The NSA failed at basic information security. There are plenty of corporate IT departments that have more robust information security than the NSA it would seem.
I didn't think I'd use that abbreviation ever again, but: ROTFLMAO
Most corporate IT security is a joke. There's a reason the security consulting business is thriving, and it's that when they get called in, they always find yet another problem. What corporate IT is good at is creating bullshit rules that placate management types and don't add any actual security. Yes, I'm looking at you, SOX. And don't get me wrong, I worked as the Senior Manager IT Compliance for a fairly big company. It was a lot of fun, but most of what SOX adds is so basic in security that its main benefit is in revealing just how horrible the IT security in most corporations sucks.
Everyone has security problems, and the NSA is not special. But claiming that corporations are better is just ridiculous given that a lot of my friends regularily walk out of corporate headquarters with their biggest secrets in their hands when they conduct pentests or social engineering tests.
Generally when deleted files are able to be recovered, the bytes of the files weren't actually overwritten, they were merely marked as deleted by the filesystem.
Yes, but since a drive is partitioned into sectors, when you come back to recover the data from that free space, chances are good (depending on drive capacity and activity) that some of those sectors have already been claimed but other files.
I agree my example was misleading. You won't actually be missing every 5th character - you'll be missing large chunks somewhere within the document.
Bullshit. If your drive works fine, even after single (or two, if you are paranoiac) overwrite with random data no-fucking-body in the whole universe will recover anything.
Partially true, but not entirely.
True, in modern drives we operate very close to the physical limites and overwriting is a lot more destructive than it used to be.
However, there are also so many intermediate layers and internal logic (like the relocation of faulty sectors another commenter pointed out) that you'd have to go very low-level to come even close to any assurance that everything actually has been physically overwritten.
Physical destruction is still the only way to be absolutely certain. All your bullet points also apply.
You misunderstood "it is not 100% guaranteed to be gone" for "it is 100% guaranteed to be recoverable".
Sure, with each pass you will make some of the data gone for good. But your certainty is a limes function. So no, after x passes you won't be able to recover x * capacity in bytes. But you might be able to recover some of the original data.
Oh please. When the ad hominem attacks are coming out, it's clear someone has run out of real arguments.
Opportunity costs are so entirely besides the topic here, it's almost funny. According to your argument, anyone choosing any profession at all is creating infinite opportunity costs via the "loss of opportunity" he would've had in all those other professions he didn't choose.
That, as well as the other comment much to the same, is very true.
However, it depends on your threat scenario. If you are the victim of a regular hack, i.e. someone gained entry over the network, then you know your hardware is unchanged, so you can keep it. That is the scenario I was referring to. If, of course, someone physically broke into your server room, you should mistrust your hardware unless you know exactly what they did and didn't do (say you have a video that you know was not tampered with).
I don't think much of Microsoft as anyone who's been following me on/. knows, but they have a good set of rules which includes "If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore".
If you run an organisation of this size, you have security holes, period. There is no such thing as perfect security, and everyone knows it (though some snake-oil sellers pretend otherwise).
That's a good question. It depends on what the original files were. I'll have to do some extrapolation, since I don't do low-level forensics, so if someone wants to correct me, feel free.
When you run data recovery on an overwritten medium, you are usually able to recover at least parts of the data. Depending on file formats, that may or may not allow you to recover parts of the data.
Imagine, for example, that you are able to recover 80% of the bytes in a file. For a textfile, that pretty much means you have it. Every 5th letter (statistically, of course) will be garbage, but in most cases that is easy to compensate for:
But if you have a compressed file, then those lost bytes often make decompression hard or impossible. That is true for both external compressions (.zip) and internal compressions (as in many image formats). In most cases, you can recover parts of the file, but the chunks missing will be much larger than the 20% of bytes you are missing.
The same goes for encryption, but it depends on which encryption you use. A block cipher, for example, would probably result in the same result as an image file, with individual blocks unrecoverable.
Seems the allow brain-dead people on this site now.:-)
If you want to reliably destroy the data on one particular storage medium, then physical destruction is the way to go.
This is totally apart from the question of whether or not other copies exist, it's a tangential issue. Funny how everyone except one troll who was intentionally looking for an axe to grind clearly got that meaning.
Just as the laws differ, so do the horrible things the government does. Yeah, the GCHQ went to the Guardian to get a computer destroyed. Meanwhile, Obama will have you killed by a drone. And while there is armed military at London's airports, they don't have a TSA.
