"Since all he got was the public key, you can't actually decrypt streams that are being sent."
If that's really true (I can't access the link), then I think the headline is inaccurate: "Johansen Cracks...Encryption". Nothing has been cracked here. He is using a public key to encrypt a music stream. It sounds like what he has done is 1)reverse engineer an undocumented protocol to discover the encryption method, and 2)uncover the public key. Those are useful accomplishments, becasue as others have noted here, it makes the Airport Express useful to more than iTunes users. But however worthy of praise, reverse engineering is not the same thing as cracking encryption. Cracking encryption typically means finding a method of decryption without being told the key. Here, he is encrypting a message (the stream) using a public key. That nothing has been cracked is relevant over here in the USA because it makes this less likely to run afoul of the DMCA.
Also, does anyone know, do all Airport Expresses use the identical public/private key pair and the public key is embedded into iTunes? Or does each Airport Express broadcast its own unique public key which iTunes picks up?
If the AE is broadcasting its own public key, and it was not gotten by diassembling iTunes (and breaking the end user license agreement) then that makes this even more legitimate. Also, more secure, in case someone is actually out to crack the encryption. You would have to crack it not once, but once for every AE.
Also, knowing that this is public key encryption makes Apple's intentions seem more innocuous. The primary purpose of the encryption seems to be to provide a secure stream between source and destination, which prevents eavesdropping. As opposed to a more malicious goal, such as shutting out other vendors. True, Apple has not documented the AE protocol, but they have also not implemented some draconian system to prevent third parties from implementing AE compatability.
"Isn't it strange how, when we look at designs for future vehicles realized by past designers, the pictures look old-fashioned to us? Why does the 1950s vison of a futuristic hovercar look like nothing more than a 1950s automobile without wheels? Surely, to the contemporary viewer, these vehicles looked futuristic, but to us, they just look old-fashioned..."
Futuristic design is intrinsically self-negating prophesy. To predict a design of the future is impossible, for a design exists at the moment of prediction; By the act of predicting a design of the future you have created a design in the present. By the act of prediction the present is changed, and so to the future to which it leads. Were these styles not dated to the past, they would be available to become styles dated to the present.
The styles of yesterday's future were adopted into yesterday's present. Thus, those design styles ceased to be futuristic and became immediate within that era. To us, they look dated from that era because they do indeed date from that era, not from our own.
"Every engineer has a Microsoft PC sitting next to their Sun Blade"
Huh??? If they need both Unix and desktop applications why not replace these two boxes with a single Mac running OS X? A mac is one single computer which satisfies the requirements of two. Its both a Unix workstation and a personal PC which runs common desktop apps. And it does both of these jobs better than the competion. Is a dual G5 vs Sparc even a contest? Maintaining one single machine per user is easier and cheaper than maintaining two machines per user. Purchase price for one fast G5 is probably the same or less as for a Win PC + Sun Blade. Macs are durable, quality hardware. Kickass OpenGL video cards also, that' got to help with CAD.
So with a Mac, you get equal or lower initial cost, lower TCO because you only have to maintain one machine, not two, and one architecture, not two. Much, much faster hardware. Half the power consumption because you are only running one computer. Great user interface.
I'd think going with Mac would be a no-brainer in this particular situation. What's the deal?
"Don't underestimate the power that is 'IE default'"
That's a good point. I believe that the majority of users do not know how to change their browser home page or would not bother. Of for that matter, setup a browser button for Google.
However, you have overlooked a powerful force which has the potential to undo Microsoft's advantage; Us. It is the tech elite here on Slashdot who usually have the final say over how machines are configured after unboxing, both at work and in the home. Not Microsoft.
I think many of us here either administrate computers on the job or help out our friends and relatives. If we all take advantage of those opportunties to setup a convenient link to Google and explain that to the end user, the Microsoft search engine business will be toast.
I am not suggesting that we be pushy and evangelical about it, because that is likely to backfire. DO NOT launch into an anti-Micrsoft tirade. Be stealthy. Be subtle and be tactful. Just say that, based on your own experience, you think Google is a better way to search and ask if the user would like you to configure their browser to make that more convenient. If you are a sys admin for a department, you might have the authority to configure machines that way at setup time without asking every user's permission.
Some people might be worried about involving anti-Microsoft politics in what should be a professional decision about how to configure computers on the job. This is an appropriate concern. However, if you believe that Google is the better search engine, then you really do have a legitimate and good non-political motive. Perhaps, in some cases, an obligation. Giving informed product recommendations is part of your roll as a computer expert.
