Or rather, the criminals that they've noticed are dumb enough to be noticed. Plenty of smart criminals have gotten away with things for years and years, and I don't doubt that many go completely undetected.
I have a step-sister who's husband is the head of the city police union. His son was convicted of plotting a "columbine" like attack. He is the dumbest, most violent and corrupt person I know.
The fact that any people are successfully prosecuted means that they are very stupid criminals, or can't afford a good lawyer.
The more police I meet and know, the more I think they are only slightly less dangerous than the criminals and certainly not much smarter.
If someone sends you a binary as an attachment and you save it to your file system, chmod it and try to run it, I'm pretty sure that foreign binary will run.
Exactly, it has to first be marked as something that can be run. Windows will try to run anything that ends with exe, scr, etc.
When your government is hacking you, is it illegal to lock them out?
At issue is the measures by which you "lock them out." In reality, most all systems can be configured so that it is impossible to snoop.
The police have long benefited by the fact that most people inclined to seriously break the law are, on average, dumber than the detectives set to find them. When you have a brilliant criminal or terrorist they only get caught (if at all) because sooner or later everyone makes a mistake.
The phrase "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" also applies to your computer these days.
I'm more interested in how as a premise though. Mainly that these days people are behind a router that acts as a firewall.. that limits things a bit I guess...
No way. People don't know how easy it is, with the use of out-side coordination, to initiate connections at-will. All you need is a single program running at with simple user preferences.
Windows is most vulnerable because it has the least effective security model because it will run foreign binaries, Mac and Linux are better in that, by convention and peer pressure, they will not.
Granted, for a lot of reasons, Windows is a worse case scenario, there are avenues to infect other systems as well just not as easily. Once they can get a binary running on your system, you are effectively snooped.
It is usually a mistake to assume something about a person whom you've never met.
In short, you CANNOT "prove" a scientific theory. There is a fundamental logical problem with the very idea: We make predictions, and sometimes the predictions come true.......snip
You are confused about what Popper's theory really was. He acknowledged that in small well bounded cases that prediction was possible, but in larger unbounded problems, it was probably impossible due to all the random and unpredictable elements inherent in the universe. Not that things could not be predicted in general, but that even the best predictions only had a probability of happening.
In the case of evolution, the "process of evolution" has been proved beyond any reasonable debate. The research and case study is undeniable.
Computer Science/Engineering has changed over the years because it is moving to higher-level stuff.
It is moving from a "creative" profession to one of mere aggregation.
Changing is not dying, but it may mean career death for those who are unwilling to change *awkward silence*.
It doesn't provide the same type work. It doesn't require the same type of thinking. It used to be math and logic, these days it is mostly memorizing the endless complexity of a never ending stream of frameworks.
This isn't a dinosaur vs newbe thing, it is the eventual change from emerging technology to established. Like rock and role, you won't ever see another "Dark Side of the Moon." Sadly, you'll see a new Britney every year. Dark Side of the Moon was art.
2003? That was 6 years ago! Things have changed DRAMATICALLY since then. Get me some 2007/2008 numbers.
If you are calling me ignorant, you are mistaken. I certainly covered binary number representation in college. But it hasn't been useful since then. I work on much higher level stuff. I imagine this is true for most people. There isn't a lot of demand for people who write new operating systems... that's just the industry moving forward while you're stuck in the past.
The topic of this thread was interesting jobs in computer science, and I asserted that computer science is dead, and you seem to be supporting my assertion.
There isn't a lot of demand for people who write new operating systems.
Well, it is less about operating systems and more about motor controllers, device drivers, big control systems, embedded systems, and so on. I would rather quit the field than work as a "Java Web Designer." The way things are going, I may, in fact, do that.
Your info is wrong. CS majors make more money than any other 4-year degree.
Citation needed.
Also--2's compliment? You must be joking. They don't emphasize knowing how to solder or replace vacuum tubes today, either.
Ignorance is bliss I guess.
Also, Computer Science is a misnomer. Since the 1970s, 99% of these scientists were really just software engineers.
Perhaps, but a lot of real innovation happened between the 1950s and the early 90s. Innovation, IMHO, has pretty much stopped outside a startlingly few organizations.
They weren't developing novel new algorithms, just putting together code to help business do its thing.