It's just a stupid as the US response taking out and replacing every part of every computer and network that Snowden accessed.
Disagree. No matter what you think of the NSA, in the whole circus they are one of the few people who actually know their stuff. These guys are scary good at what they do. If I had to clean up a place that was bugged by the NSA, I'd do the same - rip out everything and replace it.
You can buy keyloggers that fit into a USB plug these days. I'm pretty sure the NSA has stuff like Ethernet monitors that fit into slightly-larger-than-usual CAT-5 plugs. And if you consider the size of Raspberry Pi, you'll realize that you can fit a whole second computer into the case of another computer.
When your server gets rooted by a hacker, every security professional worth his money will tell you to wipe it and do a complete reinstall. There is no way to clean up the system without that where you can be certain that there's not a backdoor left somewhere you didn't look.
If anything it is slightly comical that these people think they can destroy digital information with drills and grinders and so on. Obviously they really don't, GHCQ do not have a reputation of being digitards.
Ignoring the fact that copies exist (and everyone involved knew that), physical destruction is in fact the recommended way to destroy the data on a hard drive, SSD drive, flash memory, etc. etc.
You can overwrite the drive 50 times and you can not be certain that the data is unrecoverable. If you put a grinder to the drive surface, you can be very certain of that.
There's a reason the military shreds harddrives when it disposes of them.
The laws are different over here in Europe, yes. But bland statements like the above just make me cringe. Some rights are stronger in the US, some are stronger in Europe, and it even differs by country.
And then there's the law on the one hand and enforcement on the other. The NSA didn't exactly get much opposition from Google, Microsoft and everyone else they've tapped into, did they? That's not new or "post 9/11", either. If you read up on the history of the NSA, you'll find that in the early days they went to the telegraph companies and without a court order they got copies of every telegraph message leaving or entering the USA.
omg, the world is complicated, the sky is falling and we're all going to diiieee!
It's called "diversity", not "mess", and one of those days you'll be fucking glad that we have it, because otherwise, as me and some other researchers have proven ten years ago, in a monoculture one zero-day in the wrong hands means game over, Internet in something like a few hours.
Be glad we have this "mess". It's going to save our collective asses one day.
Bingo. They've been playing that game for a decade now. Like all good ideas, it only lasts until it gets abused and exploited.
These days the EU is little more than a way for politicians to pass the laws that would get their pants lit on fire in the local media if they tried it nationally.
The more I look at politicians these days, the more I think we should limit their activity to two terms max, after which we shoot them.
Sir, my point was that when we deny someone an opportunity, a door is closed. We'll never know for sure what the damage is, it's incalculable.
And exactly because of that, it's bullshit. The logic test for that is very simple: If you can arrive at the same conclusion via the opposite of your initial assumption, then your initial assumption is meaningless.
So let's try that test: Because she went into nursing, or because he didn't finish college, someone else got the internship, the job, the good professor-relationship that otherwise would've been occupied by them, and that other person came up with the cure to cancer or CPU or whatever.
Yeah, works.
Maybe by going into nursing she'll one day save the life of someone who then goes on to find the cure to cancer.
Yes, works just as well.
The point is that "lost opportunity" arguments like this are just as much nonsense as whining over the winnings on lottery tickets that you never bought.
Comparing that to Tesla is dishonest. He actually did produce stuff in his field, in real life, and not just some fantasy alternate reality.
Speaking of which, if you believe in the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, then there's nothing to worry about at all. Because in some other reality, she did find the cure to cancer. You just don't happen to live in it.;-)
Right now, some black person out there might have the cure for cancer, but society will never get it because he didn't have the money to finish college. Right now, some woman out there has a solution in her head that'll take CPU performance to the next level because of a radical new way of thinking about the problem, but she went into nursing instead.
You had a point until that part of total bullshit.
People don't get born with the cure to cancer embedded in their mind, waiting to be unleashed. If she went into nursing, she won't have that solution in her head, because coming up with that solution requires studying computer science and not health. And the guy who didn't finish college won't have the cure for cancer, because it requires tons of medical knowledge to figure it out.
Your argument basically says "if I had bought a lottery ticket, I would be a millionaire" - and we all know that is total crap, because you didn't and you aren't and that's that, period.
Do women deserve special consideration? No. Do women deserve equal consideration? Yes!
