 Okay. Thank you. I just want to add a few things about that from yesterday. And so I will use the, from the title, still running. So I hope that you will stay together with me still running. Well, still running. Okay. Let's go. Well, in the beginning of 40 years ago, there was a publication, and it was about DES. It was the official publication. It was published before. And in 75, and the fifth, 46 was the right one. It was removed in 2005, and you go, still running. Thank you very much. There are many applications today using DES and also using triple desks. Single desks also. Okay. There was a lot of publication about that. And the first guess, site within 15 years, DES will be totally insecure. Maybe it's true, but it's still running. Okay. And so on. Okay. For the next one, we are speaking about RAC. There was a challenge for $100. If it is today, it will be a small part of a bitcoin. And there was a challenge saying it's for 40 CADeons years. It was victim. Yes, really. And the first year I have important publication in cryptography are in August. And why? Because nobody read it. And because, you know, because we are here at crypto in August. It's okay. TRM2, be careful when you predict something in cryptography. Well, TRM3 is from Ron Rivest. Be optimistic. Do the impossible. Well, because in fact, Ron Rivest and the other ones wanted to prove that RAC was impossible. And they did the success. And this is why we are here today. Okay. And, well, first year I said one day no one can duplicate the confidence that RAC offered after 20 years of cryptanalytic review. I think that we can at 40 today. So still running. And you can, to be sure against quantum computing, you can use the trick of Dan Beshtan and the other one using very large keys or the other way using the two large prime numbers. Okay. So still running for the centuries. Again, so let's say there were many attacks. Mat attacks, I'll go attacks, tempo, and so on, including the from Polkoshe somewhere here. And we are going to the TRM4 from Adi. Crypto will not broken. It will be bypassed. Yes. Okay. No, a little bit philosophy. Mathematical is less related to accounting that it is to philosophy is for them. Okay. So no, some experiment. Distributed RAC online here. And so I will, I will question the first, the air from RAC, Ron Leverst, Ron is easy. What about the future of RAC? So Ron, if you want to come here, thank you very much. Hello, hello. It's working. That's on good. Okay. Thank you. That's very kind of remember this is his 40 years since we started working on RSA. It was 40 years ago that Steve Boyack brought me the copy of the Diffie Hellman paper and said, hey, Ron, you might be interested in this. It was a beautiful paper and it did get me interested. I was able to get Adi and Len to work with me on this problem. But you asked for predictions and predictions are hard. That's one of the things I've learned over the years. Maybe I should stop making predictions. So, we didn't know when we started, we couldn't predict when we started, whether we'd succeed at solving the open problem they laid out or not. We came up with a solution that's still around, still running. But who could predict? And then there was that 40 quadrillion years, which I take responsibility for. Adi and Len did nothing to do with that, I think. Somewhere there was a zero drop or something, I'm not sure what happened there. But predictions are hard, especially about the future. And the other thing that's really been surprising to me is who could have predicted the growth of this community. I think that this is really wonderful. Just a marvelous family of friends and colleagues and an organization here too. So, at the time, 40 years ago, it didn't exist, but it's really grown and hope it continues for a long, long time. Okay, thank you. Same question for Adi. So, I'm often thinking about what will happen if RSA is broken tomorrow. It could be a big disaster for everyone, but especially for us, because we will have to return so many prizes that we received over the years. But then it occurred to me that there was one way to avoid this calamity. And this is if R, S, and A will be the ones who will break RSA. So... Okay. So then we'll return the prizes and immediately get new prizes instead. And now there is a third one, a Len Adelman. Normally it will be by Skype, but big surprise, Len is coming. To the future, as I can see, I'll still get to go third after these two guys. Actually, I haven't been at a crypto in about 30 years, it seems. I think you guys have done all right without me. Pleased to see that. As Ron said, you know, it's dangerous to predict. There's the famous line by Yogi Berra that prediction is really hard, especially about the future. But as pleasing as it is to see that the RSA public key crypto system has survived for 40 years, on a personal note, it's even more pleasing for me to see that R, S, and A have survived for 40 years. But to get into prediction, you know, you all know the situation with quantum. I can't say this about classical computing. I haven't seen anything in my entire life that would make me think that factoring can be done in polynomial time on a classical computer. And so, I kind of like the current situation. What I expect is that we're going to be left with this situation. This is a prediction that it will eventually, probably a long time from now, be proven that factoring can't be done in polynomial time on a classical computer and that primality testing, of course, can be done in polynomial time on a classical computer. The AKS algorithm demonstrates that. And that on a quantum computer, you know, thanks to Schor's results, we now know that both factoring and primality testing can be done in polynomial time. And I think that's a wonderful arrangement of things. It brings together three of my favorite things in the world. It brings together computation, number theory, and the laws of nature. It brings them together in a very beautiful way, and I expect battle persists no matter what happens to actual cryptography. Thank you very much.