Slashdot Mirror


Disposable Camcorder

shamowfski writes "CVS Corp on Monday began selling a disposable digital camcorder. The $29.99 pocket-sized camcorder was developed by Pure Digital Technologies Inc., a San Francisco-based start-up company. The camcorder weighs under 5 ounces and holds 20 minutes of digital video and sound. It features a 1.4 inch color playback screen and an ability to delete video, and it saves video on a memory chip instead of tapes. Can't wait till they hack this one."

225 comments

  1. Not new.. by PopeAlien · · Score: 5, Funny

    My camcorder is already disposable.

    Its just really expensive to replace.

    1. Re:Not new.. by slashfun · · Score: 0

      As fragile as digital cameras are, they should all be disposable! I haven't had a digital camera die a natural death yet.

      --

      Slashmail.org "The Open Source Email Company"

    2. Re:Not new.. by DustMagnet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I haven't had a digital camera die a natural death yet.

      What's a natural death for a man-made artifact?

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    3. Re:Not new.. by dextroz · · Score: 1

      Like my 8 year old HP laptop whose hdd has slowed down to a crawl, its battery doesn't charge, the fdd is dead, the cdrom does not read - so on you get the picture. In short, when the device starts to perform *below* its expected level.

      --
      Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
    4. Re:Not new.. by Hungus · · Score: 1, Funny
      Sorry I couldn't resist this one:
      In short, when the device starts to perform *below* its expected level.
      Oh you mean when you install windows on it?
      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    5. Re:Not new.. by TekPolitik · · Score: 2, Informative
      My camcorder is already disposable. Its just really expensive to replace.

      Damn it, you beat me to it. Seriously, I paid $900 for a major brand camcorder and a year and 3 months later it's kaput - repair price exceeds replacement price. The problem - a manufacturing defect in the processor. The warranty - 1 year. That's the last time I buy expensive crap from Sony.

    6. Re:Not new.. by Skynyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Damn it, you beat me to it. Seriously, I paid $900 for a major brand camcorder and a year and 3 months later it's kaput - repair price exceeds replacement price. The problem - a manufacturing defect in the processor. The warranty - 1 year. That's the last time I buy expensive crap from Sony.

      I know many, many, many people with the same story - expensive Sony toy dies just after the warranty. They have all sworn off of Sony.

      I'm amazed at haw many times I've heard that.

    7. Re:Not new.. by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a shame that this once great company is now running on fumes, clinging to an old reputation of high quality while they now pump out crap. I haven't had, or heard of anyone having, a good Sony experience in the last 7 years, the PS2 being about the only exception.

    8. Re:Not new.. by StormKrow · · Score: 1

      I bought a GeForce 5600 december 27th 2003...guess when it died? January 4th 2005. Just over 1 year (the warranty was one year). I'm disgusted with the longevity of products these days and that card still had a lot of life left in it.

      --
      Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
    9. Re:Not new.. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I haven't had a digital camera die a natural death yet.

      What's a natural death for a man-made artifact?

      hehe, for camcorders I'd say natural death is "being accidentally dropped on a hard surface".

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    10. Re:Not new.. by stevelup · · Score: 1

      We have consumer law in the UK to protect against this kind of thing.

      A few relevant points:-

      Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety. - 15 months is not acceptable durability for a $900 camcorder.

      For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement). - so long as you can prove the lack of durability is unreasonable, you have up to six years to claim.

      Do you not have any similar legislation in the US?

    11. Re:Not new.. by unother · · Score: 1
      Yes, what gets me about this is how easily disposable modern electronic gear is.

      An old rule of thumb of mine used to be "don't buy the extended warranty--it's a scam". After my experience with a broken Fuji digicam--which was under warranty, but took two months to fix a seemingly minor problem--I think I'll be getting those from now on (instant replacement et al.).

      There is a neat article on this (nb: free reg. req.). I was listening to my new iPod photo at the time I first read it. Ironically, just when I had finished, the iPod froze, and needed a hard reboot.

    12. Re:Not new.. by unother · · Score: 1

      Heh!

      I believe it's called caveat emptor... :(

      But seriously, these are handled at the state level here, and thus can be arcane and contradictory. Not to mention they seem primarily concerned with damages rather than individual loss. Hence the popularity of class-action lawsuits for defective products, which primarily benefit the lawyers who pursue them.

    13. Re:Not new.. by hawk · · Score: 1
      How about "shoved into your pocket instead of the waterproof bag in a real hurry when your wife started screaming and you looked up to se here canoe capsized and your oldest daughter struglling, trying to pull your six year old out of an undertow."

      Not that I lost my CX4230 that way . . .

      :)

      hawk

    14. Re:Not new.. by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      An old rule of thumb of mine used to be "don't buy the extended warranty--it's a scam". After my experience with a broken Fuji digicam--which was under warranty, but took two months to fix a seemingly minor problem--I think I'll be getting those from now on (instant replacement et al.).

      For a device with moving parts, they can be an OK deal. I've already had an Epson inkjet printer sent out to service with a clogged printhead. It was still within the factory-warranty period, but there's a fair chance it could need another printhead (or two) before the extended warranty runs out. (I ordinarily wouldn't have bought an Epson because of the head-clogging problems I've run into with them in the past, but this printer (a Stylus Photo R200) is one of the few that prints on DVDs and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.)

      Your average camcorder is even more complex (mechanically speaking) than a printer, and it's something that's likely to get bounced around, mishandled, etc. in the course of normal use.

      For something without moving parts (like a stereo or a TV), the average extended warranty ends up becoming just more free money for the retailer. If it works for a month or two, it'll probably work damn near forever.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    15. Re:Not new.. by TekPolitik · · Score: 1
      Do you not have any similar legislation in the US?

      In the US they don't. I am in Australia, however, where we do. There are related laws in Australia, but they deal with merchantability (manufacturers and importers are liable for merchantability independently of contractual liability), which is a fuzzy line.

      The limitation period here is 3 years from the cause of action, which normally begins at the time at which the damage arises.

  2. Wait a second... by ilyanep · · Score: 1

    A camcorder that records onto a digital card is disposable...how? Does it just die after 20 minutes? Who needs a camcorder like that?

    --
    ~Ilyanep
    To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
    1. Re:Wait a second... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Informative
      TFA is misleading. Not disposable, but instead reusable.

      Take your video, return the camera to CVS, and they burn it onto a DVD for you. Erase the card, and sell(rent) it to you (or someone else) again. Just like the 'one use' still cameras.

      This WILL be hacked to allow home retrieval of the video. Wonder what the resolution is?

    2. Re:Wait a second... by ReverendLoki · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I believe they mean it has a memory unit, capable of storing about 20 minutes of video, hardwired into the internal workings of the machine, not readily accessible from the exterior. This would be similar to other disposable still cameras, anyways. You can delete some video and re-shoot it, but can't hold more than 20 minutes at a time. In the lab, they have their own means of accessing the data, which they then burn to a DVD for you.

      I can't help but think that, since I imagine they will re-use everything, including the memory unit, that people will find out not only how to get the data form the chip itself, but also will be able to read what was recorded on there by previous disposable camcorder owners. No chance of that going wrong at all...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:Wait a second... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      Disposable like "disposable" printers. Where you use it until it breaks (fairly quickly, of course) and it's replaced with little thought to the price.

      I know people that buy inexpensive new printers when they run out of ink because new printers come with new cartridges - and are usually cheaper ($35) than replacement cartridges (~$45).

      Of course, some of us just buy off-brand replacement cartridges or refill kits. We're the kind of folks that would hack a $30 camcorder...

    4. Re:Wait a second... by crymeph0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Article's not too clear. My guess is that you can't get to the card directly, and they use some sort of super-secret connector to actually get the data from the camera to their computer at CVS, then they burn the video to a DVD for you.

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    5. Re:Wait a second... by rfc1394 · · Score: 1
      A camcorder that records onto a digital card is disposable...how? Does it just die after 20 minutes? Who needs a camcorder like that?
      It means that the memory card in the camera is good for 20 minutes before it is full. I had a video camera that, with a 512mb compact flash, would be good for about two hours at low resolution and about 75 minutes at VHS resolution. Then you need to either use another memory card (where the card is removable) or that's the amount of material you can put on it.

      I just purchased a video camera from Target for $97.00, does video, stills, records voice and plays MP3s. Discounted from $125. It can hold a certain amount of material in the 14mb internal memory, or you can put an SD card in it for more time (or space).

