Miscellaneous desk
< October 25	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 26[edit]

Doubtful paramedic story[edit]

Hello my uncle is a paramedic and recently told me a story that I very much doubt. He was telling me that recently he had responded to a call and upon arriving at the house and being let in by a hysterical wife he found someone on the ground bleeding profusly, after bringing him to the ambulence the man started to cough out his a large amount of blood and some organ or something. I dont remember what he told me it was that affected this poor gentleman but I would like some help proving or disproving this story, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenrunman (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not have been some form of clotted blood, rather than an organ? Dbfirs 07:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coughing is a process that involves the lungs and associated airways. Coughing is a reflex or concious action to clear the airways of an obstruction or irritation. The lungs, bronchi, trachea and pharynx are a self-contained system that do not have or give access to any other organ system - except at the throat where it shares a common orifice with the digestive system. Clearly it is not possible for another organ to enter the lungs from below (so to speak) so it is difficult to see how any other organ could have been coughed out. It is not unknown for people who have a serious distressing cough to vomit as they strain to cough. Something vomited may have added to the idea that an organ was vomited. Finally I wonder what organ would or could be coughed out (if it were remotely possible) that did not cause a serious problem to the person. In my experience there are certain professions who have a fund of interesting stories with which to impress the awed listener. Interestingly there has been a report in southern England recently about the fallibility of the medical emergency services.[1] Richard Avery (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your uncle would seem to be the person in the best position to give you the full details.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this one before. What happened is that the patient either vomited or coughed up a blood clot. Sometimes a large clot will look like liver. Gross I know, but there you go. It's my experience that paramedics will keep a stock of these stories as Richard says, and will embellish them to suit the (usually gullible) audience. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He told me today that it wasnt a bloodclot and that it was a kidney so I dont know if its true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenrunman (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, there's really no process by which a kidney could find its way either into the lungs, or into the digestive system and be coughed or vomited up. He is most definitely adding horrible details that he hopes you'll believe. ~ mazca ^talk 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Mazca, this is utter rubbish. He is behaving unprofessionally and displaying a frightening level of ignorance - and you should tell him!! Richard Avery (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the guy was coughing up a lung. Of course, coughing up a lung is just an expression for coughing uncontrollably. Googlemeister (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Rarity for Populous DS[edit]

Populous DS is only two years old yet it can't be found at many retail outlets in the United States. Why? Is it because the game was only given a very limited production run? --Arima (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just didn't sell very well. Two years would be long enough that most "box stores" like Best Buy would have phased it out unless it was popular. Gamestop dot com has it on sale for $15 new and $7 used. $15 is pretty cheap, even with shipping. APL (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks, APL. I'm VERY glad to hear that it's still available online and at such a low price. --Arima (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Populous III world shape[edit]

The above question led me to read Populous:_The_Beginning, where I learn that the planet "is actually a real projective plane rather than a usual sphere". What shape is this, in practice? Apparently "The projective plane cannot be embedded in three-dimensional space. However, it can be immersed..." and Boy's surface is an example of this. Boy's surface looks like a horribly mutated cochlea. I'm fairly certain the planet-shape in Populous III can't be that complicated. 81.131.18.104 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The projective plane doesn't have to look that complicated. It only looks that strange when you try to immerse it in three-space. It's actually fairly easy to picture, without that requirement; it looks something like this:

   ------->>>---------
   |                 |
   |                 |
   v                 ^
   v                 ^
   v                 ^
   |                 |
   |                 |
   ------<<<---------

