Coid's Crowing Conundrum of a Canticle of Crookedly Random Banter #185

[factotum]

Cars are front heavy (unless you put a metric ton in the trunk). The car will fall front forward. The eleven storey house is just a model of comparison.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that when they *have* actually dropped a car from a great height it doesn't tend to fall nose-first--it tends to oscillate, first nose-down, then rear-down, and so on. No idea why that is, I'm not a physicist!

[CurlyKitGirl]

That's essentially what Zodi was saying, I think, although "satire" is probably a more accurate term than "parody". Yes, Romeo and Juliet are stupid; that's the point.

Yha, satire is probably the better term for it, but parody could also work. Thanks to basically proving my point

Not necessarily. Satires and parodies set out to show a subject in a humorous light.
Romeo and Juliet was classed as a tragedy and played as such. Is Romeo and Juliet a deconstruction of the Lovers of Opposing Houses trope? Most likely, it plays the trope and its usual companions relatively true to life, although some are exaggerated for drama's sake.
The points I brought up could be used to argue for Romeo and Juliet as a satire/parody true, but given one of the literary traditions it echoes is a meditation on the balance of passions and duty/logic/responsibilities.
It's also a part of the tragic romance tradition, and its borrowing from that means the play is possibly best considered as a tragicomic romance.
Of course, Shakespeare's plays are often notoriously hard to place on one specific genre, hence his Problem Plays, the heavy tragic elements in some of his comedies and vice versa. Elements of all genres can be found in every play, and that's why so many of them are so versatile and open to readings.
Mercutio would be the character that best embodies the satire/parody elements as many of his speeches involve undercutting the passions and whatnot to reveal their ridiculousness and their problems given the real world won't allow for smooth sailing. However, this is a similar role that the Fool has in King Lear where, by pointing out these same issues and what harm is likely to evolve from them, it only heightens the inevitable impact of Lear's actions and heightens the former king's decline into insanity.
In Romeo and Juliet Mercutio's actions not only fall into this role, but also act as a source of humour, which can be seen to imitate that of the players from A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Long story shot (too late) the play is very complex, and I don't necessarily think it's a satire or parody although I will admit that a fair amount of its comedic value can be read as such.

Good grief.

Eh, a nice faux-academic argument 'in all seriousness' is good for the soul and the brain.

The only play we studied in school was...none of them.

What?
I thought it was basically mandatory in English-speaking schools the world over. And a lot of other countries seem to teach Shakespeare for the older years.

[LaZodiac]

What?
I thought it was basically mandatory in English-speaking schools the world over. And a lot of other countries seem to teach Shakespeare for the older years.

We didn't do any play studying in high school. Not much to elaborate on other then that

[Amidus Drexel]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that when they *have* actually dropped a car from a great height it doesn't tend to fall nose-first--it tends to oscillate, first nose-down, then rear-down, and so on. No idea why that is, I'm not a physicist!

That happens sometimes. The fronts of cars tend to be heavier, though (that's normally where the engine is), so it's a fair assumption to make. It has a lot to do with air resistance and the car's center of gravity. The second anwerer there goes into that in a bit more detail.

[AsteriskAmp]

Or that you weren't prepared for the occation. Blaming all accidents on stupidity isn't constructive, especially if you aim to eliminate them.

You eliminate the person behind them. By making cars rigid you are actually letting the problem solve itself.

Cars are front heavy (unless you put a metric ton in the trunk). The car will fall front forward. The eleven storey house is just a model of comparison.

At the inverse, if the car is front heavy: gravity will have a greater torque on the back because it's farther away from the centre of mass; making it fall trunk first but it is somewhat more complex. See below.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that when they *have* actually dropped a car from a great height it doesn't tend to fall nose-first--it tends to oscillate, first nose-down, then rear-down, and so on. No idea why that is, I'm not a physicist!

If it falls parallel to the floor torque will make it rotate because the centre of mass is not in the exact centre; assuming the car faces the left it, will rotate clockwise.

