Camera Phone Tips

Darren writes "It is getting hard to find a cell phone WITHOUT a camera in it - as a result millions are flooding the internet through moblogs with camera phone images - many of which are poor quality. I'm sick of seeing poor quality camera phone images being posted to moblogs and so have collected a series of camera phone tips and links that will hopefully help us all improve our camera phone images."

Comments

Here is a good tip...

[j0nkatz]

Hang up and drive!!!!

Re:Here is a good tip...

[zin]

Hey check out this photo of a guy I hit cause I was too busy talking on my cell phone. Man camera phones are cool.

Re:Here is a good tip...

[Flabby Boohoo]

Hang up and get a clue!

Re:Here is a good tip...

[WormholeFiend]

on the rare occasions that I drive, and that I get a call, I usually say right off the bat that I'm driving, and that I might be distracted while talking on the phone, due to having to pay more attention to the road and other cars.

The other person usually opts to call back later unless it's something urgent, in which case the message is stated, then the conversation stops.

Re:Here is a good tip...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actualy don't change the radio or the envioment controls, it been proven that doing that causes more acidents the cell phones.

Re:Here is a good tip...

[NanoGator]

"Hang up and drive!!!! "

And why does having a camera phone make this point even more prominent to the point of reminding us of this redundant topic?

This is redundant folks, karma whoring at its finest. It's sort of like wandering into a thread about Windows security and saying "well if you really want security you should switch to Linux!" It's only insightful if the general populace hasn't considered it.

Re:Here is a good tip...

[CrazyTalk]

If they do that, we wouldn't get those cool speedometer pics at high speeds like they show on mobog!

Re:Here is a good tip...

[Doug Neal]

Some people actually walk or take public transport while they're outside the house. Imagine that?!

Re:Here is a good tip...

[Anonymous Coward]

public transport?!?!?!?! someone might see me!!

Re:Here is a good tip...

[Anonymous Coward]

do you think that will serve as an excuse the day you run over a 4 year old ?

Re:Here is a good tip...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better learn some phone manners!

Re:Here is a good tip...

[WormholeFiend]

well, maybe not for a 4 year old...
maybe when I'm over 80 years old, at the local farmers' market... :P

Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[LaserLyte]

It's always nice to see a photo of some random cat or an interestingly shaped rock from another continent. :)

The tips on the site seemed pretty obvious to me...get close, increase resolution, don't use digital zoom... the site even states they are obvious. From my brief look at the other linked sites, it looks like there are a few slightly more interesting points, but also a lot of repetition (between the sites).

I think if anyone is a budding photographer, interested in building a gallery on their site, they should get ahold of a "real" digital camera (a device whose primary function is as such). It seems to me that people running "moblogs" aren't going to be too bothered about having high-quality photos anyway.

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[b06r011]

i agree, if you want some good quality images go for a single function device - i.e. a digital camera.

but for mobility, i love my camera phone. the number of times i have my phone but no other camera seems to increase. but the real bonus of having a camera in my phone is that i get a good insurance policy from my phone company (orange) so i am never afraid to take it out with me when i go drinking. i'd never be that fearless with a camera costing lots more.

oh - and lets not forget that it's probably only a matter of time before mobile phones get camera compnents the quality of a good digital camera - it'll only get better!

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[cetan]

Obvious to you, but not obvious to the millions of clueless "photographers" that take the same bad habits from their Single-Use cameras into the digital world.

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[crayz]

[b]oh - and lets not forget that it's probably only a matter of time before mobile phones get camera compnents the quality of a good digital camera[/b]

I'd actually say that's unlikely. Part of the problem with current digital cameras is that their sensors aren't big enough, and thus you wind up having a lens focusing a tiny amount of light onto the sensor.

Now, in 5 years I'm sure that you will have cell phone/PDAs with fairly high resolution cameras. But there's still going to be a lot of situations where it will be difficult to take a decent picture because:
- lack of light and no flash
- lack of ability to control aperature/shutter speed
- problems focusing

If this was all about megapixels, the 2MP camera-phones wouldn't take pictures far shittier than my years old 1.3MP digicam could.

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[angryelephant]

there are cell phone's with camears with flash in development right now. the biggest hindrance as i've heard it is lens quality and its relation to size. since everything is small on phones you have to use a plastic lens.

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[thebes]

I really don't think that the "no flash" downside can really be remidied. Someone who has a cellphone will likely want good battery life. The minute you start charging a decent flash, your battery will be dead. Cell's are efficient users of energy right now, and it'll be pretty much impossible to get an efficient flash. It won't be practical.

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[ChibiOne]

Now, in 5 years I'm sure that you will have cell phone/PDAs with fairly high resolution cameras.

Five years?? There are already 2MP, flash-integrated cameras in Japanese cell phones, in Japan...

Oh, you guys all mean five years in the US? Well, now, that's more likely.

Why is it that the American cell phone market (America as in "from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, Argentina") is always behind the rest of the worlds' ?

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[Hognoxious]

since everything is small on phones you have to use a plastic lens.

So small lenses have to be made of plastic, do they? Ever dissected a rat? I have, and no part of its eyes was made of plastic (and unfortunately neither were its innards, which stank almost as much as your knowledge of optics).

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[carlos_benj]

He already mentioned 2MP phones in his post. I'm sure he was talking about 4 or even 5MP. He's also correct in that, all else being equal, sensor size is more important than pixel count when it comes to better images.

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[flamejob]

the samsung sgh-e715 has a built in LED flash
nothing amazing, but it works well enough

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[SphericalCrusher]

Yeah, you have a point, but I'm sure that if you look at enough of them, you'd get pretty tired of how the digital camera photos looked, especially when you know you could make them ten times better.

From the writer's point of view, he makes a lot of sense -- a lot of people, although probably knowledgeable of those tips, choose not to use them, and because of that, they suffer from low-quality photos on their blogs.

Personally, I don't care, but I don't look at that many moblogs either -- just Xanga. And most of my friend's use digital cameras or scanned images on their blogs, so it doesn't really bother me.

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that the American cell phone market (America as in "from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, Argentina") is always behind the rest of the worlds' ?

A little bit market forces but mostly the fact that the telecom industry in the US run by companies like Verizon are so much in bed with government that technology is moving much more slowly than it did. You see we don't have a tightly regulated monopoly like we did with ma bell we have both monopolies and oligopolies that are government supported. Remember that the US was years AHEAD of Europe on telecom from post WWII to the early 90s. Then it all went to the shitter.

Anyway, on the otherhand it is kinda interesting and sad to see third world countries with huge problems where there is a middle class segment that thinks they're above America technologically all because of cell phones. Cell phones ARE a false indicator of the technological state of a locality.

Step 1...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't run your website from your camera phone..?

Select the camera with most pixels

[Mr Europe]

When the original pixels are few nothing can make it a good picture later on. The best camera/phone is the one with most pixels.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[DrEldarion]

Just because a picture is bigger doesn't necessarily mean it's better quality.

I'd much rather have a 1024x768 picture that was good quality than a 1600x1200 picture with image flaws.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[JamesD_UK]

A higher raw pixel count does not give better images. Larger CCDs, higher quality CCDs and the quality of your lens are all things you should be looking at in combination with the number of pixels. There's no single metric that will gauge the quality of an image produced by a camera. It's far better to have a try with a number of different cameras and choose which one you feel gives the best results.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[mcwop]

True to a point. Too few MEGAPIXELS and the picture will only have good resolution in a tiny size. But a 2MP camera can create 8x10 prints every bit as good and sometimes better than a higher MP camera. MP has to do with size of the picture you can print or display digitally. Quality of optics is very important consideration.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[phrasebook]

True but with camera phones at the moment it's generally the case that more pixels = better quality. It's not like there's much else to differentiate them anyway, and the lenses are all so tiny. I've seen some pretty decent images from some J-phone model (can't remember what brand it was) with a high-res sensor.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[babbage]

There's more to it than that though. The cheap plastic lens on these phones isn't really capable of taking high quality photos, even if you had a high megapixel system behind the lens. This becomes especially true after the thing rattles around in your pocket for a while and you get lint, sand, fingerprints, etc on it.

Another poster had it right: if you want good photos, get a good camera. If you're not worried about being the next Ansel Adams, use your camera phone.

The beauty of camera phones isn't that the picture quality is worth a damn -- it isn't. The great thing is that you always have the thing with you, so if something interesting happens you've got the ability to capture it on the spot without having to run home for your Nikon, by which time the moment will inevitably have passed.

If you want spontaneous pictures that are also of high quality, lug around a nice Nikon SLR -- the D70 looks fantastic. If on the other hand you'd rather not lug around an expensive camera body and a bag full of delicate lenses all the time, then the Lo-Fi, cheap-o camera on modern phones or PDAs can do in a pinch.

But don't bother mixing the two -- I can't imagine wanting to carry around a phone that doubled as a high megapixel camera. Think about it: the image sizes will be far too big to send to other camera phone users, which is a big part of the appeal with camera phones. You could have some kind of removable media, but at that point you have a crappy, expensive camera-phone hybrid that is cumbersome as a phone and inept as a camera. Why bother?

******

Composition, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the image. Look at the ways movies & magazines do photography, and copy what they do. Random examples off the top of my head:

• If a photo is of a person, fill up the image with the person. Don't stand 15 feet away so that the person is just this little vague sliver down the middle of the frame -- get close, or zoom in! With traditional SLRs, my favorite lens for portrait photos is 105mm, which is roughly a 2x zoom. This is nice, because you can stand several feet away from your subject (which generally allows the person to relax & look more natural), but you still get a nice close-up effect that looks really good.
• If the photo is of a person, center the whole person in the image. That is to say, don't make the standard snapshot error of putting the face in the middle, then the torso (and maybe feet) at the middle of the frame, and then have the top half of the photo filled with ceiling or sky. If you want a picture of something in the background, then get what you want of that background into the frame and then find an interesting place for the people to get in front of it; on the other hand, if the picture is of the people and not the background, then don't give 70% of the frame to the background!
• Be aware of, but not necessarily a slave to, the rule of thirds. For those not familiar with it, the idea isn't very complicated: if you imagine a 3x3 "tic tac toe" grid over your composition, then you end up with a box in the center of your image. The rule of thumb is that the "interesting" bits of the image should be aligned with one or more of the edges of this center box. For example, if you're taking a picture of the horizon, don't put the horizon exactly across the middle of the frame; if you want to emphasize the sky a little, put the horizon along the bottom third of the photo, while if you want to emphasize what's going on on the ground, put the horizon along the top third of the photo. Likewise, shifting the subject of the photo from the center to the left or right thirds often makes a photo more interesting.
• As a corollary to the rule of thirds, when taking portrait shots, never ever put the person's face right in the middle of the image. It's boring & unflattering. It has lon

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[NanoGator]

"The best camera/phone is the one with most pixels. "

No, it's the one with the best optics. I'll tell you right now, I'm not getting full use of the 640 by 480 CCD I have right now. A better lens would do me wonders, but increasing the CCD resolution would give me higher-resolution blur.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[sql*kitten]

The best camera/phone is the one with most pixels.

And I suppose the best processor is the one with the most megahertz?

Serious photographers have known for years that fewer cleaner pixels beat more, noisier pixels every time. That's why Nikon sells a 4MP D2H to pros and Sony sells an 8MP F828 to consumers. Megapixels, like megahertz, only tell a fraction of the story.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting stuff dude..thanks.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[caluml]

Hey! How about a quick critique of my first very poor shots?

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the relative merits of the D70 compared to a digital camera of $300 are few. Certainly not worth the extra $800 or whatever it is. I listened to a conversation between an amateur and a proffessional photographer this morning. They both came to the conclusion that despite the apparent 'benefits' of the D70, it was essentially a standard camera in a big box.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[babbage]

But that's what I'm interested in -- a "standard camera".

I learned photography on a 30 year old pair of Nikons, where the "new" one had auto shutter speed capability, and the other was full manual. I loved learning the balance among lens length, aperture, and shutter speed, and how I could tailor photos just by spinning a dial or swapping out a lens.

I realize that a lot of the decent mid to high end "prosumer" cameras will have these without being a full SLR, but my thinking is the other way around: I just want a basic digital SLR and I don't really care what else it can do as long as I can control lens length, aperture, and shutter speed. A lot of these cameras have features that I just don't care about.

"YMMV."

