Slashdot Mirror
Wolfram|Alpha's Surprising Terms of Service
eldavojohn notes that Groklaw is highlighting the unexpected Wolfram|Alpha ToS — unexpected, that is, for those of us accustomed to Google's "just don't use it to break the law, please" terms. Nothing wrong with Wolfram setting any terms they like, of course. Just be aware. "We've seen people comparing Wolfram's Alpha to Google's Search from a technical standpoint but Groklaw outlined the legal differences in a post yesterday. Wolfram|Alpha's terms of use are completely different in that it is not a search engine; it's a computational service. The legalese says that they claim copyright on the each results page and require attribution. So for you academics out there, be careful. Groklaw notes this is interesting considering some of its results quote 2001: A Space Odyssey or Douglas Adams. Claiming copyright on that material may be a bold move. There's more: if you build a service that uses their service or deep-links to it, you may be facilitating your users to break their terms of use, and you may be held liable."
This is a British company (god save the Queen!) - aren't they talking about database rights? If so, I think they're not enforceable outside the EU.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
The easy solution: Just use Google.
Aero
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
Gave wolfram alpha a spin today and found it extremely uninspiring. Given these ToS I doubt I will ever go back.
They aren't claiming ownership of the bits of data they provide, they're claiming copyright over the whole page. Sort of like how an encyclopedia will copyright the book even if it includes quotes from people. Basically over the presentation of the data.
Additionally much of what they would be claiming copyright over isn't subject to copyright protections. Things such as birth dates and astronomical data aren't subjected to copyright protection.
the legalese says that they claim copyright on the each results page and require attribution.
and that day appears a long way off, especially given the way they hyped it.
Besides, all their data comes from somewhere, and I don't see those attributions. And by all their data I mean symbolic integration, fractals, and Wolfram's formulation of a Turing machine which no one else uses.
I don't know what Alpha will be like in the future, but I was extremely disappointed in the present, and imagine Google^2 will make Alpha obsolete very soon anyway.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
All they ask is that you attribute them when publishing results derived from their service. Example:
Methods: "The comparative population studies were derived from the Wolphram Alpha service (Wolphram, 2009)"
Regular thing for academics. I cite NCBI blast service, I cite PFAM, I cite dozens of other services out there. Most of these tools require or ask for an attribution; and in most cases, this is anyways necessary in a scientific procedure.
j.
They don't? All calculations generate the sources under the "Source information" link on each page.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Wolfram Alpha doesn't just provide you with knowledge. It provides you with a new kind of knowledge. Any knowledge you gain from it must be attributed to Stephen Wolfram ... because he invented it. It is actually safer to attribute all citations to Stephen Wolfram, in fact, because he is smarter than you.
Breakfast served all day!
Of course I can see them wanting to be attributed for calculations? But what's the problem with that? I *want* to see attribution when a blog, newspaper, or scientific report spits out a series of numbers anyway, especially if it involves something else than raw mathematics, like statistics. That's something I see as important as they can just as well demand it in my opinion. I consider it a service to me.
If there's something that annoy me, it's unsourced calculations. If it's attributed to WA, then I can at least use the same query on WA and in turn see what WA used as sources for that specific query (under the "source information" link at the bottom of each page)
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
So they are saying basically that since it is a "computational service" that they have the rights to the question that I used in order for them to do that particular computation? How does that work exactly?
Isn't that a little like saying that since you are a chef and I give you the ingredients for chicken pot-pie and tell you to make it since I don't know how, and you do so, you have the rights to the pie you made?
As far as attribution, I don't have a problem saying that they helped me, once they can also state their attributions.
For every present, there is a past
It isn't a search engine; it doesn't search. I'm going to rip my face off if I hear another person refer to it as a search engine.
Is there actually anywhere (US or EU) a legal basis for them to bar people from linking to their site?