Because gravity keeps constant direction and torque is defined in terms of distance from the centre of mass rotating decreases the distance between the trunk and the centre of mass. Because the front DOES have more mass, the force on the front will be slightly bigger and there comes a point where the distance of the back is overpowered by the increased mass on the front making torque go the other way and making the car accelerate counter-clokwise, this in turn increases the distance which will eventually overpower the mass and make it rotate clockwise.

Repeat for a while until it either crashes or some interesting thing which would pop up if I did the calculations happens, said interesting thing might probably be a fixed angle where both effects cancel and the torques remain from that point in constant cancellation, angular velocity and acceleration equal to 0, that or air resistance or terminal velocity make things happen.

[Mutant Sheep]

You eliminate the person behind them. By making cars rigid you are actually letting the problem solve itself.
At the inverse, if the car is front heavy: gravity will have a greater torque on the back because it's farther away from the centre of mass; making it fall trunk first but it is somewhat more complex. See below.
If it falls parallel to the floor torque will make it rotate because the centre of mass is not in the exact centre; assuming the car faces the left it, will rotate clockwise.

Because gravity keeps constant direction and torque is defined in terms of distance from the centre of mass rotating decreases the distance between the trunk and the centre of mass. Because the front DOES have more mass, the force on the front will be slightly bigger and there comes a point where the distance of the back is overpowered by the increased mass on the front making torque go the other way and making the car accelerate counter-clokwise, this in turn increases the distance which will eventually overpower the mass and make it rotate clockwise.

Repeat for a while until it either crashes or some interesting thing which would pop up if I did the calculations happens, said interesting thing might probably be a fixed angle where both effects cancel and the torques remain from that point in constant cancellation, angular velocity and acceleration equal to 0, that or air resistance or terminal velocity make things happen.

I believe, to interpret and redistribute the truth, that this means that the air is not enough to stop the car from continuing its spiralatic turns in the air. Dropping it horizontally, the nose begins to flip, but air resistance is hardly enough to stop the pendulum like movement. However, unlike a pendulum, there is no rope or chain to resist a continued movement, and it will proceed to keep spinning in the air.

Thus, the car goes from normal to facing the ground to hilariously upside down to standing up on its rear wheels in the air, and then back to a normal looking car position, then so on until it inpacts the surface, causing, since its a car, A MASSIVE EXPLOSION.


Oh Curly. Happy to hear you're alright. I was worried! We hadn't had any non-furry Wall of Texts in a while...

[AsteriskAmp]

I believe, to interpret and redistribute the truth, that this means that the air is not enough to stop the car from continuing its spiralatic turns in the air. Dropping it horizontally, the nose begins to flip, but air resistance is hardly enough to stop the pendulum like movement. However, unlike a pendulum, there is no rope or chain to resist a continued movement, and it will proceed to keep spinning in the air.

Thus, the car goes from normal to facing the ground to hilariously upside down to standing up on its rear wheels in the air, and then back to a normal looking car position, then so on until it inpacts the surface, causing, since its a car, A MASSIVE EXPLOSION.

... where did pendulum like movement come from?

There is a rotation while it falls, but the centre of gravity never moves from it's place. And because of several effects it does not rotate in one direction with increasing angular velocity but oscillates around the parallel to ground line.

[Thufir]

I do!

Generally, Titus Andronicus is considered on of Shakespeare's 'worst' plays, so when people start complaining how 'bad' Romeo and Juliet is, this makes AllIWantIsCrunk remember Titus Andronicus which, in his opinion, deserves more bashing than Romeo and Juliet. So from his perspective Romeo and Juliet is Good Shakespeare like the Henriad, the tragedies etc. etc.

Granted my first thoughts upon reading that post (having missed the previous Shakespeare discussion, and therefore finding this post in isolation with 'lolwut' as a response was:
::systemcrash::
:reboot:

Yeah, I could see the intended meaning, but the phrasing was nonsensical. There are other ways to positively rate a work than comparing it to Shakespeare, and when talking about Shakespeare one should really use them.

