I find Malbolge's encryption an interesting and nice feature. After an instruction is executed, the value of the current instruction (without anything added to it) will be replaced with itself mod 94. Then, the result is encrypted with one of two methods.
Will it not be possible to "herd" an autonomous car, forcing it in different directions simply by driving up very close to it, triggering it to steer away from the approaching object (that is you in your car). If you and your friend sit in two cars, it will even be quite easy I guess. Imagine how annoying that would be to the passengers of the autonomous car!
I strongly recommend this command line tool. With this, you can do all those operations and more, and in a sensible and uncluttered fashion:
When you're old enough, you will have had enough of this place.
Well this old man won't be a belieber any day soon, doggarned kids and their music
Few would care for their parents music collection.
It would be interesting to see if someone sold off a substantial amount of bitcoins right before the drop... (I'm too lazy to check the public transaction log)
I like org-mode's spreadsheet. You can use Emacs' Calc package or plain Elisp for calculations.
In case you use debian, you can setup your own repository with reprepro. It's really easy to deploy stuff using apt.
I see your point, but I think you draw conclusions too far from what I wrote. I don't argue that the only quality of an interpretation is to what extent it is along the original intents and lines. Of course there are room for creativeness and vision. Changing from clavichord to pianoforte seems like a good improvement, partly because it makes the sound of this night music softer to the ear, which was one of the whole ideas with the composition. What I meant is that playing what is essentially doubling as a lullaby in a forced or unharmonic manner is just not interesting.
I also see that there is a wide range of ways of defining what is interesting or good in music, or fine arts as a whole. In one of the ends of this range, view with simliarities to yours can be found, that the audience's taste is the only thing that matters (perhaps you could call it "quality by description"). In the other end, there is the view that the audience's reception counts for nothing (perhaps "quality by norm"). I guess your more oriented to the first mentioned end than I am.
This is on a side note. I've been sort of obsessed by the Goldberg variations for years, and of all performers I've heard, I really do recommend Tatiana Nikolayeva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatiana_Nikolayeva). To my ears, she's just outstanding compared to Glenn Gould and the others, when it comes to Goldberg. The Goldberg variations were meant to be played at night, easing the long nights of the insomniac Count Kaiserling, for whom Goldberg worked. I've always thought that the music was meant to be played lightly and sensitively, to be pleasant in the forementioned setting. If you listen to the aria when Tatiana plays it, you will hear an astonishingly soft touch where appropriate, and a really delicate flow. I always thought that this was a really good interpretation of the Goldberg variations. (Glenn Gould - in all his fantastic technical glory - renders it somewhat more forced and hard.)
I have a new PC, using the second gen intel i7, and the sandy bridge chipset. I can connect my monitor's HDMI-cable to either the builtin graphical connector (the one powered by the CPU, one of the chipset features), or a cheap Nvidia card which I happen to have. The picture quality is very different: the builtin graphics gives me very crisp and clear picture with bright colours, and the Nvidia card gives me a bit blurrier, darker picture. Same monitor, same cable, different HDMI providers.