The problem is that Flash doesn't integrate in with anything ASP or.NET . XML is good in some ways for this, but no.NET developer wants to learn ActiveScript, buy FlashMX, learn a whole new way of creating UIs, and learn about AJAX to get Flash integrating with their current systems.
I think if Adobe invested more in Flash, and specifically getting more developers into Flash, they'd have a solid niche. But they've made Flash development more difficult to get into than it needs to be, and I think that based on that alone you can predict that Silverlight will probably fight a downhill battle and win over Flash.
I think it first came about in that Simpsons episode where Truman printed a trillion dollar bill to give to "our allies who fought so poorly, and surrendered so readily". I hope this isn't what the American public in general thinks, but it does seem to be.
They're also telling barbers there will be no more plucking of Iranian eyebrows under any circumstances. I'm not sure which clause of which Islamic law comments on the evils of plucking eyebrows or text messaging, but it looks like the Iranian government has a firm grasp of the literature.
This isn't a replacement for the Trans-Atlantic cables, this is a redundant route so that people in South-East Asia and Australasia have an alternate route for getting traffic to the US when the cables that pass through Japan and/or Taiwan are damaged. My connection (on the Agile network) travels directly from Sydney to San Jose, CA. To benefit from this it sounds like my connection would have to travel up to Japan, and currently my route to Japan runs through America. I'm not sure if Australia will benefit from this.
It's strange how they want you to use the torrent to download this, and then seed, even though it's an online multiplayer game that surely you'll want to play the moment you've finished the download without having torrents running in the background.
That *is* Bush, because he's sits above them. It's so much easier to blame one person for all the country's problems. Much easier than looking for people who are actually to blame.
My Inspiron 2200 looks excellent; it's not one of those glossy screen silver abominations, I've had people comment on how good it looks, and the call-out support has been excellent. When some of my memory failed support came out the next day to replace it.
"Bush" is not a synonym for "American foreign policy" or "the American government" or "the Bush administration" as you seem to think it is. If the government requested that the site be taken down, and the site actually didn't violate any of the terms of service, that's fine and I'm interested to hear it.
My only point was that it's not "Bush", it's the FBI/whatever organization/bureau/agency. People who think everything bad the government does can be attributed to the president aren't going to actually think about who is screwing up, and so nothing gets fixed.
Give blame where blame is due, don't talk to me about "Bush" where it isn't actually him. In the case of Cryptome it isn't actually him; find out if something shady was done, find out who did it, try and get it fixed. Don't get lazy and blame Bush, it gets so tiring.
I bet Cryptome was brought down by special request of George W. Bush himself! The guy is an evil super-villian behind everything.
Yesterday I couldn't find my goddamned keys anywhere; I put them right there on the side and the next day they were gone..
Bush won't think twice about shorting your car battery, rusting your bike chain or cutting holes in the bottom your pockets; he's just that evil. My co-workers say I need to stop ranting about Bush and that I should get back to work.. Clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment!
This is another example of Bush working his evil ways through an innocent ISP.
Patriot act blood for oil McCarthy state of fear American dream blah blah blah.
Nobody has to if you trust the certificate authority. What use is reading it anyway, if it hasn't been signed by a CA/friend and can be tampered with?
Even if they did, they don't really mean anything anyway. How difficult is it to get a real certificate with fake credentials?
If a CA is worth its salt, nigh on impossible; that's what you pay those ridiculous prices for (at least, that's where the money should go). This is the main problem with an open CA; there are presumably fewer security checks that the person requesting the certificate is who he says he is.
Moreover, if the URL is similar enough to the target of your phish then your SSL certifcate may well be legitmate in every sense of the word but you trick people because the URL is close enough to a big brand's main domain.
That's a phishing problem, not a crypto problem.
I think Zimmerman, with his ZPhone program, has got it right. Really, all you're interested in for E-mail or VoIP is not whether the person really is Simon Johnson, of Widnes, based in the United Kingdom who is 23 years old with a pet dog called Thornton. You're actually interested in whether this Ckwop guy I'm speaking to now is the same guy as I spoke to last-time.
This is exactly what happens when you cache a certificate which hasn't been signed. If you go to, say, https://hackinthebox.org/ you will get a certificate warning because it hasn't been signed. You don't know if anyone has replaced the certificate along the way, but once you have cached the certificate you can be sure that you are securely communicating with whoever sent you the first certificate. Using a certificate authority means that you can also be confident that the person who sent the first certificate are who they say they are.
So whatever the ZPhone is, it sounds like plain old certificate-less public key encryption.
When you weaken your security requirement to this position, you can remove a staggering amount of complexity. You can cut out all the CAs, all the X.509 certificates and ASN.1 implementations etc. What you're left with is Diffie-Helman and AES in CCM mode. You can implement this in a couple of thousand lines of provably correct code and your done.
Ensuring secure code doesn't bother me, I'm much more interested in having secure protocols. There's no point of having "provable code" if all the protocols are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks (the attack which certificate authorities are designed to prevent).
The real way to solve the "identification problem" with web-sites is to change the way credit-cards work. You have a secure token that outputs a different string every thirty seconds. RSA have made these but they're very expensive for no explicable reason, the banks would develop an open-standard in my model to drive down prices. When you pay for something, you submit your credit-card along with the token's value. The transaction will only be authorised if the token's value matches what the bank thinks that value should be.
Credit cards? 30 seconds windows during which my money is accessible? We already have things that are better than this.
As regards the Certificate Authority issue here is the rundown as I see it:
The current way things are: CAs are very expensive, which means sites often don't use any encryption at all.
Having an open certificate authority: Who pays for properly checking that a person is who they say they are?
A key signing network: This is the idealistic approach, done at the moment in GPG keyservers; Everyone signs their friends' keys, who sign their friends' keys, and a web of trust is built up. It takes effort though, and there are still trust issues.
A government CA: The government assigns public/private keys to individuals and bus
Without money flowing in to OSS, fewer people will be able to do useful work.
Sure there is a perception of OSS being written by the selfless hackers giving all their spare time. In reality though, people need to eat, pay the rent and buy computers etc. When organisations fund OSS development they help make it real. OSS businesses have found various ways to make money and do so in various ways.
I think there's a distinction that has to be drawn. There are companies that hire programmers to work on Open Source projects, and return that source to the project. They'll do this to get their own features and be compelled by the license or otherwise to give the source back into the project. I think this is a positive thing, because it gets better as more companies use it.
With things like Red Hat where they are making money out of the source it's not so clearly beneficial, because conflicts of interest arise. If Red Hat can get more money for support by making things more complex or more likely to break they will; they're no longer necessarily in it to improve things, but to make money. When the two objectives are the same things improve, and have improved, but when they're not you get things like security patches being sold.
We are learning slowly that we really aren't that complex. We just didn't know that yet. This is kind of like how we used to think living things spontaneously came into being, and how life was driven by a mysterious essence. Now we know it's simply trillions upon trillions of interacting cells reading from a database of genetic code and transcribing it into proteins, reacting oxygen to produce energy using intricate membranes and switching genes on and off during growth using hormones travelling down blood vessels, protected by an immune system that learns about different bacteria and viruses throughout life, all protected by a skin that constantly grows, sheds and repairs itself.
We used to think that the liver was responsible for anger, and the heart was responsible for love, because those are the things that seemed to react when we felt those emotions. But boy did those bafflingly complex notions fly out of the door when we discovered emotion is due to having a mass of billions of interconnected...
I could go on and on and I have a very simplified laymans view of how the whole thing works.. I don't know how you can say we're starting to realize how simple we are, we're realizing how complex we are.
GM foods, by the way, haven't had their actual genomes modified, they have new genes added that create new proteins that can do things like attack insects. It's nothing as complicated as actually changing an existing gene in a useful way, which would be much more difficult because of the ways genes interact in so many ways.
Less oxygen around than we thought.. What process rapidly consumes oxygen? Hydrogen&Oxygen fuel cells used in rockets. Who recently flew into space? Microsoft billionaire Simonyi. What is produced in the reaction? Water vapor. What does water vapor in the atmosphere do? Act as a greenhouse gas and cause global warming. What will be one of the effects of global warming? Many more third world refugees. Who benefits from there being more third world refugees? Providers of technology for the OLPC project. Which company recently became part of the project? Microsoft!
You're at the wrong site.. Help me think of ways that this is Microsoft's fault, or a good car analogy to explain it to a layman, or a way to turn it into a debate about religion, and if all else fails look for spelling and grammar mistakes.
I thought I covered this when I said
if it gets it from somewhere else but it is read by the kernel in/boot that's also no good because the kernel could be replaced. If you're protecting against theft having an unencrypted kernel read the password is fine. But if you're protecting against theft why both with full disk encryption; why not just encrypt specific files or use a virtual encrypted drive like TrueCrypt?
