Test Driving the Wolfram Alpha 124
SilverMind writes in to note a blog entry at Byte Size Biology describing in detail a few hours spent with Wolfram Alpha (which we have discussed before). "After playing around with Wolfram Alpha for a few hours, I can safely say the following: it's different, it's incomplete, it's idiosyncratic, and it's funky cool. And no, it will not dethrone Google, nor does it aim to do so."
Needs a better name (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell am I supposed to "Wolfram Alpha" something? No one will ever say that.
Re:Needs a better name (Score:4, Funny)
A suitable portmanteau may emerge. Wolfa? Walpha? Wralph?
Re:Needs a better name (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ralph."
E.g., "can you tell me the names of the original members of the Bay City Rollers?" "Ralph it for yourself."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Surely "Wolf" would be better. Wou could even spell it with a "ph" to emphasise the "alpha" part.
Instead of a googlewhack, you'd get a Lone Wolf. Basically, everything you did on the internet would sound about eight times cooler.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking WoPho
but then figured MoPho is more catchy
Q: Hey whats the capital of Uganda?
A: Go MoPho.
Re:Needs a better name (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you say "Observables for the Analysis of Event Shapes in e+ e- Annihilation and Other Processes" without taking a breath? Mr. Wolfram can :)
Seriously, that is not a general search engine or even engine as we understand today. It is something else. It is the click happy IT media which compares it to Google and I am sure people at Wolfram research either laughs or cries because of it.
Re:Needs a better name (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah ffs, what the hell do you think a 'general search engine' is ? Google's algorithms are seriously complicated too. I'll pretty much guarantee you Google use, or at very least have experimented with an algorithm which does very very close approximation to 'analysis of event shapes in e+ and e- annihilation' except it was implemented to run in scalable way on finite hardware. Also, quite aside from all that, why the hell wouldn't one compare it to google when people would be using it for the exact same purpose.
Without *actual* AI, their goal is completely impossible and their results will include millions of weird artifacts [or 'bugs' as far as users are concerned], so I predict that even in their chosen sub-domain, people will soon get frustrated and confused and return to Google.
Re:Needs a better name (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, quite aside from all that, why the hell wouldn't one compare it to google when people would be using it for the exact same purpose.
People might use Wikipedia for the same purpose as Google, that doesn't mean we should compare them. The people who expect every Google search to work in Alpha are wrong. Those who expect genetic, scientific, or mathematical comparisons to work in Google as it is now are equally wrong. Hell, Alpha doesn't even search the internet, it has its own information database.
How are the two comparable again?
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably, it does.
It is often much more important what a product actually does compete with than what it is intended to compete with. Now, of course, in comparing them, you will may that, because of their different design goals, Wikipedia has some areas where it is much stronger than Google and Google has many areas where it is much stronger than Wikipedia. You may even find that Google and Wikipedia are for
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't you compare Wikipedia and Google? Your comparison might find that they are very different, but that's the point of a comparison. Making the comparison is especially relevant if people are using them for the same task. And they do function very similarly, from an end-user point of view- you type some keywords in a box and hit enter, and then some results come up with all sorts of information including facts, figures, definitions and links to external sites.
You might as well be saying "You can't
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, google will buy it soon enough
That's indeed a danger, and made worse by the media's tendency to compare every little search project with google, even when there's little or no overlap in what they do.
OTOH, I've been involved in a few of the thousand or more projects to build highly-specialized search tools that "understand" the data used for specialized purposes. So far, none of them has to my knowledge been approached by anyone from google. In a few cases, the opposite has happened, as the p
Re: (Score:1)
How the hell am I supposed to "Wolfram Alpha" something? No one will ever say that.
Well if someone told me ten years ago I would be using the world 'google' instead of 'search' for the web I would have laughed my socks off. Not something I do often incidentally.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Woffa".
Re: (Score:1)
Except that, as the article explains, Wolfram Alpha is not a search engine. It doesn't crawl the web, and it gives you answers, not web addresses. Therefore the term "search" would be wrong.
Video of Alpha in action (Score:5, Informative)
There is a video called A Sneak Preview of Wolfram|Alpha [youtube.com] on YouTube that seems to have been filmed at a talk Wolfram gave. After watching it I think I have a decent idea of what it's like to use, and just how very different it is from every other search out there. I can't wait to try it.
And to see what happens when you search for "Rick Astley".
I'd also like to see if it can convert things like 1 GB into Libraries of Congress. Google's unit conversion doesn't include the LOC, sadly.
Re:Video of Alpha in action (Score:5, Informative)
Like other singers, it lists his full name, date of birth, place of birth, and a timeline of his life. There are no events on the timeline, and it extends all the way until 2010, so apparently he's at least got one more year to try to top Never Gonna Give You Up.
