Slashdot Mirror


Walgreens PureDigital Camera Hacked

Powercntrl writes "While the Ritz version of the PureDigital single-use camera was recently hacked, the Walgreens version wasn't - until now. Codeman, the same guy who brought us the I-Opener hack, found a way to add a standard Smartmedia interface to the Walgreens camera and extract images with a standard Smartmedia reader. Links to sample images showing the camera's quality are included."

177 comments

  1. Quality? by Luigi30 · · Score: 0

    How good is the quality? 1 or 2 megapixel?

    --
    503 Sig Unavailable

    The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    1. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to this, 2 megapixels.

    2. Re:Quality? by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      And its slashdotted so easliy

    3. Re:Quality? by Luigi30 · · Score: 1

      Oh well. I got my nice 3.3 next to me.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
  2. $10 for 1280x1024 pictures by Brento · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason for getting excited is that you can get these for $10 each. Walgreens expects that you'll return them to get your pictures "processed", and then they'll turn around and sell the cameras again to somebody else.

    $10 for a camera that shoots 1280x1024 plus has a flash certainly isn't bad - but then you're going to rack up the expense of a SmartMedia socket, soldering, the memory card, and optionally, your own soldered USB connection. Even if you figure $40-$50 worth of materials, it's not a bad deal, if you can settle for its washed-out colors.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
    1. Re:$10 for 1280x1024 pictures by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except that I have seen cameras of that quality for that price at target. No soldering required.

      They even came with some chicken shit software.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  3. Instant slashdot by mousse-man · · Score: 1

    That site is already pushing up daisies....

    1. Re:Instant slashdot by GerbilSocks · · Score: 0

      Is it possible to slashdot Slashdot?

    2. Re:Instant slashdot by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Yes. It was a word-of-mouth slashdotting, and it was the Hellmouth series of articles that brought it down. Jon Katz wrote a book about geeks who moved from somewhere in Idaho to Chicago, and he mentioned that Taco actually told him to stop writing the stories because it was overloading (read: slashdotting) Slashdot's servers.

    3. Re:Instant slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Taco actually told him to stop writing the stories

      Taco has done the world a great service.

    4. Re:Instant slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux-powered sites are dying!

  4. while it may be neat... by segment · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let's suppose someone decided to turn around and sue you or something for manipulating their product, something small like this... Could cost you a pretty penny in legal fees. Or... say it takes you what a couple hours, couple of dollars to pull this `hack` off... For what in all honesty other than to say `look what I did`. Come one now... Digital cameras are dirt cheap. Not to rag on the `hacker', but let's get real what true purpose does this serve?

    I'm not trying to troll around, nor put anyone's `work' down, but I'm trying to think of any value this may have and sadly I see none. Now had he said something really productive like he hacked the camera to make every pic to be Angelina Jolie, or some other sexpot, then I'd work with him...

    1. Re:while it may be neat... by dattaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Could a car manufacturer sue me for taking their cheapest car, installing third party leather seats, and pimping it out to the max? I would be circumventing their luxury line and bypassing all their dealer options and business model. Should I be considered... a criminal?

    2. Re:while it may be neat... by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To my knowledge, there is no law that says you don't own a material object that you bought. Like you're allowed to destroy the things you buy, no? But don't trust me, I'm not very well informed about laws.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:while it may be neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to think outside of the box. I could use this as a good camera in stange places. Model Airplane aerial phtography comes to mind, as well as remote monitoring of wild game trails. I would not worry about losing one of these cameras in either situation.

      Sure there are other options out there, but don't you get at least a small sense of pride by doing something yourself? Or if there is not a ready made solution on the shelf do you just forget about the problem?

      If you want every picture you take to be a sexpot, then marry an agreeable hottie like I did. Just don't ruin that fine firm belly by getting her pregnant! She will never bare her midrif for the camera again!

      Damn, she's looking over my shoulder so this has to go out AC....

    4. Re:while it may be neat... by garcia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      pay in cash at a Walgreens you normally don't go to (considering that they are mostly in Wisconsin right now I don't think that will be a problem).

    5. Re:while it may be neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...not when you build an array of these things. There's some research value in it from my perspective. Late, true you'd want better cameras... but camera's done grow on trees.

    6. Re:while it may be neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering that they are mostly in Wisconsin right now

      Walgreens has over 4000 stores in 44 states with sales of 32.5 billion dollars in fiscal year 2003, if my memory serves me right.

    7. Re:while it may be neat... by Darth_Foo · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Are you saying that Walgreens or the cameras are mostly in Wisconsin right now? I think the Walgreens a quarter of a mile away from my house in Tennessee has these disposable cameras.

    8. Re:while it may be neat... by chrysrobyn · · Score: 4, Funny
      Let's suppose someone decided to turn around and sue you or something for manipulating their product

      I see your point. However, if you actually buy the product, it's not illegal. If you're merely licensing the product, then you're altering someone else's equipment. Alternatively, perhaps the author of the HOWTO could be prosecuted for advocating destruction of property.

      To use your analogy, I'm in trouble if I pimp out a Hertz rental car and then fail to return it. If I buy a Kia, however, and then put in BMW accessories that I purchased, neither Kia nor BMW will care (although some BMW employees may get heartache).

    9. Re:while it may be neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF YOU RTFA:

      the cameras are only being sold in WI as of right now.

    10. Re:while it may be neat... by mattgreen · · Score: 1

      Take your tin foil hat off and just buy the thing instead of thinking you have to dodge the man.

      What are they going to do, come after every single person who has ever bought one of these crappy little cameras and demand to have it back?

    11. Re:while it may be neat... by MarkJensen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the camera mod could be tied into the DMCA, in which case, you would be considered a criminal.

      I, personally, think that this is a neat hack (in the pure sense of the word), but I am sure that Walgreens is not charging $10 to own the camera, but more of a 'rental fee' for its use. Sort of like going to Blockbuster and thinking "Hey! A $5 movie! Cool!" and keeping it.

      Walgreens probably won't get bent out of shape over a miniscule number of these leaving circulation (as the 'mainstream' folks don't have the inclination or abilities as the average /.er), but they might get upset about plans being put on the web...

      P.S. Who modded the original poster (segment) a troll? I think it is a valid point, and isn't inflammatory...

    12. Re:while it may be neat... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, they could put up a sign at the store saying that by buying these cameras you are agreeing to return them when the memory gets full for picture processing. Then it would be a contract clause. As long as you have to see and read the contract before buying the camera you could be bound by it. (This would be different from 'shrinkwrap' licensing in that you would see the contract before money changed hands.)

      Not that I've seen such signs...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    13. Re:while it may be neat... by dattaway · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let me ask if this is the future you want. Car dealers may not charge you $10 to own the cars, but more of an incentive for you to bring them in for "service." Since reverse engineering the internals of the car is now illegal, it would be forbidden to determine what kind of oil or fuel it uses. To publish any information you find about your tinkering could get you into big trouble. It could prevent *all* car manufacturers from making a profit and no incentive to sell cars.

