Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Walgreens PureDigital Camera Hacked 177

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Walgreens PureDigital Camera Hacked

Comments Filter:
  • Iopener (Score:4, Funny)

    by kajoob (62237) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:05AM (#7716287)
    Anybody wanna buy my hacked iopener that I don't use anymore so I can buy a bunch of these cameras?
  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:10AM (#7716329)

    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
    • 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?

  • Quick! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:13AM (#7716353)
    Someone find a bandwith hack for this site, it`s dying!
  • by twoslice (457793) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:13AM (#7716360)
    They even came with some chicken shit software

    I can hardly contain my excrement...

  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:16AM (#7716386)

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

  • by gooman (709147) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:26AM (#7716480) Journal
    Dude, turn in your membership...

    You missed:
    and the potential Beowolf cluster (Imagine).

  • by iamplupp (728943) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:36AM (#7716580) Homepage
    ..."slashdotted already. they must be hosting it on a hacked camera"
  • by Chris Tucker (302549) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:42AM (#7716632) Homepage
    ..."slashdotted already. they must be hosting it on a hacked camera"

    And don't forget...

    "In Soviet Russia, Walgreens hacks YOU!"

  • by chrysrobyn (106763) * on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:46AM (#7716679)
    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).

  • by Cryoabyss (443279) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:49AM (#7716713) Homepage
    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. []
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:56AM (#7716793)
    ...poor quality pictures of Saddam's capture !

    Does anyone else see the connection? :-)

  • Re:Film (Score:4, Funny)

    by argent (18001) <peter@slaCHEETAH ... minus cat> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:57AM (#7716805) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:damn it! (Score:3, Funny)

    by wolf- (54587) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @01:16PM (#7718061) Homepage
    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.
  • by gmhowell (26755) <> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @03:08PM (#7718984) Homepage Journal
    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!

This is now. Later is later.