And for it to be taught in school only as a romance (when in actuality it was first called An Excellent Conceited Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet) and a 'perfect' romance is demeaning to the subtleties of the play when you take into context its literary and historical context.

Of course, I also dislike the play for its content as well as its treatment by teachers and whatnot.

Wait, teachers do that? I knew that was a common misconception, R&J typically being held up as the ideal of a couple and whatnot, but I didn't think it was actually taught that way in school.
...I can't actually remember that much about either of the times I was taught it in school...

[Mercenary Pen]

Cars are front heavy (unless you put a metric ton in the trunk). The car will fall front forward. The eleven storey house is just a model of comparison.

An oversimplification I think. Many cars are front heavy because they have the engine in the front, but this won't hold true in the case of cars that have the engine located somewhere else within the car (for example in the case of a mid-engined race car).

[Eon]

Wait, teachers do that? I knew that was a common misconception, R&J typically being held up as the ideal of a couple and whatnot, but I didn't think it was actually taught that way in school.
...I can't actually remember that much about either of the times I was taught it in school...

When my class was studying Romeo and Juliet, I don't believe I heard any teachers say something of the like, but there was a plethora of female classmates who uttered phrases of that nature. Frequently.

[Mynxae]

Sheepie, Nibbles, are you two up and awake for a 3v3 by any chance? And don't expect to me cheery. I woke up to abuse on DeviantArt from a certain members of the forum.

[CurlyKitGirl]

We didn't do any play studying in high school. Not much to elaborate on other then that

At all?
Why did your school/school district miss out such an important and influential area of literature? You didn't discuss it at all? Not even when talking about adaptations from play-to-book or vice versa? Or how plays were used as sources?
Baffled Curly is baffled.

Yeah, I could see the intended meaning, but the phrasing was nonsensical. There are other ways to positively rate a work than comparing it to Shakespeare, and when talking about Shakespeare one should really use them.

Well, Titus Andronicus is certainly no Webster, but most Webster's are not Shakespeare either.
:smallsmug:

Wait, teachers do that? I knew that was a common misconception, R&J typically being held up as the ideal of a couple and whatnot, but I didn't think it was actually taught that way in school.
...I can't actually remember that much about either of the times I was taught it in school...

You'd be surprised. Although admittedly it does depend on the level of education. In Y9 (which I think is eighth grade (age 13 - 14)) when you get your first big formal introduction to Shakespeare one of the lower sets in my year (because naturally the top set got to do I HIV) did Romeo and Juliet and were taught that. And when my brother did his GCSEs he was taught that, although granted the teacher was pleased when Elder Little Brother brought up . . . well, my many rants.
Yes, even was I was in Y11/AS Level year (I forget how old we are, and what that would place are respective years as) I'd ranted enough about the play (despite never having actually sat down to read the whole thing) enough that the first thing my brother said when that was mentioned was, "My sister's complained enough about this 'star-crossed lover' thing because actually Romeo and Juliet are cursed because of it. They are fated never to be together and they're a couple of idiots who completely destroyed the stability of that city where they live by being morons. Also Romeo might be twice as old as Juliet.
Also the play was called a tragedy when it was first published."
First lesson they studied the play, about five minutes after the books had been handed out, and about ten seconds the teacher had talked about mentioned that they'd be studying the theme of love and their status as a couple.
He may have cut her off out of exasperation. He'd heard far too much about the topic from me to stand it, so he interrupted her mid-sentence because I'd trained him to do so (granted the teacher expressed pleasure that he didn't believe that 'true, perfect love' crap when others did, so they might have actually have been intended to study the subversions and stuff later on in the term rather than immediately).
>.>
<.<
I'm a bad influence.

IRN:
Guess who just spent the majority of the last two hours writing another piece of coursework for Little Sister (it's a week overdue and if she didn't do it she'd get kicked off the course) because she couldn't think of how to string her ideas together.
It was a really good essay concept though!
And it was on two books I'd not read in detail in about five years, and only skimmed over three years ago for something only distantly related to her topic.
Also her tutor failed to teach her how to cite things - to the point of not even telling the class to note down page numbers for quotations from primary and secondary texts let alone even the most basic publication details!!!
So while I was translating her handwriting and typing I had her hunting through two books looking for:
page numbers for quotations she already had
more quotations
had her explain how she wanted to explain her points.

