spanningtree

spanningtree

Collection of interesting natural things

I took the picture above to see if I could get a good shot of the ocelli - three secondary eyes between the big ones. They are just about visible. Why spanning tree? It's a routing term, from each user's perspective the network looks like a spanning tree - with no loops and only one route to any place. Every user's spanning tree is unique.

Psychological egg-tooth

WritingPosted by pip Sat, April 28, 2012 06:42:07
Is the reason why religion is so popular, because it has been a psychological egg-tooth for humanity?

Why hasn't the egg-tooth fallen off? Is it because, like fire, you have to experience it personally?

If so, what a calamity for humanity, that we have to carry the weight of religion with us.


Steinbeck

WritingPosted by Jay Tue, April 03, 2012 14:02:18
Just finished reading John Steinbeck - Travels with Charley. What a brilliantly written book. It is the first factual diary that has had me gripped like a thriller. I started reading it to appreciate the style of writing, but within a few pages I had forgotten that duty and was just carried along with the story. It was a story of a journey, a reflective trip around the USA as Steinbeck was beginning to feel his age and mortality. Steinbeck took his dog, Charley, and a motor home based on a pick up truck. Typically of Steinbeck he focused on individuals and small things in order to paint a wider picture. It was written in 1960 and these were particularly interesting times in the USA. The stated aim of the trip was to reconnect to ordinary Americans and re-engage as a writer should, with his core subject material. The sub text was that he was quite rich and famous by then, although apparently could get by without being recognised and wanted to act as a common traveller and meet people on equal terms.

The book started lightheartedly and optimistically and Steinbeck soon found familiar themes in his meeting and drinking with labourers and his love of countryside and country folk. His problems with traffic in larger towns and cities was a source of amusing self deprecation. The story pivots around his return to the west coast. He started on the East coast. After visiting his old haunts he realises that he can never go back to the place and people as they were and he is concerned about the enormous growth of cities. From there the narrative turns darker. He describes Texas in light detail, concerned mainly about his dog (who had developed a painful medical problem) and his extended family whom he visits with his wife. She joins him several times on the trip. He then moves directly to New Orleans and the problems with racism. He visits the 'cheerleaders' as they hound and abuse students attending a mixed race school. He describes the situation beautifully. He is careful to avoid too much criticism of people but finally loses it with one racist hitch hiker. After this he decides the trip is over, although he still had a long way to drive, he stays to the main roads and tells us little about the scenery. His final problems with traffic in New York are described as real frustration and the impotence of the old.

Overall the book is a masterpiece of story telling. Steinbeck uses the dog as a source of humour, a device with which to maintain a conversation, and a kind of thermometer of his mood as the journey progresses. In the end the dog is cured of immediate illness, and happy, but subdued and feeling its age. Perhaps the same was true of the author. His style of writing is brilliant, he describes conversations with strangers as fully formed smaller stories. He uses the arc of the physical journey to describe his feelings about his country and the people. It is a vehicle for Steinbeck to explain how he feels growing old and one feels honoured to be able to read it.

Simple writing

WritingPosted by Jay Thu, March 22, 2012 13:22:31
I am looking for a place to jot down some thoughts as they occur to me and hopefully improve the clarity of my writing. I have just read George Orwell's essay on the English language in politics. He makes some excellent points and summarises with: (i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do. (iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active. (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous. I agree with all of these, however, I do not understand the last point. What does he mean by barbarous? Is it not barbaric? So I will just have to accept that last instruction and see if it can be usefully applied in the future.