Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

romanzipp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 665 posts

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#581

Post by _trampeltier »

chongli wrote: post #265
amelius wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't they just make it taste bad, for safety's sake?

Chinese cooking wines avoid alcohol taxes by adding salt. The salt is useful as a seasoning for food but makes the wine undrinkable!

Does remind me when I talked to a chef from a big restaurant about wine and cooking. He said, a lot of people who work in a kitchen have often an smaller or bigger alcohol problem. He said, as soon as wine is opened in the kitchen for cooking, he does add just a bit salt, so people in the team don't even try to drink some cooking wine.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#582

Post by wnoise »

Spivak wrote: post #434
15155 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think if it's working as intended and as designed then it's hard to call it a loophole. This assumes everyone acts in good faith. A popular one these days is the "gun show 'loophole.'" Rather than calling it "renegging on an explicitly-legislated compromise", it's a "loophole" that needs "closing."

You're assigning a single mind to a group of uncoordinated actors to create a hypocrisy that probably doesn't exist in any specific individual. It looks like a loophole, it could be in the textbook describing them. You have a law that establishes a rule, then creates a small exception that in effect opts out of the rule entirely. The people who want this provision eliminated don't know it was intended. That's pretty…

The "gunshow" loophole is really a "private sellers" exemption. If you don't regularly sell guns, then you don't need an FFL to merely sell a small number, and don't have to do background checks (indeed there's no process such that you _can_ do firearms checks).

Now, it might be reasonable to remove this exemption, but the only way it's a "gunshow" loophole is that gun shows are a place where gun fans wanting to buy are going to meet gun fans wanting to sell.

Making it trivial for someone to do firearms checks seems like an easy thing that everyone should support, but alas no one in power seems to actually want such a thing.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#584

Post by TeMPOraL »

eitally wrote: post #368
walthamstow wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hoo boy we have some classics in that category in the UK. My personal fave is when morning TV host Lorraine Kelly successfully argued she wasn’t hosting as herself but acting a character called Lorraine Kelly, with very favourable tax consequences.

This is akin to Fox News arguing in court that it is, in fact, entertainment and not news, despite it's name.

Isn't it also how, many years ago, Top Gear got away with a hit job on Tesla by claiming they're just an entertainment show, so they're not obligated to do honest or truthful reviews?

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#585

Post by TeMPOraL »

woodrowbarlow wrote: post #449
moomin wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In universe, arguing the X-Men are not human would put you firmly in the villain category.

exactly, that was core to the whole plot; oppressed mutants fighting to have their basic human rights recognized.

So it turns out that the final boss denying mutants their humanity are... the tax authorities.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#586

Post by TeMPOraL »

sharpshadow wrote: post #460
ramses0 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5% of a $100 jacket is $5 15% of a $33 shirt is $5 5% of a $33 jacket is $1.65 ...it's definitely gamesmanship but if you squint you can see where it comes from.

This reminds me of maybe the worst tax in human history which is also unconstitutional. The Pauschalabgabe[0] in Germany, which also got adopted in other countries, implements a freely decidable flatrate tax on all mediums which can be used to create a pirated copy. How much tax for a laser printer? Well it depends how fast it prints: Up to 14 pages/Minute: 25,00 € Up to 39 pages/Minute: 50,00 € From 40 pages/Minute:…

Isn't this also what allows people to create copies for personal use, and what makes downloading pirated media legally clear, and only producing/distributing illegal? Sounds like a fine tradeoff, as fixing IP laws (and international treaties) is way too hard of a problem.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#587

Post by vixen99 »

_n_b_ wrote: post #436
eitally wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is akin to Fox News arguing in court that it is, in fact, entertainment and not news, despite it's name.

What Fox News argued was a bit more nuanced than that all of Fox News isn't news. Rather, "Fox successfully argued that one particular segment on Tucker Carlson’s show could only be reasonably interpreted as making political arguments, not making factual assertions, and therefore couldn’t be defamation."[1] That feels like a fairly reasonable assertion for anybody watching Tucker Carlson. [1] https://popehat.substack…

Political argument, as such, is worthwhile insofar as it can cause me to reexamine my own preconceptions. Facts I can pick up almost anytime.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#589

Post by Aromasin »

Damogran6 wrote: post #423
Saris wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty wild for such a popular brand. My panasonic G9 just has that stuff built in.

It's part of the enshittification cycle. I'd been a Nikon camera user and figured I'd upgrade...reviewing Nikon, Cannon and Sony, the new startup...Sony was the only body at that pricepoint that also had a motor in the body to let older class have auto-focus...that was a feature the other two were gatekeeping at higher priced bodies. Now that they're established, its time to chip away and add shareholder value.

The classic walled garden approach - make everyone buy lense mounts that only fit their cameras, people collect lenses for their brand of choice, then make them regret ever making the purchase by racking up subscription costs and introducing 3rd party spyware to sell your data. Sunk cost fallacy makes people eat shit because they're already too deep. Capitalism at it's finest.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#590

Post by mynameisvlad »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #421
deskr wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. But why does he need to buy a USB capture card and HDMI cable? He can just hire someone to come and record the videos for him. They'll also do the post processing. Why does he even even record the videos himself? He can just hire actors to do what he wants, probably a lot better. And what's the whole thing with buying a camera? He should just buy a studio and hire a crew to manage all that stuff.

This is what's called a slippery slope. A capture card and HDMI cable together cost less than $100. Hiring someone will be at least an order of magnitude more expensive—and more so the more people you hire.

Whoosh.

That was the entire point of the comment, to point out the slippery slope in the HDMI/cable card argument in the first place.

Post reply on HN