Everyone says that most wars are caused by religion. I say, bull. I agree with your point about resources though.
Let's look at the last century or so:
Anglo-Boer War (I'm a South African, so this one is quite close to home for me...) - Resources. The Gold in Johannesburg specifically.
WW1 - Some Serbian killed some Austrian and there were a bunch of treaties. No religion involved.
WW2 - Nazis invaded Poland and most of Europe. Land counts as resources I guess. One could say that religion was involved because the Jews were persecuted, but one can scarcely blame religion for starting the war? They were innocent victims, as were many other believers.
Korean and Vietnam wars - Communism. This was fought about ideals, not religions.
Ok, I concede that it can be said that the cause of much of the conflict in the Middle East is due to Islam. In fairness though, the Arabs have been fighting with each other since long before Mohammad started preaching Islam in 610. Also, the conflict itself is more due to radicals than the religion itself.
Most of the conflicts in Africa at the moment are due to land. There are some radical sects involved (Boko Haram comes to mind) but mostly it's land-related and tribalistic.
I don't really see religion featuring many times on that list, and I think I've listed most of the major wars over the last while. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid the "Religion causes wars" argument really just doesn't hold water.
With respect, friend, have you seen the condition that the world is in at the moment? Look at Somalia, South Sudan, Lybia, Syria, Egypt, Congo, Nigeria, the list goes on for quite a while. If you're not aware of what's going on in these places, please consult your newspaper. That's just the part about being kind to others and not killing them randomly for stupid reasons. If I get on to the part about being honest and having integrity and working hard to support your family, then I only need to point my finger at most of the Western world to see that there is a lot of struggles going on in therms of that, what with the financial institutions being as honest as they are. Not taking away anything from your point, I agree, there are many good human beings, but there are also many, many bad ones.
Why does there need to be more to your faith?
The thing is, I didn't write it. My faith was taught to me by those who were already believers, they claimed that it was from God. I learned it, and I believe that it is. I like to offer the same opportunity to others who care to try it out, but if you don't want to, then it's more than fine. Faith is about more than just civil conduct. I can't change what is included in it and what isn't, I either need to accept or reject it in its entirety. And I believe it is true. It gives me meaning in life, and adds depth and volume. Apologies if that sounds a bit stupid, I've never been good at metaphorical language. I don't really believe that this is the right forum for discussing what my religion means to me though, so I've not really done that so far.
Why do your children need to be schooled in its doctrine right from a very young age? Can they not be schooled once they reach the age of reason and decide for themselves?
I guess this is a fair point. Because I believe that I'd like to be with my family once we all leave this life, I'll take the opportunity to teach them from young. I experienced it thus. That didn't mean I was indoctrinated. In fact I was quite ambivalent until my very late teens, early 20s. I then made a choice and a commitment to stick to it. I'll do the same with my children because I believe that it is true, and I'll teach them the same principles that I live by. They're free to exercise their own choices if they think or believe differently though.
But just because it's your "religion" or your "personal belief" does not mean that you are above ridicule or criticism.
True, you can ridicule and criticise me if you like, if you've got a valid criticism, but if you're just being an idiot or hating me for no reason, or making false accusations about my faith whether or not you have any evidence to substantiate them, then I'm entitled to be a little bit offended I think.
This is especially true when you eat bread and drink water apparently in the belief that you are eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood.
I don't believe that, I believe that it's symbolic. An ordinance to help one remember. I consider it similar to putting flowers on a grave? Either way, what is it to you? I hurt no-one. I believe it helps me to improve my life. There are no valid objections to this.
... and even if your religion is your personal right, your Church (very likely) does not hold such rights in the same esteem.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. My church believes that everyone should be afforded the freedom to believe and worship (or not) as they please, so long as they injure no-one in the process.
A point I made elsewhere is that often the lowest class of believers is compared directly to the most sophisticated of unbelievers. This is very unfair. I wouldn't compare the sophisticated believers with whom I associate with gangsters and thugs who are unbelievers and say look what problems atheism causes.
While I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong, I would never dream of trying to enforce that particular view through legislation. I believe people should be free to make their own choices. Humans using their brains to figure out what's write and wrong isn't exactly infallible either. Look at segregation laws, for example, or the current financial crisis in Europe, or the whole climate change issue. Those, as far as I know, came down to people using their brains.
Any religion worth being called such doesn't try to dictate to its adherents everything that they should do. Rather it teaches principles and lets them make their own decisions.
