Editing Talk:1669: Planespotting
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> | |
How would one even pronounce "Mk. IVII"? IV is 4, VII is 7. I could see an argument for treating it as a really bizarre way to say 6. Or, if we treat it as two distinct digits (as opposed to a two-digit number), it could be either "1-7" or "4-2". | How would one even pronounce "Mk. IVII"? IV is 4, VII is 7. I could see an argument for treating it as a really bizarre way to say 6. Or, if we treat it as two distinct digits (as opposed to a two-digit number), it could be either "1-7" or "4-2". | ||
: "Usage in ancient Rome varied greatly and remained inconsistent in medieval and modern times." But AFAIK each numeral only stood for a fixed amount, never for a "digit" (in the sense that its value could specify ones or tens depending on its position). So six ((5 - 1) + 1 + 1) is a plausible interpretation, though definitely not standard; but 17 or 42 would be treating Roman numerals as if they were Arabic. [[User:Huttarl|Huttarl]] ([[User talk:Huttarl|talk]]) 16:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | : "Usage in ancient Rome varied greatly and remained inconsistent in medieval and modern times." But AFAIK each numeral only stood for a fixed amount, never for a "digit" (in the sense that its value could specify ones or tens depending on its position). So six ((5 - 1) + 1 + 1) is a plausible interpretation, though definitely not standard; but 17 or 42 would be treating Roman numerals as if they were Arabic. [[User:Huttarl|Huttarl]] ([[User talk:Huttarl|talk]]) 16:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
I think that's actually MI, or 1001. | I think that's actually MI, or 1001. | ||
Line 11: | Line 9: | ||
: That was my first thought on reading it, too. Doesn't an underline and overline on a Roman numeral increase it by a factor of 10,000, or am I mis-recalling grade school? ---> 19:38 UTC, 18 April 2016 | : That was my first thought on reading it, too. Doesn't an underline and overline on a Roman numeral increase it by a factor of 10,000, or am I mis-recalling grade school? ---> 19:38 UTC, 18 April 2016 | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
I assume there are other parts of this that are similarly nonsensical to people who know what Cueball thinks he's talking about. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.32|108.162.221.32]] 14:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | I assume there are other parts of this that are similarly nonsensical to people who know what Cueball thinks he's talking about. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.32|108.162.221.32]] 14:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
Line 20: | Line 14: | ||
::Wholeheartedly agreed on it being a DHC-8 version, which could be a Q400. The engine nacelles appear to extend behind the wing (unlike an ATR42/72 or Do328), and the T-tail eliminates a lot of other regional prop possibilities. It also ties in with Cueball calling it a "Q404". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.170|108.162.237.170]] 17:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ::Wholeheartedly agreed on it being a DHC-8 version, which could be a Q400. The engine nacelles appear to extend behind the wing (unlike an ATR42/72 or Do328), and the T-tail eliminates a lot of other regional prop possibilities. It also ties in with Cueball calling it a "Q404". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.170|108.162.237.170]] 17:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
De Havilland Canada (which developed the Dash-8) did belong to Boeing between 1988 and 1992, during which time the aircraft was commonly referred to as the "Boeing Dash-8". The Q400 variant was developed after DHC was sold to Bombadier, however. So it is possible that a DHC-8 could, in fact, have been made by Boeing, just not the Q400 variant. | De Havilland Canada (which developed the Dash-8) did belong to Boeing between 1988 and 1992, during which time the aircraft was commonly referred to as the "Boeing Dash-8". The Q400 variant was developed after DHC was sold to Bombadier, however. So it is possible that a DHC-8 could, in fact, have been made by Boeing, just not the Q400 variant. | ||
Line 32: | Line 24: | ||
Is that black hat or white hat? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.65|108.162.221.65]] 15:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | Is that black hat or white hat? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.65|108.162.221.65]] 15:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
:Probably White Hat, but it is impossible to say. Have corrected explanation [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | :Probably White Hat, but it is impossible to say. Have corrected explanation [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
Fixed the title text explanation regarding the hydroelectric plant. The water going over the dam still falls down (reservoir -> dam -> out of the plane?), but lifting the water in the plane would take more energy than the plant would produce.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.170|108.162.237.170]] 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | Fixed the title text explanation regarding the hydroelectric plant. The water going over the dam still falls down (reservoir -> dam -> out of the plane?), but lifting the water in the plane would take more energy than the plant would produce.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.170|108.162.237.170]] 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
To me this comic looks like a clear reference to the "user agent" property of a browser notorious for being long, nonsensical and bearing little relationship to the version and the type of browser the client actually uses. E.g. In my Chromium this value is: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Ubuntu Chromium/49.0.2623.108 Chrome/49.0.2623.108 Safari/537.36. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.72|141.101.80.72]] 17:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | To me this comic looks like a clear reference to the "user agent" property of a browser notorious for being long, nonsensical and bearing little relationship to the version and the type of browser the client actually uses. E.g. In my Chromium this value is: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Ubuntu Chromium/49.0.2623.108 Chrome/49.0.2623.108 Safari/537.36. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.72|141.101.80.72]] 17:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
Dual Wielding could easily refer to the fact the plane has two engines or possibly four if it is dual wielding engine sets. I feel the current explanation of that line item is a little lacking. ([[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.60|173.245.56.60]] 17:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)) | Dual Wielding could easily refer to the fact the plane has two engines or possibly four if it is dual wielding engine sets. I feel the current explanation of that line item is a little lacking. ([[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.60|173.245.56.60]] 17:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)) | ||
:Then please update the explanation :-) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | :Then please update the explanation :-) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
I understood the Mig-380 part as a mix, an Airbus-380 but made by Mig. I'm not sure if I explained myself properly...[[User:NeoRaist|NeoRaist]] ([[User talk:NeoRaist|talk]]) 18:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | I understood the Mig-380 part as a mix, an Airbus-380 but made by Mig. I'm not sure if I explained myself properly...[[User:NeoRaist|NeoRaist]] ([[User talk:NeoRaist|talk]]) 18:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |