Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

blog.agiletortoise.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#91

Post by kragen »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #56
kragen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you have to bring implicit contracts into it. If I walk down the street and someone's shadow falls on me, I simply don't have a cause of action against them. If someone looks at me, I don't have a cause of action against them. If someone calls my name on the street, I don't have a cause of action against them. (Barring extraordinary circumstances, of course.) You don't need to invent theories about how…

I like your example but I don't think that a web page is like a person in public space. As you say their is no tort generally in approaching someone in the street but it is possible that a legal barrier has been erected and so an uninformed observer can't assume that no infringing/illegal activity is being undertaken (think exclusion orders, stalker laws, anti-social behaviour orders and the like; I think these are r…

> Being able to view the site by making a temporary copy in your computer's cache is not clearly non-infringing. Someone aiding the creation of an infringing work can be acting tortuously in "contributory infringement" and hence linking to a website could, strictly, be tortuous.

Hmm, I hadn't thought about it from that point of view, but I think you're right. It seems like clear evidence that your copyright law (I assume you're in the US) has gone mad and needs to be put to sleep.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#92

Post by StrawberryFrog »

kbutler wrote: post #53

The problem with the Wolfram Alpha terms of service is that they forbid natural, common uses of the web site. "The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human being using a conventional web browser to manually enter queries one at a time." Think for a minute what that forbids. Generating links programmatically, yes. Tweeting links? Yes. Emailing a URL? yes. Bookmarks? Oh, yeah... Enforceability of the ToS aside…

The problem with the Wolfram Alpha terms of service is that they forbid natural, common uses of the web site.

Exactly. For instance, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=does+wolfram+alpha+get+...

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#93

Post by Macha »

steveklabnik wrote: post #51
ludwigvan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I strongly, strongly dislike stuff like the old Digg bar, or the Reddit bar. I'm assuming that's what you're talking about? http://www.reddit.com/tb/fp3vz If I'm looking at a page, I want the URL to be the URL of the page I'm looking at. Feels quite scummy otherwise. That said, feel free to do it, nobody can (or should) stop you.

On the desktop, I couldn't agree more. On a mobile device, its a handy shortcut to the pages I will most likely visit next anyway.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#94

Post by dasil003 »

tptacek wrote: post #60
kbutler wrote: post #53

The problem with the Wolfram Alpha terms of service is that they forbid natural, common uses of the web site. "The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human being using a conventional web browser to manually enter queries one at a time." Think for a minute what that forbids. Generating links programmatically, yes. Tweeting links? Yes. Emailing a URL? yes. Bookmarks? Oh, yeah... Enforceability of the ToS aside…

Tweeting a link seems like a good example of a "common sense use of the website" that could bring it to its knees if some queries take 30+ seconds to complete.

If WA lived up to its promise—which it doesn't, not by a long shot—then 30 seconds would definitely be an acceptable wait for the perfect answer. I don't see how it would bring anything to its knees? Why should the latency propagate? Just need a loading page, problem solved.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#95

Post by __david__ »

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.

You're making an assumption that Wolfram Alpha has any right to specify how they are linked to. You can only "break the rules" if you believe this is a rule in the first place.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#96

Post by abcd_f »

StrawberryFrog wrote: post #92
kbutler wrote: post #53

The problem with the Wolfram Alpha terms of service is that they forbid natural, common uses of the web site. "The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human being using a conventional web browser to manually enter queries one at a time." Think for a minute what that forbids. Generating links programmatically, yes. Tweeting links? Yes. Emailing a URL? yes. Bookmarks? Oh, yeah... Enforceability of the ToS aside…

The problem with the Wolfram Alpha terms of service is that they forbid natural, common uses of the web site. Exactly. For instance, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=does+wolfram+alpha+get+...

And the answer is Sometimes - http://i53.tinypic.com/2vkhrt2.gif

That's a good one, W|A :)

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#97

Post by cma »

mentat wrote: post #48
kbutler wrote: post #21

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 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?

In the US you don't have to sign a contract or be part of an agreement to be bound by it. For example, if an MS exec has a noncompete and Google hires him, knowing about the contract, but not being party to it, Google can still be sued.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#98

Post by Nick_C »

cma wrote: post #97
mentat wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In the US you don't have to sign a contract or be part of an agreement to be bound by it. For example, if an MS exec has a noncompete and Google hires him, knowing about the contract, but not being party to it, Google can still be sued.

I have trouble believing this is the case. Perhaps only in a very limited set of circumstances. Can you give us some references?

The reason I doubt it is that it opens a huge can of worms about how I could entrap a third-party into a contract that they haven't accepted and haven't exchanged consideration for.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#99

Post by yesimahuman »

steveklabnik wrote: post #82
malnourish wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, I am probably wrong but am asking this due to curiosity. Could they conceivably use HTML5 to render dynamically thus reducing resource/load cost? Edit : No to Now

I hope they don't try to sue me for this post. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+%2B+5 (oh noes!) gives an image containing '7'. They could just freaking put a 7. Granted, not all of their queries could be done this way, and some of those could indeed be done with canvas, for example. Dunno if those would be faster. But all of the numbers and tables could stand to just be numbers and tables. This is more of a gr…

Maybe it's a guard against common scraping?

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#100

Post by imrehg »

malnourish wrote: post #86
steveklabnik wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they don't try to sue me for this post. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+%2B+5 (oh noes!) gives an image containing '7'. They could just freaking put a 7. Granted, not all of their queries could be done this way, and some of those could indeed be done with canvas, for example. Dunno if those would be faster. But all of the numbers and tables could stand to just be numbers and tables. This is more of a gr…

Makes sense. What if they output in LaTeX for more complex things, and there was a LaTeX plugin for browsers?

MathJax for the win :)
Post reply on HN