      Basically the initial price for the camera is way too high. Hell, the $12.95 for a DVD is probably about what they should charge, period. So when people don't buy these in droves, that's when they'll say people aren't interested, instead of realizing they are charging too much. But CVS Drug Stores have a long history of overcharging customers back when they were People's Drug in Washington DC. There's a saying about what CVS really stands for, "Customers Victimized Severely."

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    6. Re:Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paris Hilton was said to be showing interest.

    7. Re:Wait a second... by waterwingz · · Score: 0

      The people you know who buy new printers just to get the cartridges have obviously not noticed that those cartridges are only partially full. They get tagged as "demo cartridge" or "starter cartridges" IIRC.

      --
      . waterwingz
    8. Re:Wait a second... by jlerner · · Score: 1

      I would send that to my friends in Iraq - be a great way to capture some video without trashing a real camcorder.

    9. Re:Wait a second... by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "A camcorder that records onto a digital card is disposable...how?"

      Proprietary battery? One-way moulded case containing the media? Real crypto?

      Those of us who remember Super-8 film, remember paying $6.00 (1978 dollars!) for the three minute and twenty second film cartridge, and another $8.00 to develop it.

      >Who needs a camcorder like that?

      I'm sure if it's sold in the right shops at the right places, tons of people will buy them. They will be sold to people before embarking on day cruises (even people with real cameras hate seawater spray. Would you take your Canon XL2 on a Zodiac?) They will be bought dozens at a time for wedding guests or corporate meetings. How do you suppose a waterproof version would do at a dive or surf shop?

      People pay $12.00 for a 24-exposure C41 camera today, and another $10-12 to develop the film. Hell, *I* have even done this, and I have a very good digital SLR, a good digital point-and-shoot, and a respectable film SLR system. I've still found reasons to buy these things from time to time, sometimes for the waterproof Kodak, sometimes only to avoid standing out or being singled out, and occassionally because I enjoy working within the limitations of a given medium.

      Nobody "needs" a camcorder like that. But they will be purchased, along with bugspray, sunblock, and a bag of cheetos. I'm sure I'll even try one.

      One thing though, if it does turn out to be hackable, I assume I'll never see one. Just like I never saw an Iopener or a CueCat or a Nintendo glove or a Juicebox.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Wait a second... by juglugs · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that the memory is like FLASH in that it's fully erasable, so no security worries there. I also would imagine that the battery life is like 30 minutes or something and that gets replaced if they do refurbish the units for the next user...

      --
      This sig is in Spanish when you're not looking....
    11. Re:Wait a second... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think that, since I imagine they will re-use everything, including the memory unit, that people will find out not only how to get the data form the chip itself, but also will be able to read what was recorded on there by previous disposable camcorder owners. No chance of that going wrong at all...

      If it's flash, assuming they are erasing it, I doubt it's possible.

      (P.S. Anyone else getting stuff like "Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 26 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"? Any idea what might be up?)

    12. Re:Wait a second... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but those quality printers (especially Lexmark) break when you LOOK at them wrong.

      I've tried to convince a friend of mine to switch to Canon - they'll at least last for a little while, and the ink's cheap... but, it seems that the $30 Lexmark Special of the Week at WalMart is all she can afford... (I've tried to convince her to save up for a Canon, buy that, and she'll be MUCH better off in the long run. Of course, if she saved up for a laser, like I did, then she'd be set for a LONG time...)

    13. Re:Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      also would imagine that the battery life is like 30 minutes or something...

      More than enough time to make love to my wife a dozen times.

    14. Re:Wait a second... by heli0 · · Score: 1

      (P.S. Anyone else getting stuff like "Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 26 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"? Any idea what might be up?)

      http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=deta il&aid=1216659&group_id=4421&atid=104421

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    15. Re:Wait a second... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think that, since I imagine they will re-use everything, including the memory unit, that people will find out not only how to get the data form the chip itself, but also will be able to read what was recorded on there by previous disposable camcorder owners.

      DMCA here we come.

    16. Re:Wait a second... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Proprietary battery? One-way moulded case containing the media? Real crypto?

      Damn, real crypto would probably actually work. I wonder if they thought of that.

    17. Re:Wait a second... by RichardX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, c'mon, that's not fair.
      Lexmark make exceedingly good doorstops!

      Ohhhh.. you wanted to use it for printing?

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    18. Re:Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but it's a fucking rip-off. $50 ($30 for the camcorder, $13 for processing fee, assume $7-8 for tax) for a 20 minute DVD? No thanks.

      Seriously, I can find decent 1 and 2 megapixel used digital cameras, with video capability, on craigslist for around $50-100.

    19. Re:Wait a second... by blackicye · · Score: 1

      "I know people that buy inexpensive new printers when they run out of ink because new printers come with new cartridges - and are usually cheaper ($35) than replacement cartridges (~$45).
      "


      Most of these buyers don't realize that the "free" ink cartridges that come with these crappy printers (Lexmark comes to mind) are usually only "demo" cartridges. They almost always contain on half the ink of the refills.

      Not to say that this is a bad deal, if you have very low print volumes (Toss away a printer every 3 - 4 months) this is still a possible way to go.

      I've done it myself with crappy Lexmark printers, but in the long run its probably a better idea to buy a decent printer from a non-Evil(TM) manufacturer.

      I highly recommend Canon's Pixma series of printers, the printers are not horribly expensive and they are fairly high quality inkjet printers. Most importantly though their refills are reasonably priced.*

      *IANACE (a Canon employee)

    20. Re:Wait a second... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It would be better called a "one time use" video camera: like the cameras, both film and digital of the same name.

      I worked at a major camera-store chain (rhymes with 'zits') a while back, right when they first came out with one time use digital cameras. We were actively discouraged from calling them "disposable," because in reality they were anything but. In order for the company to make a profit, each one had to go out and back at least twice, I think. Probably that number went down as they made more of them, but at least at the beginning they were definitely being 'rented' out for below actual value / manufacturing cost. When they came back to the store, the photos got downloaded (through a proprietary port/interface) and then the camera body was sent back to be refurbished and repackaged.

      I assume these video cameras are the same way. It's a natural extension of the technology. I just wonder what the video quality is like.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    21. Re:Wait a second... by RKBA · · Score: 1
      the photos got downloaded (through a proprietary port/interface)

      Could you tell me more about this "proprietary port/interface" please? I'm sure a suitable payment could be arranged for a set of detailed specifications. ;-)

    22. Re:Wait a second... by mgessner · · Score: 1

      If it's flash, assuming they are erasing it, I doubt it's possible.

      Well, I don't know how much time is a factor, but I have a nifty little paper at work that describes how it's POSSIBLE to recover previous bit states off of both magnetic and electronic memory (i.e. disks and flash). When I get back to work, I'll post the title and/or link for it.

      What frightened me about the paper is that, while the equipment to do so is costly, the physical techniques for doing it are known.

      More later.

      --
      "Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
  3. How long before this is hacked? by timonak · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How long before this is hacked ala the digital "disposable" cameras?

    1. Re:How long before this is hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      do people even read the op anymore?

    2. Re:How long before this is hacked? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      You must be new here... oh wait... never mind.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  4. How to check this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm trying to checkout the CVS camera, but no luck:

    cvs co disposable_camera
    cvs checkout: No CVSROOT specified! Please use the `-d' option
    cvs [checkout aborted]: or set the CVSROOT environment variable.

    Can anyone help me check out the camera?

    1. Re:How to check this out by Eberlin · · Score: 1

      (said in a monotone) Just for the sake of subversion, it may be using bitkeeper to keep the source safe so if cvs isn't working, try rcs, you git!

    2. Re:How to check this out by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 1

      Arch you forgetting something?

    3. Re:How to check this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sigh.. fricking hilarous.. I mean I am a nerd but.. do you people really find this funny?

    4. Re:How to check this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, its a clear case.

  5. Now we will get "video" images from battlefields by geomon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With something so cheap and disposable, it is just a matter of time before these start to become part of the soldier's standard kit.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  6. Has the prior digicam hack... by robslimo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    been used much?

    I mean, how many people actually did the hack and got a cheap, reusable digital camera out of the deal?

    I'm betting it wasn't enough to have a large effect on sales.

    1. Re:Has the prior digicam hack... by jamsessionjay · · Score: 2, Funny

      You think people around here need a reason to [hack/run linux/shit] on some new toy?

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:Has the prior digicam hack... by morcheeba · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've gotten feedback from a couple of photography teachers who use it for teaching kids. I have no idea how much this has impacted sales, but I've seen articles in popsci and pc world, so it has gotten out to the public. Next to teaching, my personal favorite use has been the guys who launched one in a balloon to 52,000 feet (previously mentioned on slashdot)

    3. Re:Has the prior digicam hack... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      I bought a couple of the $11 Ritz camera disposable digitals for my kids. They're still working fine. Some dude posted a hack program that allows you to alter the number of images taken from 25 to whatever you like. I've set mine for 99, as it's only a 2 digit counter. Not sure I could actually get 99 pics - depending on the content the jpg compression ratio sucks...

