1.There's a bit of selection bias. Students != the population at large...
True. But this population represents a hotbed of piracy. A group more capable and better informed regarding cracked software. So if they can be induced to buy by the crudest DRM I think this speaks very strongly to the effectiveness of DRM.
2. I'm guessing most of the piracy was one student (or a few students) buying it and copying it for others;...
I expect that this was true during the first quarter without DRM. Piracy merely happened because it was easy to accomplish.
I also think this story if fairly representative of what happens with games. On numerous gaming forums I've seen the same things said over and over: "A friend brought a legit copy to school. The copies we made did not work so I went out and bought a legit copy."
... Well-known and long-cracked or not, the students still had to figure out what it was, find the tools, and learn how to use them--not worth $10...
During that first quarter where DRM was introduced there may have been problems finding cracks but for subsequent quarters that was not true. Cracks were available on numerous sites and were only a google away, using them was pretty straight forward. Sales in these subsequent quarters remained relatively high and comparable to the first DRM'd quarter that may have had problems in locating cracks.
The complication of torrents was not an issue. Zip files containing a complete cracked installation were quite reasonable in size. The developer of the chemistry app had mac and unix experience so even a ms-windows installation could be moved from folder to folder, disk to disk, and run normally.
Not knowing the specific circumstances, I'll point out that a great many classes have requirements in their syllabus (such as books required for class assignments and the like) that aren't truly necessary.
Perhaps the first semester there wasn't a solid system in place that made use of the software?
My understanding is that the textbook publisher double checked that. Classes were using the software in assignments and those assignments were being turned in despite the lack of software sales.
The book and software were also developed together, an academic version of a commercial app was created in a joint venture between the book and software publishers. The book itself, and complementary products for the professor, often referred to or used the software.
I am selling an iPhone game at 0.99 $ and there's still people pirating it. Does it have to be even cheaper?
Price does not really reduce piracy, DRM does. People will pirate if it is easy to do so.
I once had the opportunity to witness the sales of some software bundled with a freshman chemistry textbook. This chemistry visualization and modeling software was needed for class assignments. It was packaged and sold separately from the textbook so other students could use it too. The textbook included a coupon to get the software at a highly discounted price. About US$10 IIRC, US$30 if not bundled. The software contained no DRM the first quarter it was available. Sales of the software was a small fraction (5% ish - measured with redeemed coupons) of book sales. The publisher then added DRM for the next quarter, sales were close to (80% ish) the book sales, despite the fact that the DRM was easily defeated. The DRM was a well-known off-the-shelf solution with abundant removal tools. Subsequent quarters showed similar sales so the increase was not due to removal tools not being available on day 1. IIRC correctly such tools were available within a week - well in time for assignments that used the software.
The "I'd buy it if it were reasonably priced" meme is in reality largely a rationalization to justify current piracy. Only a few would follow through and go legit.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Gold dropped almost 50% between 1989 and 2000.
I think gold dropped roughly 50% between 1980 and 1982, and then trended downward until 2002. There is a little noise in the graph but rallies quickly failed for 20+ years.
While you do provide the one instance the GP requested, if you look past his silly challenge he does make a valid point. The $100,000 limit was well known. Many folks of quite modest education were aware of this and split their life savings across multiple unrelated institutions. I think your situation is quite the outlier.
My grandpa (who lived through the Depression) always used to say it was better to buy gold and bury it in your backyard than to put your money in a bank. And to think we used to laugh at him.
Yeah, because gold is like buying a house. The price can only go up.
Track the price of gold over grandpa's lifetime. Now track an interest bearing savings account over the same period, make sure to to include *** compounding interest ***. Do the same for 1980 (wan't that a huge peak followed by a crash) to today. Claiming that gold is a big win is all about cherry picking the day you buy and the day you sell. Compounding interest is far more reliable.
Most important of all, is grandpa leaving a map to his backyard?:-) With a savings account you can turn in his SSN to the state to find lost/forgotten/abandoned accounts.
Am I the only one finding myself increasingly detached from caring about the desktop shell anyhow? It's like, can we just replace the whole desktop shell with a browser and be done with it (even if all the apps are still served from localhost)?
and I suppose the telecommuting done with most open source projects doesn't work either?
