I didn't read this as saying "open == secure"; rather I read it as "secure -> open", which is a very different thing.
Somehow I think they picked the nebula because it happened to fill the field of view...
Also, he awards bonus points for proofs of hardness. No one has managed to prove hardness for any existing block cipher. Block ciphers are simply ways to jumble the plaintext up in a reversible fashion. They are not based on difficult mathematical problems.
Proving hardness is something you do for asymmetrical ciphers, but asymmetrical ciphers are way too slow to be useful for actual messages.
What's in New Hampshire?
The difference is what can be done about it.
If the market decides that it's not important for people to have this, then the only way to change that is for the people who need it to somehow become rich. If the regulators decide people shouldn't have this, then the voters can change that. And if you factor in the increased independence and productivity of the recipients, it might not cost that much.
Of course the way we do it now is we force employers to make accommodations. That's better than nothing, but statistically the public is still paying; the burden is just randomly concentrated on a few unlucky employers.
I'd at least like to see them doing something like this contest that I suggested here a while ago.. As it stands, getting to Mars is hard enough; but unlike the Moon I don't think it's practical without a robotic "advance team" to prepare the way.
I like the idea of a browser for the front end, only because browsers are omnipresent and does not require installing potentially harmful code. However, apps are completely different, if only in that the code would require downloading, regardless.
And also, "You guys might want to think about, ah... febreezing that embassy of yours there... it smells like moldy pizza and... Assange crotch."
Oh, it is self-correcting. It's just that the process of correction isn't so nice for the people who have to live through it.
I kind of think Cleese of all people should know better. What do you do when you're a clever young snot? You offend your elders. The time comes for every Young Turk to discover what it's like for the Old Turks.
Since when have we reached the point where you aren't allowed to annoy or offend people?
Since never. You're still allowed to offend people, but it's never been the case you could do that with impunity.
The only thing that has really changed is that communication on a mass scale is literally too cheap to meter. That means putative offenses and the dudgeon that follows on them can spread across the globe in minutes rather than taking days or weeks to spread through your immediate circle of face-to-face acquaintances. So without people changing one bit, the circumstances in which they interact in have changed dramatically. For things to go back to the way they used to be people would actually have to stop being the same as they've always been.
Well good luck with that. People tend to be stubborn idiots. College students tend to be inexperienced stubborn idiots. That means they're trying to find their place in the world, and the way an inexperienced idiot would do that is to try to change the world. And if there's enough of them working together (using cheap global communications?) then they might even succeed. Sometimes that's even a good thing, but it's never pretty.
The reason people are so conventional is what economists call "agency costs". They aren't minimizing risk to their employers, they're minimizing risk to themselves.
"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]