Comparing faith to heroin is completely unfair. If you argue that religion ruins lives in the same way then frankly you're ignorant of what a religion really is.
The key word is think - which you seem to do. I would expect most atheists would agree that your values are good ones. I am glad that you think, and I have no quarrel with people who do so.
Thank you!
Some people seem to believe that their religion absolves them from thinking.
This is very true, but then there are a large portion of non-believers who don't seem to do much thinking as well. Often (and I may have a biased view on this, I get kind of tired of defending my choice to believe in God the whole time) I find that the lowest class of "believer" is compared to the most sophisticated of the unbelievers, and that's not necessarily fair. I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just pointing it out.
I may end up doing immoral things, out of weakness, or incomplete information, but if I do, I don't have a holy book to hide behind.
I admire your strength of character for admitting that. I make no professions of being a perfect human being either. I just as often succumb to laziness, selfishness, etc. I try to avoid it though, and my religion encourages me to do that. I like to consider myself fairly well-informed, and while I haven't always considered myself the greatest of believers, (I was fairly ambivalent,a believer in name only until a few years ago) I can't think of anything that my faith teaches which is immoral. If someone can point something out to me, then I'd be happy to think about it and even considering changing my mind.
I would much rather someone had a moral sense formed from an education about what impact their choices had on society, rather than being taught that they should behave a certain way because a holy book says so, and that an all powerful force will punish them if they don't.
While I agree with you from a society's point of view, most religions that I have come across, while they are mostly practised very superficially, can become very deep. In my experience, you can find out _why_ the books teach you to act in certain ways, and a lot of it has to do with strengthening society.
Modern variants of Christianity don't even have the punishment - since they very explicitly state that your sins are forgiven simply for the asking, there is not the traditional concept of a moral balance sheet that tallies your worthiness to enter paradise. People operating under that notion could literally do anything - including breaking the laws in their holy book - as long as they believe they are forgiven, and that their actions are justified by some higher purpose.
I have an issue with these "believers" too. My faith teaches that if one needs absolution from (let's call it) "sin", then one needs to strive to make restitution, i.e. right the wrong that was done, and commit not to do it again. Otherwise "forgiveness" isn't available. Naturally we are human and make mistakes, being a cretin like you describe though is strongly condemned. Again, as I said, many religions are practised only very superficially.
I'll concede that I don't know about any such statistics. The average driver of a BMW where I live though, is what is sometimes classified as a "plonker", most of whom think they've got more skill than Lewis Hamilton, though they do much more overtaking than what he does. More than once I've narrowly avoided being taken out by such a specimen.
In cases like that, adding more rules won't fix things I guess, because they don't even obey the existing ones. Taking them completely off the road would work.
Frankly, I disagree. Putting quotes around a statement and attributing it to someone doesn't make it true. I've seen several people whose lives have been greatly improved by my faith, completely turning their lives around. If that's your definition of good people doing evil things, then so be it.
Again with the generalisations. Yes, sure, bad things have been done in the name of religions in the past. The vast majority of believers quietly go on doing good to others and not making a fuss about it. If you consider that a bad thing, you need to think about things a bit.
Perhaps those good people would do good things without religion and faith. If it comforts me to think that there's an afterlife and a God who will let me see my loved ones again, why would you take that away from me? Even if I'm wrong and you're right, what is the harm in it?
Because there isn't one in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense... Sorry to break that to you so harshly...
Do you really think that I haven't been told exactly that before? Do you even think it makes a difference?
It is impossible to say with certainty (from a logical point of view) that there is or isn't a God. If you look carefully, all that I have asserted is that I believe that there is one. You're free to believe that there isn't, so long as you realise that I should be entitled to my belief as well. It doesn't hurt you in any way.
Only some people who thrive on the power and money generated from convincing people of the most ridiculous things.
I'm really tired of this generalisation. Yes, I will concede that some (maybe even many) practitioners of so-called religions do so only to increase their own personal wealth or something. That isn't true of all cases. I've met many people from many different faiths who are nothing more than what is sometimes called the salt of the earth. They practise their faiths and do good to others. If that offends you, frankly it's more indicative of something wrong with you than with them.
You'd think that these things are self-evident, but many human beings don't practise them.
Naturally there is more to my faith. Of course my children will be schooled in its doctrine, but they'll be free to choose how to act. If it was forced, then what would its value be? If they choose otherwise, I'll be sad, because I love my faith, but they'll still be my children and I'll still love them.