The main reason for full disk encryption instead of alternatives is that it makes it impossible to modify any part of the operating system while the machine is offline; so you can have a system running in an insecure environment, and no-one can power it off and steal your hashes or change things around because everything on the disk is encrypted.
Now if the machine can be powered off and the kernel can be modified it can be modified to save the password you entered, or simply rootkitted. If you're going to allow that why not just encrypt the specific files/directories you want to protect?
If you keep the kernel separate (eg on a CD or thumbdrive that you keep with you), and you actually mean full disk encryption when you say full disk encryption, an attacker would have to modify the hardware in the machine. If it was a desktop machine they might add a keylogger, or if it was a server they might replace the BIOS, but it would have to be a more determined and experienced attacker than someone simply swapping out your HDD and modifying your kernel.
Where does it get the key from? If it gets it from/boot then that's no good, and if it gets it from somewhere else but it is read by the kernel in/boot that's also no good because the kernel could be replaced.
To have secure full disk encryption it has to be full disk encryption. The only real solution that doesn't involve crypto hardware is to carry/boot around with you on a CD.
Please, take your form response, shove it up your ass, and set yourself alight. My statement is an opinion, not of fact. Scientists state facts based on evidence that temperatures and water levels are rising and will continue to, and that there could be less arable land and ensuing starvation and drought in the coming decades.
Your statement of opinion is "let's wait 30 years and see".
Do I believe we need to cut back on our waste? Of course, this is a fact given our finite number of resources available to us. I find it largely interesting that papers state data from the past 100 years or so. Last thing this planet does is work on sub-100 year cycles (we've barely had the ability to assign numbers to temperature for a couple hundred years). Well well, aren't you the well informed climatologist. You refer to "papers" like you spend your free time reading climatology journals.
See Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis: 2. Observed Climate Variability and Change, it contains a summary of works from several papers, many of which comment on climate change on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years.
e.g. Figure 2.22: Variations of temperature, methane, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations derived from air trapped within ice cores from Antarctica (adapted from Sowers and Bender, 1995; Blunier et al., 1997; Fischer et al., 1999; Petit et al., 1999).25 years.
Do yourself a favor in the future, entertain debate, and lively discussion next time instead of being a pompous asshole who hides behind a form response. Usually if you want to have a debate on the subject you'll learn something about it first. Clearly you haven't taken the time to read even the IPCC summaries, so debate with you means "I think this" "But look at this report!" "No, you're wrong, I think this. <Insert swear words here>"
I assume you've published scientific articles on the issue since you demand that of others? Hmmmm...didn't fucking think so.
Good Luck! I demand that of anyone who thinks they know better than those who have published scientific articles..
I agree with the scientific consensus, so I can point you (and have pointed you) to the papers those scientists have published. You don't, so you have to point me to some equally convincing papers. Since none exist you have to come up with some of your own.
Getting your knowledge about black holes from a book by Stephen Hawking, the guy who recently changed his mind but still contradicts the overwhelming consensus on where information in a black hole goes without any proof, probably isn't the best idea.
Both sides are completely abhorrent to the thought that either could be wrong, and due to that, we'll all just have to wait another 30 years or so when the climate takes a downturn. The path to quick and easy (if what you say is true) fame and fortune:
1) Take your fingers out of your ears and stop humming.
2) Learn about the scientific method, and how you have to back up what you say to have a theory vindicated.
3) Read this report.
4) Find errors in their data/logic which show that global warming truly is made up/exaggerated.
5) Become known as a world famous scientist who proved thousands wrong; book signings and movie dramatizations, award ceremonies and research grants.
6) You now have the right to post your personal opinions on the science of climate change to Slashdot.
With POTS calls it's more likely you'll be calling someone locally, plus there are phone lines on both ends of the cable, whereas with the internet there's only one phone line end to end, and it's more likely to be much longer distance.
What has the size of the bzipped kernel got to do with the size of the kernel in memory?
It's not even the fact that it's bzipped that makes it a nonsense measure of bloat, it's the fact that the kernel is a program which fills more memory with data than code.
If you're wondering why the kernel uses more memory on a 1GB RAM machine than a 64MB RAM machine, it's not because the kernel team have been writing hundreds of MB worth of compiled code since you last downloaded Linux; it's because increasing the size of kernel data structures often increases speed.