I think the point others are trying to make is that working face to face in a common environment works better. Telecommuting in an open source project may be less optimal but it may also be the only option.
The problem is that to have a research oriented University you need a sufficiently large population of students taking the advanced classes. To go back to the California example the UC system is designated to be research oriented, hence the requirement for the advanced classes. The wherever you are argument is not very convincing in this case since CSU campuses are far more numerous than UC campuses and CSU campuses can generally be found near enough to UC campuses to serve the same communities. Most people in California have equal or better access to CSU campuses than UC.
The degree is irrelevant. I was speaking of degrees in general. Why force people to take things that they will not need based on the assumptions that they may need it? They should decide that for themselves.
My point is that they *already can* decide for themselves by choosing the right college and/or degree program. Watering down these more advanced programs to only satisfy the more typical jobs does not make sense, it is redundant. The "less demanding" programs already exist.
For example in California there are two state run university systems. The University of California (UC) system which is more focused on preparing undergraduate students for more advance studies and research (graduate school), and the California State University (CSU) system which is more focused on preparing undergraduates to be practitioners rather than researchers. Some of the classes that are more oriented towards advanced studies are required at UC but optional at CSU. Some CSU campuses also offer more options by the school a program is located in. A software development oriented program in the school of business may require less math than a software development oriented program in the school of science. Or a campus may offer a Bachelor of Arts program with less math compared to a Bachelor of Science program. That said, let me stress that many of the more advanced classes are optional, not unavailable, at CSU. If an undergraduate chooses to take these classes they will be prepared for advanced studies and/or research.
So in California a student can decide for themselves by attending CSU rather than UC, and while at CSU if they change their mind they can take the optional classes.
Hot topic: writing video games
Core CS topics: graphics, linear algebra, digital image processing
FWIW. Graphics is only part of video game development. Most of the time the graphics is largely "outsourced" by licensing a graphics engine. Other parts of game development are in the areas of artificial intelligence, networking, databases, human/computer interaction, etc. Hovering over everything is data structures and design/analysis of algorithms, this is where so many things go wrong. Toss in a good understanding of architecture and compilers. The core CS topics necessary for developing a modern AAA game is pretty comprehensive.
Many aspiring to work in game development limit their chances to do so by focusing only on the graphics. Just as many interested in computer programming limit their opportunities by avoiding the advanced math. I will admit that in many of my jobs I did not need the math, however to my surprise I've had job opportunities that did require having had the advanced math classes. Not that I was doing much of the math myself but I needed to understand and communicate with the actual mathematicians. I've had to dig out those textbooks from that "extra" second year of math to implement some algorithms.
And some other grad from your class will tell a completely different story.
Then they can take it of their own volition. They should not force random knowledge upon people because they might need it. If people make a mistake and fail to take needed courses, then too bad for them. Let me decide what opportunities I wish to have.
As one of the other posters has pointed out there are programming oriented degrees outside of the school of science that do not require as much math. Go for one of these degrees, don't water down a science oriented degree.
I would submit the math requirements are common in the core requirements of any Bachelor of Sciences degree, rather than specific to a Computer Science major.
If you don't want to master basic college-level math to earn a sciences degree, then perhaps you should be lobbying academics to offer a Bachelor of Arts with a Applications Development major instead.
I would submit the math requirements are common in the core requirements of any Bachelor of Sciences degree, rather than specific to a Computer Science major. If you don't want to master basic college-level math to earn a sciences degree, then perhaps you should be lobbying academics to offer a Bachelor of Arts with a Applications Development major instead.
My university had two options for those interested in computer programming. Computer science in the school of science and Computer Information Systems in the school of business, other universities had a Computer Engineering option in the school of engineering(*). There were a few students who transferred to CIS since they were not interested in taking the extra math classes. I agree that there is no problem with the math requirements, the problem is that some people are in the wrong program.
(*) CS, CIS, CE, etc don't have fixed definitions. At other universities CIS is in the school of science not business, CE in the school of science,...
I don't get why I had to learn all the math in university. I agree some math is useful, but I have never in my 10 years working applied any of the advanced stuff, nor found learning it helpful.