Then stop throwing meaningless statistics around, because correlation != causation. Any actual example of actual discrimination - you have my support to fight that. But fewer women is not evidence of discrimination. There's also jobs with fewer men. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are very few jobs with a precise 50/50 distribution. Sure, blame culture, but there are no actual barriers of entry anymore. Nobody is turning women away at the university gates. I'll agree that there are soft factors, most of them in society and not companies. Stuff like telling girls that math is for boys, etc.
I don't doubt these factors exist. But the whining about discrimination where none exists is causing what you wrongfully label as incongruency. It isn't. It's a backlash against false accusations. I personally am really tired of being labeled an oppressive pig because of my gender - that's discrimination, too. Just when feminists do it, it's apparently ok.
I don't think there's anything wrong with our industry, though I'm quite sure there are things wrong with individual managers or even whole companies, sure. But the way you and others put it, it sounds like we are all guilty until proven innocent, and that is what gets you the backlash. Because humans hate being falsely accused of wrongdoing.
I taught myself some coding and computer repair in probably the most painstaking ways possible
And you found yourself in the IRT. Frankly, that you got there is a miracle and has nothing to do with gender, but with the fact that if someone with half a clue put it together, he was looking for experts who know their stuff even when you wake them with an emergency at 4 am.
I've been working in IT for almost 20 years. Yes, women are few. But I'll punch the next one who whines about widespread discrimination straight in the face, because it's a lie. Most nerds are too afraid to give them any shit, most managers are happy to find a woman in the field, and most of the rest frankly don't give a fuck if you're man, woman, transvestite or an alien from Betelgeuse, as long as you know what you're doing.
If you want to complain about discrimination, there's dozens of jobs out there where even an outsider can see it still exists. IT isn't one of them.
I was about to post something scathing to the effect of "that is the LAST thing I want happening to me afterwards", but yeah, if this can handle all that Facebook crap for me...
That's a bit disingenuous. You have almost every vendor offering tiny 3 inch smartphoned and their range goes all the way up to 5 inches, with 6inch "phablets" filling the gap to tablets.
You are talking about size. I was talking about form factor.
Oh wow, some have rounded edges! Sorry, you weren't around in the first mobile phone market, were you?
But in the end, competition is always good for consumers.
Actually, I don't think that's always true. The smartphone market is a good example for why. First, you end up with 1000 different Android phones (let's ignore iOS for the moment) that have tiny differences amongst themselves, leading to a choice paradox (you can't decide because there's so many options).
Second, because the market is so crowded with so many so similar products, it's hard for a vendor to really innovate. What we see is rapid evolution, but not innovation - everyone is moving forward at breakneck speed, but few are moving sideways, exploring different options. The form factor, for example, has largely standardized on the iPhone +/- some deviation in size. But curved shapes are gone, even though we had them in the pre-smartphone mobile market. And that's just one example.
Third, much of the competition is more show than real. How many players are actually in the market? Where are the small, innovative underdogs? Are there any local players? No, much of the "competition" is not even between companies, but departments of companies - will you get the XYZ-400 or the XYZ-500?
Samsung is also one of the world's top smartphone vendors, so it should have a decent chance at developing a mobile OS of its own, don't you think?
No. These are two different markets and being a good hardware vendor doesn't mean you're a good OS developer. It worked for Apple, because they are neither - they are a design-focussed company.
So Samsung or not makes no difference. Let's see what the product is like.
Ever since computers came into the chess scene, chess has changed a lot, and to be a grandmaster today, you have to basically memorize a ton of openings and typical moves.
To me (no chess expert at all), the sheer speed of reactions indicates a learned response. Gates was almost certainly playing an opening that Carlsen knew by heart and had memorized half a dozen responses to that he simply unrolled.
That kind of memory and being able to recognize the patterns, recall the proper evaluation and responses is a massive skill all in itself, but it's not the same kind of mind-beating-mind that you think about when you read the headline.
You are jumping from one conclusion to the next with no logical relation between them.
If the difference between "have you heard of" and "are you one of" eludes you, I don't have the patience to explain it.
Your sheltered life doesn't make for a very solid basis for an argument.
Again, you argue on thin air because you have not the slightest hint of an idea about me, so what's the point of making ad hominem arguments like that? It's simply stupid and discredits everything you say.
Slashdot Mirror
The NSA failed at basic information security. There are plenty of corporate IT departments that have more robust information security than the NSA it would seem.