It is important to ask permission if you are changing an existing setup. You don't want users to associate Google with "That righteous geek asshole who changed my home page setting and I don't know how to change it back."
How about some folloup posts here with numbers of desktops on which you have made Google the browser home page?
"'Inventiveness' sounds a lot like 'innovation,' which has been a Microsoft buzzword for many years."
The words are similar, but Microsoft's use of "innonavation" was a different game than this new thing of trying to seem inventive. "Innovation" was part of their "Microsoft has a right to innovate" assertion. "The right to innovate" was their objection to government regulation of Windows design. "The right to innovate" is what gives Microsoft the right to add new features to Windows. That is why software which Microsoft bundles with Windows is merged into the operating system. Technically, there is no reason to make the browser part of the operating system. But if you are a monopoly seeking to avoid restrictions on bundling, then there is a legal reason. If the bundled product is merged into the OS, then its not bundling, it's "innovation".
from the article: "We think--patent for patent--what we are doing is, if anything, more important than what others are doing." - BG
"Gates demonstrated several new technologies that the company's research unit is working on..."
This looks like a publicity campaign to associate Microsoft with inventiveness. Microsoft wants to establish, in the minds of the public, the notion that Bill Gates is the Thomas Edison of software. Apart from the obvious explanation, a marketing campaign, why might they do that? Maybe its a prelude to taking Linux distributors to court for patent violation. The conditioning of public opinion far ahead of the legal battle will help to insulate Microsoft from negative attitudes once the court battles begin. For one reason, however much the a patent dispute lowers their public approval, they would start out at higher place if they do this first. Second, people will tend to dismiss criticisms of these bogus Microsoft patents if they already have had fixed in their minds the idea that Microsoft is a factory for novel inventions. Microsoft is at work now tilting the field of public opinion before kickoff.
Bill Gates succeeds in business and that seems to owe partly to distant plannning horizons. For example, he seems willing to sustain XBox lossess for years in the hope of market domination further along "The Road Ahead." So IMHO its reasonable to suspect that here Microsoft is preening in advance of a legal battle which they plan to initiate later, perhaps years ahead. Of course, only time will tell if this suspicion is correct. That, or another leaked Halloween document.
Whether you are comfortable with it or not, that mapping is congruent with grandparent post; Sauroman opposes Frodo. Bush opposes Saddam. Sauroman is Bush. Therefore Saddam is Frodo.
It's not accidents during surgery that you have to worry about so much as the long-term consequences. They are removeing part of the cornea eye and this weakens the eye structurally. Nobody knows what are the consequences of reduced structural integrity twenty or more years down the road.
"We need a regulated monopoly to bring IP to the home and then allow companies to compete in providing services over that wire."
Q: What is the only remaining stone-age backwards-ass conduit used for broadband delivery? A: Twisted pair.
Q: Where is the only place you find twisted pair used for broadband? A: The last mile of domestic broadband provided by telecoms.
Q: What is the only broadband conduit controlled by regulated monopolies? A: The last mile of domestic broadband provided by telecoms.
The ENTIRE COUNTRY is wired for broadband except for the last mile to homes. The last mile is the ONLY government regulated monopoly. The REASON that that we are stuck with this crappy copper twisted pair telecom service to our doors is BECAUSE it has been provided by regulated monopolies.
After several decades of government regulated monopolies, suddenly the courts introduce competition for the last mile of service by establishing private property rights to the last mile. Now, for the first time, companies which invest in building the last mile have exclusive control over their own network. Now they can recoup investments in the network infrastructre by selling selling service to customers, instead of being being undercut by competitores selling service over that same network. And what happens as a result? Companies roll out fiber. Cheap fiber. Fiber cheaper than DSL. Fiber with thousands of times the bandwith. You think this is just, what? coincidence?
Face the facts. Socialism does not work. You socialists had your chance for decades and you screwed it up. The continued existence of twisted pair on the last mile is a textbook example of socialism not working. It is our turn now. Property rights, rule of law, and competition have arrived on the scene; The free market has is here, say hello to ever cheaper fiber to the doorstep.
You liberals, with your government regulation and monopolies. Cry all you like about free markets. I revel in your ideological dispair! Ah... that delightful schadenfreude, as an unregulated capitalist upgrades my POTS line to $35.00/ month fiber while you writhe in political frustration.
