ZOOMBOOM0688 wrote:So, I guess we should dump EVERYTHING and live like cavemen?
How many times will you continue to repeat that strawman? Like another member said: there's a difference between functionailty and luxury. Having a car is functional, having GPS is a luxury.
ZOOMBOOM0688 wrote:I will never apologize for LOVING my modern conveniences, and I roll my eyes every time I see an article about "The family that lived a year without buying anything" or whatever to show how our lives are too complicated...
Well, you can roll all you want, but I'm sure those families will be pretty happy having saved their money in case they will *really* need to do a big purchase, or having given their saved money to the poor and needy or any other good cause, instead of bowing to the demands of the corporations you'll buy, buy, buy...
"And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made"
(Which song?)
2099net wrote:Along with 1,000s of other products. As I said its capitalism in action. Why pick on Blu-ray? [...]
But I don't understand why you find Blu-ray particularly offensive. There's literally 1000s of othher thing which people are pressured into buying which have greater human or environmental costs...
For the third time: who said I don't? Why are you still repeating this when it's a false dichotomy? I can't complain about BluRay before I've complained about bottled water? Well, I will complain about bottled water on a forum that is about water. This forum is about dvd's, so I'm complaining about BluRay here. I didn't say it was the only thing I complain about, you are the one who keeps dragging out that strawman.
2099net wrote:Indeed. But you were "forced" to buy DVD in the same way.
That's right. The only difference is dvd had added value. It is easier in storage, it contains lots of features I care for as a fim student, and you can play it 82684 times and it still looks good --whereas a vhs takes in much more space, it has no extra feautures for me as a student, and after 10 viewings the image gets blurry. These kinds of enormous improvements that justify the transfer from vhs to dvd (like from LP to CD) are simply not there when it comes to BluRay.
2099net wrote:Except this is different. By then Blu-ray players will most likely be as cheap or cheaper than normal DVDs players now, discs will be cheaper than now - espcially catalogue titles
How do you know? You presume BluRay will catch on. I say it won't.
2099net wrote:and finally YOU CAN STILL PLAY YOUR DVDS YOU HAVE NOW so even being forced to buy a Blu-ray player will not force you to upgrade your movies (unlike VHS).
Which makes pleading for certain movies you already have to come out on BluRay so you can buy them again obsolete.
2099net wrote:Nobody "needed" DVD after all did they? They had VHS.
See my points above.
2099net wrote:No it doesn't because some people wouold prefer their Disney movies to be in high-definition, with high-definition lossless audio.
But... you said you could play your dvds on a BluRay player. So there's no need for a special BluRay disc.
2099net wrote:Again, its choice. Because you think its a waste of money doesn't mean that they do.
Again: we have very different opinions about how much 'choice' we really have.
2099net wrote:Stop being so selfish - everyone is different and has different priorities.
Since when has it become selfish to voice an opinion?
2099net wrote:No, its not the same at all, because most people who have Vista hate it (including me). Most people who have blu-ray are happy with it.
It's not a question of wheter or not you're happy with it. It's a question ofwhether the product actually contributes something meaningful which justifies the higher pricings.
2099net wrote:It's more like going from Windows NT to Windows XP. Everyone was happy with Windows NT - so why did you get Windows XP. You didn't "need" it, and indeed Microsoft withdrawls support for its old opertaing systems so you are "forced" to upgrade.
That's true, you didn't need it. And Microsoft forces us to upgrade. However, I compare BluRay freaks with Windows freaks who rush out to buy it, not because it's an actual improvement, but because they want the latest version/ it's cool/ keeping up with the neighbours/ heavy marketing/ etc.
2099net wrote:You didn't need DVD, but you seem pretty keen on it.
I didn't need DVD, but the industry forced me to upgrade by discontinuing vhs.
2099net wrote:You don't need a television - want to be entertained or informed? Listen to the radio or read the internet. You don't need the internet. When it comes down to it, all we need is food, warmth and shelter. We don't "need" anything else.
Well, that's not true. We also need information. That's where a tv comes in handy. Not to use it to watch American Idol, but to see what's going on around the world. The internet comes in handy to communicate with others. You could use a telephone or letters, but the Internet is cheaper and more functional. There's the difference again between functionality and luxury.
I never said we should swear of all modern inventions and be cavemen. That's a strawman you keep dragging into the argument (and you're not the only one). You shouldn't be painting me as someone I'm not, or engage in false dichotomies. Please just stay with the subject at hand and we'll discuss that on its merits, okay? We don't have to agree to have a discussion, right?
2099net wrote:I also don't understand why you don't seem to be screaming and shouting everytime a DVD double-dip is released. Nobody "needs" another version of the same film on DVD. Yet it happens.
I never 'double dip'. Frankly, I hate the term 'double dip', but I understand it has become part of the language on this forum, so I'll adjust.