10~15 years ago, you HAD to develop new algorithms to do new things.
(Speaking of which, I've met "developers" who don't know what a pointer is. WTF?)
I remember when I was learning C in the early 80s, I had a problem with the nomenclature, a "pointer" to me was a stick with a rubber point at the end used by high school teachers to point to things.
It was the hardest thing to equate "pointer" to a memory address.
Not all, perhaps not, but the point remains. A lot of applications that benefit from algorithmic control instead of discrete digital or analog circuitry will always benefit from using the minimum amount of computing power needed to perform the task to remain economically competitive.
Being able to implement algorithms on minimal or exotic computers is what CompSci is all about. *anyone* can multiply two 32 bit integers in Java, try it in Z80 assembler (Hint, Z80 derivatives are very popular in the embedded field and have an eight bit accumulator, but 16 bit registers.)
Seriously, *anyone* can program in Java or.NET, but the interesting stuff is *not* that. The sad part is that the fun stuff is hard to find.
Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.
In real science we state claims and provide proof and theory as to why we accept them as true. Furthermore, we make predictions that can be tested. In science, nothing is "disproved," all things are assumed false until proved. Its make more sense that way as I can not disprove your watermellon claim, but you have offered no theory or proof as to why your claims should be believed in the first place.
I could claim anything and you would be foolish to believe. If I make a claim and provide proof and a theory to explain why it is so, and you check out the proof, you have the ability to prove or disprove it on your own.
Behind the goofy UI that I loved as a kid, you could find most of the same features and concepts as Microsoft Word.
I was the "Windows Architect" of the project. We had a mac guy for the mac version.
Many of the things that went in to word, and eventually into Windows generally, may have been developed in that project.
In fact, I developed a cross-platform dynamic linking mechanism for Windows and Mac that used C structures for interfacing DLL and Mac code resources, we called them LSDs (loadable software devices), Microsoft's OLE came out later and shared a surprising number of similarities.
Microsoft's "chunky file format" was used for the file I/O of the products. We actually workd with one of the GDI engineers to help us do the BMP/DIB animation at the GDI bitmap level. (Something the competitor, Broderbund, probably did not have.)
At that time, Windows was kind of cool to work on. Linux didn't exist, BSD was still encumbered, and MINIX was unknown to most everyone.
I have been writing software since the 1970s, and there isn't much left in the field for "work." There may be "research," into things but the average "job" is tedium.
"Computer Science" as it were, is nothing more than a craftsman tool belt. There is no "science" left. It is all the fashion of end-user application. Web sites, social networks, e-commerce, etc. No one in the field is producing great work (and making great money) any more.
I've been interviewing candidates for the last 15 years and "computer science" is a joke. The universities are teaching a trade, not a science. Kids barely understand the mathematical basics of how a hash table works. Don't even get me started on twos-compliment arithmetic or how to evaluate algorithms.
Sure, the desktop processors and environments do a lot for you, but maybe you'll want to do something interesting some day with different types of devices like PICs.
In the end, you'll have to learn about something else, like banking, medicine, civil engineering, accounting or some such to be able to write software for those fields, but since those fields currenly pay better, why not go there first?
Because of your post, I think we need a "Billy Madison" moderation.
What you wrote wasn't flamebait or over rated, it was stupid.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
I was "employed" by them, and up until the demand exceeded the pay, it was a pretty good place to work. I worked with some great people there. It was sad that I had to leave, but it was on of the things that eventually ruined my first marriage.
I used to work at a software contracting house about 16-18 years ago. We worked on "Microsoft Home" project. There were two programs: "Fine Artist" and "Creative Writer" for kids. (code name "splat") It had an animated helper, "Pablo Picknoseo" (yes: pik-nOs-O") it seems to be some time before these patents. I still got the tee shirt.
The Picaso family objected to the name of the character and they renamed him.
I left that company as they were billing Microsoft by the hour, but paying salary. Microsoft was changing things on a weekly basis, but not adjusting the release schedule. The company was neither adding engineers nor fighting back on the schedule, just demanding we work more. It was crazy.
The problem with the "fair Use" doctrine of copyright it requires and assumes parties to be reasonable and conscionable. Once either party behaves unreasonably or unconscionably, it ends up in court.