To take extreme examples (as you do); you could have a program with a statically compiled bitmap which simply displays the bitmap and closes. It might take up many megabytes on disk depending on the size of the bitmap.
If you want to use a sieve to break a public key you could write a program that could fit into a few kilobytes, but would take more memory than exists in the entire world to break a large key.
Also the container will get constantly pummeled with neutrons; this won't mean long-term radioactivity like fission waste, but it does make it harder to keep a plant going for long enough.
Basically the tokamak has more problems than tritium, though tritium supplies are yet another major problem. The DEMO reactor will be up in ~50 years, and using it to breed enough tritium will take longer, so don't expect tokamak style fusion to make a significant contribution for at least 100 years.
It must be weird being one of the people designing the DEMO reactor, knowing that your grand-kids will be the generation building it.
These 'hobby' type robots are all well and good (and no doubt particularly appealing to many around here) but they don't actually DO very much of any use, What are you talking about? I programmed my robot to get me a beer from the fridge and you only have to help him along the way or turn him away from the wall some of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that Flash doesn't integrate in with anything ASP or .NET . XML is good in some ways for this, but no .NET developer wants to learn ActiveScript, buy FlashMX, learn a whole new way of creating UIs, and learn about AJAX to get Flash integrating with their current systems.
I think if Adobe invested more in Flash, and specifically getting more developers into Flash, they'd have a solid niche. But they've made Flash development more difficult to get into than it needs to be, and I think that based on that alone you can predict that Silverlight will probably fight a downhill battle and win over Flash.
I think it first came about in that Simpsons episode where Truman printed a trillion dollar bill to give to "our allies who fought so poorly, and surrendered so readily". I hope this isn't what the American public in general thinks, but it does seem to be.
They're also telling barbers there will be no more plucking of Iranian eyebrows under any circumstances. I'm not sure which clause of which Islamic law comments on the evils of plucking eyebrows or text messaging, but it looks like the Iranian government has a firm grasp of the literature.
It's strange how they want you to use the torrent to download this, and then seed, even though it's an online multiplayer game that surely you'll want to play the moment you've finished the download without having torrents running in the background.
A 2D online multiplayer shoot-em-up. Only game I play since I'm on a laptop without good 3D; I've been waiting for this for ages. :-)
My Inspiron 2200 looks excellent; it's not one of those glossy screen silver abominations, I've had people comment on how good it looks, and the call-out support has been excellent. When some of my memory failed support came out the next day to replace it.
This has what to do with Cryptome?
"Bush" is not a synonym for "American foreign policy" or "the American government" or "the Bush administration" as you seem to think it is. If the government requested that the site be taken down, and the site actually didn't violate any of the terms of service, that's fine and I'm interested to hear it.
My only point was that it's not "Bush", it's the FBI/whatever organization/bureau/agency. People who think everything bad the government does can be attributed to the president aren't going to actually think about who is screwing up, and so nothing gets fixed.
Give blame where blame is due, don't talk to me about "Bush" where it isn't actually him. In the case of Cryptome it isn't actually him; find out if something shady was done, find out who did it, try and get it fixed. Don't get lazy and blame Bush, it gets so tiring.
I bet Cryptome was brought down by special request of George W. Bush himself! The guy is an evil super-villian behind everything.
Yesterday I couldn't find my goddamned keys anywhere; I put them right there on the side and the next day they were gone..
Bush won't think twice about shorting your car battery, rusting your bike chain or cutting holes in the bottom your pockets; he's just that evil. My co-workers say I need to stop ranting about Bush and that I should get back to work.. Clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment!
This is another example of Bush working his evil ways through an innocent ISP.
Patriot act blood for oil McCarthy state of fear American dream blah blah blah.
Nobody actually reads the certificates.
Nobody has to if you trust the certificate authority. What use is reading it anyway, if it hasn't been signed by a CA/friend and can be tampered with?
Even if they did, they don't really mean anything anyway. How difficult is it to get a real certificate with fake credentials?
If a CA is worth its salt, nigh on impossible; that's what you pay those ridiculous prices for (at least, that's where the money should go). This is the main problem with an open CA; there are presumably fewer security checks that the person requesting the certificate is who he says he is.
Moreover, if the URL is similar enough to the target of your phish then your SSL certifcate may well be legitmate in every sense of the word but you trick people because the URL is close enough to a big brand's main domain.