      I'm sure we are not confused about a rental agreement and Walgreen's cameras. But I do play the cd's I legally rented illegally on my Linux box with mplayer. Am I a criminal? I heard someone who made it possible for me to enjoy a movie in the privacy of my own home has been made a criminal just for that.

      You see where this is going? We are allowing companies to artificially commoditize the market into exclusive goods. Its wasteful, harmful for the environment, stifles innovation, and destroys any sense of freedoms that may occur naturally.

    14. Re:while it may be neat... by wolf- · · Score: 1

      More of us would READ the ARTICLE if it wasn't SLASHDOTTED. News for Nerds Willing to Wait 24 hours for a linked site to come back online.

      --
      ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
    15. Re:while it may be neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the first few can RTFA. It was slashdotted in milliseconds.

    16. Re:while it may be neat... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Unfortunately, the camera mod could be tied into the DMCA, in which case, you would be considered a criminal.
      Only if it involves circumventing an access control mechanism designed to prevent access to copyrighted materials unauthorized by the copyright holder.

      Which it isn't. The "only" copyrighted materials here are the individual's photos, and the individual, as the copyright holder, has a perfect right to authorize him or herself to access those photos.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    17. Re:while it may be neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hours later and the site is still slashdotted. The least /. could do is warn the webmasters of sites like those that a link is about to be posted. Not everybody has the good fortune to have unlimited bandwidth.

      And watch your F language! There's no need to have that F attitude.

    18. Re:while it may be neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure do miss the days when a signature was required for a contract to be effective.

    19. Re:while it may be neat... by nvrrobx · · Score: 1

      If you feel like testing it, I'll volunteer my commuter car, a 2001 Kia Rio. :)

    20. Re:while it may be neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      said the walgreens employee.

    21. Re:while it may be neat... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was never the case. A contract just has to be agreed to by both parties. A signature is the easiest, long-lasting, method of noting that agreement. A verbal contract is just as valid, but you have to have impartial witnesses to prove both sides agreed. (A good video camera should be fine, if you can be relatively sure it has not been tampered with.)

      There are specific contracts that the government requires a signature for ('real property', meaning land, is usually one...), but as a general rule a signature is not required. Just acknowledgment and agreement.

      (IANAL, but I did take Business Law, which spent most of the course covering this.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    22. Re:while it may be neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't bought one of these cameras, but does it have anything on it that says by purchasing it you agree to return it?

    23. Re:while it may be neat... by MarkJensen · · Score: 1
      However, if you actually buy the product, it's not illegal.

      You might want to refine your position a bit. Microsoft has gone to court and got injunctions against people who 'mod' their X-Boxes.

      I certainly don't agree that it is right for Microsoft to be so heavy-handed with what they sell, but they seem to have the force of law on their side at the moment, so it would appear that it is illegal...

    24. Re:while it may be neat... by MarkJensen · · Score: 1

      Oops! I always see it *after* I click "submit".. :|

      I should have stated that Microsoft has gone after people who PROMOTE or SUPPLY modifications. Not the users (like the RIAA seems to prefer).

    25. Re:while it may be neat... by O · · Score: 1

      I just bought one with cash at a Walgreens in Wisconsin!

      But, the website's too slashdotted to see what, if anything, can be done with it.

      --

      1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
  5. Grumble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is this camera available at all Walgreens? If not, they (the "hackers") should've waited till all of us got a chance at getting our hands on them.

    Now Walgreens will just shut the program down, and withit goes my dream of getting a 1MP webcam for under $10... :-(

  6. Iopener by kajoob · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anybody wanna buy my hacked iopener that I don't use anymore so I can buy a bunch of these cameras?

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    1. Re:Iopener by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Would you take a hacked CueCat in exchange?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Iopener by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Shit man, you'd have to give him a lot of CueCats. Like a million of them. or more.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    3. Re:Iopener by AntiTuX · · Score: 1

      yeah, I've got one for sale too. email me at [myusernameinlowercase]@[myusername].net
      I've had the damn thing sitting in storage for a few years now. I live in the phoenix area.

  7. Woo hoo! by i_am_syco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I needed a digital camera. Santa's going to be visiting a tad earlier this year. To tell you the truth, a reusable digital camera is just begging to be hacked. Why these companies are putting them out at all is beyond me, because the analog film quality is so much better.

    1. Re:Woo hoo! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because 99% of the population isn't going to use them to hack. Who in their right mind is going to pay $10 to buy the camera and sit there soldering a USB cable to the inards to get the pictures off? Not a non-geek I can tell you that.

    2. Re:Woo hoo! by DrEldarion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, there really is no reason to have a reusable digital camera without an LCD screen. What's the point of even having it be digital if you have to get the pictures processed by the store anyway? Isn't the whole point of digital cameras that you can preview the pictures and that you DON'T have to get film processed? These cameras allow neither of those - they're pointless!

      You can get film developed and put on a picture CD at a much higher quality than this. Why even bother having it be digital??

    3. Re:Woo hoo! by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's cheaper for them.

      Developer chemicals and machines are expensive. Cheaper overhead == more profit.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    4. Re:Woo hoo! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..and a geek can surely buy some 40-50$ cam for themselfs..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Woo hoo! by CTho9305 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The general population believes slogans like "digital quality" mean that digital is inherently better.

    6. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .1 more likely. 99% are non-geek of that last 1%, .2 are too lazy and .7 already have a better digicam.

    7. Re:Woo hoo! by yonyonson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And now besides the 99% of the population who will buy them and not modify them, there will be an added percentage bonus from the scientifically applied hobbyists who would never have bought one before.

    8. Re:Woo hoo! by sebadore · · Score: 1
      It maybe beyond you but for regular ppl who don't know much about cameras or photography, they think digital is better than analog. They are bombarded ads that show how great/neat/easy/revolutionary digital cameras are and automatically think digital is better.

      Sophie

    9. Re:Woo hoo! by Squant · · Score: 1

      Not if you dont have the money to spend for an camera you are going to use rarely.

    10. Re:Woo hoo! by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      This is true. The only advantage of this new crop of digicrap "cameras" is that WalMart doesn't have to replenish film, thereby saving their ass some money, while riding on the common retardation of man thinking all digital = good. Eventually, the scam that this is will be shown on 20/20, and then the common idiot will understand that their blind faith in the word digital is in general a bad thing.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    11. Re:Woo hoo! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or for the same reason people use $9.99 35mm disposables: they are cheap to get in bulk, easy to have developed and are universally available. In exchange for this, you get embarassingly bad quality. You're not paying for a good camera, you're paying for developed pictures and convenience...with these, you're also getting a CD, which for your average mom & pop ebay team is a godsend.

      But remember: this is a focus-free plastic lens on a 2 megapixel ccd and MAYBE 8 meg of ram, with a washed out flash and no way to recharge the batteries. Companies give better cameras than these away for promotions. If this is how you save money, I've got a good condition Mr. Microphone that's just perfect for use in your stereo system...

      Of course, the purpose of a hack is not to save money. It's because it's fun to make stuff work in ways that were not intended. Otherwise, assholes like me wouldn't be installing leather seats in old Volkswagens or make Macintoshe SEs into wireless email stations...