"...holding the second highest rank in the Order of the British Empire seems a lot less noble when we consider the persecution under which many countries within the empire existed."
Now there's informative comment. (At least I was informed by it. )
By the way, the wikipedia definition of "monopolistic competition" is here
I like yours, and IMHO Wikipeida's is confusing. There is a really good one here.
Yay! Maybe these telecommunications/rail synergies will spur a resurgence of rail transport in the US. As measered in tons per mile per dollar, rail travel is by far the most efficient form of transport. Of course, there are other perfectly legitimate concerns such as connectivity (trains don't go everywhere that cars do), convenience (you have to synchronize your schedule to the train), and speed (jet planes are faster) which have made rail travel a modern loser in the United States. Well those things, and also brutal treatment by government.
But I am wondering if telecommunications can help to mitigate some of the more significant shortcommings of rail. For one thing, if you can make productive use of your time on the train, by telecommuting while you are commuting, that should make a big difference in deciding whether to drive or train. Secondly, back in the old days, if you did not live in a city, then your fancy store bought goods were purchased mail-order from the Sears catalog and shipped to you rail freight. People prefer to see goods for themselves, which might be why shopping malls and Wal-Marts litter the countryside now. However, the trend seems to be moving back to remote purchasing because you can now see the goods over the web. So does this mean that we can move back rail freight also, at least for shipment between regional hubs, if not door-to-door?
Another thing is, with automated inventory, it should be possible to track rail packages in transit to within a few meters. So no "it's on a train somewhere" answers when you ask about your package. If the packaging contains RFID tags, and the train has internet access and GPS, then it should be a matter of software to glue that all together and give me live reports over the web of where my package is. Its true that this is not the same thing as speedy transport, but it is predicatability. Speed and predictability both help solve the same problem, which is planning. You can achieve just-in-time delivery by fast transport, but in some cases you could use slower transport and earlier ordering if you also have predictable delivery.
"Rebates work by the majority of people not using them..."
They also work because the store can simply refuse to honor them. I know from personal experience that Staples does this. On December, 23, 2003 I was shopping in a Staples in Mt. Vernon, Ohio and noticed an in-store display offering a $20.00 rebate for a Netgear wireless router. I bought it, the cash register printed the rebate forms, and I submitted them with the proof-of-purchase by the deadline. I received back in the mail a postcard reading "The store where product was purchased is not participating in this rebate program."
I don't know enought about the law to know whether this consititures fraud. But even if Staples is engaging in fraud by advertising rebates in their stores which they will refuse to honor, so what? Its not like anyone is going to hire a lawyer just to recover $20.00.
"I've always wondered why the US hasn't built up their mass transit abilities on the national level."
That's the wrong question. You should be asking why we lost the one that we had. At the beginning of the century you could travel to almost anywhere you wanted to go in the US by rail. Little villages all across countryside had passenger rail service, most with multiple stops a day.
A "PI number" would be even more difficult to remember.
So I think "PIN number" is more rational.
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
"As of right now the "rebuilding" efforts of Iraq are in the hands of corporate contractors (from the liberating nations) who are being offered large sums of money to "help" over there. Will Linux be able to compete with the puppet-government mandated contractors who are likely more interested in filling their own coffers rather than those of the Iraqi people?"
Like others who have repsonded to that remark, I don't share your simplistic attitude that "corporate=evil". There is Enron but there is also Scaled Composites. You need to learn to evaluate corporations individually.
That said, I am skepticial about government contracting; The decisions about which rebuilding efforts to fund are not made with eyes on the ground in Iraq but from Washinton. Funding cycles are so long that specific problems may no longer exist by the time the remedy is funded.
I believe that corporate contracting is not an adequate solution to the problems of Iraq, so I did something about, I donated:
www.spiritofamerica.net
Slashdot Mirror
"Japan allows far lighter cars on the road and yet, has only 60% of the fatal accidents per 10,000 vehicles"
That is a bullshit statisitic.
Had you epressed the accident rate in fatalites per vehicle mile, instead of fatalites per vehicle, you would have a point.
"Since all he got was the public key, you can't actually decrypt streams that are being sent."