      Someone got hold of the Walgreens equivalent and found that it wasn't quite the same inside, but he was able to solder in a compact flash (or maybe SD) socket and use removable media instead of hacking in a USB connector.

    4. Re:Has the prior digicam hack... by pdxdada · · Score: 1

      I've personally "liberated" 4 of the one-time-use digicams. Aside from the good old fasion geeky fun of hacking something, I actually use them quite a lot. It's a camera that costs me nothing to use and very little if I lose it. I bring them to parties, camping, all kinds of places where I won't risk a camera that costs real money. I've also given a few away to friends who couldn't aford a better camera.

      --
      Don't mess with the bunny, outsideworld.org
    5. Re:Has the prior digicam hack... by Halthar · · Score: 1

      Well, I for one have two "CVS Red" cameras that I modified the firmware on. The pictures they produce aren't all that great, really, but it was worth the 20 bucks I paid for each of them, I think.

      The process of cracking the firmware is actually very very simple. The tough part with the CVS Reds is getting a good solid connector made if you go the modified Centronix connector route. Aside from that they work fine.

      The cameras do have their issues, for instance with the CVS Reds (I am unsure about the others) you can only delete the last picture in memory. So if you take one, and then you don't like it, don't take another, delete the one you don't like, and THEN take the new picture.

      They also seem to have a very low dynamic range. I am not sure if this is due to some other part of the setup, or the SMaL sensor itself. Overall it isn't HORRIBLE, but it's not all that great.

      But for 20 bucks I wasn't expecting the best camera out there, and I am happy with the purchase.

      I may make a run over to CVS today to check and see if the disposable vid cams are in yet so I can get started working on one of those.

  7. Whee!! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep, we're going to be seeing a whole lotta fresh amateur porn over at Livejournal from this. Man, I love PureDigital.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Whee!! by Geekenstein · · Score: 1

      My first thought too. But it still has the drawback that kept still photo porn from exploding before digital came out:

      It has to be taken to a place to be "developed" onto a DVD. People aren't going to do that.

    2. Re:Whee!! by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting


      >It has to be taken to a place to be "developed"
      >onto a DVD. People aren't going to do that.

      You've never worked in a photo lab. Your assumptions about what people won't do, are wrong.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:Whee!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never worked in a photo lab. Your assumptions about what people won't do, are wrong.

      I'm quite aware of what people at photo labs will do with other people's pictures.

    4. Re:Whee!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm quite aware of what people at photo labs will do with other people's pictures.

      Could you give me a hint?

    5. Re:Whee!! by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      With a wire wisk and a vacuum cleaner.
      Really grose.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    6. Re:Whee!! by connorbd · · Score: 1

      Put bluntly:

      If you're an attractive woman and you have been photographed in flagrante delicto using a film camera, there is a very good chance you are being masturbated to by some fifteen year old who has an unauthorized copy of your boobies taped to his wall.

    7. Re:Whee!! by hawk · · Score: 1

      Depends on the lab. Some will confiscate, or even turn the pictures over to the police.

      Penthouse sued Kodak and lost several years ago over this.

      hawk

  8. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our new Upskirt overlords

  9. 20 minutes?!? by The_Rippa · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's enough space to capture the entire life-span of sexual escapades of most of the people posting to this thread.

    1. Re:20 minutes?!? by PopeAlien · · Score: 1

      ..And long enough for it to show up online after the teenager at the drugstore 'processes' it for you.

  10. Allready Hacked.. by luxis · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://cexx.org/dakota/pv2.htm

    Might... get one myself..

  11. 20 Minutes? Why bother? by graikor · · Score: 1

    I imagine this would be trivially easy to hack, but with only 20 minutes of what is probably lo-res video, why would anyone bother?

    1. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever heard of bullet time?

    2. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by damsa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 30 dollars plus 13 for processing to get one DVD. So around 50 dollars with tax for 20 minutes of video. So to get a movie length dvd, you will have to buy 6 of these. 9 if you want to make a LOTR. or 18 if you want to make a trilogy or 25 if you want to make the directors cut of LOTR. That's 1250. You can buy a HD cam for that price and plus the benefits of not changing the dvd every 20 minutes.

    3. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      That's no good for bullet time.

      Bullet time uses STILL cameras, one firing 1/(desired FPS - normally around 1000) of a second after the other.

      Unless you tried a rail that this camera was on, but you'd practically have to have a rocket, and this thing ISN'T going to hit the necessary FPS for it to be unobvious what's going on...

    4. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 0

      20 minutes? Bah, i can masturbate for atleast 40 minutes, it's all about technique.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    5. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Not true, if you had a hundred cameras, you could(if they are properly timed) not only shoot at 300 fps(assuming the camera only does 30 fps) but you could zig-zag back and forth without having to reshoot if you decide you wanted to reverse the motion of the virtual camera.

      Even better, you'd have 20 minutes of action that you could dynamically view from 100 different angles simultaneously instead of 20 minutes from only 1 moving POV.

    6. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Doh, 100 cameras at 30 fps would be 3000 fps. But really, these cameras probably can't be well timed, so you'd want to throw out a bunch of the frames anyway.

    7. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      but with only 20 minutes of what is probably lo-res video, why would anyone bother?
      shoot it up in a model rocket

      keep it in your glove box in case of who-knows-what (Rodney King II?)

      take it mountain biking to get clips of your buddies

      on vacation when you forget your real camcorder

      as a kids' toy

      set them out on the tables at a wedding party for the guests to film each other and leave you advice

    8. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by connorbd · · Score: 1

      Eh, HD is a little more expensive than that, but let's break it down a bit differently:

      $400 for a low-end MiniDV cam
      $30 for a fourpack of DV tapes, 60 minutes each for four hours
      $60 for a VHS VCR to use as a mastering deck
      $10 for a 9-pack of VHS tapes, 2 hours each for a total of 18 hours, which is 14 hours too much for our consideration

      Now keep in mind that MiniDV is as good as consumer-grade SDTV is ever going to get, good enough for professional use on the right gear. That brings your startup costs for the bare minimum of linear editing capability to $500.

      Compare that to $45 a whack for 20 minutes. For that same $500 you get 11 20-minute DVDs (on a format that can hold FOUR HOURS of content), adding up to a total of 3 hours, 40 minutes, with enough left over for two tins of Altoids. Not only does that come up short of the four hours you get with our bare-minimum $500 setup above, you have essentially zero editing capability, a huge pile of DVDs, and presumably the same quality as you'd get on VHS. Not to mention the fact that even the most bare-bones DV camcorder has dozens of features that a disposable camcorder can only dream of, and the cost is amortized -- to shoot another 4 hours of video, you only need another $30 4-pack of DV tapes (you've already got seven VHS tapes left over).

      HD is an unfair comparison -- the only HD cam that cheap is a Sony that isn't even shipping yet, and it'll be a long while before disposables are doing HD anyway.

    9. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by damsa · · Score: 1
      Direct video to DVD burner's can be had really cheap. Around 150 dollars. You don't really need a mastering deck, as I doubt CVS will let you pick and choose the 20 minutes of video burned to DVD, I doubt it will be pressed.

      A DVD-r can hold an hour an a half of video and costs around 10 cents each.

      I guess it would be neat for activities that may damage normal gear. Such as taping sharks and shark attacks or hang gliding, or skiing down a mountain. But at 50 dollars for one dvd, seems to much.

    10. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by connorbd · · Score: 1

      Right. If it was HD, *maybe*. But that market is still years away, and the people who would be most likely to benefit from cheap HD are people who are doing things like community access that might never switch to HD in the first place.

    11. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by msdschris · · Score: 0

      Buy two and you can tape your sessions.

    12. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by connorbd · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I forgot to say:

      My point is a bit more subtle than that. For the money it takes to shoot four hours of video on this camcorder, you can do much more with off-the-shelf equipment even without bringing a computer into the equation. By the time you've added a computer into the equation (let's say $800 for a refurbed eMac with a DVD burner), you can eliminate the VCR and spend a total of $100 on tape stock. Let's pull a price out of the air -- $5/hour seems about reasonable for that quantity, giving us 20 hours of video. Now we're spending $1300 on our system. You need to buy sixty CVS disposables to get that, which puts us in the vicinity of $2700 for "tape stock" alone.