(+1, Disagree)
Of course it requires attribution; it's used to create original data. You shouldn't use BLASTN or CLUSTALW without citing their authors, why would it be any different for something like this? As has been mentioned numerous times already, W|A is not merely a search engine. It's a set of algorithms for manipulating the data that you specify.
And how pathetic/dishonest a scientist or professional would you have to be not to want to attribute it? Sources of information should be cited and experimental results should be verifiable.
(c) Wolfram Alpha. From now on, I'm going to make sure that I attribute all failures to understand to Mr. Wolfram.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The law already protects databases of public facts. Why would a spontaneously generated list not be copyrightable? Personally, I hope that the courts will see through that argument and call it a violation of the spirit of the law, but I won't hold my breath that they won't say that a list of copyrighted quotes isn't protected if the creator of the list claims that THAT list is protected.
Wolfram got bit, BAD by its case with mathworld and the corresponding book.
End of story, the tail wag the dog and CRC turned (almost stole) an 'pre-wikipedia' and turned into its own property.
It's not surprising he's being extra careful now.
how long until
There are couple of really scary things in the terms of use. For instance, minors are not allowed to use the service without the permission of adults, and adults become fully responsible for the actions of the child. I am unsure of why they felt they had to put that in there. Then there is the first sentence "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". I hate to have to define what a conventional browser is. For may people it would be only IE.
More scare is the ambiguous policy to deep linking. To wit "It is not permitted to use Wolfram|Alpha indirectly through another website that has created a large number of deep links to Wolfram|Alpha, or that automatically constructs links based on input that you give on that site, rather than on Wolfram|Alpha. You may not in effect use Wolfram|Alpha through an alternate user interface presented by another website." Clearly they want to not have bots and third parties writing code to hijck the site. Disappointing given the wonderful work they did with Mathworld.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
http://www97.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6*9+in+base+13
you just got shown.
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
The source information is ridiculously general; it tends to be either blank, or list every source used anywhere in a very general way. If all the results cite two different versions of the Encyclopedia Britannica and also Wikipedia, how can we tell which particular Wikipedia page the information came from? (That's needed to know the author list and thus know the information required by Wikipedia's license, whether it's GFDL or CC-by-sa.)
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
Anyone else find the fact that locational searches link to Google maps satellite images to be somewhat ironic?
They are sending results back as images, I would expect everything from them!
how is this original data? This is just a public fact.
Hope they are not expecting to make any money by selling out their Customers at the drop of a hat.
How are people who show up to use a free service "customers?" Google's customers, for example, are their advertisers, not the people who use the free stuff.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If attribution is required because (according to the TOS):
In many cases the data you are shown never existed before in exactly that way until you asked for it, so its provenance traces back both to underlying data sources and to the algorithms and knowledge built into the Wolfram|Alpha computational system. As such, the results you get from Wolfram|Alpha are correctly attributed to Wolfram|Alpha itself.
Does that mean that Wolfram|Alpha can be sued for slander if its algorithm generates a false statement about some individual or corporation by "misunderstanding" the data it is digesting? In other words, if the result is something uniquely generated by Wolfram|Alpha, deserving of attribution in the same way that an author of a book deserves attribution, do they also deserve to be held liable if the content they are generating is incorrect or slanderous?
"Narrower terms: child pornography" Nice, Wolfram. Thanks.
I typed: airspeed velocity of a swallow
Input Interpretation: estimated average cruising airspeed of an unladen African swallow
Result: there is unfortunately insufficient data to estimate the velocity of an African swallow
(even if you specified which of the 47 species of swallow found in Africa you meant)
(asked of a general swallow (but not answered) in Monty Python's Holy Grail.)
Of course, now I know there are 47 species of swallow in Africa.
Input:
4/0
Result:
infinity^~
Oh noes, I broke their terms of service.
How are people who show up to use a free service "customers?"
They're the product, not customers.
It looks like its results are case sensitive, but the redirects don't know that.
Did a search for 'hockey' and got some general information (as expected). Tried a new search for 'ice hockey' which attempted to redirected to 'Hockey' which apparently isn't a doesn't exist (the capital 'H' throws it off).