The worst part it is a type of legal situation that can't be defined easily. It must be vague to be flexible enough for there to be "fair use" of material.
Since the media companies HATE everything about fair use (except when it applies to their actions, i.e. HIPHOP sampling and so on) they constantly try to whittle away at it with precedent, using egregious cases that are far more reaching than the judges suspect before they make their rulings.
Unfortunately, lawyers, like all corrosive elements, feed of decay and destruction. Even the "good" ones make a living off the evils, yes by fighting it, but still by engaging it.
We need to find a new way to deal with injustice. The courts belong to big business and the unreasonable. Most people never seriously do anything to harm another, yet the courts are making precedent on the exceptions and that is destroying freedom bit by bit.
3) You're too lazy to spend a few minutes to contact the people involved.
Probably guilty as charged, but it isn't the easiest thing to do to be involved in a legal action. I'm certainly not going to volunteer unless it is necessary. That being said, if the various entities posted requests with contact information, for developers who may have prior art, I would absolutely send them and email. For instance, we've seen on grocklaw and slashdot lawyers asking for feedback or technical info. When I see them and can contribute, I do.
Thank you for your half-assed version of helping; if I see you flailing in an icy pool, I'll be sure to mention to a friend that I see a long branch that I could probably use to save you. If you don't contact me about the branch, it's not my problem.
It is hardly the same thing. None of these entities seem to be in any sort of jeopardy and can well manage this attack without my help. Combined they have BILLIONS of dollars, my paltry testimony identifies one of thousands of possible projects (some of which are the respective litigants own work).
If the KDE or GNOME guys were under suit, that would be a different story.
I would bet that as projects grow, fewer new developers join -- unless the complexity is managed.
Open Office is starting to feel like X11. It hard to even build let alone modify let alone test. It is a very old code base and it shows.
There is another issue as well I think. It is typically an application "end-point." Projects like Apache, PostgreSQL, PHP, etc. are foundations for other projects. People use them and contribute because they are interested in their own project and they fix or add features to the open source foundations to that end. The primary self interest is their project not PHP or PostgreSQL, but the open source foundations benefit regardless.
With OpenOffice.Org, there is no individualized primary self interest. If I add something to OpenOffice.Org, I only add it because I want it. With the code base as big and complex as it is, I'd have to want it quite badly. I can't think of a feature I need that much or a reason to do all the work to add it. OpenOffice.Org is pretty good as is, what does it need?
I think you folks are being insensitive here. Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel. How would you like it if you did for a living what they do for a living, and your friends, family, and neighbors -- even maybe your parents -- even maybe your children -- could see what you do? Or how would you like it if by offchance the tape was seen by a future prospective employer, who thought you had actually been practicing law?
I know you are making a joke, but we, everyone of us, at points in our lives, face ethical choices. This is where we see the difference between a "good" person and a scum bag. If you choose a course of action that is intentionally unethical or dishonest when there are other possibilities (i.e. it is an actual choice), then you are a scum bag. Period, end of discussion.
Seriously, I don't believe in utopia, and understand that there are ethical ambiguities in life, but harassing and threatening people who can't defend themselves is worse than unethical, it is the sign of a sociopath.
If you're for real, I suggest that you take the initiative and contact them, considering that
* Your Slashdot account is not configured to reveal an email address or website
* It's not clear that the lawyers involved read Slashdot
(1) I get enough spam, thank you very much. (2) If someone wanted to find me, it shouldn't be very hard at all, the rudimentary obfuscation of my identity is only good enough to keep the complete morons away.
While it would be antitrust if their monopoly were one formed by conglomeration, cable is a bit different; in this case, each local city grants the company its monopoly.
There is no such distinction in the law. In fact, back in the 70s and earlier, you HAD to rent your phone from the phone company and it remain the property of AT&T. This ran afoul of the same laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Or rather, the criminals that they've noticed are dumb enough to be noticed. Plenty of smart criminals have gotten away with things for years and years, and I don't doubt that many go completely undetected.
I have a step-sister who's husband is the head of the city police union. His son was convicted of plotting a "columbine" like attack. He is the dumbest, most violent and corrupt person I know.
The fact that any people are successfully prosecuted means that they are very stupid criminals, or can't afford a good lawyer.