If that's really true (I can't access the link), then I think the headline is inaccurate: "Johansen Cracks...Encryption". Nothing has been cracked here. He is using a public key to encrypt a music stream. It sounds like what he has done is 1)reverse engineer an undocumented protocol to discover the encryption method, and 2)uncover the public key. Those are useful accomplishments, becasue as others have noted here, it makes the Airport Express useful to more than iTunes users. But however worthy of praise, reverse engineering is not the same thing as cracking encryption. Cracking encryption typically means finding a method of decryption without being told the key. Here, he is encrypting a message (the stream) using a public key. That nothing has been cracked is relevant over here in the USA because it makes this less likely to run afoul of the DMCA.
Also, does anyone know, do all Airport Expresses use the identical public/private key pair and the public key is embedded into iTunes? Or does each Airport Express broadcast its own unique public key which iTunes picks up?
If the AE is broadcasting its own public key, and it was not gotten by diassembling iTunes (and breaking the end user license agreement) then that makes this even more legitimate. Also, more secure, in case someone is actually out to crack the encryption. You would have to crack it not once, but once for every AE.
Also, knowing that this is public key encryption makes Apple's intentions seem more innocuous. The primary purpose of the encryption seems to be to provide a secure stream between source and destination, which prevents eavesdropping. As opposed to a more malicious goal, such as shutting out other vendors. True, Apple has not documented the AE protocol, but they have also not implemented some draconian system to prevent third parties from implementing AE compatability.
>(btw: wtf is in the water out there? SCO, Orrin Hatch, etc.)
>>...On top of this, throw in the whole persecution of Mormons and you'll get a bit of cultural paranoia...
What's wrong with persecuting them, don't they derserve it?
Oh.... Mormons
"My favourite animal is the otter."
Your sig is otterly cool.
"Isn't it strange how, when we look at designs for future vehicles realized by past designers, the pictures look old-fashioned to us? Why does the 1950s vison of a futuristic hovercar look like nothing more than a 1950s automobile without wheels? Surely, to the contemporary viewer, these vehicles looked futuristic, but to us, they just look old-fashioned..."
Futuristic design is intrinsically self-negating prophesy. To predict a design of the future is impossible, for a design exists at the moment of prediction; By the act of predicting a design of the future you have created a design in the present. By the act of prediction the present is changed, and so to the future to which it leads. Were these styles not dated to the past, they would be available to become styles dated to the present.
The styles of yesterday's future were adopted into yesterday's present. Thus, those design styles ceased to be futuristic and became immediate within that era. To us, they look dated from that era because they do indeed date from that era, not from our own.
"Every engineer has a Microsoft PC sitting next to their Sun Blade"
Huh??? If they need both Unix and desktop applications why not replace these two boxes with a single Mac running OS X? A mac is one single computer which satisfies the requirements of two. Its both a Unix workstation and a personal PC which runs common desktop apps. And it does both of these jobs better than the competion. Is a dual G5 vs Sparc even a contest? Maintaining one single machine per user is easier and cheaper than maintaining two machines per user. Purchase price for one fast G5 is probably the same or less as for a Win PC + Sun Blade. Macs are durable, quality hardware. Kickass OpenGL video cards also, that' got to help with CAD.
So with a Mac, you get equal or lower initial cost, lower TCO because you only have to maintain one machine, not two, and one architecture, not two. Much, much faster hardware. Half the power consumption because you are only running one computer. Great user interface.
I'd think going with Mac would be a no-brainer in this particular situation. What's the deal?
"Don't underestimate the power that is 'IE default'"
That's a good point. I believe that the majority of users do not know how to change their browser home page or would not bother. Of for that matter, setup a browser button for Google.
However, you have overlooked a powerful force which has the potential to undo Microsoft's advantage; Us. It is the tech elite here on Slashdot who usually have the final say over how machines are configured after unboxing, both at work and in the home. Not Microsoft.
I think many of us here either administrate computers on the job or help out our friends and relatives. If we all take advantage of those opportunties to setup a convenient link to Google and explain that to the end user, the Microsoft search engine business will be toast.
I am not suggesting that we be pushy and evangelical about it, because that is likely to backfire. DO NOT launch into an anti-Micrsoft tirade. Be stealthy. Be subtle and be tactful. Just say that, based on your own experience, you think Google is a better way to search and ask if the user would like you to configure their browser to make that more convenient. If you are a sys admin for a department, you might have the authority to configure machines that way at setup time without asking every user's permission.