By the way, here's [youtube.com] a screen capture video of me putting this search into Wolfram Alpha.
Re:Video of Alpha in action (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there a reason you restricted your screen capture video to certain countries?
Re:Video of Alpha in action (Score:4, Interesting)
Recently in the New York Times, there is an article about how YouTube is segmenting its reach, because it is expensive to stream their media to developing nations, that fail to return costs back to Yahoo in the form of advertising rates/revenue.
"In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/technology/start-ups/27global.html [nytimes.com]
CORRECTION: Google owns Youtube, not Yahoo (Score:2, Informative)
doh! (Happy Monday)
Re: (Score:1)
Your mistake makes your nick all the more appropriate, so be proud!
It's finally happening... (Score:2)
The Advertising Bullshit Bubble is finally starting to collapse. This is both a good thing and a bad thing.
Businesses are slowly realizing how utterly ineffective advertising can be when it's poorly targeted or not targeted at all. Now they're realizing that people who live in developing countries don't have the cash or opportunities to buy their products. Next they'll realize that even when targeted to the right countries, ads are rarely reaching the target audience. A good example is the ads for HSBC bank
Re: (Score:1)
I remember those ads for HSBC bank (but I forgot the name of the bank as soon as I left the hallway, and I was in that airport twice a week for months).
And I remember thinking "wow, that bank must make a great deal of profit on every customer... I don't really want to be one"
Re: (Score:2)
"In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit"
I am having a hard time reading this without the "In Soviet Russia..." meme inflection. Or was that infliction? At any rate, it leaves me oddly dissatisfied that there is no joke there. Sort of like most of the real memes.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realise the UK was a developing country.
Oh well, the recession makes fools of us all I guess...
Re: (Score:1)
I might be wrong about this, but Germany isn't a developing country. Yet....
So it's a non-developing country. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, I can see the video in the Netherlands.
Here's an article I could recall that might offer some insight into the matter:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/should-youtube-pay-more-154-million-rickrolls-11.ars [arstechnica.com]
"At a recent press conference in London, the cowriter of Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" said that the song had been viewed more than 154 million times on YouTube—thanks to Rickrolling—but that he had received a grand total of £11."
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"This video is not available in your country." Youtube sucks on purpose.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Inquiring minds must know.... what does it say when you ask, "What is the meaning of life".
Re: (Score:1)
input interpretation: "answer to life, the universe, and everything"
result: 42
Interestingly, if you type "42", it doesn't mention any reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide, though Wolfram MathWorld is the top result for the same Google query.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Video of Alpha in action (Score:4, Funny)
Use Qalculate!, and define your own units. :)
Oh, and remember to define "B" as byte and "b" as bit, or you might end up with somethingsomething megabarns of memory. ^^
Re: (Score:2)
megabarns of memory
I'm reminded of the quote about the bandwidth of a station-wagon full of backup tapes hurtling down the highway..
How many station-wagons are there in a megabarn?
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, a barn is a very small unit. One sq. ft. is 6.4516E24 barns. One m^2 is 1E28 barns.
Must be very very tiny farms, with very very very tiny animals...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How are they going to sell advertisements on this? How is this going to get funded?
Google makes money by selling search keywords and banners with random ads that their software thinks have something to do with the reason why you're viewing a page. I don't see this business model working for Wolfram; not unless a lot of people are interested in graphs and a statistical analysis on which TV set is the best value for money.
I'm not a marketing guy, maybe someone who is can think of something, anything?
The only
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If there are eyes on the page you can sell ads. If they're searching for TVs (your example) show them ads for TV. Show them ads for nearby stores that have offers on TVs. Show them ads for sites that have information about which TV is better and why. Show them ads for DVD rentals that they'll want to use with their new TV.
That's just the example you came up with... there is a lot of scope to advertising.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there are eyes on the page you can sell ads. If they're searching for TVs (your example) show them ads for TV. Show them ads for nearby stores that have offers on TVs. Show them ads for sites that have information about which TV is better and why. Show them ads for DVD rentals that they'll want to use with their new TV.
That's just the example you came up with... there is a lot of scope to advertising.
...but all these things are based on data that a search engine like Google would have, and Wolfram, if I understand it correctly, would not.
Re: (Score:2)
The target of this seems to be people who want "professionally-verified" content, not "good enough" content, so I think that they are probably thinking of eventually going subscription-based (or perhaps pay-per-query).
I am deliberately not saying that I expect this to be a successful business model, only that I think it
Malcolms (Score:1)
"A wavelength parcel of ten KH/Z operating in 4 Dimensions equals one Malcolm"
Re: (Score:1)
Ugh, YouTube? There is a much higher quality version available on the main site...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/screencast/introducingwolframalpha.html [wolframalpha.com]
Trek (Score:2, Funny)
But does it do the Majel Barrett voice?