My tips

[Killjoy_NL]

Can't read the article at the moment, but here are my tips for using a mobcam.

- Take a lot of pics in different modes
- Don't be afraid to throw away the crap ones
- Don't trust the display on the phone, your monitor has a lot better quality.

Just a few simple but handy tips I use :)

Re:My tips

[Hogwash McFly]

Here's my guide for taking good quality pictures:

1) Find a subject in a well lit location
2) As far as subjects go, the shorter the skirt the better
3) Without acting too suspsicously, get as close as you can to your subject.
4) Discreetly aim the lens perpendicular to the floor level and directly between the legs
5) Snap!

Escalators can be a very handy tool.

Oh wait, you mean people take normal pictures with these things?

Re:My tips

[delus10n0]

While it may sound funny, I actually see quite a few people doing this, or trying to do this, in the malls around here. It's usually pretty obvious; well at least not to the girls, but to everyone else you look like a jackass holding your phone down low then giggling like a little kid.

Re:My tips

[mysticgoat]

Don't be afraid to throw away the crap ones

YES!

The biggest improvement an amateur photographer can make is a simple matter of self-discipline:

Throw away 8 of every 10 photos you take, before showing them to anyone.

There are many reasons why this works. If you adopt this practice now, by the end of the summer you'll have discovered several of those reasons on your own. You'll also have taken many more pictures than you would have otherwise, yet have fewer to show for it. OTOH, you'll start getting more compliments on your work.

Later on, if you decide you like this and want to go to the next level, you can start reading about digital photography and throwing away at least 9 of every 10 shots.

Re:My tips

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an offence in most states. If you see someone doing it, tell security. How would you like them doing that to your daughter?

Re:My tips

[babbage]

When I took my photography classes at university, the rule of thumb we were taught was that professional photographers tend to be deliriously happy when they end up with one half-decent shot per roll of film, and that more often than not a day long photoshoot might go through a dozen rolls of film and only result in one or two prints they want to do anything with.

The nice thing about digital is that it makes this side of things really easy. You don't have that nagging disappointment of "man, I spent a hundred bucks to get all this film developed," and so fool yourself into think that the shots are better than they are.

The bad thing about digial is that cheap mass storage (hard drives, cd-r) makes it awfully tempting to not throw anything away. That can be useful for learning, too -- you can look back over your history at what did & didn't work -- but you don't have that discipline to focus on the small fraction of situations that really work well. Throwing the bulk away is in the long run a very useful learning tool...

Re:My tips

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that my daughter doesn't wear short skirts nor go without underwear, I'm not all that worried about it.

Lint

[tttonyyy]

I know so many people that just shove the phone in their pockets, then wonder why their lint-filled aperture gives them crappy results. Great for sending a quick pic to your mates, but not for anything else. Quality digital cameras they are not.

Re:Lint

[Chess_the_cat]

They get lint in the aperature or on the lens?

Re:Lint

[realdpk]

Yeah, I have a Treo 600 and its lens is in exactly the wrong place. It's in the far right, on the rear of the phone. When I hold the phone in my left hand, I have to be careful to remember not to put my finger on the lens.

I do wish it came with a lens cap.

Anyways, I think the main reason the photos that I have taken have sucked is the lack of a flash. Plus, it's all fixed-focus stuff. It's just not designed to be a good quality digital camera.

It's "good enough" for some applications. I don't always have a real camera with me, so if I got in a car accident, it'll be nice to be able to take pictures with the phone.

Plus if I end up at a nude beach on accident, I can collect proof!

Btw: Sprint picturemail sucks. :) I'm going to try to replace it. I had no idea I was sending Sprint ads to people...

Re:Lint

[tttonyyy]

They get lint in the aperature or on the lens?

Well, the phones I've seen have the lens recessed into the case (presumably to protect against scratching), and in this aperature the lint collects. Sometimes there is a protective flat glass/plastic sheet in front of the lens and even this can get lint/dust behind it.

Re:Lint

[tttonyyy]

Anyways, I think the main reason the photos that I have taken have sucked is the lack of a flash. Plus, it's all fixed-focus stuff. It's just not designed to be a good quality digital camera.

Oh absolutely. And the lenses tend to be quite small, not capturing much light. That in combination with an insensative CMOS sensor (CMOS is lower power than CCD) give amplified, grainy looking pictures in low light (EG indoor lighting).

Re:Lint

[Hognoxious]

Well, the phones I've seen have the lens recessed into the case (presumably to protect against scratching), and in this aperature the lint collects.

When photographers talk about the aperture, they don't mean that, and they don't mean your bunghole either.

Too many features,

[orion41us]

If I wanted a PDA, I would get a Palm or PocketPC, If I wanted a digital camera I would get a Olympus or Kodak, How about just a plain phone where the battery actually works through the day and does not cut out every time you order Chinese takeout?

Re:Too many features,

[AviLazar]

But what if I do not want to carry my camera with me? Better yet, what if I needed a camera on the fly? What if I do not feel like carrying a camera AND a PDA (cumbersome, especially in nice weather when wearing shorts with no pockets).
I have used my phone to take many pictures where I did not have my camera - for amusement (this one girl had the words "Animal Liberation" tattooed on her back...she let me take a picture of it, my friend in CA got a good laugh. I am in PA) and real practical purposes (I took a picture of a broken parking meter that I tried shoving money into.)
They have their uses - luckily there are many choices, and you can still get a "free" phone with the cell phone companies that has minimal features. When I bought my phone I only wanted it for the blue tooth; I thought the camera was a waste....the camera is a nice feature though.
-Avi

Re:Too many features,

[Anonymous Coward]

A SonyEricsson camera phone (at least the ones with the crappy camera) can easily do 5-6 days on a charge.

Re:Too many features,

[WegianWarrior]

I'll second that - in fact, I preached that gospel myself before.

A phone is for making phonecalls with, allthought I'll be happy to point out that an SMS (or text-message if you prefer) is a nice way to convay a fair chunk of info in a fast way without having to talk to the answeringmachine.
A camera is for taking pictures with - or short videos.

A PDA is for pretty much everything else - reading ebooks, to do lists, calendars, list of numbers and adresses and so on and so forth.

My portable gameconsole (ie; my GBA) is for short bursts of simple fun

A portable computer is for serious working - or serious gaming if you prefer.

Yes, it does mean I have to carry around two or three devises instead of one. It also means I can leave the functionality I don't need at home, and that each of my devices are optimised for it's intended role - meaning the camera takes very nice pictures, the PDA has a nice big screen and fits my hand comfertable, my portable game consolle has easy to change games and so on. It also means that if one device breaks, the rest of my gizmos are in perfect working order.

Re:Too many features,

[Kombat]

Yes, it does mean I have to carry around two or three devises instead of one.

I feel the exact opposite. I don't want to carry a pager, a phone, a gaming console, a radio, a PDA, a camera, and an MP3 player. That's too many devices to buy, too many to carry, too much money to spend, and too much to worry about getting stolen. I just want one device that can do all those things well, and cost less than $500.

We have the technology. Yes, I understand your point about how the individual devices can be "optimised" to do their own thing well, but technology is not static, and as we learn more and more about usability and integration, manufacturers become more adept at creating devices which fill multiple roles just as well as the separate devices would.

Incidentally, I don't own ANY of the devices listed above, precisely because I'm holding out for an "all-in-one" device, which should be along any year now.

Re:Too many features,

[kev0153]

I agree. I work for a large U.S. Government Contractor and I'm required to enter secure buildings around Washington DC. Security at these buildings is not requesting that you check your phone at the front desk if it has a camera in it. Some military bases just take them from you if you are caught. Having a camera phone is not an option for me. I ended up going with a Siemens S56. It may be a niche market around DC but I bet non-camera phones sell like hotcakes around here.

Re:Too many features,

[theridersofrohan]

How about just a plain phone where the battery actually works through the day and does not cut out every time you order Chinese takeout?

I really don't understand these type of comments. How bad is the telephone system in the US? The past 3-4 mobile phone devices that I used over the past 6 years or so (which were _all_ free with a service plan, as I'm a cheap bastard), all had a battery that lasted at least 72 hours on average use (my T39m lasted for about a week) and the coverage (Greece & UK) was/is great! I mean, I don't really care about PDA features (although the treo looks nice) or the cameras, but we've had phones where the battery actually works and the line does not cut out, for ages now!

Re:Too many features,

[bwalling]

How about just a plain phone where the battery actually works through the day and does not cut out every time you order Chinese takeout?

You're not supposed to be able to understand the person taking your order at the Chinese place! It's not your phone causing that!

Re:Too many features,

[LinuxHam]

all had a battery that lasted at least 72 hours on average use (my T39m lasted for about a week)

I really don't understand these types of comments. Although I've always heard no one actually TALKS on their "mobile" in Europe because everyone is sending millions upon millions of SMS messages. If that's all you're doing then, yes, I can understand how your phone can last a week on a single charge. We have better devices for that function over here. They're called Blackberries.

Stateside, since we don't really "do" SMS over here, we talk on our phones and that uses a LOT more battery. I know three people who use more than 1,600 minutes a month of talk time on their cells. I average around 1,200 myself. Show me a phone that can handle 1,000 cellular minutes a month and only be charged 4 times in that month and I'll... I'll... well I don't know what I'll do because Nextel doesn't carry it!

Re:Too many features,

[mpost4]

Finally some one thinking the way I do. I have a Palm, iPod, cell phoe, Digital Camra, 2 laptops (one intel, one mac I really love the mac) and I never want them to be one device. I do like bluetooth for the times I need them to work as one, but that is (my palm, cell phone and laptop have bluetooth)

usally have everything except the laptop (I never carry more then one laptop) plus a bluetooth headset. And since they all have belt holsters, I don't have to worry about where to put them.

Re:Too many features,

[ajna]

I used to think as you did: I'd ditched my Palm years ago due to lack of use, and routinely carry around a SLR kit to support my photography habit. Despite this I still find my phone (a Nokia 3650, one of the many do-it-all wonders) to be useful, and indeed wouldn't trade it for a normal phone now. First off, it was free thanks to a Amazon/T-Mobile rebate deal, and this was only with a one year@$40/month obligation. Second, it works beautifully with iSync and my Bluetooth dongle, including grabbing the pics I have associated with my contacts in the OS X Address Book and syncing all of my iCal calendars. Finally, the camera portion of it is useful in an entirely different way than my SLR. Sure, it's fixed focus, noisy, and has funky color. But it captures the moment when it's called for, and the images are entirely workable for web use.

It's also a quite decent phone, with good reception according to howardchui.com and my own experience on the west and east coasts. (To tell the truth, I use it less as a phone than as a way to check my email and browse the web with Opera [for Symbian 6 -- released but no longer supported].)

As evidence of the utility of phonecams I present my website, typically filled with pseudo-artsy low depth of field shots, but also sprinkled with phone pics. A recent gallery.

Re:Too many features,

[NanoGator]

"How about just a plain phone where the battery actually works through the day and does not cut out every time you order Chinese takeout? "

PSst, camera phones do this, too. Having a camera != shorter battery life. Mine goes a week without charging.

As for the PDA and digital camera, wake up man. Every time this topic comes up, some git gets modded up for saying "why would I buy a phone with a camera in it when I can buy a far superior digital camera?" The answer is: "Because you don't take your DC with you like you do with your cell phone, stupid!"

Sorry to be rude, but it should be pretty darned obvious why a camera or a PDA in A cell phone is interesting. My phone acts as an alarm clock and a "ha! My nephew's being really funny, I should grab a pic of that seeing as how my phone's in my pocket but my camera is at home because I don't bring it to restaraunts with me" event recorder.

Re:Too many features,

[shic]

SMS in the UK at least is mainly an activity for teenagers. Old-fogies over the age of 25 typically find SMS an irritating, slow, overpriced "service" they'd rather avoid. I certainly find myself in that camp and also have little desire to be involved with "picture messaging" or similar gimmicks. Your 1600 minutes a month is serious phone usage - way over what I'd consider the norm. I estimate I use about 30 minutes a month on outgoing calls (with similar incoming.) and send/receive under 5 SMS messages. My mobile is most useful when it is fully functional and not ringing... for this type of use it is a godsend to only have to charge once a week!

Re:Too many features,

[Amorpheus_MMS]

Yes, it does mean I have to carry around two or three devises instead of one.

