B&N Nook Successfully Opened

garg0yle writes "A team has managed to open the Barnes and Noble Nook e-reader, gaining full access to the operating system. From the article: 'The Nook is now a computer running a full Android operating system, with a built-in, free cellular connection to the internet. It also has a battery that lasts days, not hours.' They are documenting their progress on the Nook Devs wiki."

Comments

DMCA notice coming

[Stavr0]

in 3... 2... 1...

... and hacking a device with an active cellular connection in it too. FCC's gonna want a piece of the action too.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Abalamahalamatandra]

What does the FCC care? It's still compliant, even if it's hacked.

I daresay the wireless carrier will be a bit ticked though, but they should have seen it coming. If the data connection this thing uses isn't firewalled to only talk to the B&N servers it's their own fault.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[clone53421]

Licensing, testing, etc...

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I daresay the wireless carrier will be a bit ticked though, but they should have seen it coming.

Which country are you talking about, cause in the US, their intelligence is somewhere between dirt and single celled organisms.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[eepok]

No... not really. Any "fault" comes from those actually hacking the Nook. I mean, unless it's your fault you got stabbed in the face walking down the street because you didn't bother to wear a steel mask.

Just-World Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon

Re:DMCA notice coming

[quickOnTheUptake]

no but it might be your fault when your car gets stolen if you left it running while you were shopping. Especially if you also put a big red sign on top that said "UNATTENDED RUNNING CAR".

Re:DMCA notice coming

[eepok]

Again, wrong. The fault lay with the thief. Things do not steal themselves. A running car at an intersection does not skip away merrily. The thief is the cause and catalyst... the fault lay with the thief. (Such is why we don't prosecute victims of crime.)

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Spatial]

I think both views are far too abstract and simplified to be of any practical use. Blame isn't a true/false value that can only be assigned to a single entity.

On one hand, it's somewhat witless to leave a car like that. On the other, stealing it is a despicable thing to do. Both the situation and action are necessary so the blame for the incident goes to both. Since the action is far worse than the situation, the blame is very heavily weighted towards the criminal.

Even that's too simplified. But you get the idea.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Beardo the Bearded]

Some juridictions will charge you as an "accessory" if you leave your car running, it gets stolen, and it's used in a crime.

[citation needed]

Re:DMCA notice coming

[cheshiremoe]

They should have seen it coming since everything else gets repeatedly hacked/Unlocked and its not hard to see some capability that would enable given the devices specs. Yes you can expect it to be broken. If you know that its highly likely that you will get stabbed in the face, maybe you should wear a steel mask. There is only so much you can do on the device, but the network is a different story.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

"Again, wrong. The fault lay with the thief. Things do not steal themselves. A running car at an intersection does not skip away merrily. The thief is the cause and catalyst... the fault lay with the thief. (Such is why we don't prosecute victims of crime.)"

Quite true. However, justness of the world be damned, if you fail to take precautions to prevent an utterly predictable outcome, you're an idiot. While the victim by no means *deserves* the bad things that happen, he/she can certainly bear responsibility for the event. If you stick your hand in a hornet's nest, don't blame the hornets when you get stung.

In this case, the scenario is a bit different than your simplistic examples. Party A is harmed because Party B was insufficient in its efforts to restrict Party C from causing damage to A. In this case, B is blamed because the actions of C were *completely predictable*. Whether B is liable civilly to A depends on their contract. That's a general consideration in such cases - how predictable was the threat, and what could/should have been done to prevent it?

By the way, you say that we don't prosecute victims of crime. Not entirely true. There are many instances in which people can be liable for the crimes of others, if said crimes lead to damage (usually of a third party). These are usually civil cases. Consider "attractive nuisance" doctrine, for instance.

Note: I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on teh Interwebz

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a natural eventuality that by BNs omission the network will be victimized. The hackers are the doers, yes, but the service could put up protections to guard against such things.

What street? What time of day? Etc, you can't naively attack all arguments like this out of ignorance.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you live, but in my state it is illegal to leave an unattended car running. And it is illegal specifically because it presents an easy target for thieves.

Of course, the thief is the one who will be charged with a felony. The owner merely gets a fine.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[eepok]

Gotta disagree. The act would not happen on its own without the actor (the criminal). In every single crime, someone must act to make the crime happen.

You're confusing the concepts of "accident" where variables outside of control/observation come together to create an unfortunate circumstance.

No one accidentally steals a running car. No one accidentally hacks a Nook thus subjecting a company to many new costs. Those situations require people with intent to create them. Those people with intent are at fault for any ill-effects of their actions. Not the victims.

It is not your fault if you get shot in the leg and robbed while walking down a street. You shouldn't be *surprised* if it happens while you're wearing expensive clothing while walking in a war zone, but the fault lay with the person choosing to harm you.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Chaos Incarnate]

But what intent are you looking for? Intent to hack the device they own shouldn't be enough to fault them, only an explicit intent to cost B&N more money. (So no, intending to use the cellular connection that coincidentally costs B&N money doesn't count.)

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Toonol]

I don't know where you live, but in my state it is illegal to leave an unattended car running. And it is illegal specifically because it presents an easy target for thieves.

I've honestly never heard of such a thing, and find that bizarre.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[eepok]

Most definitely, they should see it coming. I'm not saying they shouldn't be surprised. Everything gets cracked. However, "fault" is a very particular word. Fault attributes "cause of harm". In such a case, the potential cause of harm is not the maker of the nook, but the people that find and implement exploits of their products.

This is why it's irrational for a child to be at blame for abuse. For example: A child in poor circumstance may reliably be beaten when he doesn't do his chores. If one day, he decides to refrain from doing his chores and gets beaten, where does the blame, or fault, lay? With the child-- the victim of the crime? Or with the person who beats the child?

The fault is the the person who beats the child. The child, understanding his circumstance, should not be surprised when he gets beaten, but it's the external actor, the "beater" who is at fault for causing harm to the child.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Ihmhi]

(Such is why we don't prosecute victims of crime.)

Wouldn't negligence occasionally involve prosecuting victims?

Re:DMCA notice coming

[cheshiremoe]

We agree. They are not the cause of the problem, but they should have taken reasonable precautions. Unlike the a random act they had opportunity to take reasonable precautions to protect there interests.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Miaowara_Tomokato]

A fine seems fairly reasonable to me. If that car IS stolen, someone has to pay for the police work to track it down (or more realistically, the tow to impound and processing when your car's stripped husk is found two weeks later in a Burger King parking lot). I've got no problem with my taxes being offset by fines issued to the people who are contributing to rising costs of enforcement.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[quickgold192]

No, the blame still belongs 100% to the thief. All because you make something trivially easy to steal doesn't make you at all guilty if it is stolen. You might say "well what did you expect to happen?" or "*of course* your car's going to get stolen if you leave it running and unattended." That would only work, if the thief had no choice (or less of a choice) but to steal your car because you left it running. As it is, the thief is a moral actor capable of making moral decisions. Right-doers would pass up the running vehicle. Car thieves would simply choose to steal your car before trying to break into the properly secured ones.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[JonStewartMill]

New York law.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[natehoy]

Umm, no. Certainly morally it is, but not legally.

If you leave your car running, the blame for the theft can be placed on you, and in some states you can actually be held partly liable if the thief does something wrong with the vehicle. Especially if the person who stole your car is underage.

Some decades ago, at my father's business, my mother stopped by to drop something off. Since she was parked next to the rear entrance to the store (which was in a mall), she hopped out of her car with the keys in it and the car running. It was winter, and the car had a habit of not starting well if it was already warmed up. Apparently a couple of kids were hanging out in the area, because the car was stolen in the 30 seconds it took her to drop off the paperwork and come back outside.

The police eventually caught the kids who did it once they wrecked the car. The kids were 17 and 16, and one of them was a repeat offender (petty theft, etc) whose name appeared in the police blotter regularly. But since the keys were in the car, the car was considered an "attractive nuisance" and the kids could not be held liable to stealing it. Quite the contrary, the presence of the keys was legally considered to be a compulsion for someone to steal it, and my mother was therefore liable for the theft AND everything they did in the car, including any injuries to themselves or others.

Fortunately for us, when the kids totalled her car neither of them was seriously hurt, and the property damage they did was minimal. We had to buy a new car, and pay for the property damage the wreck caused, and pay the medical bills for the kids to get checked out at the hospital. It set us back about $15,000 or so, since insurance wouldn't pay a penny of it of course, but it was an interesting and eye-opening lesson in liability.

Fortunately, the police officer decided not to press charges for reckless endangerment of a child, or my mother could have ended up in real trouble for having her car stolen.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Schadrach]

Tell that to the insurance. =)

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

No, the blame still belongs 100% to the thief. All because you make something trivially easy to steal doesn't make you at all guilty if it is stolen.

No, the blame still belongs 100% to the company giving away the bandwidth. The user is asking for something, it is up to the person they are asking it of to decide if it should be given away. It is entirely within the ability of the cell carrier to limit access on their end, if they choose not to do so and instead blindly hand out packets to any and all requests, then that is their fault.

Or do you not believe in taking responsibility for one's own direct actions? That it is the citizen's duty not to ask for anything that you personally believe they are not entitled to, rather than the owner of that thing making the effort to do due diligence on how it responds to such requests?

Re:DMCA notice coming

[quickOnTheUptake]

I'm not saying the thief doesn't bear fault. But giving someone an unnecessary opportunity does give a person some of the blame.
For example, if I setup a mail server, and don't take even the simplest precautions to secure it (so it is a wide open smtp relay), who is my boss going to blame when his mail keeps bouncing because we have been blacklisted as a spam bot? The guy(s) who actually exploited us? Or me for leaving the front door open to them in a way that would certainly lead to us sending spam?

Re:DMCA notice coming

[JonStewartMill]

Semi-OT anecdote. A while back, a woman had her car stolen and the thieves ditched it in one of the Great Lakes. The authorities located the submerged vehicle and notified the owner that it was now a hazard to navigation and she was responsible for the cost of removing it, which would cost thousands of dollars. Alternatively, she could pay to have a warning buoy placed above it, but she would also have to pay the annual upkeep on the buoy, presumably forever.

Since I read this news item sometime in the 1970s/1980s, I don't know what the final outcome was.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[DarkAce911]

so, you are saying buy one now? I have been kind of interested in the Nook, I may be really interested in it.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that you would get the blame, but that's only because you're within arms reach. The spammer is the one that is abusing the system to send unsolicited email into other people's mailboxes, through other people's mail servers. It's just a lot harder to punish a random foreign national or MS spam bot, than it is to fire you and move on.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[quickOnTheUptake]

Sorry for the double post, but I think we also need to draw attention to the notion of negligence. In an act of negligence a person has no malicious intent, he just fails to do something he ought to have done, but he still bears fault for the bad outcome. If a company doesn't want the device being used for some purpose, and it is completely predictable that people will try certain trivial things to use it for that purpose, then the company would be negligent not to take basic steps to stop them.
If I don't want people using my wifi, I need to encrypt it. If I don't encrypt it, then yes I do bear some significant responsibility for my connection being slow.
If I live in the city and don't lock my door when I go on vacation I have to blame myself when I come back to a burglarized home. Of course this doesn't mean the thief was right to steal from me. But it does mean we can't just ignore reality and our own part in bringing misfortune on ourselves.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[quickOnTheUptake]

But isn't there more to it than that? Isn't it rational for the boss to be mad at me? I mean, I did fail to do something that any competent IT person would have known to do. (See my post below.)

Re:DMCA notice coming

[dnahelicase]

This might be even more simple. The device itself has a free cellular connection. If you hack the device to gain access to the connection then you aren't stealing unless you agreed not to do that.

If you aquire a nook and do not sign or agree to any EULA that prohibits you from opening the device and using the internet connection then there is no stealing happening. If you do that and the carriers aren't happy then it is their fault. If they don't like it, but you agreed to a EULA or something else that prohibited it, then it's not their fault.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't get the idea. Anyone is "witless" to someone else with a bigger stick.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[dnahelicase]

The blame belongs with the people that didn't have the foresight to limit traffic and allowed an open connection with the assumption that people would only use that connection in they desired. If you grant full access, then it isn't stealing. The "thief" is using a connection that they have been allowed to use by nature of the device and their ability to use it as they see fit. The blame belongs 100% with the thief when a crime is committed. Using the full capabilities of a device you have paid for is not a crime, and could only be considered wrong if you signed some agreement saying you wouldn't do so in the first place.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[sunderland56]

What does the FCC care? It's still compliant, even if it's hacked.