And some other grad from your class will tell a completely different story. My first job was pure tech, embedded kernel software. My second job was molecular modeling. If I did not have the math (which I too never expected to use) I would not have been qualified for that job. Also, later when I went to business school I used more advanced math in marketing classes than I ever did in computer science (again, I never expected this).
So basically the CS program is preparing your for more advanced jobs, a wider range of opportunities. The fact that some members of your class never go for such jobs (and you may not be one of those, perhaps your next job will use the math) is no reason to drop math from the CS program.
Intel and AMD are hampered by having to provide legacy compatibility, MIPS is a much newer designed architecture that should impose less bottlenecks on processor advancement.
Motorola and IBM said the same thing about PowerPC when they started. Over the following years the PowerPC got about 20-40% better performance at the same clock rate as the contemporary Pentium, SMP also had a similar performance advantage. However Intel was able to win with actual performance by achieving higher clock rates.
Also recent Intel x86 architectures have a modern RISC design. The x86 instruction set is merely a facade. The x86 instructions are translated to "micro-ops" that run natively on the RISC core. Intel is free to change/replace this core at any time.
Things are a bit more complicated than they appear.
You keep repeating variants of the same FUD. NASA's contributions to a GPL licensed work can be public domain, while the work as a whole and the contributions made by others can be GPL. No problem, its in the FSF FAQs I linked to earlier, so if you disagree its your opinion vs that of the FSF's lawyers.
What FUD, we seem to be saying similar things? NASA written code should be unrestricted. If people build upon that in non-NASA projects they are free to fork and license however they want. However the NASA fork should remain unrestricted.
Why is using the GPL "discriminating against commercial organisations"?
The GPL forces distribution of source, allows removal of DRM, requires distribution of digital signatures validating executables, etc. I am not saying these are inherently bad things, I am saying that a license that does such stuff should not be used for tax payer funded projects. Tax payers who in part paid for this software should be free to use this software in these GPL-prohibited manners.
The GPL gives all taxpayers continued access on equal terms, whereas the BSD license risks someone taking over the market with a single closed source version, stifling competition and effectively getting corporate welfare from the government. It comes down to politics: GPL if you are pro competitive free markets, BSD if you want corporate welfare and central planning.
That is merely FSF dogma, and not very accurate. No one can take over the market with the government written code, that code remains available to all. The only thing a company can keep secret is what they wrote themselves. That is neither corporate welfare nor central planning.
The GPL is not controlled by a third party, and it certainty goes not give a third party control over a project. This is pure FUD. The GPL was written by a third party, just as most software licences are written by lawyers rather than the developer, but this does not mean that the lawyers control the project.
The GPL is written by lawyers who are implementing the agenda of the FSF. Once applied the GPL exerts control in that it forces distribution of source, allows removal of DRM, requires distribution of digital signatures validating executables, etc. I am not saying these are inherently bad things, I am saying that a license that does such stuff should not be used for tax payer funded projects. Tax payers who in part paid for this software should be free to use this software in these FSF-prohibited manners.
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell"
How are you expected to modify the software in any meaning sense without access to the sources?
The text you quote was offered as an example of what appears in the source code files.:-)
Because a commercial organization cannot profit from software under a GPL license?
Because a taxpayer funded government entity should not license its software to others using a license controlled by a non-governmental third party. That third party organization should not be able to exercise any control whatsoever on a taxpayer funded project.
Actually that is intentional and well thought out. It prevents people from typing in that IP and trying to do something. When real phone numbers appeared on TV or in songs it was quite annoying for the person whose number that was. They are just trying to avoid similar inconveniences.
Why not just use private network IP addresses then? It's not like there aren't thousands to choose from. Most of the general public probably wouldn't know the difference, making it much more "realistic."
The same people who complain about >255 in an IP would also complain about non-routable addresses being accessed remotely over the internet.:-)
Almost anytime they rattle off an IP number. More often than not it will contain numbers above 255.
Actually that is intentional and well thought out. It prevents people from typing in that IP and trying to do something. When real phone numbers appeared on TV or in songs it was quite annoying for the person whose number that was. They are just trying to avoid similar inconveniences.
Slashdot Mirror
1.There's a bit of selection bias. Students != the population at large ...
