iPad Reader Vs Kindle: Which One Better?


iPad was released in the early April in 2010. Though several months went by, it has sold a lot of units and they have not even released it in all the countries in the world yet, not have provided all the per-orders that they received. What will happen from now on? People will have what to talk about, what to compare, as new machines seemingly to this one are announced to be released on the market by different producers.

Till then, Apple iPad fans have to concentrate on deciding which is better from iPas vs. Kindle, which provides one with the most reliable and easy eReading and which is more accessible? The Kindle 2, first of all is just and only an eReader, that is why it should prove to be better than the actual iPad. But does it?

However, the Amazon eReader is neither as stylish good looking nor as powerful as the Apple iPad gadget as reviewed by LaptopJudge in a detailed comparison. If you would like to use the Kindle reader in darker places, you will not be able to as it does not have a backlit LED to allow you read, anyhow, the iPad is provided with such and that will enable you to make all your reading, anywhere and at any time you may want.

As far as the ergonomics concerns, the iPad vs Kindle proves to be far heavier. The Kindle is as heavy as comic books. Anyhow, it comes with an advantage when dealing with turning the page. As long as turning the pages in Kindle signifies pressing long and hard a button, turning the pages on an iPad is made by just a tap of the edge of the page or moving the fingers across the button, as though you may be turning a page. They both prove to be able to buy books from, nevertheless, the Kindle allows you to enter on various available books online. As for the price, while the iPAd can get up to $829 the Kindle costs $259.

The difference is very big, and one should think about whether needing some reading device, or a multi-functional set? Rather than this, it can provide you with a ten hours functional battery as long as Kindle can offer you with more days but with the possibility of just reading from time to time, that will be used just to get your hands on the right book choice.

Though there may be some extra expenses, the best thing to choose from is the iPad. Every time the new technology overwhelms the old, as it should be and as long as the iPad can as well give you images, videos, etc. from the books reading, the Kindle cannot, but can just present you with the written pages. Being kind of dull, new technology has always come first and so does in this case. If you like this article, you can also read – laptop sleeve 15.7:how to find the best one.

Which one you like most – iPad or Kindle? Let me know in comments section.

How to increase download speed


First of all download this wonderful program:

http://www.speedguide.net/files/TCPOptimizer.exe

Then when u start the program goto settings goto cable modem or dsl whatever u have.

Go to MaxMTU and set it to 1500 this is optimal anything above this will not work as well.

Thats about it!! Enjoy the speed!!

How to turn binary or decimal to hex


OK, 1,453,752 is 101100010111010111000 is binary, now we turn it into a Hex number.

First Hex numbers goes like this:
1=1
2=2
.
.
9=9
10=A
11=B
12=C
13=D
14=E
15=F

Now you need to take the first octet (the far right 4) and place it under this little grid:

8 4 2 1
--------
1 0 0 0 = 8

See the 1 under the 8 column?
That is what you add.

So the next octet is 1011, put it under the grid:

8 4 2 1
--------
1 0 0 0 = 8
1 0 1 1 = B

See 8+2+1=11, so you can’t just say 11 you have to put it in a Hex number, which is B.
So the full Hex number of 1,453,752 is:

8 4 2 1
--------
1 0 0 0 = 8
1 0 1 1 = B
1 1 1 0 = E
0 0 1 0 = 2
0 1 1 0 = 6
0 0 0 1 = 1 <-- Just add zero if it isn't a full octet

162EB8

So if you want to turn a number in to the shorter version of Hex, just turn it into binary, then use this grid and you’ll do fine

How can I generate safe passwords?


You can’t. The key word here is GENERATE. Once an algorithm for
creating passwords is specified using upon some systematic method, it
merely becomes a matter of analysing your algorithm in order to find
every password on your system.

Unless the algorithm is very subtle, it will probably suffer from a very
low period (ie: it will soon start to repeat itself) so that either:

a) A cracker can try out every possible output of the password
generator on every user of the system, or

b) The cracker can analyse the output of the password program,
determine the algorithm being used, and apply the algorithm to other
users to determine their passwords.

A beautiful example of this (where it was disastrously assumed that a
random number generator could generate an infinite number of random
passwords) is detailed in [Morris & Thompson].

The only way to get a reasonable amount of variety in your passwords
(I’m afraid) is to make them up. Work out some flexible method of your
own which is NOT based upon:

  1. Modifying any part of your name or name+initials.
  2. Modifying a dictionary word.
  3. Acronyms.
  4. Any systematic, well-adhered-to algorithm whatsoever

For instance, NEVER use passwords like:

alec7 – it’s based on the users name (& it’s too short anyway)
tteffum – based on the users name again
gillian – girlfiends name (in a dictionary)
naillig – ditto, backwards
PORSCHE911 – it’s in a dictionary
12345678 – it’s in a dictionary (& people can watch you type it easily)
qwertyui – …ditto…
abcxyz – …ditto…
0ooooooo – …ditto…
Computer – just because it’s capitalised doesn’t make it safe
wombat6 – ditto for appending some random character
6wombat – ditto for prepending some random character
merde3 – even for french words…
mr.spock – it’s in a sci-fi dictionary
zeolite – it’s in a geological dictionary
ze0lite – corrupted version of a word in a geological dictionary
ze0l1te – …ditto…
Z30L1T3 – …ditto…

I hope that these examples emphasise that ANY password derived from ANY
dictionary word (or personal information), modified in ANY way,
constitutes a potentially guessable password.

