If you're on public land, you don't get an expectation of privacy.
I've often heard this repeated, but is it actually true?
Suppose I'm in a public space (say, a park) having a quiet conversation with someone, and keeping track of passersby: If someone walks up we stop talking.
Does this mean that someone (from the government) with a parabolic mic can eavesdrop on my conversations without a warrant?
The argument is that it's only what a policeman would hear if he walked up and listened, but in that case we would stop talking.
I have every expectation of privacy if I take steps to ensure that privacy: looking around to make sure no one can see me, for instance. Does this mean that the police can video-tape the sidewalk from the window of any office building without a warrant?
Pretty sure they can actually.
A free-marketer eh? So am I.
I'll remind you of the two things needed for a free market: Freedom, and a market.
In this case you have neither. You must run Windows, and there is no alternative.
So you will be oppressed. You have two choices: be oppressed by a giant entity that you can (somewhat) vote for; or a giant entity against whom you have no recourse.
First of all, I think the millions of Mac and the 12 Linux desktop users of the world would be surprised to hear they have no choice but to run Windows. That aside, what you are talking about is taking it from a defacto monopoly to a sanctioned, possibly enforced one (the government doesn't really like competition when it comes to things they operate).
As for that giant entity that I can vote for, it doesn't exactly have the best record lately of being trustworthy for me. I don't recall voting to have them spy on me and everyone else but they seem to be doing it anyway. I don't think I voted to completely neuter the 4th amendment but hey, look: no balls there anymore. Not to mention I'm sure people living outside of the US who rely on Windows would be absolutely peachy with the idea of the US Government controlling their OS even though they don't get a vote. Right?
Yes, we all know that corporations are a pure as driven snow, have absolutely no influence over any individual and don't abuse their position in any way. There are many kinds of power, not all of them come from the barrel of a gun.
True, but ones that do come at the barrel of a gun almost always trump the ones that don't. I really hope you don't think it's as black and white as that. Can you honestly tell me that you believe that having the US government nationalize Microsoft would somehow make ANYTHING better?* That you honestly believe the government of the United States of America would be more trustworthy when it came to control of the defacto OS of nearly every PC in the world than Microsoft? It's not a matter of "this one is pure and this one is evil". It's "I don't really trust this one so much but I sure as hell trust them more than that one".
*I'm assuming you don't work for the NSA, FBI, IRS, CIA, or other alphabet agency. In that case I'm sure it would from your perspective.
Android is thriving.
Android devices also tend to have tiny monitors. And if they have Google Play, they also have a window manager that forces every app to run maximized. They tend not to have even the "Snap an App" feature that is a standard feature for Universal Windows Platform apps in Windows 8 and Windows RT.
Android is not limited to tablets or phones. There are plenty of Android devices designed to be connected to regular monitors and TVs as PC replacements. As for running full screen apps, this is what most non-power users do anyway. Hell most power users do this as well. It's being able to switch between them easily (aka the Taskbar) that's the key, and that shouldn't be hard to emulate in Android.
that is an application problem and it should be addressed by the application vendors.
I'll believe that when Microsoft addresses the problem in its own applications.
Are you suggesting you literally don't believe that software companies are capable of designing their software to do this, and that Microsoft restrict how software vendors design their software, forcing them to use Windows APIs to do this for them?
Are you seriously implying that Microsoft is more trustworthy than the US government!?!
Absolutely. Microsoft cannot incarcerate or kill me with impunity. They have no motivation to spy on me or my data, not directly (if they do so at the behest of the government, wtf do you think would happen if the government outright controlled them)?
The idea of nationalizing the company that produces the OS and much of the software that a good portion of the world uses would be, without doubt, one of the dumbest fucking ideas in human history.
One could just edit their hosts file and "reroute" MS update servers, no?
Anyone technically savvy enough to do that (have you tried it lately on Windows Vista or later?) probably won't be running Windows 10 Home edition anyway.
If alternatives are indeed impractical then it's an argument in favor of nationalization of microsoft. It cannot be allowed to exercise such unlimited power over functionality of ALL computers without being subject to government checks and balances. Without competition Microsoft functions kinda like central mini-government of its own and if users can't influence it by taking away their money they should be allowed to influence it via other means.
Yes, that will fix everything! After all, who is more trustworthy than the US government?
A burried cell phone tower? How will that work?
The molepeople need cell service too.
They put aceteminophen in Tylenol on purpose to kill you if you try to get high on Tylenol. They don't need junkies messing up their reputation.
High on what? The pill binders? The only thing in Tylenol is acetaminophen. Are you maybe confusing it with percoset or other Rx only opioid compounds that also contain acetaminophen?