-taken from tunnelsharks website. -author unknown

N.A.S.A.
Computer scientist Arthur Boran was ecstatic. A few
minutes earlier, he had programmed a basic
mathematical problem into his prototypical Akron I
computer. His request was simply, "Give me the sum of
every odd number between zero and ten." The computer's
quick answer, 157, was unexpected, to say the least.
With growing excitement, Boran requested an
explanation of the computer's reasoning. The printout
read as follows: THE TERM "ODD NUMBER" IS AMBIGUOUS. I THEREFORE
CHOOSE TO INTERPRET IT AS MEANING "A NUMBER THAT IS FUNNY LOOKING."
USING MY AESTHETIC JUDGEMENT, I PICKED THE NUMBERS 3, 8, AND 147,
ADDED THEM UP, AND GOT 157.

A few moments later there was an addendum: I GUESS I
MEANT 158.

Followed shortly thereafter by: 147 IS MORE THAN 10,
ISN'T IT? SORRY.

Anyone doing conventional research would have
undoubtedly consigned the hapless computer to the
scrap heap. But for Boran, the Akron I's response
represented a startling breakthrough in a little-known
field: artificial stupidity.

Those initial errors of the Akron I, involving the
total inability to interpret or follow even simple
directions, as well as a moronic level of mathematical competence,
were a promising start. Since then, Boran and his staff have made
numerous other significant breakthroughs, among them:

A program known as IDMBH (an acronym for "I did my
best, honest," the computer's most frequently heard
lament). Not only has IDMBH thus far failed to solve a
single problem or even retrieve one piece of data, it
has also generated an impressive variety of inane
excuses, ranging from I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WANTED IT
TODAY to THE DOG ERASED IT.
These developments are certainly a far cry from NASA's primitive
early programs, in which computer responses were rarely more
sophisticated than I GIVE UP, HOW MANY? or YOU TELL ME. Despite this
impressive progress, a fundamental question hangs over the whole
discipline of artificial stupidity, a question faced by all ground-
breaking research projects: What's the point?

For an answer, NASA went to its own GLIB 5000, one of
a series of smart-stupid models designed to present
inanities in as sophisticated a manner as possible.
GLIB's official assessment of artificial-stupidity
science was as follows: ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
INDICATES THAT NOT ONLY IS A.S.S. OF DIRECT BENEFIT TO
THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN CONDUCTING IT, IT IS IN NO WAY
AN IMPEDIMENT TO LASTING PROGRAMS AIMED AT AIDING THE
POOR AND ELDERLY, REDUCING GLOBAL TENSIONS, AND
ULTIMATELY ACHIEVING A LASTING WORLD PEACE.

Arthur Boran's answer is more down-to-earth: "All of
us, at one point or another, have received a phone
bill for one million dollars or a lifetime supply of industrial-
strength otter poison. What are these inevitably attributed
to? 'Computer error,' of course. It's difficult for humans to really
be sure when the computer is screwing up.

"At NASA we're trying to correct all that. By
designing programs that accurately simulate human
stupidity, we have made it a simple matter for
scientists to perceive at once what their computer is
doing wrong. Right now, World War III could be
triggered because of some overload in a silicon chip controlling a
NORAD missile silo. Wouldn't it be of some consolation to have a word
of explanation from the computer, something like OOPS, I THOUGHT THAT
SOVIET POTATO TRUCK WAS REALLY A DECOY. IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN, OKAY?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/