Yeah new applications of internet intelligent agents is gonna skyrocket. I
bet they'll start showing up on floppies in supermarkets over the next
couple years. Heh heh.
Ross
At 09:59 AM 6/21/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Fred K. Lenherr wrote:
>
>
>"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do..."
>
>Sorry, couldn't help myself. I hope the guy's on vacation. I hope
>SOMEBODY is because it sure isn't me!
>
>Someone mentioned the other day that they were fearful of ordinary
>citizens having programs like WebCrawler for themselves. I would be
>afraid if every node on the Net had humans around so clueless about the
>nature of the Net that they would want the entire thing replicated on
>their hard disks automatically every night.
>
>Hell, I'm more afraid for those clueless ones who find this necessary.
>And if you guys are talking about bot-to-bot communications standards,
>PLEASE develop them with the strongest encryption possible. Last thing
>I want is my request for my agent to go blabbing around the net about my
>shopping preferences.
>
>Of course, individuals deserve all kinds of bots... interest rate bots,
>airline pricing wars bots, deals on concert tickets bots, agents that
>schedule all your doctors visits and such, agents that clean up dirty
>diapers... If they don't deserve them, (y)our market has just been
>needlessly reduced by huge factors, which is not what WE want, right?
>I'd say that freeware agents could be reviewed by some group of bot
>savvy netizens, or there could be a testing lab set up somewhere for
>bots...a proving grounds that would be separate from the rest of the
>net. I mean, we can't have a billion bloated indices of all the same
>data right? It seems like that would just kill off the last of our
>bandwidth...
>
>
>
>
>--
>Rob Turk <mailto:rturk@austin.ibm.com> Unofficially Speaking.
>Never Explain -- your Friends do not need it and your Enemies will not
> believe you anyway. --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
>
>