I didn't think I'd use that abbreviation ever again, but: ROTFLMAO
Most corporate IT security is a joke. There's a reason the security consulting business is thriving, and it's that when they get called in, they always find yet another problem. What corporate IT is good at is creating bullshit rules that placate management types and don't add any actual security. Yes, I'm looking at you, SOX. And don't get me wrong, I worked as the Senior Manager IT Compliance for a fairly big company. It was a lot of fun, but most of what SOX adds is so basic in security that its main benefit is in revealing just how horrible the IT security in most corporations sucks.
Everyone has security problems, and the NSA is not special. But claiming that corporations are better is just ridiculous given that a lot of my friends regularily walk out of corporate headquarters with their biggest secrets in their hands when they conduct pentests or social engineering tests.
Generally when deleted files are able to be recovered, the bytes of the files weren't actually overwritten, they were merely marked as deleted by the filesystem.
Yes, but since a drive is partitioned into sectors, when you come back to recover the data from that free space, chances are good (depending on drive capacity and activity) that some of those sectors have already been claimed but other files.
I agree my example was misleading. You won't actually be missing every 5th character - you'll be missing large chunks somewhere within the document.
Bullshit. If your drive works fine, even after single (or two, if you are paranoiac) overwrite with random data no-fucking-body in the whole universe will recover anything.
Partially true, but not entirely.
True, in modern drives we operate very close to the physical limites and overwriting is a lot more destructive than it used to be.
However, there are also so many intermediate layers and internal logic (like the relocation of faulty sectors another commenter pointed out) that you'd have to go very low-level to come even close to any assurance that everything actually has been physically overwritten.
Physical destruction is still the only way to be absolutely certain. All your bullet points also apply.
You misunderstood "it is not 100% guaranteed to be gone" for "it is 100% guaranteed to be recoverable".
Sure, with each pass you will make some of the data gone for good. But your certainty is a limes function. So no, after x passes you won't be able to recover x * capacity in bytes. But you might be able to recover some of the original data.
Let me guess, you are the same AC who's been posting all the other bullshit replies?
Hint: I'm not from the UK
I'd say more but a) you're not worth it and b) I haven't stopped laughing yet.
Oh please. When the ad hominem attacks are coming out, it's clear someone has run out of real arguments.
Opportunity costs are so entirely besides the topic here, it's almost funny. According to your argument, anyone choosing any profession at all is creating infinite opportunity costs via the "loss of opportunity" he would've had in all those other professions he didn't choose.
That doesn't even pass the giggle test.
That, as well as the other comment much to the same, is very true.
However, it depends on your threat scenario. If you are the victim of a regular hack, i.e. someone gained entry over the network, then you know your hardware is unchanged, so you can keep it. That is the scenario I was referring to. If, of course, someone physically broke into your server room, you should mistrust your hardware unless you know exactly what they did and didn't do (say you have a video that you know was not tampered with).
I don't think much of Microsoft as anyone who's been following me on /. knows, but they have a good set of rules which includes "If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore".
competent != perfect
If you run an organisation of this size, you have security holes, period. There is no such thing as perfect security, and everyone knows it (though some snake-oil sellers pretend otherwise).
That's a good question. It depends on what the original files were. I'll have to do some extrapolation, since I don't do low-level forensics, so if someone wants to correct me, feel free.
When you run data recovery on an overwritten medium, you are usually able to recover at least parts of the data. Depending on file formats, that may or may not allow you to recover parts of the data.
Imagine, for example, that you are able to recover 80% of the bytes in a file. For a textfile, that pretty much means you have it. Every 5th letter (statistically, of course) will be garbage, but in most cases that is easy to compensate for:
Imag_ne, _or e_ampl_, th_t yo_ are_able_to r_over_ 80%_of t_e byt_s ...
But if you have a compressed file, then those lost bytes often make decompression hard or impossible. That is true for both external compressions (.zip) and internal compressions (as in many image formats). In most cases, you can recover parts of the file, but the chunks missing will be much larger than the 20% of bytes you are missing.
The same goes for encryption, but it depends on which encryption you use. A block cipher, for example, would probably result in the same result as an image file, with individual blocks unrecoverable.
Seems the allow brain-dead people on this site now. :-)
If you want to reliably destroy the data on one particular storage medium, then physical destruction is the way to go.
This is totally apart from the question of whether or not other copies exist, it's a tangential issue. Funny how everyone except one troll who was intentionally looking for an axe to grind clearly got that meaning.