That's a phishing problem, not a crypto problem.
I think Zimmerman, with his ZPhone program, has got it right. Really, all you're interested in for E-mail or VoIP is not whether the person really is Simon Johnson, of Widnes, based in the United Kingdom who is 23 years old with a pet dog called Thornton. You're actually interested in whether this Ckwop guy I'm speaking to now is the same guy as I spoke to last-time.
This is exactly what happens when you cache a certificate which hasn't been signed. If you go to, say, https://hackinthebox.org/ you will get a certificate warning because it hasn't been signed. You don't know if anyone has replaced the certificate along the way, but once you have cached the certificate you can be sure that you are securely communicating with whoever sent you the first certificate. Using a certificate authority means that you can also be confident that the person who sent the first certificate are who they say they are.
So whatever the ZPhone is, it sounds like plain old certificate-less public key encryption.
When you weaken your security requirement to this position, you can remove a staggering amount of complexity. You can cut out all the CAs, all the X.509 certificates and ASN.1 implementations etc. What you're left with is Diffie-Helman and AES in CCM mode. You can implement this in a couple of thousand lines of provably correct code and your done.
Ensuring secure code doesn't bother me, I'm much more interested in having secure protocols. There's no point of having "provable code" if all the protocols are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks (the attack which certificate authorities are designed to prevent).
The real way to solve the "identification problem" with web-sites is to change the way credit-cards work. You have a secure token that outputs a different string every thirty seconds. RSA have made these but they're very expensive for no explicable reason, the banks would develop an open-standard in my model to drive down prices. When you pay for something, you submit your credit-card along with the token's value. The transaction will only be authorised if the token's value matches what the bank thinks that value should be.
Credit cards? 30 seconds windows during which my money is accessible? We already have things that are better than this.
As regards the Certificate Authority issue here is the rundown as I see it:
Without money flowing in to OSS, fewer people will be able to do useful work.
Sure there is a perception of OSS being written by the selfless hackers giving all their spare time. In reality though, people need to eat, pay the rent and buy computers etc. When organisations fund OSS development they help make it real. OSS businesses have found various ways to make money and do so in various ways.
I think there's a distinction that has to be drawn. There are companies that hire programmers to work on Open Source projects, and return that source to the project. They'll do this to get their own features and be compelled by the license or otherwise to give the source back into the project. I think this is a positive thing, because it gets better as more companies use it.With things like Red Hat where they are making money out of the source it's not so clearly beneficial, because conflicts of interest arise. If Red Hat can get more money for support by making things more complex or more likely to break they will; they're no longer necessarily in it to improve things, but to make money. When the two objectives are the same things improve, and have improved, but when they're not you get things like security patches being sold.
We used to think that the liver was responsible for anger, and the heart was responsible for love, because those are the things that seemed to react when we felt those emotions. But boy did those bafflingly complex notions fly out of the door when we discovered emotion is due to having a mass of billions of interconnected
I could go on and on and I have a very simplified laymans view of how the whole thing works.. I don't know how you can say we're starting to realize how simple we are, we're realizing how complex we are.
GM foods, by the way, haven't had their actual genomes modified, they have new genes added that create new proteins that can do things like attack insects. It's nothing as complicated as actually changing an existing gene in a useful way, which would be much more difficult because of the ways genes interact in so many ways.
Less oxygen around than we thought.. What process rapidly consumes oxygen? Hydrogen&Oxygen fuel cells used in rockets. Who recently flew into space? Microsoft billionaire Simonyi. What is produced in the reaction? Water vapor. What does water vapor in the atmosphere do? Act as a greenhouse gas and cause global warming. What will be one of the effects of global warming? Many more third world refugees. Who benefits from there being more third world refugees? Providers of technology for the OLPC project. Which company recently became part of the project? Microsoft!
.. So not worth it.
You're at the wrong site.. Help me think of ways that this is Microsoft's fault, or a good car analogy to explain it to a layman, or a way to turn it into a debate about religion, and if all else fails look for spelling and grammar mistakes.
The main reason for full disk encryption instead of alternatives is that it makes it impossible to modify any part of the operating system while the machine is offline; so you can have a system running in an insecure environment, and no-one can power it off and steal your hashes or change things around because everything on the disk is encrypted.
Now if the machine can be powered off and the kernel can be modified it can be modified to save the password you entered, or simply rootkitted. If you're going to allow that why not just encrypt the specific files/directories you want to protect?