Not necessarily true. For instance, most open firmware for routers (Tomato, for instance) allows you to boost the transmitter power beyond FCC certified levels. You can also enable the use of frequencies not allowed in the USA. So hacking firmware can certainly break compliance.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[jaymzter]

Blame isn't a true/false value that can only be assigned to a single entity.

If the money wasn't in the bank, the thief wouldn't have the opportunity to steal it

If she hadn't worn that short skirt, she would've made it home ok

I he hadn't have been a Tutsi, Jew, Muslim, Christian, it probably wouldn't have happened.

Nice relativism. I agree with your take on the car analogy, but I think your belief about blame breaks down the closer it gets to reality.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a lot harder to punish a random foreign national or MS spam bot

And since the sysadmin sets up a system that he knows ahead of time will be abused and the abusers will not be caught, he is committing an error.

In fact, the spamming doesn't even need to occur, for this misjudgment to be apparent. He has already incurred blame regardless of whether or not the company gets blacklisted, because he's set them up for blacklisting.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[eepok]

You've now brought another harm-causer into the mix. The criminal and the person who was hired to protect the company from the criminal. Again, the criminal would hold *fault* for the damage he causes because he would be the one choosing to cause damages. You, the person hired to protect the company, would be guilty of negligence of your duties in your position. The difference is that you would still be guilty of negligence with or without the criminal spammer. The two actions (or inactions) interact but are still separate. The spammer would not receive reduced fault because it was easier-than-expected to commit a crime.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[VShael]

Such is why we don't prosecute victims of crime

Except you do, in certain circumstances. Usually involving child pornography laws in some fashion. And possibly other cases involving bizarre twisted applications of anti-terror laws.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[omnichad]

Firmware on cellular devices does not allow hardware-level access to the transmitter. That chip has its own firmware, and they only communicate over a serial bus, usually.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect...legally and morally. You are mixing criminal responsibility into civil damages. I can be blamed for incompetence in setting up a mail server and my boss can try to get compensated from me in civil court but not criminally for the actual blacklisting. That blacklisting was exclusively caused by the hacker. Let us make it personal. How many times have you accidentally left your door unlocked? Is that careless of you...sure. Can the thief argue in court that it is kinda your fault for leaving the door open. Dont think so. Ignorance and incompetence are civil issues, not criminal.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[spire3661]

Contributory negligence is a valid argument and certainly can weigh in on decisions. Like someone said above, its not black and white.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[shentino]

Someone that stupid should be nailed as an accessory to their own robbery and the car should be sold off to cover investigative expenses.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[NiteShaed]

While nothing is impossible, I'd be really surprised if they actually managed to successfully prosecute your mom for an attractive nuisance this way. Normally that would apply to something like a swimming pool without a fence, or an abandoned truck in the middle of a field. Teenagers stealing a running car would normally be a really hard sell, since 17 is an age where you should clearly know that taking a car without permission is illegal.
I'm not doubting your story, but I suspect that the cop in that case may have brought that out as a way of not having to deal with the car-theft for some reason, and scaring your parents out of pressing charges against the kids themselves.
Of course I could be wrong, but something here doesn't seem quite right....

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Thinboy00]

You sell me a box of electronics and wires. I use that box in a way you didn't intend. Somehow I'm in the wrong here?

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Jafafa Hots]

No. You do NOT get part of the blame. That's like saying "She shouldn't have been wearing that mini-skirt, it's no wonder she got raped."

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. I should be ABLE to leave my house unlocked, its MY fucking house, not yours, and you know that, and if you steal my shit it's all YOUR fault.

I should be ABLE to leave my car with the keys in it, its MY car, not yours, if you take it you're 100% responsible.

Yes, it may be predictable that if I leave my car with the keys in it some immoral asshole is likely to steal it... but the mere fact that it's predictable that you might be an asshole doesn't make me share the blame for you being an asshole.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[CAIMLAS]

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. I should be ABLE to leave my house unlocked, its MY fucking house, not yours, and you know that, and if you steal my shit it's all YOUR fault.

Yet, at the same time, I'm going to have less sympathy for the idiot who leaves his house open all the time in a bad neighborhood than someone who locks their doors. Same for a slut being taken advantage of, vs. a chaste woman. If you willingly put yourself in a compromising situation, you should not only expect to get burned, but also have the realization that the amount of sympathy provided to you will be substantially less than if you were cautious.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[CAIMLAS]

Um so is this in the US? And if so, which state? That is an absurd law, absolutely absurd. While I can't state with certainty that it's not applicable nationwide, it would surprise me if that were the case.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like you did the same thing with a rental car. You've violated the terms of the deal.

Oh, ok, if you want a more precise analogy, it is your car to modify or leave unattended and running if you like (because you bought it), but your mom filled up the tank for you with the understanding that you were going to use it to go get groceries, not that you were going to go on a cross-country joyride to Vegas.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[StikyPad]

That's simply wrong, both reasonably AND legally. What you're describing is a victim mentality, which is neither productive, healthy, nor sensible. The fact that we are restrained in placing responsibility on the victim of a crime does not mean that they were not at all responsible, just that in most cases it's neither necessary nor productive to do so. But it's not always the case that zero blame is assigned, and it's certainly not applicable in the private sector. If you leave the keys in the door when you lock up your employer's place of business and someone notices and takes all the valuables, it's a safe and reasonable assumption that you *will* get fired for it. If you leave your car running, your insurance almost definitely will *not* compensate you for theft.

But even in the legal realm there are consequences:

If a store makes alcohol or tobacco accessible to a minor, whether or not they knew the person was a minor, then they are guilty of an offense. The minor may have defrauded the store, but the store is still to blame for falling for the (relatively obvious in most cases) fraud. Clearly this is an extreme example -- stores have a vested interest in selling merchandise, and absolutely none in enforcing age limits, so controls had to be put in place -- but it acknowledges the fact that blame is not absolute, and it's not the only example.

In some states and localities, it is actually *illegal* to leave your car running unattended, because recovering stolen cars takes a toll on the resources of law enforcement, and taking the slightest bit of personal responsibility can prevent these crimes of opportunity, by simply removing the opportunity.

So to your original question: Is the scantily clad woman asking to be raped? Of course not. But dressing in such a manner does invite sexual attention, and as in the above examples, we know that 100% of people will not be able to resist temptation. Dressing like a slut isn't asking to be raped, but it's partially encouraging it, and certainly doing little to prevent it unless the only thing you're wearing is a chastity belt.

The difference between legal blame and actual cause-effect chains of responsibility are not always the same. You can argue about what the difference *should* be, but the fact remains that criminals cannot exist without victims. Even removing an opportunity doesn't erase your portion of the cause; it just reduces it.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[StikyPad]

It doesn't break down at all in reality, only in law. That's not because the balance of blame shifts; but because our laws tend to reflect our ideals, and it is our ideals which are most often disconnected from reality, for better or for worse. It would be great if the world were perfect, but knowing that it's not, I can take steps to prevent becoming a victim for who I am or what I do. Those steps may not agree with my ideals, but they agree perfectly with reality.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[R2.0]

You are confusing blame, responsibility, and rights.

You have the right to be secure in your domicile and a woman in her body. Therefore, when someone violates those rights, they are to blame for that violation.

You also have the responsibility to protect your domicile, and a woman to protect her body, in the face of the sure knowledge that others will try to violate them. And when people do not act responsibly, they are at blame for the consequences.

The former is a legal position; modern law is generally rights based, and therefor sanction is levelled by the authorities for the violation of another's rights. The latter is a moral/ethical position, and governs how we function and live in society. While there may be no legal repercussions for irresponsiblity, social repercussions can and SHOULD exist.

Being a victim and being a fool are not mutually exclusive. The woman in The Accuseddid not "deserve" to be raped, but I dare anyone to assert that she was acting responsibly by getting drunk and flirty in a miniskirt in a seedy bar. I can feel sorry for her ordeal, but I cannot feel admiration for her actions.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Jafafa Hots]

The fact that you and the and the other responder referred to a woman exercising her right to dress as she chooses as a slut, that it's HER fault if a man uses that as an excuse to victimize her, when men are free to wear whatever they want without that worry... shows where you're coming from.

Yes, it's true that legally the victim is sometimes is held responsible, but that's not because it makes sense that's because we've still got a flawed system and a long way to go as a society.

Yes, we have a system where racism is still excused, where people can racially profile, and where the justice system locks up far more minorities for longer sentences than their white counterparts. That is NOT because of a lack of some pie in the sky liberal unrealistic dreams of equality, that's because of racism still inherent in our society and system.

Yes, we do have a legal system where defense attorneys can paint rape victims as "sluts" who were responsible for what they got, where sexist commenters can make those same assertions, where the victim can be called responsible because, gosh, you have to expect some men to not be able to control themselves if they see female flesh.

This is NOT a case of the law recognizing an unfortunate reality - this is a case of male-dominated sexist culture perpetuating its sexism throughout a flawed legal system, sexists defending sexists on message boards, and thereby creating an atmosphere where violent sexists get an excuse and where their victims get blamed.

This is NOT a case of the law being reasonable, this is an example of an immoral, sexist law written by sexist people, defended by sexist people, excusing sexist behavior.
It's something broken that must be fixed - NOT something to point to to assert the superiority of your moral argument.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Larryish]

I agree.

The only legal fault that the car owner would have is in dealing with his or her insurance company.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[DJRumpy]

From Wikipedia:

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up") is a legal concept in the common law legal systems mostly applied in tort cases to achieve money compensation (damages) for physical and mental injuries (not accidents).

Negligence is a type of tort or delict (also known as a civil wrong). "Negligence" is not the same as "carelessness" , because someone might be exercising as much care as they are capable of, yet still fall below the level of competence expected of them. It is the opposite of "diligence".

In this case, the reader was not set up to be easily accessible. You can't just plug it in to a USB port and install Android on it. It takes special skills to figure out how to hack it and root it. Claiming that they left it open to hacking is rather disingenuous IMO. No piece of hardware is immune to hacking, especially when you have physical access to the hardware. I would say the manufacturer took reasonable precautions and if someone bypassed those, then the hackers are responsible. I would equate what they did to picking a lock to get in someone's house. You don't lock every door in your house, you lock the front door.

From TFA:
"If you tear open a Nook (which the team has done) you’ll find that the Android operating system is contained on a microSD card (separate from the microSD expansion slot). From here, it’s a simple matter of using a card reader to mount this card on your computer and changing a single word in the init.rc file (the file that’s in charge of which services are begun at startup, similar to a Linux boot).

This single hack will let you plug the Nook into your computer (once you have reassembled it) and access the OS, using the freely available Google Android developers kit. Right now you’ll have to be a hardcore nerd to make much use of this, but as we saw with the iPhone, these things progress to user-friendly applications fairly fast, especially when the hard work has already been done."

I would equate what they had to go through to root this thing a reasonable effort to resist casual hacking.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

No one accidentally steals a running car. No one accidentally hacks a Nook thus subjecting a company to many new costs.

Not comparable. When I used a hacked Nook to access the net, I am asking AT&T's servers "May I access this webpage, please?", and they are saying "Sure!". If AT&T do not wish this to occur, they can make their wishes known by changing the settings on their servers.

The only lock being broken is on the Nook, when it's hacked - and that's being done by the person who owns it.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Lord_Breetai]

Except you do, in certain circumstances. Usually involving child pornography laws in some fashion. And possibly other cases involving bizarre twisted applications of anti-terror laws.

For example refer to this.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[txibi]

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. I should be ABLE to leave my house unlocked, its MY fucking house, not yours, and you know that, and if you steal my shit it's all YOUR fault.