Then it asked for my e-mail address for some reason...
I innocently entered "Secant Tangent Cosine Sine 3.14159" into WolframAlpha. The result, 74.69263, now belongs to Wolfram. Sorry about that.
One digit short of a palindrome.
there's already been quite a bit of discussion on wiki regarding whether it's okay to use WA as a source, and the general consensus seems to be that it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#wolfram_alpha--_moving_discussion
please restate bitrate in libraries of congress per hour.
I note that Wolfram|Alpha happily deep-links to Google Maps.
I typed in my home town and it placed it somewhere in the North West Territories (Canada). So I used Coordinate Distance Calculator to calculate the distance to the actual coordinates, it seems that Wolfram|Alpha was only 6478.05 kilometers / 4025.27 miles out. Not bad...
Seems pretty desperate to insist on citation to me - I note it suggests being the 'primary reference' in articles and essays! Well, no - if my students cite W|A as their primary reference there's going to be some low marks flying around. Similar paranoia surrounds Mathematica - download their 'home' version and you're apparently forbidden to publish anything 'discovered' with it. This is apparently a privilege only afforded to purchasers of the 'full' version. Fine. I'll keep using my existing software - imagine being stymied by having your breakthrough at home only to be sued by Wolfram for having your idea on your own time instead of, oh... your own time. Wolfram needs to take himself and his products less seriously.
try clicking the links.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
All your base are belong to them!
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Anybody who has used Wolfram's products, such as Mathematica, for more than a few versions, knows that they don't have, how shall I say this? a very enlightened view of the relationship between the party that sells a product and the party that buys that product.
In fact, their user agreements have always been among the very worst in the software industry, that is, if you happen to believe that the consumer has any rights at all beyond the right to give money to the vendor.
They've always been pretty hostile toward their customers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
How are people who show up to use a free service "customers?" Google's customers, for example, are their advertisers, not the people who use the free stuff.
They can both be considered customers. I'm Google's customer because I give them money; not directly, but through their advertising. Of course, that depends on the definition that you use for customer, but I'm giving Google something they want (pageviews and advertisement clicks) in exchange for them giving me something that I want (good search results). If we're not their customer, then we're very close. If I go to another site for my searches, then Google loses money.
So, would that output be literary, musical, or artistic?
Meanwhile, the search term "a document granting exclusive right to publish and sell literary or musical or artistic work", produced 523 results on Google.
I wonder if WolframAlpha just forgot to name the source?
FAQs are evil.
Irony: Wikipedia calling your information service non-authoritative.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
They also own pi to 2000 digits.
A pedantic point really - their business is still dead if no one turns up to use it, for free or not.
This whole "new kind of [whatever]" meme might be really funny if it weren't so sad -- not because Wolfram doesn't really think he is smarter than almost everybody else (he does), but because - reportedly - he can't be prevailed upon to care about what most other people think, let alone how his choices might affect them:
I think Wolfram's attitude evokes pity, but indignation seems to be a far more common response. He should really consider working on (or, if he's already done so, promoting) A New Kind of Wolfram; he might find it a terrific challenge, but the new kind of Stephen would probably get more recognition than the old kind.
Put in 4/0 (four divided by zero) and you get a divide by zero error, which breaks the page and outputs a bunch of database junk. They didn't think of this?
That's nothing, I just asked it a simple question and their server had an electronic breakdown and started billowing smoke. The question was...
"Why?"
(This may have been a "General" protection fault, ho ho ho...)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Beyond their examples and a few symbolic calculus examples I haven't actually got it to return anything other than "I'm not sure what to do with your input"
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
still, it's a bad idea to mess up your product...tends to piss off the customers.
Yes, it does NOT search. But they sold it this way - or at least they played aggressively with the idea.