The more police I meet and know, the more I think they are only slightly less dangerous than the criminals and certainly not much smarter.
If someone sends you a binary as an attachment and you save it to your file system, chmod it and try to run it, I'm pretty sure that foreign binary will run.
Exactly, it has to first be marked as something that can be run. Windows will try to run anything that ends with exe, scr, etc.
When your government is hacking you, is it illegal to lock them out?
At issue is the measures by which you "lock them out." In reality, most all systems can be configured so that it is impossible to snoop.
The police have long benefited by the fact that most people inclined to seriously break the law are, on average, dumber than the detectives set to find them. When you have a brilliant criminal or terrorist they only get caught (if at all) because sooner or later everyone makes a mistake.
The phrase "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" also applies to your computer these days.
I'm more interested in how as a premise though. Mainly that these days people are behind a router that acts as a firewall.. that limits things a bit I guess...
No way. People don't know how easy it is, with the use of out-side coordination, to initiate connections at-will. All you need is a single program running at with simple user preferences.
Windows is most vulnerable because it has the least effective security model because it will run foreign binaries, Mac and Linux are better in that, by convention and peer pressure, they will not.
Granted, for a lot of reasons, Windows is a worse case scenario, there are avenues to infect other systems as well just not as easily. Once they can get a binary running on your system, you are effectively snooped.
Ever heard of Karl Popper? I didn't think so.
It is usually a mistake to assume something about a person whom you've never met.
In short, you CANNOT "prove" a scientific theory. There is a fundamental logical problem with the very idea: We make predictions, and sometimes the predictions come true.......snip
You are confused about what Popper's theory really was. He acknowledged that in small well bounded cases that prediction was possible, but in larger unbounded problems, it was probably impossible due to all the random and unpredictable elements inherent in the universe. Not that things could not be predicted in general, but that even the best predictions only had a probability of happening.
In the case of evolution, the "process of evolution" has been proved beyond any reasonable debate. The research and case study is undeniable.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/18/college-majors-lucrative-lead-cx_kb_0618majors.html
Computer science was #4, after economics and EE.
Computer Science/Engineering has changed over the years because it is moving to higher-level stuff.
It is moving from a "creative" profession to one of mere aggregation.
Changing is not dying, but it may mean career death for those who are unwilling to change *awkward silence*.
It doesn't provide the same type work. It doesn't require the same type of thinking. It used to be math and logic, these days it is mostly memorizing the endless complexity of a never ending stream of frameworks.
This isn't a dinosaur vs newbe thing, it is the eventual change from emerging technology to established. Like rock and role, you won't ever see another "Dark Side of the Moon." Sadly, you'll see a new Britney every year. Dark Side of the Moon was art.
starting salaries by major, 2003 [uta.edu]
2003? That was 6 years ago! Things have changed DRAMATICALLY since then. Get me some 2007/2008 numbers.
If you are calling me ignorant, you are mistaken. I certainly covered binary number representation in college. But it hasn't been useful since then. I work on much higher level stuff. I imagine this is true for most people. There isn't a lot of demand for people who write new operating systems... that's just the industry moving forward while you're stuck in the past.
The topic of this thread was interesting jobs in computer science, and I asserted that computer science is dead, and you seem to be supporting my assertion.
There isn't a lot of demand for people who write new operating systems.
Well, it is less about operating systems and more about motor controllers, device drivers, big control systems, embedded systems, and so on. I would rather quit the field than work as a "Java Web Designer." The way things are going, I may, in fact, do that.
Your info is wrong. CS majors make more money than any other 4-year degree.
Citation needed.
Also--2's compliment? You must be joking. They don't emphasize knowing how to solder or replace vacuum tubes today, either.
Ignorance is bliss I guess.
Also, Computer Science is a misnomer. Since the 1970s, 99% of these scientists were really just software engineers.
Perhaps, but a lot of real innovation happened between the 1950s and the early 90s. Innovation, IMHO, has pretty much stopped outside a startlingly few organizations.
They weren't developing novel new algorithms, just putting together code to help business do its thing.
10~15 years ago, you HAD to develop new algorithms to do new things.
(Speaking of which, I've met "developers" who don't know what a pointer is. WTF?)