I like your point of leaving your house unlocked... but it look likes more as if you left your house fully open... there's no need to solder or unsolder anything to hack the nook... just modify some files from an SD card. But once I buy a nook it's MY fucking nook

Re:DMCA notice coming

[mpol]

Here in Holland it's forbidden to leave your car running, while going away yourself. If a cop sees it you will get a fine. The reason is, you're stimulating someone to commit a crime.
I do agree though, the one who would steal your car then is to blame for the action and the crime, but I also think it would be fair to still get a fine for leaving your car running.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Anonymous Coward]

You live in a country with ridiculous laws.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[aglmagleri]

yaaaaaaa your artical is so nice about your topic.Thanks to write your artical.So i am agree with your artical. http://blog.itechtalk.com/2009/nitro-muscle-mass-review

How soon

[jimbobborg]

until this whole operation gets blocked? I might have to snag one now before BN gets wise to this.

Re:How soon

[Kristoph]

BN won't do anything, AT&T will. They'll simply limit Nook's to specific peer's so they can continue to be used for book purchases but not for general web access.

Re:How soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Why' d'o people's 'feel t'he ne'ed 'to' 'p'u't an' apo'strophe i'n 'every plur'al word's?

Re:How soon

[morari]

Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Re:How soon

[cthulu_mt]

People are trying to sleep, jerk!

Free internet?

[WiiVault]

Its great to see the Nook being opened up to allow unsupported apps, but I wonder about the impact of free 3G will be if this hack is widely used. Will this lead to the Nook2 featuring even more DRM, or perhaps no 3G at all? I sure hope not, but considering that BN will likely take a lot of heat from the service provider I wouldn't be surprised to see abuse of the network leading to a more locked down future device.

Re:Free internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

They will just block the device off the network at some server somewhere. They will not get any further than the tower.

In other words 'how I turned my 300 dollar device into a useless trinket'.

Re:Free internet?

[kamikazearun]

They keep locking it down. We keep opening it up. We wouldn't have this problem if all devices were "open" in the first place.

Re:Free internet?

[wiredog]

Free? Why do you think it (and the Kindle) cost $250? You pay for the internet access when you buy the thing.

Re:Free internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet this may just be the ``feature'' that sells millions of these devices [if they make pretend to stop this hack, but don't actually do much about it---I might just consider buying it].

Re:Free internet?

[Kristoph]

The internet is paid for by the book purchases, with the carrier receiving a percentage of that. Any margin on the device goes to BN/Amazon.

Re:Free internet?

[OrangeTide]

It's a little of both really. In some instances the sale of ebooks don't actually make enough money to pay for the cost to transfer them over. Like during roaming. And you can still use the cellular even if you never buy a book on it, there is a small but significant minority of customers who buy one or two books and then only use the free browser and download free books. There are a lot of accounting tricks to say that free books come out of a marketing budget. And users that don't buy books come out of some other budget. But if you look at the big picture, and you have to if you're operating a big corporation, there are aspects of the Kindle that don't make money. And ultimately that has to be paid for by a combination of margins on the device and profits on the ebook sales.

Re:Free internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder about the impact of free 3G will be

Well, an unlimited data plan for 7.2Mbit/s 3G is only $10/month here in Sweden, and Sweden is a sparsely populated country so the ratio of infrastructure vs population is relatively high and expensive.

You guys in the US are just being ripped off by the carriers. They make a fortune on your data traffic.

And so it begins

[yamamushi]

What crazy antics are AT&T going to throw out to try and stop this one?

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine that the 3G equivalents of an ethernet MAC address (what are these IMEA numbers or something?) will be blocked at the network side so that they can only go to the B&N servers that they are "supposed to go to". It can't be all that hard to do.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

They're probably going to lock in iPhone users to a two-year contract with $100+ data plans, and then not deliver on the promised speeds. That's how they'll make up the difference.

Re:And so it begins

[maxume]

Or they'll just block them entirely, void the warranty (because it was messed with...) and have Barnes and Noble file 'Network Access Restoration' under 'Warranty Service'.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen the commercials, their coverage is so laughably small it won't even matter.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Some information about mobile networks: Mobile devices have several ID-codes. Some of them are "easily" changed by a software manipulation, for example the IMEI. However, those aren't the ones which matter. The contract is tied to a SIM (subscriber identity module), which is a system on a chip with built-in cryptographic functions and credentials. Think of it as a private key which can be used to authenticate the SIM but can only be read by destroying the SIM. The SIM is as close to unhackable as it gets. All AT&T needs to do is put all devices with Nook-SIMs on a VPN that only connects to B&N servers. This is the same principle that is used by pay as you go data cards which only allow access to a payment interface when the balance is zero. Free internet access through hacked Nooks will not last, guaranteed.

Re:And so it begins

[timbck2]

I don't know, but I'll bet there's a map for that.

Re:And so it begins

[timbck2]

Pardon me if this is a little off-topic, but does anyone know if the Nook drops back to Edge if 3G coverage is unavailable? If not, then the Nook drops off my wishlist, as AT&T has no 3G coverage where I live!

Re:And so it begins

[omnichad]

AT&T has no 3G coverage anywhere (almost).

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/04/1428254/ATampT-Sues-Verizon-Over-Map-For-That-Ads

Re:And so it begins

[timbck2]

I know that, thus my question...

Holy crap.

[Yamata no Orochi]

From TFA: If you tear open a Nook (which the team has done) you’ll find that the Android operating system is contained on a microSD card (separate from the microSD expansion slot). From here, it’s a simple matter of using a card reader to mount this card on your computer and changing a single word in the init.rc file (the file that is in charge of which services are begun at startup, similar to a Linux boot).

I'm incredibly surprised it isn't even using proprietary flash storage for this purpose, and am suddenly incredibly attracted to the prospect of this device due to its free cellular internet connection. Can I attach a foldable keyboard to this thing? This begs the question of why we don't already have netbooks this awesome, with free internet and days of battery life.

Re:Holy crap.

[OldeTimeGeek]

This begs the question of why we don't already have netbooks this awesome, with free internet and days of battery life.

Because, in the case of the Kindle and Nook, the cost of the wireless connection is subsidized by book sales. There will be no additional purchases to subsidize Netbook access so what purpose would it serve a manufacturer to have it bundled in?

Re:Holy crap.

[Yamata no Orochi]

I would suspect it would be subsidized by the monumental increase in sales.

Re:Holy crap.

[benjamindees]

This begs the question of why we don't already have netbooks this awesome, with free internet and days of battery life.

Future value of money, basically. Anything that can be subsidized and supported by a subscription model will be of superior quality whenever the interest rate on lending is >0%. Razors and blades. This is the essence of human capital. Why invest in production or technological improvement when you can invest in locking-in future consumers?

Re:Holy crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

This begs the question of why we don't already have netbooks this awesome, with free internet and days of battery life.

Because the internet access isn't free - B&N pays for the bandwidth (as does Amazon, for that matter) and builds the cost of downloading x Mb into the price of the digital book. They don't recoup the cost of using your Nook as a netbook with always-on internet, so either (a) they'll pass it on to people using the Nook as intended in the form of higher e-book prices, (b) they'll raise the price of the Nook or (c) they'll quickly rush to market either a firmware "upgrade" or Nook 2.0 which closes the hole. I'm betting they do all four.

Hell, since you can pull the filesystem out and read it, has anyone looked to see if they built in a killswitch or enforceable upgrade policy?

Re:Holy crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

"We lose money on each unit sold, but we make it up through volume!"

Re:Holy crap.

[Yamata no Orochi]

Losing money on units sold is a gambling business model to begin with, but I acknowledge that you can't use money you don't have to make more money. I'm probably playing Devil's Advocate too much in this discussion.

Re:Holy crap.

[OldeTimeGeek]

Not wholly. The ongoing cost of wireless access has to be covered somehow and without a stable ongoing income, the potential costs would have to be included in the original cost of the unit. Either that, or the costs are will have to be absorbed by a kind of pyramid scheme where the price of future units has to cover the cost of service for the existing ones. A scary prospect.

Re:Holy crap.

[Sockatume]

The "days of battery life" are for electronic paper use and the occasional book download. I imagine if you were surfing the web on it, you'd get a far shorter battery life, even if you hacked the ability to bump pages on to the epaper screen and switch off the touchscreen for reading.

Re:Holy crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would suspect it would be subsidized by the monumental increase in sales."

Free internet access for mobile devices WILL have a cost, and that cost will
far exceed the purchase price of any device.

Expectations of "free" service that someone else has to work ( and spend money )
  to provide are the fantasies of either a criminal or a child.

Re:Holy crap.

[Yamata no Orochi]

I'm not sure it's fair to assign derogatory terms like criminal or childish to the word 'fantasy.' After all, it's just that.

Re:Holy crap.

[couchslug]

"Why invest in production or technological improvement when you can invest in locking-in future consumers?"

The I-Opener business model only works for a while. First they got hacked, then they got superseded by cheap general purpose alternatives, then they gave up.

Re:Holy crap.

[bb5ch39t]

you can't use money you don't have to make more money.

Unless you're the Feds.

Re:Holy crap.

[morari]

Hell, since you can pull the filesystem out and read it, has anyone looked to see if they built in a killswitch or enforceable upgrade policy?

I just want to make sure my eBook reader can't delete all of my George Orwell downloads without even a second's notice. Of course, if I just put nothing but pirated PDFs on the device, I won't have that problem anyway. :P

Re:Holy crap.

[bb5ch39t]

I have a KindleDX. With the wireless off, the battery lasts about 10 days between rechargings. With it on (even if not really used), that drops to less than 5 days. Wireless burns energy.

Re:Holy crap.

[Carik]

I suspect that, in large part, it's an issue with the display. My understanding is that you can't change anything on an electronic ink display without redrawing the whole screen, which takes long enough to be visible. (My understanding may, of course, now be outdated... I haven't looked carefully at how these things work in a year or so...) Ever worked on an old enough computer that the entire screen flashes when you press a key on the keyboard? It loses its appeal pretty quickly.

And if you replace it with an LCD, well... there goes your days of battery life. Certainly it would open up the option of, say, viewing documentation online with it, which would be nice, but it probably wouldn't work very well as an all-purpose computer.

Re:Holy crap.

[IndigoDarkwolf]

It's almost as if they /wanted/ it to be jailbroken, sooner than later.

Re:Holy crap.

[Caffinated]

you can't use money you don't have to make more money.

Unless you're the Feds.</p></quote>

Actually, most business investment is done with borrowed money. That, and our financial industry is mostly based on gambling with borrowed/other people's money.

Re:Holy crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

I acknowledge that you can't use money you don't have to make more money

And I acknowledge your lack of understanding of how today's financial institutions are operated, never heard of Wall St? FOREX? Subprime Mortage Bonds? Treasury Bonds?

Not that I agree with any of those, Obviously we are painfully starting to learn that we can't keep making wealth from nothing... but it is how it's done.

Re:Holy crap.

[omnichad]

TiVo? Is that you?

Re:Holy crap.

[Yamata no Orochi]

Man, someone should've modded my original post as flamebait, this is ridiculous. Every time I say something to prevent some snide remark from an AC another one jumps in to snark about that one.

Brilliant move AT&T!

[D3]

Add another device to your overladen 3G network!

Re:Brilliant move AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that an African or a European 3G network?

Re:Brilliant move AT&T!

[vcgodinich]

If it was used as intended, the traffic would be close to 0, and the revenue stream from B&N would help pay for upgrades.

If people use it as a primary / typical internet connection, then yes, people using more bandwidth than AT&T ( planned / contracted / is getting payed for ) will hurt AT&T, and it's ability to deliver it's services.

nookDevs is down, naturally

[Rogerborg]

I may? Oh, joy!

Re:nookDevs is down, naturally

[wjsteele]

Must be hosted on AT&Ts network! Go figure!

Bill

And so it begins....

[Raxxon]

Welcome to the Arms Race, Android and Nook. Enjoy your stay.

Now I have to get one of these, mod it, install the teathering package that I have on my G1 and I'm set... Read books AND provide random WiFi Hotspot...

Who's going to make the Android App that will allow me to use this thing to track my D&D 3.5/4.x character? ;)

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to date a girl who called her pussy a "nook." I succesfully opened it many times :)

Re:lol

[The Wild Norseman]

I used to date a girl who called her pussy a "nook." I succesfully opened it many times :)

Yeah, but did she notice?

