Wolfram

[ELSID]

Mona,
I received an e-mail that I find disturbing. Apparently our e-mails are being "bot" d out of the collab

"Hi. I happened to stumble on your post over at the Mathcad user forum and wondered if you've had a chance to check out Wolfram|Alpha.

...[Deleted]

Thanks,

Mary Richmond
Wolfram Research"

No knowledge can be certain if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other
knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -- Leonardo da Vinci

[ptc-1368288]

>I received an e-mail that I find disturbing<<br> _______________________

Nothing new, rather old that our forum is spied. I remember having mentioned that our forum was under attack during specific period. Many collabs laughed at me !

jmG

[StuartBruff]

On 8/3/2009 5:41:49 PM, ElSid wrote:
I received an e-mail that I find disturbing. Apparently our e-mails are being "bot" d out of the collab

"Hi. I happened to stumble on your post over at the Mathcad user forum and wondered if you've had a chance to check out Wolfram|Alpha.

I got me one too 🙂 The wording is very similar to a number of other emails I've received offering pharmaceutical augmentation of the bodily enhancements necessary to bring joy to the lives of some lonely Russian woman. I can now impress her still further with a copy of Alpha running on the computer next to my genuine PhD (which has given full recognition to my life experiences thus allowing me to afford my new Penthouse)

[RichardJ]

I got it too. As business practices go, this one is low. I sent them a rather obnoxious reply.

Richard

[StuartBruff]

On 8/4/2009 5:54:44 AM, rijackson wrote:
== I got it too. As business practices go, this one is low. I sent them a rather obnoxious reply.

The style and generality of the email is such that I do entertain doubts that Wolfram sent it.

Stuart

Plausible deniability is always an option, I suppose 🙂

[RichardJ]

On 8/4/2009 6:27:37 AM, stuartafbruff wrote:

>The style and generality of the email is
>such that I do entertain doubts that
>Wolfram sent it.

Maybe, but both the links at the bottom of the email are real, and my reply didn't bounce, so the email address for Mary Richmond is real too.

If it is from Wolfram, then Mary is obviously not too smart though. Telling us all that the email addresses were fished off a competitors user forum makes the whole thing look especially sleazy. And who would be dumb enough to give their own email address to people that they are spamming? Talk about inviting revenge. What's to stop someone from using her email address to register at a few dubious pharmaceutical sites? Or worse.

Richard

[Raiko]

Hi,

I'm into this too - as a victim that is. Same wording and the tell tale phrase: "...stumbled upon your name on the MathCad forum..".
Another one conceals itself by asking for a site to download any MathCad files without specifying what they want to download.

However, one should never answer them. That's what they after.

Raiko

[mzeftel]

A number of people have contacted me about this spam email from Wolfram Research. I received one too.

I wrote to Mary Richards of Wolfram Research requesting her not to send out spam emails using our User Forums.

Beyond that, there's not much we can do.

Mona Zeftel
Collab Administrator

[PhilipLeitch]

I've got two now. One confirmed that they got my email from this collab, and the second one made no mention of it, but did state that they knew I used Mathcad and was advertising Whiteboard features of their product.

Interestingly, they appeared to do some type of classification of my use based on posts I have done. The first email made reference to things I had posted. So maybe not so much of a "bot" as a "person" doing the skimming.

It may not be illegal, but it does come across as unethical.

Philip


Philip
___________________
Nobody can hear you scream in Euclidean space.

[AlvaroDíaz]

On 10/1/2009 10:16:05 PM, pleitch wrote:
>It may not be illegal, but it does come across as unethical.

I Agree: that is the word.

Regards. Alvaro.

[ptc-1368288]

I don't receive anymore, using a trick of mine. Can't you block them in your e-mail options ? That should do because they aren't going to change their name.

jmG

[GuyB]

On 10/1/2009 10:16:05 PM, pleitch wrote:
>.... The
>first email made reference to
>things I had posted. So maybe
>not so much of a "bot" as a
>"person" doing the skimming.
>
>It may not be illegal, but it
>does come across as unethical.

Why unethical?

If Wolfram were to make a product that did what Mathcad did, but better, then why wouldn't we want to know about it?

Of all the ridiculous emails I get, at least the ones from Wolfram relate to something I might be interested in ... particularly if PTC runs Mathcad into the ground.

- Guy

[ptc-1368288]

>...at least the ones from Wolfram relate to something I might be interested in ... particularly if PTC runs Mathcad into the ground.< [Guy]
_________________________

My regret is to have purchased Mathematica instead of Maple, which Maple is still a good Engineering document producer. On your other point, PTC is probably damning themselves about their actual Mathcad version on the ground that very few work sheets in the earlier versions are "salvageable".
Personal opinion.

jmG

[RichardJ]

On 10/9/2009 8:32:20 PM, GuyBeadie wrote:

>Why unethical?
>
>If Wolfram were to make a product that
>did what Mathcad did, but better, then
>why wouldn't we want to know about it?

From my point of view it's not the fact that they spammed me that's unethical. Where they crossed the line of what I would consider decent business ethics is when they went to a forum hosted by one of their competitors, on the competitors computers, for the benefit of the competitors customers, and mined that forum for email addresses that they then used to spam the competitors customers.

Richard

[GuyB]

On 10/10/2009 10:25:28 AM, rijackson wrote:
>On 10/9/2009 8:32:20 PM, GuyBeadie
>wrote:
>
>>Why unethical?
>>
>...
>Where they crossed the line of what I
>would consider decent business ethics is
>when they went to a forum hosted by one
>of their competitors, on the competitors
>computers, for the benefit of the
>competitors customers, and mined that
>forum for email addresses that they then
>used to spam the competitors customers.

I guess I see your point, and it's a valid one.

My instinct is to minimize the importance of Wolfram's actions, because it can only have a negative effect on Mathcad if it lures away customers.

And if that were to happen then I'd say PTC's problem isn't Wolfram, but resides within their own walls.

- Guy

[ptc-1368288]

On 10/11/2009 10:55:11 PM, GuyBeadie wrote:
>On 10/10/2009 10:25:28 AM, rijackson
>wrote:
>>On 10/9/2009 8:32:20 PM, GuyBeadie
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Why unethical?
>>>
>>...
>>Where they crossed the line of what I
>>would consider decent business ethics is
>>when they went to a forum hosted by one
>>of their competitors, on the competitors
>>computers, for the benefit of the
>>competitors customers, and mined that
>>forum for email addresses that they then
>>used to spam the competitors customers.
>
>I guess I see your point, and it's a
>valid one.
>
>My instinct is to minimize the
>importance of Wolfram's actions, because
>it can only have a negative effect on
>Mathcad if it lures away customers.
>
>And if that were to happen then I'd say
>PTC's problem isn't Wolfram, but resides
>within their own walls.
>
> - Guy
________________________

I have clear recollection of one of their web/e-mail (around 2002), that they pretended to syphon Mathcad users and potential prospect. I might have replied to [not Jo Blo !] a list (surely a long list !) of what renders Mathematica not even a chicken food for real users like Engineers. At least, their black list is efficient !
As long as their publicity is not oriented detracting.

jmG

[RichardJ]

On 10/11/2009 10:55:11 PM, GuyBeadie wrote:

>And if that were to happen then I'd say
>PTC's problem isn't Wolfram, but resides
>within their own walls.

Agreed. A longtime Mathcad user would not give up everything they have learned and all their legacy worksheets to switch to a different product just because Wolfram spams them and suggests they switch.

Richard

[StuartBruff]

On 10/12/2009 9:38:03 AM, rijackson wrote:
== Agreed. A longtime Mathcad user would not give up everything they have learned and all their legacy worksheets to switch to a different product just because Wolfram spams them and suggests they switch.