I left out the more specifically religious stuff because it really has nothing to do with anyone else. If I attend church on a Sunday morning, eat bread and drink water after praying, and listen to a preacher, and I find that that helps me to be a better person during the week, then no-one really has any reason to criticise me for doing anything like that. Or are you going to insinuate that that's somehow dangerous to society?
Dude, did you even bother to read the rest of the stuff that I wrote? What has my faith done to you? What reason do you have to hate it?
Frankly, I find your assertion that the original premise is false to be offensive. (No, I'm not new here, I know that's par for the course on/.) I believe in God, and I can accept that you don't. What I can't accept is your assertion that my belief is false, when there is in fact no scientific evidence to support either viewpoint.
Don't come with big bang and evolution and all that now, saying I believe in God doesn't make me so closed-minded as not to believe in that, or at least view it as a possibility. If there was a big bang, it doesn't mean there isn't a God.
Also, the existence of bad faiths and religions doesn't imply that good ones can't exist.
Different coloured plates may be useful, but I disagree that different rules should apply. I REALLY don't want racecar drivers with new BMWs tearing around the place. That's dangerous, frankly.
I've done a bit of track driving, I don't consider my ability to be much above mediocre for an enthusiast, but I'm better than your average driver. I'm fastidious about sticking to the road rules, just because not everyone has the same level of skill as me.
The roads are for transport, not personal amusement. I want to arrive safely at my destination, please. I'm not too bothered if you're bored because it's slow.
My faith teaches me to be kind and respectful to people, to be obedient to the law, to work hard and support my family, not to get into too much debt, to spend time with my wife, and in turn with my children, to be honest and have integrity, and to live a healthy lifestyle.
I have to agree with you there. I know nearly nothing about Scientology, but I agree with you on principle.
I don't see why it's so popular on Slashdot to hate people who believe in some sort of God. My faith teaches me to do nothing but good things, I may not always live my faith very well though.
I also strongly disapprove of religions whose teachings include holy wars or science hating or things like that.
In the absence of that though, I really feel we should all just live and let live. If you don't believe in God? Fine. I don't hate you for it. My best friend is an Atheist. He doesn't hate me because I do though, he realises that it makes me happy, and he's happy with that.
While I agree with you on principle, it must be said that some prestige from the issuing authority does help you get a foot in the door so that you can show off what you have done with it.
Isn't "tin foil" just the colloquial term for what is actually aluminium foil? I may be showing my ignorance here, but that's how I've always understood it.
Disclaimer: I spend most of my time in a Windows environment (not by choice, it's the work I need to do) so when I use one of the modern Linux GUIs it's mostly just to try it out or on friends or relatives' PCs. I've used them, but not for months at a time. I do enjoy them though.
FWIW, if you don't like any of the new stuff and prefer ye olde Gnome2, then Debian is still happy to provide you with an excellent OS.
You didn't necessarily just spend those thousands. Many households already have many of those things.
In my current situation for example, I have a desktop PC and an external hard drive of my own, and a TV in a communal area in the house. It's a big schlep moving my PC to within reach of the TV so I can plug an HDMI cable in. A $25 HTPC would suit me just fine.
The plus side being that Raspberry Pi costs only $25... If you already have an external drive with media on it, then it's a bargain.
My suspicion is that its power consumption will also be quite low, which is a big plus these days. Looks like it'd suit me fine, I'm not an intense media consumer, so high-performance HTPC isn't especially something that I need.
FWIW, I suspect a large part of doing this is just because you can. To demonstrate that you don't need the latest and greatest (read: most expensive) hardware to do your basic things.
TFA does describe some of the processing of the garment, so I'd assume that it would be wearable like normal silk.
It's apparently also supposed to be very light. Is it strong too? Or is the point just to have done it because it was there? If its properties end up being worse than silk-worm silk then there isn't really much point.
I might be accused at being a radical for posting this but... Surely the Proper Solution (TM) would be to get lawmakers that cannot be bought but which make laws according to common sense and conscience?
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone says that most wars are caused by religion. I say, bull. I agree with your point about resources though.
Let's look at the last century or so:
Anglo-Boer War (I'm a South African, so this one is quite close to home for me...) - Resources. The Gold in Johannesburg specifically.
WW1 - Some Serbian killed some Austrian and there were a bunch of treaties. No religion involved.
