h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is definitely improving, so I will jump back in.


the long term effects change the landscape > long-term

Consider a short story about the Python connections > this, as Tavaron points out, is excessively abstruse. Putting connections into boldface does not really help the reader to reserve judgement until the meaning becomes clear, which seems to be what you hope for.

This mark in the sands of UK minds may have seemed weak to some, Yet, it > no capital Y. It would be acceptable in creative writing, to show emphasis, but creative grammar and punctuation are not appropriate to Approved Entries.

did come to influence one Guido van Rossum along with many other English speaking peoples > English-speaking

Our connection plot turns where we learn about "Python - the Programming Language," > the syntax is strained here. I appreciate that you are writing gnomically, in the style of dark hints, but alas that doesn't do in the Edited Guide.

Monty Python's Flying Circus re-runs have marked many muckraking minds. > Muckraking is not a good synonym for picking through debris to find useful things, although it derives from the same image of scavenging. Muckraking however has the specific meaning of hunting for evidence of corruption and scandal.

The once arcane Python remarks are becoming grail. A new, more powerful champion has picked up the Python standard to leave its impressions ever more indelibly on humanity. > This is the greatest stumbling-block to me. I regard computer programs as actually less earth-shaking than good biting comedy. To me, and a great deal of other people, comedians are the world's prophets.

Python, the programming language, is no joke. It is a popular choice of stodgy University efforts as well as others who would leave a mark on humanity. > Your intention is clear, but 'stodgy' does not mean 'worthy'. This is a common misconception, curiously often trotted out by Terry Jones himself.

The geek population of would be students was ebbing > would-be

a pall goes forward, suggesting a new grail must be found > this is arcane usage which I cannot find either in OED or in google.

a raspberry [a cry or noise made to express displeasure or contempt]? > who describes it as a cry? OED gives 'A sound made by blowing with the tongue between the lips, suggestive of breaking wind; esp. used as an expression of mockery or contempt.'

What would fulfill the intentions of a Python raspberry? > fulfil

[For a more in depth reference see "Introducing the Raspberry Pi"] >in-depth

Proto-types are created > Prototypes

In 2011 the World quakes as the Raspberry Pi is coming forth. In 2012 it came forth unto the world > this still reads awkwardly. Perhaps 'In 2011 the world' (no capital) 'quakes as the Raspberry Pi's term approaches'

these monumental events can be traced back to the irreverent comedy of a BBC program called, Monty Python's Flying Circus > programme; no comma.

The minds and energies of the creators of Raspberry Pi were duly influenced by just such a "not-so-weak" mark in the sands of History > the historical significance of a mark in the sand is actually an extremely strong signal, not a weak one. When explorers landed among people unused to strangers, the ship's marines marked a line in the sand and then made it clear (by pointing guns, whose deadly effect they did not hesitate to demonstrate) that no native was permitted to cross this line. I'm afraid your imagery is not doing for you what you want it to.

Recumbentman,

Clearly you have put a noteworthy effort into your post on this conversation, thank you.
I am processing your preferences and will make adjustments.

Thank You.

1. ) Allow me to make my point in terms of a short story about how using the name “Python” brings to light connections from times past that may have much to do with your future.

My use of the word connections harkens back to a program called, “Connections” as narrated by James Burke.

2. ) The use of hyphens is a quagmire that I willingly defer to you-all. In my life-time I have seen hyphenated words find their way into Webster’s without hyphenations, thus ostensibly eliminating the hyphen ever afterward. Clearly you defer to OED, but the times are changing; and unlike French, English is a bit more flexible. Now, change in Journalism itself is becoming alarming. Language use is a cultural phenomenon. Please consider this as you edit h2g2. Secondly, I have used the “Chicago Manual of Style” as my journalistic reference. I would respect that you did not use that venerated authority. Never-the-less, the online version says:
“… ‘Compounds according to parts of speech.’ The hyphen is in fact sometimes needed, but compounds with more, most, and so forth may be left open unless ambiguity threatens…” http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/HyphensEnDashesEmDashes/HyphensEnDashesEmDashes03.html
Ambiguity is the thorn in my side. I often reflexively strike out in protest of rules that are not. It is hard to unlearn ambiguities that are needed one day and considered amiss the next. Thus, my “style” reflects an irreverent attitude, not unlike the “Pythons,” towards ambiguous conventions. It reflects Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Essays in the Art of Writing,” as dated style.