      To get the equivalent functionality of the first package, for what it's worth, I'd say add about $250-$300 at current prices for a DVD player and a DVD burner. And you still have to deal with those 20-minute DVDs. (A mastering deck is a mastering deck. In this case you also have an intermediate source deck, which is a pain in the ass at best.)

    13. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by damsa · · Score: 1
      I was thinking something in more inline with this.

      http://www.newegg.com/OldVersion/app/viewProductDe sc.asp?description=27-131-608&depa=0

      I've seen non sony ones that cost half as much.

      Not disagreeing with you or anything.

    14. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      In order for that to work (have an array of cameras all shooting and then cut one frame from each of them to make "bullet time" type effect) you'd need to somehow have the cameras synchronized, so that you'd know which frame from camera B comes after which frame on camera A, and so on.

      I'm not sure if I'm being clear. If not then I apologize -- but I think for your plan to work you'd need to jam all the cameras together (a simple operation on professional cams that have SMPTE Timecode I/O) from a central clock in order to easily pick out the right frames in order.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    15. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by briareus · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. Assume you're the typical consumer who needs to shoot something short. Very few people are going to set out to produce an epic movie out of the blue.

      In any case, you're shooting a single event/moment and you don't have the hardware, software, or know how. You're just shooting a short home video. There's no way to produce a single 20 minute DVD from that point for $43 without begging and harassing friends or relatives.

      Of course it doesn't make sense to shoot 4 or 20 hours of videos on these things. It's like arguing that a bicycle isn't viable transportation at all because it's not suited for cross-country travel.

    16. Re:20 Minutes? Why bother? by graikor · · Score: 1

      Well, I still don't think it would be terribly useful on a vacation, even as a backup, but your other ideas are very clever and convincing.

      I humbly concede there are some uses for which a cheap camcorder with a 20-minute recording time would be perfect.

  12. more info & the PV2 still camera with LCD by morcheeba · · Score: 5, Informative

    As pointed out yesterday on engadget, these cameras have been out a few months -- it's just that the press release came out recently. Yep, it's from the same company that made the hacked still camera.

    The community working on hacking this new camcorder is located at:http://camerahacks.10.forumer.com/viewforum.php ?f=13

    These cameras seem to have an external program memory, so it might not be too hard to hack. The forum above also has dissection pictures.

    BTW, last summer PureDigital came out with a still camera called the PV2. Unlike the one that was previously mentioned on slashdot, this new one has an LCD post-view screen and it's based on a completely different chipset. It has also been hacked. I figured out the authentication mechanism on this and most of the communications. Others got the camera to work with standard drivers and are figuring out the proprietary raw format. I wrote a disassembler and have published commentary on the built-in firmware, but you'll need a camera & firmware file to make sense of it. The firmware is protected by a checksum, but that was easy to find and correct.

    main pv2 forums
    PV2 FAQ from the forum - a great starting place
    my FAQ's
    unofficial devkit for writing your own programs.

    1. Re:more info & the PV2 still camera with LCD by brickballs · · Score: 1

      the comments on engadget seemed to suggest that the camera is prety craptastic quality and hardly anyone actualy bought them in test stores

      --
      "What does slashdotting mean?"
      "You've never heard of slashdot?"
      "I know it makes websites not work."
    2. Re:more info & the PV2 still camera with LCD by sznupi · · Score: 1

      The thing that all of this is unavailable here (PL) almost makes me cry... :/
      cheapest crappy digital camera (no films), much worse actually, costs the same as mentioned in the story camcorder...which is the ammount of money which I have till the end of the month.
      oh well...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  13. CVS.COM is a spammers pill site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    better change that link, some spammer will think its christmas with all this traffic

    1. Re:CVS.COM is a spammers pill site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. CVS.com is the real site of the pharmacy. Dumbass.

  14. About Camcorder by lahuard · · Score: 1

    Is it one time use or reusable?

    1. Re:About Camcorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA, it's not that hard.

    2. Re:About Camcorder by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      It is designed to be one-time-use, but people are trying to hack it so they can reuse it.

      They are being 'sold' probably below cost, on the expectation that people will turn them back in, to get the video pulled off of them and burned to DVD. Then the camera is refurbished and resold, with a cleared memory and new battery.

      However if you can find a way to get the video off yourself, then you can 'break the cycle' and have yourself a cheap digital camcorder.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:About Camcorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA, it's not that hard

      Where have I seen this before? You must be a linux user, right?

  15. Great idea for motorcyclists. by demonic-halo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think it's a great idea for motorcylists. I like to go crusing alot. I can give one of these to my biker babe sitting in the back so she can film the rest of the posse without worrying about losing an expensive camcorder.

    1. Re:Great idea for motorcyclists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you sure its the "posse" you want the biker babe to be filming?

  16. Expensive by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if you play by the rules - you spend 30 bucks to rent it, then another 13 to get the burned dvd. $43 for a 20 minute DVD. Seems a bit steep in my book.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Expensive by briareus · · Score: 1

      If you have the hardware, software, and knowledge to do this already, yes it is a bit steep. However, not everyone is in this boat. I know it's a shocker, but not everyone is a slashdotter(!).

      For the average Joe who may or may not have a camcorder, may or may not even have a computer, and probably doesn't know how to do much with it $43 for a 20 minute DVD isn't that bad. As a one-shot deal it's ok. If you're going to do this all the time, then yes, it's expensive.

      It's not an apples and oranges comparison technically but as far as your typical consumer is concerned, there's no way that you can borrow a camera (no matter how crappy) and have someone burn it to DVD for you for that price unless you have some friend or relative that you can bug. It's also hard to beat the convenience of using CVS. You can't throw a stick in this town without hitting one.

      Plus, as has already been mentioned, it's a great solution if you own a good camcorder and don't want to endanger it by shooting something risky. The solid state storage should also be more sturdy than anything using a tape or optical disc medium.

      However, for the price I imagine that the video quality is quite poor. Especially considering how mediocre the cheaper "real" camcorders are.

  17. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 3, Interesting
    With something so cheap and disposable, it is just a matter of time before these start to become part of the soldier's standard kit.
    Wasn't that sort of thing (soldiers with cameras and camera-phones) cracked down on after the Abu Gharib thing?
    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  18. No reason by Poromenos1 · · Score: 0

    There is no real reason (well, apart from making you go back to the store where you have to pay an extra $13, and it's not like you can avoid it) why these cameras have to be disposable. You can delete and record again, it's a memory. One can argue that it's the same with disposable cameras, but at least in those you actually ran out of film... This one has no mechanical parts to switch or run out of or anything.

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
  19. Security by pete-classic · · Score: 1
    First, the pricing is retarded. 30 bucks for the privilege of recording 24 minutes of video, that you can then pay 13 bucks to have transfered to DVD.

    But more importantly:
    After shooting, customers have to return the recyclable camcorder to their local CVS store and its contents would then be transferred onto a DVD disc to view and share for a $12.99 processing fee. [my emphasis]


    I hope they are doing a through job of erasing them before they recycle them . . .

    -Peter
    1. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope they are doing a through job of erasing them before they recycle them . . .

      Why, done anything you might be ashamed of?

    2. Re:Security by typical · · Score: 1

      Specifically, 24 minutes of anything that you might be ashamed of?

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    3. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World's gonna get a whole new batch of Star Wars kids coming its way.

    4. Re:Security by briareus · · Score: 1

      If you can produce a 20 minute DVD without a camera and without a DVD burning device of any type for $43, I'd like to hear about it.

      There are security issues, but:

      1. You really shouldn't be turning in your home porn unless you're okay with them looking at it.
      2. You really shouldn't be shooting your criminal activity in the first place.
      3. Who really gives a rat's ass about some home video about a kid's birthday? This is the majority of a camera like this would be used for.

  20. Just another stock scam? by infolib · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
  21. How long 'till you read the fucking summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This post intentionally left blank.

  22. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by geomon · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that sort of thing (soldiers with cameras and camera-phones) cracked down on after the Abu Gharib thing?

    I think so, but that doesn't mean they won't get smuggled out into the field.

    There are probably still alot of cameras working in the field without approval from Central Command. Once they get *really* small and portable, they start showing up at all kinds of events that the commanders would rather they didn't.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  23. waiting for the hook. by JVert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is not feasable. I'd pay $20 for a 1.4" color screen to play with on its own. There has to be a deposit to make sure they are recycled by the right people. So the $20 includes the ability to get the data back out? Pay $80, get $60 back when you turn the case in, that I can see happening.