Two or three? What I have use for, even if only occasionally, listed individually using only optimized one-task devices...

1) Phone
2) Music Player
3) Data Storage
4) Organizer
5) Camera
6) Flashlight ;)
7) Gameboy
8) Webbrowser
9) Calculator
10) Stopwatch
11) Watch
12) Alarm

I think I'm going to need a backpack!

Luckily, everything except the camera is covered by my cell phone and MP3 player. I'm thinking about buying a digital one, since I do want quality cell phone ones won't be able to provide for a while yet... but I look forward to the day when they do that and the rest well.

Re:Too many features,

[Otto]

Your 1600 minutes a month is serious phone usage - way over what I'd consider the norm.

I read a study on this. I believe it said that the average usage among cell phone users in the US was something like 400+ minutes per month. However, it made a distinction between people who carry a phone for work and carry their own phone for all the time usage, and the work phones were significantly lower use than home use phones, thus dropping the average.

I use a cell phone exclusively and dropped my land line entirely. Well, after my last move, I never purchased a new land line connection, in fact. Don't need one. This is rapidly becoming the norm among 20-30 year olds in the US, actually, and starting to spread into other age groups as well. A land line is essentially a waste of money if you have a cell phone and broadband internet. This market, growing fast, is what shoots the average up there. Think of all the phone time you spend during a month. Now make it all into cell phone usage.

Re:Too many features,

[Jonavin]

By "Olympus and Kodak", you mean Nikon and Canon right?

I do have a camera on my phone but that's only because they don't make a model I like that doesn't have one. The quality is horrible. Even though my friends would say "oh neat a camera phone"... I always reply with "meh". For the same reason I really dislike camera on new PDAs too.

Re:Too many features,

[ptbarnett]

It may be a niche market around DC but I bet non-camera phones sell like hotcakes around here.

It's not a niche market. Most of the technology and financial companies for which I do consulting and training have prohibitions against cameras on the premises. I read somewhere that Samsung employees cannot carry many of the phones that Samsung manufactures on company premises due to a similar policy.

If a government contractor is doing work that requires a secured area, carrying a camera phone into it can land you in jail.

Re:Too many features,

[Anonymous Coward]

Why all this focus on convergence? We have the technology to do the exact opposite, divergence! Haven't people heard of this thing called bluetooth? Just get a simple phone with bluetooth, and buy other devices that can communicate with it as you need them. It would be so much better to buy a true PDA than to add watered-down PDA functionality to a small device with a clunky interface. It would be better to have a higher quality digital camera too. Although they can't connect with bluetooth, yes. (Perhaps somebody should make a USB Mass Storage/Bluetooth bridging device.)

All convergence is doing is turning a cell phone into a clump of subpar features that make people say "oh, that's neat," but then don't really get used. If you really need a particular feature, then get the real deal and just interface it to the cell phone somehow. Cell phones should just be viewed as yet another network inteface. Heck, they could probably be turned into just that and have the whole phone part of it made into a separate device.

Re:Too many features,

[marsonist]

All of the secured facilities that I've been required to work in have strict prohibitions against any personal devices that store/transmit data. This includes anything from cell phones/PDAs to playstations(the memory card slots). I would suggest that everyone in situations similar to your own verify that cell phones of any type are allowed.

Re:Too many features,

[san]

One big difference between European and American phone plans is that in Europe you pay only for calls you receive -- by the second (so two 30 second calls are charged as one minute).

In the US, you pay for both incoming and outgoing calls, by the minute, rounded up. This adds up very quickly and makes pre-paid phones exceedingly expensive.

Re:Too many features,

[san]

I meant you pay only for calls you make, of course.

Re:Too many features,

[LinuxHam]

While true for many years, not so anymore. Nextel in the US offers free incoming calls on some of their plans. I also have unlimited AOL IM for $5/mo so I don't have any per-message SMS charges.

Re:Too many features,

[Phil1]

SMS is good for some things though, for example when you're in a loud bar and you want to send the name of the bar and directions to several people. If you phone them, they can't hear you and generally don't have pen and paper to hand.

Other than that I would have to agree. Chavs seem to be the ones who use texting as their primary form of communication, and for that reason alone usage should be capped.

Harsh, I know - but fair.

Re:Too many features,

[Phil1]

"and then??"

Other problem...

[JoeLinux]

For those of us in the defense industry, it's mandatory that we get a phone without a camera on it. If you are working in an Open Secret area, you will be fired on the spot if you don't. I suspect that while that rule is in effect, phone manufacturers will always produce a camera-less version, lest they lose defense industry contracts.

Re:Other problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're the guy who took those prisoner abuse photos! How did you get such good resolution from a phone camera?

Re:Other problem...

[lobsterGun]

You don't know how good you have it. In our open storage area you aren't allowed to have a cell phone at all.

Re:Other problem...

[halftrack]

You're allowed in with a regular cell phone at all? In Norway, AFAIK, you leave your cell at the door due to tempest security. Apparently even an switched off cell phone can be tapped.

(Leaving your phone at the door was taught at a security course and has been implemented at the places I've been.)

Re:Other problem...

[gbjbaanb]

even an switched off cell phone can be tapped

Yeah? but I bet they'll be listening in for ages before they hear anything interesting...

Re: Other problem...

[Punk Walrus]

A friend of mine at NASA shares this story that was going around the labs in the early 1990s.

Apparently, one of the research scientists working at a secured site. When he came to the gate and was inspected, they saw his beeper, and asked if it was a radio device. Now, on this site, beepers were allowed, and by "radio device," they really meant any kind of broadcasting or recording device. But being a scientist, he said, "Yes." And it got confiscated. He tried to reason with them, and explained how a beeper worked, but they said it was not allowed on site.

So after he passed through the gate, he took out his ballpoint pen and said into it with a stage whisper, "They got the radio device!"

The guards were not amused and detained him for several hours until some supervisors and management got it sorted out.

Re:Other problem...

[gbjbaanb]

I don't think they'll give a fig about you, sorry to say. They'll make camera-enabled phones lest they lose market share, which is all they care about. They' only produce a camera-less phone if it means its cheaperr to make and therefore targets the low-end market.

I know there are many other places where you don't want hidden cameras - swimming baths for example (too many paedophiles taking pics of half dressed kiddies apparently, according to the popular media).

Re:Other problem...

[rnelsonee]

It all depends on the level of security involved, but it is usually allowed. In the lab area at my job (a Dept. of Defense contractor), you don't need any clearance to enter, but you do need an escort. We are allowed to have cell phones on, but they aren't allowed to have cameras on them.

For most secure areas in government buildings, cell phones are allowed, but conversations are prohibited, as are cameras. As far as I know, it's up to the person in charge of the building to determine if you have to leave your cell phone outside the secure area.

Then there's really secure areas like the NSA, which don't allow cell phones to be brought onto the premises at all, even if you leave it in your car while you work.

Re:Other problem...

[glpierce]

Legal system, too. Lawyers can't bring personal cameras into court, whether they're part of a phone or not.

Re:Other problem...

[NanoGator]

"For those of us in the defense industry, it's mandatory that we get a phone without a camera on it. "

I visited a gov't facility once. You had to turn all your electronic doo-dads in at the door. Probably a better policy.

Re: Other problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

The guards were not amused and detained him for several hours until some supervisors and management got it sorted out.

Ahh, the perils of joking with people who are paid not to have a sense of humor.

Re:Other problem...

[quonsar]

prisoner abuse? i'm afraid you are wildly misinformed. those were pictures of Freedom Tickling!

Re:Other problem...

[Realistic_Dragon]

Our building is faraday caged so phones dont bother them, although we are meant to switch them off when inside (to prevent interference). However cameras are a fireable offense and have to be checked at the main site gate (1.5 miles from the place where I work).

Re: Other problem...

[gstoddart]

Oh, goody. Why am I picturing the total break down in communications as a NASA scientist tries to explain to a secutiry guard what qualifies as a radio device.

I'm thinking sooner or later he'll just get hauled off in leg irons until less literal scientist or a clued in supervisor comes along and clears up the whole thing. :-P

Re: Other problem...

[cascadingstylesheet]

I had a music CD confiscated at a Naval Nuclear Prototype Training Facility. In 1990. It was in my bag. It was "recording media" (did they have home burners in 1990, much less portable ones?).

They did let me have it back at the end of the day ...

Google Cache

[RobertTaylor]

As the page is using the Nokia Webserver technology (running the site from a mobile!) here is the google cache

google cache link

Re:Google Cache

[tehcyder]

running the site from a mobile!

Now *that* is cool.

Re:Google Cache

[jaavaaguru]

Not quite as cool, but I bet this was Scotland's fastest web server at the point when the photo was taken, travelling at 70mph with the web pages stored on a Palm m100, and the uplink to the Internet via a Nokia 7110.

Next up: webserver tips

[rebeka thomas]

Sick of servers being linked to that are of poor quality? Next up: webserver tips to help you survive a slashdotting within the first comment!

Re:Next up: webserver tips

[Rakshasa Taisab]

A websites quality isn't measured by how fat the pipe is. Not everyone spends wads of cash on /. proofing their website.

Re:Next up: webserver tips

[flewp]

Tip #1: Don't make it to the front page of slashdot.

These tips will work for all digital cameras

[Phoenix-kun]

These are all good common sense tips that you could use no matter what kind of digital camera you have.

But most especially, DON'T USE THE DIGITAL ZOOM! You can crop the final photo a thousand times better with a desktop application after the fact.

Re:These tips will work for all digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if thirty seconds after you take the picture, it is already on your web site.

Re:These tips will work for all digital cameras

[sql*kitten]

You can crop the final photo a thousand times better with a desktop application after the fact.

Only if you saved in TIFF or RAW or NEF or a similar lossless format. Otherwise the camera has the advantage that it can crop on an image that hasn't already been degraded by JPEG compression.

Wanted:

[swordboy]

I'd like to get a small camera with a belt clip. I have no reason to take crappy quality camera-phone clips but I would like something that is ready when I need it. Perhaps something with a switch on the clip that automagically powers up the camera when I pull it out. I know that there are small cameras out there but I haven't seen one with a plastic, non-zippered belt clip out there.

I know that most slashdotters can't help me but this is just something for that someone who may be in the right place at a camera manufacturer.

Re:Wanted:

[javatips]

I have the Minolta DImage X. It's one, if no the, smallest camera with a 3X optical zoom. It's very light. While I don't have a belt clip for it, I carry it all the time using a belt carrying case which is made for this model.

I carry an extra battery, cause battery life with this camera suck, which is lightweight too and fit in the carrying case.

When this camera came out, it was the camera with the fastest boot time (less than 2 sec.).

The other advantage of this camera is that the zoom is inside the camera body and the lens is automatically covered with a little door whenever the camera is turned off. So the lens is kept cleaner for a longer time.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with this camera. The photo quality if good enough (expect in low light condition - which is to be expected with the size of the lens). I bought it because I wanted something that I can carry all the time. It fullfill that purpose very nicely.

Re:Wanted:

[Paulrothrock]

I'd like a teeny camera like that with bluetooth so that I can take a picture with it and then send it using email on my phone (which is also used as a wireless modem with my laptop).

Re:Wanted:

[clichekiller]

I personally like the Canon Digital Elph. I have the old 2 megapixel version, but there are even better versions of it out now that reach up to 4 megapixels. The image quality is very good, at least to my non-professional eyes. It's not good at capturing action shots, but its definitely small, about the size of a pack of cigarettes, maybe a little smaller. And its lens and mechanism retracts into the body protecting it whenever you shove it in your pocket.

As a side note, get the version that uses Compact Flash. They have an SD version but I would stay away from that at all costs because it is incredibly slow to write to. I have myself a 256 Meg CF, and I can store about 130 uncompressed shots on it.

And buy a spare rechargeable battery, it comes with one, but I find, at least with my version, that a second is a must. It costs around $20.00 bucks last time I checked.

Re:Wanted:

[karnal]

"and I can store about 130 uncompressed shots on it."

I'm just being picky, but as someone who owns an A70 (and has owned an A40), you can't store pictures from Canon's "user" line of digital cameras in uncompressed mode. Superfine, yes....

Of course, consumer grade camera users probably don't need RAW. I know I enjoy taking pictures with my digital, but even after making prints from 1600x1200shots (or higher), I can't see any JPEG artifacting at superfine.