3. ) “writing gnomically, in the style of dark hints” Is that what I do? As Robert points out, not all can be revealed at once, the writer must “weave” words and thoughts into a fabric that appeals to the reader; not all readers, but the reader you wish to entice into following your line of reasoning. I intend to “strain” the reader at times, at other times I may even jerk the reader. I might ask “why” my style does not do in the Edited Guide?

4. ) “Muckraking,” well, yes by Joe, I do believe you’ve got the meaning correct ol boy; so what is the problem?

5. ) Comedy. “This is the greatest stumbling-block to me.” I have heard you make this point several times. I get that it is important to you. I have adjusted the essay. As true as your point is, that is not the point I am trying to make. Comedy is but one “mark in the sand” that I claim can be considered weak by some, but needs to be appreciated as having great potential power to affect the future. If you see the word or sentence and miss the thought in the overall essay, you may suffer from myopic vision. You see Comedy as great, good! Some readers may or may not see that fact. The broader perspective presented in this essay is to say that for people who do not understand the power of a mark in the sand, consider some of the things that you might think are significant and how they were influenced by History. For some readers who did see the power of a mark in the sand, they may have come to understand the significance of the message to others who might read the entry.

6. ) “stodgy” well, yes by Joe, I do believe you’ve got the meaning correct ol boy; so what is the problem?

7. ) “Pall” A sudden numbing dread.

8. ) “raspberry” expression of mockery or contempt, or I as I said, "cry" instead of "expression."

9. ) “the historical significance of a mark in the sand” was countered by evoking a specific visceral experience of the reader marking the sand. Although I was unaware of your arcane reference, after review, it still seems to work well for me.

The problem with muckraking is that I didn't think you meant 'hunting for evidence of corruption and scandal' in the Entry. Was I wrong?

The problem with 'a pall goes forward' is that its meaning is obscure. I had an image of pallbearers.

The problem with cry is that a raspberry simply isn't one; 'cry' implies vocalization, but a raspberry is unvoiced.

The 'mark in the sand' reference you have now added should perhaps go in a footnote, if indeed it is helpful at all. I had only come across the practice in the story of Darwin landing in Terra del Fuego, but clearly you have found the original reference. You needn't credit Wiki; just reword it and write it as your own explanation. That is the more elegant thing to do.

post hast > OED recommends a hyphen: post-haste

more powerful than ether > either

The problem with “muckraking” seems to be that a narrow minded reader would assume that the writer could not intend to be so brash. The Pythons were, and so was Adams. In the many shades of grey, this writer was not trying to be overly brash and yet some readers expect something that was not written. You have read the entry and I would not assume you would care to re-read the entry as intending “muckraking.” As to “pall” you had the right image, and it did seem obscure so now it is “din.”

Your problem with “cry” seems narrow minded. As you used the word “implies” you leave open other possibilities. Why do you insist on reading something other than what was specifically delineated by the writer? I did stretch the meaning a bit to fit my objective, so in this pithy and elegant essay I made it clear [to intended readers] that choosing a name like raspberry could have been a muckraking cry for more Python-geeks.

It was you who thought the historical connection to the phrase “line in the sand” was overwhelming. The writer had a vague notion of that meaning when it was used. Having reviewed your information, the writer embraces your concern by highlighting the connection.

