角在舊書店找到就是有緣,當然他們沒了下文。

幾年後男的要結婚女的嫁人,無聊地忽然又記起對方。男的當起偵探打鑼去找女的地址,女的則千里迢迢飛回約紐,心有靈犀認為會重遇男主角。很公式巧合的在多個場景擦身而過,女的好友還要是男的新娘的舊同學,不過兩人總是錯開沒有碰面沒有相認。最後男的發現自已不想結婚,女又殺到婚禮場地喊停,不過原來已經取消婚禮。下個鏡頭便在溜冰場碰面,再下一個鏡頭便結婚週年紀念,大團圓結局。

整套電影男女主角同時出場的時間少於十五分鐘,兩人不停在你找我我找你,大慨演員檔期不能配合,只好兩人分開來拍。這套電影的英文片名單字解作巧合,所以戲中所有超巧合的情節也能自完其說。我完全看不明白這套電影有什麼浪漫,只看見兩個腦袋有問題的人,明明要結婚就不要搞這麼多無謂事情了,最後弄到結不成婚真糟糕。

這類電影是明抗拍拖男女,男仔想約女仔看電影,就要揀這類愛情片。現在我打死也不會入場看,浪費時間兼還意識不良,荼毒無知少女的愛情觀,以為要像電影橋套般才叫浪漫。

Is Math Still Relevant?

Is math still relevant? That depends on your metaphysical view of the world. If the reality is indeed appearance of mathematics as some metaphysics theories suggest and we are living in endless possibility of equations, then maths is the only way to understand the Truth.

By Robert W. Lucky, IEEE Spectrum, March 2012
The queen of the sciences may someday lose its royal status

Long ago, when I was a freshman in ­engineering school, there was a required course in mechanical drawing. “You had better learn this skill,” the instructor said, “because all engineers start their careers at the ­drafting table.”

This was an ominous beginning to my education, but as it turned out, he was wrong. Neither I nor, I suspect, any of my classmates began our careers at the drafting table.

These days, engineers aren’t routinely taught drawing, but they spend a lot of time learning another skill that may be similarly unnecessary: mathematics. I confess this thought hadn’t occurred to me until recently, when a friend who teaches at a leading university made an off-hand comment. “Is it ­possible,” he suggested, “that the era of math­ematics in electrical ­engineering is coming to an end?”

When I asked him about this disturbing idea, he said that he had only been ­trying to be provocative and that his graduate students were now writing theses that were more mathematical than ever. I felt reassured that the mathematical basis of engineering is strong. But still, I wonder to what extent—and for how long—today’s under­graduate engineering students will be using classical ­mathematics as their careers unfold.

There are several trends that might suggest a diminishing role for mathematics in engineering work. First, there is the rise of software engineering as a separate discipline. It just doesn’t take as much math to write an operating system as it does to design a printed circuit board. Programming is rigidly structured and, at the same time, an evolving art form—neither of which is especially amenable to mathematical analysis.

Another trend veering us away from classical math is the increasing dependence on programs such as Matlab and Maple. The pencil-and-paper calculations with which we evaluated the relative performance of variations in design are now more easily made by simulation software packages—which, with their vast libraries of pre­packaged functions and data, are often more powerful. A purist might ask: Is using Matlab doing math? And of course, the answer is that sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.

A third trend is the growing importance of a class of problems termed “wicked,” which involve social, political, economic, and un­defined or unknown issues that make the application of mathematics very difficult. The world is seemingly full of such frus­trating but important problems.

These trends notwithstanding, we should recognize the role of mathematics in the discovery of fundamental properties and truth. Maxwell’s equations—which are inscribed in marble in the foyer of the National Academy of Engineering—foretold the possibility of radio. It took about half a ­century for those radios to reach Shannon’s limit—described by his equation for channel ­capacity—but at least we knew where we were headed.

Theoretical physicists have explained through math the workings of the universe and even predicted the existence of previously unknown fundamental particles. The iconic image I carry in my mind is of Einstein at a blackboard that’s covered with tensor-filled equations. It is remarkable that one person scribbling math can uncover such secrets. It is as if the universe itself understands and obeys the mathematics that we humans invented.

There have been many philosophical discussions through the years about this wonderful power of math. In a famous 1960 paper en­titled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” the physicist Eugene Wigner wrote, “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift [that] we neither understand nor deserve.” In a 1980 paper with a similar title, the computer science pioneer Richard Hamming tried to answer the question, “How can it be that simple mathematics suffices to predict so much?”

This “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics will continue to be at the heart of engineering, but perhaps the way we use math will change. Still, it’s hard to imagine Einstein running simulations on his laptop.