While creating PR buzz around it, they introduced it like "not a Google killer", when nobody had any idea what the thing was (so they could introduce the concept just the way they wanted to, and they explicitely chose to introduce the Google benchmark, even if to negate it.) And they obviously KNEW where this approach would have led to, in people's mind.
In other words. If I launch a new ecommerce platform and I create a buzz around "not an alternative to eBay", I am then driving on purpose people towards a comparison with eBay.
On top, on interviews I read, they toyed with "talks" they were supposedly having with "major search engines" (one was in the NYT).
So they get what they were fishing for...
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
well, it uses wiki as a source. if wiki started using it as a source as well, it would create some weird citation divide by ze
please restate bitrate in libraries of congress per hour.
How is a document generated by a computer program in response to an external users query an original work of authorship created by Wolfram? Sure, the computer program itself is, but that's a different issue. If its not, it isn't subject to copyright by Wolfram, and nothing in W|A's terms of service can make it so.
Ironic if you're Alanis maybe. Otherwise it's just a straw man.
No one claims Wikipedia is itself authoritative - like any encyclopedia, its purpose is collect information together by reference to reliable sources.
The particular problem in this case is that if Wolfram is including information from Wikipedia (but without specifying exactly), then it can't be cited because there of the risk of a circular reference. You know, the sort of thing people like you whine about when a single instance of it in Wikipedia's millions of articles is shown to have occurred at some point in the past.
Now go back to trusting your tabloids.
Never mind the search results -- your "Angelina Jolie nude" search yielded something much more valuable. Behold the power of this incipient meme:
The possibilities are endless.
Wolfram Alpha sucks anyways. Try looking for big tits on that site. Goes nowhere but the definition.
They don't identify the sources of particular facts used (for instance, if you ask for the population of a country, you'll get a Wolfram|Alpha "Primary Source" -- and a whole list of other sources that are generically root sources of population data.)
Meanwhile, if I ask Google for the population of a country, I get a numeric answer with a specific website that is the source of the information. (I point to that specific example because its one thing that has been repeatedly held up, I assume by people who have never actually used Google, as something that W|A is good at that Google can't do.)
When you ask W|A a fact question (as opposed to an abstract mathematical/logic question), you get some response, with no idea of how the response was derived or what actual source data was, in fact, used to derive it. That might be occasionally entertaining, but its pretty much useless for any serious purpose.
Can't even figure out what the "world's population per capita" is...
I decided to see what all the hype is about, so I tried a very simple trig identity "sin (x) cos (x)" to see what answer Wolfram would give, and I was surprised to see this output:
1/2 sin(2x)
Periodic in x with period 2pi <== This should be "Periodic in x with period pi" -- unless I'm terribly mistaken.
Curiously, when you enter: 1/2 sin(2x) directly, it yields the correct answer: Periodic in x with period pi.
I don't know how to account for this bug, but if it could be so wrong about something so basic, I wouldn't trust it for anything complex, and I hardly think that its results are worthy of citation.
"W, H, Y, question mark! " WHY?"
Obscure reference noted and appreciated. I watched that one just the other day, one of the few really dated episodes.
I'm noticing that some queries pull data from your past queries. I previously queried for local weather. But now, when I query for "average world temperature" or somesuch, it's giving me results for local weather.
It may be tricky to cite the query with a link when it relies on user data. Anyone finding other examples of your query history being used?
A nice plot of the number of cases / deaths made by swine flu. http://www55.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+swine+flu Alpha could be useful for getting plots like these, that are hard to find in newspapers (where they usually only mention the current amount, not how it evolves)
You are making the easily understandable mistake of assuming that the "Source Information" link does, in fact, liest the sources of information used in the query. While you'd think that would be the case, if you actually read the disclaimer at the bottom of the popup list of sources, you would see that it specifically states that the information provided is "intended as a guide to sources of further information", and disclaims any necessary connection between the cited sources and any particular Wolfram|Alpha search result.
A Wolfram! And all alone on on this dark site? My dark site?!
Grabbing my statistical data for its "computational" engine?