    1. Re:waiting for the hook. by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      The PV2 still camera I mentioned above would be great for that. It's $18 and you can send images to it over the USB. sample image. The firmware beeps for each new picture and requires a button press, but I modded it so it is silent and operates like another screen. The only drawback is a about a 1/2 second refresh time. The firmware can be optimized to eliminate the slow double-buffering, but you're not going to be able to play asteroids like that. (maybe on the built-in firmware). Of course, a text-only interface would be much faster.

    2. Re:waiting for the hook. by alienw · · Score: 1

      Well, that would kind of defeat the point of it being disposable, so it would be a really stupid idea. I'm sure that they aren't losing any money on them at $30 each (+13.00 processing fee if you return it). Not that many people are hackers, you know. I'd be surprised if more than 1000 of those actually got bought by hackers.

  24. This will be dead soon... by sterno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Realisistically, how long before the average cell phone has basic video recording capabilities? Most phones now have still cameras, and the main limitation on video is just storage capacity. So, I should think that within 5 years, video cell phones will be standard and then this device is totally irrelevant.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:This will be dead soon... by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how long before the average cell phone has basic video recording capabilities?

      I doubt I'll ever get a cellphone that has a camera, let alone video, built in. Cellphones already have too many battery-hungry features as it is.

      Give me bluetooth devices I can use WITH my phone instead.

    2. Re:This will be dead soon... by radish · · Score: 1

      Cellphones already have too many battery-hungry features as it is

      Because, of course, the camera uses battery power when not in use.

      There are several good reasons for not wanting a camera in your phone, battery life is not one of them.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    3. Re:This will be dead soon... by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because, of course, the camera uses battery power when not in use.

      It uses at least 2cm of space that could otherwise have been used for the battery. So either the phone is bigger (bad) or the battery is smaller (bad).

      Features are not free, and features always seem to end up sucking battery life one way or the other.

    4. Re:This will be dead soon... by grumbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real question is when will the bandwidth of a mobilephone be large and cheap enough so that I can just stream the video for recording to my server at home in realtime? Who needs local storage if there is floating enough free storage around on the net? All it needs is a fast enough way to access the net. If mobile phones fail to provide that, maybe free WiFi access points will cover it at least for the more public places. Who knows, will certainly be interesting when you see the first 'my whole life 24/7 on video'-movies coming up.

    5. Re:This will be dead soon... by jvagner · · Score: 1

      You'd likely feel different if you had a child. Mine's 16 mos, and the cameraphon gets used all the time.

    6. Re:This will be dead soon... by tomlouie · · Score: 1

      About how long do you think your cell phone battery will last while it streams video over the air? Consider that not only are you constantly sending data over the air (as opposed to the bursty nature of voice) but you're also running the camera CCD too.

      The real question is when we have good enough batteries or lightweight power generation devices, like a Ghostbusters proton pack!

      Tom

    7. Re:This will be dead soon... by argent · · Score: 1

      They didn't have cameraphones back in the stone age when I had a baby. But that didn't stop me from buying a separate camera.

    8. Re:This will be dead soon... by deanoaz · · Score: 1

      I'd rather just have an SD card slot on the phone to capture to. Then I could switch cards if one got full, and the video would only be on my phone and my computer unless I wanted it somewhere else.

      If Paris Hilton had a choice she'd probably like it better that way too.

      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes."
      - Winston Churchill

      --
      If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
    9. Re:This will be dead soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It uses at least 2cm of space that could otherwise have been used for the battery. So either the phone is bigger (bad) or the battery is smaller (bad).

      Features are not free, and features always seem to end up sucking battery life one way or the other.


      My cel phone has still and video capability. For my purposes it's the same form factor as my last cel phone (well, smaller - 7 cubic inches vs. 9.18 cubic inches) and gets the same battery life (that i haven't measured, but both lasted all day under my uses). I see no drawbacks to my new phone, excepting the price.

      Doesn't technology marching on also improve the battery life to size ratio? I guess you could have a teeny tiny cel phone too, but i like my phone to be at least the size of the ones i have, to fit better in my hands (they fall less often then, can find in my sleep, etc).

    10. Re:This will be dead soon... by Ranma21 · · Score: 1

      Oh COME ON!

      Japanese phones have had video for over three years. Video to flash memory, video e-mails, and audio/video realtime conversations. And yes, when used as a Video Camera they have the full resolution you would expect. These are not toys.

      Years people, years.

    11. Re:This will be dead soon... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Don't hold your breath.

      Verizon especially won't ever give you a feature like that, because to them the reason that they put cameras in phones is so that poor sobs like you have to pay $1 for "PicMail" or whatever in order to get the images off of your phone and into your email box or another phone. (Oh, sure, you can buy a monthly plan that gets you "unlimited free" image transfers, I'm sure.)

      IMO Verizon is the 'most evil' of the cellular phone companies, and has a history of intentionally crippling their hardware when it might get in the way of wringing a few extra cents out of you, but don't hold your breath for 'neat' features that would make your life easier by avoiding the cell company's network.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    12. Re:This will be dead soon... by Inda · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This argument is getting old. Just like the AC who replied, I too have a phone with a camera and maybe the kitchen sink.

      The battery lasts a week with normal phone calls and a bit of texting. If I was to turn the phone off when I go to bed then I'm sure it would last 10 days.

      The phone is 18 months old and was one of the cheapest on the market...

      Like I said, this really is an old argument that doesn't hold any weight.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    13. Re:This will be dead soon... by argent · · Score: 1

      The battery lasts a week with normal phone calls and a bit of texting.

      What's the battery made of, dilithium? I used to have a phone that could go a week between charges, but it was a big old Nokia 6xxx bar with a mono display and no data service. My current phone is pretty typical in size and if I go a couple of days without charging it I'm setting myself up for a flat battery and interrupted calls.

      Perhaps I make more calls than you do, but no more than I used to on the Nokia... and I don't use it for anything else.

    14. Re:This will be dead soon... by briareus · · Score: 1

      Not everyone needs or wants every single feature that can be integrated with a cell phone just because it can be. However, I bet built-in video recording would be very popular.

      Still, there is definitely use for cheap, small, video cameras with solid state storage that aren't integrated into a cell phone. I mean, if I wanted a dozen of these, I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to purchase a dozen cell phones...

    15. Re:This will be dead soon... by strix999 · · Score: 1

      Seriously if you only bought technology that wouldnt be outdated in 5 years, would you really ever buy any hardware. If you need a guarentee that something better wont come along...technology isnt the field for you, go buy a typewriter and have fun :)

  25. Memory erasing? by jason718 · · Score: 1

    I just hope that they will do a good job erasing the previous owner's video from the memory card. Otherwise, if this gets hacked, your 'special moments' may have more viewers than you intended!

    1. Re:Memory erasing? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck that. I would never have any "special moments" recorded. Not now, not ever..with anything.

      I don't like the idea of that shit comming back to haunt me on the internet. Because you know shit like that can and has happened before.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Memory erasing? by juglugs · · Score: 3, Funny

      Paris? Is that you?

      --
      This sig is in Spanish when you're not looking....
    3. Re:Memory erasing? by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      I have had plenty of special moments I wouldn't mind having distributed on the internet "by accident"...hell I'm interested in making lots of recordings with these things. Specifically, I'm interested in hacks to wipe the memory for multiple recordings!

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
  26. Just buy a camcorder by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can get decent camcorders (Panasonic PV-53) off ebay for $100, why bother with this POS?

    1. Re:Just buy a camcorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how big is that ebay camcorder? The CVS product is smaller than an iPod and can easily fit into a woman's purse or a shirt pocket.

    2. Re:Just buy a camcorder by DustMagnet · · Score: 1

      The CVS product is smaller than an iPod and can easily fit into a woman's purse or a shirt pocket.

      I don't think the places you want to film are important to most people. Most people want a quality image and for now you can't do that in a small size. At least not without spending a lot of money. I'm sure the optics in this product are as poor as their still camera.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    3. Re:Just buy a camcorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, for some low quality output is a desirable feature... just look at how popular pixelvision has become, despite (or rather, because) of its "low quality" look...

      Low-resolution videogame graphics are also plastered all over the place, from webpages to t-shirts...

      It's the whole retro-thing and a rejection of the over-polished, slick, high-resolution media we're constantly fed.

      So for some a cheap, "crappy quality" camcorder may be just what the doctor ordered.

    4. Re:Just buy a camcorder by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      I don't think the places you want to film are important to most people. Most people want a quality image and for now you can't do that in a small size.

      Most people would know a quality image if it bit them on the ass. Further, the popularity of low-quality cameras in phones should be an indicator that people are more concerned with having a camera than having a good camera.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    5. Re:Just buy a camcorder by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Well there are other factors that might have increased cellphone-cameras popularity you know..