Re:lol

[the_fat_kid]

dude, nobody here wants to hear about your mom...

Re:lol

[Itninja]

This joke has been told to death. By the time any level of humor gets to the webcomic level, it's no longer funny: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/12/14/

Re:lol

[kbob88]

I used to date a girl who called her pussy a "nook." I succesfully opened it many times :)

Sure, that's the very definition of truthfulness: An AC on /. posting about dating and pussy. Right... how's the wireless connection down in the basement btw?

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

It must have been open source.

Re:lol

[Hurricane78]

Let me guess: In the end, you n00ked it. ;)

Re:lol

[dushkin]

I'm confused. You made her private parts run Android?

Jailbroken!

[Monkeedude1212]

Can I attach this term to the Nook now too?

Beware! Root access to the world.

[pikine]

If you do this, your Nook will be openly accessible to anyone who port-scanned your Nook and found that port 5555 is open.

Re:Beware! Root access to the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Along most of the American eastern and southern coasts, the word "nook" is slang for "vagina". That's why sex is sometimes referred to as "nookie".

So it's funny that these unlocked systems are leaving their ports wide open, ripe for molestation by intruders across the globe.

Re:Beware! Root access to the world.

[Pfhorrest]

Along most of the American eastern and southern coasts, the word "nook" is slang for "vagina". That's why sex is sometimes referred to as "nookie".

And in some Commonwealth countries, "root" as a verb means "have sex with" (c.f. "fuck").

So watch out ladies, if you open the ports on your nook you might get rooted.

Re:Beware! Root access to the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

I lived along America's eastern and southern coasts, and I've never heard of a vagina called a "nook." :P

"Kitty" or "hoohoo" or "poonanny" (seriously), but never a "nook." And everyone knows sex is called "relations."

Re:Beware! Root access to the world.

[pjp6259]

That's why sex is sometimes referred to as "nookie".

Not according to the internet:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nookie

nookie -
        "sexual activity," 1928, perhaps from Du. neuken "to fuck."

And suddenly, I want a nook.

[Chyeld]

And suddenly, I want a nook.

I was going to wait for the next gen, but the likelihood that B&N would keep it as accessible in the next hardware revision is about as much as Amazon buying these for all their employees.

Re:And suddenly, I want a nook.

[afabbro]

And suddenly, I want a nook.

...because you want to access B&N's book-buying servers to buy ebooks? If you all think this device will be a free portable Internet connection, think again. AT&T will shortly make all traffic from the Nook only routable to the B&N servers as originally intended. At that point, all you'll have is a Nook without a warranty.

Re:And suddenly, I want a nook.

[Chyeld]

A Nook without a warranty, with an Android OS, and where the system is stored on a commodity memory card vs a ROM or proprietary storage method. A device that hasn't been TIVO'ed into only accepting signed system files, and which uses an OS with an active development community. For $300.

How worthless, how worthless indeed.

Free wireless means squat to me, I'm not a traveling man, I'm either at work or at home 90% of my life.

Re:And suddenly, I want a nook.

[Big Boss]

That's me as well. I ordered one before this hack came out as I wanted an ebook reader. Now I can root it and install my own apps, very useful. I don't really care about the 3G, I'm on WiFi 90% of the time anyway. I'm curious to see what the various devs come up with for this. If the e-ink screen is accessible from standard Android apps, that would have some interesting applications. If nothing else, I could write a nicer book manager if I don't like the stock one. :)

Free Cell Connection? "Yes, but don't do that."

[weston]

We've been down this road before.

Don't do that. Pushing the connection to carry things it wasn't meant to is pretty much theft of service, and it will get pushback from rightfully upset providers, and maybe more from policymakers who see hackers who can't behave themselves.

Do what you'd like with the devices and/or media that you've purchased, but recognize that there's a line of fairness and don't cross it.

Re:Free Cell Connection? "Yes, but don't do that."

[Sockatume]

It takes a SIM card, so really there's no excuse for using B&N's internet. Get an appropriate SIM and use your own.

Re:Free Cell Connection? "Yes, but don't do that."

[Duradin]

Unfortunately it seems culture these days follows the "if it can be exploited for my own gain I must exploit it and should not be held responsible for exploiting it no matter what damages my actions cause" mentality.

I don't own either of those readers but if I did I'd really appreciate the planless cellular connection. I'd be very annoyed if some people lacking in self restraint caused the companies to disable the cellular connection or force a data plan on someone who wanted to continue using the cellular connection.

Re:Free Cell Connection? "Yes, but don't do that."

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that you may not be from the USA.

Most cellular devices sold in the USA are locked to a specific carrier's network, so unless you are advocating that the nook buyer obtain service only from AT&T, your suggestion will not work.

Re:Free Cell Connection? "Yes, but don't do that."

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't do that."

Ahh, the prosecutorial mindset. Sad to see it at this level of inaneness.

Maybe someone wants the Nook to fail. Failure comes in many forms, and incompetence is one of them. If B&N and their affiliates can't figure out the ebook market, that's their damn fault, not anyone else's.

I'm one of those people who want the Nook to flame. I hate B&N entering this market only because some other players are in it and they want to behave like them. B&N already tried the ebook market years prior, and withdrew from it, leaving all prior users mostly hanging when they pulled the plug. It's not like they embraced the users they screwed over before, they just went ahead blindly with a quickly released device. Their fault they got hosed due to THEIR lack of planning and consideration of understanding the technological market and culture.

"Pushing the connection to carry things it wasn't meant to is pretty much theft of service, and it will get pushback from rightfully upset providers, and maybe more from policymakers who see hackers who can't behave themselves."

The Man's really got you by the balls. Maybe you should consider that B&N rushed out a device deliberate, to reinforce the need for DRM and DMCA laws, in conjunction with AT&T, which in turn has a massive copyright and network (cellular, fiber optic) which more regulation would suit them.

That's the fault of providers and policymakers then, whether it be their lack of foresight or their deliberate machinations to get ahead at the expense of "hackers" or the common, inventive civilian. Putting any blame on hackers who release information and mess with a device without left themselves committing theft of service of any slaughtering level (I'm not talking about "Hmm, does Google load? ... Booya!") is ridiculous.

So don't you dare put this on the feet of people who messed with the device. Blame the device maker, equipment hardware manufacturers, and decision makers who put this on a microSD card.

I would go so far as saying that if this came to the notice of lawmakers and policymakers, and AT&T's and B&N's incompetence doesn't came up strongly, then we know really why the device was released the way it was--stupidity disguised as maliciousness ("we'll release a device, and if they don't hack it, fine, but if they do, we can use it to our advantage").

"Do what you'd like with the devices and/or media that you've purchased, but recognize that there's a line of fairness and don't cross it."

Fairness according to whom? Anyone who understand the world knows there really isn't a "fair" standard, only the perception of one. Even if there was a standard, the very nature of it means there is advantage to working around it and not getting caught.

And again, what exactly was unfair about this? What exactly is unfair about loading a web site or downloading? When did that in and of itself become criminal?

The service provider provides the network, controls the network, directs traffic on their network, verifies access to their network with SIM cards, buy the equipment for and charge for the network, and YOU STILL MANAGE TO BLAME THE HACKERS OR SOME ASS DOWNLOADER? Are you insane? If a private network cannot restrict or direct traffic and route it's own traffic which it owns, controls, and profits off of...they don't deserve to be in business if they continue to allow it.

If AT&T or whoever doesn't know the SIM access of all Nook devices, it's their fault if someone downloads off of it, because THEY released the hardware, verified it and the code/driver, and put it out there.

Re:Free Cell Connection? "Yes, but don't do that."

[wiredog]

At which point you're paying for it. Which is fine, but a bit more expensive (approx $600/year) than using B&N's.

Re:Free Cell Connection? "Yes, but don't do that."

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a SIM card

Not only can it take a replacement SIM card, but it comes with a SIM card too.

so really there's no excuse for using B&N's internet

Like my phone, which came with a T-Mobile SIM card, and my camera which came with a (tiny) CF card?

Not really

[electricbern]

If those 3G connections are not VPNed exclusively to B&Ns servers that is criminally stupid. If they are, then there is no big deal here, they just showed how you can get full access to a device you purchased. The way it should be.

Re:Not really

[Monkeedude1212]

If those 3G connections are not VPNed exclusively to B&Ns servers that is criminally stupid.

More criminally stupid than sticking an Open Source Operating System (or OSOS as I like to say) on a removable storage device, and unlocking the full potential only requires the altering of 1 word in 1 file?

Re:Not really

[Chyeld]

No that's ethically brilliant and something I plan on rewarding them for with my dollars.

Re:Not really

[Monkeedude1212]

For the 1 week of free Internet access? Whoever the provider is, (AT&T or whoever) WILL shut it down.

Either they'll find a way to block opened Nooks, or they'll force a patch onto Nook's and disallow access to unpatched Nook's, and the patch will essentially either lock you into the closed system or shut off your internet access.

Re:Not really

[symbolset]

Even without internet access the device has interesting applications.

Re:Not really

[Monkeedude1212]

About the same as any other jailbroken IPhone, smart-phone, dataphone, Web-phone or handheld device.

Re:Not really

[lahvak]

If they were smart, they would treat it as a regular cell phone, and charge you a hefty monthly data fee for general internet access, while still keeping access to the B and N site free. And B and N would open an application store.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

A better reason to buy it would be because of the excellent battery life and the fact you can use it with ANY SIM. Honestly, who actually cares about buy ebooks? I can get those from the pirate bay. What I can't get is an internet tablet with decent battery life.

Re:Not really

[babblefrog]

...with an e-ink screen.

MicroSD card?

[adamdoyle]

They used an open source operating system and stuck in on a removable (albeit internal) MicroSD card?? It's almost as though they wanted it to be hacked. And then they just implemented it with a SIM card (which makes me think the AT&T network abstracts it as a standard cell phone). I wonder what happens if you stick that SIM card in a cellphone (probably doesn't work or else it would've been in the article). Still... I think we all know this won't last for long

Re:MicroSD card?

[TooMuchToDo]

The Nook was unusually fast to market *because* they took advantage of Android instead of having to write their own OS/platform. It was probably cheaper/faster/more convenient for the ODM (hardware builder) to just stick the OS on the SD card instead of ROM/PROM. Remember, the Nook also supports auto-updates, and SD media is rewritable and fairly inexpensive.

Re:MicroSD card?

[Anonymous Coward]

it most likely has a SIM pin on it to prevent it from working in any old cell phone.

Re:MicroSD card?

[Timmmm]

And it makes it trivial to upgrade the storage later...

Re:MicroSD card?

[jimicus]

And then they just implemented it with a SIM card (which makes me think the AT&T network abstracts it as a standard cell phone). I wonder what happens if you stick that SIM card in a cellphone (probably doesn't work or else it would've been in the article).

Any half-sane HLR will allow the provider to provision only specific services to the SIM card. I'd imagine the only thing provisioned to these cards is internet access.

Oblig. Penny-Arcade

[Kadagan AU]

Someone say Nook Opened

Limitations of e-paper

[tepples]

This begs

raises

the question of why we don't already have netbooks this awesome, with free internet

Subsidized by book sales, as OldeTimeGeek pointed out.

and days of battery life.

Netbooks can view YouTube. Readers with electronic paper displays can't.

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[Zerth]

Netbooks can view YouTube. Readers with electronic paper displays can't.

Well, good thing this also has an LCD.

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[ircmaxell]

Netbooks can view YouTube. Readers with electronic paper displays can't.

Well, that's where this device is superior to the Kindle. It has a color LCD display (albeit a small one) in addition to the E-ink. If this "hack" stays open for long enough, I'd bet we'd start seeing some interesting applications that take full advantage of the dual screens (Possibly even a Youtube player). The point being that this device has the hardware to truly be a fun gadget so long as it stays rootable... I'm strongly considering the possibility of buying one now that I know they are so easy to root...

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[Yamata no Orochi]

While nice to see posts that smarmily correct me being eligible for both -1 Redundant and the mythical -1 Uninformed, I appreciate you bringing to my attention my misuse of "begs the question." I never knew.

