As far as we know, the speed of light has always been the same.
Not necessarily. Some so-called variable speed of light theories postulate that c could have been up to 60 orders of magnitude bigger in the very early universe than it is today. This would solve some problems in cosmology, and form an alternative to cosmic inflation theories.
The researchers also found that queries made to programs written in interpreted languages such as Python or Ruby -- both very popular on the Web -- generated responses much more slowly than other types of languages such as C or assembly language, making timing attacks more feasible. "For languages that are interpreted, you end up with a much greater timing difference than people thought," Lawson said.
Is there any situation where interpreted languages are actually faster than said other languages?
Devising a system with a different currency for information sure as hell is necessary. The radical solution however, is not reputation exchange. Because then you'll come to the age old question of what's good and what's bad. In each culture, one's reputation would depend on different factor. Even factor that would up the reputation level in one place, would downgrade the reputation in the other. Not very useful in terms of international trade. However, I quite like the idea of something other than money the currency. I'd propose something more or less like the following:
People start out with a given number of credits/kudos/whatever-you'd-like-to-call-it. To get some kind of information you'd need to sacrifice a given number of credits. Giving information away would lead to receiving some a certain amount of credits. So in order to keep receiving information you need to GIVE information away as well. In such a way you prevent people from downloading huge amounts of data without giving something in return. On the other hand, you would ensure content creators give their information away, because otherwise they would not be able to receive information in the future (and everybody wants/needs information, right?). To ensure this not falling into a normal money system, one could propose a system where the cost of receiving is lower than the benefits of giving. So one would need to give more information than one receives to keep a positive account balance. Say person A and B have both have 1000 information credits. Persons A has some information that person B wants. Person B " sacrifices" 750 credits to get this information, while person A only receives 500 credits in giving this information. For person B to keep receiving information from person A, he has to give away his acquired information to another person (person C). It might seem like a normal money system, but whereas the usual systems focus on "acquiring as much as possible" this information-credit system more focusses on "giving as much as possible". Entirely different economy.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source