Slashdot Mirror


Philips Demos Keychain-sized Camcorder

mateub writes "Philips gave PC Magazine an exclusive demo of the KEY019 USB camera/camcorder etc. Sez PCMag: 'You can use the 128MB of internal memory for 2.0-megapixel still shots, digital video, MP3 files, and document storage.' How long before we read the first story of some, um, inappropriate footage captured with one of these?"

151 comments

  1. "inappropriate footage" by theraccoon · · Score: 5, Funny

    How long before we read the first story of some, um, inappropriate footage captured with one of these?

    Just as soon as I can buy one...

    1. Re:"inappropriate footage" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just as soon as I can buy one..."

      Unfortunately that cant't happen as fast as you posted that perfect one-liner. Comedians always say that timing is everything, and on /. that has a lot to do with being an early poster.

      Anyway, as someone with a few mod points to spend, my own timing sucked and you were already +5. So here ya go, an unofficial +6, and my thanks!

    2. Re:"inappropriate footage" by swordboy · · Score: 1

      I look at this and all I can do is laugh at all of those places that banned camera phones. What morons!

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    3. Re:"inappropriate footage" by DoraLives · · Score: 4, Funny
      So when does this sort of thing finally render the whole clothing gig hopelessly silly? Put the damned things on when they're actually NEEDED, and don't when they're not.

      What the fuck is the Big Deal here?

      The bluenoses have run things for SO long that we've come to take it completely for granted that the sonofabitches are actually RIGHT.

      They're not.

      Enough footage from devices like this and eventually everybody will saturate on the input, collectively shrug their shoulders over it, and get on with living their lives, minus one more retarded Cultural Imperialist bullshit item to put up with.

      Not only will the emperor NOT have any "new clothes," it will be perfectly ok and people will need to have that little tale explained to them, even as they shake their heads in disbelief at the overarching stupidity of their forebears.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    4. Re:"inappropriate footage" by Bodrius · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're that naked guy from the radio show in Grand Theft Auto 3, right?

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
  2. I gotta get one of those by mindless4210 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's a pretty sweet little toy. I wonder how much one of those costs... and how effective is it? I know there's probably a thousand different uses for something like that.

    --
    Wireless News www.DailyWireless
    1. Re:I gotta get one of those by e9th · · Score: 5, Informative

      Their 1 megapixel version sold for $130, so it probably won't be too much more than that.

    2. Re:I gotta get one of those by josh+glaser · · Score: 1

      That wasn't a camcorder, though - it was a camera.

    3. Re:I gotta get one of those by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's been about a month, so they're probably all gone, but you may want to check your local Target, if you have one. Target was clearing out the 64mb/1.3 megapixel still camera for $25, I picked one up for myself at the time since I needed a USB keychain anyway, and the camera was a nice addition since it was on clearance anyway.

      The pictures it takes look decent - as long as you're in plain daylight. It doesn't have a flash, so if it's darker, you can expect to delete the picture as soon as you hook it up to your computer. I wouldn't use it as a primary camera, but I do tend to carry it around to take snapshots when I'm out with friends, and it serves that role rather well.

    4. Re:I gotta get one of those by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1
      there's probably a thousand different uses for something like that.

      Yes, but those thousand different uses are really just variations on a theme, aren't they? :-)

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    5. Re:I gotta get one of those by zaffir · · Score: 1

      What?! I paid $100 for mine on thinkgeek. Man, did i get ripped :(

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    6. Re:I gotta get one of those by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Not particularly, every place else I've seen has been charging over $100 for them, so you did fine.

      My Target had 3 when I bought mine - I had no clue what they were when I got it. I went back a couple days later to grab the others as potential gifts/fleaBay material and they were already gone. :(

  3. how much video can the camera hold? by tsunamifirestorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    128Megs doesnt seem like much. or if it is, the video is probably lo-fi

    1. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by Anarcho-Goth · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wonder if they could make it 2-3 times as big, which would still be pocket sized, and hold 10 times as much memory?

      And does the sound record in stereo?
      At that size two microphones would probably be too close together to make much of a difference.
      It would still be great for recording concerts.

      And how much do these things cost?

      --
      I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
      If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
      Courage.
    2. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by colinramsay · · Score: 5, Informative

      Take a look here for a handheld camera which can be upgraded to use 128mb SD cards. In it's standard 8mb form, it can take 2 minutes of low res footage at 15fps.

      Just a comparison. We got one, it's really pretty good for the price.

    3. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by stienman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MPEG4. They recorded at least 20 minutes of it. Since they didn't mention quality, and they stressed (repeatedly) that it doesn't replace current camcorders then we can safely assume that the image quality is, at best, standard tv quality. Still, that's much better than the old CIF stuff most digital cameras do, and the convenience factor (carry it everywhere, whip it out at a moment's notice) is worth it for some people.

      I expect low-budget proctology offices everywhere buying them in droves... Hope you've got good healthcare.

      -Adam

    4. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For comparison, one of the latest digital cameras can record colour video with sound, but there usually is a maximum video clip limit size of 8 Mbytes (or around 60 seconds), and the resolution is limited to 320x200 during this time. And it takes around 30 seconds to compress the video. So maybe this video camera could store around 10 minutes of video with video at 320x200.

    5. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect low-budget proctology offices everywhere buying them in droves... Hope you've got good healthcare.

      I guess they would probably be using the "Universal See real Butts" interface.

    6. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Interesting
      pfffft... my canon A60 is smaller than that thing (A60's 101.0 x 64.0 x 31.5mm vs SiPix's 100 x 74 x 36mm) plus it takes 180 seconds (3 min) of continuous 320x240 15fps video and it takes excellent 2mp pics with a 3x optical zoom (vs no optical zoom on the SiPix), storing them on dirt cheap CF cards and 4 AA batteries allow lots of videos! Best part: the price. $65 after mail in rebate! Or you can just buy them for $165 at any walmart.

      $91 for that "SiPix Pocket DV Camcorder" is a waste of money.... oh did you say you bought one?

      The A70 is the same size but takes 3mp and 640x480 video, although it's considerably more expensive.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    7. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by garcia · · Score: 1

      I have a Kodak DX4350. It records video with sound in quicktime. It gets about 35 mins on a 512MB SD card. The quality on those videos is ok, nothing great. If they are getting 20min on 128 it's bad.

    8. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you upgrade yours? That one takes 3 minutes on 8 megs... but can be upgraded to 128 or 256 megs.

      Moron.

    9. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by hyc · · Score: 1

      The Sony DSC-T1 still camera records 640x480 30fps video, limited only by the memory card capacity.

      I find it ironic that their newest camcorders, which can also record MPEG to MemoryStick, only record MPEG1 at 320x200. It's pretty ugly stuff. Mebbe I should've bought the still camera instead of the camcorder...

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    10. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he can't, he can only cram a 2GB compactflash into his A60.

      Moron.

    11. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Canon S500's are much smaller than the A60/A70. They seem to have similar spec's both for still and motion capture.

      But, in 640x480 mode, it's only 10fps. In 320x240 mode, it supports 15fps.

      The Sony DSC-T1 has the best video I have heard of.. 640x480 @ 30fps. But, I hear the still image quality sucks.

      In movie mode with the Canon S400, you cannot use the Zoom. I am not sure about the others, but especially at the relatively low resolutions that's a big limit.

      What I am looking for is: DVD quality, 720x480p (preferably with 16:9 widescreen capability), and
      30 fps and 60 fps modes.

    12. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by ctr2sprt · · Score: 1
      (carry it everywhere, whip it out at a moment's notice)
      If you ever get tired of your current job, drop me a line. I've been looking for someone to feed me setups like that.
    13. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 1
      What I am looking for is: DVD quality, 720x480p (preferably with 16:9 widescreen capability), and
      30 fps and 60 fps modes.

      Me too. Actually, make that 1024x768, and 1 - 70 fps variable speed mode and I won't have to use a 16mm camera ever. One can dream... :-)
    14. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by iamhassi · · Score: 1
      "What I am looking for is: DVD quality, 720x480p (preferably with 16:9 widescreen capability), and 30 fps and 60 fps modes."

      Then you're looking for this. 702x480 30fps 6mbps (that's high quality) MPEG2. Fills 512megs in 10 minutes. Not quite 720x480, and sorry no 60fps (why 60fps?? that'd take a crap load of space), but it's darn near close.

      too bad it uses SD, if it was compactflash II compatible they'd have a real winner on their hands, with 2gig CFII selling for only $150 while 1gig SD is over double that.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    15. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      I don't know, my canon can't take more video with more space on the CF card. It holds the entire video in ram then writes it after I'm done recording.

      It really does suck considerable ass.

      Thank goodness I never wanted that feature on my camera anyway.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    16. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by iamhassi · · Score: 1
      but how much continuous video does it take? Usually these cameras have flash memory where video is stored while recording, then you stop recording and the video's moved from flash to the SD card. The SiPix has 8megs of flash memory, which holds 60 seconds of 320x240 @ 15fps (the other resolutions are worthless so I'm not mentioning them). After it's done recording I'm sure you have to stop recording, and the movie's moved from the 8megs to the SD card.

      The Canon A60 has a huge amount of flash memory, so it records 3 minutes of continuous video before it has to stop and save the video to the CF card. Copying to CF is incredibly fast too, less than a second, so it must be caching it to the card or something, but that allows you to just start taking video again with that small ~1 second pause.

      CNET really hated the SiPix DV100. They said the audio sucks, which explains why most the sample videos on firebox have music over the sound. I really feel sorry for the guy that took the Car ballet video, looks like he was on vacation when he took that, bet he was pretty upset when he got home and saw that horrible video quality and sound.

      And don't tell me the videos had to be compressed for easy download, they're sample videos, they should be the best possibly quality to sell the product.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    17. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "128Megs doesnt seem like much. or if it is, the video is probably lo-fi"

      With modern codecs, you can store nearly an hour of 320 by 240 video.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    18. Re:how much video can the camera hold? by cerberusss · · Score: 1
      You don't need that much. Le Moment Du Supreme usually doesn't take that long...

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  4. download by appleprophet · · Score: 5, Funny

    "How long before we read the first story of some, um, inappropriate footage captured with one of these?"

    More importantly, how long until the torrent is posted?

    1. Re:download by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.slashdot.org/index/binaries/torrentarchive/002 029293/peepshow.torrent

    2. Re:download by Mr.Mysteriosity · · Score: 1

      LIES, ALL LIES!

  5. Great But... by jchawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is great and all but who wants 2 megapixel anything? Camera phones, this device are create for getting quick shots, but honestly do you want to archive them? They simply don't look good, because the color is off, usually they're fuzzy etc...

    I'm not knocking this device, but I have a feeling it's a sign of better devices to come. With in a year or 2 I would bet you start to see 4 and 5 megapixal devices like this... This is when they are really going to take off!

    1. Re:Great But... by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

      Considering that 2 megapixels gives you slightly more pixels than fit on a 1600x1200 computer screen, that's actually pretty darn good (depending on the quality of the pixel). You must still be thinking of the old cheapy 640x480 (1/3 megapixel) devices.