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[maxume]

It's like 1" by 4".

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not until someone writes ASCIITube!

(Or this becomes commonplace.)

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[tixxit]

This device doesn't have some super superior battery tech. It gets its longevity from the fact that 99% of the time the user is looking at the e-ink display, so the LCD can be turned off. If the LCD is always on, you can bet the battery life will sharply decline.

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[Chyeld]

It's Youtube. :-P

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[Locke2005]

YouTube in monochrome... now that would bring back old memories! (Yes, we actually did have a 20" B&W television when I was a kid... I'm OLD! Sigh...)

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[timbck2]

LOL!

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[Anonymous Coward]

"Begs the question" in the sense of "raises the question" is perfectly acceptable English.

Just because a few philosophy majors have their noses bent out of shape over a phrase that sounds similar to the English translation of a latin phrase doesn't change that.

I've never even seen any real evidence that the two phrases are linked in any way - they are just as likely to have independently evolved. And, even if one came from the other, meanings change and English evolves (eg. the words 'hack', 'artificial', 'computer', 'gay' etc.)

So, please, get the fuck over yourself.

Re:Limitations of e-paper

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a misuse. Ignore the prescriptive pedant. He is wrong.

For example, in previous posts he has used the words "porting", "computer", "mobile", "controller" etc.

All of these words had original meanings that were different from the way he uses them. However, he has no problem with these. He is either a hypocrite, or an idiot. I'll let you guess which.

Raccoon

[tepples]

I used to date a girl who called her pussy a "nook."

As opposed to calling a raccoon Nook?

Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Sycraft-fu]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. See the problem is cellular Internet costs money. Even if you don't think corporations should be allowed to make a profit, it is still going to cost money. You have to have a large network of radio towers to broadcast the signal, those have to be wired back in to a robust network to route the data, which has to be connected to the Internet at large. Of course all that doesn't maintain itself once built, things break, people need to fix it and look after it.

That all costs money, as such, access is going to have to cost money.

So, why is access "free" on things like the Kindle and Nook? Well it isn't. What happens is that Amazon or Barnes and Noble pick up the cost. There are two reasons they can do this:

1) Usage is low. Since access is used only for searching for, or downloading, new books as well as a smattering of other things like news, it isn't all that much. That means they aren't having to pay out a whole lot per device.

2) A large part of the usage has a profit associated with it, namely buying books. Thus each time you use the wireless to get a book, they make some money.

This leads to a situation where it is feasible to offer it to customers at no charge.

However, if you start using it as general purpose Internet, to browse whatever you want, to download files, to play games, that breaks down. Suddenly cost goes up a whole lot, and less (or perhaps none) of the activity generates any money. As such it can't be sustained. They have to restrict it, shut it down, or charge.

Things in life aren't free. If you think everyone should just give everything away, well that shows a real lack of understanding of how the world works (and a good indication you've never had to provide for yourself).

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Jeff Carr]

Yes, so you allow free internet usage... up to a point, or for certain things. Then you charge.

Doesn't that sound like any reasonable plan?

Instead, they create a device that could do what you want, but is limited by DRM and artificial restrictions. That is just asking for the device to be opened up, and now they've created the problem they could have solved by simply pricing bandwidth appropriately and increasing their revenue stream.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[kamikazearun]

So leave the device open to modification. Use the mac address or imei or whatever else to restrict access to only book purchase sites. How hard could that be? (No sarcasm/offense intended. My knowledge of ebook readers and 3g is rather limited)

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[tlhIngan]

However, if you start using it as general purpose Internet, to browse whatever you want, to download files, to play games, that breaks down. Suddenly cost goes up a whole lot, and less (or perhaps none) of the activity generates any money. As such it can't be sustained. They have to restrict it, shut it down, or charge.

Actually, they do this the same way you can prevent useful tethering on "smartphone only" plans. You pick a gateway and lock it down - the gateway only allows you to connect to certain sites, or even only allowing access to a proxy server that blocks everything but the content they allow. So even if it's hacked to be open, the "free" access just gets you the same connectivity as the device does, and if that's abused, it's easily shut down by banning the SIM.

Now, maybe B&N didn't do this immediately, but if it gets abusive, it'll probably be locked down like that.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[TooMuchToDo]

This post has made it into my epic posts lists. If you're ever in Chicago, you're welcome to a beer or $drink_of_your_choice.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[moondawg14]

Yeah. um.... not sure, but I think the "She was asking for it.... look how she was dressed!" argument doesn't really get you very far.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Moridineas]

Hmm, that's a lot of ad hominems and anger in response to a post that was completely correct!

As the GP said, the reason Kindle/Nook are allowed free access to the cell networks is because Amazon and B&N reached an agreement with the cell networks to provide a certain level of service at a certain cost point. I don't think either Amazon or B&N whoever are currently interested in making the Kindle or Nook general purpose computers with tiered pricing schemes, etc, and I'm absolutely certain that the terms of the deals they reached with e.g. Verizon would be VERY different if this was the model they were pushing. In other words, it would completely change the cost structure of the Kindle and Nook for the consumer.

The products are locked down so that this doesn't happen. Do I like it? No. I also don't plan on getting a Kindle or Nook. It's silly to believe that fundamentally changing the nature of the Kindle or Nook wouldn't fundamentally change the price structures involved (and probably making it less attractive to many consumers)

If the devices were open to begin with, they'd be a lot more expensive.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Jeff Carr]

That's not the argument at all. The argument is that you should know what your customers want, and if you can give it to them, you should, and should price your products accordingly.

If you don't, they will go with another product or create a solution for themselves out of the materials that they have.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Homer1946]

I think the point is, there ARE other products that provide general computer functionality with a cellular connection.

The Nook is an eBook reader and that is all is aspires to be. That is it's business model. There is room in this world for specialized devices (they don't ALL have to all be general purpose) and I certainly think companies should have the option of creating special business arrangements (such as a constant cellular connection supported by book purchases) to support those devices.

Of course AT&T will lock this down. That is the right think to do so that those people who DO want a device such as this is, will be able to get it.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[mrchaotica]

In criminal law (such as the rape you alluded to), sure. But we're talking about contract law here. "She was asking for it" is not only an acceptable argument, it's pretty much the canonical argument that all others simplify to!

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Rob the Bold]

However, if you start using it as general purpose Internet, to browse whatever you want, to download files, to play games, that breaks down. Suddenly cost goes up a whole lot, and less (or perhaps none) of the activity generates any money. As such it can't be sustained. They have to restrict it, shut it down, or charge.

Things in life aren't free. If you think everyone should just give everything away, well that shows a real lack of understanding of how the world works (and a good indication you've never had to provide for yourself).

If this is a free market, then as a consumer it is none of my concern how the supplier intends to make money. Nor is it my responsibility to use a product in such a way as to maintain the supplier's sustainability. This does not make me a crook. I'm merely trying to maximize the deal for myself. If this seems somehow unethical, consider that the same applies to the supplier. They need not concern themselves with such things as whether or not their products benefit society as a whole or whether a customer can really afford to buy such an offering.

So anyway, consumer wanting as much as possible for as little as he can is 1/2 of what makes a free market free. That doesn't make customer or supplier immature. To say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the free market and an indication of a lack of sophistication as a consumer -- sorry, couldn't resist the symmetrical dig ;)

Perhaps if all consumers and all suppliers were to take the long view, the socially responsible view, that might be good. But without laws to enforce this on all parties (and restrict the free market), I just can't afford to put myself at a competitive disadvantage vs. suppliers or other consumers. Can't feed my family or pay the bills with smug self-satisfaction or inner holiness.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

bbbbut star trek said everything should be free!

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[bennomatic]

Will it be a free drink? Or does the preceding '$' indicate they will have to pay for it? Using variable notation gives you plausible deniability...

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[AndersOSU]

You could - but product differentiation is a pretty important marketing concept. Neither Amazon nor B&N particularly wants to conflate their devices with netbooks.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Jeff Carr]

You (and AndersOSU) definitely have a point. Specialized devices definitely should have a market.

The current problem is that I (and obviously a few others) really would like a netbook with an e-ink screen. There currently isn't a device for sale (that I am aware of) that provides this. But there are devices for sale that could provide this.

The problem we have isn't with them providing a niche product, it's that there isn't an equivalent general purpose product available. The only current way to solve that problem is to open up a niche product.

Amazon and B&N are in a market where there is a demand that is not being fulfilled, and I think they'll both regret not fulfilling that demand when open devices start being built and they (possibly) become more popular than either of their niche products.

Until then, they have the problems of being in a market where people have to create their own solutions.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Kz]

really? can you give an example?

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Locke2005]

If the EULA states that the wireless connection can only be used to download books from B&N, then using it for other purposes doesn't make you a crook... but it does make you a contract violator. I would assume it's pretty easy to detect this and shut off access to any Nook that is attempting to use the data connection for other purposes.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[demonlapin]

You sound like someone who has never used an e-Ink screen. They are not suitable for general purpose computing devices. They're barely adequate for web browsing. They are good for reading, and little else.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[UltraAyla]

Yes, so you allow free internet usage... up to a point, or for certain things. Then you charge. Doesn't that sound like any reasonable plan? Instead...

Solution: Don't buy one. It's not like these are life and death matters here where you can somehow morally justify stealing something.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[aicrules]

Buying a nook is not buying a 3G wireless data connection to the internet. It's buying a 3G wireless data connection to buy B&N ebooks. Hack the hardware all you want, but if you use that hardware to get a service you haven't paid for, that's just like stealing TV. Yes, you can choose to steal, but you have to be ready to live with the consequences if you get caught. If you're having to steal 3G internet access to be able to feed your family, you're a fucking idiot for wasting your time trying to steal 3G internet access rather than getting a job.

Giving things away is not socially responsible, and definitely not fiscally. If no one ever pays for anything, no one has a reason to maintain it and your free 3G network would very quickly be overwhelmed and be burnt to a crisp.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[crazybilly]

Buying a nook is not buying a 3G wireless data connection to the internet. It's buying a 3G wireless data connection to buy B&N ebooks. Hack the hardware all you want, but if you use that hardware to get a service you haven't paid for, that's just like stealing TV.

Mod parent up. When somebody changes my mind with two sentences, they deserve to be heard.

Note that he's NOT saying, "it's like stealing A television", he's saying it's like stealing cable from your neighbor. It may or may not be stealing, but I have a hard time figuring out how it'd be unethical.

All said, I think the question is whether or not the contract says you're only going to B&N.com or whatever.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Jeff Carr]

What I want it for is programming. And I do a large portion of my programming in vim. Vim, ssh, and a crude text only web browser would suit my purposes perfectly.

No, you're right, I've never used an e-ink screen, and the refresh times might be too slow to accomplish what I'd like to accomplish with it.

All I really want to do is be able to sit outside and program on nice days. I've tried on laptops with many different types of screens, and the experience is lacking.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Jeff Carr]

Solution: Don't buy one. It's not like these are life and death matters here where you can somehow morally justify stealing something.

Not buying one isn't a solution in any sense of the word. It's leaving a problem unsolved. And I haven't bought one, so they don't have my money. However, if they offered extra bandwidth for an available fee, they'd have my money for the device, money for books, and money for additional bandwidth each month. They could even have an apps store, where I'd pay to download applications with the features I'd like.

Instead, they are leaving a partially untapped market open, and not receiving the income.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Dare nMc]

The iphone, tivo, Xbox... all have come out locked down and had options to open them up, but the percentage of people who were willing to do this has been small enough to not affect profitability, and were largely ignored by the respective companies. I am not sure than the per kb cost for internet access is really that high even to a cell operator, that kept to the capabilities of the nook could be more than a few cents a month. However the profitability of internet seams very high, so I do see them wanting to keep this to a low enough level that people don't cancel their cellular internet plans, and use a nook for tethering...

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[JeffSpudrinski]

Sycraft,

That's remarkably insightful. For a posting on /. I'm impressed. You're already at 5, and I don't have any mod points anyway, so I can't mod you up.

It could be a generational thing, but I've never understood why so many folks using the internet (mostly younger generations) feel that everything should be free to them no matter what.

When it isn't free, they do the electronic equivalent of a "smash and grab" and just figure out a way to take it.