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    12. Re:Woo hoo! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe it's the CDs they offer along with the digital prints, perfect for somebody who wants to ebay something but doesn't own a digital camera.

      Or maybe it's that downloading and printing the pictures takes less than 10 minutes and they're better quality than the one hour photolab. Certainly important if your friends are leaving on a flight and you want to give them pictures of their visit.

      Or maybe it's that film is expensive and the chemicals are quite caustic and any mistakes in the process can result in garbage photos.

      Or maybe it's that you can't overexpose a digital camera, thus eliminating the need for a dark room, and permitting anybody on the planet to process them. Even Habib's Convenience Mart on my corner has room for a printer...

      Or maybe it's that digital cameras are smaller and lighter, since they need no room for film slots. Or that, eventually, they could sell 50 and 75 shot models without increasing the footprint. Some of these one shot flash cameras do not slip comfortably into your pocket...a digital has no excuse. Digital cameras are easier to waterproof as well.

      You could be on to something with your digital retardation theory. But I believe there's a lot more to it than you realized.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    13. Re:Woo hoo! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well the hacking of this cheapo camere isn't totally free, except in rare cases when you have the needed stuff already.

      -

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:Woo hoo! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1

      Most major places (i.e. chains) that develop photos now have photos on CD as a standard service - for 35mm film. Your statement about the CDs they offer along with the digital prints is correct but not exclusive to these cheap cameras. Again, most places offer that service on 35mm film.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    15. Re:Woo hoo! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Right...but they don't offer it in less than an hour. Most places only offer digitized pictures if you send it away for the "full processing." Digital throwaways offer it in minutes, and as part of the standard practice. And that's big if you're an ebayer...no need to wait three days to "get the film back" before selling!

      Oh, and I am a liberal. Sorry I replied. But I guess there's little you can do about it, constitutional free speech and all ;)

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    16. Re:Woo hoo! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There is no "constitutional free speech" on a privately owned and run website tough guy.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    17. Re:Woo hoo! by Datafage · · Score: 1

      No there's not, but being as the website openly invites comments from the public and you have no say in the running of the private website you get no say in who responds to you, so it doesn't matter and you still can't legitimately tell people not to respond to you.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    18. Re:Woo hoo! by Squant · · Score: 1

      true true. Well a smartmedia socket is not that expensive. If you put some time in it, total cost maybe 30 dollars? Still too bad that these things are not sold in europe. If you can update the firmware in these it could make for all kinds of very cool projects. In this case it would be much cheaper to experiment with it then to buy the parts.

    19. Re:Woo hoo! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      Actually, you're wrong. I can legitimately tell people not to respond to me. It appears you are dumb so I'll try to go slow.

      Now, let's take a look at the definition of "legitimately" [from dictionary.com]

      adj.

      1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
      2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
      3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
      4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
      5. Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.
      6. Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.
      7. Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy: the legitimate theater.

      Since you're a Slashbot and Slashbots love to shift their argument, we will assume that you meant any one of the definitions and prove that, in any case, I can legitimately tell people not to respond to me.

      First off - being in compliance with the law. Am I in compliance with the law by telling people not to respond to me? Yes, we've already covered free speech here. You would be correct if you said it was not a legitimate statement to say, "If you respond to me, you will be jailed." because I have no legal authority to back up such a statement. Since my signature contains no threat of what will happen if you ignore its command, I am completely within the realm of law. I can tell people to do X,Y, and Z, where those are all foolish demands but if I do not offer a condition for violating my demands, I am not making an illegitimate statement. Moving on to the next definition...

      Being in compliance with accepted standards? Well, I suppose my signature is a bit rude, unless of course it is meant tongue-in-cheek, but let's assume it isn't. So my signature is rude. Is rudeness not an accepted standard on Slashdot? I think so. So if rudeness is an accepted standard and I am being rude with my signature, then my signature is still a legitimate statement.

      Logical reasoning? Reasonable? Well, it's based on the idea that liberals don't have anything I want to read so I tell them not to respond ahead of time. That seems fairly reasonable to me. Merely saying such a statement doesn't prevent anyone from replying who wants to, so not only am I being reasonable, I'm being quite forgiving! Next!

      Authentic? Yes, my signature is authentic. I did not take it from anyone and it is rooted in belief. Nothing here to show your claim correct!

      Born of legally married parents? Yup, I am. That's why I'm smart and you're not! Of course, my signature isn't born from legally married parents but that's a little silly. If you meant it in that sense, you're quite sad.

      The monarchy issue? Well, since it's not a law but merely a statement this is a non-issue. Laws have repurcussions for violators of them. In any statement of law, these repurcussions are noted. I do not note any repurcussions for violating my demand so my signature is not a law. Therefore, the genetics of my signature do not come into play here.

      Of or relating to high drama? Well, if you meant it this way, you have gone off the deep end. Of course my signature is high drama! Look at how many people get their anime panties in a bunch over it! [Not just you, let me tell you.]

      In conclusion, I am so much smarter than you it is not even funny. Go back to being a sad and pathetic little individual who doesn't know the meaning of words. I win!

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    20. Re:Woo hoo! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yeah.. i would probably like to pick one up too if they were for sale('rent') in europe(as my time is pretty much free and i like to tinker around).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  8. SuperComment by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me get it all out of the way for y'all, ok?

    • What a waste of time
    • What crappy images
    • Don't they have some poor child in the third world they could be helping with their science project
    • Good job destroying their business model, because everyone is going to run out and buy these because they're loaded with features
    • FIRST/SECOND/THIRD POST
    • The black helicopters from the Santa/Jesus Conspirary are out to get me and my alien friend, but if you happen to have a time travel S3-4QB, we'll be safe!(props to all the true wackjobs that end up -1. You guys are something special).
    • SCO sucks.
    • I for one welcome our new cheap crappy picture-taking overlords
    • Slashdot editors suck, this is a dupe.
    • Oh, I actually read the article now- ok, it's not a dupe. The slashdot editors still suck.

    Did I miss anyone?

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

      You certainly did, sir!

      and the obligatory "let me get all the stupid, repetitive posts out of the way for ya" post!

    2. Re:SuperComment by gooman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, turn in your membership...

      You missed:
      Microsoft!
      RIAA
      MPAA
      and the potential Beowolf cluster (Imagine).

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    3. Re:SuperComment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you forgot "They got Saddam!" with a link to two stories up or down.

    4. Re:SuperComment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d000000d,

      when you call super on the Comment you don't have to restate all that..

    5. Re:SuperComment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did I miss anyone?

      Yeah, you forgot the
      • Meta-comment summarizing all of the most common comments, questions, and complaints. *list follows*
      Nice try though.
    6. Re:SuperComment by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Actually... I don't know about this camera (slashdotted), but the similar Ritz version of this contains an 8051 CPU. There was a time when the 8051 was a top of the line microprocessor. So get out your centronics connectors and git working on a way to network these puppies- because we're gunna have a cluster of these!

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  9. Quick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Someone find a bandwith hack for this site, it`s dying!

  10. Film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the point of digital without an LCD? None. For disposible, nothing beats film. If digital rentals are to take place, they should be in some sort of locked waterproof plastic case that must be torn up to get access to it... unless you have the Walgreen's key. Also, calling it a rental would be better - and charging a deposit fee to keep people from using them for this purpose.