They might if it allowed them to do what they wanted to do with more flexibility. Say allow multi-dimensional arrays or programmatically driven plotting or better formatting options for tables or ... depends which route offers the least frustration, or better frustration/cost offset.

Stuart

[RichardJ]

On 10/12/2009 9:53:44 AM, stuartafbruff wrote:
>On 10/12/2009 9:38:03 AM, rijackson
>wrote:
>== Agreed. A longtime Mathcad user would
>not give up everything they have learned
>and all their legacy worksheets to
>switch to a different product just
>because Wolfram spams them and suggests
>they switch.
>
>They might if it allowed them to do what
>they wanted to do with more flexibility.
>Say allow multi-dimensional arrays or
>programmatically driven plotting or
>better formatting options for tables or
>...

But then they are not switching just because Wolfram suggested it, they are switching because they see Mathematica as a superior product that is more suited to their needs.

Richard

[StuartBruff]

On 10/12/2009 10:41:47 AM, rijackson wrote:
On 10/12/2009 9:53:44 AM, stuartafbruff wrote:
>On 10/12/2009 9:38:03 AM, rijackson
>wrote:
>== Agreed. A longtime Mathcad user would
>not give up everything they have learned
>and all their legacy worksheets to
>switch to a different product just
>because Wolfram spams them and suggests
>they switch.
>
>They might if it allowed them to do what
>they wanted to do with more flexibility.
>Say allow multi-dimensional arrays or
>programmatically driven plotting or
>better formatting options for tables or
>...
== But then they are not switching just because Wolfram suggested it, they are switching because they see Mathematica as a superior product that is more suited to their needs.

True. But they might not have considered Mathematica if Wolfram hadn't spammed them 🙂

[ptc-1368288]

>But then they are not switching just because Wolfram suggested it, they are switching because they see Mathematica as a superior product that is more suited to their needs.<<br> ______________________________

You will never see an Engineer or technical person earning his life with a working tool like Mathcad, switching to an academic MicMac tool of no practical use and taking ages to get a plot and tabulated data not compatible for export !
... and of no presentation at all.

jmG

[TheodoreM.Bones]

Is Mathematica regarded as Noah's Ark? Just about any source is being loaded and canned by it.I can't find any references to curve fitting. What You See is What You Get (WYSWYG) is the output of creative ability with MathCad.

[ptc-1368288]

On 10/16/2009 9:16:31 AM, study wrote:
>Is Mathematica regarded as
>Noah's Ark? Just about any
>source is being loaded and
>canned by it.I can't find any
>references to curve fitting.
>What You See is What You Get
>(WYSWYG) is the output of
>creative ability with MathCad.
_______________________________

Mathematica is not "Noah's Ark", only purely academic, i.e: not for Engineers. They have quite expensive applied extension packs too. Mathematica is not geared at all for curve fitting as we do in Mathcad, their substitute is a library of unknown interpolating functions, thus not traceable and not exportable, only interpolated values in data table form. Any data table from Mathematica 4.0 were resident within Mathematica itself and not otherwise copiable elsewhere. No idea if the latest versions are so crippled of the simplest needs.

jmG

[guntis-disabled]

>Mathematica is not "Noah's Ark", only
>purely academic, i.e: not for Engineers.
>They have quite expensive applied
>extension packs too. Mathematica is not
>geared at all for curve fitting as we do
>in Mathcad, their substitute is a
>library of unknown interpolating
>functions, thus not traceable and not
>exportable, only interpolated values in
>data table form. Any data table from
>Mathematica 4.0 were resident within
>Mathematica itself and not otherwise
>copiable elsewhere. No idea if the
>latest versions are so crippled of the
>simplest needs.

You are not right. Mathematica has superb curve fitting capabilities.

http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/newin7/content/StatisticalModelAnalysis/

Its got its faults, but that isn't one of them.