I'm not saying that the nook developer's network is a bad thing. It is, in fact, quite interesting. However, folks shouldn't scream bloody murder about how evil B&N is when they fix the device so that it can't be used for free general internet. As you noted, it costs B&N for the bandwidth over the cellular and B&N isn't a non-profit organization. If there stops being a profit in it for them, they will stop providing it.

No one should begrudge them that.

-JJS

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Cro Magnon]

They're barely adequate for web browsing

Yeah, that's how I'd describe my experience with Kindle browsing Wikipedia. It's great for reading ebooks, but I'll stick to my iPhone for websurfing.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, this is no different than someone hacking their cell phone to allow them to tether their laptop. In both cases, the user is modifying the product in a way that's not allowed. And the carriers can handle it the same way...identify suspected users by their usage patterns and either disconnect them or send them a bill for the usage, if the contact information is known.

Nowhere in that solution does B&N have to engage in an "arms race" with hackers to create a locked down solution that can't be hacked since the controls are on the network side rather than the device. And as long as purchasers are made aware of the consequences of hacking their device, they have the option of buying a flexible piece of hardware which they can use however they see fit.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

up to a point, or for certain things

How do you propose they do that without it being considered an "artificial restriction"?

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[natehoy]

So once the Nook is hacked, I imagine the Nook units will eventually be locked down by AT&T because the bandwidth is being paid for by B&N.

One of the advantages of AT&T, though, is that they use a SIM-based network. So if you can manage to "unlock" the device, I'd presume you'd also be able to replace the SIM chip in it, which means you may be able to buy a data plan from AT&T and use it all you want. Just insert the SIM chip you are paying for.

  - B&N makes a sale of a Nook (assuming it isn't a lost leader for them, I doubt they'd have a problem with it).
  - AT&T makes a sale of a data plan SIM chip and the corresponding monthly fee for same.
  - You get your e-ink notebook with Internet access.

Everyone wins.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Brandee07]

At this point in time, the refresh rate is too slow. The Kindle's chiclet keyboard slows me down a lot, and I can still input text faster than it can render it. However, the Kindle 2's refresh rate is TONS faster than the Kindle 1... fast enough to allow some minor redrawing without a page "flash."

Since we've seen considerable improvement from one generation of the device to the next, it's logical that things will speed up in the future, but it's really not there yet.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[BobMcD]

If this is a free market, then as a consumer it is none of my concern how the supplier intends to make money. Nor is it my responsibility to use a product in such a way as to maintain the supplier's sustainability. This does not make me a crook. I'm merely trying to maximize the deal for myself.

Perhaps this is true, but this version of 'maximizing the deal' is akin to you taking food home from a buffet. You may feel that your $8 allows you unlimited trips to the buffet, but the supplier priced it at only what a normal person would eat. You should not assume you are entitled to remove entire trays of food and load them into the back of your truck. Were this permitted the price would be much, much higher. It should come as no surprise when the supplier puts an immediate stop to this behavior.

So anyway, consumer wanting as much as possible for as little as he can is 1/2 of what makes a free market free. That doesn't make customer or supplier immature.

Sure it does.

To say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the free market and an indication of a lack of sophistication as a consumer -- sorry, couldn't resist the symmetrical dig ;)

Even the free-est of markets will have rules of commerce. Are you allowed to have sexual rights over the fruit vendor's wife simply because the market is free? Of course not. There are limits built around a basic understanding that you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. Without this there can be no market at all.

Perhaps if all consumers and all suppliers were to take the long view, the socially responsible view, that might be good. But without laws to enforce this on all parties (and restrict the free market), I just can't afford to put myself at a competitive disadvantage vs. suppliers or other consumers. Can't feed my family or pay the bills with smug self-satisfaction or inner holiness.

Again, without basic restrictions there is no market at all. Why pay for anything in the first place if doing so hinders your family and bills in such a manner? Why is there a line drawn at all if not for the reasons of basic fairness, as embodied by the law?

I'm not being rhetorical here, either. I'm challenging you to answer how any market can survive within an anarchy.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[doconnor]

An individual consumer is not a party to the agreement between Amazon and B&N and the cell networks, so has not reason or responsibility to follow it.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

"The way the world works" isn't a physical law of the universe. There are a million other ways to cover the cost of creating wireless infrastructure, and few of them involve the astronomical prices of the telecoms' cellular data plans.

This is equivalent to a bad parent's lazy "Because I said so" response.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, what makes you think it is a service that is not payed for. ?

I checked the Barnes & Noble website.
1. nowhere does it say your are not allowed to load your own software.
2. from there faq:
        Q. Will I be charged wireless fees? Do I need any sort of contract?
        A. No. There is no charge for your nook's wireless features. You do not need a contract.

Of course any normal person would still agree that it is morally dubious to do this and freeload on their network.
However, in today's lawyered up society intentions, being good citizens and common sense do not seem to matter anymore. The real question is whether this is legal. Considering the above it looks like it is.

Usually we as customers are royally screwed by big companies with inane EULA's, one-sided contracts and legal bullying (see it our way or we sue you into bankruptcy) so I think many people are willing to forget about the moral part and simply take the opportunity to return the favor. Especially because it involves AT&T.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Rob the Bold]

Again, without basic restrictions there is no market at all. Why pay for anything in the first place if doing so hinders your family and bills in such a manner? Why is there a line drawn at all if not for the reasons of basic fairness, as embodied by the law?

I'm not being rhetorical here, either. I'm challenging you to answer how any market can survive within an anarchy.

Yes, that is a good question.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[natehoy]

Granted, but then again I'm sure there's something about excessive usage in the agreement between B&N or Amazon and the consumer who uses it, and I'm equally sure that a violation of that agreement will get the SIM card on the respective device locked out.

I wonder if you could replace the SIM chip and pay for the cell data plan oneself? Then you are completely not locked to any agreement that Amazon or B&N has with the cell provider - you're paying for the bandwidth and any excessive bandwidth gripes no longer involve Amazon or B&N.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[demonlapin]

The (whole-screen!) refresh times would drive you up a wall within seconds. See if you can find a store that sells Sony Readers so you can see what they're like.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[brkello]

You can't feed your family with a 3G connection and a Nook. Really, when they ban your Nook from the service, then you are out the money for the device you purchased. So you just wasted money.

I think you lack an understanding of reality. If consumers do this, it will just make it worse for other consumers. If you are a stupid consumer, you will hack your Nook and take a chance that it won't be banned. But since I am sure they can track your usage, they can figure out what you are doing and shut you down. It isn't ethical, for one. But that is irrelevant. It's just dumb since it is easily tracked. You are using the service in a way that you didn't pay for. And you will be banned. So why not just do the right thing from the start?

So many people find stupid justifications on here to do the wrong thing. These people always seem to be making bad decisions for themselves and in general are just leeches on society. They don't produce, they just get whatever they can illegally so they can keep up with their friends who actually get jobs and buy stuff.

I get the whole intellectual challenge of breaking stuff. That I am cool with. It's the people who use this knowledge gained by others that I find to be fairly useless individuals.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Lumpy]

news flash, violating a contract is not Theft. It's not my fault they are too stupid to put all those sim cards on a special WAP that only goes to B&N's network.

Let me guess, I'm stealing from BMW when I dont use their oil and filter....

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Rob the Bold]

If you're having to steal 3G internet access to be able to feed your family, you're a fucking idiot for wasting your time trying to steal 3G internet access rather than getting a job.

Except suppose my family don't like food, maybe they like 3G internet. And then suppose instead of giving it away, I was selling it at a price that was almost free.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[isaac]

"Theft of services" is a crime recognized in the law everywhere in the US.

It might be technically possible for you to hack your cable box to receive channels you're not paying for, or your electrical meter to receive free juice, but that doesn't make those things legal.

-Isaac

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

They could make the devices open and lock it down at the *network* level. All the devices already are uniquely identified on the network, and AT&T presumably already has a way of determining if a device should be allowed Internet access or not, so all they have to do is add a book-buying website only category.

Then when people "unlock" their devices, there's no problem. Also, people get the added bonus that they can pay for real Internet service if they want it, since it would be a matter of just changing the SIM card.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving things away is not socially responsible, and definitely not fiscally.

How much do you pay google each year? How big are they compared to 5 years ago?

The kindle and nook, and whatever else they try to peddle under the "ebook" moniker will fail outside a niche cult like number of users. If these companies really want to make money from tiny text files, they need to get users onto subscription services for all you can read on your device for $5/month.

As for free 3G from hacked units, clearly that's ridiculously easy to block on the network level.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[DavidTC]

I, OTOH would like a eInk screen without a damn cellular modem, or wifi, or anything that increases the by 100 dollars costs for the dubious ability to instantly download books. Give me a damn USB connection.

I survived decades during which I had to go to the library or bookstore to get books, I think I can continue to exist while not having the ability to instantly buy them. So don't talk to me about 'niche' markets. Mine doesn't exist yet, for some reason.

However, what we're talking about here is the fact the product has the technical capacity to do something (Surf the internet, run random programs), which it won't do, apparently. That's not the same thing.

'Niche' products that are sold from cheaper that are deliberately crippled is a failure of the free market. They should not exist in any sort of competitive marketplace, from which we can conclude the eReader market is not competitive yet. If the market was competitive, the manufacturers would be screaming from the rooftops about the ability to run whatever you want on the device.

Of course, if this catches on, expect the people here actually bothered by the free data plan (AT&T) to put some sort of cap on. No one promised free unlimited data when you purchased the devices, you were promised that you could download books via the cellular network, and AT&T could, entirely reasonably, limit you to about a meg a day...no one could possibly read more than that. Or, even easier, just lock access to the right servers.

But, even so, there's no real reason to stop people from running random programs on the devices.Yes, yes, there's DRM, but if you can make mostly working DRM work on computers, you can sure as heck make it mostly work on eReaders. (Heck, you could make it almost perfectly work via something like Trusted Computing, with a hardware private key.)

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[aaandre]

Or, AT&T could offer a paid service to Nook owners and make some extra money?

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Gothmolly]

How can you steal TV when it comes over the air, for free ?

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if you start using it as general purpose Internet, to browse whatever you want, to download files, to play games, that breaks down. Suddenly cost goes up a whole lot, and less (or perhaps none) of the activity generates any money. As such it can't be sustained. They have to restrict it, shut it down, or charge.

I have to say that I have a hard time seeing anyone playing games that are going to take any significant amount of bandwidth on an e-ink device. The refresh rate is simply not good enough. I can see people managing something like Solitaire or Minesweeper (which is an easter egg on the Kindle), but nothing that requires fast response times.

On a similar note, I haven't spent time with the Barnes and Noble device, but my general impression is that neither of these devices is particularly comfortable for extended periods of time doing anything but -- reading books. I doubt that the bandwidth is going to be used or abused much more on an opened device than a non-opened one, simply because they are not particularly convenient devices to type or navigate on. In fact, the most likely application that I can think of that might use a significant amount of bandwidth is... RSS feeds. Which people can get on the wireless without having to open their device, simply by navigating to Google Reader Mobile.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Homer1946]

Companies don't try to offer every possible product any consumer might want. That tends to dilute their focus. Instead they tend to offer those products likely to have a significant impact on their bottom line and then focus development, marketing, and support towards those products.

In order for AT&T to offer that service to Nook owners the market has to be large enough to be worth their time. They also have to consider such issues as to whether they already have a product that they have an investment in that currently meets all or most of that market, whether the new product would bring new customers or just cannibalize existing customers, and whether their business partners are interested in pursuing such products.

The whole process is complicated and the fact that one or more customers exist for a given product is not in and of itself justification to sell a product.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is a free market, then as a consumer it is none of my concern how the supplier intends to make money. Nor is it my responsibility to use a product in such a way as to maintain the supplier's sustainability. This does not make me a crook. I'm merely trying to maximize the deal for myself. If this seems somehow unethical, consider that the same applies to the supplier. They need not concern themselves with such things as whether or not their products benefit society as a whole or whether a customer can really afford to buy such an offering.