Re:Wanted:

[clichekiller]

I'm just being picky, but as someone who owns an A70 (and has owned an A40), you can't store pictures from Canon's "user" line of digital cameras in uncompressed mode. Superfine, yes....

Which just goes to illustrate that if someone like myself can take great pictures with the camera it really must be simple to use ;)

I sit corrected.

Re:Wanted:

[Gaijin42]

The real purpose of RAW mode is not to get rid of artifacts. 99% of the time you are going to have to convert to JPEG anyway to get your prints, because wallmart etc wants a jpeg, not a RAW/NEF file.

If you have a printer yourself, you probably aren't printing an 8x10, and even if you are, the quality of paper and ink is going to mess you up more than any artifacts would. (unless you spend a few grand on your printer)

The real reason to use RAW, is that you only have to convert to JPEG once, instead of twice, and you can manipulate Whitebalance etc, off of the original sensor data.

Re:Wanted:

[karnal]

Good point, and that even more so highlights my ignorance at any rate of photography.

But again, on a "consumer" camera, I doubt we'll see RAW for a while, for 2 reasons:

1. People like myself, while not "stupid", really don't care.

2. Memory card space. While this won't be an issue in the future, right now Uncle Joe wants the most pictures for his $.

edit-orial

[moviepig.com]

...editing pictures later on your computer produces much better quality images...

...especially if (as in the movie-industry) "editing" means tossing the vast majority of your shots.

How did I ever survive without one...

[DigitumDei]

Web site seems slash dotted already. :(

I just got a samsung x600 (capable of 640x480 pics) and for the first time ever have a camera phone (or for that matter a phone that does anything more than sms and phone calls).



Its amazingly good, as long as you're in sunlight. If you're not in sunlight, then the pictures only look decent when displayed on the tiny phone screen.

Re:How did I ever survive without one...

[Molina the Bofh]

How does the picture look in the dark ? Blurred ?

If so, it's because of the camera optics. See, the lenses are small, so they receive a small ammount of light.

So either the image gets too dark or the exposure time must increase to compensate. The problem with it is that any movement or camera shaking will blur the image.

This problem will most certainly disappear once sensors gets enough sensitivity. Then they'll show a nice image, even though they receive little light.

Re:How did I ever survive without one...

[acceber]

Camera phone? It seems these days that everybody needs a camera phone, or you're just not cool. People like David Beckham and his Vodafone advertisements get all the teenage girls lured in for a camera phone, then of course all the tweens want to copy and get a camera phone...and in the workplace, "No moustache, no promotion".

Except today, you would replace "moustache" with "camera phone".

There are plenty of payphones around and they are probably cheaper than the rates some mobile phone services provide, not to mention it's a little more difficult to steal than a mobile.
You can buy a decent camera for about the same price as a camera phone, any day. Plus, mobile phones become obsolete almost as soon as they become the trend. In my opinion, a couple of bucks and a camera when I need one will do the job just as well, if not better than a camera phone.

Camera phones are silly

[dark404]

The resolutions on camera phones are less than or equal to those really cheep crapy barbie and hotwheels cameras parents buy for their children to play with.

It's a fad, like anything else. First it was text messages, then it was webbrowsing, now cameras. Considering how small digital cameras are now, anyone who actuallys needs to take pictures will just carry around a normal digital in their pocket. The vast majority of cell phone users use neither text messages (you're sending a text message from a fricken cell phone, call them or leave a voice mail jackass), nor cell-webbrowser (eyestrain anyone?), nor phone cameras. It's only a matter of time before everyone is looking for the next major fad in camera "technology."

Re:Camera phones are silly

[b06r011]

i'm sorry, but AFAIK, text messages really are not a fad. i suspect you are from the US, i heard that text messaging hadn't caught on there, but in the UK it is very popular. as for WAP - it's not perfect but it is very useful for some things, like checking the train times, or cinema times etc.

some things are fads, but text mesages (and to a lesser extent WAP) are not

Re:Camera phones are silly

[mccalli]

The vast majority of cell phone users use neither text messages...

Pardon?

All I can think of is that you must be in the US. In Europe, I would go so far as to say that the primary use of many mobiles sold is for text messaging. I know I send far more texts than I make voice calls.

I can't speak for Japan, but I believe there's a similar situation there. I thought that the US was going the same way, but I'm prepared to be corrected on that.

As for cameras being silly, I disagree. I often take around ten a week, and I imagine I'm only in the midrange. The reason? I have children, and I very often don't have my full-blown 5mp digital camera with me but do have my mobile on me. Snaps of my kids playing in the park are good fun for those who are interested, and utterly dull for the rest of the world. Some get kept, most get discarded.

I have other uses too. For example, on Friday an A4 sheet had been left at a railway station detailing proposed changes to the timetable and who to get in contact with to protest them (the changes are bad from this town's point of view - Maidenhead). There was only one sheet left, so I took a couple of photos with the phone and left the sheet there for someone else to pick up. I read the information later on my laptop after transferring the pictures there.

The combination of a camera phone which is bluetooth equipped and having a bluetooth'n'wifi equipped laptop (that works - I use a Powerbook, I've heard of terrible problems with MS's stack and Nokia phones) immediately opens up a world of fast snapping, fast editing and fast publishing. Don't knock camera phones - they're useful things.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Camera phones are silly

[DigitumDei]

I disagree.

The problem is that people misuse it. They seem to think the camera phone is there to replace your camera. Right now it isn't!
Since getting a camera phone I have enjoyed taking pics. But at no point did I think they were going to be of high enough quality to be printed out and framed or put up on a web site. But, the ability to take a picture of something and MMS it to a friend (usually to find out if I'm looking at the correct thing), has proved invaluable a couple of times already.

My father bought a digital camera about 6 years ago. It's maximum resolution was 640x480. It was expensive, and little more than a toy. Look at the quality of digital cameras now. I bet within 3 or 4 year time your phones will be more than adequate for posting arb pictures on your website. Why carry around a small camera and a small phone, when you can carry around one camera phone.

As for SMS's and web browsing being fads. Maybe in america, but I know here in South Africa SMS's are huge (and cell phones are owned by almost everyone, well over half the population as far as I know). Maybe its because we're poorer and therefor the money saved is worth it. Given that I just got a camera phone free of charge when renewing my cell phone contract, and even a cheap digital camera costs decent part of a salary here, I think its worth it.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[tehcyder]

As others have pointed out, in Europe texting is a huge part of the popularity of mobile phones.

As for cameras, there have been several incidents I've heard of with people using them to take photos at the scene of road accidents, very handy if someone drives off/moves things around or whatever.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[WegianWarrior]

As almost everyone else has pointed out, you can't be european...

An SMS is a cheap (at least over here) way to send condensed information - like phonenumbers, adresses, names and so forth (yes, I know that other uses it for pure comunication too, but I speak mostly for myself). Much better than leaving a voicemail, particulary since it's easy to backtrack thru the SMSs and make sure you actually understood it.

Mind you, if you really are from the US as other have guessed, I think I know one reason why it hasn't taken off in the same way as over here - y'all don't have a single standard to which all the providers adhere... as well we beeing screwed over by having to pay for incomming calls and messages (yes, I know this isn't true for all providers any more, but it's true for quite a lot of them). Complain all you want about GSM beeing 'french' (it ain't) or that it ain't 'free competition' between european telcos (it's as free or freeer as in the US btw - we simply have a level playing field)... and using an open, non-proprietary standard to cap it off.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[n0nsensical]

I've never quite understood the rest of the world on this one--I like real football, I don't like American imperialism, I like Scandinavian death metal, etc. But I cannot fathom why anyone would want to send text messages rather than TALK on their PHONES or browse the web on a crappy display with no mouse or proper keyboard. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[AGMW]

Why carry around a small camera and a small phone, when you can carry around one camera phone.

Indeed, or a phone camera. My new Nokia SLR has a cheap telephone built in. er. maybe.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[jedrek]

Because SMSes are good way to leave someone a message, and they're a lot FASTER than talking - especially to the party getting the message.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[lucas teh geek]

But I cannot fathom why anyone would want to send text messages rather than TALK on their PHONES
200 free sms per month = mass savings if you stop making stupid little 30 second phone calls

or browse the web on a crappy display with no mouse or proper keyboard.
Oh, so you carry a 21" TFT, mouse and keyboard around in your pocket hey? didnt think so. doesnt matter to you though since you probably dont leave the house much. people dont choose to use these technologies for no reason dumbass

Re:Camera phones are silly

[ebbe11]

But I cannot fathom why anyone would want to send text messages rather than TALK on their PHONES

For the exact same reason that people send an email instead of picking up the phone and make a call: asynchroneous communication. Also, here in Europe sending an SMS is far cheaper than making a call. This is quite important for the heavy-duty SMS-users, i.e. teenagers.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[Otto]

All I can think of is that you must be in the US. In Europe, I would go so far as to say that the primary use of many mobiles sold is for text messaging. I know I send far more texts than I make voice calls.

I can't speak for Japan, but I believe there's a similar situation there. I thought that the US was going the same way, but I'm prepared to be corrected on that.

Consider yourself corrected. US users just don't text message nearly as much as EU or Japanese users.

For one thing, most people don't have the patience for it over here. Either you have to use a keypad and annoying hit keys multiple times, or you have to learn to use predictive text (which is beyond most people.. I swear, I know so many people who have disabled predictive text because they couldn't figure it out...), or they don't like reading on the little tiny screen, etc, etc.

There's a whole host of reasons, but the main one is the lack of instant gratification. You send a text, you don't usually get an immediate response. But you call someone up, and it's two way. Instant gratification.

This is not to say text messages don't get used. On the contrary, they get used a heck of a lot. It's picked up about threefold since, say, 2 years ago. But the percentage is *way* below what you'd see overseas. Over there, people make more texts than they do actual calls. The percentages here in the US are about 3-4 times as many calls as texts.

The overwhelming majority of text messaging in the US is for people getting the game scores sent to their phone by some internet site, in fact.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[TwoPumpChump]

(the changes are bad from this town's point of view - Maidenhead).

I bet your town has an interesting story on how it got that name, a name based on the Hymen. So what's the town mascot? ;-)

Re:Camera phones are silly

[mpost4]

I will say very few people in the US use text message, when I send them to my friends, I don't get one back from them, instead they call me back. And it not like SMS is that expensive, I probably have an expensive plan 1000 messages for 7 a month on my existing plan, But it seams people don't like it, even those with the fold open phones, with a full qwerty keyboard on them, those are just so fscking cool.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[Otto]

Mind you, if you really are from the US as other have guessed, I think I know one reason why it hasn't taken off in the same way as over here - y'all don't have a single standard to which all the providers adhere... as well we beeing screwed over by having to pay for incomming calls and messages (yes, I know this isn't true for all providers any more, but it's true for quite a lot of them). Complain all you want about GSM beeing 'french' (it ain't) or that it ain't 'free competition' between european telcos (it's as free or freeer as in the US btw - we simply have a level playing field)... and using an open, non-proprietary standard to cap it off.

Yes and no. Until about 2 years ago, you were correct. SMS messaging didn't really cross systems. Now, however, that's no longer the case. GSM is pretty danged widespread in the US now, although it still gets badmouthed. I've used GSM off and on for a long time, and while it still doesn't have total marketshare, it has almost total coverage of the country.

But mainly, a lot of providers have put relays and compatible systems and such in place, with the upshot being that text messages now nearly always get through, regardless of the system. There's still a few problems with it in a few cases, but it's universal enough that you're 99% sure the message will get to its destination.

Doesn't help, really, it's a different mindset thing. Yes, text is bigger than it was 2 years ago, but it will never be as big a deal as it is in Europe. Oh, they keep trying to push it, but the public on this side of the pond just ain't buying it. Some of the more notable attempts to push text messaging include text message only communications devices, with little flip screens and keypads in cool colors. Mainly aimed at young women, judging by the designs. This makes it be seen as a fad, and few use texting on a regular basis. Except to have the sports scores or other similar information sent to them automatically, which is about 80-85% of the text use in the US.

People in the US love to talk, and they mainly use the phone for that purpose. WAP isn't taking off too well here either, but it's relatively new to the market around here, really. It's just easier to obtain information on the go via other channels than it is to fire up a WAP browser on your phone and get it.