I remember when I was learning C in the early 80s, I had a problem with the nomenclature, a "pointer" to me was a stick with a rubber point at the end used by high school teachers to point to things.
It was the hardest thing to equate "pointer" to a memory address.
PICs are no longer low level.
Not all, perhaps not, but the point remains. A lot of applications that benefit from algorithmic control instead of discrete digital or analog circuitry will always benefit from using the minimum amount of computing power needed to perform the task to remain economically competitive.
Being able to implement algorithms on minimal or exotic computers is what CompSci is all about. *anyone* can multiply two 32 bit integers in Java, try it in Z80 assembler (Hint, Z80 derivatives are very popular in the embedded field and have an eight bit accumulator, but 16 bit registers.)
Seriously, *anyone* can program in Java or .NET, but the interesting stuff is *not* that. The sad part is that the fun stuff is hard to find.
Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.
In real science we state claims and provide proof and theory as to why we accept them as true. Furthermore, we make predictions that can be tested. In science, nothing is "disproved," all things are assumed false until proved. Its make more sense that way as I can not disprove your watermellon claim, but you have offered no theory or proof as to why your claims should be believed in the first place.
I could claim anything and you would be foolish to believe. If I make a claim and provide proof and a theory to explain why it is so, and you check out the proof, you have the ability to prove or disprove it on your own.
Either that or a TL;DR moderation.
Unfortunately I did read it, he was trying to make a point and I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but in the it was just trying.
Behind the goofy UI that I loved as a kid, you could find most of the same features and concepts as Microsoft Word.
I was the "Windows Architect" of the project. We had a mac guy for the mac version.
Many of the things that went in to word, and eventually into Windows generally, may have been developed in that project.
In fact, I developed a cross-platform dynamic linking mechanism for Windows and Mac that used C structures for interfacing DLL and Mac code resources, we called them LSDs (loadable software devices), Microsoft's OLE came out later and shared a surprising number of similarities.
Microsoft's "chunky file format" was used for the file I/O of the products. We actually workd with one of the GDI engineers to help us do the BMP/DIB animation at the GDI bitmap level. (Something the competitor, Broderbund, probably did not have.)
At that time, Windows was kind of cool to work on. Linux didn't exist, BSD was still encumbered, and MINIX was unknown to most everyone.
I have been writing software since the 1970s, and there isn't much left in the field for "work." There may be "research," into things but the average "job" is tedium.
"Computer Science" as it were, is nothing more than a craftsman tool belt. There is no "science" left. It is all the fashion of end-user application. Web sites, social networks, e-commerce, etc. No one in the field is producing great work (and making great money) any more.
I've been interviewing candidates for the last 15 years and "computer science" is a joke. The universities are teaching a trade, not a science. Kids barely understand the mathematical basics of how a hash table works. Don't even get me started on twos-compliment arithmetic or how to evaluate algorithms.
Sure, the desktop processors and environments do a lot for you, but maybe you'll want to do something interesting some day with different types of devices like PICs.
In the end, you'll have to learn about something else, like banking, medicine, civil engineering, accounting or some such to be able to write software for those fields, but since those fields currenly pay better, why not go there first?
Because of your post, I think we need a "Billy Madison" moderation.
What you wrote wasn't flamebait or over rated, it was stupid.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
If they are billing by the hour...so should you.
I was "employed" by them, and up until the demand exceeded the pay, it was a pretty good place to work. I worked with some great people there. It was sad that I had to leave, but it was on of the things that eventually ruined my first marriage.
I used to work at a software contracting house about 16-18 years ago. We worked on "Microsoft Home" project. There were two programs: "Fine Artist" and "Creative Writer" for kids. (code name "splat") It had an animated helper, "Pablo Picknoseo" (yes: pik-nOs-O") it seems to be some time before these patents. I still got the tee shirt.
The Picaso family objected to the name of the character and they renamed him.
I left that company as they were billing Microsoft by the hour, but paying salary. Microsoft was changing things on a weekly basis, but not adjusting the release schedule. The company was neither adding engineers nor fighting back on the schedule, just demanding we work more. It was crazy.
This is theft of material, pretty much plain and simple.
How is that?
Treating stuff on the web as a free-for-all and just republishing/redistributing it freely is fine as long as it benefits the person doing it.