1. I agree they do not need to concern themselves if the product benefits society. However, they do have to sell a product so it must be useful and it must be affordable or else it will not sell.
2. You do not need to use it as it is intended, once you buy the hardware it is yours. However, if you force them to pay money for a functionality that it was not intended for or that they were not selling then you are stealing and that does make you a crook.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[DavidTC]

It could be a generational thing, but I've never understood why so many folks using the internet (mostly younger generations) feel that everything should be free to them no matter what.

Don't blame them.

This society used to have an tacit agreement between companies and people, where everyone would behave responsibly and ethically.

Companies started breaking it first. Really badly breaking it. With their employees, with their customers, with everyone.

For a few decades, normal people were shat upon by corporations only out for their bottom line.

The younger generation is just the people who grew up with this, and have no problem acting unethically in return.

Even when the companies don't actually deserve it, like Barnes and Noble, which, as far as I am aware, have no history of unethical behavior at all. They actually sell things to people who want to buy those things, making a small profit on each one, like companies are supposed to do. They know their customers can go elsewhere, and they don't attempt to misrepresent their products or trick people into contracts, or assert that customers can only sue them in arbitration, or any of the hundreds of other unethical ways that corporations behave. (Except see below.)

AT&T, OTOH....the less said there the better. Cellular companies are basically the definition of this behavior.

Oh, and attempting to control what customers can do with stuff they purchase from you is one of the warning sights of this massive profit-at-all-cost sickness infecting a company. Legitimate companies don't care.

We will see if B&N goes crazy in response, or if they just get some sort of lock on the cellular service to only contact them.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Rob the Bold]

How can you steal TV when it comes over the air, for free ?

Maybe you modified the TV to get channels the manufacturer didn't want you to receive, you bad boy.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[HeckRuler]

ah the path to US conservative ideology:

1. Assume that anything that doesn't benefit the corporation is theft.
2. The dirty little thieves don't have real jobs.
3. Flatout blatant thievery (under which bending the EULA falls) is a choice that places the blame solely on the dirty little jobless thief.
4. The prosecution of the dirty little jobless thieves is inevitable and only a matter of time.
6. Charity is class-warfare (which is treason, of course).
7. With all the hordes of dirty little jobless thieves, the corporation will be run out of business, leading to world destruction.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hack the hardware all you want, but if you use that hardware to get a service you haven't paid for, that's just like stealing TV.

Your poor phrasing increases the 'tard' level of your post. Do you mean to say, "just like stealing a TV" or "just like unauthorized access to cable or satellite service"???

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

meh, I'd think their wireless carrier would simply intercept all DNS traffic, only resolving BN.com. Having to browse the web using IP addresses instead of domain names would be enough of an inconvenience in itself to deter pretty much anyone.

If they wanted to get real tricky, they could put some (very) simple firewall rules in place to block all incoming traffic to nooks not coming from B&N servers.

DRM, charging a monthly service charge, or completely removing the feature in future versions as people have suggested above, is completely un-necessary.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course AT&T will lock this down. That is the right think to do so that those people who DO want a device such as this is, will be able to get it.

The right thing to do is for AT&T to charge for the internet connection - and then for B&N to discount their ebooks, if they like, so that the effective price is the same as if the data transfer were free. In any case, if I own a device, it should be doing what I want it to do - no excuses.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is /., not Digg. Everybody else who read that post understood what he meant by it (or already read the other comments) and do not need further leassons in reading comprehension.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Captain obvious strikes again.

Thanks for repeating the parent's argument...

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[JeffSpudrinski]

DavidTC,

You make valid points, but "don't blame them, they were done wrong" isn't a very good logic stream.

Just because they feel they were treated badly doesn't make it okay to make unethical choices. The way to fix it is for the younger generation to be *MORE* ethical than the generation that sired them. They will be the generation that takes over from the one before and will make things better, not worse.

True, companies treated folks badly, and the folks are understandably frustrated, but stooping even lower doesn't solve any problems.

My main concern (and the point of my original comment) is, as you mentioned, that they "have to problem acting unethically in return". That attitude will just perpetuate a very bad downward cycle.

-JJS

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[aicrules]

You violated the contract by stealing something, violating a contract and committing a crime and not mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying you're stealing from BMW if you use your own preference of oil and filters. Closer would be if you got a $5000 rebate by signing an agreement to use their oil and filters when you bought the car, but instead buying it from Valvoline. But even that is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps BMW has a service agreement with you to give you free car washes for 2 years after purchasing your BMW. While it would be unlikely to succeed if you "hacked" that service and brought in another vehicle and used the free service, THAT is stealing in the same way. Let's say it worked because the person running the carwash has poor eyesight, it's not the fault of BMW or even the nearsighted carwash operator that you decided to steal a service. It's your fault.

Many people leave their car doors and even house doors unlocked...sometimes when it's warmer they even leave their car windows and house doors open! That doesn't mean theft from those places becomes any more legal than it was when they had everything locked up. Just because it's easy to steal something doesn't make it okay.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[aicrules]

1. Not assuming. Very clear case of taking something that is not theirs to take.
2. If the person claims they need to steal 3G wireless because their families are hungry they are either a liar or have their priorities way out of whack.
3. It is not bending the EULA to take a service for which you have not paid. Same way that if you got free electricity to power your porch light, hacked that special power line and consumed enough kilowattHours to light up vegas would be straight stealing, not bending a EULA.
4. Remove dirty little jobless, just leave it as thieves. Their prosecution, should they continue to steal approaches inevitability.
5. Not sure what happened to 5, but it may have been a good argument.
6. Voluntary charity works wonders. Mandatory charity whether brought on by government regulation, or self appropriation (stealing) is not. Specifically referring to my contention that giving away things is not socially responsible, if everyone was given everything they wanted, what motivation would they have to contribute? And what happens when those who do contribute get tired of contributing to those who don't and stop contributing? Suddenly you have a bunch of people who are used to getting things handed to them as if they are entitled who have no clue how to survive on their own. No one should rely on anyone outside of their immediate family for anything. That reliance either makes you that person's servant or will leave you completely incapable of survival if that person's help ends.
7. For every good or service that is taken without compensation, the price of the remaining goods and services goes up. If a loaf of bread suddenly cost $500 because it was supposedly okay to steal bread, that would destroy the bread industry.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a Sony Reader. It's *just* a USB side-loaded e-ink reader. I've found mine to work pretty nicely.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[DavidTC]

I'd also like one that is, in fact, cheaper than the Nook. :)

Less features but higher price isn't particularly useful. I don't know what's going on with Sony, how a hardware company can't produce cheaper products than others, but there you go.

Granted, there is the new smaller Sony Reader Pocket Edition, which is cheaper and I've been looking into. But I suspect the cheaper price is entirely due to the smaller screen.

I've had this for years - Nokia N800

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had this for years - Nokia N800.

I'm always amazed when folks think this hasn't been around for about $200 for years. The N800 can tether to a cell phone or blackberry for data services or use WiFi. Mine is tethered to a friends unlimited cell data plan for lunch and meeting access. I don't have a data plan on my pay-as-u-go cell. At home, it uses WPA2 auth.

9 days of standby time, about 2 days of normal wifi use. If the battery gets too low, I just swap with a spare - take that i-whatever lovers.

The N800/N810/N900 browser is routinely considered the best of any portable device. Mine is running a version of firefox.

Re:I've had this for years - Nokia N800

[Neil Hodges]

A lot of wireless carriers impose restrictions and/or higher charges on tethering.

Re:I've had this for years - Nokia N800

[tchuladdiass]

Switch carriers.
For example, T-Mobile's most expensive data plan is around $20 a month, and tethering works on most of their phones. For an even cheaper route, go with what used to be their $5.99 plan which is proxied http access only (you set your web browser to use T-Mobile's proxy).

The battery...

[The Living Fractal]

I'd like to see how long the battery lasts during heavy internet use.

Days? Sorry, but I just don't think so. My Kindle DX battery lasts about two weeks, as long as I don't have wireless on and only read 1-2hrs a day. If wireless is on, substantially less. If I'm *using* the wireless a lot, even less than that.

So, let's leave the hyperbole out of the summary, shall we?

Re:The battery...

[Sockatume]

It's a quote from the fine article.

Re:The battery...

[tuttleturtle42]

My Kindle 2 has around a three or four day battery with heavy internet use. It's about two with some music and some internet use (by some I mean a noticeable amount but less than I would consider heavy use). From this experience it would be days. I've not seen a Nook but I'd expect it to be similar to the Kindle.

eInk MPD remote control client

[niko9]

I really would love an eInk (read: no back light) MPD client for my custom MPD server. Although, stealing Internet access is not my forte. I wonder of the modem can be swiped out for a WiFi card.

Re:eInk MPD remote control client

[maxume]

There is a wifi card in there already.

Re:eInk MPD remote control client

[Dare nMc]

I wonder of the modem can be swiped out for a WiFi card.

the nook comes with a WiFi modem already internal. That is the interesting part for me, if they now have a browser for the nook I will likely order one (for Febuary delivery :( ) seams like a really handy reference material storage device, even if without 3G...

You knew this was coming...

[dr_strang]

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:You knew this was coming...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is why we can have nice things.

Re:You knew this was coming...

[Eil]

Dunno about you, but I consider a hackable device to a be a nice thing.

One of the reasons I've been holding back on an ebook reader is because there hasn't been much success in opening them up despite the fact that they run open source software under the hood. Now that this has happened with the Nook (before it has shipped, even?), I'm pretty much set on buying one now.

Whooosh

[WED Fan]

Whoooosh, the sound of a Nook zooming over your head.

Money you don't have?

[Anonymous Coward]

"[...] you can't use money you don't have to make more money."
I recommend asking the "Federal" Reserve, World Bank and IMF about how they do it every day.

Funny ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else laugh when the big banner ad at the top of the wiki was an ad to buy a Kindle?

Will it take another SIM?

[drinkypoo]

The unit has a SIM slot, hopefully it will take another SIM. Then you can buy service from someone who supports tethering (is there anyone doing that on GSM? heh) if you need that feature. Otherwise, configure your Linux side to perform all communications via WiFi somehow, and you won't have a problem with abusing their network. I don't know if this will increase uptake significantly, but I certainly wouldn't consider buying any such device that I wasn't able to load Linux on.

Coral Cache link.

[psergiu]

http://nookdevs.com.nyud.net/Main_Page

It's not hard. Just add .nyud.net after the hostname.

Re:Coral Cache link.

[psergiu]

Too late. The wiki is dead.

Here's the text from the "Rooting" page:

======

Looking to root your nook? You have come to the right place!
nookDevs.com is not liable if you screw up during the root process. kthxbai
This will probably void your warranty, nookDevs.com is not liable for that either.
[edit] Requirements

microSD(HC) card adapter
Small screwdriver
45 minutes
Fingernails or a sharp knife
A linux/unix based computer
Android SDK
[edit] Instructions

Turn off nook
Take off the back cover of the nook
Remove the battery
Remove the user microSD card if there is one
Unscrew all screws. Dont lose them. There is a hole in the bottom left with white in it. That is also a screw. Unscrew that.

There are a bunch of tabs around the sides of the nook that release the white bezel. Once released you will need to unseal the glue
Congrats you are 25 percent there!
There are two black tabs on the sides of the nook where the page turn buttons are. Push those back to unlock them

You should be at the board now. Find the OS microSD card

Remove it

Place the microSD card in a adapter, then into a computer
Mount it as ext3 read-write (sudo mount /dev/sdb1 /media/disk replacing values as needed)
Open the file init.rc as sudo (sudo nano init.rc)
Find the line that starts talking about adbd
Replace the first occurance of the word disabled with enabled
50 percent done!
Eject SD card
Put SD card back into nook
close nook up
restart
Now, on a computer again, download the Android dev toolkit (google it)
Open a terminal
cd to the android folder
cd tools ./adb connect IP_OF_NOOK:5555 ./adb shell
If you want to disable updates from B&N run: mv /system/etc/security/otacerts.zip /system/etc/security/otacerts.zip.bak
CONGRATULATIONS! YOU HAVE ROOTED YOUR nook. Have fun, be safe, dont forget to bring a towel
[edit] Notes

More pictures for tutorial to come later
Make sure to put the SIM card back in correctly if you remove it. Blue and white site up with the notch in the battery compartment opening end, on the right hand side. Refer to included pic. (discovered nook 3G not working when I got to work. Paperclips make terrible screwdrivers)
Android Debug Bridge (adb) is a versatile tool lets you manage the state of an emulator instance or Android-powered device.