On the other hand, that would make looking for porn far too awkward. Nvm.
AI exercise? (Score:5, Informative)
Something that Wolfram might not directly telling you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you Skynet?
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding written sentences [...] Something that Wolfram might not directly telling you.
You forgot to adding word "incorrect".
Who came up with "Google Killer"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am really getting sick of it. People who has no clue about what they write, adds cheap titles like "Google Killer" to every innovation in search, "iPhone killer" to mobile app/os/device etc.
It doesn't do any good to the service/device/software mentioned. It just guarantees the huge amount of people will be "free astroturfers" for Google/Apple etc. spreading jokes about the product no matter how good it is or how much potential it has.
No, you can't "kill" Google by simply inventing something and I don't believe a scientist run company has such stupid ideas in mind.
"iPhone killer" is especially hilarious (Score:2)
...because there will NEVER be an "iPhone killer."
Wait! Keep reading, I'm far from an Apple fanboy...
Ever since the iPhone came out, app stores and locked-down devices have been the norm. Competition among cell phone makers is a joke - they all have to do what the telcos want and while they can try to compete with each other, the telcos always win and the consumer always loses. There isn't much room for innovation.
So they'll keep cranking out locked-down phones with whiz-bang features to lure consumers in b
finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Ruby does this already... (Score:5, Funny)
Ruby can do this already:
$ echo 'printf("%d\n", (6*9).to_s(13));' | ruby
No-one makes jokes in base 13 ! (Score:3, Informative)
No-one makes jokes in base 13 !
Re: (Score:2)
forty-two
Which Wolfram Alpha (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Which Wolfram Alpha (Score:5, Funny)
I won't explain any more in case you have not seen the movie, though if you haven't, what are you doing in here? How did you get past security?
Re: (Score:1)
sorry; all I remember from that movie is KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
Well, I'm trekkie enough to have seen TWOK... (Score:1)
..but I am also old enough so have seen it in the big screen, back in 1982. And I'm not trekkie enough (read, fanatic) so have seen it again and again so I'd remember such trivia.
Re: (Score:2)
KHHHHHAAAAANNNNNNNNN
Or, if we are going from the new movie.
SPOOOOOCCCCCCKKKKKKKK
Re: (Score:1)
WOLFRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!
(Damn filter! Ok, this parenthetical text is junk, but it's necessary to get this through the filter. And no, the above is not LIKE yelling, it IS yelling. That's the point, after all.)
Not A Search Engine (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you who aren't gonna RTFA, I would like to reiterate something that is stated in TFA, because it seems, from reading comments on previous articles about Wolfram|Alpha, that people think this is a search engine and is trying to compete with the likes of Google and whatnot. I also get this from a couple articles from various tech sites that I've read who search for... things... on W|A and compare the results to Google and claim that Google is superior. [slashdot.org]
People, W|A is not a search engine in the conventional sense. It is more of a knowledgebase. It is a computational engine. Rather than finding websites that tell you about what you're trying to learn about, W|A gives you the information you're looking for on their site, pulled from a large 20-someodd-year-old database of verified scientific facts that began with Wolfram Mathematica. If the info you're looking for isn't directly present in the database, W|A will compute it for you if it has the necessary data dependencies. W|A is not the same as Google and is not trying to compete with Google, so to those of please stop trying to pass off side-by-side comparisons between W|A and Google as journalism. That's not to say, though, that Google won't try to buy them out or even start up their own academic knowledgebase to compete with Wolfram... and yes, that would be Google entering Wolfram's domain, not the other way around. [/rant]
Anyways, I think W|A looks awesome and I will surely poke around when it launches on May 18 (I think... correct me if I'm wrong please).
Re:Not A Search Engine (Score:5, Funny)
For those of you who aren't gonna RTFA, I would like to...
tl;dr. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Open the pod bay doors, Stephen!"
"I'm sorry, Dave, you're not nearly as smart as me [today.com]."
Re: (Score:2)
Since it is an engine for searching a custom database using natural language and presenting information that is "relevant" to the request given, exactly like any other search engine, and since its intended use is to answer ques
Re: (Score:1)
W|A is not trying to compete with Google. They are in their own business. And yes, technically they are a "search engine" if you want to use the literal definition, but I said "it is not a search engine in the conventional sense" which is completely true.
There's no such thing as a verified scientific fact? So you're saying that the notion of birds having feathers is neither verified, scientific, nor factual? Are you dense?