True. But this population represents a hotbed of piracy. A group more capable and better informed regarding cracked software. So if they can be induced to buy by the crudest DRM I think this speaks very strongly to the effectiveness of DRM.
2. I'm guessing most of the piracy was one student (or a few students) buying it and copying it for others; ...
I expect that this was true during the first quarter without DRM. Piracy merely happened because it was easy to accomplish.
I also think this story if fairly representative of what happens with games. On numerous gaming forums I've seen the same things said over and over: "A friend brought a legit copy to school. The copies we made did not work so I went out and bought a legit copy."
During that first quarter where DRM was introduced there may have been problems finding cracks but for subsequent quarters that was not true. Cracks were available on numerous sites and were only a google away, using them was pretty straight forward. Sales in these subsequent quarters remained relatively high and comparable to the first DRM'd quarter that may have had problems in locating cracks.
The complication of torrents was not an issue. Zip files containing a complete cracked installation were quite reasonable in size. The developer of the chemistry app had mac and unix experience so even a ms-windows installation could be moved from folder to folder, disk to disk, and run normally.
Not knowing the specific circumstances, I'll point out that a great many classes have requirements in their syllabus (such as books required for class assignments and the like) that aren't truly necessary. Perhaps the first semester there wasn't a solid system in place that made use of the software?
My understanding is that the textbook publisher double checked that. Classes were using the software in assignments and those assignments were being turned in despite the lack of software sales.
The book and software were also developed together, an academic version of a commercial app was created in a joint venture between the book and software publishers. The book itself, and complementary products for the professor, often referred to or used the software.
I am selling an iPhone game at 0.99 $ and there's still people pirating it. Does it have to be even cheaper?
Price does not really reduce piracy, DRM does. People will pirate if it is easy to do so.
I once had the opportunity to witness the sales of some software bundled with a freshman chemistry textbook. This chemistry visualization and modeling software was needed for class assignments. It was packaged and sold separately from the textbook so other students could use it too. The textbook included a coupon to get the software at a highly discounted price. About US$10 IIRC, US$30 if not bundled. The software contained no DRM the first quarter it was available. Sales of the software was a small fraction (5% ish - measured with redeemed coupons) of book sales. The publisher then added DRM for the next quarter, sales were close to (80% ish) the book sales, despite the fact that the DRM was easily defeated. The DRM was a well-known off-the-shelf solution with abundant removal tools. Subsequent quarters showed similar sales so the increase was not due to removal tools not being available on day 1. IIRC correctly such tools were available within a week - well in time for assignments that used the software.
The "I'd buy it if it were reasonably priced" meme is in reality largely a rationalization to justify current piracy. Only a few would follow through and go legit.
Can't wait for the pics in front of the Orc on the Blizzard campus. Far more impressive than Lucas' Yoda. ;-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anshinritsumai/4799301377/
I should draw your attention to the landmark supreme court case of Mattress v. House Fire.
More proof of the superiority of investing in gold rather than paper assets. ;-)
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Gold dropped almost 50% between 1989 and 2000.
I think gold dropped roughly 50% between 1980 and 1982, and then trended downward until 2002. There is a little noise in the graph but rallies quickly failed for 20+ years.
Read up douche - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation Prior to 2008, the limit was $100,000. I lost $45,000 that was not reimbursed, proof enough?
While you do provide the one instance the GP requested, if you look past his silly challenge he does make a valid point. The $100,000 limit was well known. Many folks of quite modest education were aware of this and split their life savings across multiple unrelated institutions. I think your situation is quite the outlier.
My grandpa (who lived through the Depression) always used to say it was better to buy gold and bury it in your backyard than to put your money in a bank. And to think we used to laugh at him.
Yeah, because gold is like buying a house. The price can only go up.
:-) With a savings account you can turn in his SSN to the state to find lost/forgotten/abandoned accounts.
Track the price of gold over grandpa's lifetime. Now track an interest bearing savings account over the same period, make sure to to include *** compounding interest ***. Do the same for 1980 (wan't that a huge peak followed by a crash) to today. Claiming that gold is a big win is all about cherry picking the day you buy and the day you sell. Compounding interest is far more reliable.
Most important of all, is grandpa leaving a map to his backyard?