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

      you are a stoopid MoFo... its all about gettin your $$ to go further, just like when you homebrew!!

    2. Re:Film by argent · · Score: 3, Funny

      The point of "digital without an LCD" is to save money for Walgreens.

      Over the long term, digital cameras are inherently cheaper than film cameras. A digital "disposable" may cost a little more than a film disposable initially, but the processing and refurbishing cost is negligable.

      Think of it as a delaying tactic.

      As time goes on and electronics get better and cheaper, the cost difference between a film and a digital camera of equivalent quality will end up favoring the digital. A film camera contains all kinds of mechanical devices that a digital camera doesn't need.

      And this shift will start at the low end, where the optics aren't good enough to resolve images better than cheap digital hardware can replicate.

      So, just as all cheap watches are electronic ("quartz" watches are basically an accurate timer driving a motor), all cheap cameras will soon be digital. The niche that all these expensive 24-hour automatic film processing labs are filling... processing the output of cheap cameras... will dry up as only professionals (who have their own darkrooms) and antiquarians and hobbyists (who either have their own darkrooms or will end up having to make them) keep using the increasingly expensive film.

      So, they're trying things, looking for a new niche they can scratch open, and you know you should never scratch a niche.

    3. Re:Film by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      > What's the point of digital without an LCD?

      Well, sonny take a seat on my lap and let me tell you about the dark days of photography when we had no LCD displays. I think the year was 1995...

      Back then, we walked to school through waist-high snow for two miles.

      A digital camera is no less crippled without an LCD display, than a film camera is. You use the viewfinder.

      Of course, if you're the type that puts your index finger over the aperature when you shoot, this won't help you...

      For me, this camera will be something I take where it might get damaged or lost. Like a toga party, for example..

    4. Re:Film by Paddyish · · Score: 1
      What's the point of digital without an LCD?

      Well, for one, you can erase shots and re-take them. Says so right on the package.

    5. Re:Film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know you need to erase it if you can't see it???

    6. Re:Film by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Read the post again, gramps. He didn't say "what's the point of photography without an LCD?" rather "what's the point of digital without an LCD?" That is, for a dirt-cheap and shitty-image'd camera such as this, one of the only advantages it would have is the fact you can go back and delete photos that sucked on a digicam- out in the field, without your computer there- so you can squeeze a few more in the flash space.

      That said, on our digicam, I usually use the viewfinder instead of the LCD. Just seems weird to use the LCD unless it's on a tripod. But I sure as hell use the LCD to delete the photos with my fingers over the lens or when I'm blinking...

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    7. Re:Film by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except you don't know which shots suck. Rather, you may know some- like you took a photo of the ground when drunk. But it's not like you can have a look and see which photos suck, then go back to re-take them.

      I guess you could err on the side of caution and just do three takes for all the photos on the camera- make sure they're grrrrreat!

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    8. Re:Film by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      I dunno about film developers drying up. Right now it costs about $.40 per page to print full color pictures using decent ink at home. It takes a long time to print them, and even at the end, they aren't as good quality as images squeaked out of a nice dye sublimiation digital printer. Yes, the many of the petrochemical development labs will probably slowly disappear, but they'll be replaced by awesome printers with massive development rates. One hour photo? Try five minutes, and at much better quality!

      Furthermore, most people are complete bufoons when it comes to digital photo software. Easy digital retouching labs, even ones that make the picture "smaller" (read: decrease the resolution), will be very useful to people like my moms who can't figure out which mouse buttom is the left one. My local photo hut will take your "digital film" and develop 4" prints on real Kodak paper by beaming the image onto it for the same price as regular development. When they pay off that machine, it'll be LESS than regular development.

      Naw, photo labs aren't going anywhere. They're just going to be doing different work...and we'll get better pictures faster as a result.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    9. Re:Film by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Maybe the Walgreen's product is just plain pointless. But a $10 digicam NOT tied to Walgreen's, on the other hand, might have some potential. The main advantages over film are the electronically triggered shutter, and instant feedback.

      I can hook it to the underside of my motorcycle and maybe get some cool shots before it's destroyed.

      Maybe I can turn it into a webcam, buy 6 of them, and put them up around my house to find out whose dog is crapping on my lawn.

      I can buy 30 of them and make one of those matrix stop-time setups where they seemingly pan the camera around during a single instant.

      I can make a 3d object scanner, using software that can create a 3d model from a number of images at different viewpoints. Since each camera must be calibrated you don't want to use one camera and move it around.

      Again, I see each of these applications as more suited to a cheap digital camera than a cheap film camera.

    10. Re:Film by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      How do you know you need to erase it if you can't see it???

      Have you ever used a film camera?

      Did you ever take a shot you knew was bad?
      What did you do - take another?

      *Exactly*

      Considering the "I-Opener" risk, they were pretty smart to make these without LCD's. Adding a LCD would *double* cost and RISK for a product with an uncertain future (esp. now!!)

    11. Re:Film by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 1

      What's the point of digital without an LCD? None.

      Personally, I want to cut one up and strap it to a home made model rocket. I don't need a LCD for that. Also, at $10 I won't be too heartbroken if it doesn't survive the launch and recovery.

      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    12. Re:Film by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      Nope, I didn't misread - you assume I did, but my post was deliberate.

      My logic:
      (Problem) Using film, I took a bad shot... and KNEW it. This happens.

      (Solution) "take another".

      In this case, being digital, the cost of a second shot is effectively $0. Yay.

      I'll grant that without an LCD you have no PROOF that the shot is bad.

      That said, but there's a big stretch between proof OF a bad shot and "[value of] NONE" (and as some other posters claimed, "No way of knowing...").

      Exaggerated posts are not helpful. I'm not a great photograpgher but I work just fine using a viewfinder. Some people WILL rely so heavily on the LCD that they feel crippled using a mere viewfinder. This is not less or more true if the format is film or digital. Same thing.

    13. Re:Film by argent · · Score: 1

      "they'll be replaced by awesome printers with massive development rates"

      Oh, for sure, but only for the 3 or 4 pictures you actually want, you won't be getting prints for the whole roll any more. Not once people get used to the new technology. It becomes something you do for the special pictures only, not 5 rolls of slides per holiday... maybe none at all unless there's something really nice you want to send in physical form.

      Demand is going down, and it's going to be a different kind of demand. How long will this take? Twenty years? Ten? Five? I don't know, but everything they can do to make people think of digital the way they think of film will delay it a little bit.

      And the quality argument is always iffy... it gets made every time a new technology comes up, and it turns out that most people don't care as much as afficionados think they do. Look at the business the iTunes Music Store is doing despite the fact that it's all compressed. Audiophiles tell me people will never put up with compressed music... me, I rip every CD I get to MP3 and keep the original in the closet away from scratches and accidents.

      Heck. If people cared that much about quality, there wouldn't be any film smaller than 35mm.

      So, I think photo labs are definitely going to end up thinner on the ground. When? Like I said, I don't know. But Walgreens thinks they do, and this is all about slowing it down.