Just as the laws differ, so do the horrible things the government does. Yeah, the GCHQ went to the Guardian to get a computer destroyed. Meanwhile, Obama will have you killed by a drone. And while there is armed military at London's airports, they don't have a TSA.
Really want to continue comparisons?
It's just a stupid as the US response taking out and replacing every part of every computer and network that Snowden accessed.
Disagree. No matter what you think of the NSA, in the whole circus they are one of the few people who actually know their stuff. These guys are scary good at what they do. If I had to clean up a place that was bugged by the NSA, I'd do the same - rip out everything and replace it.
You can buy keyloggers that fit into a USB plug these days. I'm pretty sure the NSA has stuff like Ethernet monitors that fit into slightly-larger-than-usual CAT-5 plugs. And if you consider the size of Raspberry Pi, you'll realize that you can fit a whole second computer into the case of another computer.
When your server gets rooted by a hacker, every security professional worth his money will tell you to wipe it and do a complete reinstall. There is no way to clean up the system without that where you can be certain that there's not a backdoor left somewhere you didn't look.
This is the same, just in hardware.
If anything it is slightly comical that these people think they can destroy digital information with drills and grinders and so on. Obviously they really don't, GHCQ do not have a reputation of being digitards.
Ignoring the fact that copies exist (and everyone involved knew that), physical destruction is in fact the recommended way to destroy the data on a hard drive, SSD drive, flash memory, etc. etc.
You can overwrite the drive 50 times and you can not be certain that the data is unrecoverable. If you put a grinder to the drive surface, you can be very certain of that.
There's a reason the military shreds harddrives when it disposes of them.
I'm so tired of hearing that.
The laws are different over here in Europe, yes. But bland statements like the above just make me cringe. Some rights are stronger in the US, some are stronger in Europe, and it even differs by country.
And then there's the law on the one hand and enforcement on the other. The NSA didn't exactly get much opposition from Google, Microsoft and everyone else they've tapped into, did they? That's not new or "post 9/11", either. If you read up on the history of the NSA, you'll find that in the early days they went to the telegraph companies and without a court order they got copies of every telegraph message leaving or entering the USA.
omg, the world is complicated, the sky is falling and we're all going to diiieee!
It's called "diversity", not "mess", and one of those days you'll be fucking glad that we have it, because otherwise, as me and some other researchers have proven ten years ago, in a monoculture one zero-day in the wrong hands means game over, Internet in something like a few hours.
Be glad we have this "mess". It's going to save our collective asses one day.
Bingo. They've been playing that game for a decade now. Like all good ideas, it only lasts until it gets abused and exploited.
These days the EU is little more than a way for politicians to pass the laws that would get their pants lit on fire in the local media if they tried it nationally.
The more I look at politicians these days, the more I think we should limit their activity to two terms max, after which we shoot them.
Sir, my point was that when we deny someone an opportunity, a door is closed. We'll never know for sure what the damage is, it's incalculable.
And exactly because of that, it's bullshit. The logic test for that is very simple: If you can arrive at the same conclusion via the opposite of your initial assumption, then your initial assumption is meaningless.
So let's try that test: Because she went into nursing, or because he didn't finish college, someone else got the internship, the job, the good professor-relationship that otherwise would've been occupied by them, and that other person came up with the cure to cancer or CPU or whatever.
Yeah, works.
Maybe by going into nursing she'll one day save the life of someone who then goes on to find the cure to cancer.
Yes, works just as well.
The point is that "lost opportunity" arguments like this are just as much nonsense as whining over the winnings on lottery tickets that you never bought.
Comparing that to Tesla is dishonest. He actually did produce stuff in his field, in real life, and not just some fantasy alternate reality.
Speaking of which, if you believe in the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, then there's nothing to worry about at all. Because in some other reality, she did find the cure to cancer. You just don't happen to live in it. ;-)
Right now, some black person out there might have the cure for cancer, but society will never get it because he didn't have the money to finish college. Right now, some woman out there has a solution in her head that'll take CPU performance to the next level because of a radical new way of thinking about the problem, but she went into nursing instead.
You had a point until that part of total bullshit.
People don't get born with the cure to cancer embedded in their mind, waiting to be unleashed. If she went into nursing, she won't have that solution in her head, because coming up with that solution requires studying computer science and not health. And the guy who didn't finish college won't have the cure for cancer, because it requires tons of medical knowledge to figure it out.
Your argument basically says "if I had bought a lottery ticket, I would be a millionaire" - and we all know that is total crap, because you didn't and you aren't and that's that, period.