*grins*
You see, I heard the birds twittering about you, Wolfram.
Wanna know what they told me?
*pulls professional killer gun, aka army of lawyers*
Weeell... They told me, that you claim copyright on my data.
Can you believe that?
*cocks hammer solely for dramatic reason, aka takes legal action*
You know I have terms on my data too, do you?
And they say, that in case someone steals my data and claims copyright on it, that that one might get hurt really bad.
You don't want to get hurt really bad, do you, Wolfram?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I'm Google's customer because I give them money; not directly, but through their advertising. Of course, that depends on the definition that you use for customer,[...]
Rather, it depends which definition you use for "giving money"...
I don't know... But... How are they going to prove that I took the data from their site? If it is physically possible for me to create them from other sources, they can't, can they. So the point is moot. Except for scientific work, where you have to state your sources, and where you can not make up your own sources on-the-fly. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Since apparently the business model here is to use Wolfram|Alpha as a teaser to sell a more advanced premium version of the service and to sell Mathematica licenses, it might be slightly more precise to label the users of the free "service" as "prospective customers" and the "service" itself as a marketing tool.
Which, also, explains why you might want to be good to the people who show up to use it.
It doesn't search in almost precisely the same sense that Google doesn't search; it does queries on a proprietary datastore and presents the results. The datastore contains different kinds of data that Google's indexes, and the query facility supports a different set of operators and different means of inferring when a particular term is a query term or an operator.
"So for you academics out there, be careful. Groklaw notes this is interesting considering some of its results quote 2001: A Space Odyssey or Douglas Adams. Claiming copyright on that material may be a bold move." You can copyright something if it quotes someone else - people do it all the time (*especially* academics). The question is whether it is (a) a "work" in the copyright law sense and (b) fair use of the material. I would posit that the W|A engine is putting together a document in response to a query. Short quotes are probably fair use. I'm not sure who the "creator" or the work is though :-) Interesting ...
We used to chant that every Friday morning in calculus in high school. Man we were geeks!
Actually, one could argue that making money is the entire point of this ToS. They provide the service for free, while putting restrictions on reusing the data so that you have to buy a license/subscription/whatever in order to use it in a professional setting. Otherwise, it'd be a completely free service.
Though I have no proof of this and Wolfram may prove me to be wrong, I get the feeling that most of the time ToS's are used to cover them in case they need it, rather than persecute people. I suspect if you use it to generate answers that you could otherwise get through Google, Wikipedia, or other means (books, magazines, audio, lectures), they would have a very hard time pursuing you. And if they did, it would kill their business.
I would think the purpose of this is to cover them in case somebody finds a novel way of turning their computational engine into a cash cow. Well, good for whoever does that, but then again, they ARE piggybacking off the hard work of someone else - Wolfram. Therefore, Wolfram *SHOULD* profit/benefit from aforementioned cash cow. I doubt anyone's going to give them money of their own free will. This ToS gives them the legal means to enforce it. Of course, what they *should* get and what they end up getting is debatable and would depend on the cash cow and how much it relied on Wolfram. But of course, Wolfram as a company would like to put themselves in a position of power if such a situation arises rather than rely on the good will of others.
I don't think they'd be stupid enough to pursue someone when their answer is another copyrighted source. Copyright is violated everyday all the time all across the web by blogs, Google, Wikipedia, etc, etc. In my view, it's really only a CYA move now and I think it's going to be a matter of time before it's completely ignored because too many cases of unpursued or accepted copyright violations will come up as precedent.
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
They are customers, the price is just $0.00 for the initial use, other charges(including legal ones) may be accrued from there.
A better word than those of "customer" and "product" used to describe Google's/Wolfram's customers might be "Patrons."
This is exactly why so many left Geocities back in 1997/98 when Yahoo purchased them -- the new Yahoo ToS claimed that Yahoo owned all content on Geocities webpages. I don't think Wolfram is going to get away with this, but I'm sure a lot of lawyers are going to get rich.