Some people might be worried about involving anti-Microsoft politics in what should be a professional decision about how to configure computers on the job. This is an appropriate concern. However, if you believe that Google is the better search engine, then you really do have a legitimate and good non-political motive. Perhaps, in some cases, an obligation. Giving informed product recommendations is part of your roll as a computer expert.
It is important to ask permission if you are changing an existing setup. You don't want users to associate Google with "That righteous geek asshole who changed my home page setting and I don't know how to change it back."
How about some folloup posts here with numbers of desktops on which you have made Google the browser home page?
"'Inventiveness' sounds a lot like 'innovation,' which has been a Microsoft buzzword for many years."
The words are similar, but Microsoft's use of "innonavation" was a different game than this new thing of trying to seem inventive. "Innovation" was part of their "Microsoft has a right to innovate" assertion. "The right to innovate" was their objection to government regulation of Windows design. "The right to innovate" is what gives Microsoft the right to add new features to Windows. That is why software which Microsoft bundles with Windows is merged into the operating system. Technically, there is no reason to make the browser part of the operating system. But if you are a monopoly seeking to avoid restrictions on bundling, then there is a legal reason. If the bundled product is merged into the OS, then its not bundling, it's "innovation".
from the article:
"We think--patent for patent--what we are doing is, if anything, more important than what others are doing." - BG
"Gates demonstrated several new technologies that the company's research unit is working on..."
This looks like a publicity campaign to associate Microsoft with inventiveness. Microsoft wants to establish, in the minds of the public, the notion that Bill Gates is the Thomas Edison of software. Apart from the obvious explanation, a marketing campaign, why might they do that? Maybe its a prelude to taking Linux distributors to court for patent violation. The conditioning of public opinion far ahead of the legal battle will help to insulate Microsoft from negative attitudes once the court battles begin. For one reason, however much the a patent dispute lowers their public approval, they would start out at higher place if they do this first. Second, people will tend to dismiss criticisms of these bogus Microsoft patents if they already have had fixed in their minds the idea that Microsoft is a factory for novel inventions. Microsoft is at work now tilting the field of public opinion before kickoff.
Bill Gates succeeds in business and that seems to owe partly to distant plannning horizons. For example, he seems willing to sustain XBox lossess for years in the hope of market domination further along "The Road Ahead." So IMHO its reasonable to suspect that here Microsoft is preening in advance of a legal battle which they plan to initiate later, perhaps years ahead. Of course, only time will tell if this suspicion is correct. That, or another leaked Halloween document.
Whether you are comfortable with it or not, that mapping is congruent with grandparent post; Sauroman opposes Frodo. Bush opposes Saddam. Sauroman is Bush. Therefore Saddam is Frodo.
Continuing in that theme...
USA - Mordor. Sauron's home.Saddam - Frodo. Underdog facing the mighty Bush/Sauroman.
Tony Blair - ??
It's not accidents during surgery that you have to worry about so much as the long-term consequences. They are removeing part of the cornea eye and this weakens the eye structurally. Nobody knows what are the consequences of reduced structural integrity twenty or more years down the road.
"About 2001. Where we had a moon base, commercial space station, regular commercial space travel.."
You left out black monoliths.
"We need a regulated monopoly to bring IP to the home and then allow companies to compete in providing services over that wire."
Q: What is the only remaining stone-age backwards-ass conduit used for broadband delivery?
A: Twisted pair.
Q: Where is the only place you find twisted pair used for broadband?
A: The last mile of domestic broadband provided by telecoms.
Q: What is the only broadband conduit controlled by regulated monopolies?
A: The last mile of domestic broadband provided by telecoms.
The ENTIRE COUNTRY is wired for broadband except for the last mile to homes. The last mile is the ONLY government regulated monopoly. The REASON that that we are stuck with this crappy copper twisted pair telecom service to our doors is BECAUSE it has been provided by regulated monopolies.
After several decades of government regulated monopolies, suddenly the courts introduce competition for the last mile of service by establishing private property rights to the last mile. Now, for the first time, companies which invest in building the last mile have exclusive control over their own network. Now they can recoup investments in the network infrastructre by selling selling service to customers, instead of being being undercut by competitores selling service over that same network. And what happens as a result? Companies roll out fiber. Cheap fiber. Fiber cheaper than DSL. Fiber with thousands of times the bandwith. You think this is just, what? coincidence?