      Granted you need more if you want photo-quality prints, but it's more than adequate for on-screen use. In a device this small, the real limitation is the size and quality of the lens (ie, crappy) rather than the resolution of the sensor. There's a reason that good cameras have big lenses, and it has little to do with the size of the sensor or film they're recording on.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Great But... by BitHive · · Score: 1

      2megapixel is wayyy higher resolution than on most camera phones....

    3. Re:Great But... by winsk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is great and all but who wants 2 megapixel anything? Camera phones, this device are create for getting quick shots, but honestly do you want to archive them? They simply don't look good, because the color is off, usually they're fuzzy etc...

      2 megapixels is perfectly fine unless you want to make large prints. The color being off, or the picture being fuzzy has more to do with the quality of the optics, the CCDs, etc.

    4. Re:Great But... by wheany · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling from your post that you equate the number of pixels in a digicam to the quality of the pictures. That is one of the most common fallacies regarding digital photography.

      That said, I'm sure that the device is only good for "Woooo, look at me, I'm drunk, PARTAYYYY" -pictures.

    5. Re:Great But... by odie_q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      5 megapixels is overkill for a lot of applications. For ordinary 15cm (~6") photo paper printouts of vacation photos, 3 Mpixels is enough. For web use I'd say 1Mpixel is plenty good enough.

      Bad quality is more often due to crappy lenses and ultra-low quality CCD's than low resolution. If a 2Mpixel CCD is cheaper than an equivalent 4Mpixel one, it has a place in the market.

      --
      ...ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
    6. Re:Great But... by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Just a bit of an off-topic rant...

      Decades ago (this was back when a CAD computers cost $20K or more) I proposed the adoption of CAD for the company I worked for. It was new and spiffy and promised all kinds of new things I could learn.

      Since then I've seen a lot of clueless use of the technology that seems to waste more overall time than drawing by hand ever did. The worst part seems to be that management can hire discipline-ignorant CAD people and expect to save big bucks. Not to mention that newcomers don't have to learn the skill of working and communicating with pen and paper, which makes them essentially useless in the field.

      On the other hand, having convenient access to "live" site photos is a big help, but document control can be a problem.

    7. Re:Great But... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that the tiny, crappy lens doesn't even have an optical resolution of 2 megapixels.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    8. Re:Great But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Megapixels have nothing to do with the picture quality. You will never get good picture out of cell phone or other small device just because of a bad lens. Optics is what determines quality of a camera. Some of the artifacts resulted from cheap fixed forcus lens is hard to correct with any image processing sofware no matter how good the DSP is.
      Optics and CCD size is what determines an image not amount of pixels in CCD. Cameras on mars rover are great example of this.

    9. Re:Great But... by juhaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      2 megapixels is just fine for lots and lots of things. Few years old "real" non-professional digicams are 2mpixel, most of the time the pictures from those are just fine. They are light years ahead of this thing, despite the same theoretical resolution.

      These, on the other hand, as you point out, simply don't look good, they look fuzzy, and the colors are off, but that's not because they don't have enough resolution on CCD, it's because they have absolutely CRAPPY optics, and crappy electronics, and crappy software.

      Unless the optics get a lot better (they wont't, size and especially price places some limits...) you won't get any major improvement in few years even if someone is insane enough to put a 5mpixel CCD in one of these, 5 megapixels of blurry lens does not look any better than 2 megapixels worth of blurry lens, it's just a bigger picture of same crappy lens.

    10. Re:Great But... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I disagree that 1MP is enough for web use. If you weren't going to scale the image that would be true, but any time you scale an image by anything other than doubles or halves you end up doind a bunch of weird interpolation and you lose data. A lot of it. If you're going to scale an image at all in any direction then you want as much information to start with as possible.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Great But... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      my 2 megapixel camera from 2 years ago kicks the crap out of most 3-4 megapixel cameras of today.

      It's the lenses that make the most difference..

      hell that 1 megapixel camera on the mars rover is taing better photos than any digital camera you have.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Great But... by gribbly · · Score: 1

      How can you measure optical resolution in "megapixels"? That doesn't make any sense at all.

      --
      maybe
    13. Re:Great But... by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      Sure, all you have to do is figure out how much detail is possible through one of those lenses, and convert it to pixels.

      There *IS* a finite amount of detail that an analog camera lense can produce.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    14. Re:Great But... by odie_q · · Score: 1

      You're quite right, although modern interpolation techniques are very good. This is why I would want as much as 1Mp for web images, which gives me plenty of headroom when I scale them down to web sizes (often scaling down 4 times, or to 1/16 Mp)

      --
      ...ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  6. Already happened. by domodude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This sure does top the JB1 camera that ThinkGeek sells.

    As per the "choice" footage and pictures, this has already happened with the new camera phones. Mobileasses.com or something to that order.

  7. Notice they never mentioned the price by Nerd+With+Nalgene · · Score: 1

    It sounds like a pretty neat gadget all right, but I'm willing to bet it's way too expensive to be worth it. I'm waiting a while longer before buying any many-function nerd gadgets.

    --


    "as if nothing were solid...and that would be the end of the world, not fire and brimstone, but goo."--Rand
    1. Re:Notice they never mentioned the price by Nerd+With+Nalgene · · Score: 1

      $149 Not so bad after all.


      --


      "as if nothing were solid...and that would be the end of the world, not fire and brimstone, but goo."--Rand
    2. Re:Notice they never mentioned the price by irokitt · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Honey, where's the video camera?"

      "It's with the car keys."

      (pauses to look for the car keys)

      "Fsck!"

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    3. Re:Notice they never mentioned the price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What does 'fusck' mean, dear?"

  8. That all depends by proverbialcow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How long before we read the first story of some, um, inappropriate footage captured with one of these?