    14. Re:Film by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      Also:
      (Problem) Using film, I took a bad shot... and KNEW it. This happens.

      By this I mean "KNEW or suspected" it was a bad shot.

    15. Re:Film by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      When you say "quality," you seem to mean resolution. Resolution is only a small part of it. The quality people care about -- fixing red eye, cleaning up zits, repairing the washout caused by using a flash in a bright area -- is VERY easy to do with digital. And a smart staff of folks and EASY software are going to make that type of quality come home for people.

      And you know? Even if it costs a few dollars more for fewer pictures, people would really like these features. I guarantee there'll be a demand for it.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    16. Re:Film by geekychic · · Score: 1

      I think one of the reasons a lot of people buy disposable cameras especially for long trips is that they don't need to worry about having it stolen or lost. A "rental" model with a refundable deposit would eliminate this segment of the market, and it seems to me that the loss of revenue as a result would be greater than the loss from the very small number of geeks who hack their disposable digital cameras.

    17. Re:Film by Paddyish · · Score: 1

      I thinking more like, you take a picture, but someone sneezes...or looks away...or anything unpredictable like that. Sooooooooo, erase that shot right away and try again. Not as useful as with an LCD, but still a nice feature.

    18. Re:Film by argent · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not talking about resolution, or even resolution + optics + color balancing + lighting correction.

      When I say "quality" I mean "quality". Red-eye elimination is something you can automate in a filter in the camera, there's already programs that do that. When you say "EASY software [is] going to make that type of quality come home for people" you're on the right track but you're not following that chain of logic to its obvious conclusion: it's going to be right there, at home, and many people won't even know it's there. They'll just know they're getting better pictures after they plug them in and iPhoto (or whatever) imports them and shows them half a dozen versions of each shot then asks them which version of each picture they like best. After a while it'll apply heuristics to the choices... if somone never asks for the unfiltered shot then that'll get delegated to the "more choices" section.

      Heh, I should apply for a patent on that idea. :)

      Fixing bad shots is also quickly going to be handled the way professional photographers do it: you just take lots of shots and throw out the old ones. In five years you won't be able to buy a digital camera with less than 128M of memory, even the ten buck cheapies... that's only 8x what these Walgreens things have, if I'm understanding the web pages cortrectly, three iterations of Moore's Law and you're 4.5 years out... got six months for the old 64M cameras to drop off the market.

      So you'll take your shots, take the camera home, plug in, and spend fifteen minutes going "this one, that one, none of those, both of these" and you'll get a better collection of pictures than Walgreens could have given you, even if there's one or two that an expert could have turned from "good" to "great"... you won't care, because "good enough" for "free" beats spending the same amount of time driving down to the store and back... and you won't get the one where they accidentally turned the dog green and you have to go back three times to get it right.

      There's going to remain a market, but it's going to be smaller. You'll have your professional photo people at the Sears Photo Studio, not in every pharmacy and half the grocery stores like they are now.

  11. Ooooh Chicken Shit software! by twoslice · · Score: 5, Funny
    They even came with some chicken shit software

    I can hardly contain my excrement...

    --

    From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
    1. Re:Ooooh Chicken Shit software! by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yeah, I bought one for my five-year-old, and guess what? It won't work without the chicken-shit software, which is too difficult for a five-year-old (and it doesn't really work right even for an adult). What I want is a sub-$100 camera that acts like a usb drive when my boy connects it to his PC (like my $250 camera does). Then he can drag-and-drop the pictures himself. He doesn't need a fancy LCD, just point-and-shoot plus flash. And no chicken-shit software needed.

      Any cameras that meet these requirements?

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:Ooooh Chicken Shit software! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want I want I want. Damn.

    3. Re:Ooooh Chicken Shit software! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radio Shack sells a Kodak CX6200 for $100. Check here

    4. Re:Ooooh Chicken Shit software! by XeXeN · · Score: 1

      I just bought a Kodak cx4310 at Wal-Mart for around $98, which I can use as a USB drive, I did however buy a 128mb SD card for it.

  12. Dude, it's a PARODY by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Funny

    God, can't anyone take a damn joke? I hope you all get meta-moderated to hell.

  13. mirror/text copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone care to post? /.ed as usual ...

  14. damn it! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now they know, in advance about these stories and these dinky sites getting slammed.

    Why don't they mirror these little sites on the awesome OSDN system ahead of the rush?

    Shit, within seconds of release the sites are out of order and the entire story is for naught and NO ONE gets to see what it's all about.
    Quite often the site exceeds it's bandwidth allocation and is taken offline by the ISP for the remainder of the month.

    By the time this site will be viewable again, Walgreens will have pulled the camera from the shelves..

    1. Re:damn it! by mr_tommy · · Score: 1

      Why they couldn't apply their massive genius to creating some kind of mirror system is beyond me.

    2. Re:damn it! by Cobain · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is why they don't cache webpages. RTFF!

      --

      ----------------------
      58.0% slashdot corrupt
    3. Re:damn it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which has always been a lame excuse.

      Taco has always been an idiot.

    4. Re:damn it! by wolf- · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look! A 3 year old FAQ answer!
      Shouldn't a techy/geeky/nerdy website have more up to date policies? Oh, well, just a thought.

      --
      ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
    5. Re:damn it! by DrNibbler · · Score: 1

      yes it's 3 years old but the points don't seem to be technical (the FAQ says it wouldn't be a problem technically). Which points are no longer valid?

      --
      Sean.OutaHere()
    6. Re:damn it! by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We need some sort of way of putting the archive on bit torrent and then making it easily viewable. That is, someone saves the pertinent pages into a zip file, puts the zip up on bit torrent, and when you click the url, Moz or whatever your browser be unzips it to a temp dir, and opens up the index.html ... VIOLA! that'd be slick as snot.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    7. Re:damn it! by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1
      For a start, the slashdot effect has grown a lot heavier in the last three years. Now, anything smaller than a medium news or corporate site is likely to crumple under the sheer spike of traffic.

      The fact that slashdot makes money out of allowing people to see the article links before the site gets crushed to oblivion is quite telling. Especially since that crushing often involves heavy financial penalties from the owner's isp.

      In addition, google, and the wayback machine are just two examples of websites that cache other people's content quite easily these days.

      Slashdot should do what they do; cache the site, with a secondary link to the original, and remove the cache if the site owner complains.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    8. Re:damn it! by cetan · · Score: 1

      >

      That's a load of crap. I've posted many mirrors on my webspace for slashdot and the machine and bandwidth usage have been fine.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  15. an actual good reason for this by CRCates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real benefit on these cameras (after they're hacked) is that you can use them where you wouldn't want to risk your $100-500 camera.
    For example, most people don't want the expense of having to risk a high-end digital camera for underwater (SCUBA, snorkel) shots. The Ritz camera (when hacked to interface with USB) is a great camera for use in a shallow-depth enclosure (because it has a flash) and you don't care if it's destroyed because $10 is a mere fraction of the cost of diving (it might be less expensive than the compressed AIR you're breathing while doing it).
    Also, think about skiers or other extreme sports people what kick the living crap out of their gear. This makes a digital (albeit crappy) camera something that you can actually use with reckless abandon and not feel so bad when after the Nth time you fall on your *ass after a bad trip down the moguls it finally gives up. (you just hope that it lasts you a couple of trips).
    Granted it's crappy but, again, a niche use is still a good use.