WW2 - Nazis invaded Poland and most of Europe. Land counts as resources I guess. One could say that religion was involved because the Jews were persecuted, but one can scarcely blame religion for starting the war? They were innocent victims, as were many other believers.
Korean and Vietnam wars - Communism. This was fought about ideals, not religions.
Ok, I concede that it can be said that the cause of much of the conflict in the Middle East is due to Islam. In fairness though, the Arabs have been fighting with each other since long before Mohammad started preaching Islam in 610. Also, the conflict itself is more due to radicals than the religion itself.
Most of the conflicts in Africa at the moment are due to land. There are some radical sects involved (Boko Haram comes to mind) but mostly it's land-related and tribalistic.
I don't really see religion featuring many times on that list, and I think I've listed most of the major wars over the last while. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid the "Religion causes wars" argument really just doesn't hold water.
Most human beings do practice them.
With respect, friend, have you seen the condition that the world is in at the moment? Look at Somalia, South Sudan, Lybia, Syria, Egypt, Congo, Nigeria, the list goes on for quite a while. If you're not aware of what's going on in these places, please consult your newspaper. That's just the part about being kind to others and not killing them randomly for stupid reasons. If I get on to the part about being honest and having integrity and working hard to support your family, then I only need to point my finger at most of the Western world to see that there is a lot of struggles going on in therms of that, what with the financial institutions being as honest as they are. Not taking away anything from your point, I agree, there are many good human beings, but there are also many, many bad ones.
Why does there need to be more to your faith?
The thing is, I didn't write it. My faith was taught to me by those who were already believers, they claimed that it was from God. I learned it, and I believe that it is. I like to offer the same opportunity to others who care to try it out, but if you don't want to, then it's more than fine. Faith is about more than just civil conduct. I can't change what is included in it and what isn't, I either need to accept or reject it in its entirety. And I believe it is true. It gives me meaning in life, and adds depth and volume. Apologies if that sounds a bit stupid, I've never been good at metaphorical language. I don't really believe that this is the right forum for discussing what my religion means to me though, so I've not really done that so far.
Why do your children need to be schooled in its doctrine right from a very young age? Can they not be schooled once they reach the age of reason and decide for themselves?
I guess this is a fair point. Because I believe that I'd like to be with my family once we all leave this life, I'll take the opportunity to teach them from young. I experienced it thus. That didn't mean I was indoctrinated. In fact I was quite ambivalent until my very late teens, early 20s. I then made a choice and a commitment to stick to it. I'll do the same with my children because I believe that it is true, and I'll teach them the same principles that I live by. They're free to exercise their own choices if they think or believe differently though.
But just because it's your "religion" or your "personal belief" does not mean that you are above ridicule or criticism.
True, you can ridicule and criticise me if you like, if you've got a valid criticism, but if you're just being an idiot or hating me for no reason, or making false accusations about my faith whether or not you have any evidence to substantiate them, then I'm entitled to be a little bit offended I think.
This is especially true when you eat bread and drink water apparently in the belief that you are eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood.
I don't believe that, I believe that it's symbolic. An ordinance to help one remember. I consider it similar to putting flowers on a grave? Either way, what is it to you? I hurt no-one. I believe it helps me to improve my life. There are no valid objections to this.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. My church believes that everyone should be afforded the freedom to believe and worship (or not) as they please, so long as they injure no-one in the process.
A point I made elsewhere is that often the lowest class of believers is compared directly to the most sophisticated of unbelievers. This is very unfair. I wouldn't compare the sophisticated believers with whom I associate with gangsters and thugs who are unbelievers and say look what problems atheism causes.
While I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong, I would never dream of trying to enforce that particular view through legislation. I believe people should be free to make their own choices. Humans using their brains to figure out what's write and wrong isn't exactly infallible either. Look at segregation laws, for example, or the current financial crisis in Europe, or the whole climate change issue. Those, as far as I know, came down to people using their brains.
Any religion worth being called such doesn't try to dictate to its adherents everything that they should do. Rather it teaches principles and lets them make their own decisions.
Comparing faith to heroin is completely unfair. If you argue that religion ruins lives in the same way then frankly you're ignorant of what a religion really is.
The key word is think - which you seem to do. I would expect most atheists would agree that your values are good ones. I am glad that you think, and I have no quarrel with people who do so.
Thank you!
Some people seem to believe that their religion absolves them from thinking.