Fortunately it's only a first draft and she has free time tomorrow to familiarise herself with her essay, the one I wrote in uni and to add in a few secondary quotes to spruce things up.
Also I may have told her about similar occurrences in other books/stories that really weren't on her reading list - Sherlock Holmes stories and Villette in order to give her social/medical precendent/back up for her ideas.
And religious ones. From medieval times.
She has a pre-made excuse: she asked her sister for help and was given some. That's how she knows about Simeon Stylites - although I should have told her about Tennyson's poem about him too.

[Dimonite]

Anyone else ever see that they have two shadows (from two different light sources) and spend the rest of the night freaking out about the Vashta Nerada, or is that just me?

*resumes panicking*

[LaZodiac]

At all?
Why did your school/school district miss out such an important and influential area of literature? You didn't discuss it at all? Not even when talking about adaptations from play-to-book or vice versa? Or how plays were used as sources?
Baffled Curly is baffled.

Yha. We didn't do any of that.

Anyone else ever see that they have two shadows (from two different light sources) and spend the rest of the night freaking out about the Vashta Nerada, or is that just me?

*resumes panicking*

No idea what those are, so no. I HAVE seen the two shadow thing though. Is cool.

[Amidus Drexel]

Anyone else ever see that they have two shadows (from two different light sources) and spend the rest of the night freaking out about the Vashta Nerada, or is that just me?

*resumes panicking*

I have; sometimes more than two. I would probably be more scared if I watched Doctor Who.

No idea what those are, so no. I HAVE seen the two shadow thing though. Is cool.

They're these. Essentially, they're carnivorous shadow particles.

[Kneenibble]

As usual, I owe some replies -- but before I make good on the dialogue:

Sheepie, Nibbles, are you two up and awake for a 3v3 by any chance? And don't expect to me cheery. I woke up to abuse on DeviantArt from a certain members of the forum.

I am around and have time for a game or two. Is Ovis afoot?


Also I am eminently pleased to see Curlily again.

[Mynxae]

Anyone else ever see that they have two shadows (from two different light sources) and spend the rest of the night freaking out about the Vashta Nerada, or is that just me?

*resumes panicking*

Heh. Keep panicking big boy

I don't even know why I just said that..

I am around and have time for a game or two. Is Ovis afoot?

I think he is.. His profile says he's online at any rate.

[Dimonite]

Heh. Keep panicking big boy

I don't even know why I just said that..



I think he is.. His profile says he's online at any rate.

... Do I need to flirt with Joika less?

But seriously. THE SHADOWS WILL EAT ME.

[Mynxae]

... Do I need to flirt with Joika less?

But seriously. THE SHADOWS WILL EAT ME.

Oh wow.

Light up the place then. Then there won't be any shadows.

[LaZodiac]

I have; sometimes more than two. I would probably be more scared if I watched Doctor Who.



They're these. Essentially, they're carnivorous shadow particles.

Oh, so Dr Who stuff. Or like The Darkness from Alan Wake. Gotcha.

[Amidus Drexel]

... Do I need to flirt with Joika less?

But seriously. THE SHADOWS WILL EAT ME.

Mwahahahahahaha....

Run.

[Mutant Sheep]

Heh. Keep panicking big boy

I don't even know why I just said that..



I think he is.. His profile says he's online at any rate.

Heh.

I was on iPad. Then I seed your post and bothered brother who was on computer, and now I am on, Starcraft is launching. I COME TO THE BUDGIE!

[AsteriskAmp]

Anyone else ever see that they have two shadows (from two different light sources) and spend the rest of the night freaking out about the Vashta Nerada, or is that just me?

*resumes panicking*

I have 8 shadows on my room because the chandelier has 8 bulbs so when standing on the middle...