    1. Re:an actual good reason for this by Lord+Kholdan · · Score: 1

      The real benefit on these cameras (after they're hacked) is that you can use them where you wouldn't want to risk your $100-500 camera.
      For example, most people don't want the expense of having to risk a high-end digital camera for underwater (SCUBA, snorkel) shots. The Ritz camera (when hacked to interface with USB) is a great camera for use in a shallow-depth enclosure (because it has a flash) and you don't care if it's destroyed because $10 is a mere fraction of the cost of diving (it might be less expensive than the compressed AIR you're breathing while doing it).
      Also, think about skiers or other extreme sports people what kick the living crap out of their gear. This makes a digital (albeit crappy) camera something that you can actually use with reckless abandon and not feel so bad when after the Nth time you fall on your *ass after a bad trip down the moguls it finally gives up. (you just hope that it lasts you a couple of trips).
      Granted it's crappy but, again, a niche use is still a good use.


      You can do all that without having to hack the camera.

    2. Re:an actual good reason for this by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the real benefit of hacking this camera is that you've hack something that wasn't supposed to be hacked.

    3. Re:an actual good reason for this by CRCates · · Score: 1

      I think that replies have missed the point of my initial comment. The idea is that you shouldn't have to pay for developing (and then return the camera) EVERY time you want to use it in a hazardous situation. The concept is that you could use them MANY times (not just the once permitted) and retain contol over where you get the photos produced (because you're not limited to the "out of the box" options.
      As for the assertion that it is "wasn't supposed to be hacked". That's like saying that you can't upgrade a computer that you've purchased. Nobody would argue that you couldn't ADD memory or upgrade a video card to add additional features not available out of the box. You're "upgrading" the camera from the out of the box state. Who decides what's "supposed to be hacked" and what isn't? You purchase a good and if you want to throw it out, that's okay, if you want to hack it, that's your right too.

    4. Re:an actual good reason for this by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      You can do all that without having to hack the camera.

      As if!

      Whether or not you may be aware of it, those of us into SCUBA and EXTREME SPORTS are into HACKING everything... I mean, XTREME SPORTZ are all about HACKING LIFE itself!!!!!!1 sooo stffu to your naysayingZ and BIG ^^ (upss) to hacking4life!

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    5. Re:an actual good reason for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When i go on vacation i always have a disposable camera with me as well as my EOS 7e and (now) digital rebel. The disposable is what i hand to people when i ask them to take a photo of me in front of whatever or with a friend as I'd rather not trust a stranger with a camera that's worth more than their annual salary. The disposable digital may fit that niche a lot better for me.

    6. Re:an actual good reason for this by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
      As for the assertion that it is "wasn't supposed to be hacked". That's like saying that you can't upgrade a computer that you've purchased.

      I think he meant that the reason for doing it is the joy of doing something that they don't want you to do. It wasn't "supposed to be" hacked, because Walgreen's wants you to bring it back, pay them for "processing", and let them "recycle" it (i.e. let them resell it).

      If they are selling them under the same terms that they sell single use film cameras, they can't stop you from hacking it. You OWN it until you return it for processing and recycling.

      Seriously, is this thing really worth 10 bucks, even after it's hacked?

    7. Re:an actual good reason for this by BillX · · Score: 1

      And, you can try your hand at amateur pornography without getting snickered at, cops called by clueless processing-people, or pics of you and your girlfriend's naked duff, er, misappropriated ('posted to internet' - see snickering issue above) by same.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  16. Re:Unfortunately.... by bhtooefr · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ugh... If that was your point, just FSCKING LINK DIRECTLY TO IT! It would have been funny if you linked to http://goatse.cx/. However, since you linked to http://tinyurl.com/4ui, YOU FAIL IT!

    Moderators, do something about this poor excuse for an AC.

    Anyway, I thought that you'd get a photo CD and a pack of prints, a la 35mm. Can anyone confirm this?

  17. ok.. finally got the text from the /.ed site! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    codeman:

    ok i did some hacking on the walgreess version and here's what i have done..
    first thanks to zonyl for getting me some cameras to mess with..

    ok if you look at http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/website/p d_board_hr_back_mod
    you will see there is a daughter board on there with the nand flash for picture storage ..
    if you remove that board you can add a smartmedia socket and using smartmedia card you will
    be able to get the pics with a smartmedia reader standard jpg's but it will not do more that
    25 pics still (think its using fat12)..

    also there is a serial port there labeled rs232 it a ttl level serial port ..
    pin 1 rx []square on board
    pin 2 tx
    pin 3 gnd
    pin 4 data out ?? for lcd ?? video ??

    if you hook up a max232 type chip to the board and a pc , in a term program hit
    space bar and the camera will return a 0x01 hex (looks like it does autobaud rate)
    and if you hit the - key twice it will trigger the flash and count the remaining
    counter down but does not write to flash .
    and if you send a 029 dec (hold alt and type 029 on keypad then release alt) if will
    change the format of the data coming out on pin 4..( dont know yet )

    so far thats all i got in one night ..

    codeman

    here are some pic to get a better idea of how it works
    daughter card removed
    http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/ website/r es44442
    smartmedia socket added
    http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/we bsite/r es44441
    here it is complete.
    http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/galler y/website/r es44443
    another one
    http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/webs ite/r es44445

    there is a door for the smartmedia card

    codeman

  18. you missed... by iamplupp · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..."slashdotted already. they must be hosting it on a hacked camera"

    1. Re:you missed... by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 2, Funny

      ..."slashdotted already. they must be hosting it on a hacked camera"

      And don't forget...

      "In Soviet Russia, Walgreens hacks YOU!"

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  19. SCO and MS coming to mind here by segment · · Score: 1
    To my knowledge, there is no law that says you don't own a material object that you bought

    This same sentence reminds me oh so much of MS licensing the 'FAT' file system and their whole licensing scheme. As well as SCO suing everyone.

  20. You're missing the analogy... by kialara · · Score: 0

    You're forgetting that the car manufacturer requires you to buy their gasoline only, and that's how they make their money.

    Different situation. Not that I disagree... Bad business models don't give them the right to sue.

    1. Re:You're missing the analogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You're forgetting that the car manufacturer requires you to buy their gasoline only, and that's how they make their money.

      Almost.

      The car manufacturers are extremely close with the Republican party (like Alabama brother-sister "close").

      The Saudi Arabian governmment is just as close to the Republican party via "US" (just headquarters, really) oil companies.

      So yeah, while you say this facitiously... the connection already exists.

      A pity we cannot eliminate corporate "donations" and enemy countries that buy our politicians. I'd rather pay $2.00 a gallon and have methenol (US corn) power my idiot neighbors H2 Humvee (the prick has "children" and "US" stickers all over it the fucking traitorous poser...)