Am I the only one finding myself increasingly detached from caring about the desktop shell anyhow? It's like, can we just replace the whole desktop shell with a browser and be done with it (even if all the apps are still served from localhost)?
Does emacs have an integrated web browser yet? :-)
and I suppose the telecommuting done with most open source projects doesn't work either?
I think the point others are trying to make is that working face to face in a common environment works better. Telecommuting in an open source project may be less optimal but it may also be the only option.
The problem is that to have a research oriented University you need a sufficiently large population of students taking the advanced classes. To go back to the California example the UC system is designated to be research oriented, hence the requirement for the advanced classes. The wherever you are argument is not very convincing in this case since CSU campuses are far more numerous than UC campuses and CSU campuses can generally be found near enough to UC campuses to serve the same communities. Most people in California have equal or better access to CSU campuses than UC.
The degree is irrelevant. I was speaking of degrees in general. Why force people to take things that they will not need based on the assumptions that they may need it? They should decide that for themselves.
My point is that they *already can* decide for themselves by choosing the right college and/or degree program. Watering down these more advanced programs to only satisfy the more typical jobs does not make sense, it is redundant. The "less demanding" programs already exist.
For example in California there are two state run university systems. The University of California (UC) system which is more focused on preparing undergraduate students for more advance studies and research (graduate school), and the California State University (CSU) system which is more focused on preparing undergraduates to be practitioners rather than researchers. Some of the classes that are more oriented towards advanced studies are required at UC but optional at CSU. Some CSU campuses also offer more options by the school a program is located in. A software development oriented program in the school of business may require less math than a software development oriented program in the school of science. Or a campus may offer a Bachelor of Arts program with less math compared to a Bachelor of Science program. That said, let me stress that many of the more advanced classes are optional, not unavailable, at CSU. If an undergraduate chooses to take these classes they will be prepared for advanced studies and/or research.
So in California a student can decide for themselves by attending CSU rather than UC, and while at CSU if they change their mind they can take the optional classes.
Hot topic: writing video games
Core CS topics: graphics, linear algebra, digital image processing
FWIW. Graphics is only part of video game development. Most of the time the graphics is largely "outsourced" by licensing a graphics engine. Other parts of game development are in the areas of artificial intelligence, networking, databases, human/computer interaction, etc. Hovering over everything is data structures and design/analysis of algorithms, this is where so many things go wrong. Toss in a good understanding of architecture and compilers. The core CS topics necessary for developing a modern AAA game is pretty comprehensive.
Many aspiring to work in game development limit their chances to do so by focusing only on the graphics. Just as many interested in computer programming limit their opportunities by avoiding the advanced math. I will admit that in many of my jobs I did not need the math, however to my surprise I've had job opportunities that did require having had the advanced math classes. Not that I was doing much of the math myself but I needed to understand and communicate with the actual mathematicians. I've had to dig out those textbooks from that "extra" second year of math to implement some algorithms.
And some other grad from your class will tell a completely different story.
Then they can take it of their own volition. They should not force random knowledge upon people because they might need it. If people make a mistake and fail to take needed courses, then too bad for them. Let me decide what opportunities I wish to have.
As one of the other posters has pointed out there are programming oriented degrees outside of the school of science that do not require as much math. Go for one of these degrees, don't water down a science oriented degree.
I would submit the math requirements are common in the core requirements of any Bachelor of Sciences degree, rather than specific to a Computer Science major.
If you don't want to master basic college-level math to earn a sciences degree, then perhaps you should be lobbying academics to offer a Bachelor of Arts with a Applications Development major instead.
I would submit the math requirements are common in the core requirements of any Bachelor of Sciences degree, rather than specific to a Computer Science major. If you don't want to master basic college-level math to earn a sciences degree, then perhaps you should be lobbying academics to offer a Bachelor of Arts with a Applications Development major instead.
My university had two options for those interested in computer programming. Computer science in the school of science and Computer Information Systems in the school of business, other universities had a Computer Engineering option in the school of engineering(*). There were a few students who transferred to CIS since they were not interested in taking the extra math classes. I agree that there is no problem with the math requirements, the problem is that some people are in the wrong program.
...