Cell phones are *huge* over here, but for talking, not for anything else. Believe me, if you hit any mall in the states, you'd see what I mean instantly. Every girl under 16 has a phone and a pricing plan designed for power chatting. Scary, really.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[Paulrothrock]

I'm going to be picking up a camera phone w/ bluetooth in about two weeks, and I'm really excited about being able to use it with my Powerbook. However, I would like a little Bluetooth webcam (that's teeny) that could do the same thing.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[Shimbo]

It's a fad, like anything else. First it was text messages, then it was webbrowsing, now cameras.

There is a big difference; the text messaging craze was a bottom up, user driven thing, that completely took the vendors by surprise. The camera phone thing OTOH, looks like an desperate attempt by the mobile companies to try to earn more revenue, after they got burnt by bidding insanely high for 3G licences.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[n0nsensical]

I think you ended up with bad karma because you're a jackass. There's no need to start attacking people who you disagree with; try to keep it civilized and maybe your opinions will be more valued.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[Anonymous Coward]

What is scary about wanting to talk instead of type?

Re:Camera phones are silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, services like Upoc let you maintain a somewhat primative listserve system for text messaging. It would be rather easy as well to roll your own. While most the groups at Upoc aren't much more than novelty, one-to-many mobile messaging has uses. Think, data center emergencies or perhaps keeping track of a large group at an amusement park.

One downright damn good use I heard for SMS was for dealing with some forms of credit fraud. Some banks in eastern Europe have been testing a system that sends an SMS with details every time a transaction takes place for a card. You'd know real quick when to call up and check on the integrity of your account. It would probably be annoying, but I'd still use it.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was referring to the 16 year old girls with the cell phone strapped to their skulls. Not to talking vs. typing.

Re:Camera phones are silly

[ebbe11]

Some banks in eastern Europe have been testing a system that sends an SMS with details every time a transaction takes place for a card.

Now that is a very good idea. Maybe I should nag my bank a bit about this.

This too will pass...

[WordODD]

Have fun with these phones while they last. More and more buildings, both public and private are banning them in droves. Schools, libraries, court rooms and companies that develop numerous products are making people leave their camera phones behind for "security reasons". My local book store is also asking customers to leave them in their cars due to people coming in and taking pictures of articles and photographs in books and magazines with their phones . I can't imagine why you would want to have a crappy camera phone picture when a magizine is usually only 4 or 5 bucks but whatever. So enjoy while you can, I for one will be glad when this fad is phased out though.

Re:This too will pass...

[chegosaurus]

Amen. I fucking hate these things. They seem to appeal primarily to teenage boys who aim them up skirts and down tops as often as possible. Every good looking girl in the world is probably on a voyeur website or e-mail inbox somewhere by now. I'm not surprised, and very pleased, to hear places are starting to ban them. Though I'm not sure how effectively you can ban something that's so easy to conceal.

I don't know what's happened to make me so curmudgeonly. I used to love new technology.

Re:This too will pass...

[Fjord]

Yeah, I was pretty pissed when I went to a recent concert (Kid Rock) and they asked me if my phone had a camera on it. Not really thinking they'd have a problem with it I said yes, and they said I couldn't come in with it. So I went to another entrance and this time said it was a pager. The fact is that it's kind of rediculous tho, since the camera is ultra crappy, and I do think in a few years most of these phones will have them. When I got this phone I couldn't get another one that fulfilled all my requirements and didn't have a camera (clamshell with caller id on the front, silence ringer on the side, primarily noncellular, can get internet access to a laptop, mostly paid for by my contract).

I do find it is nice to have. I use it mostly for memory augmentation. If there is a product I want to checkout reviews for later, I snap it. Rental car - snap the plate. People here are missing the point when they say "you should just get a real digital camera". This is for taking pictures of thing when you don't have you main camera with you with you since you always have your phone on you.

Re:This too will pass...

[dspyder]

You're right... and as soon as you can find me another device that relatively stealthily allows me to take pictures of hot chicks you let me know, mmmmkay...

Fortunately ccd and cmos sensors are becoming small enough to embed in just about anything. I have a camera watch (16x16 b&w pixels, but it's a start). I've also seen necklaces with cameras built-in on the spy sites.

Cellphones are going to be the worst of your problems :)

--D

More tips

[$exyNerdie]

Original site is /.ted but here are some tips:

* Get close. Camera phones don't have telephoto lenses so if you take a photo of a person or building that's far away, the main subject will be tiny. For most photos you'll get a much better shot by filling your phone's screen with a close up of the subject.

* Send from a good cellular coverage area. If you're transmitting a photo in an area where the cellular signal is weak, it could take longer to send the photo than when you're in a strong signal area. If you're paying for airtime to send a photo, it could make a difference in the price. Although photos generally are transmitted in under a minute, if it goes over 60 seconds, you will pay for another minute.

* Beware of distortion. I just mentioned that you should move as close as possible to the main subject of your photo. You should be aware that moving very close could produce some distortion, something like a "fisheye" effect. The effect could be fun, or your subject might not like the fact that his/her nose appears much bigger than in reality!

* Enter a title for each photo. If you're not used to entering text on a keypad, it can be a frustrating and slow process. But don't skip this step or you'll have to click on each photo to determine if you wanted to see 006 or 022. Title the photos before you send/save them or wait until you go home and enter names for a bunch of them.

* Make sure you know all the file quality settings. For example, cameras phones often have three quality setting: Low, Medium and High. Snap the same photo at all the different resolutions and look at the size and quality on your phone and your computer screen to determine which resolution you prefer to use. It's easy to change the resolution, but you'll probably set it at one resolution and not change it often.

* Shoot at the highest resolution. Camera phones generally top out at 640 x 480 (except for some phones with one megapixel in Japan), and that quality is good enough for viewing on the Web. The lower the resolution, the worse it looks. Assuming the cost of transmitting a photo is the same regardless of the resolution, go for the highest resolution. It will look better.

Photos with higher resolutions produce larger files and take longer to transmit. If you're paying by the minute and/or by the number of packets, you need to compare the value of higher quality with higher costs to you.

* Clean the lens. Camera phone lenses aren't immune to dust, dirt and fingerprint. Periodically clean the lens with a lens cloth, which is easily obtainable at photo shops.

* Create "quick phrases." Most cellular phones with messaging capabilities enable you to create and store phrases that may be used for the subject or text of your messages. If you know you're going to be taking photos at, for example, Yellowstone Park, create a phrase that reads, "Yellowstone -- 8-8-03" and store it in your phone. That way you won't have to enter the same phrase for each photo.

(If you're going to Yellowstone, please take a good digital or film camera in addition to a camera phone!)

* Avoid using the digital zoom. Some camera phones include a digital zoom feature. Digital zooms employ software to increase a photo's size but they also decease the quality by merely "blowing up" a segment of the picture. Even people with multi-megapixel digital cameras typically use the optical zoom, not the digital feature. Feel free to check out digtal zoom, but you'll probably dislike the result.

* Explore the white balance. If you've never used a digital camera, you should be aware of the "white balance" feature, which changes the photo color based upon the lighting conditions: Sunny, cloudy, dark, etc. There's also an "auto" feature that works fine most of the time. But if you have time and you don't like the way the photo looks on your LCD, change the white balance to see if it makes a difference.

* Turn on the lights indoors. If you're shooting indoors, it's easy to

what we need is Kodak...

[Anonymous Coward]

Kodak should come out with a camera that has phone features tacked on.

Re:what we need is Kodak...

[Anonymous Coward]

except that kodak makes crappy digital cameras
why you sucking on corporate schlong like that?

Gym

[liam193]

What really bugs me about the cell-phone / camera combo is that most gyms won't allow you have a cell-phone because they could be a camera in disguise. Makes it a little hard to go to the gym while on call when you can't take a cell-phone with you. All because someone can't wait a few minutes to download photos from a real digital camera.

Re:Gym

[The_Mr_Flibble]

I don't give my gym the chance to not let me have my phone (I am on call one week in 4) however what I could do with is a waterproof one because it always stops working when I go in the pool.

Re:Gym

[cozziewozzie]

I don't understand people who take a phone to the gym :-) I guess you might need to be contacted in the case of an emergency, or whatever, but I find it distracting when people start babbling on the phone in the gym, and I certainly have other things to concentrate when I'm in there. I usually leave the phone at home for the two hours or so I spend in the gym.

Being on call is one thing but I think some people are owned by their mobile phones instead of it being the other way around. They interrupt their training, conversation, shower, anything, whenever the phone rings. Then they shout into the phone with the entire city listening. Really, sometimes you need to shut the damn thing off and enjoy some privacy.

Re:Gym

[Detritus]

Seems like more of a problem of the attitude towards technology of gyms and some of their customers. Camera phones are not going to go away. Video cameras are slowly becoming ubiquitous in many places. Image capturing devices are going to eventually become an unavoidable part of modern society. Just wait until people with poor vision routinely wear electronic vision correction/enhancement devices. Even people with normal vision may choose to wear devices that enhance their vision and provide visual interfaces to computer networks. If you don't want your picture taken, you may have to wear burqa at all times.

Re:Gym

[MC_Cancer_Pants]

Sorry, that was me.

I have a bad habbit of taking pictures of people on the treadmill. Hot stuff.

Re:Gym

[Anonymous Coward]

What really bugs me is people that think they are so important that the world will stop if they aren't constantly on the phone

Re:Gym

[The_Mr_Flibble]

If my gym is anything to go by you are a sick sick sick man.

Re:Gym

[0x0d0a]

The funny part is when people start to carry devices capable of producing EMPs.

GOOD 2 KNOW!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you go back to living in caves, PRIMITIVE CAVEMAN!!

I like the lowtech charme of camphones.

[Lispy]

Actually I think about the poor quality as a new form of art. The pics from my Nokia7250 may not be great from a photographers perspective but they give me the ability to spice up stuff on my homepage. Personally I like the weird colors and built in blur that the pics show off. ;-)

Btw: Here's my "moblog", more pics here.
Please feel free to ignore the mistakes in the lyrics. I am german and not a native speaker! ;-)

Re:I like the lowtech charme of camphones.

[nounderscores]

You know, that series of pictures is actually rather artistic and good. freaky.

Re:I like the lowtech charme of camphones.

[Lispy]

Hey, thank you...

Re:I like the lowtech charme of camphones.

[dont_think_twice]

Wow, looking at your pictures provided the best arguement yet that cell-phone cameras are a bad bad bad idea.

Re:I like the lowtech charme of camphones.

[Lispy]

Wait until you hear my music! ;-P

Not mutually exclusive

[BorgDrone]

My phone t610's battery lasts for at least a week AND it has a (crappy) camera.

Fine to a point

[JanneM]

Camerahpones are fine for serendipitous picture taking; you always have the camera with you, after all. However, a camera phone is no match for even low-to-mid end consumer digital cameras. The phones have fairly low resolution (around 1mbit or less, usually), pretty crappy optics, usually no optical zoom, no way to manually adjust parameters, and so on.

As a neat toy or way to document sudden events, the phone is certainly good enough, but if you find yourself bitten by the photography bug, you really should take the plunge and get a semi-serious camera. No need to get some hideosuly expensive, huge monstrosity with removable lenses or anything; a mid-price camera with good optics, good resolution (5-6 megapixels) and decent control over the image taking will go a very, very long way. It is of course true that equipment never is a substitute for talent, but, on the other hand, lack of decent equipment certainly doesn't help either.

need non-camera phones

[spoonyfork]

Camera-enabled devices are not allowed on company property where I work. It is difficult to obtain a mobile phone with decent features that doesn't have a camera. Since a lot of companies are implementing this security policy, when can we expect the mobile phone companies to meet this need for non-camera phones?

Re:need non-camera phones

[tehcyder]

Does everyone on /. work on top secret Defence Industry contracts or something?

Either that or US companies are even more paranoid than I had imagined.

Re:need non-camera phones

[Sancho]

Lots of places in industry want to avoid people taking pictures of the innovation that's going on there in order to prevent espionage.

Re:need non-camera phones

[tehcyder]

I just wondered whether this was more prevalent in the US?

It's not a practise that I have heard much of in the UK, for instance (defence work excepted).

Maybe I just don't work in sufficiently innovative industries :-(

Re:need non-camera phones

[Tuirn]

From my experience, this has been mostly an issue at the mid to larger corps, not the smaller startup sized shops.