Do women deserve special consideration? No. Do women deserve equal consideration? Yes!
Then stop throwing meaningless statistics around, because correlation != causation. Any actual example of actual discrimination - you have my support to fight that. But fewer women is not evidence of discrimination. There's also jobs with fewer men. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are very few jobs with a precise 50/50 distribution. Sure, blame culture, but there are no actual barriers of entry anymore. Nobody is turning women away at the university gates. I'll agree that there are soft factors, most of them in society and not companies. Stuff like telling girls that math is for boys, etc.
I don't doubt these factors exist. But the whining about discrimination where none exists is causing what you wrongfully label as incongruency. It isn't. It's a backlash against false accusations. I personally am really tired of being labeled an oppressive pig because of my gender - that's discrimination, too. Just when feminists do it, it's apparently ok.
I don't think there's anything wrong with our industry, though I'm quite sure there are things wrong with individual managers or even whole companies, sure. But the way you and others put it, it sounds like we are all guilty until proven innocent, and that is what gets you the backlash. Because humans hate being falsely accused of wrongdoing.
I taught myself some coding and computer repair in probably the most painstaking ways possible
And you found yourself in the IRT. Frankly, that you got there is a miracle and has nothing to do with gender, but with the fact that if someone with half a clue put it together, he was looking for experts who know their stuff even when you wake them with an emergency at 4 am.
I've been working in IT for almost 20 years. Yes, women are few. But I'll punch the next one who whines about widespread discrimination straight in the face, because it's a lie. Most nerds are too afraid to give them any shit, most managers are happy to find a woman in the field, and most of the rest frankly don't give a fuck if you're man, woman, transvestite or an alien from Betelgeuse, as long as you know what you're doing.
If you want to complain about discrimination, there's dozens of jobs out there where even an outsider can see it still exists. IT isn't one of them.
Yes, please.
I was about to post something scathing to the effect of "that is the LAST thing I want happening to me afterwards", but yeah, if this can handle all that Facebook crap for me...
That's a bit disingenuous. You have almost every vendor offering tiny 3 inch smartphoned and their range goes all the way up to 5 inches, with 6inch "phablets" filling the gap to tablets.
You are talking about size. I was talking about form factor.
Oh wow, some have rounded edges! Sorry, you weren't around in the first mobile phone market, were you?
But in the end, competition is always good for consumers.
Actually, I don't think that's always true. The smartphone market is a good example for why. First, you end up with 1000 different Android phones (let's ignore iOS for the moment) that have tiny differences amongst themselves, leading to a choice paradox (you can't decide because there's so many options).
Second, because the market is so crowded with so many so similar products, it's hard for a vendor to really innovate. What we see is rapid evolution, but not innovation - everyone is moving forward at breakneck speed, but few are moving sideways, exploring different options. The form factor, for example, has largely standardized on the iPhone +/- some deviation in size. But curved shapes are gone, even though we had them in the pre-smartphone mobile market. And that's just one example.
Third, much of the competition is more show than real. How many players are actually in the market? Where are the small, innovative underdogs? Are there any local players? No, much of the "competition" is not even between companies, but departments of companies - will you get the XYZ-400 or the XYZ-500?
Samsung is also one of the world's top smartphone vendors, so it should have a decent chance at developing a mobile OS of its own, don't you think?
No. These are two different markets and being a good hardware vendor doesn't mean you're a good OS developer. It worked for Apple, because they are neither - they are a design-focussed company.
So Samsung or not makes no difference. Let's see what the product is like.
Even though I loathe Gates, this is a cheap shot.
Ever since computers came into the chess scene, chess has changed a lot, and to be a grandmaster today, you have to basically memorize a ton of openings and typical moves.
To me (no chess expert at all), the sheer speed of reactions indicates a learned response. Gates was almost certainly playing an opening that Carlsen knew by heart and had memorized half a dozen responses to that he simply unrolled.
That kind of memory and being able to recognize the patterns, recall the proper evaluation and responses is a massive skill all in itself, but it's not the same kind of mind-beating-mind that you think about when you read the headline.
You are jumping from one conclusion to the next with no logical relation between them.
If the difference between "have you heard of" and "are you one of" eludes you, I don't have the patience to explain it.
Your sheltered life doesn't make for a very solid basis for an argument.
Again, you argue on thin air because you have not the slightest hint of an idea about me, so what's the point of making ad hominem arguments like that? It's simply stupid and discredits everything you say.