On the other hand it would explain a lot of things to my psychologist if I was host to evil swarms that for some reason didn't attack me.

[Dimonite]

Oh wow.

Light up the place then. Then there won't be any shadows.

More light sources = MORE shadows!

Mwahahahahahaha....

Run.

How on earth am I supposed to run from my own shadow?

ION:
Got to have a 20-minute conversation today about badger hitmen and harpoon revolvers. It was a good day. UNTIL THE TERROR SET IN.

[LaZodiac]

More light sources = MORE shadows!

How on earth am I supposed to run from my own shadow?

ION:
Got to have a 20-minute conversation today about badger hitmen and harpoon revolvers. It was a good day. UNTIL THE TERROR SET IN.

Not if you're in The Well Lit Room!

[Elemental]

A tree should have a sizeable amount of leaves (or needles). If not, it's bare according to my defitions. And that tree definitely lacked a sizeable amount of leaves.

Then your definitions are spelt wrong. Also inaccurate because when something is bare it is bare. Not adorned with foliage even if said foliage is limited. If you had said it was half-bare or sparsely foliaged then I would agree.
In short: It's rather dry out in the middle of nowhere.

I am become life and death, undisputed master of worlds.

Well... Not all of them... Though I would be impressed if you brought life to Mercury.

Yes. I have returned after two days of absence - during which I suffered from an appalling cold/migraine combo because, as it turns out, standing knee deep in flood water barely above freezing in the middle of a very cold night for a couple of hours is generally not good for your health.
And the first thing I do is write a small essay advocating the comparatively lesser known plays of the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean plays.
My life.

In future, I suggest you read up on these things instead of using experimentation to determine what is and what is not good for your health.
And your life is awesome if you can be bothered writing essays on things despite their brevity.

The only play we studied in school was...none of them.

As others have said, this is most unusual.
I did Romeo and Juliet in grade ten because I really didn't want to do Merchant of Venice and then Macbeth in year eleven.
As well as the Cruicible and The One Day (A horrible play by the way, so outdated it's just not relevant any more.)

This is good to know. Looks like I need to be careful when smuggling bananas.

Certainly. After all, it is illegal to transport bananas without the proper authorisation in some parts of the world.

Hrm... I haven't played backgammon in a long time. That's a good game.

I'd probably have to teach them, actually.

Your vision of my dinner would make for a rather interesting movie scene, no doubt.

You know... I have never played Backgammon.
I feel like some kind of impostor...

Many of the things Kneenibble says would make for interesting movie scenes.

>.>
<.<
I'm a bad influence.

Or a really good influence.

Anyone else ever see that they have two shadows (from two different light sources) and spend the rest of the night freaking out about the Vashta Nerada, or is that just me?

*resumes panicking*

Just you.

Sheepie, Nibbles, are you two up and awake for a 3v3 by any chance? And don't expect to me cheery. I woke up to abuse on DeviantArt from a certain members of the forum.

Do I have to call in the Fun Police?
Really... You're both overreacting.

How on earth am I supposed to run from my own shadow?

Jump. You lose contact with it that way.
Alternatively, stand on a transparent floor.

Not if you're in The Well Lit Room!

And a reference that escapes me but probably involves numerous cardinals...

[LaZodiac]

It's a reference is a continued reference to Alan Wake.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Anyone else ever see that they have two shadows (from two different light sources) and spend the rest of the night freaking out about the Vashta Nerada, or is that just me?

*resumes panicking*

I really hope it's just you.

[Elemental]

It's a reference is a continued reference to Alan Wake.

I don't even know what that is.

Oh well...
RHAPSODY! IN BLUE!

My music teacher was awesome.

[AsteriskAmp]

RHAPSODY! IN BLUE!
RHAPSODY! IN BLUE!
RHAPSODY! IN BLUE!
RHAPSODY! IN BLUE!
RHAPSODY! IN BLUE!
RHAPSODY! IN BLUE!

I have no idea of the context but:

YES!

The piece is so much epic.