And once again, no they are not trying to compete with Google. Google is not a source
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are working to provide a way to do things which people currently attempt to do (in Wolfram's eyes, with less success than they would with W|A) using Google (among other tools). It is, therefore, in any reasonable use of the words "compete" and "trying", trying to compete with Google in some part of the space in which Google is currently used.
What a giant viral marketing campain... (Score:2, Insightful)
...and you all are so completely falling for it.
It's just like with games. It's still half a century or something, until it is available to the general public, but already we get stuffed up to the nose with blablabla (for lack of a better term) about it. ^^
This alone is a reason for me to avoid it, and recommend you to do so too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to wikipedia, its supposed to go public on the 18th. That's a bit more than a week and a lot less than half a century.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
its supposed to go public on the 18th. That's a bit more than a week and a lot less than half a century.
If I had access to Wolfram Alpha, I could tell you exactly how much it is. :\
Re: (Score:1)
Well I really like the idea and don't care whether this is marketing campaign or not.
I don't understand why you want to avoid it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I avoid companies that use crooked methods such as viral marketing -- which is nothing else than lying about who you are, to sneak under the radar of "this is advertisement" -- to get the news out. Why not do it in a normal fashion? Why not really let others test it, instead of paying an employee to act as if he were not affiliated, to trick us?
Sorry, but this is morally unacceptable behavior. Something only crooks and criminals do. Plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks you dont know what a viral marketing campaign is.
A statement like that could break the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
This alone is a reason for me to avoid it, and recommend you to do so too.
Dude, you forgot to rant about Wolframs ego. C'mon, if you're going to completely ignore the actual merits of the product at hand, at least do it proprely.
What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Until I can actual use it, I have exactly zero interest in this thing. Is there really any reason to propagate the marketing drivel?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The article got me interested, but when I wanted to try it out I got this page [wolframalpha.com]. It says "Launching May 2009," so I'll reserve my judgment.
It's not the calculations that make this interesting, it's the breadth of data available. Google is wildly popular because you can find information about nearly every obscure fact imaginable. If Wolfram can do the same with quantitative
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, at least this reviewer understands what Alpaha is and presents it clearly, unlike the other 2 (or is it more?) stories Slashdot has run on it where the article writers (and most of Slashot readership!) seem to think it's a search engine.
Re: (Score:2)
And then, someone will make a mash-up with Google (Score:2, Interesting)
Alpha? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alpha? (Score:4, Insightful)
When Google get their hands on this, it will be Wolfram Beta Forever.
But things with "Forever" in their name never ship!
Re: (Score:1)
When Google get their hands on this, it will be Wolfram Beta Forever.
But things with "Forever" in their name never ship!
And that is why this will really be the google killer.
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently, The AI entity likes Pandas, which will set it on a direct collision course with others on the web [blogspot.com].
What a bunch of BS (Score:2)
Gosh, it's like a list of words that a marketing company promises its client that it will use. God save me from 25-year-olds with marketing degrees.
True Knowledge (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks like a sophisticated content scraper. (Score:2)
Here's the big problem I see with Wolfram Alpha. I'm not very familiar with it, but from what it looks like, they are assimilating data over the internet and using it in their AI to answer users' questions.
What is the benefit people that create that information to allow Wolfram Alpha to index it? It doesn't look like it will drive traffic or revenue to their sites. If anything it will take away.
I have a feeling Wolfram Alpha crawlers will be blocked by many webmasters.
Update (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikipedia (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Must be"? Why? If I'm looking to choose a tool to use to answer a question (once Alpha is released), I may choose Google, I may choose Wikipedia, I may choose Alpha. What I am unlikely to even consider as an option is "Wikipedia in its first days".
So I think (a) it is valid to compare it to Google as well as Wikipedia (and any other tool for answerin
comparisons, wow (Score:2)
Being able to compare the population of two places doesn't seem so amazing to me. Now, I can get the population of 2 states and compare them myself.
Interesting essay on Wolfram Alpha by Andy Oram (Score:2)
Andy Oram, an editor at O'Reilly, wrote this essay on Wolfram Alpha and how it fits (or doesn't fit) into the "tech-splicing" revolution:
Results from Wolfram Alpha: All the Questions We Ever Wanted to Ask About Software as a Service [praxagora.com]
(Disclaimer: Andy is my editor. But it's a good article; check it out.)
Launch date set (Score:1)
According to this [wolframalpha.com], Wolfram Alpha is set to launch May 18th.
So we should finally be able to see what it does or doesn't do for ourselves!
and Hart (Score:1)
AKA: Evil Inc.
Am I the only Angel fan on here?
wolframsbeta (Score:1, Funny)
Check out http://wolframsbeta.com
- gave me the answer to the atomic number of molybden
- answered me the question of how old Kurt Cobain would be today
=works!