Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it" • Hacker News Board

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#41

Post by steveklabnik » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 6:51 PM UTC

jcarreiro wrote: post #40

raganwald wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I read this, he's not making links to their web pages. He's deep linking to their content and displaying it within what appears to be a custom browser. While there is plenty of debate about the propriety of deep linking and whether sites have the right to bar deep linking, displaying content within a custom browser is analogous to 'framing' content without permission, and framing content a no-no. Creating deep lin…

What is the difference between "linking" and "deep linking"? Whatever else W|A is, it is a web server and it responds to my requests by sending me web pages. Why does Wolfram get to decide for me which web browser I should use to view those pages?

People that don't understand what the web is, why it's important, or how it works get mad when you link to

    http://www.something.com/ANYTHINGATALL

They think you should _only_ ever link to

    http://www.something.com/

If you couldn't tell by my first sentence, I find this idea repulsive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#42

Post by phillijw » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 6:55 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #22

Why doesn't Wolfram just block this? It would be a little bit of work, A naive solution is to use short-lived cookies. But there are more sophisticated means to ensure that users get to the result page via a query.

Developers are expensive

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#43

Post by derleth » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 6:55 PM UTC

dpcan wrote: post #37

dpcan wrote: post #28

You break the rules, you pay the consequences. Ignorance is NOT an excuse. He's "in his situation" (edit) with Wolfram because he didn't do his due-diligence and contact them first before linking to them in his app. EDIT: He seems to understand this, and admits that he "goofed", yes.

Lots of down-votes, but no replies. I can't figure out if the down votes are proving that I'm right or if I totally missed something.

Have you ever seen The Big Lebowski?

"You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole."

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#44

Post by jwr » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 7:12 PM UTC

jwr wrote: post #25

Seems to me the author doesn't get it. Wolfram Alpha specifies terms of service, which the author didn't read and subsequently violated.

I find it amusing that people downvote my comment. I guess it is much more rewarding to upvote overinflated stories about how Evil Wolfram Alpha "Doesn't Get It" (often without reading the story, I suspect). Makes for better drama.

Frankly, I would much rather read about a 2-bit adder implemented using 36 555 timers.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#45

Post by nkurz » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 7:20 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #38

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have permission. They seem very reasonable once you get in touch with them.

There's a censored comment in response here from the original author of the post. Turn on showdead.

Resurrecting:

-----------------

2 points by agiletortoise 1 hour ago | link [dead]

I expect they are. In retrospect, I should have asked first.

It something like going to a dinner party and having the host throw you out for placing your fork to the left of the plate, because they put them on the right at their house. Runs contrary to expectations.

--agiletortoise

-----------------

This doesn't look offensive to me, so I presume it's a glitch. It would be ironic if it was killed because of the signature at the end in violation of local norms. :)

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#46

Post by nyellin » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 7:23 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #38

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have permission. They seem very reasonable once you get in touch with them.

There's a censored comment in response here from the original author of the post. Turn on showdead.

Is there any way to see the justification for killing a comment?

I trust HN's moderators, but it makes me uneasy to realize that there is a whole collection of censored comments that I didn't see until now, because I had showdead disabled.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#47

Post by dpcan » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 7:36 PM UTC

derleth wrote: post #43

dpcan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of down-votes, but no replies. I can't figure out if the down votes are proving that I'm right or if I totally missed something.

Have you ever seen The Big Lebowski ? "You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole."

Really? I'm an asshole. That's absurd.

I'm saying that he did something wrong and he's paying for it. Do you disagree? Do you think they should just let this slide? He didn't follow their TOS, so they should just say "whatever" and let it go? Wolfram has a responsibility to uphold their TOS so that it doesn't get abused.

My point is that I see a lot of posts around here where people go on rants about how they got screwed by a TOS, but the BOTTOM LINE is that they weren't thorough. They didn't do their due-dilligence. They didn't read the TOS, they didn't contact the company who's systems they are using, or some other small detail was missed. Rarely do we see a legitimate reason why someone is RIGHT after they got hit by a company for not complying with a TOS.

Look at companies trying to sell "market" apps in the Android Market, or everyone who is complaining about having to give Apple a cut of their SaaS revenues. The TERMS in the TOS agreements didn't change in most of these cases, but people are complaining when all of a sudden they have to pay the price for not reading, missing, misinterpreting, or ignoring the rules.

But hey, I get get downvoted for having a legitimate opinion, and you can get up votes for calling me an asshole.

It used to be fun here. I used to be able to have an opinion and people would praise the fact that I can look at something from another angle, be the devils advocate. But now, if I don't have a hive mind I'm an asshole.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#48

Post by mentat » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 7:43 PM UTC

kbutler wrote: post #21

alextgordon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can put "Users may not breathe while using this website" in your ToS but that doesn't make it enforceable. A ToS has to have some basis in law.

> You can put "Users may not breathe while using this website" in your ToS but that doesn't make it enforceable. A ToS has to have some basis in law. You seem to be confusing copyright law with contract law. ToS are generally considered part of contract law, under which anything that is not illegal can be part of the contract, and the parties agreeing to the contract would be obligated to comply. There are exceptions…

It would seem that the person violating the ToU is the user of the app, not the application writer. Using Apple to enforce this seems to be quite a stretch.

If you want to say creating a deep link is a copyright violation, then any browser which allows bookmarking is in violation?

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#49

Post by ludwigvan » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 7:53 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #41

jcarreiro wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between "linking" and "deep linking"? Whatever else W|A is, it is a web server and it responds to my requests by sending me web pages. Why does Wolfram get to decide for me which web browser I should use to view those pages?

People that don't understand what the web is, why it's important, or how it works get mad when you link to http://www.something.com/ANYTHINGATALL They think you should _only_ ever link to http://www.something.com/ If you couldn't tell by my first sentence, I find this idea repulsive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking

On a slightly related note, what do you think about framing another site's contents? The original article is closer to framing in this respect, i.e. showing stuff in a UIWebView is more analogous to framing.

I am currently developing a content aggregator site, but haven't decided how to link/display original articles. Should I be putting a frame at the top (or display orignal content in an iframe?) so that users don't leave my site, or should I directly link to the original article? I have strong suspicion that doing the former would be unfair, but some sites like stumbleupon do it to improve user experience.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#50

Post by bpodgursky » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 7:55 PM UTC

I think it's important to note that many queries on Wolfram Alpha are VERY heavyweight--I've had complex calculations and rendering take 30 seconds to a minute to finish. It's not like Google where a query get a result in a few milliseconds. So while Terminology is not likely to be querying it with lots of formulas, I think the policy exists so a badly thought out automated querier can't accidentally put a huge load on Wolfram's engine.