http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=458882
 Description: There is an eamil which fatlos anorud from time to tmie saying that, beacuse of the way the haumn brian redas wrdos as a wohle, taht the oderr of inividudal letetrs isn't taht imatrpont. The only caveat benig taht the the frist and lsat leettrs must be in the correct potision. Awyany, I thugoht I'd konck up a perl sprcit to test tihs, and what do you know, it works. But only to a pinot. The exmpale eaiml is clarely tuend, and any hrad to raed wrods seem to have been pleyad arnuod wtih. Tihs is more noibctale for the lngoer wdors, whree a two chaatrcer laed-in and lead-out smees to hlep maesivsly. The oehtr thnig I noctied was that if you ceatre a new wrod afetr the shfulifng, then you only see that new word, wihch makes tngihs a bit cofnisung. Ejony. PS. I wdolun't try and run peldroc thruogh it, that gets _very_ coufinsng.
```#!/perl -w
use strict;

# shuffle function from List::Util
sub shuffle (@) {
my @a=\(@_);
my \$n;
my \$i=@_;
map {
\$n = rand(\$i--);
(\${\$a[\$n]}, \$a[\$n] = \$a[\$i])[0];
} @_;
}

while (<DATA>) {
my \$line = \$_;
my \$line_copy = \$line;
while (\$line =~ m/(\w+)/g) {
next if length(\$1) < 4;
my \$start_offset = pos(\$line) - length(\$1) +1;
my \$word_middle_length = length(\$1) - 2;

# force two character lead-in and lead-out
if (\$word_middle_length > 4) {
\$word_middle_length -= 2;
\$start_offset++;
}
my \$word_middle = substr(\$line, \$start_offset, \$word_middle_le
+ngth);
my \$shuffled_word_middle = join('', shuffle( split(//, \$word_m
+iddle) ) );
substr(\$line_copy, \$start_offset, \$word_middle_length) = \$shuf
+fled_word_middle;
}
print \$line_copy;
}

__DATA__
There is an email which floats around from time to time saying that, b
+ecause of the way
the human brain reads words as a whole, that the order of individual l
+etters isn't that
important. The only caveat being that the the first and last letters m
+ust be in the
correct position. Anyway, I thought I'd knock up a perl script to test
+ this, and what do
you know, it works. But only to a point. The example email is clearly
+tuned, and any
hard to read words seem to have been played around with. This is more
+noticable for the
longer words, where a two character lead-in and lead-out seems to help
+ massively.

The other thing I noticed was that if you create a new word after the
+shuffling, then
you only see that new word, which makes things a bit confusing. Enjoy.

PS. I wouldn't try and run perldoc through it, that gets _very_ confus
+ing.
```