This is very true, but then there are a large portion of non-believers who don't seem to do much thinking as well. Often (and I may have a biased view on this, I get kind of tired of defending my choice to believe in God the whole time) I find that the lowest class of "believer" is compared to the most sophisticated of the unbelievers, and that's not necessarily fair. I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just pointing it out.
I may end up doing immoral things, out of weakness, or incomplete information, but if I do, I don't have a holy book to hide behind.
I admire your strength of character for admitting that. I make no professions of being a perfect human being either. I just as often succumb to laziness, selfishness, etc. I try to avoid it though, and my religion encourages me to do that. I like to consider myself fairly well-informed, and while I haven't always considered myself the greatest of believers, (I was fairly ambivalent,a believer in name only until a few years ago) I can't think of anything that my faith teaches which is immoral. If someone can point something out to me, then I'd be happy to think about it and even considering changing my mind.
I would much rather someone had a moral sense formed from an education about what impact their choices had on society, rather than being taught that they should behave a certain way because a holy book says so, and that an all powerful force will punish them if they don't.
While I agree with you from a society's point of view, most religions that I have come across, while they are mostly practised very superficially, can become very deep. In my experience, you can find out _why_ the books teach you to act in certain ways, and a lot of it has to do with strengthening society.
Modern variants of Christianity don't even have the punishment - since they very explicitly state that your sins are forgiven simply for the asking, there is not the traditional concept of a moral balance sheet that tallies your worthiness to enter paradise. People operating under that notion could literally do anything - including breaking the laws in their holy book - as long as they believe they are forgiven, and that their actions are justified by some higher purpose.
I have an issue with these "believers" too. My faith teaches that if one needs absolution from (let's call it) "sin", then one needs to strive to make restitution, i.e. right the wrong that was done, and commit not to do it again. Otherwise "forgiveness" isn't available. Naturally we are human and make mistakes, being a cretin like you describe though is strongly condemned. Again, as I said, many religions are practised only very superficially.
I'll concede that I don't know about any such statistics. The average driver of a BMW where I live though, is what is sometimes classified as a "plonker", most of whom think they've got more skill than Lewis Hamilton, though they do much more overtaking than what he does. More than once I've narrowly avoided being taken out by such a specimen.
In cases like that, adding more rules won't fix things I guess, because they don't even obey the existing ones. Taking them completely off the road would work.
Disclaimer: I'm a South African. YMMV.
Frankly, I disagree. Putting quotes around a statement and attributing it to someone doesn't make it true. I've seen several people whose lives have been greatly improved by my faith, completely turning their lives around. If that's your definition of good people doing evil things, then so be it.
Again with the generalisations. Yes, sure, bad things have been done in the name of religions in the past. The vast majority of believers quietly go on doing good to others and not making a fuss about it. If you consider that a bad thing, you need to think about things a bit.
Perhaps those good people would do good things without religion and faith. If it comforts me to think that there's an afterlife and a God who will let me see my loved ones again, why would you take that away from me? Even if I'm wrong and you're right, what is the harm in it?
Because there isn't one in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense... Sorry to break that to you so harshly...
Do you really think that I haven't been told exactly that before? Do you even think it makes a difference?
It is impossible to say with certainty (from a logical point of view) that there is or isn't a God. If you look carefully, all that I have asserted is that I believe that there is one. You're free to believe that there isn't, so long as you realise that I should be entitled to my belief as well. It doesn't hurt you in any way.
Only some people who thrive on the power and money generated from convincing people of the most ridiculous things.
I'm really tired of this generalisation. Yes, I will concede that some (maybe even many) practitioners of so-called religions do so only to increase their own personal wealth or something. That isn't true of all cases. I've met many people from many different faiths who are nothing more than what is sometimes called the salt of the earth. They practise their faiths and do good to others. If that offends you, frankly it's more indicative of something wrong with you than with them.
You'd think that these things are self-evident, but many human beings don't practise them.
Naturally there is more to my faith. Of course my children will be schooled in its doctrine, but they'll be free to choose how to act. If it was forced, then what would its value be? If they choose otherwise, I'll be sad, because I love my faith, but they'll still be my children and I'll still love them.
I left out the more specifically religious stuff because it really has nothing to do with anyone else. If I attend church on a Sunday morning, eat bread and drink water after praying, and listen to a preacher, and I find that that helps me to be a better person during the week, then no-one really has any reason to criticise me for doing anything like that. Or are you going to insinuate that that's somehow dangerous to society?