      I think they're pretty cool 'cause there's always someone around that has one, so they're readily available for fun pictures.

      Few people carry their small format SLR around at all times, let alone some bulky medium or even large format "real" camera.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    6. Re:Just buy a camcorder by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      You can get decent camcorders (Panasonic PV-53) off ebay for $100, why bother with this POS?

      Camcorder
      +PC
      +firewire (if pc has none)
      +dvd burner
      +media
      =
      A good deal more than $50.00 and requires much less skill. Unless you know of someplace that'll convert DV to DVD for under $10 a pop.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    7. Re:Just buy a camcorder by briareus · · Score: 1

      How do you figure that? Look at the quality of the majority of cameras out there. Very few cell phones have multi megapixel cameras built-in.

      Price and convenience in this country tend to be the two major factors that are important to the average consumer in this country. If you meant to say "important to most slashdotters" or camera geeks, you might be right. However, 99% of people aren't buying high-end digital SLR's...

  27. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by JVert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Soo... We trust them with guns but not cameras?

  28. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You don't know how true that is. Actually (and yes, I'm in the military ... for another month XD)considering that U.S. Army personnel are spending a year at a time in remote places, they're amassing quite a savings, and miniature camcorders sell fast on remote tours (read desert).

    So yes, I think these will sell VERY fast, especially with families sending them to the desert to their relatives, to have cheap video messages, to say the least.

  29. Battery Life? by Guildencrantz · · Score: 1

    One thing that intrigues me is what the battery is like in this; I highly doubt it will have an easily accessible battery. With a 4" screen and the ability to delete video when the memory is full, how long could I expect to be able to use this camera before I'm forced to take it back to CVS (or hack it)?

    --

    Penguin Trivia #46: Animals who are not penguins can only wish they were. -- Chicago Reader 10/15/82
    1. Re:Battery Life? by ReverendLoki · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Probably not easily accessible (at least no more accessible than the memory), but even if it's not accessible, it should surely be replaceable. I'm starting to think that, when these get hacked, I might have to pick one up.

      Hell, pick up several - I think this one could catch on more than the disposable digital stills. Attach one to your RC airplane and play CIA with it... even better if you can hook up a wireless feed! Or use a ziplock bag to make you're own underwater camera. I know there's a lot of things I would risk doing with this that I'd never use our expensive "real" camcorder for.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  30. Re:Allready Hacked.. Wrong product by sonik1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This article refers to a disposable camcorder, not camera.

  31. CVS used Pure Digital Technologies before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    18 months ago they started selling a disposable rectal thermometer that doubled as a home colonoscopy kit. You took the memory card back to the store for printing/negatives and referral to proctologist if needed. I hear they hacked it in about 2 weeks. One maniac even converted his to an oral model.

  32. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by geomon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What else can I send over to the troops other than books and playing cards? I have a contact at work who arranges to have stuff shipped to Iraq on transports ferrying supplies.

    I know that boredom killers are in high demand. I tried to get month-old magazines, but the local vendor said they get shipped back to the publisher for back issues. I've been looking for stuff that can be left behind and traded.

    Any suggestions?

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  33. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative
    "considering that U.S. Army personnel are spending a year at a time in remote places, they're amassing quite a savings"

    Oh, really?

    Did your recruiting officer tell you that?

    Lucrative gig, soldiering, eh?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  34. Dakota Digital Camera != CVS Digital Camcorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For God's sake, double check that the link is about a hack for THE RIGHT PRODUCT before you mod someone up.

  35. Why is this posted? by Eunuch · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nerds seek the singularity, and sex is a distraction. Your post is both unoriginal and irrelevant.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:Why is this posted? by Roland+of+Gilead · · Score: 2, Funny
      Your post is both unoriginal and irrelevant.
      You may be right... but his/her post still made me LOL. Time to find a source for these cams!
    2. Re:Why is this posted? by putaro · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting Necron. Or can we just call you Jimmy?

  36. not disposable... recyclable by mabu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Technically, the camera's batteries and its packaging are disposable, but everything else is recycled, so it's more a "recyclable" than a "disposable" unit.

  37. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by StandardDeviant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is more threatening to the powers that be?

    Pen vs. Sword, Act III Scene 2...

  38. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

    Guns don't record evidence.

  39. What about the battery? by ShinyBrowncoat · · Score: 1

    If the battery/charger was non-standard and required bringing back to the store to swap out/recharge, it might make it a little harder to hack (well, not to hack but for people to reproduce the hack easily at home)...

    --

    "They've canceled the show but we're still here. What does that make us?" "Big Damn Junkies, Sir!" "Ain't we just"
  40. Already here by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    Most phones today that can take pictures will take video easily. The problem is actually data transfer rate, not capacity. That's why many limit you to 30 seconds even though you can fit a lot more into flash memory. Although my Treo 650 apparently let me shoot as long as the card lasted.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  41. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by master0ne · · Score: 1

    camera's have always been alot more powerful than guns, with a gun all you can do is slience your enemy, with a camera you can do just the oppisit. so yes we trust them with guns, because any "secrets" they dont want us to know wont be reviled with a gun, only with a camera..

    --
    Noone writes jokes in base 13!
  42. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by pmancini · · Score: 1

    I take it you have never watched a single episode of C.S.I.?

  43. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Which is more threatening to the powers that be?

    They've just tipped their hand that they are so weak as to be utterly terrified of a plant.

  44. WOW! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

    First disposable condoms and coffee enemas, and now this! Truly we are at the dawn of a great age. What's next? Clean hookers? Quick somebody grab Dvorak! I need to know.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First disposable condoms...

      They're disposable?!?

  45. Perfect uses? by timothy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This looks great (as someone else has linked to in this thread) for aerial photography, whether by kite or rocket -- the sort of thing that you don't want to risk an expensive camera with.

    What other things would you use this for? Underwater robots? Car-attached home-made action shots? Glued to back of pet turtle?

    There have to be some cool applications for which a $30 video camera would be perfect ;)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:Perfect uses? by Cidtek · · Score: 1
      "What other things would you use this for? Underwater robots? Car-attached home-made action shots? Glued to back of pet turtle?"

      Do you get your turtle back with the DVD?

  46. Screen size by dmanny · · Score: 1
    You wrote 4 inch. I read 1.4 inch.

    Big difference.

    --
    All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used. :-(
  47. suckers? by poptones · · Score: 1

    I don't know why you would pay twenty bucks for a 1.4" LCD when you can get an LCD and the rest of the camera for about twice that.

    My "carry along" camera is a cheap 3Megapixel SiPix I paid $100 for almost a year ago and that wasn't exactly a bargain bin price even then. It accepts up to 256MB flash chip which is good for several minutes of 320x240 AVI video. Now you can get equivalent cameras for fifty bucks or so. And yes, it will fit in a pocket.

    It takes good pictures only when you coax it, but I have taken a few with it I would not hesitate to put my name on and publish. It has terrible ghosting in bright sunlight, but I cannot believe these cheap gadgets are going to be any better. And I can "rip" the flash cartridges to my laptop all day for nothing but the price of electricity.

    The only real "value" here I think is making a DVD for you from the video. Lots of people still have no clue how to do such things.

    1. Re:suckers? by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you would pay twenty bucks for a 1.4" LCD when you can get an LCD and the rest of the camera for about twice that.

      I suspect that they mean that they would pay $20 for an LCD to play with just the LCD - not to have a 1.4" LCD camera...

      When the PV2 (the earlier disposable LCD still camera, which morcheeba is referring to) came out, I did the same thing; picked one up, disassembled it and removed the LCD to play with. Only thing is, I've subsequently been too busy to touch it - and it doesn't help that it has a "tricky" interface system (pdf)... I will get around to it one day, I'm sure...

  48. This disposable economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    REALLY bothers me sometimes. This is not progress...

  49. Maybe its just me by Widowwolf · · Score: 1

    I am gonna buy one to keep in my car in case of an accident...theres practical purpose for you..why take pictures when you can shoot video..and what about those times you want to go to the beach but dont wanna risk sand screwing up your camera..i think these will be big and will last for a bit..too many practical used around them..especially if some company comes up with a cheaper way of getting the pictures off and burning them

    --
    ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
    1. Re:Maybe its just me by Wilk4 · · Score: 1

      of course the battery will be dead just when you need it...

  50. Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just tried it. I made love to your wife twice in the allowed time.