    2. Re:You're missing the analogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting worried with your oil story. Oil is amazingly cheap, considering it is an *extremely* dangerous career. I don't know if you have ever worked in the fields, many people routinely die to extract gasses and oils from deep within the earth Pressurized deposits of radioactive decay, including the radioactive sources themselves come out with the oil. Lethal gases, mostly sulpher dioxide, carbon dioxide, and others will blanket your work area on a daily basis. Unusually high pressures deep within are unlocked and threaten to launch you to the moon. The machinery is huge, clunky, and can rip your arms off if you don't handle the pipes and chains right. Or you can fall off the rig and drown in a pile of mud.

      This is not a job you want to do. Its slave labor.

      I have done surveying here in the US. We have lots of oil. But we require fair wages and just don't do a lot of it here anymore. Our survey equipment is often buggy and results are routinely fudged to get the job done. Many sites with lots of oil are frequently dismissed and the investors move on to new areas for drilling and exploitation. Its a messy industry filled with NDA's, people ending up dead, and fortunes lost.

      Ever wonder why there are people in the Middle East don't like us? And our politicians are acting funny? Its the politics of oil. Its the fuel that feeds our economy. Its what keeps us warm in the winter. And why people will always be bitter.

      Consider the price of oil compared to decades ago. Or milk. Or any other commodoty item by the gallon. Its amazingly cheap! Wholesale futures rates of refined gasoline are currently in the 80 cent per gallon range in quantities of 40,000 gallons or more.

  21. Image Mirror by Cryoabyss · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was only able to get a the picture of the hack. It looks promising so I'm heading to Walgreens to pick one up for use as a digital camera back in my 35mm SLR.

    http://ice.syne.net:88/sd/sm_hack.jpg

  22. PureDigital Camera Hacked and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    ...poor quality pictures of Saddam's capture !

    Does anyone else see the connection? :-)

  23. summary -- with quotes by baltimoretim · · Score: 1
    The site is a bulletin board. Here follow codeman's 2 informational messages (the formatting sucks, but what can you do?:

    ---first post---

    ok i did some hacking on the walgreess version and here's what i have done..

    first thanks to zonyl for getting me some cameras to mess with..

    ok if you look at [this] you will see there is a daughter board on there with the nand flash for picture storage ..

    if you remove that board you can add a smartmedia socket and using smartmedia card you will be able to get the pics with a smartmedia reader standard jpg's but it will not do more that 25 pics still (think its using fat12)..

    also there is a serial port there labeled rs232 it a ttl level serial port ..

    pin 1 rx []square on board pin 2 tx pin 3 gnd pin 4 data out ?? for lcd ?? video ?? if you hook up a max232 type chip to the board and a pc , in a term program hit space bar and the camera will return a 0x01 hex (looks like it does autobaud rate)

    and if you hit the - key twice it will trigger the flash and count the remaining

    counter down but does not write to flash .

    and if you send a 029 dec (hold alt and type 029 on keypad then release alt) if will change the format of the data coming out on pin 4..( dont know yet )

    so far thats all i got in one night .. codeman

    ---next post---

    here are some pic to get a better idea of how it works

    daughter card removed [here]

    smartmedia socket added [here]

    here it is complete. [here]

    another one [here]

    there is a door for the smartmedia card

    codeman

  24. USB Interface and Practicality by rufus+t+firefly · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know much about the hack, other than than the information regarding the camera at http://earth.prohosting.com/puredig/. What I'm curious about is why no one has posted or is interested in a USB hack similar to the Ritz one. A smartmedia reader, as some have pointed out, is much more expensive than a USB cable. I know that I would not spend 10$ on a single use camera, then spend an additional 30-50$ on parts to make it arguably equivalent to a 60$ cheapie digital.

    --
    "He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
  25. Driver needed by ErrorBase · · Score: 1

    He has named the samsung memory chip, but not the two rather small ones right of it. On the daugther board is memory chip F Memory upgrades anyone ?

  26. Screw the camera by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For $10, it would be nice if this could be used as a general purpose USB interface for other projects. (I'd RTFA, but it's pining for the fjords.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:Screw the camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All hail discorida!

  27. MIRROR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a mirror of the posting, courtesy of Worm Quartet

  28. A much better alternative by fname · · Score: 1

    Well, a better alternative for those using disposable cameras (digital or otherwise) at weddings or other parties. Some friends in the SF Bay area use a service from Big Day Snapshots. Instead of getting 10 cheap disposable cameras for about $15 developed, they got 10 Canon A60 cameras to use for the day-- for $15, "developed"! Afterwards, they were given a CD with all the images and their own password-protected website. Pretty cool, they were psyched to get digital pix so easily; some of the guests even made mini-movies! Highly recommended for anyone getting married in the Bay Area. Beats the crap out of these disposable digital cameras.

    1. Re:A much better alternative by timmytoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What do you do when one of your drunk guests breaks it or your uncle Fred decides to take that nice Canon A60 home after the wedding? I'll stick with the $5 disposable film camera.

    2. Re:A much better alternative by eclectro · · Score: 1


      I'm sure that they have to sign a contract and put a deposit against the cameras.

      It looks like a neat service, but I can still see the acttractiveness of using disposables.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:A much better alternative by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You could always use both. Give out the disposables to anyone who wants one, and hand out a few A60's to the people you trust. That way you get the best of both worlds.

  29. That looks like an enhanced fuji ix-10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Having looked at the pics of this camera it looks a lot like an old camera I have - a fuji ix-10
    If there are linux drivers for it it might work with them..

  30. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fp or is this cheating?

  31. If you hack it, virtually free photos by enosys · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If you don't hack it and just use it as a disposable, I agree, there isn't much of a benefit from it being digital. Sure, you can delete the last photo but that's not that big of a deal. I'd be more concerned about the image quality disadvantages.

    However, once you have a hacked camera it's a different story. Because it's digital you can take virtually free photos. The batteries in the Ritz version lasted me for about 300 photos and they're just standard AA, easy to change. Sure, it would be better if it had a picture display LCD but it's not like the lack of it makes the camera useless.

    BTW I've read that a slightly more expensive version with an LCD is coming out in 2004.

    1. Re:If you hack it, virtually free photos by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd be more concerned about the image quality disadvantages.

      Yeah, because, let's face it, when I'm shopping for a $10 camera, image quality is way up there on my list. Heck, quality is why I have my prints done by Walgreens in the first place!

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:If you hack it, virtually free photos by mlrtime · · Score: 1


      "BTW I've read that a slightly more expensive version with an LCD is coming out in 2004."

      Not anymore...

    3. Re:If you hack it, virtually free photos by enosys · · Score: 1
      Yeah, because, let's face it, when I'm shopping for a $10 camera, image quality is way up there on my list. Heck, quality is why I have my prints done by Walgreens in the first place!

      Sure, that's funny, but why wouldn't you care about quality differences between disposables? Some disposables, like Kodak Max HQ, give very good photos. With this digital "disposable" you get a lower resolution than film, moire, a major JPEG mess on photos of water, sometimes horizontal banding for some reason, and you might get a camera where the edges of the photo aren't in focus. Most disposables are better than this.