    Kinda depends on your definition of 'inappropriate.' Some guy clicks record and puts his keys on the nightstand before he beds Paris Hilton/Pam Anderson/Carmen Electra, etc.? Five minutes.
    Cops wire these puppies up with the 1" micro drives in the iPod-mini's and start an entirely new wave of invasive 'safety monitoring?' As soon as they can draw up plans and write an argument that'll claim it deters terrorism. Next week, maybe.

    --
    The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
  9. Now you can store it safely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    And record the people who decide to strip search you at the airport.

  10. Roll your own RPV by Trespass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Add something like this to a radio controlled model airplane and you've got a (relatively) cheap platform for surveillance or air survey work. Could have uses in archeology as well.

    1. Re:Roll your own RPV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I own a r/c a/c, I certainly can afford to put a better camera that can record better video and take bigger pics w/more storage.

    2. Re:Roll your own RPV by Trespass · · Score: 1

      Yes, with more bulk, more noise and more need for upkeep. I am wondering about the possibility of a unit like this mated to an electric r/c plane. Of course, this sort of configuration does seem to be more geared to surveillance...

    3. Re:Roll your own RPV by -tji · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would be perfect to mount on a plane like this. It's a small electric plane, with something they call an "X Port". They use this to drop parachutes or little plastic "bombs", and to do combat with little sonic transmitter/receivers. It should be pretty easy to adapt the trigger mechanism to turn the camera on.

    4. Re:Roll your own RPV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for surveillance you probably want higher grade optics, a better microphone, etc. none of this stuff comes cheap at the professional level

  11. I wouldn't worry by Mia'cova · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cameras are getting smaller and smaller anyways. I don't know what advantage having it on your keychain does for any kind of voyeurism. Just turn on your TV and you'll bump into one of those hidden-camera comedy shows. How long before we're getting all of those in HDTV? It's really not hard to film without being noticed.

    We all just have to get used to it. We're going to be recorded everywhere we go in public and our friends are going to get thousands of horrible photos of us.

    I just have a regular 3 megapixel camera and already have something like 10,000 photos saved. My friends have cameras too and take just as many photos. I know there must be bad / 'compromising' (lol) photos of me I haven't seen but really it's no big deal. We all just finally need to get used to it and stop being so fricken camera shy!

    Smile :)

    1. Re:I wouldn't worry by oberondarksoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not entirely sure it'll be too easy to not be 'camera shy' with the knowledge that the Powers That Be could very easily be on the other end of those cameras, being the ones who record us "everywhere we go in public". I, for one, wouldn't be too comfortable with that.

      --
      And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
    2. Re:I wouldn't worry by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Cameras are getting smaller and smaller anyways. I don't know what advantage having it on your keychain does for any kind of voyeurism."

      A) it's smaller and easier to conceal than standard small cameras
      B) doesn't look like a camera so it's less obvious you're recording
      C) sometimes you're in situations where you didn't plan on something happening so you didn't bring your trusty camera, like the girl dancing on the bar during happy hour (usually that's unexpected, although I know some bars...)

      this would be great in strip clubs where you're not allowed to bring cameras in.... wonder how it handles in low light? Please include "nightshot", the world needs more Paris Hilton type videos ;)

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:I wouldn't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all just have to get used to it.

      So we should just accept it? Why?

      I think this trend of small hidden cameras everywhere, combined with the ability to instantly transmit and archive these images, is perhaps the most disturbing social development of the last 200 years.

      It's not just the total invasion of privacy I abhor, and the utter disregard a lot of slashdotters seem to have for other people's privacy. That would be bad enough. But it's the scary feeling I have about the social ramifications of this kind of continuous surveillance. Today, these seem like toys. But I think they are clearing the way for a surveillance state unlike anything Orwell imagined.

      I don't like the idea of always being watched. It's creepy and it's wrong.

      I find myself less and less a fan of technology because of devices like these. I'm starting to doubt that technology is a *good* thing. And that scares me, because I *never* imagined I could feel that way.

    4. Re:I wouldn't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're kind of right, but who the hell cares about a girl's privacy when you can get an awesome upskirt shot of a lucious ass in a thong with one of these things? i bet some seriously good voyeur stuff will start showing up on the net in the very near future. i'm gonna buy one. upskirts here i come!

  12. what we can't see... by cliveholloway · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...is the whole camera. All the pics are close-ups. My guess is because it's actually about 2ft long and they don't want to scare us off.

    cLive ;-)

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    1. Re:what we can't see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you're really saying that it's even more of a 'convergence product' than PCMag wants to admit, i.e. "the ladies will love it"...

    2. Re:what we can't see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I didn't read anything about a vibrate or massage mode in the products specs.

  13. Inappropriate footage by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    " How long before we read the first story of some, um, inappropriate footage captured with one of these?""

    This is much more likely if they add a vibrator mode to the thing.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Inappropriate footage by demonic-halo · · Score: 1

      I think Paris Hilton is hot,

      But I don't want to see the insides of her.

    2. Re:Inappropriate footage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not kidding when I say that I think there's a market for this if you create one. Since they make Hello Kitty vibrators, and rubber duck vibrators, I bet this would sell.

      But you'd need a really good steady-cam feature?

      -ron

    3. Re:Inappropriate footage by sPaKr · · Score: 1

      OH I do.. I want to see the insides. I mean blood and guts.. sweet.

  14. Inappropriate? by colinramsay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    See, the thing I always wonder when people bring up this topic is this - the technology to record people without their permission has been here for a while. Be it photographic, video, or audio, there have been accessible means to invade someone's privacy for quite a number of years.

    What devices like this represent are a proliferation of this technology. And the uses to which it is put is not a problem of the technology, it's a problem of society.