  51. $13 to burn a DVD with a few minutes of video? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Seems kind of pricy. sure $30 camcorder is cheap, but you don't get to keep it (it's disposable). Really what they do is take the device back, wipe it down, put it in a box and sell it again. And they charge so much to burn a movie to dvd to keep the initial cost of the camcorder low (impulse buy). But really I would prefer that CVS admits that they want $43 for you to make a short video of your vacation, birthday party, buddies at a party.

    I think I'll stick with a still camera and use the money left over to buy beer and a cake.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  52. Non-disposable equivalent on sale at Target by StefanJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    (Note: I have no financial or emotional connection with the company that makes the products mentioned below. I just want to point out that for a little more you can have to keep a far more flexible product.)

    This week, Target is selling for $97 the non-disposable equivalent of this gimmick, the Aiptek "IS-DV."

    The IS stands for "Image Stabilization."

    It records to internal memory or a SD stick. A 256 mb stick holds about 60 minutes of MPEG4 video.

    It is also a still camera (5 mp, but with a non-adjustable lens), voice recorder, and MP3 player. It comes with a tripod, A/V cable, headphones, and USB cable.

    I've had an earlier version, the DV4500, for about six months. It's a great little toy. I bought it so I'd have a cheap camera I wouldn't be afraid to carry around everywhere. The image quality is pretty good:

    http://home.comcast.net/~stefan_jones/valley_view_ wide.JPG

    The video quality is "OK." Note that this film was done under less than optimal lighting conditions:

    http://home.comcast.net/~stefan_jones/kira_jumps_h oop.asf (3.3 mb ASF video)

    I bought a IS-DV so I can give the DV4500 to a relative.

    Stefan

    1. Re:Non-disposable equivalent on sale at Target by atrus · · Score: 1

      Thats pretty terrible image quality. But then again its not comparable in price-point to my Canon EOS 20D.

    2. Re:Non-disposable equivalent on sale at Target by briareus · · Score: 1

      I had no idea that the EOS 20D was a video camera. :P

  53. I can see some markets by ReidMaynard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    like wedding receptions, instead of disposable still cameras.

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  54. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Informative

    Breakfree CLP. Wonderful gun cleaning/lubricant. AR15 rifles such as they're using over there jam all the time due to the high amounts of dust and the high precision of those specific rifles. They have to clean them constantly.

    Breakfree CLP is a non-oily lubricant, so it won't inherrently collect dust while still lubricating and protecting, helping prevent various malfunctions.

    Considering the time they spend cleaning their guns (I would hope quite a lot, so they continue to fire for them when needed - I know the Marines do), and how long it takes to properly break down an AR15 ("M4" in military parlance, I guess), it would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure.

    You could try sending them stuff like Guns & Ammo - give the magazine a call, they might be able to give you a discount rate (or simply ship a couple extras for you to send over). They're good Americans, generally speaking.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  55. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by geomon · · Score: 1

    Cool. Thanks for the information.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  56. Re:Don't fill the earth with trash. by slimy_dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, what this company is suggesting is superior to recycling. The cameras themselves are reusable. So, rather than say melting the plastics and reforming them (which itself would be difficult if at all possible), the camera frame can be used verbatim without expending the large energy costs associated with recycling.

    Give me reuse over recycling any day.

  57. deployment and savings by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 1
    considering that U.S. Army personnel are spending a year at a time in remote places, they're amassing quite a savings

    Uh, if you're single without kids, sure - disposable income. But if you're married with kids, odds are you're barely scraping by - whether you're regular, reserve, guard. And when you're deployed there goes BAH and separate rations....

    The toys are cool and it seems like everyone and his/her brother/sister has a DVD player or laptop with more movies than you can shake a stick at.

  58. Aiptek IS-DV on sale at Target by Nonesuch · · Score: 1
    Thanks for the heads-up, that is an interesting product, at a cheap price.

    I probably won't buy one, basing my decision in part on this review. Instead I'll save my money and buy a "prosumer" DV camcorder with Firewire and MPEG2.

  59. Light bulb turns on! by TechnicGeek · · Score: 0

    I would love to get one of these to see how CVS accesses the videos. Maybe it would be possible to hack in a usb port, add some memory. Many possibilities with this.

  60. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more rubbish.

    thanks.

  61. batt is easy. by jasonhamilton · · Score: 1

    I guess you never played with R/C cars/planes much?

    --
    SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
  62. Perfect for High Risk by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
    I see the right use for this is situations where you want to capture something and it stands the chance of getting damaged.

    Attach it to your RC ariplane or car, dangle it from a kite, take it white water rafting or into the mosh pit...

    The frame rate and resolution may not be great, but if the camera is trashed you won't be out much.

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  63. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    camera's have always been alot more powerful than guns, with a gun all you can do is slience your enemy...

    That's not true - with a gun I can also silence my enemy! I can kill him too! Or just hurt him.

    ...with a camera you can do just the oppisit.

    Are you kidding? Besides just doing the oppisit, I can also take pictures!

    ...so yes we trust them with guns, because any "secrets" they dont want us to know wont be reviled with a gun, only with a camera..

    Believe me, sonny, I can do plenty of reviling and I don't need a gun to do it!

  64. Model rocket payload? by Zobeid · · Score: 1

    My first thought. . . Wouldn't this be fun to launch on a model rocket? It's solid-state, so it should handle the acceleration fine. 20 minutes is long enough to prep the rocket and fly it, so you don't have to worry about rigging some gadget to trigger recording at launch. And it's not too expensive to risk crashing or losing it.

    At five ounces, it would have to be more of a mid-power rocket, I suppose. . . and I haven't seen a photo yet, so I'm not sure how big the payload compartment would need to be. But I think it's exciting that these kinds of gadgets are becoming available.

    1. Re:Model rocket payload? by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

      My first thought. . . Wouldn't this be fun to launch on a model rocket? Hey! I like that idea! That's a perfect use for this sort of thing. Doing filming of dangerous or potentially dangerous short term events where there is the possibility of losing the equipment. At $30 it's a lot less money than even $125 for a cheap digital video camera, and if the event damages the camera it's a lot less money.

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  65. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by Saeger · · Score: 1

    To: Dad
    From: IHaveNoWhereElse2Go!@yahoo.com
    Subject: Video Postcard from Iraq

    Yo dad! Check out this sandnigger guerrilla we terminated today!
    http://www.ogrish.com/archives/insurgent_shot_in_t ikrit_by_us_troops_Jun_07_2005.html
    p.s. don't forward this shit or i'll get court marshalled.
    p.p.s. please forward it!

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  66. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

    Bullets have a limited range. No more than a mile or so for the bigger guns. Rockets and shells have longer range, but a shot from a camcorder can hit one hell of a lot of people in a very short time, and has the potential for causing much more damage.

  67. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by JVert · · Score: 1

    Not all the way to the end.

  68. Really? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    I have several hundred shots taken with a Dakota Digital that say 'have faith, pervo-padawan'.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  69. Parts worth more than $30? by arbi · · Score: 1

    I assume CVS will refurbish the camcorder for resale after you turn it in for processing.

    Will the value of the color screen and the memory be worth more than $30? If so, wouldn't people buy them all up and take the parts for resale?

  70. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by aywwts4 · · Score: 1

    You could try sending them stuff like Guns & Ammo

    And here I was thinking that was one of the things the government provided.
    Billions of dollars and where is it going; sheesh.

    --
    Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
  71. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    "Breakfree CLP" is just the civilian version/brand of the military-issue CLP cleaner that everyone in the military already uses. I'm sure they've got tons and tons of it already over there.

    What you probably could send over that they'd appreciate, in terms of gun cleaning, are the cotton bore patches that you use to clean the barrel. I don't know why, but those were always in short supply when I was in the Army. We always ended up cutting up old t-shirts and rags and stuff, which tend to unravel and leave threads on metal protrusions. You can get them in packages of 100 or more at any gun store. Be sure to buy .22-caliber for an M-16.

    Also, speaking from experience with the inside of an M-16, Hoppes No. 9 powder solvent works better than CLP and would probably be appreciated, but it's kerosene-based and you probably won't be allowed to ship it over.

    I'd recommend sending lots of unscented baby wipes, and if the person wears glasses, the little packages of pre-soaked glasses cleaning cloths. You can find them in the travel-size sections of some drugstores.

    The best "toy" I ever had overseas was a cheap Polaroid camera; there are a lot of people in the world that have never seen a photo of themselves, much less been given one. They used to make a cheap thing called the "JoyCam" that produced wallet-size photos and was all-manual, and was pretty small. Might be a cool thing for a guy over there to have.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  72. Here's a random question for you by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    Why did you join?

