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

51–60 of 111 posts

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#51

Post by steveklabnik »

ludwigvan wrote: post #49
steveklabnik wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

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.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#53

Post by kbutler »

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, I think the original author is correct: that phrase in the Terms of Use shows that Wolfram|Alpha doesn't "get" the way the web works. Or at least they give too much free reign to lawyers who don't get it.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#54

Post by javert »

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."

Please don't call people on Hacker News assholes, even by analogy.

I think you might be attempting to say something quite relevant without intentionally calling the person an asshole, but if that's the case, you ought to have explained it in your post.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#55

Post by troels »

bpodgursky wrote: post #50

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…

I really don't think that is the case.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#56

Post by pbhjpbhj »

kragen wrote: post #18
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is there some law stating that if you host a website, you must allow users to link to it in any way they like? None that I know of specifically - however putting a website up is an implicit contract allowing normal web usage (for credits: now define normal and enforce that contract).

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 reasonably common across jurisdictions).

In the case of a website a copyright to that site is automatically created when the work itself is created - this is true in the vast majority of countries at least. 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. Applying common sense by assuming an implicit contract avoids the need to concern oneself with such apparent infringing actions.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#57

Post by clare »

Not in defense of Wolfram Alpha, I'm just curious if W|A does this out of concern of possible degeneration effect on their search accuracy caused by programmed search queries? For a human user of W|A, he will construct the query with certain syntax, and further drill down the search query with W|A's recommendations. W|A may very well monitor the pattern of user search queries to optimize their search algorithm. It is possible that programmed search queries, especially coming from a third party application where users do not use the W|A like syntax, may "pollute" the usage pattern for W|A and affect their algorithm's efficiency. Just my 2 cents.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#58

Post by bobds »

nkurz wrote: post #45
kragen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, s…

I see many comments like that and I'm always left wondering.

Does this happen when a user deletes their own comment? Or is it only for flagged comments?

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#59

Post by troels »

troels wrote: post #55
bpodgursky wrote: post #50

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…

I really don't think that is the case.

Just to qualify that, since apparently it wasn't clear. If their site is that prone to dos'ing, they would probably use something other than a tos to protect it with.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#60

Post by tptacek »

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.
Post reply on HN