Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Add another device to your overladen 3G network!
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
If you do this, your Nook will be openly accessible to anyone who port-scanned your Nook and found that port 5555 is open.
I once had a signature.
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.
Tweet, tweet.
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.
alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls
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?
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
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.
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?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
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).
This is why we can't have nice things.
This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
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.)
Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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.
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.
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.
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.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
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....
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
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.
This space available.