    1. Re:Inappropriate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference, and this is the same reason the RIAA/MPAA machine is so flumoxed, is the Internet allows easy distribution.

      See in the olden days, you had to have a pretty big bankroll to put out a compromising picture to many people. This simple resource constraint usually vetted out people that would do stuff just for kicks.

      So as you say its a problem of society, but also of technology lowering barriers to entry of certain activities. So questions and situations that were just as common in the past as they are today are put to a different test considering the distribution climate.

    2. Re:Inappropriate? by colinramsay · · Score: 1

      Good point, I agree.

      Those "certain activities" are still of the same level of right/wrongness - so this is somewhat similar to lowering the penalty for robbing banks to a 50p fine.

      Somewhat.

      I'm sure you take my point though - the accessibility levels have changed but the acceptibility of the action has not.

    3. Re:Inappropriate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True true. I'm sure a woman in the 20's (1920s that is) wouldn't have liked people sneaking around with a camera while she was in her, for the times, revealing bathing suit.

      Which brings up an interesting question. If privacy violation becomes so common place will people grow to not care. Not because they are desensitzed to the act, but because they are desensitized to the consumption. Maybe we'll all have nude pictures of us on the net someday and it will be passe to care that someone put another drop in the ocean.

    4. Re:Inappropriate? by colinramsay · · Score: 1

      Yeah. But it would be nice to think that even though we didn't care about the photos that were out there we would have had the opportunity to stop them being distributed...

  15. But what? by baudilus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    2 megapixels is sufficient for most applications. Remember, the digital camera on the Mars Rover is only 1 megapixel. If you need to take higher quality picture / movies, buy a higher quality piece of hardware. Something tells me that the truly useful applications for this type of device (e.g. clandestine) do not cry out for super-high quality photos.

    It's also good for getting that quick shot of your buddy spewing chunks because who carries around a big digital camera everywhere they go? This you can keep with you at all times.

  16. 128 Megs... by Bl33d4merican · · Score: 1

    Isn't nearly enough for the sex video! But seriously, I think this is a very cool idea. My only worry is that these will be quickly banned from public places the way camera phones have been. Interestingly enough, devices like this make it easy for anyone to commit espionage, take pictures in public rest rooms and the like, or spy on people or organizations. I wonder when the government will decide that you need a liscense for one of these, too...

    --

    Every windows user is a sadomasochist.

    1. Re:128 Megs... by proverbialcow · · Score: 5, Funny

      [128 megs] Isn't nearly enough for the sex video!

      Whoa, slow down there, pr0n star! Some of us have jobs, and lots of stress. 128 megs might easily store two or three...

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    2. Re:128 Megs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, shit like this should be banned. Isn't /. where I normally read people who're bitching about privacy and whatnot? Yet you're all so glib when a new toy comes out that can record that girl next door taking her bra off.

      If you want to worry about your privacy, you have a lot more to fear from the man next to you armed with an arsenal of hidden cameras, jammer equipement, etc, etc, than a government that *really doesn't care* what you do (within legal limits, of course.)

      I fear assholes and stupid people far more than my government...

    3. Re:128 Megs... by Bl33d4merican · · Score: 1

      Assholes and stupid people run your government.
      Example: George Bush

      --

      Every windows user is a sadomasochist.

  17. Also known as.... by goombah99 · · Score: 1, Funny

    The crevice cam. All they need is an LED to self- illuminate.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Also known as.... by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I bet they don't have a high-pass filter on the CCD, so they'd be infrared sensitive. You could illuminate with an IR led, and no one would even see the light source.

    2. Re:Also known as.... by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      Actually thats "near IR" band ... real IR band sensors don't require illumination because objects *EMIT* IR radiation.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    3. Re:Also known as.... by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the band referred to would probably be Far Red, sorta but not really visible but not quite IR yet, some TV remotes you can see a very slight flicker from the emitter of the remote when pushing a button,

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  18. Mobile pr0n viewer by lhaeh · · Score: 1, Redundant

    One of this cameras major functions not mentioned in the article is that its viewfinder doubles as a image/video preview monitor. Since it can handle >20 minutes of mpeg4 video you could upload your favorate tv show to watch at youe leasure. Looks like your fscked when the battery wears out, its not replaceable.

  19. Why must.. by dj245 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why must companies create these silly devices that they call "camcorders" that really have little or no storage space to speak of? It isn't a proper camcorder, it is a gimmick. 128mb of space is not a lot of space. Not only that but the firmware of the thing means you don't get the whole 128mb. Add in a lossy (lousy?) mpeg codec, and you'll be lucky to get five minutes at any kind of watchable quality. I hope people don't actually buy these things expecting a halfway decent recording device. The image sensor must be terrible (being so small and cheap) Good thing its a camera too, because its a pathetic camcorder.

    I hope we don't see more of these things in the future. Do these companies have focus groups? What focus group with any sanity decided they wanted a camcorder with 5 or so minutes of storage? More likely they wanted a camera that could record a video (maybe) but that isn't the way this thing is being marketed. Just because you can easilly and cheaply add features to existing products doesn't mean you have to promote them and market them as primary functions. (Camera phones anyone?)

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:Why must.. by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      yeah, too bad they couldn't go for 256 megs.

      On the other hand, I record TV shows on my computer, and I've set the bitrate so 1 hour fits on a CD (700 megs) and the quality is pretty good IMHO. So at the same bitrate, 128 megs would hold around 10 minutes of video. I don't know about you, but I seldom shoot more than 10 minutes of Camcorder footage for anything, because it would be too boring to watch.

