Not 103" but should look something like this. It's at 1920x1080 off my laptop.

 

 

you're a colorectal surgeon??

 

bend over San Fran boy and my assistant Bubba will show you the 'no hands' rectal exam.

 

that's plasma, not LCD

 

They are logically about the same IMO. Let's assume both represent the same 'utility' or happiness for their respective buyer. Now the $ factor. Although the porsche will hold it's value more over the long run, the insurance, gas, oil, maint., tires, etc. costs will probably actually out weight that. The costs associated with a new porsche are probably equal its value in a 15-20 year time period I'd guess if it's actually driven regularly.

The TV has little to no maint. and the negligable electricity costs are probably no greater than the previous TV, making them obsolete.

The porsche arguably has more uses, and can fulfill an actual need. Most people need a car for trasnportation. It can also be used for recreation, driving events, social reasons, etc.

The TV on the otherhand could be useful if the owner enjoys watching movies often, tv often, etc.

Arguably the TV will have more use than the porsche in almost all circumstances.

Given the cost differential I'd say they are both about equally as wasteful. I'd bet the porsche guy has a lot more conversations and memorable experiences with his car than the other guy and his big ass TV though.

 

Based on what tech ?

Plasma shows deeper colors better for movies. LCD does other things a little better.

 

Does anyone here know the size of the docs wallet? Maybe for him the outlay for the TV is petty cash. My neighbor has some cool cars he couldn't drive well to save his life. His AV set up is much cooler.

Different strokes.