As to crediting Wikipedia, the writer does not own the knowledge. If the reader [you] wish to check that aspect of the story you can at least follow my source [which is not of university research quality]. Perhaps some reader would also like to use the etymology in some future work. I am not qualified to be cited as a source of that information and really, nether is Wikipedia. To be obtuse, any information must come from somewhere else unless the truth is derived from direct experience, and then it needs to be questioned. The wording is mine and therefore I did not use quotes. Your notion of elegant violates other peoples notion of propriety. There are many shades of grey here. Why do you draw the specific line you have drawn?

Is it true that the Pi in Raspberry Pi is a corruption of Py from Python? I don't know much about it myself, but I have seen it said that Python is not the only programming language the Raspberry Pi can use (and Pi is a good letter/number in its own right!).

I'm also not sure about the implication that the Raspberry Pi was produced to make Python more popular - could it not be the other way round, that Python was popular so it was incorporated as (one of) the languages the Raspberry Pi could use?

I was confused about the 2011/12 dating too, given that the Raspberry Pi was essentially born in 2006, but your paragraph about the prototypes makes that clearer

No, Pi means Python all right, to judge from the specification that it should be Python-programmable.

AEH, please get me right. "Implies" does not admit other possibilities; it is (in this case) a logical implication. Narrow-minded if you wish -- logic is strait.

Good questions, at times it is clear why something is blessed with a specific name. One good reason to select a name for a commercial product is to create questions like this. It is possible that over the years that the play-thing was being developed, Raspberry Pi just stuck. Why do names stick? Usually there are many reasons. One reason could be the churning caused in young people as they make mental connections to pie. The play on words to a more geekish subject [Mathematics] seems clear. For me to editorialize another connection for the purpose of creating a different connection is questionable.

However, there is a connection to Python, the programming language. As the target is young people, Python is an understandable choice. Like most designs outlined by engineers, a broad range of possibilities was embraced. Cheap pointed to ARM, ARM pointed to Linux, and Linux allowed for Python. However, ARM can be operated via a custom operating system that does not support Python, just as Linux can be thought of as supporting most any programming language. In history, C was the language of Linux conception. There are many possibilities that a Raspberry Pi can fulfill and some it is not well suited.

A Raspberry Pi can be a media center, but that was not its main design goal. It may calculate many digits of Pi, but that was not its design goal. Its design goal was, in part, as I stated; “…to be cheap, Python programmable, and inspirational.” To that end, time will tell if they succeeded; but I for one, applaud the effort as it stands.

“Initially the plan was to build a simple microcontroller based computer that booted to a Python interpreter prompt (hence the Pi part of the Raspberry Pi's name.” - http://russelldavis.org/2012/01/14/the-raspberry-pi-part-one/

Some "buzz" being created in 2011 as http://youtu.be/e_mDuJuvZjI shows Quake 3 running on Raspberry Pi.

Raspberry Pi computers went on sale to the public at 6am GMT on Wednesday 29Feb2012 and sold out within minutes.
While development took years, the first PUBLIC release of the computer was in 2012.

Please comment on the dumbed down version.

Is it more understandable?

Is is more like other entries?

A87767130

It is, and it is. I wouldn't call it dumbed-down.

I would recommend enlarging a little after 'One University noticed a change in the would-be students.'

I would also recommend revising 'That story starts long ago' in light of the fact that you have just mentioned Ancient Greece and Rome; though I still think that that reference should go in a footnote if at all.

I will say no more for now. This is good.

Bob,

Surely you jest!

“That” is the first word in the second sentence of the second paragraph is a pronoun clearly referring to a short story about the name “Python.” “From Ancient Greek Πύθων (Puthōn), from Πυθώ (Pūthō), the early name of Delphi, from πυθώ (puthō, “to rot, to decay”).” - According to Wikipedia

In the fifth paragraph, the first sentence does indeed leave the very question you notice, good for you! But here again I am quite taken aback by your failure to read the very next and finial sentence as the answer to that question. How is it that you cannot put two and two together? At the same time, let me be quick to add that your attention to detail is way above my ability, well no, not just my ability, but above my aptitude. As the French have been quoted, “Vive la différence!” In more simplistic terms, it is a GOOD thing that you and I will always be different.