(*) CS, CIS, CE, etc don't have fixed definitions. At other universities CIS is in the school of science not business, CE in the school of science,
I don't get why I had to learn all the math in university. I agree some math is useful, but I have never in my 10 years working applied any of the advanced stuff, nor found learning it helpful.
And some other grad from your class will tell a completely different story. My first job was pure tech, embedded kernel software. My second job was molecular modeling. If I did not have the math (which I too never expected to use) I would not have been qualified for that job. Also, later when I went to business school I used more advanced math in marketing classes than I ever did in computer science (again, I never expected this).
So basically the CS program is preparing your for more advanced jobs, a wider range of opportunities. The fact that some members of your class never go for such jobs (and you may not be one of those, perhaps your next job will use the math) is no reason to drop math from the CS program.
They are obviously refering to the age of the earth.
Nope, they are expecting to achieve 2/3rds of the performance of a HAL 9000.
Intel and AMD are hampered by having to provide legacy compatibility, MIPS is a much newer designed architecture that should impose less bottlenecks on processor advancement.
Motorola and IBM said the same thing about PowerPC when they started. Over the following years the PowerPC got about 20-40% better performance at the same clock rate as the contemporary Pentium, SMP also had a similar performance advantage. However Intel was able to win with actual performance by achieving higher clock rates.
Also recent Intel x86 architectures have a modern RISC design. The x86 instruction set is merely a facade. The x86 instructions are translated to "micro-ops" that run natively on the RISC core. Intel is free to change/replace this core at any time.
Things are a bit more complicated than they appear.
You keep repeating variants of the same FUD. NASA's contributions to a GPL licensed work can be public domain, while the work as a whole and the contributions made by others can be GPL. No problem, its in the FSF FAQs I linked to earlier, so if you disagree its your opinion vs that of the FSF's lawyers.
What FUD, we seem to be saying similar things? NASA written code should be unrestricted. If people build upon that in non-NASA projects they are free to fork and license however they want. However the NASA fork should remain unrestricted.
Why is using the GPL "discriminating against commercial organisations"?
The GPL forces distribution of source, allows removal of DRM, requires distribution of digital signatures validating executables, etc. I am not saying these are inherently bad things, I am saying that a license that does such stuff should not be used for tax payer funded projects. Tax payers who in part paid for this software should be free to use this software in these GPL-prohibited manners.
The GPL gives all taxpayers continued access on equal terms, whereas the BSD license risks someone taking over the market with a single closed source version, stifling competition and effectively getting corporate welfare from the government. It comes down to politics: GPL if you are pro competitive free markets, BSD if you want corporate welfare and central planning.
That is merely FSF dogma, and not very accurate. No one can take over the market with the government written code, that code remains available to all. The only thing a company can keep secret is what they wrote themselves. That is neither corporate welfare nor central planning.
The GPL is not controlled by a third party, and it certainty goes not give a third party control over a project. This is pure FUD. The GPL was written by a third party, just as most software licences are written by lawyers rather than the developer, but this does not mean that the lawyers control the project.
The GPL is written by lawyers who are implementing the agenda of the FSF. Once applied the GPL exerts control in that it forces distribution of source, allows removal of DRM, requires distribution of digital signatures validating executables, etc. I am not saying these are inherently bad things, I am saying that a license that does such stuff should not be used for tax payer funded projects. Tax payers who in part paid for this software should be free to use this software in these FSF-prohibited manners.
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell"
How are you expected to modify the software in any meaning sense without access to the sources?
The text you quote was offered as an example of what appears in the source code files. :-)
Because a commercial organization cannot profit from software under a GPL license?
Because a taxpayer funded government entity should not license its software to others using a license controlled by a non-governmental third party. That third party organization should not be able to exercise any control whatsoever on a taxpayer funded project.
Why not just use private network IP addresses then? It's not like there aren't thousands to choose from. Most of the general public probably wouldn't know the difference, making it much more "realistic."
The same people who complain about >255 in an IP would also complain about non-routable addresses being accessed remotely over the internet. :-)
Almost anytime they rattle off an IP number. More often than not it will contain numbers above 255.
Actually that is intentional and well thought out. It prevents people from typing in that IP and trying to do something. When real phone numbers appeared on TV or in songs it was quite annoying for the person whose number that was. They are just trying to avoid similar inconveniences.