    2. Re:Why must.. by dj245 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Thats why some people shoot for hours and hours and then take all the interesting bits and put them into a 3 minute clip so they don't bore people to tears. Its like in American Football. In 3 hours, maybe 2 minutes of something really exciting happens.

      Oh and television capping at a really high bitrate and then post-recompressing to a 2-pass codec (Xvid, mpeg2, divx, whatever you want) will give the exact file size you want and much better results compared to fixed-rate low-bandwidth encoding. Thats why these types of camcorders suck, they do fixed-rate at low bitrates and 2-passing later only gives lower file sizes of the already crappy looking video.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    3. Re:Why must.. by aussersterne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      25 minutes of MPEG-4 is what they claim on the Web site. That's not bad. I personally think any more than ten minutes of home video at any particular event begins to enter boring city. I certainly don't want to see a full two hours of little Jimmy's birthday or even Our Excellent Spring Break. A few minutes of footage is all that's required to get the gist of most events.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    4. Re:Why must.. by Frennzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's more of a 'because we can' attitude. I am actually quite pleased with convergence in data storage devices...the video is just another input.

      I DON'T like the fact that I had to buy a 'camera phone' to get the other phone features I wanted.

      However, this would be a real handy gadget to have. (And it's just that...a gadget...+1 Karma to whomever can identify the origin of that word...specifically, whose name it came from and what they are most famous (in the US) for...no googling, you cheaters).

      As a cheap and easy way to move over a hundred megs of data from place to place, I like it. The fact that if you happened to see something noteworthy, like, say, a hostage situation or a plane going down and you could just pull out your keys and record it (in poor quality, yes) for posterity, is just a bonus.

      Plus, if it gets people interested in buying technology again, so much the better. We need tech jobs growth (in all sectors)

      Come to think of it, I have a great idea for this...do new video projectors have USB inputs and file translation capabililites? If they don't, they soon will. Now those marketing droids won't need laptops...they can put together their PowerPoint presentations and them load them onto their keyring, and just jack that into the projector.

    5. Re:Why must.. by dj245 · · Score: 1
      The fact that if you happened to see something noteworthy, like, say, a hostage situation or a plane going down and you could just pull out your keys and record it (in poor quality, yes) for posterity, is just a bonus.

      yep lets associate cameraphones with aeroplane crashes. The experience of taking a sub-megapixel picture on a device with no viewfinder or realtime-display window, zoom, or flash definitely reminds me of being shafted up the arse by the aerospace industry.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    6. Re:Why must.. by Frennzy · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?

      First, I explicitly stated I DID NOT like having a camera phone. I wanted a phone, not a camera...but in order to get the features of the PHONE that I wanted, I was forced to buy a camera phone, because that was the only device that had everything else I wanted.

      When I said this was a bonus, I was referring to the device in the article...the "lipstick" "keychain" device.

      I'm still not sure where you come up with the 'shafted up the arse by the aerospace industry' comment, other than because you probably just assume that most people who respond to slashdot are bitching about some industry or another, and you feel that it is your job to bitch about that.

      Going back to reading comprehension, I never bitched, at all, one iota, about the aerospace industry. I was saying that if this product were to be commonplace, then anyone who had one may have an opportunity to record a noteworthy event. Think about it like this...if everyone in or near Lockerbie Scotland had possessed one of these devices, and saw a plane in trouble, and turned it on the event, then don't you think we would have much more information about the event, thus making it easier to reconstruct and determine the source?

      I must be new here...because that completely irrelevant attack surprised me.

    7. Re:Why must.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I must be new here...because that completely irrelevant attack surprised me.

      yep you must be new here becuase it werent an attack, it were a joke. And flaming the poster will get you nowhere fast. Especially since it were no attack. From where i sit it were a joke. With all the security ("you should arrive 5 hours in advance of your flight") and problems the americans are pushing on themselves, airline security is a shaft in the ass.

  20. Look Here: I can get free advertising in /. by |>>? · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Does any one else get annoyed when real stories get rejected but blatent advertising gets accepted to the front-page?

    I thought this was supposed to be "stuff that matters" - since when does another little gadget that will be overtaken in two months at best qualify as "stuff that matters"

    Here's something that matters: (albeit to me)

    Linux Australia has written a draft position paper(or a PDF) on therecently negotiated Free Trade Agreement between the US and Australia,and is looking for feedback.

    The FTA has some Intellectual Property provisions that have a severe impact on Australia. The Australian Senate has a Committee looking into it and the dead-line for submissions is: April 30.

    What can you do? Sign the petition, Comment on thedraft position paper and send feedback to the JointCommittee on Treaties.

    --
    |>>? ..EBCDIC for Onno..
  21. Pictures and More Info by sethml · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are some nice pictures and such in a Philip press release at:
    http://www.press.ce.philips.com/press/2004-2-23-Ce bit2004-568.html

  22. In other news by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    You can now safely go into US theaters in the usa without fear of triggering the cam-corder check until such time as they ban keychains.

    It's been noted by one observe that Cantonese subtitles are no longer on their pirated video downloads. Patrons of such P2P file systems before had some assurance that cam editions of movies came with subtitles.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:In other news by josh+glaser · · Score: 1

      Hope you have 4 of them, then - you'll need them for the entire movie...

  23. Inappropriate footage?? by 77Punker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where?! Anybody got a .torrent??

  24. Re:Wonderfull... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, this is amazing. This is beyond RTFA! This person didn't even finish reading the story!

    Your comment = the last line of the story.

  25. Oh Great by esac17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does that mean we won't be able to have our keys out in the gym anymore? Last night my fiancée called me as I was dressing and the locker room attendant politely asked me to put my cell phone away because people were afraid of getting their pictures taken with the camera phones. Now will there be a reason to limit, if not to start searching our bags everywhere we go.