They weren't "republishing" they were linking to it with a brief synopsis of what the like points too.
Nobody likes getting their stuff stolen and redistributed but most people on Slashdot can't see that far in front of their nose.
It isn't "stolen" as no one is deprived of its use.
The problem with the "fair Use" doctrine of copyright it requires and assumes parties to be reasonable and conscionable. Once either party behaves unreasonably or unconscionably, it ends up in court.
The worst part it is a type of legal situation that can't be defined easily. It must be vague to be flexible enough for there to be "fair use" of material.
Since the media companies HATE everything about fair use (except when it applies to their actions, i.e. HIPHOP sampling and so on) they constantly try to whittle away at it with precedent, using egregious cases that are far more reaching than the judges suspect before they make their rulings.
Unfortunately, lawyers, like all corrosive elements, feed of decay and destruction. Even the "good" ones make a living off the evils, yes by fighting it, but still by engaging it.
We need to find a new way to deal with injustice. The courts belong to big business and the unreasonable. Most people never seriously do anything to harm another, yet the courts are making precedent on the exceptions and that is destroying freedom bit by bit.
3) You're too lazy to spend a few minutes to contact the people involved.
Probably guilty as charged, but it isn't the easiest thing to do to be involved in a legal action. I'm certainly not going to volunteer unless it is necessary. That being said, if the various entities posted requests with contact information, for developers who may have prior art, I would absolutely send them and email. For instance, we've seen on grocklaw and slashdot lawyers asking for feedback or technical info. When I see them and can contribute, I do.
Thank you for your half-assed version of helping; if I see you flailing in an icy pool, I'll be sure to mention to a friend that I see a long branch that I could probably use to save you. If you don't contact me about the branch, it's not my problem.
It is hardly the same thing. None of these entities seem to be in any sort of jeopardy and can well manage this attack without my help. Combined they have BILLIONS of dollars, my paltry testimony identifies one of thousands of possible projects (some of which are the respective litigants own work).
If the KDE or GNOME guys were under suit, that would be a different story.
I would bet that as projects grow, fewer new developers join -- unless the complexity is managed.
Open Office is starting to feel like X11. It hard to even build let alone modify let alone test. It is a very old code base and it shows.
There is another issue as well I think. It is typically an application "end-point." Projects like Apache, PostgreSQL, PHP, etc. are foundations for other projects. People use them and contribute because they are interested in their own project and they fix or add features to the open source foundations to that end. The primary self interest is their project not PHP or PostgreSQL, but the open source foundations benefit regardless.
With OpenOffice.Org, there is no individualized primary self interest. If I add something to OpenOffice.Org, I only add it because I want it. With the code base as big and complex as it is, I'd have to want it quite badly. I can't think of a feature I need that much or a reason to do all the work to add it. OpenOffice.Org is pretty good as is, what does it need?
Much as I like to argue.
This *IS* slashdot right?
I think you folks are being insensitive here. Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel. How would you like it if you did for a living what they do for a living, and your friends, family, and neighbors -- even maybe your parents -- even maybe your children -- could see what you do? Or how would you like it if by offchance the tape was seen by a future prospective employer, who thought you had actually been practicing law?
I know you are making a joke, but we, everyone of us, at points in our lives, face ethical choices. This is where we see the difference between a "good" person and a scum bag. If you choose a course of action that is intentionally unethical or dishonest when there are other possibilities (i.e. it is an actual choice), then you are a scum bag. Period, end of discussion.
Seriously, I don't believe in utopia, and understand that there are ethical ambiguities in life, but harassing and threatening people who can't defend themselves is worse than unethical, it is the sign of a sociopath.
If you're for real, I suggest that you take the initiative and contact them, considering that
* Your Slashdot account is not configured to reveal an email address or website
* It's not clear that the lawyers involved read Slashdot
(1) I get enough spam, thank you very much.
(2) If someone wanted to find me, it shouldn't be very hard at all, the rudimentary obfuscation of my identity is only good enough to keep the complete morons away.
While it would be antitrust if their monopoly were one formed by conglomeration, cable is a bit different; in this case, each local city grants the company its monopoly.
There is no such distinction in the law. In fact, back in the 70s and earlier, you HAD to rent your phone from the phone company and it remain the property of AT&T. This ran afoul of the same laws.