Dude, did you even bother to read the rest of the stuff that I wrote? What has my faith done to you? What reason do you have to hate it?
Frankly, I find your assertion that the original premise is false to be offensive. (No, I'm not new here, I know that's par for the course on /.) I believe in God, and I can accept that you don't. What I can't accept is your assertion that my belief is false, when there is in fact no scientific evidence to support either viewpoint.
Don't come with big bang and evolution and all that now, saying I believe in God doesn't make me so closed-minded as not to believe in that, or at least view it as a possibility. If there was a big bang, it doesn't mean there isn't a God.
Also, the existence of bad faiths and religions doesn't imply that good ones can't exist.
Different coloured plates may be useful, but I disagree that different rules should apply. I REALLY don't want racecar drivers with new BMWs tearing around the place. That's dangerous, frankly.
I've done a bit of track driving, I don't consider my ability to be much above mediocre for an enthusiast, but I'm better than your average driver. I'm fastidious about sticking to the road rules, just because not everyone has the same level of skill as me.
The roads are for transport, not personal amusement. I want to arrive safely at my destination, please. I'm not too bothered if you're bored because it's slow.
Thank you. I appreciate the civility.
Ok, fair enough. I see your point.
My faith teaches me to be kind and respectful to people, to be obedient to the law, to work hard and support my family, not to get into too much debt, to spend time with my wife, and in turn with my children, to be honest and have integrity, and to live a healthy lifestyle.
I think these are good things?
I have to agree with you there. I know nearly nothing about Scientology, but I agree with you on principle.
I don't see why it's so popular on Slashdot to hate people who believe in some sort of God. My faith teaches me to do nothing but good things, I may not always live my faith very well though.
I also strongly disapprove of religions whose teachings include holy wars or science hating or things like that.
In the absence of that though, I really feel we should all just live and let live. If you don't believe in God? Fine. I don't hate you for it. My best friend is an Atheist. He doesn't hate me because I do though, he realises that it makes me happy, and he's happy with that.
Quite. The site here in South Africa has pretty much nothing in it, not even animals live there, much less people.
While I agree with you on principle, it must be said that some prestige from the issuing authority does help you get a foot in the door so that you can show off what you have done with it.
Isn't "tin foil" just the colloquial term for what is actually aluminium foil? I may be showing my ignorance here, but that's how I've always understood it.
Either way, it sounds very much like Patsy's Magic Bullet in Worms 2 :)
Agreed, I actually like Gnome3.
Disclaimer: I spend most of my time in a Windows environment (not by choice, it's the work I need to do) so when I use one of the modern Linux GUIs it's mostly just to try it out or on friends or relatives' PCs. I've used them, but not for months at a time. I do enjoy them though.
FWIW, if you don't like any of the new stuff and prefer ye olde Gnome2, then Debian is still happy to provide you with an excellent OS.
You didn't necessarily just spend those thousands. Many households already have many of those things.
In my current situation for example, I have a desktop PC and an external hard drive of my own, and a TV in a communal area in the house. It's a big schlep moving my PC to within reach of the TV so I can plug an HDMI cable in. A $25 HTPC would suit me just fine.
On the contrary. The GUIs these days (cinnamon included) are looking very polished.
For some reason, the most vocal people here on /. are the ones that hate them, but no-one can deny, they look good.
The plus side being that Raspberry Pi costs only $25... If you already have an external drive with media on it, then it's a bargain.
My suspicion is that its power consumption will also be quite low, which is a big plus these days. Looks like it'd suit me fine, I'm not an intense media consumer, so high-performance HTPC isn't especially something that I need.
FWIW, I suspect a large part of doing this is just because you can. To demonstrate that you don't need the latest and greatest (read: most expensive) hardware to do your basic things.
Was trying to be funny...
Woosh...
You're assuming a rational number there.
Wait. Hang on. Forget that I pointed that out... :P
TFA does describe some of the processing of the garment, so I'd assume that it would be wearable like normal silk.
It's apparently also supposed to be very light. Is it strong too? Or is the point just to have done it because it was there? If its properties end up being worse than silk-worm silk then there isn't really much point.
I might be accused at being a radical for posting this but... Surely the Proper Solution (TM) would be to get lawmakers that cannot be bought but which make laws according to common sense and conscience?
Just a thought...