[ptc-1368288]

>You are not right. Mathematica has superb curve fitting capabilities.<<br> ______________________

Nothing like Mathcad.
You will soon discover what fitting means if you keep visiting the collab.

jmG

[mikej1980]

Can you clowns come up with a ONE single curve fitting problem
that can't be done better in Maple, Mathematica or Matlab?

I have access to all 4 Ms. My bet is that you have no idea of how
far behind Mathcad is ...apart from units (the only reason I ever
use it).

Post your toughest curve fitting problem and I'll post solutions
in the other 3 Ms.

On 10/16/2009 12:58:22 PM, jmG wrote:
>On 10/16/2009 9:16:31 AM, study wrote:
>>Is Mathematica regarded as
>>Noah's Ark? Just about any
>>source is being loaded and
>>canned by it.I can't find any
>>references to curve fitting.
>>What You See is What You Get
>>(WYSWYG) is the output of
>>creative ability with MathCad.
>_______________________________
>
>Mathematica is not "Noah's Ark", only
>purely academic, i.e: not for Engineers.
>They have quite expensive applied
>extension packs too. Mathematica is not
>geared at all for curve fitting as we do
>in Mathcad, their substitute is a
>library of unknown interpolating
>functions, thus not traceable and not
>exportable, only interpolated values in
>data table form. Any data table from
>Mathematica 4.0 were resident within
>Mathematica itself and not otherwise
>copiable elsewhere. No idea if the
>latest versions are so crippled of the
>simplest needs.
>
>jmG
>
>
>

[StuartBruff]

On 10/21/2009 2:59:04 PM, beetle wrote:
== Can you clowns come up with a ONE single curve fitting problem that can't be done better in Maple, Mathematica or Matlab?

"clowns"? I think you'll find that it is a minority of people who hold that MM&M can't do at least as well as Mathcad in terms of functional capability.

It's the overall process that Mathcad just about still scores points on.

Stuart

[mikej1980]

On 10/21/2009 3:14:40 PM, stuartafbruff wrote:
>On 10/21/2009 2:59:04 PM, beetle wrote:
>== Can you clowns come up with a ONE
>single curve fitting problem that can't
>be done better in Maple, Mathematica or
>Matlab?
>
>"clowns"? I think you'll find that it
>is a minority of people who hold that
>MM&M can't do at least as well as
>Mathcad in terms of functional
>capability.
>
>It's the overall process that Mathcad
>just about still scores points on.
>
>Stuart

I think "clowns" is an accurate term for the two posters who
think that Mathematica either doesn't do curve fitting or can't do
it well. All the Ms do curve fitting. Excel does curve fitting. The
other 3 Ms do it significantly better than this M.

re: overall package

to each his own I guess. I only use Mathcad for units and frankly
it is often just as easy to use Maple which has units functionality
only slightly below this M.

[ptc-1368288]

On 10/21/2009 2:59:04 PM, beetle wrote:
>Can you clowns come up with a
>ONE single curve fitting
>problem
>that can't be done better in
>Maple, Mathematica or Matlab?
>
>I have access to all 4 Ms. My
>bet is that you have no idea
>of how
>far behind Mathcad is ...
>Post your toughest curve
>fitting problem and I'll post
>solutions
>in the other 3 Ms.
______________________________

Here are 8 random data set from "one of the clowns". You return the model function fitted. Curve fitting in this collab has always been done by model functions. Don't care posting interpolated splined or else data, Mathcad can do, but the challenge to data fitter is more than just piecewise interpolation and compact in data table ... the specification to the other 3M's is the model function for each, he best fit model.

jmG

[rm_ulrich]

On 10/21/2009 8:30:03 PM, jmG wrote:
>Here are 8 random data set from "one of
>the clowns".

One clown to another, can you tell me how you inserted the red separator lines into the document? I've looked in vain for ways insert a line or box using Mathcad 14.

Thanks,
R