Re:need non-camera phones

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in the automotive industry in the US. I'm not allowed to bring a camera of any kind to work without permission and a specific business reason I need to bring it in. No cameraphones on the property, technically we're not even supposed to have them in our cars in the parking lot.

My dad works in the medical products industry. Same thing, and he just works in one of his company's plants, not like it's top secret or anything. It's pretty common around here but unfortunately the cell phone salespeople still don't understand that. They try to push the models w/phones even after you tell them that you want one w/o a phone because it's a fireable offense for you to take a camera to work.

Poor Australians....

[twoslice]

For like $100 a month you get 2gb of bandwidth and 20meg of space for local hosting here in australia.

My hosting package gets 20GB of transfers and 400 MB of storage, unlimited MySQL databases and 99 email acounts for about $15.00 a month. You're getting screwed Australian dudes!

Re:Poor Australians....

[chrome]

No shit. I moved to Japan because of the sucky/expensive net access, and now pay less than $100/month for an ADSL line with more bandwidth than most hosting companies in Australia ..

Re:Poor Australians....

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is lucky, 'cause now you're paying more for other stuff. It all evens out (usually).

Re:Poor Australians....

[Paulrothrock]

3GB storage
30GB transfer
Unlimited emails
unlimited MySQL DBs
$9/month
Mine's bigger than yours. :)

Re:Poor Australians....

[chrome]

Well, cost of living is higher here, but so is my wage, so my quality of life is about the same, but my net access is very very cheap.

It evens out, generally, but some things are unfair ;)

Mind you, net access is cheap in Japan because of it's size and the way the population is grouped - its harder in Australia because of the distance. Mind you 99% of the population are on the coast, so you'd think they'd at least get THAT sorted out, sigh.

Don't forget...

[SmackCrackandPot]

Make sure you get a phone that has a cover for the keys ...

While an image of the inside lining of a pocket may be original, having a dedicated pocket-cam isn't my idea of value for money. Although at least I know where I left my keys...

Re:Don't forget...

[StormyMonday]

Just the thing for your new linux-based pocket switching network!

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

come on people, that was quite funny.

Camera phones suck (now)

[jcostantino]

I have a Motorola V400 and the camera sucks on it. Open note to all who are looking to buy one: Unless you just want it as an emergency back-up camera like I do, don't get one for now.

The quality of camera phones out there now is way worse than the quality of very cheap digital cameras 6 years ago. Granted, the Kodak DC120 swimming in my desk drawer could probably whoop my V400's ass, it's also enormous.

Back to my point; there will be better camera phones in the next year, I've seen some (Samsung?) which will have macro mode and "real" flashes. The closest I've seen to a camphone with a flash was one that used white LED's and that was only as a framing aid.

Bottom line: don't waste your money now unless like me, you don't care about the quality of the camera because the phone is the primary function. If you want good quality, give it till the end of the year.

I'm surprised that there isn't a website (like www.imaging-resource.com) that reviews the actual camera of the phone and gives concise reviews based on quality, light sensitivity and optics. I guess camphones are still too much of a niche market for that.

Re:Camera phones suck (now)

[jcostantino]

Oh yeah, if you try to use a camera phone at night or in low light, expect your picture to come out at least blurry and at best extremely grainy.

One other thing that I forgot about my V400 - if you take an "action" picture, even if it's properly framed on the viewfinder and the resulting "frozen" picture still shows up correct, the ACTUAL picture that is stored to flash memory is 1/2 second behind! It would seem that the V400 updates its camera memory independent of its viewfinder memory, very stupid and makes for even more difficult to acquire images.

It's really weird...

[Phidoux]

... how many of those pics seem to be of a person's ear?

Chinese takeout - Re:Too many features,

[Godot]

Duh! Calling China uses more battery power since it's further away!

So you're sick?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of seeing poor quality camera phone images being posted to moblogs ...

If they make you sick, then stop looking at them! Why are you looking around for things to whine about? These people are enjoying what they're doing.

I see phones w/o cameras all the time

[bludstone]

Was at the store last week, and half of the phones there didnt have cameras. And all of those were less then 100$

Perhaps Im missing something, but I dont need the latest whizbang stuff on my cellphone. All I want is caller-id, contact list, and TXTing abilities. Hell, mine came with tetris... That was a nice bonus, but not required.

I mean, there _is_ a market for lower end, cheapie cellphones.

Re:I see phones w/o cameras all the time

[lxt]

Certainly the cheap pay-as-you-go market will always have a budget phone with no camera....

Re:I see phones w/o cameras all the time

[UpnAtom]

In the UK, the market has been saturated for 3 years. The manufacturers and re-sellers have resorted to running ads designed to embarrass consumers who have last year's phones.

The network share has been static as people's social groups since most charged 4x more for calling another network than their own. Things are beginning to change now though, despite the regulator sitting on it's hands.

Think that is bad . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not allowed to have any radio signals at all, . . . am . . fm . . etc. Why I have to use the public terminal at the library disguised as a woman just to access /.

Re:Think that is bad . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a library terminal! You lucky bastard! I had to type out this message in binary by striking two live wires together.

Re:Think that is bad . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You have LIVE WIRES?! Luxury. We have to run our phones off only the static electricity we generate by dragging our feet on the carpet.

Re:Think that is bad . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Carpet??? Pah! you Dilettante. Whenever we needed electricity our dad would send the thirty of us to the hilltop and stand in a thunderstorm. We'd all hold hands and make a human chain back down the hill to the lines where Pop would tap out all of his messages. Pop would taunt us by saying things like, "What's the EBCDIC for Backspace?" and "No carrier! I'll have to start again!" and "Timmy! get to the top of the hill! Your brother's too short! HAR! get it? TOO SHORT"

Re:Think that is bad . . .

[EugeneK]

And it was uphill both ways!

Camera phones

[CastrTroy]

The one thing I never got about camera phones is the lack of flash. They work Ok in daylight, but try taking pictures when you're out at the pub, or doing any other kind of activity where lighting is not optimal. Most people's houses are not sufficiently lit to get a good shot. I think that they are pretty useless features when you consider everything else they could put on a phone.

This is true of most technology

[spidergoat2]

I really doesn't matter if it's a cell phone or not. People will go out and drop $1000 on a video camera, but won't spend $15 on a book about how to properly film a subject. People will spend $1000 or more on a PC, but again, won't drop $15 on a book about how to use it. I don't think that it matters if it's a table saw or a gun, most folks won't spend the tiome to learn how to use it correctly.

Re:This is true of most technology

[mgscheue]

Quite true. I know people who think nothing of spending thousands of dollars on high-end digital cameras and then go around shooting in "Program" mode and use direct, on-camera flash. The results are predictably bad. Then they talk about wanting to get an even better camera. My advice is to buy a dang book and learn to use what they have.

invention disclosure

[curator_thew]

Just to place this prior art into the public domain, I hereby describe the following invention so that it may not be patentable:

a method and device for adaptive image compression

it is know that air time costs money, and it is known that compression techniques can operate at various quality levels and in return provide lower size of image.

the problem solved by this invention is the transmission of image with adaptive compression to ensure that the entire image can be transmitted within a certain time constraint.

the user specifies a time constraint, and a minimum quality level.

when the connection is established, the data rate of the connection, the quality level and the time constraint is input to the device.

if the quality level cannot be met, the user is presneted with alternate options, one of which may be termination.

the device begins compression at specified quality level, in such a way to incrementally deliver the entire image at levels of refinement: during the transmission, should the transmission rate fall, then the adaptive algorithm will adjust the compression quality level.

one embodiment of this invention is a computer program.

Re:invention disclosure

[0x0d0a]

To eliminate something as a patentable idea, you don't need to publish it in the form of a patent application with legalese. Just describing it is enough. You also have to assume that Slashdot stays around. I'd treat USENET as a better place to send such ideas.

-5 Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

-5 Wrong!

I have done contracting for Lockheed Martin and we were not allowed to bring any of our personal communication equipment on sight when we were working on classified military projects. No cell phones, no PDA, no cameras, NOTHING.

Your misinformation shows you are either a liar or so ignorant as to believe you have ever worked on classified military projects.

LHM told us if anyone ever asked they never heard of us and we were never officially there although that after the project had been announced they would admit to our existence and employment status with the company although not say if we ever worked on the project or not.

Re:-5 Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

LHM told us if anyone ever asked they never heard of us and we were never officially there although that after the project had been announced they would admit to our existence and employment status with the company although not say if we ever worked on the project or not.

So we're just supposed to take your word for it, then.

Actually, I think there are varying levels of security, and what you can and cannot take into your workplace varies depending on the project. No need to call the guy a liar; his experience is different from yours.

Re:-5 Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

HEY MORON!

Different rules, for different parts of DOD. Just because in your little numbnut area, they don't allow them doesn't mean that it holds across all of DOD.

He is spreading misinformation. NO US military contractor lets you have person communication equipment on classified projects.

Pure BS! Maybe in your little numbnut area, but it isn't true across all of DOD.

It is great he gets modded up for lying but here in the real world (where I live) we get called on our shit, not praised for it.

Your "real world" is obviously a subset of the real world, since I know for a fact that it doesn't hold across all of DOD.

Re:-5 Wrong!

[Hognoxious]

[...] we were not allowed to bring any of our personal communication equipment on sight

Bet he's not so ignorant as to not know the difference between "sight" and "site", though, 'tard.

Uses for camera phones

[margam_rhino]

I own a camera phone and find that when shopping for furniture having a picture of the space where the new item is to go helps greatly.

Also if you are buying an expensive item, taking a picture of it (with permission of the store) and mulling it over can also ease the purchasing decision.

If I want to take a quality photo I will use my film or quality digital camera. Having a camera with you for those spur of the moment times is great!

I find it usefull having a camera and as it is detachable (on my phone anyway!) I can put away the camera part and noone can be upset.

Check out the UI on the phone

[SteveX]

I have a T616 phone from Sony Ericcson and to email a picture to my blog is literally 13 steps. (here is a camphone image from the T616, that's in it's 'high resolution').

People typically use a single service to post their pictures to, so make sure being able to send an image to an entry in your phone book is EASY.

Useful hints in another direction.. GPRS, webcams

[puntloos]

The author speaks of sending pictures through MMS, which is a VERY expensive service. With GPRS-enabled phones and ditto network, its quite likely you can 'email' your pictures to wherever you wish, at a fraction of the price of sending the picture in an MMS. (usually.. here in NL the imode prices art insane).

Also, with GPRS you can actually turn a few phones into a webcam. (yes seriously). How?

1/ get a phone running on Symbian OS (Nokia 3650, 6600, 7650 for example) and a GPRS provider so your phone can come 'online'
2/ get the 'RemoteS60' software (which is, as the name implies, a remote desktop controller)
3/ connect to the remote desktop with your PC and on your PC, run a program like 'luminosity softcam' that makes a webcam out of a screen area on your desktop.

presto.

Incidentally RemoteS60 now also comes with a 'webcam' feature but its not as useful as this.

Other than that the only tip I can give you is LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING.. crappy mobile cams dont work in darker spots.

Phones I know to have decent camera's are again the nokia's, the Nec 400i and Panasonic S341i

In other news...

[HomerJayS]

Nokia has announced that it will launch a new line of cell 'phones' that offer text messaging, web browsing, and digital photos, and walkie-talkie voice features. The traditional telephone voice mode feature will no longer be supported.

A Nokia spokesperson stated, "Our marketting department has determined that using cell phones like, well, a 'phone' is something that our target demographic's grandmothers would use. Today's generation is much more inclined to broadcast poor quality digital photos of the dog stuck in the sewer grate, text their buddy lists, and generally annoy passers-by with the 'beep-speak-beep' of walkie-talkie conversations."

Funny but true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny but true.

Most beepers send back a received signal to acknowledge the receipt of a page.

If someone paged him they could triangulate his position from the origin of the ACK his beeper sent back. This signal is often ignored by the transmitting company but sign up for a confirmed notification service and they will send you the page until they get the ACK from your beeper.

Also it is common knowledge that ALL ballpoint pens have secret voice recorders built into them.

Re:Funny but true.

[ptbarnett]

Most beepers send back a received signal to acknowledge the receipt of a page.

No, they don't. Most inexpensive pagers are one-way. The two-way pagers are significantly more expensive, at least for the equipment. Local or regional service is cheaper for one-way pagers, but two-way pagers are less expensive for national coverage. The reason: a two-way pager "checks in" with the local system, so the page is only broadcast in one location, vs. throughout the entire US.