Face the facts. Socialism does not work. You socialists had your chance for decades and you screwed it up. The continued existence of twisted pair on the last mile is a textbook example of socialism not working. It is our turn now. Property rights, rule of law, and competition have arrived on the scene; The free market has is here, say hello to ever cheaper fiber to the doorstep.
You liberals, with your government regulation and monopolies. Cry all you like about free markets. I revel in your ideological dispair! Ah... that delightful schadenfreude, as an unregulated capitalist upgrades my POTS line to $35.00/ month fiber while you writhe in political frustration.
You left out video wall.
"Amongst the more than 3,000 in this auction (1 of 10) are state and federal law books"
Unopened, in original packaging?
"...holding the second highest rank in the Order of the British Empire seems a lot less noble when we consider the persecution under which many countries within the empire existed."
So you're from India, right ?
Coincidentally, over at the American Specator, home base for the vast right wing conspiracy, there is an article about Sowell.
Now there's informative comment. (At least I was informed by it. )
By the way, the wikipedia definition of "monopolistic competition" is here I like yours, and IMHO Wikipeida's is confusing. There is a really good one here.
Yay! Maybe these telecommunications/rail synergies will spur a resurgence of rail transport in the US. As measered in tons per mile per dollar, rail travel is by far the most efficient form of transport. Of course, there are other perfectly legitimate concerns such as connectivity (trains don't go everywhere that cars do), convenience (you have to synchronize your schedule to the train), and speed (jet planes are faster) which have made rail travel a modern loser in the United States. Well those things, and also brutal treatment by government.
But I am wondering if telecommunications can help to mitigate some of the more significant shortcommings of rail. For one thing, if you can make productive use of your time on the train, by telecommuting while you are commuting, that should make a big difference in deciding whether to drive or train. Secondly, back in the old days, if you did not live in a city, then your fancy store bought goods were purchased mail-order from the Sears catalog and shipped to you rail freight. People prefer to see goods for themselves, which might be why shopping malls and Wal-Marts litter the countryside now. However, the trend seems to be moving back to remote purchasing because you can now see the goods over the web. So does this mean that we can move back rail freight also, at least for shipment between regional hubs, if not door-to-door?
Another thing is, with automated inventory, it should be possible to track rail packages in transit to within a few meters. So no "it's on a train somewhere" answers when you ask about your package. If the packaging contains RFID tags, and the train has internet access and GPS, then it should be a matter of software to glue that all together and give me live reports over the web of where my package is. Its true that this is not the same thing as speedy transport, but it is predicatability. Speed and predictability both help solve the same problem, which is planning. You can achieve just-in-time delivery by fast transport, but in some cases you could use slower transport and earlier ordering if you also have predictable delivery.
"Rebates work by the majority of people not using them..."
They also work because the store can simply refuse to honor them. I know from personal experience that Staples does this. On December, 23, 2003 I was shopping in a Staples in Mt. Vernon, Ohio and noticed an in-store display offering a $20.00 rebate for a Netgear wireless router. I bought it, the cash register printed the rebate forms, and I submitted them with the proof-of-purchase by the deadline. I received back in the mail a postcard reading "The store where product was purchased is not participating in this rebate program."
I don't know enought about the law to know whether this consititures fraud. But even if Staples is engaging in fraud by advertising rebates in their stores which they will refuse to honor, so what? Its not like anyone is going to hire a lawyer just to recover $20.00.
"I've always wondered why the US hasn't built up their mass transit abilities on the national level."
That's the wrong question. You should be asking why we lost the one that we had. At the beginning of the century you could travel to almost anywhere you wanted to go in the US by rail. Little villages all across countryside had passenger rail service, most with multiple stops a day.
"Also note that Stuart Cheshire is the brainchild of ZeroConf"
brainchild noun: an original idea attributed to a person or group.
You must have meant to type that ZeroConf is the brainchild of Stuart Cheshire.
"if only I can remember my PIN number"
A "PI number" would be even more difficult to remember.
So I think "PIN number" is more rational.
Like others who have repsonded to that remark, I don't share your simplistic attitude that "corporate=evil". There is Enron but there is also Scaled Composites. You need to learn to evaluate corporations individually.
That said, I am skepticial about government contracting; The decisions about which rebuilding efforts to fund are not made with eyes on the ground in Iraq but from Washinton. Funding cycles are so long that specific problems may no longer exist by the time the remedy is funded.
I believe that corporate contracting is not an adequate solution to the problems of Iraq, so I did something about, I donated: www.spiritofamerica.net