If you keep the kernel separate (eg on a CD or thumbdrive that you keep with you), and you actually mean full disk encryption when you say full disk encryption, an attacker would have to modify the hardware in the machine. If it was a desktop machine they might add a keylogger, or if it was a server they might replace the BIOS, but it would have to be a more determined and experienced attacker than someone simply swapping out your HDD and modifying your kernel.
Where does it get the key from? If it gets it from /boot then that's no good, and if it gets it from somewhere else but it is read by the kernel in /boot that's also no good because the kernel could be replaced. /boot around with you on a CD.
To have secure full disk encryption it has to be full disk encryption. The only real solution that doesn't involve crypto hardware is to carry
Your statement of opinion is "let's wait 30 years and see".
Do I believe we need to cut back on our waste? Of course, this is a fact given our finite number of resources available to us. I find it largely interesting that papers state data from the past 100 years or so. Last thing this planet does is work on sub-100 year cycles (we've barely had the ability to assign numbers to temperature for a couple hundred years). Well well, aren't you the well informed climatologist. You refer to "papers" like you spend your free time reading climatology journals.
See Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis: 2. Observed Climate Variability and Change, it contains a summary of works from several papers, many of which comment on climate change on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years.
e.g. Figure 2.22: Variations of temperature, methane, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations derived from air trapped within ice cores from Antarctica (adapted from Sowers and Bender, 1995; Blunier et al., 1997; Fischer et al., 1999; Petit et al., 1999).25 years. Do yourself a favor in the future, entertain debate, and lively discussion next time instead of being a pompous asshole who hides behind a form response. Usually if you want to have a debate on the subject you'll learn something about it first. Clearly you haven't taken the time to read even the IPCC summaries, so debate with you means "I think this" "But look at this report!" "No, you're wrong, I think this. <Insert swear words here>" I assume you've published scientific articles on the issue since you demand that of others? Hmmmm...didn't fucking think so.
Good Luck! I demand that of anyone who thinks they know better than those who have published scientific articles..
I agree with the scientific consensus, so I can point you (and have pointed you) to the papers those scientists have published. You don't, so you have to point me to some equally convincing papers. Since none exist you have to come up with some of your own.
Getting your knowledge about black holes from a book by Stephen Hawking, the guy who recently changed his mind but still contradicts the overwhelming consensus on where information in a black hole goes without any proof, probably isn't the best idea.
1) Take your fingers out of your ears and stop humming.
2) Learn about the scientific method, and how you have to back up what you say to have a theory vindicated.
3) Read this report.
4) Find errors in their data/logic which show that global warming truly is made up/exaggerated.
5) Become known as a world famous scientist who proved thousands wrong; book signings and movie dramatizations, award ceremonies and research grants.
6) You now have the right to post your personal opinions on the science of climate change to Slashdot.
Good luck!
With POTS calls it's more likely you'll be calling someone locally, plus there are phone lines on both ends of the cable, whereas with the internet there's only one phone line end to end, and it's more likely to be much longer distance.
What has the size of the bzipped kernel got to do with the size of the kernel in memory?
It's not even the fact that it's bzipped that makes it a nonsense measure of bloat, it's the fact that the kernel is a program which fills more memory with data than code.
If you're wondering why the kernel uses more memory on a 1GB RAM machine than a 64MB RAM machine, it's not because the kernel team have been writing hundreds of MB worth of compiled code since you last downloaded Linux; it's because increasing the size of kernel data structures often increases speed.
To take extreme examples (as you do); you could have a program with a statically compiled bitmap which simply displays the bitmap and closes. It might take up many megabytes on disk depending on the size of the bitmap.
If you want to use a sieve to break a public key you could write a program that could fit into a few kilobytes, but would take more memory than exists in the entire world to break a large key.
The vast majority of the length from you to any server on the internet will not be spanned by phone lines.
Also the container will get constantly pummeled with neutrons; this won't mean long-term radioactivity like fission waste, but it does make it harder to keep a plant going for long enough.
Basically the tokamak has more problems than tritium, though tritium supplies are yet another major problem. The DEMO reactor will be up in ~50 years, and using it to breed enough tritium will take longer, so don't expect tokamak style fusion to make a significant contribution for at least 100 years.
It must be weird being one of the people designing the DEMO reactor, knowing that your grand-kids will be the generation building it.