You have added much and distracted some, but such is the imperfect world of communication. Thank you for ending your posts, for now.

If in fact the changes you like make it easier for you to understand or seem to you to be more like other entries, I find them condescendingly simplistic.

OK, 'for now' is over, I'm back.

The story of Monty Python does not start in Ancient Greece. To suggest that it does would be to make every story start in prehistory, when words took shape.

Please don't respond to serious questions so huffily. Smiting your reader in the face does not improve his eyesight, or insight.

Time for another 'bye for now', i hope.

@ Recumbentman,

I am so very sorry if you feel my reply to be only huffy.

Sure, you think you are here to help me and h2g2, thank you.

If not out of respect for that fact, I would have ignored your concerns.

I must say I have found your point of view askew to the extent that I thought I should try to help you to see the error of your ways. I am trying to help you be a better reviewer.

I have learned that I could be wrong. I could be sure of my position and still be found wrong. That could even be true in this case. After very careful review of the subject, it still seems clear to me that you are mistaken.

I expect you to be as wise. I expect that when a suggestion is questioned, you would carefully review the situation with an open and honest re-appraisal.

You are still right, “The story of Monty Python does not start in Ancient Greece.” However, that is neither what I wrote, nor that what I implied.

I have been blinded by pride before. It was very hard to see the truth in that situation. I am not saying you were blinded by pride, I am saying you seem to me to be blind to the facts. I do not know what the source is of our different understanding of the facts.

When I feel I am not being heard, I will alter my message to see if the difference can be understood. In your case I was being blunt, but only to be heard. Clearly that was my mistake. Evidently that approach made the situation less able to be resolved.

As I understand it, the issue is an almost whimsical phrase, “That story starts long ago,…” In my opinion that phrase is not really needed. As I understand your perspective, it is actually inaccurate.

To make matters better, I have tried to help us resolve this otherwise petty difference. I want to know if I am off base or if you made some error. From your response I gather you do not see that you are mistaken. But from your response I have not learned how I was in error.

The problem, as I see it, was that the first sentence introduces, “…a short story about how using the name “Python”…” It does not say, “a short story about how using the name “Monty Python” as far as I know, using the name “Python” came long before Monty. Then I wrote, “…but let me pick it up with Monty Python…”

Restating the facts as I did in the above paragraph seems way too demeaning, but that is not how it is offered. It is possible that my sentence structure is such that I unknowingly confused any “normal” reader about this message.

I assume you are not a “normal” reader. I assume you are an above average reader. With that assumption, I expected some understanding of my question of your concern when I responded:

Surely you jest!

“That” is the first word in the second sentence of the second paragraph is a pronoun clearly referring to a short story about the name “Python.”

I should have added, “Not about MONTY Python.”

All of this phrasing is but a trifle compared to the issue of whether my words were read or assumed out of some subconscious imagination. Let me add, as writer I do take some [but not full] responsibility for what subconscious connections are normally conjured up by what is written.

If you now feel smote or otherwise slighted, it would not because I had the authority to do so. I leave it up to you to condemn or excuse your thoughts.

Starting your story with the etymology of the word Python is just excessive in my humblest of opinions.

I think I have said all I usefully can, I'll leave it to someone else now. A lot of what I have said would eventually have had to be dealt with by the sub-editor, and as a sub-ed myself I was anticipating that work. I won't be volunteering to sub this, should it be chosen. Good luck and keep writing.

My entry is about how we can change History.

It is not about Monty, Guido, or Computers. It is about how those things are connected.

My essay incorporates a short story about how three things were connected by the name “Python.” The first changed the second. The second changed the third. The three are tenuously connected by the name “Python.”

As the first passes into History, the third may affect our future. Indirectly, the first, Comedy, has foreshowed the future, just as you thought was important but overlooked.

This connection is the jest of my theses.

To apply the theses to this situation, what you or I choose to do may impact the future in ways you or I could not possibly imagine.

Sorry I my etymology seems excessive to you.

[pun in jest noted]

etymology removed