....that I am not held to the TOS of anything I use. I just don't care, I don't read them, I don't follow them and so far it has worked out pretty well for me. I suspect most people are the same. I think that it's silly that so many products that are easily available and many of them are free have long and basically unreadable TOS. I know they are enforced only for the exceptional case and not in any sort of universal way. My belief goes like this; if I don't read your TOS they don't apply to me. I would like to try this in court, frankly I don't think any cares about what I am doing that much. Well, time will tell.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
How are people who show up to use a free service "customers?" Google's customers, for example, are their advertisers, not the people who use the free stuff.
People use Google search as a free service. As such, they are Customers. Google has many types of customers for its different services. Search is only one of many 'products' Google offers. If Google's search product was not 'good', it would have few or no customers.
I think the primary purpose of this TOS is simply to encourage people to link to Wolfram|Alpha. Note the part about how it would be best to link to the specific result -- keep in mind that from Google's perspective, such a link creates another "page" on the site which Google can index, thus giving Wolfram|Alpha more opportunities to rank well in Google.
I think this is an SEO tactic, and not much more. I use much the same terms on my site. It'll probably work, too. Look for Wolfram|Alpha results to start beating Wiki in the Google SERPs.
As such, I doubt they'll be particularly vigorous about enforcing it, as long as they get lots of links and violators keep a fairly low profile.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(sinc+(x)+*+sinc+(y))+
I'm sure you could do better if you had more time.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Seems they haven't forgotten to reply the question "what is the meaning of life?" in a geeky way
I also tried various approaches to things it *should* be good at, but once again, not very impressive.
Same experience here. I tried "semiderivative of cos(x)" and even "semiderivative of c". It claimed not to understand, and it suggested things like "derivative of cos(x)" or "cos(x)" as related searches. These suggested searches, of course, resulted in nice summaries of the expected sort.
However, the "semiderivative of c" should be a doddle for Alpha, since the answer can be found in Wolfram's own web site at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Semiderivative.html
I'm only slightly impressed (for the moment, anyway).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Lets see how many ads they can sell then.
People doing searches are the most important costumers Google has, even if the don't play a single penny.
Clearly many people out there, in spite of being sitting in front of a bloody computer, perhaps for many years, can't grasp how some business models , based on the availability of cheap computers and fast network connections, work.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It isn't a search engine; it doesn't search. I'm going to rip my face off if I hear another person refer to it as a search engine.
The Golgafrincham arrival spurs the extinction of the native "cavemen", although as Ford Prefect pointed out, they did not live in caves, to which a witty repartee was that they "might have been getting their caves redecorated".
She made the willows dance
I prefer tits in pairs:
http://wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(sinc+(x)+*+sinc+(abs(y-2)))
(move the image off the axises, then mirror the other side)
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Your claim that Google's ToS are limited to "dont use it to break the law" is absurd and factually incorrect. Google reserves the right to own much of the content that you produce through their services, such as gMail and your search terms. You can verify this yourself at http://www.google.com/privacy. The MS ToS are indeed odd and more restrictive. But to simply pretend that Google is a friendly giant, these days, is naive and absurd.
agree that in its present form, it's useless. try the subject query "where is the soul" in wolfram and google. google tries to answer the question. wolfram thinks it's in south korea.
-British
-egomaniac
-trying to corner the worlds markets with an evil plot
Yep. Steven Wolfram meets all the requirements of a Bond Movie villian.
Keep your eyes out for Jaws. He should be popping up chewing on Sergey Brin any second now.
apple/day
Well, duh; that's why it's Wolfram Alpha. ;-)
When Wolfram Beta comes out, we can expect that it'll be able to give correct answers to both of your questions.
You may not like the answers, though.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I asked: how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Result: a woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood (according to the tongue-twister)
How many people would actually break out of their habit of hitting the Google bar to toss these nitwits a bone?
The users of a no cost to them service should be called consumers.