What makes a system insecure?


"The only system which is truly secure is one which is switched off
 and unplugged, locked in a titanium lined safe, buried in a concrete
 bunker, and is surrounded by nerve gas and very highly paid armed
 guards. Even then, I wouldn't stake my life on it."

A system is only as secure as the people who can get at it. It can be
“totally” secure without any protection at all, so long as its continued
good operation is important to everyone who can get at it, assuming all
those people are responsible, and regular backups are made in case of
hardware problems. Many laboratory PC’s quite merrily tick away the
hours like this.

The problems arise when a need (such as confidentiality) has to be
fulfilled. Once you start putting the locks on a system, it is fairly
likely that you will never stop.

Security holes manifest themselves in (broadly) four ways:

1) Physical Security Holes.

– Where the potential problem is caused by giving unauthorised persons
physical access to the machine, where this might allow them to perform
things that they shouldn’t be able to do.

A good example of this would be a public workstation room where it would
be trivial for a user to reboot a machine into single-user mode and muck
around with the workstation filestore, if precautions are not taken.

Another example of this is the need to restrict access to confidential
backup tapes, which may (otherwise) be read by any user with access to
the tapes and a tape drive, whether they are meant to have permission or
not.

2) Software Security Holes

– Where the problem is caused by badly written items of “privledged”
software (daemons, cronjobs) which can be compromised into doing things
which they shouldn’t oughta.

The most famous example of this is the “sendmail debug” hole (see
bibliography) which would enable a cracker to bootstrap a “root” shell.
This could be used to delete your filestore, create a new account, copy
your password file, anything.

(Contrary to popular opinion, crack attacks via sendmail were not just
restricted to the infamous “Internet Worm” – any cracker could do this
by using “telnet” to port 25 on the target machine. The story behind a
similar hole (this time in EMACS) is described in [Stoll].)

New holes like this appear all the time, and your best hopes are to:

a: try to structure your system so that as little software as possible
runs with root/daemon/bin privileges, and that which does is known to
be robust.

b: subscribe to a mailing list which can get details of problems
and/or fixes out to you as quickly as possible, and then ACT when you
receive information.

3) Incompatible Usage Security Holes

– Where, through lack of experience, or no fault of his/her own, the
System Manager assembles a combination of hardware and software which
when used as a system is seriously flawed from a security point of view.
It is the incompatibility of trying to do two unconnected but useful
things which creates the security hole.

Problems like this are a pain to find once a system is set up and
running, so it is better to build your system with them in mind. It’s
never too late to have a rethink, though.

Some examples are detailed below; let’s not go into them here, it would
only spoil the surprise.

4) Choosing a suitable security philosophy and maintaining it.

What is security through obscurity


Security Through Obscurity (STO) is the belief that a system of any sort
can be secure so long as nobody outside of its implementation group is
allowed to find out anything about its internal mechanisms. Hiding
account passwords in binary files or scripts with the presumption that
“nobody will ever find it” is a prime case of STO.

STO is a philosophy favoured by many bureaucratic agencies (military,
governmental, and industrial), and it used to be a major method of
providing “pseudosecurity” in computing systems.

Its usefulness has declined in the computing world with the rise of open
systems, networking, greater understanding of programming techniques, as
well as the increase in computing power available to the average person.

The basis of STO has always been to run your system on a “need to know”
basis. If a person doesn’t know how to do something which could impact
system security, then s/he isn’t dangerous.

Admittedly, this is sound in theory, but it can tie you into trusting a
small group of people for as long as they live. If your employees get
an offer of better pay from somewhere else, the knowledge goes with
them, whether the knowledge is replaceable or not. Once the secret gets
out, that is the end of your security.

Nowadays there is also a greater need for the ordinary user to know
details of how your system works than ever before, and STO falls down a
as a result. Many users today have advanced knowledge of how their
operating system works, and because of their experience will be able to
guess at the bits of knowledge that they didn’t “need to know”. This
bypasses the whole basis of STO, and makes your security useless.

Hence there is now a need is to to create systems which attempt to be
algorithmically secure (Kerberos, Secure RPC), rather than just
philosophically secure. So long as your starting criteria can be met,
your system is LOGICALLY secure.

“Shadow Passwords” (below) are sometimes dismissed as STO, but this is
incorrect, since (strictly) STO depends on restricting access to an
algorithm or technique, whereas shadow passwords provide security by
restricting access to vital data.