I have a Motorola Talkabout with Skytel service. I probably won't carry it much longer, as US-wide SMS service is finally becoming reliable enough that I can depend on it for messages.

Re:Funny but true.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know. I made the whole thing up.

At least one perosn believed me though.

How oculd a little pager send out a radio signla stong enough to reach th etower. It can't but hey, I troll, slashdots mod without research. it is the way things work.

Performance?

[kpogoda]

What kind of upload time are you looking at with the average camera phone set to it's highest resolution? The bandwidth on these phones is not that high. I am not sure if the person posting this really thought about that. I am not going to sit and wait an extremely long time using my minutes up for a picture to upload.

Re:Performance?

[dep01]

I've found on the highest resolution (usually no higher than 640x480 these days) it takes about 10 seconds to upload a picture. If you're simply saving it to your camera's internal memory, just a couple seconds.. but this may vary depending on the phone, network, etc.

Couple Tips I've Found

[dep01]

As a sidenote, it's a bit scary to think that more and more people will be carrying cameras at all times. Soon plausable deniability will be a thing of the past :)

Anyway, here's a couple things I've found with camera phones:

- Try to keep the sun at your back when you're taking a picture. Otherwise all you end up with is a silhouette.
- Turn off the shutter sound as soon as possible. Girls don't want to know that you're taking a shot of their ass (experience talking).

Take care :)

all i want

[NoGuffCheck]

I'm sick of everyone saying "all i want is a phone that texts and calls, not a camera". GET USED TO IT. For a techy site such as /. seems like there are allot of readers that have a massive fear of new technology. I bet you were the ones who said "texting? what the f*%k do I need that for, I just want a phone so I can be contacted only in emergencies".

Anyway, I am currently employed in the mobile industry, and I have some shocking news for you. Not only are the camera phones here to stay, but look forward to built in MP3 players, video recorders, PDA, online shopping and plenty-o-porn! All this is available now of course but in the next few years (with increased storage), these will become truly functional. Hey they've just bought out some 1.1 megapixel camera phones, so its only a matter of time.

digital keys for home/office/car, payment systems (instead of swipe cards), the idea is that youve already agreed to carry a mobile with you, now why dont we add a few things to it so you dont have to carry your PDA, camera, music player, video player, keys, wallet etc etc..

Re:all i want

[jm2morri]

Its easy to say "GET USED TO IT" until you think about the user of the phone.

Here in Canada many municipalities are starting to ban the use of cell phones in cameras in public buildings (especially places like arenas and swimming pools where there are children in various stages of undress).

I am currently looking at trying to find a new cell phone with PDA functionality (PalmOS preferably) but NO camera. The reasoning is that I'm not going to slap down $500+ only to find I can't use the phone in some places.

I run my own business and I intend to be at my son's hockey game. Depending on my customers' needs I may need to be available at that time as well. So I can't afford a cell phone that I am going to be restricted in using.

As for colour screens--byte me. I would much rather have increased battery capacity than 16-bit colour icons on my PalmOS applications.

Re:all i want

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you were the ones who said "texting? what the f*%k do I need that for, I just want a phone so I can be contacted only in emergencies".

I still say this. I do have a cell phone now, but only because it's my first permanent number. I expect to move several times in the next two years, so a land line wasn't a very good option. I got a cell phone in order to get a phone. Not a camera and not an instant messenger.

All adding those features to a phone does is make it a phone with really crappy features. If I want a PDA, I'll buy a PDA. If I want a PDA that can make calls, I'll plug it into my cell phone. If I want an MP3 player, I'll buy an mp3 player. If I want to shop online...I'm sure as heck not going to use a device that broadcasts and has a tendency to lose its signal!

Seriously, what is the purpose of adding all these features to a cell phone? They don't do any of them well. If there's a real need to add these devices to a cell phone, then why not work on a way to connect the existing devices to phones? Bluetooth?

If putting everything in one device is really essential, then the last device I want things added to is a cell phone. A cell phone is too specialized of a device to use as a platform for convergence. I'd rather start with something that has general purpose power like a PDA, or true hand-held computer. Then, if I want a cell phone too, I'll add it to that. That might be useful. Adding the PDA to the cell phone just makes it a really crappy PDA.

Re:all i want

[Anonymous Coward]

For a techy site such as /. seems like there are allot of readers that have a massive fear of new technology.

Or maybe know enough to want technology that works? I carry separate phone, camera, and PDA. All of these devices do their job well. And from the mobile industry I keep getting asked to take a major hit in the quality of the devices I'm expected to use, just so I can have this 'integration' they seem to think I need.

The trouble is, that the camera will need to have optical zoom lenses of at least an inch in diameter, the PDA will need to have a good few square inches of display so I can take detailed notes, and the phone will have to be half the size of each of the above devices so I can hold it to my ear easily. Until you can resolve those mutually incompatible goals, I'll stick with seperate devices that do what *I* *want*, not what some suit in a marketting office has decided I should do.

The public should take note, too.

[BenEnglishAtHome]

It's not just employees. At most federal buildings in the U.S., camera phones are forbidden. You pass it throught the x-ray machine, it gets found, and the guards tell you to take it back to your car and leave it there. If you traveled by public transport, you can take it home or anywhere else, but you just can't bring it in. I've seen one half of a couple wait outside the building for lengthy periods of time, holding the cell phone, while the other half takes care of business.

I'm an employee and I'll get stopped if I have a camera, something I occasionally carry in to document the state of a comm closet or for other business-related reasons. From me, they'll accept "I need it for work today." From the public, they'll entertain no excuses.

General rule for U.S. federal buildings: If the building is big enough to have full time guards, metal detectors, and an xray machine, leave the camera phone (and digital voice recorder, too) in the car.

"All-in-one"

[sparkchaser]

If you want pager, cell phone, game console, radio, PDA, digital camera, and an MP3 player all in one, then go buy a Handspring Prism. You can buy them used on eBay for around $50 or less. You can pick up springboards for them that do all of the functions you listed plus some you didn't (GPS, language dictionary, WiFi card, and more).

Re:"All-in-one"

[karnal]

Problem with that is that then the person will have to carry around all of the springboards, just as if they'd have to carry around individual devices.

Just in case.

Mobloging - only for the interesting

[Little Dave]

I got in on this a few months ago. I was suddenly struck by the simplistic charm of being able to share anything you see, any time you want, with 6 billion captivated viewers.

So I fired up the old web-o-matic and cranked out an interface to allow me to upload pics and blogs with minimal effort. Bingo! Time to let the hits roll in...

Shortly after putting it on the site, I realised that nothing remotely interesting happened in my life that was worth uploading and sharing with the world.

I never came face to face with a yeti. Never saw a UFO. Never witnessed a daring bank heist. Never so much as saw a woodland animal doing a cute thing with a peice of bread.

I'm now contemplating taking the moblog bit off, because it only serves to highlight to myself how deeply unexciting my life is.

Bah!

Re:Mobloging - only for the interesting

[IronChef]

Thank you for having the courage to share that bit of self-realization.

I hate weblogs. "Woke up. Had toast. Toast is good." Why is this considered a revolution in communications? Whoo, now people in Upper Volta can know what I had for breakfast. Power to the people!!

Moblogging? "Look at this gum on the sidewalk. It kind of looks like a clown. Or a horse." Jebus, that kind of drivel makes me want to shoot myself right in the snapper.

But color me a hypocrite. I have a weblog. But I only use it to post "look at this good software I found" type information... things that I have reason to believe will be actually *useful* to some other people.

Bloggers -- if you don't have anything interesting to say... well, you know the rest.

Stupid trend...

[mfago]

I can't have a camera phone, you insensitive clod!

Seriously though, camera phones are being banned by quite a few companies (including Samsung!) -- yet it is very difficult to find anything but the lowest-end (and largest) phone without a camera.

Don't even get me started about color screens...

Re:Stupid trend...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I work at my Tech support job cellphones are banned completely. The only place in South Florida where there banned.

I don't want no blinkin' camera-phone

[ebbe11]

I work as a free-lance software developer. While it is not a problem with my current customer, I can easily foresee that I will get a job that involves a ban on cameras on-site.

Have you tried to find a high-end GSM phone (Tri-band, GPRS and Bluetooth, decent contact manager and calendar, etc. etc.) without a camera lately? It's simply impossible if you want a recent model.

So I ended up buying another Ericsson R520m phone. It's gone out of production years ago but it still does the job I need done better than any other phone I've been able to find.

Re:I don't want no blinkin' camera-phone

[Linker3000]

Totally agree - I'm also freelance and have a good old SonyEricsson T68i (no camera) - one site even freaked out when I plugged in the USB charging lead because they thought I was firing up a comms connection to my laptop, which was also connected to their network.

Re:I don't want no blinkin' camera-phone

[Emperor_CA]

Nokia 6310i? It does the job great

Re:I don't want no blinkin' camera-phone

[ebbe11]

Nokia 6310i? It does the job great

You are probably right. But what I forgot to tell was that since my wife has a Sony-Ericsson T100 and I have a Sony-Ericsson HBH-30 Bluetooth headset, I wanted an Ericsson. That way, we only need one charger for mobile phones when we go somewhere for a longer period of time.

Re:I don't want no blinkin' camera-phone

[ebbe11]

Totally agree - I'm also freelance and have a good old SonyEricsson T68i (no camera)

Ah yes, the successor to the R520m. Good phone but too small for my hand.

one site even freaked out when I plugged in the USB charging lead because they thought I was firing up a comms connection to my laptop, which was also connected to their network.

Over the years I have collected a bunch of (Sony-)Ericsson chargers (five to be precise) so I just take one of them along.

I have a blast with mine...

[weave]

I went out to buy a new digital camera last October with two big features in mind. Bluetooth and GSM so it could roam in Europe and picked a carrier based on cheapest European roaming rates (T-mobile). The phone happened to have a camera in it, which I dismissed for a while until I found mobog.com. I just have a real blast posting pics of my boring life and writing comments and interacting with the trolls who flame them. It's like a weblog but with a lot less writing required (pic worth a thousand words you know).

Anyway, it's at www.mobog.com/weave.

One of the nice charms of that site is that there is no censorship of content or comments by the site's owner (the infamous Pud of fuckedcompany). It does make it hard to share with some people though, even though I don't get into shoot pics of my dick like some people do...)

My point, yeah, they suck as cameras, but I'm having fun and that's all I care about right now...

Don't Bother

[StormyMonday]

Most personal snapshots are crap because the people who take them want them that way. They're personal mementos, not art objects. The traditional snapshot is as formalized as a Byzantine icon.

As a sometime professional photographer, I've given any number of hints similar to what I expect is on this list (love the /. effect) and then watched people turn around on the spot and shoot a crappy photo that looks just like every other crappy photo you've ever seen.

If people want good photos, all they have to do is look at their own photos as art and then work to make them look better.

Re:Don't Bother

[Anonymous Coward]

If people want good photos, all they have to do is look at their own photos as art and then work to make them look better.

I have a better idea: how about looking at your own ass as art, and then do workout to make it look better?

Best use of camera phones ever

[kkirk007]

foreign girls' butts.

Mobile Asses

Mobile Asses

Re:Best use of camera phones ever

[Jumpin' Jon]

Oh the irony of "mobile asses"... in that a huge percentage of the mobile users encountered on a daily bases are indeed asses (aka assholes; asshats).

Picture your average British Rail journey... filled with a constant background noise of tinny ringtones. More annoying are those who think their ringtones are cool/funny and seem to leave them playing for the enjoyment of those around. I swear I'm going to throttle the next person I encounter with The Muppets theme tune, if only because I end up humming it for the rest of the day!!

Worse of all, though, are the actual conversations... either for their sheer dullness ("Hi. I'm on the train" or "Hello Darling, we're just pulling into Sutton" being v. popular), or for the full-on detail they are relaying ("Yeah, I was sick everywhere").

Personally, the thing I hate most about camera phones is, I can't lie to the wife about where I am. "Prove it", she'll say when I claim to be stuck at some god-forsaken station (when in reality, I'm in my local having a couple of jars on the way home).

JJ

Re:Best use of camera phones ever

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't lie to the wife about where I am.

I understand that there are services in Japan that allow you to insert photos or background audio of alternate locations so that you can reasonably claim to be somewhere other than where you are. I think it was in the latest Wired magazine.