  26. All batteries are replacable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might have to whip out a soldering iron, but look where you're posting.

  27. Prices and Release Dates! by sethml · · Score: 1

    The press release gives a release date of May in Europe, and price of 300 Euro. There's also the key010, which looks like the same thing without the video capability and MP3 player, for 200 Euro.

  28. Nice try, but no dice? by zipwow · · Score: 2, Informative
    If it isn't mentioned in the article, can you point out where it is mentioned? The thing I'm seeing pictures of here doesn't look like it has any kind of digital viewfinder apart from some glass. The specifications list a "2 element optical viewfinder" which I think equates to "glass and mirrors".

    -Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    1. Re:Nice try, but no dice? by lhaeh · · Score: 2, Informative
      I though it was just a regular cheepo plastic lens viewfinder as well, its hard to imagen they packed it so tight with features.

      You have to click on the 'exclusive slideshow' link at the bottom of the page. From the article:

      This viewfinder also acts as a microdisplay for viewing video playback (you'll need to plug the headphones in to hear sound). The trashcan symbol sits to the left of the delete button, which deletes whichever pictures or clips you're viewing. Below the button are the Power and Memory indicators [[inset]] (labels for each are to the left).

  29. I will buy one of these. by e9th · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I had a nickel for every time I've said, "Damn, I wish I had a camera," I'd already have enough nickels to pay for the thing.

  30. Keep governments on their toes by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok i know the world needs more food and medicine than anything else but we should send loads of these things to countries like china, iraq, america & cuba etc where there are oppressive regiemes in oparation, they could be used to capture countless numbers of human rights atrocities! Yes i know they're all made in china.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Keep governments on their toes by zipwow · · Score: 1

      But what would they plug their USB camera into?

      -Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    2. Re:Keep governments on their toes by XaosTX · · Score: 1

      > countries like china, iraq, america & cuba etc where there are oppressive regiemes in oparation

      What do you mean America has an oppressive regi-&@993549@23..!@335

      +
      +

      + NO CARRIER

  31. Yes by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    I have a 2.0 Megapixel Visioneer camera and I need to install an LED over the photosensor so I can control exposure (light off == long exposure, light on for fastest exposure) since the flash kills the battery after very few shots but when used in the proper lighting (or low lighting and proper care) the pictures are quite excellent.

    During a vacation to DC I took over 1000 pictures with the camera. After I realized what it was doing in low light with excessive exposure times I compensated by holding it very steady and pulled off some really nice (not blurry) shots in the National Cathedral and other darker locations.

    It had no problem with outdoor shots. And yes, all the pictures are archived in a family web-site which uses a custom PHP script for an easy to browse photo album.

    I have a bunch of digital shots from Colorado and I actually think they look crisper than the film shots.

    If you're doing professional work and need top notch prints then you aren't going to be using a cheap 35mm camera or a cheap digital camera. For the casual user a 1, 2, or 3 megapixel camera is good enough. They're just looking to capture memories, not art.

    When it comes to photography what you're taking a picture of and how you set up the shot can really compensate for the film or mp count you're using. It really doesn't matter what camera or film you're using if you have nothing interesting to take a picture of or no clue how to properly frame it.

    Eventually I'll pick up a better camera since I go nuts taking pictures and have some outstanding shots and would like better quality images to go with my ability to setup and take pictures.

    Ben

  32. You read slashdot by ad0gg · · Score: 4, Funny

    We don't want to see inappropriate footage of solo acts performed in your basement.

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

  33. This is a nice idea for novelty use and the like.. by phaetonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but for the people who sport tin foil, realize that certain government agencies have had much better mini video cameras for quiet a while...

  34. At only $249 MSRP... by josh+glaser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...it sounds great, but it is $100 more expensive than the Gateway (the current best buy for tapeless camcorders, because it's not $800 like most). It has double the memory, but lacks a card slot (and an LCD display). So for it's value, well, I'd say they're both good buys for people who want an ultra-cheap camcorder that's small (these things go for convienience and such, not for super-high quality) and just fun. I'll probably buy one of these things just so I can always have a camcorder around to take video of stuff that happens (I don't want to have my "real" camcorder with me all the time). For now, that's really what I see the market for these (and, say, camcorder phones) is - when these things have hard drives, well, then they might be more of a viable alternative to a "real" camcorder. But like them a lot now - they're tiny, cheap, and you can always have them with you to capture life - in all its spontaneity.

  35. Is it *really* 2 MP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The KEY007 is marketed as 1.3MP, but it only has a 0.3MP sensor, and the images are upscaled to 1.3MP. All I see is "2MP sized images", nothing about what the sensor really is? Nowhere does the press release mention the sensor size, only that it produces 2 megapixel images. My gut feeling tells me that this is a 0.3MP camera, or maybe if we are very lucky, a 1.3MP camera, that is upscaled to 2MP. I'd love to be wrong.

  36. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offtopic much?

    Moderated up?

    Man this place sucks.

  37. Whoa - I actually spelled "spontaneity" right. by josh+glaser · · Score: 1

    Just wanted to add a bit of a P.S. here (mainly stuff I forgot to add in the original post, but hey, that's what P.S.'s are for, right?) The Philips Key-Ring Camcorder can play MP3s and WMAs, the Gateway cannot. The Philips can take 25 minutes of video, the Gateway gets 5 (high quality) or 18 (low quality) - but remember, that's with the base memory, you can upgrade (and will probably want to). Oh, and Philips also sells a standalone Key-Ring MP3 player and a Key-Ring Camera (that they just upgraded to 2MP). And no, I don't work for Philips ^_^

  38. duh by douthat · · Score: 3, Funny
    How long before we read the first story of some, um, inappropriate footage captured with one of these?"
    That's how they beta tested it.
    --
    She loves me: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 She loves me not: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688BF ...
  39. Video = Better Stills? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there recently news of programs that create superior stills by combining frames of panned video or multiple still images?