    --

    +++ATH0
  73. As expensive as phone sex! by gbulmash · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The "one-time-use" camera sells for $29.99. When you're done shooting your 20 minutes of video, you return it and pay $12.99 to get the video transferred to DVD.

    That's $42.98 per use... $2.15 cents per minute... not including sales tax.

    Though people talk about hacking it, the people who could hack it are not the target market for it, as they can figure out how to use their camcorders and DVD burners.

    - Greg

    1. Re:As expensive as phone sex! by Petersson · · Score: 1
      Obviously the business model is targeted to people who wouldn't normally decide buy camcorder because of the price.

      However, to make decent shots, one has to learn how to do it, and it takes hours, not just 20 minutes. It also pays to read some guide on How Not To Shoot Bad Video.

      Mostly the video quality depends on the person behind the camera.
      It is possible to shoot terrible video with high-end equipment, and it is also possible to shoot very nice video with mediocre camcorder.

      --
      I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
  74. Re:Don't fill the earth with trash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. You do not have to be a rabid eco-freak to resist this kind of waste. The production and sale of such intentional environmental nightmares should be forbidden or heavily taxed.

  75. Bad Business by iamnafets · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does this seem like a bad business decision in the first place. First of all because geeks are going to buy your camera for parts / a cheapy one even if they don't want it. Secondly because it puts a tremendous vurnerability in your company. Most likely, you are selling these things at a loss, so what if company B decides to buy all of company A's stock, effectively leaving them out all their product as well as a some money in the hole, only to go use them for the same purpose. Maybe I'm just naive?

    1. Re:Bad Business by damsa · · Score: 1

      Company A makes these cameras, company B purchases these cameras for resale. company B sells these to consumers. Consumers have to come to company B to get them processed unless company C also processes these cameras. Company A holds a patent on disposable camcorder tech. Company C cannot process these cameras without a license from Company A. Company A knows that it cannot license to company C, because then company B will not buy from company A. So company A sells these cameras exclusively to company B or finds a way to sell to both company B and C.

  76. Security system. by Seigen · · Score: 1

    I know someone who has had problems with vandals. Something like this, if you could hide it, and if it had a motion detector that waited a few minutes from when you entered that mode to sense would be quite useful.

    I.E. it would be a low cost way to catch crooks on video if they break back in, and it would be cheap enough you could risk its theft.

    For that matter 20 minutes of video is more than enough to monitor a lot of locations that should get no traffic normally..

  77. Re:Don't fill the earth with trash. by OldeClegg · · Score: 1

    Folks, TFA is about a REUSABLE camera,
    not a throw-away.

  78. Great business opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, could someone in the states buy a bunch of these and resell them on ebay? I would jump at the chance to get a hold of one. I don't live in the states and cvs online doesn't seem to stock them. Thanx

  79. The CVS Disposables by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Apparently they've been offering a throw away digital camera for momths now. But this one takes the cake.

    Of course it'll be hackable, unless they used some sort of encryption in which case reverse engineering the roms on the thing will solve that problem.

    For $30 I'll pick one up and see what I can do with it.

  80. Re:Wait a second... FOLLOW-UP by mgessner · · Score: 1

    OK, the paper is "Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory" by Peter Gutmann of the Dept. of Comp. Sci. at the University of Auckland.

    I found it on www.usenix.org: http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceed ings/sec96/full_papers/gutmann/

    Hope this helps/is interesting.

    --
    "Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
  81. Two companies named Pure Digital by bwian · · Score: 1

    http://www.puredigitalinc.com/ - specialising in digital cameras
    http://www.puredigital.com/ - UK company specialising in digital radios (DAB) ... my brain hurts

  82. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by Gulthek · · Score: 1

    Looks like you're out of salt. I hope you're still getting your iodine.

  83. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by mrmeval · · Score: 2, Informative

    A SureFire 6P. Add on 120 lumen bulb. The waterproof holder for a spare and six batteries. A tactical speed holster. Two boxes of twelve batteries. Shock proof bezel if weapon mounting is wanted.
    http://www.surefire.com/

    If you have the bux an aftermarket mount and squeeze switch for it so it can be put on an M16.
    I need to find my supplier for this.

    A good knife from http://www.sharppointythings.com/ the Battle Bitch is sweet but a simple Cold Steel smachet or tanto is nice. It's not an online store but an email will get a quote.

    Any small card game, you'd be surprised how well Steve Jackson's games go over. They are small and portable and fun.
    http://www.sjgames.com/

    There is another site for really cheap cool card games but I've lost it.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  84. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by hawk · · Score: 1

    If memory serves, the range of a 16" naval gun is 30 miles, not one.

    Of course, in spite of laws mandating otherwise, none of the battleships with these are in service, but . . .

    hawk

  85. Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Being disposable is not a good thing. Any of you ever visited a dump? Mountains of "disposable" stuff, growing all the time at an increasing speed.

    People, think of the future generations.

  86. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
    Well, yeah, naval guns have a lot longer range, but the GP post was talking about "soldiers on battlefields", which I felt limited the size to something one or two guys could carry. Same with tank-mounted cannon, artillery pieces and air-to-ground missiles - not exactly the sort of kit an average GI walks around with.

    The fact remains that a well-timed camera shot could be as politically devasting as a tactical nuke can be on a battlefield...

  87. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by master0ne · · Score: 1

    That's not true - with a gun I can also silence my enemy! I can kill him too! Or just hurt him.

    All means of keeping a someone silenced

    Are you kidding? Besides just doing the oppisit, I can also take pictures!

    hence the reviling part, furinished proof...

    Believe me, sonny, I can do plenty of reviling and I don't need a gun to do it!

    and would anoyone beleave you without hard proof such as a good photo? with the way you present yourself, i doubt it. (unless you were talking more of exposing, in which case i doubt you have much to expose anyway seeing as you posted AC)

    --
    Noone writes jokes in base 13!
  88. Whee!!! by hawk · · Score: 1
    >you'd need to somehow have the cameras synchronized

    Whee! A gatling camera!

    :)

    hawk

  89. Re:Now we will get "video" images from battlefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A good knife from http://www.sharppointythings.com/ the Battle Bitch is sweet but a simple Cold Steel smachet or tanto is nice. It's not an online store but an email will get a quote.

    Personally the standard issue ka-bar is quite effective. I'd be hard pressed to trust something called the "battle bitch". While there some excellent quality knifes out there, there is also some real junk. I don't know which would describe the parent's recommendation.

  90. NPR Report by v8drh8r · · Score: 1

    Report on NPR (npr.org)program stream w/ no important information.

  91. Re:Don't fill the earth with trash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit.

    How is this insightful?? The camcorder is marketed as disposable. Go look up what the word "dispose" means. It sure as hell doesn't mean "reuse" or even "recycle". How many people do you think would bother bringing in their camcorders for reuse? The overwhelming majority would just throw them away when they are done with them, just the way it happens with the disposable cameras we already have. What on earth gives you the idea that these camcorders will be treated any different???

  92. Re:Don't fill the earth with trash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about getting a regular cheap camcorder instead? Hey, look, it's also REUSABLE!!! You can use it over and over again! How about that?

    This product is pure crap that will just end up costing you more then a regular camera after only a few rounds, AND will enthusiastically contribute to the process of burying this planet of ours under vast mountains of garbage.

  93. This is highway robbery by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 1

    A DVD player, one designed to last years, is this price at Wal*Mart. Why is a disposable device that doesn't need to have things like high load power supplies or motors or solid cases that will support a television equally expensive?

    --
    Carpe Deez
  94. What the @#!? by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

    Sarge released, an Intel Macintosh, and now a low-ID Slashdot user with real life adventures.

    Shall I place the order for Duke Nukem Forever?

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  95. They must have rock in their heads! by onederer · · Score: 1

    If some manufacturer thinks that I will drop 30 bucks in the toilet for a disposible camera, they have to have rocks in their heads. For five bucks, probably I might go for it, but not for the kind of money that they are asking. My pension can't stand that kind of sticker shock! And out of that thing, I would only get 20 minutes of play time? Naw, forget it!

  96. I work for CVS by HappyPants · · Score: 1

    We got a free camera for training and such. It suprisingly only runs on 2 "AA" no name alkaline batteries.... You can get aroudn 35 minutes of video and playback before your batteries die, but you can easily change them.

    When you return the camcorder we use the same machine we use for the disposable digital cameras to transfer the information. Then we ship the off to the company that manufactures them to be recycled..
    No one has ever really asked me if they could keep their camera but i probably wouldn't refuse if someone did ask. I sometimes take the cameras home just for the lcds screens, i have quite a nice collection :)