Full documentation and list of commands available in adb can be found here:
http://developer.android.com/guide/developing/tools/adb.html#commandsummary

Far more impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

One was successfully bought. I tried weeks before they were to hit the stores and the preorders were already into January and I was informed none would be in stores until after the first of the year. The scalpers seemed to have got their hands on them and for $750 to $800 you could buy one on Ebay. I said screw it and bought my niece a Kindle.

Re:Far more impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

"Man, I totally couldn't find a Ferrari. I just paid the same price for a Trans-Am, though. It's all the same, right?"

Deja Vu all over again...

[rickb928]

Remember the I-Opener?

I predict a similar fate to the Nook:

- Wicked cool device hits the market.
- Hacked and liberated.
- Provider(s) lose money due to the liberation.
- Tug-of-war between provider(s) and hackers.
- Provider(s) give up and more on after losing too much money.

I expect the cell connection will be firewalled pretty soon unless they completely munged the process and can't. Expect some OTA updates pronto to keep the rooters out. Tug-of-war over rooting. Eventually new TOS to make you a criminal for using the cell connection in ways other than expected. Dead Nooks all over the place.

I'm kinda tempted to buy one just to root it. I had a LOT OF FUN with my v5 I-Opener. Short-lived, but it made my soldering iron useful again, and kept my GF's 9-year-old daughter entertained and safer than with a standard PC, until she discovered LimeWire. Ugh.

I wonder if Cyanogen has any interest in Nook rooting. He's the best right now.

Re:Deja Vu all over again...

[hotcorrado169]

I wonder if Cyanogen has any interest in Nook rooting. He's the best right now.

Cyanogen IS the best!

Re:Deja Vu all over again...

[Lumpy]

It is ragingly retarded if it was not firewalled simply with a custom cingular.WAP.BN that those sim cards are only authorized on. It's brain dead easy and if AT&T did not do that from step one then they deserve the pain they are about to recieve.

All AT&T data is currently through cingular.WAP and auths and bills based on your sim number. They have had the capability of having a username and password forever on it but have never used it. There's another way for them to do the same..

Honestly, are all these corporations ran by bungling idiots that dont think of these things? seeing that device the first words out of my mouth in the boardroom would be, "what's to stop someone from taking out the sim and using it in a laptop with a 3G WWAN card?"

Sure - Locks not Good Enough So it's Not Stealing?

[gadlaw]

That sounds like an amoral way of looking at things. They didn't create a device for you to steal someone's bandwidth and yet you think that it's their fault for making something that someone can break into. That's illegal and these anarchists need to be put in jail and taught the meaning of being a responsible member of society.

Nooks and Crannies

[Snyper1000]

Just tell me they are going to call their hack cranny, please! :) Perhaps that was too obvious...

Root for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove SIM and only access protected networks, ie your own.
The re-disable the dev port.

Just don't power-cycle the thing...

[Tetsujin]

If you're dealing with the Nook and you power cycle without properly shutting down, you can expect a visit from Mr. Resetti... Those are never fun.

free wireless?

[Kludge]

I doubt people will be getting free cellular internet very long if at all. The SIM card identifies the user as a Nook, and if the service provider has any brains, they will restrict the routing of all traffic from such users to where they want.

Not that this is not a cool hack. I would like to throw in my own SIM card and take this baby for a spin.

have they disassmbled the jars?

[peter303]

If variable names have been left int he jars, you may be able to dissamble so that you can start add your own classes.
I havent coded for the Android yet. But was under the impression it used a "custom" form of Java, mainly special multi-process JVM.

but what is for free?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is a free market, then as a consumer it is none of my concern how the supplier intends to make money. Nor is it my responsibility to use a product in such a way as to maintain the supplier's sustainability. This does not make me a crook. I'm merely trying to maximize the deal for myself. If this seems somehow unethical, consider that the same applies to the supplier. They need not concern themselves with such things as whether or not their products benefit society as a whole or whether a customer can really afford to buy such an offering.

Sigh, where to begin?

What is the premise? If this _is_ a free market, does this logic also apply to "open source". If I try to maximize the deal for myself, can I take open source code and distribute in a closed source form and break the GPL? If this _is_ a free market is that "none of my concern" how the person that spent the time to write the code intends? This doesn't make me a crook, I'm merely trying to maximize the deal for myself.

But you say I broke the "law", well, no I didn't technically break the law either, I broke a license agreement with the copyright holder (that's not the same thing as breaking the law). As with any license agreement, there is at minimium a written contract and contract remedies.

In case you are curious, you can read the terms and conditions of buying/using the nook here http://images.barnesandnoble.com/pimages/nook/download/User_Guide_nook.pdf

Of course similar type contract exists for the GPL. Basically, the remedy is if I don't like the contract, I have the right to return (with your money back) and I don't have the right to use it.

Well then there's the small matter of enforcing the terms of the contract when one party doesn't want to follow them. Under your "free market" argument, then if open source community were to take the long view, or the socially responsible view (since they are 1/2 of this GPL contract by your definition), then perhaps they wouldn't want to restrict the unrestricted distribution and use of their code? After all, it's just a licence (not the law) and they could write anything they want into the license. Why make the guberment the bad-guy for enforcing a contract between two parties which doesn't happen to take the "long view" or be "socially responsible"?

Hmm, that's a very interesting straw-man argument to make against a "free market". Demonize the license holder as not taking the long view and the socially responsible view and make the government into the bad-guy for enforcing such a contract between two parties... ;^)

Rooted?

[certsoft]

Nook e-reader has been hacked and rooted

I'm sure Slashdotters in New Zealand will get a kick out of that.

Ding, dong!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nook is dead!

And so is Android as a commercial OS.

Well what did they expect?

[unitron]

If you name something the nookie book, of course people are going to try to open it!

Days of battery life?

[PuckSR]

You do realize that they "days" of battery life are due to the fact that it is designed to read books?
The battery life on ereaders really should be rated in "page turns". This gets about 2000 page turns on a single charge.
Using that color screen all the time or actively using the internet will suck down that battery so fast your head will spin!!!

The battery on this device is going to suck if you are using it to IM your friends or regularly browse the web. The battery on these devices is actually significantly SMALLER than a netbook battery. These devices have a cheap and small cell phone battery.

The real advantage is the internet....but it isn't that big of a deal. The kindle already has a web-browser.
Plus, as many have explained...they will just block non-B&N usage if it is abused.

SymbolNOBODY, step inside... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

SymbolNOBODY:

You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430

"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal

I took offense to the BOLDED part... so, my reply in the URL below was simple (and logical):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30428430#30430244

Additionally, "symbolNOBODY"? Well - the day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662

That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1 yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:

1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
2.) An "Essential Guide"
3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)

AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:

----

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."

and

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"

Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com

----

THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk!

Also?

When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art & Science of computing:

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty,

If you sign the EULA, sure

[Rix]

But unless you put pen to paper, it has no legal force.

If you don't believe that, then:

By reading this comment, you agree to send $5 to the EFF.

Re:If you sign the EULA, sure

[Locke2005]

Damn it, you just cost my $5! Oh well, I guess it's for a good cause...

An EULA is a binding contract. Your statement is not. Generally, unilateral contracts are not enforcable. A EULA, on the other hand, stipulates conditions that the use must agree to as a precondition to using the software. Nobody signs the GPL either, but it is still legally binding!

Re:If you sign the EULA, sure

[nhytefall]

This is /.

Your statement is heretical here.

You will be re-educated.



/removes tongue from cheek

Why?

[SilverJets]

Why would you want to? It's an E-ink display. Oooh...look at the pretty greyscale.

On top of that, according to two reviews I read that were both posted here on Slashdot last week, the thing is dog slow just displaying the next page of the book you are reading. Think it will do any better with the web?

Re:Why?

[Yamata no Orochi]

As mentioned thrice in this thread alone, there's an LCD as well. But you're mostly right, it wouldn't be very good for most browsing tasks just because it isn't very powerful as a device.

B&N and AT&T are idiots

[nebular]

Wow this could not have been a simpler hack.

A blob of epoxy on the sdcard would have prevented it, or perhaps a more complex reconfiguring then editing ONE LINE in a file. Furthermore why the hell does the cellular connection have full internet access. I mean it should be locked down to only what B&N want you to access on AT&T's side.

An unless the Terms and conditions of service state anything about accessing parts of the internet that B&N don't approve, these guys aren't breaking any laws.

The real issues is .... cost of the connection...

[sl149q]

The real elephant in the room is the high cost of a ubiquitous internet connection.... Locally, here in Canada it costs a minimum of $30/month for a 3G internet only connection... with low transfer numbers (500mb). That makes Kindles and Nooks use of 3G look like "free" beer. And even that charge is shown to be far too high as I get 6GB for $30 on my iPhone. And that is not really subsidized by the phone side (well not too much) as I only have the minimum voice plan they provide.

What we need is for the carriers to get the price down far enough that it makes sense for every netbook, laptop etc to have 3G builtin. Usable with a pre-paid SIM or very low cost monthly. We'll get there eventually. But not while the carriers continue to overcharge.

The GPL grants you rights

[Rix]

Rights that you would not have if you did not agree to it. You aren't bound to it by downloading the BusyBox source code, but it grants you the right to redistribute that code (or binaries produced from it). You can't on the one hand claim not to agree to the GPL and exercise the rights it grants you on the other.

EULAs, in contrast, do not grant you any rights you did not already have, and so there's nothing to prevent you from simply not agreeing to them.

You can't sell someone software and then turn around and claim it's a license. If you want to negotiate a license, you have to do it beforehand. Once the transaction is complete, there are no backsies.

Again, if you disagree, here's the EULA for this comment:

By reading this comment, you agree to make a $5 donation to the EFF.

Re:The GPL grants you rights

[Rob the Bold]

Rights that you would not have if you did not agree to it. You aren't bound to it by downloading the BusyBox source code, but it grants you the right to redistribute that code (or binaries produced from it). You can't on the one hand claim not to agree to the GPL and exercise the rights it grants you on the other.

EULAs, in contrast, do not grant you any rights you did not already have, and so there's nothing to prevent you from simply not agreeing to them.

You can't sell someone software and then turn around and claim it's a license. If you want to negotiate a license, you have to do it beforehand. Once the transaction is complete, there are no backsies.

Again, if you disagree, here's the EULA for this comment:

By reading this comment, you agree to make a $5 donation to the EFF.

Whenever clicking an "I agree" or open a "by breaking this seal" package, I either have somebody else do the clicking and breaking or I cross my fingers. I figure finger-crossing has a more established legal tradition than "if you use this you agree to never sue us for intentional damages" text.

Re:The GPL grants you rights

[Anonymous Coward]

EULAs, in contrast, do not grant you any rights you did not already have, and so there's nothing to prevent you from simply not agreeing to them.

You can't sell someone software and then turn around and claim it's a license. If you want to negotiate a license, you have to do it beforehand. Once the transaction is complete, there are no backsies.

What you're saying is how you (and I) might hope things would be. Unfortunately, at least in the US, EULAs have been fouund in court to be at least in some respects legally enforceable. So basically if a company sues you for breach of contract based on a EULA clause, you may lose (even if you can afford to defend yourself properly against a rich company).

Exhale

[StikyPad]

From TFA: This could turn into the Roomba of e-readers, only it won't suck.

Let me guess.. it will blow?

The good and the service can come apart

[Pfhorrest]

I know this is largely redundant with what others have said throughout this thread, but I think it needs saying together in one succinct form:

When you buy a Nook, you're buying two things bundled together: (1) a physical good which you own and can (or at least should be able to) do any damn thing you want to, and (2) the service of connectivity to Barnes & Noble to buy books. If you're unintentionally being given perpetual connectivity to the general internet for all purposes, then it's up to the service provider to stop giving you that service and start limiting what they give you to what you bought. If they do so, you have no right to complain about the loss of service you never bought; but until they do so, they have no right to complain if you use the service they're giving you.