Seems like it's at most about checking out the waters... IMHO, just get some fairly inexpensive and "good enough" compact.
It will get you going just fine; there has been a great progress over the last decade, many digicams offer tremendous value.
Even at the off-chance scenario of you getting a bit "into" photography (always a risk
;p ), it should be perfectly good enough for at least a year or two - and afterwards it would still remain a fine pocketable "always with me"* camera. Otherwise - if you won't go beyond just some random pictures - just a "decent camera, easily carried & always at hand, that didn't cost me too much" / not much waste.
*however nice results the DSLRs can give, however some people would swore by some entry-level, great-value one
...at the end of the day, they are just too bulky, too unwieldy to have them with you "just in case" (
"for taking images of friends, family") very often. And while there's an
emerging category which tries to bridge the two classes, this one's a) still a bit on the bulky side b) in a turmoil, with teething pains c) as every novelty, often way overpriced.
So, something like Canon SX130 or 150 should be enough, and not really fully getting into "few hundred dollars" area. Not exemplary in any way, but quite decent all around (bonus: many present Canon digicams are
great at shooting video, if you know how), and even able to offer some introductory "deeper" controls.
Or its more premium (but still inexpensive), more compact (more pocketable) siblings, SX200 and up (though, small warning for the sake of accuracy: the latest 220 & 230 are, due to some technical nuance, not "great" any more at shooting video, merely good; which most likely makes no difference to typical usage)
If you have any doubts about capabilities such give, go through
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/ (getting something highlighted there as fairly popular is probably a good idea in general)