Re:Best use of camera phones ever

[caluml]

Hmm - and I'm off to Denmark at the end of this month. Bet your life I won't be just taking pictures of the ladies though.. :)

Re:Best use of camera phones ever

[a24061]

Personally, the thing I hate most about camera phones is, I can't lie to the wife about where I am. "Prove it", she'll say when I claim to be stuck at some god-forsaken station (when in reality, I'm in my local having a couple of jars on the way home).

I haven't used one of these, but couldn't you just keep a few photos of the station near your work in the phone? When she says, "Prove it", you send one of those. Then delete it so you don't re-use it!

Here's one reason why...

[tgd]

Why would stores not want you having a phone with you?

I take pics with mine a lot -- most of the time they're cutsie pics to send to my girlfriend of interesting things I see. The one real useful thing I do with it is snap pictures of things I see in a store I want to look up online later and get for cheaper.

There have been more than one book I've snapped a photo of so I could look up later.

Now, its kind of stupid to blame the use of the phone since I could write them down too, but maybe thats their logic.

Re:Here's one reason why...

[WordODD]

Here is one story...

I swear I remember seeing a Slashdot post about this a while back, but I could be wrong.

Re:Here's one reason why...

[Overzeetop]

Quote:

"Why would stores not want you having a phone with you?"

You respond to your own question with:
"The one real useful thing I do with it is snap pictures of things I see in a store I want to look up online later and get for cheaper."

Boy, I'm glad you don't "shop" in my store! That's a perfect reason for the store owner to not want you in there with your phone.

OTOH, if you use it like I did my digicam a few years ago (back when 1MP was HUGE), and make up a "(insert gift-givign occasion) gift idea list" for your relatives who don't know what to get you, it's a real crowd pleaser.

Re:Here's one reason why...

[tgd]

I'm repeating the question prior to answering it, so you're right, I am responding to the question I posed, or rather based on the suggested question of the story submission.

Re:Here's one reason why...

[NaDrew]

Why would stores not want you having a phone with you?

Because the temptation is there to talk on the phone while in the store, at full volume, discussing the most personal matters. Especially while standing at the counter paying for goods. As someone who works the other side of the counter, I can say unequivocally that there is nothing more rude than a customer blabbing on a phone while I'm trying to complete the transaction. If we could ban phone usage in the store, we would.

Camera Phone image tests

[pcp_ip]

Here's a link to some basic tests of the color quality of popular cameraphones. As you can see- most of them suck

Would someone mind explaining...

[JoeBaldwin]

What the point of camera phones is?

Over here in the UK, it seems that their only uses are looking good and taking (as a precursor to uploading and sending on) pictures of unsuspecting people.

Next person I see taking a picture of me with one gets it shoved where the sun doesn't shine.

Plan of action

[beavis88]

1) Kill anyone who makes these fucking camera phones

2) Kill anyone who buys these fucking camera phones

3) SMASH THEES FUCKING CAMERA PHONES INTO MILLIONS OF TINY PIECES!

Re:Camera phones

[Anonymous Coward]

NO! NO! NO! Don't you know what these things are supposed to be used for?

If there was a flash then the girl would notice when you took a picture up her skirt.

Sheesh!!!!

Design studios too...

[GuyinVA]

I was watching a show, I think on the SPEED channel, where they were doing a tour of a car design center (i think GM) There was a big sign at the receptionist's desk that you had to surrender all camera's and camera-phones.

-5 Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

From my experience with LHM the idea of bringing a cell phone at all onto a classified site is laughable. Check out US army regulations on personal communications equipment in restricted areas.

The guy is a liar.

He was at Fort Sill in Oklahoma as a consultant. Fort Sill is a testing ground, no R&D is done there. The projects he worked on were NOT classified and related to Artillery projectile weapons. All very common declassified stuff.

He is spreading misinformation. NO US military contractor lets you have person communication equipment on classified projects.

It is great he gets modded up for lying but here in the real world (where I live) we get called on our shit, not praised for it.

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[Troed]

It was a jab at americans :) If you ask me - the world would be better off if we paved the whole USA. The oil needed for the asphalt will of course be supplied by the US itself - they're quite good at getting it, no matter the civilian cost.

May I suggest...

[jridley]

Here's a workout you can take your phone on.
www.bike-to-work.com
Personally, getting 40 minutes of aerobic exercise before work feels great. Arriving with an endorphine rush helps productivity a lot!

Re:May I suggest...

[mpost4]

Shit forget biking to work only, try biking around just for the hell of it. I got some great pics of Pittsburgh while doing it ( http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mpop/Biking)

Re:May I suggest...

[cetan]

You need to install Gallery. :)

Cell phones are the last of our privacy being lost

[nlinecomputers]

Ok maybe I just an old troglodyte. But I just want a normal cell phone. Truth is I don't even want that but modern life requires I have one. I don't want to use it for SMS messages(except as a true pager) nor games or taking photos. I have real devices for all those things. Why do I want half assed versions crammed into a phone?

Not to mention the privacy issues with them. I can't go to the movies or a restraunt without some damn cell phone going off. I went into the restroom at Walmart recently and some guy was being arested for snapping photos of other guys privates with a phone. If I'm at the checkout at a walmart and someone is using a phone I'm VERY carefull about trying to block his line of site as I enter my PIN numbers. Why are we putting up with this?

YHBT!

[Anonymous Coward]

HAND!

What is the DOD. I thought that Drink or Die guy got busted or something.

The onyl thing I know about LHM is that they have an office abotu 50 from where I live.

Re:YHBT!

[MonkeyDluffy]

DOD = Department of Defense.

Re:YHBT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

Fucktard. YHBT and I wasn't even trying.

plenty of small-form-factor digital cameras avail

[fred fleenblat]

There are quite a number of small (fits in pocket) cameras available. I like the casio exilim, but olympus, konica minolta, sony, and canon all have 3MP+ cameras with 3x optical zoom and flash that are about the size of a 1/2" stack of business cards.

These are great cameras to carry with you 24/7 and while they don't take digital SLR level photos they are a lot better than a camera phone and have a lot more smarts about exposure levels and autofocus.

Buy a couple of memory cards and you can take pictures constantly for a week and not pay to upload them over a cell phone carrier's network. You'll get some truly awesome photos that aren't stuck at 640x480 on a fixed-focus no-zoom, filled-with-dirt-lens seconday add-on marketing-said-to piece of junk.

What would funny is if they had gone the other direction and put a cheap cell phone into a Nikon digital rebel. "Excuse me, my camera is ringing..."

Camera Detector

[Bazman]

Did you ever see Thunderbirds? Thunderbird One had a camera detector that alerted Scott whenever anyone tried to take a picture of Thunderbird technology. That's what we need... Where's Brains?

Baz

Hold Steady!

[Anonymous Coward]

The absolute biggest problem I've seen with photos taken using camera phones is a steady hand. In Tokyo, especially, the most common phones are flip-type phones. The lens is located near the top or bottom of the top half of the phone. When you hit whatever appropriate button is necessary to take the picture, even slight movement can cause the picture to blur giving you an awful photo. If the lens is located at the top half of the phone, there's that much more movement that can be generated from even the slightest move of your hand.

You'd be surprised how much better a pic you get when you hold reeeal still like.

Only reason

[Anonymous Coward]

for a camera phone is to have a camera ready to record an accident scene when some idiot tailgater yapping on their phone rear ends you. (Imature idiots can add sexual and scatological references here)

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo. Maybe we should pave Sweden?

After all, no one would miss shitty furniture, whose company was started by a Nazi.

Law

[Daegred]

I know there is a law that if you take pictures of people, that they must be in public areas or you must have explicit permission. However, security cameras don't require this, probably since you are often on their property. But what is the legal ruling on the difference in surveillance?

he's sick of seeing low quality ..

[Anonymous Coward]

quit looking then dipshit

Hard to find a phone WITHOUT a camera?

[Rai]

It is getting hard to find a cell phone WITHOUT a camera in it...

I have Cingular service and out of the 15 current models they have, only 5 include an integrated camera. Which carrier has mostly camera phones? Sprint?

Speaking of redundant...

[TPS Report]

... I'm glad the author's submission about camera phones was accepted. Most people don't understand how important it is to take good camera phone pictures. It would be pointless to use half of your camera phone's cabilities; why not use it to it's fullest potential, right? Crappy camera phone pictures are a waste of batteries, time, and besides -- they're boring. I suggest everyone start following this camera phone guide - so that the virtual art critics wandering the web will have something better to look at.

NEXTEL

[dougrun]

oh, c'mon people, Nextel doesn't even have a camera phone available (until this fall/winter's i860) so no complaining about finding cell phones WITHOUT a camera.

Optical zoom with liquid

[MacFury]

Wired had a short blurb about phone companies working on phones with optical zoom. Basically a liquid was sandwiched between two pieces of glass, electric current would shape the liquid to make an effective lens with no moving parts. (unless you count the liquid)

Watch my movies and give me some feedback!

Re:Optical zoom with liquid

[soft_guy]

Mmmmmm...Sandwich

Er ... (was Re:all i want)

[cascadingstylesheet]

>I'm sick of everyone saying "all i want is a
>phone that texts and calls, not a camera". GET
>USED TO IT. For a techy site such as /. seems
>like there are allot of readers that have a
>massive fear of new technology.

It's not fear, Dr Freud, it's just a cigar ;)

>I bet you were the ones who said "texting? what
>the f*%k do I need that for, I just want a phone
>so I can be contacted only in emergencies".

I still do say that. Actually, I usually leave it
off. *I'll* do the calling and have the
emergencies, thank you very much ;)

>Anyway, I am currently employed in the mobile
>industry, and I have some shocking news for you.

Er, by this point I was not shocked to learn that ;)

Re:plenty of small-form-factor digital cameras ava

[Anonymous Coward]

The Digital Rebel is by Canon, you ignorant fuck.

somewhat annoying

[sharkdba]

Am I the only one somewhat annoyed by all the camera phones? If I'm in the public I see people around me, they hold their cell phones in front of them, flips open, pressing buttons. You can never tell if they're dialing a number or taking pictures. It's not that I'm hiding anything, but it feels like someone gave them a bunch of cheap spy toys, and they are all running around snapping "secret" pictures. At least with a conventional camera, you can see their intentions.

Who came with the idea of a lens on the outside? Some disgruntled spy? If these things are supposed to be mimic a video-phone, why not just make the lens on the inside, and now you can send your face to whoever you're calling. The recipient can do the same if he feels for it.

(OT) Re:Camera phones are silly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's partly mindset, partly telco standards -- but partly also transportation systems. In Europe and Asia, it's far more common to take buses, subways, taxis, trains, etc., which gives you plenty of time to sit and write SMS messages while someone else does the driving. In North America, on the other hand, cities tend to be more spread out and so most people drive everywhere in their own cars, which makes it rather more difficult to key in a lot of text. (Not that that stops some people, I'm sure...)

Re:Camera phones

[Slashamatic]

A friend has a Samsung GSM phone, a 720 I think - it has a white LED for illumination of the subject. Not good for a distance but enough for a portrait.

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

You're welcome to come here and back up personally any threats you'd care to make.
In America we have a saying: "You talk the talk but do you walk the walk?"

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[Troed]

You keep saying that, as if it'd somehow make me less serious about my views :)

BTW, where's your brother in these pictures?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured /

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

My brother's a Marine Scout Sniper, not a prison guard.
What I think you need is a trip to Iraq to explain to those "freedom fighters" how you're on their side. Then I can laugh when you're beheaded on video for being a Caucasian in the wrong place.

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[Troed]

Easy - I'll just explain how I agree that the US needs to get the FUCK OUT of other countries.

You know - the same view that the rest of the civilized world holds.

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

That'll work. Need some money for the plane ticket?

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[Troed]

Yes please - all my money is going to "al-Aqsa Spannmål" (local Palestinian help organisation recently claimed to fund terrorists by the US - without any shred of proof as usual) at the moment ;)

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Like I said, it would be much more entertaining to see the "freedom fighters" kill you for being a Caucasian. Hence the plane ticket.

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[Troed]

... which also means that you're just one of the standard US racists who think everyone else is too ;)

Re:Parent not flamebait...

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Ummm....no. Look at what's going on. Caucasians are being killed indiscriminately. Al-Sadr announced that any females from Western nations are to be Muslim's slaves.