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."
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
Let me get it all out of the way for y'all, ok?
Did I miss anyone?
Please help metamoderate.
Someone find a bandwith hack for this site, it`s dying!
I can hardly contain my excrement...
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
God, can't anyone take a damn joke? I hope you all get meta-moderated to hell.
Please help metamoderate.
..."slashdotted already. they must be hosting it on a hacked camera"
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).
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
Does anyone else see the connection? :-)
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.
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
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