Religion

As we can see, people today are getting more religious and more pious. And it doesn't take a genius or a prime minister to realise this trend. However, it does seem that people are blaming the financial crisis for this trend. Claiming that with jobs and career at stake, people are looking for more spirituality to achieve self-actualisation and satisfaction. While there is some truth to that, this trend is not one that started after the Lehman brothers fell face first into the ground but has been brewing for a long time coming. Hence, i can only say that the financial crisis merely pushes this trend forward ever so slightly but it is definitely not the cause/source of it.
What I believe is the true cause of increasing religious zeal in recent times is actually the rise of a more vocal/aggressive atheist and secularist sect accompanied by the strong prejudiced mistrust of the deeply religious due to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.
You see, when people discriminate against the religious and start attacking their faith, accusing them of being inherently violent or illogical or inconsistent with science. There can only be two outcomes by the religious community, either they claim that they have been fools all their lives in believing a false god or they will have to fight these claims from the secular world. In either case, a lot of soul searching will be needed and as a result many believers have come out of it much more certain about their beliefs and much more zealous and fervent in their faith. Being religious is no longer about living out one's religious beliefs privately. Instead, one's religious belief now has to withstand public scrutiny.
I guess that when Richard Dawkins wrote the God Delusion and changed the once pacifist atheistic community to a more vocal one, he probably thought he had managed to prove once and for all that God was a delusion and kick-started the decline of religious institutions. Instead, what he achieved was to galvanise all religions and especially Christianity (which he targeted specifically) to become more zealous and grounded; increasing their ranks of the faithful. What Dawkins failed to realise is that Christians are not Christians because they studied the bible and through sheer intellectual argument and theological actualisation realise that Jesus Christ is God. No, Christians are Christians because Christianity helps one find one's purpose in their existence and answers the questions to the meaning to life. It teaches us right and wrong and helps us to deal with our own guilt of wronging others while helping us to forgive others who have wronged us. Its about sharing ones' worry and joys with one another. The bible and fellow Christians give us strength and encouragement when we are down and ultimately shows us that we are the beautiful children of God, teaching us to be satisfied with what we have and to appreciate all that is God's creation. You see, there is nothing scientific about Christianity (or any other religion) because science cannot understand spirituality. Likewise, the strength of Christianity is not based on scientific argument and as such, even the best scientific arguments can never debase it. In the end, the attacks from atheism and secularism against religion is what caused the increase in religious understanding and zeal that we see around us today.
Anyway, this is my opinion and may not be what you think. But to claim that people are more religious because they have nothing meaningful to live for after they have lost their job and hence decided to search for God is ridiculous. This trend started when there was great public debate about God's existence catalysed by the God Delusion which was long before the credit crunch even started and was growing strong even through the 2007 financial bubble. So this claim that financial woes equal spiritual gain is no doubt wrong. The reason why PM Lee's decision to discuss the rise of religiosity coincides with the financial crisis is simply because the financial crisis meant that he has no more money to start new government projects, he has nothing encouraging to tell Singaporeans yet and he needed to rally Singaporeans in time for an election which is due soon. Do take note that the aware saga which occurred conveniently during the financial crisis, has got absolutely no link to the financial crisis and would have happened even if Lehman Bro's was still alive and well.
Hmmm... Interesting train of thought there. I really did not expect to dwell so much into Christianity. =P

TV Enlargement Research

With televisions getting bigger and bigger and slimmer and slimmer, I do wonder whether we are getting a little carried away with this crave for a bigger TV. I am not against big TV because there are places that do require huge TVs where they will be appreciated: Like in a football stadium showing close ups/replays or on a suntec city facade showing adverts/other stuff. But at home... come on... why would someone even need a 55 inch flat screen TV.
My home currently has an ageing, but still fully functioning, 40" LCD TV and i believe it is more than big enough. You see, when my family first changed from a 30+" CRT TV to a 40" LCD when i was still in JC (or about 6 years ago). The first thing that caught our attention is that it is too big. For the first time, it became difficult to read the subtitles while paying attention to the programme because the subs were too far away from where the action was. It is as if we could not see the whole TV at once, it was too big for our eye's periphery. But in the end, the human spirit triumphed and we learned to cope with the bigger TV.
Anyway, the reason why I am commenting on the ongoing TV enlargement trend is that I was wasting time at Best Denki once and caught sight of a new range of LED TVs. I later found out that those TVs are really LCD TVs but with LED back lighting and isn't as much a breakthrough as the marketing would make it seem. But that's not the point. The point is, the smallest TV that they sold was 32" and the next smallest was 40". I repeat, the second smallest "LED" TV was the same size as the one in my living room! It took only 6 years for a 40" to change from one of the largest sized flat screen to one of the smallest!
But here is the problem, a bigger TV would actually need a bigger living room. So, do you really want a bigger TV? For anyone who has been to a cinema to watch a movie while seating a few rows from the front-most seat, they would learn the hard way that a big screen is actually a burden. On top of a stiff neck, you would also realise that you would be missing parts of the action as your eyes just cant take in the whole screen at once. Which sux to the core. And the same logic goes for TV at home. Big TVs are great for showing off, but bad for watching.
But the more important question is, how do I pick the right size for my living room? Well, i did some prodding around on google... and tada... I got the following:

Screen	Viewing distance range
26"	3.25-5.5 feet
32"	4.0-6.66 feet
37"	4.63-7.71 feet
40"	5.0-8.33 feet
46"	5.75-9.5 feet
52"	6.5-10.8 feet
58"	7.25-12 feet
65"	8.13-13.5 feet
70"	8.75-14.75 feet

Anyway, so now you know. It turned out that the 40" my family has was about right for the size of the living room. In any case, do note that the perceived size of the TV is really about the distance from the screen. You can always sit closer to a small TV but sitting further from a large TV will require some wall demolition. Even your humble and tiny laptop screen is capable of 1280x800 resolution which works out to be 780p in TV language which is considered HD. So the argument that a bigger TV will give better images is bullshit. The only advantage that a larger screen affords you is that you can sit further away from the TV, which means that more people can watch the TV before it gets crowded. But how many people would watch the same TV screen showing that one programme at the same time anyway. It is more likely that there will only be one person watching it, and that person is the one with the remote.
So before buying a flat screen, first determine the distance your head will be from the TV when sitting on the sofa and decide whether or not you will be mounting the TV on the wall or will it be on a stand which would effectively reduce your viewing distance. hmm... sorry... i am an engineer and cant look at things from a less than scientific approach, TVs included.