No, there isn't ... but there's nothing that encourages it either. And perl has a elatively high congitive load in terms of all the many subtle features and idioms that you need to keep track of. If you're reading code that only uses a subset of idioms and features that you're comfortable with it's fine, but it is relatively easy to end up outside your comfort zone with other people's code unless you are deeply invested in the language. In this way it is much like C++.

In practice however a lot of Perl's reputation for unreadability is historical, and cultural. Back when Perl was more popular there was very much a culture of "neat hacks", JAPHs and perl golf. That meant that a lot of Perl code you saw in examples was often cryptic, or revelled in terse complexity.

These days I think Haskell has taken the crown for the culture that produces terse, complex and cryptic code. There's nothing in Haskell that means it has to be hard to read, but a culture of showing off with terseness has developed and ...

That's a codebook, not a one time pad. They are distinctly different. Code books are theoretically crackable given sufficient ciphertext and a model for the plaintext (e.g. English). In practice "sufficient" ciphertext is never going to happen. One time pads are uncrackable in theory. In practice mistakes can be made that make them not true one time pads and thus potentially crackable (but that require multiple messages using the same pad -- not the case here).

He is mostly railing against deletionists, so what you need to do is look at articles nomiated for deletion on any given day and you'll get an idea. It's mostly stuff that's very obscure or out of place (in that it should probably be merged into a different article instead of having one all to itself). While I have some sympathy for anti-deletionists in that its not like Wikipedia is running out of storage space, mostly I find they are people who want to rule over their own little kingdom of obscure trivia. That is, they want to be the people they complain about (angry editors who firecely police and put down anyone who intervenes on articles), and are annoyed that no-one else has much interest in the small area of human knowledge over which they feel they command suitable authority.

I have lived and voted in two different countries that used hand counted handwritten ballots. There were never any problems, counts were efficient, and reliability was high (very close electorates/ridings had recounts only to arrive at suffciently close to the same totals to give a very high degree of confidence in the counting process). While both countries had smaller populations than the US as a whole they had populations comparable to individual states, and I see no reason the systems wouldn't scale.

The first key is to have a completely independent organisation that runs the elections. But really look at any number of countries around the world that have reliable elections with handwritten ballots.

And Kylix was Borland's Hail Mary shot as Delphi was spiralling down the drain. What's worse, it wasn't native linux, but a kludge of QT and Wine, and yet still didn't provide backwards compatability to Delphi.

Kylix didn't fail because it was for linux. Kylix was doomed from the start because it was a hastily put together lifeboat from the sinking ship of Delphi.

Well yes, but the fact that they managed to come up with 10 failures for Google maps over the many years its been available, while that tumblr blog has hundreds of comparable failures (misplaced cities, useless directions, completely incorrect coastlines, invalid borders, all as bad as what was listed in the page you linked) in a few days says something. Mapping is hard, there are enourmous amounts of data, and mistakes will be made. Apple seems to have made an order of magnitude more and are being ridiculed for it.

I thought you might have taken the time to look things up, but apparently not. Let's recap then; Euclid proved that there are infinitely many primes in approx. 300 BC. The proof is very straightforward and has been repeated many times. See here for a canonical example. But wait, there's more. Bored mathematicians have found other proofs, usually perverse ones for amusement value. See, for example Goldbach's proof, or Furstenberg's topological proof.

Perhaps your going to say that those are just a touch hand-wavy and not "derived directly from mathematical laws". That would be a mistake, but we can cover that too: here is a proof that is conveniently completely machine verifiable and traceable back to formal axioms -- specifically first order predicate calculus and Zermelo Frankel set theory (we don't even need the axiom of choice!).

There are infinitely many primes. But don't trust me -- work through the metamath proof in all the gory details if you really still don't believe.

Yes, if only we could prove there is an infinite number of oprimes rather than just believing, presumably from some famous named conjecture. I'm sure any such proof would require extremely deep and difficult mathematics and not be something that is used in textbooks as a first example of mathematical proof as copied straight out of Euclid.

Well presuming you want something that had development discontinued in 1997 and has been essentially unmaintained ever since ...
Even the man pages have strong warnings that xmove is old, unmaintained, and not guaranteed to work at all.

No, he's saying that the vast profits that Apple successfully made by being the first mover in this field is already plenty of incentive the invest in such "risky" endeavours -- Apple has earned well above and beyond any research costs -- so we probably don't need to grant special monopoly rights for an extra 15 years just to get companies to invest in innovative research.

No, he said design coherency and slickness was more important than meeting everybody's workflow perfectly. That is, if you can make a coherent system that has a good workflow for 90% of users, don't go breaking the consistency and coherency for the 10% that have a wide variety of weird and unique workflows. And I don't think that's a bad plan. Thyere are a large number of DEs out there for Linux, so if you are a unique and special snowflake with a need for a very particular workflow you can use one of those. The reality is that the last 10% of workflows can be incredibly diverse and incredibly difficult to cater to well without ending up with a complex mess. So perhaps a good solution is, instead of providing a hobbled workflow for that 10% as you try and shoehorn it into the existing system, cater to the 90% and let the 10% use specialised tools that can create excellent workflows for their more rareified uses.

You need a certain amount of ongoing trade to keep liquidity in the market -- otherwise it is hard to get money to where it needs to be for new projects, new ventures, etc. Look at it this way: a large part of the economic problems back in 2008 and early 2009 were due to a "credit crunch" where banks were unable or unwilling to loan money; this resulted in liquidity drying up and businesses facing severe difficulties due to the uncertainty of whether they could get money on hand when they needed it (for example, to make payroll at the end of the month). Without sufficient liquidity business stagnates. This is why deflation can be so bad.

Yes, but if you were to expand the point of view of the Hobbit a little bit, and include a little more material such as Gandalf going to Dol Guldur etc. then you leave yourself well setup for a third film with Bilbo at home and the council waging war on the necromancer. Of course that's not to say that's what they've done, but for now I'm willing to give them the benfit of the doubt and wait and see what they've actually done. As it stands The Hobbit is a very narrow story that leads into LoTR but doesn't really sit well with it; by having a LoTR prequel that expands upon the Hobbit with further material from the Appendices of LoTR I could imagine a much better lead in to the LoTR trilogy being made. Let's hope that's what they're aiming for.

Beren and Luthien would do well if adapted properly -- it would take a deft touch to really do it right. Also Akallabeth would work out quite nicely althought you'd have to compress the time frame a little bit and essentially have it run from Sauron's arrival on Numenor.

I think the key is that they are going outside the pages of the Hobbit to get a third film. Which is not to say they're going outside Tolkien's writings, it's just that they're mining the appendices of The Lord of the Rings and the last chapter of the Silmarillion on the War of the Rings which covers Sauron's early rise as the Necromancer of Dol Guldur and the battles fought by Gandlaf, Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel against him at that time. This is very tangentially touched upon in the Hobbit -- but it is a narrow story told from Bilbo's point of view -- but there's plenty of story there if they wish to fill it in as a separate part that helps fill the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.