  32. Photoshopped? by enosys · · Score: 1
    Thanks

    That image is weird. I wonder if it's photoshopped or if the Smartmedia socket is just placed on top of the camera PCB (ie. not connected and not functional) I wouldn't expect them to just put pads there for soldering in one of those sockets and so I'd expect wires and perhaps some glue logic.

    1. Re:Photoshopped? by Cryoabyss · · Score: 1

      If you read the text of the page that was in another comment, you'll see that he removed a daughter card that contained the flash memory for the device. I'm guessing that he made a replacement daughter card and plopped it down on the board. I've opened similar cameras to find that they often make use of vertical jumper connections to save space and layer the pcb boards. It's also a way of keeping the boards modular so they can swap in higher capacity daughter boards, etc.

      The lighting of the picture would also be very hard to photoshop, suggesting that this is indeed real.

  33. Great idea! by enosys · · Score: 1
    I wouldn't say "Screw the camera", I like mine and I've been using it a lot. However, your idea is really good. I bet this is the cheapest way to get a USB interface for a project.

    The hardware isn't really meant to do that. The a SPCA504B chip is meant for use in a camera. However, it has an 8051 core with some extensions, it has I/O ports, there is external flash memory for code and the current firmware probably even supports a USB command for uploading new firmware.

    1. Re:Great idea! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      From some of the comments, it might just have a serial interface that a USB interface can be added to.

      Hmm, 8051 core. That would be a damned nice little gizmo to have a bunch of for whatever. (I'll mention this on comp.arch.embedded to increase the slashdotting.) If nothing else, they'd make cheap security cameras, telescope add-ons, robot vision .. whatever!

      Is there any chain in Canada that would have them before they disappear?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  34. Remember the toner cartrage business... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0

    ...wonder if this falls under DCMA?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  35. Sub $100 digital camera/USB drive by Fuyu · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've seen at Best Buy (and I just recently read a review about it, but I don't remember the site) a 64MB MP3 player/1.3 MP digital camera that plugs right into a USB port that sells for $99. It's white and orange.

  36. is it just attaching a usb connector? by Sabalon · · Score: 1

    The mention of the smart card has me confused. Looking at the site, it looks like he just soldered 4 wires on from a usb connector and was able to get the pictures with that.

    Am I seeing that right? Smartmedia would be convienent, but I don't mind adding a wire out the side of it if that is all that needs to be done.

    Thanks!!!

  37. That wire was for serial testing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he was testing the serial connection, in further pictures you can see how he soldered the connector on where there was a CF card type circuit board that the manuf solders on

  38. Server is slow but responding now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's slow, just let it load

  39. torrent by epall · · Score: 1

    Before the site got too bogged down, I was able to grab a copy of the bbs discussion and the photos of the hack and put it in a torrent. My tracker is at http://209.233.28.4:6969/. I won't be up for long, but hopefully long enough.

  40. Leave your torrent WINDOW OPEN AFTER DNLD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you leave it open then it won't die! Serve up the file 24/7 !

    1. Re:Leave your torrent WINDOW OPEN AFTER DNLD! by epall · · Score: 1

      Um, the reason is that I'm tracking with my desktop box. I will shut down at some point, thus killing the torrent. I'll try to find another tracker before then though.

  41. And you missed... by sheetsda · · Score: 1

    1. Hack cheap camera.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    Or alternatively....

    1. Sell cameras under cost and make money on processing pcitures
    2. Cameras get hacked
    3. Don't profit!

    Someone else can think out jokes conerning taking pictures of Natalie Portman naked and petrified or hot grits.

  42. Yes! E-mail me. by numbski · · Score: 1

    I'm not kidding. :)

    I'd give you $30 for it. I'd be using it as an X terminal.

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

  43. cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imagine a beuwolf cluster of these, it will give LLNL a run for the top supercomputer. the slashdotdot crowd is slippen.

  44. Yes! I agree, *because*.... by voxel · · Score: 1

    I agree with you, because we all know how many geeks that:

    A) Have access to Walgreens
    B) Is a the breed of super-geek that solders electronics
    C) Has free smart-card sockets and other equipment so he's not spending more than the $10 you said
    D) Won't pay the $6.99 film development fee to get the pictures off the "normal" way
    E) Loves to Ski or Scuba Dive, oh wait, this involves going outside.. Are we still talking about geeks?
    F) Thinks his time soldering and using the free $50 smart-card sockets isn't worth $6.99 * X for the amount of times he would use the camera on his Ski or Scuba Diving trips.

    So, if you fit THAT exact description, then please, by all means, take advantage of walgreens.

    As Red would say, "You're all a bunch of DUMB-ASSES".

    - Voxel

    --
    Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
  45. also missed.. by isaac338 · · Score: 1

    "imagine a beowulf cluster of these!"
    and
    "in soviet russia, camera hacks YOU!"

    isaac

    1. Re:also missed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your camera are belong to us?

  46. Encryption by spaic · · Score: 1

    To solve their problem, it shouldn't be to hard to make a camera that implents some sort of strong encryption, public key or a unique key for each camera. Althought they probably depend on having a cheap massproduced camera that already exists.

  47. Liars Playing Victims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The obvious solution to this (for the company) is something they used to do with the film disposables -- charge for processing up front. Include the price of the "processing" (which amounts to downloading the pics and printing them for an unreasonably inflated price) in the price of the camera, and then just say "processing included". The only reason they don't do this is because they found it was more profitable to mislead consumers into thinking the product was cheaper than it was.

    I have no sympathy for companies. They tried to mislead consumers and a bunch of geeks called them up on it. Justice has been served.

  48. Encryption too slow on CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The CPU on these cameras are too slow to do this in a short amount of time (so you can take another picture quickly).
    Out of the 2 Million to be sold, who cares about 1000 of them hacked, no reason to make the thing a big mess to manufacture and possible rejection by users because it's too slow.
    Not everyone can solder, and I would say most people would rather drink a beer and watch TV.

  49. Tracker is Down by epall · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but I had to take the tracker down. Catch y'all later.

  50. Re:Yes! I agree, *because*.... by CRCates · · Score: 1

    Just FYI, that's why I used the term "niche" market. It's not like these things are going to be revolutionary... not like peanut butter or pre-sliced bagels.

  51. I've been looking to by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1

    I've been looking for a cheap digital camera for my 4 year old (who likes to use my $400 one, which makes me nervous). I don't care if the picture is really low resolution, but it needs to work and be less than $100. I haven't gotten one because I've been unable to convince myself that the cameras I've found online would work at all.

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
  52. Quality by mhr_54 · · Score: 1

    Any digital camera 4MP and up is better quality than film. I have multiple printouts from my photo printer that are all better than film. Digital lets you choose your pictures and costs you $50.00 to develope a picture. I think film is now officially dead...

  53. Being Sued by mhr_54 · · Score: 1

    You couldn't be sued for this. You physically own the product and there's no software currently being hacked. They can only get you if you reverse engineer the copyrighted software, even then you can say you did it under the DMCA for educational purposes. Thousands of people have hacked Xboxs, and Microsoft being as big as it is, hasn't gotten anybody. The most they've ever done is told them not to do it anymore (and this is only when something was related to the copyrighted software).