  40. Cost by Therlin · · Score: 4, Informative
    $280 at Amazon.com (shipping early June)

    Link to pre-order

    1. Re:Cost by malarkey · · Score: 1
      The details are different for camera on Amazon's site.

      Pixel enhancement enhances your 300,000 pixel images using digital interpolation to 1.3 million pixels. 64MB Internal Flash Memory

      Amazon shows the same part number. Which version is correct?

  41. electronic viewfinder is new by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Informative

    That version had just a passive lens viewfinder; this new version has an electronic microdisplay that lets you see previously recorded videos or pictures. That ought to rise the price quite a bit.

  42. Is it really 2 MP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 1.3 MP is actually 0.3MP

    see http://www.doyourthing.philips.com/tt_camera_key_r ings_additional_info.cfml

    How does it work?
    Your Camera Key Ring captures pictures using a VGA sensor, which displays about 300,000 pixels (640 x 480). When you upload the pictures to your laptop or PC, Photo Manager automatically enhances your images using digital interpolation to 1.3 million pixels.

    1. Re:Is it really 2 MP? by BalloonMan · · Score: 1

      What blatant marketing BS! But this link works better.

  43. $75 by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

    On next Wednesday afternoon.

  44. Hmmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does any one else get annoyed when real stories get rejected but blatent(sic) flag-waving from Australians increases until interesting news articles have become a thing of the past on /.?

    I thought this was supposed to be "stuff that matters" - since when does another irrelevant Australian story that will be overtaken in two minutes at best qualify as "stuff that matters"?

    Seriously, dude, if Aussies have such national inferiority issues that they must spam the living fuck out of every forum they can find with stories about their country in a desperate bid to be noticed (by Americans in particular), then they should seek psychiatric assistance.

    1. Re:Hmmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bloody yanks who think they are the centre of the world all the time! Australia is the country the USA wishes to be. We are rapidlly over taking the USA in most things. Why are your films and television programmes full of Australian actors? Because we are better than all those 3rd rate American actors. Sasme with our music. Same with our _everything_!!!! Get used to the fact that Australia is more interesting than your own country you arsehole!

  45. Sort of like Mind Reading by serutan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the topics that came up late one night in college was what life would be like if everybody was highly telepathic. You would have little if any privacy, and it would be impossible to lie to anybody. So politics and personal relationships would be radically different from what they are. It strikes me that the potential to be recorded in detail at any time might have a big impact on society. People could carry these things around to cover their asses or gather blackmail material. Crooked politicians would be unable to trust anybody, which might be a good thing. In fact, the degree to which our lawmakers freak out about this particular technology being in the public's hands is probably a good indicator of how dirty they are.

  46. Low light = no picture by TheSync · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have one of the early thumb drive/camera combos. I notice that many of them need a lot of light to take a picture. Mine won't even let you try to take a picture in dim lighting. Outdoors, they work OK.

  47. How long until by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long before we read the first story of some, um, inappropriate footage captured with one of these?

    No, the real question is, "How long until I don't get to carry around my keychain flash drive because someone thinks it's a camera?"

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
  48. Not me! by smchris · · Score: 2, Funny


    How long before we read the first story of some, um, inappropriate footage captured with one of these?"

    I'd only look at a KEY019 for the articles!

  49. modern codecs- require by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    massive processing power to encode.
    not likely in this device.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  50. There is more info on their website... by Lazyhound · · Score: 1

    ...here. Looks like it will be going for 300 euros.

  51. Similar things already on the market by babbage · · Score: 1

    My two year old Sony Clie has a built-in camera that can record video with sound for as long as you have space on the Memory Stick to store it. It seems like you could get an hour or more of video recorded on an empty 128mb card. The image quality isn't anything spectacular, but it's definitely fun & useful to use, if in a "lo-fi / arty" way.

    For example, when I was on my honeymoon last year, I was able to use the Clie to make short, narrated video clips of the "disco ball" effect that the Eiffel Tower makes at the top of each hour every night. This was much more fun than lugging around a camcorder everywhere, and because the effect was animated, still photos weren't doing it any justice. Having a pocket camcorder was an excellent compromise in this case.

    Admittedly, the Clie isn't quite as small as what Philips is announcing, but then the fact that the Clie is a PDA means that it can be used kind of discretely: when using it to take photos or video, it looks like I'm just using any old Palm Pilot. Plus, I get a nice 2"x3" display of what I'm recording.

    The future is now. Well, aside from the flying cars, I'm still bitter about that one...

  52. When? Probably soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How long before we read the first story of some, um, inappropriate footage captured with one of these?"

    I don't know when, but I know where. But this is nothing new. Go to the Voyeur Photos section and you'll find out that most of upskirt shots are made with custom cammeras hidden in shoes.

  53. OT: meaning of infared by lhaeh · · Score: 1

    Infa is basically latin for 'below' or 'below red'.
    Conversily Ultraviolet == 'above violet'

    So its a refference to the colours reliative position in the visable light spectrum.

  54. HERE'S A HINT: TROLLING IS BAD FOR YOUR CAUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all you do is troll - and you admit to it - then that's what everyone will (rightfully) see when they hear anti-slash. Rather than just FRIST PSOT NIGGER BITSH YEEEHAAA and crapfloods, give readers REAL REASONS not to read slashdot. Your noise-inflating comments only hurt your cause.

    Ackbar is a moron for not distancing himself from the GNAA, if he really wants his cause to succeed in any way.