where you fold this thing up in such a way that the edges on opposite sides are glued together, with the directions of the arrows matching. Of course you can't do that in ordinary physical space, but that's not important right now. --Trovatore (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. So that's just a particular kind of wrapping-around. If it wasn't for the arrows thing it would result in what I think Civilization II called a "doughnut world"; and it's easy enough to incorporate the arrows into that concept. This would be fine for a 2D map, but the Populous game apparently models this planet in 3D, and even "allows the player to zoom out to see the entire world." There is a picture of this on the article: it looks round. I guess that's some kind of cheat, where a section of the map is projected onto a sphere? This only raises further problems, because projecting a flat surface onto a sphere (or hemisphere) causes severe distortion. Perhaps what's actually visible in zoomed-out view is not even a hemisphere, just a slight dome? 81.131.18.104 (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an easier model of the real projective plane is the surface of a sphere with opposite (antipodal) points identified. But, from what Bavi H said below, they're probably using the usual torus viewed through a fisheye lens. -- BenRG (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Is "identified" maths-speak for "the same"? 2) Based on Trovatore's description, I was imagining a square Möbius strip which is twisted and joined (impossibly) in both directions (N-S and E-W) at the same time. That's quite fun to imagine, but is it correct? 213.122.44.239 (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes; 2) Yes. :-) -- BenRG (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a world editor for Populous: The Beginning. It looks like each world's map is really just a square with normal wrap-around (a torus). The world editor shows a square overview map in the bottom corner. As you move, the square overview map wraps normally. In the main view, a small area of the underlying square map is made to look like a sphere. If I turn on the editor's grid, I can sort of see it's a dome-like view of a small portion of the square map. However, the world editor doesn't let you zoom out, so I don't understand how the zoomed out sphere works. You can find several gameplay videos on YouTube. Here's one that shows the zoomed-out sphere rotating. I can't quite pinpoint why, but it doesn't quite look like a real sphere should when it rotates. --Bavi H (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there isn't enough foreshortening at the edges of the map. It looks like they took a circular portion of the world and mapped it onto something with a little curvature, not a sphere. It feels kind of like looking at the map through a porthole. Paul (Stansifer) 00:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12volt 110amp Liesure battery[edit]

Can anyone tell me why I can not use a car battery for a caravan in place of a liesure battery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.73.134 (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead-acid batteries come in two designs. High-current and deep-discharge. A high-current battery can regularly withstand drains of 100amps (for a few seconds) without the plates buckling from the heat. A deep-discharge battery can withstand being fully discharged regularly without being damaged. A car battery is the former; they should never be allowed to go flat. CS Miller (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... so the answer is that you could use the car battery, but you risk damaging it or at least shortening its life if you regularly allow it to discharge more than about half-way before recharging. Dbfirs 17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For confirmation about MAQ Oil & Gas company[edit]

Dear Sir,

Recently, I have received an contract agreement and an offer letter from MAQ Oil & Gas company. They had offer me 8000 US$ for the position of Civil Engineer. I would just like to know if this is fake.

Our Ref: MGASIA09542 Office Address: MAQ Oil & Gas (U.K.) Ltd. London Square, Cross Lanes Guildford, Surrey GU1 1UJ Phone: 44(0) 7031744579 Fax: 44(0) 709745607 Email: info@maqoils.com Website: www. maqoils.com

Thank you very much.,

Felovic Leal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.123.19 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the response to this kind of thing from MAQoils themselves [2], this is probably attempted fraud. Mikenorton (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing that they quote two different URLs as the only valid domain.

"genuine correspondence from MAQ Oil & Gas originates from an maqoils.com domain"

"All our emails and internet pages are hosted via MAQ Oil & Gas.com. "

Rojomoke (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

knuckle popping[edit]

in some comics, I see characters who appear to clench their fingers without completing the fist, which appears to pop their knuckles. just out of curiosity, is that physically possible in real life? or are they doing some different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.18.130 (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've known people that could do that. They could crack their knuckles just by tensing the muscles in their fingers. I'm not sure why you would want to, but apparently once you acquire the talent you're compelled to do it all the time. APL (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I half-clench my hand as if I was holding an apple-sized object, then deliberately tense all the muscles in it while slowly straightening out my fingers, I can definitely get a few of the finger joints to pop. They're very quiet but I'm sure someone with less squidgy knuckles than me could make a nice unpleasant sound. ~ mazca ^talk 17:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I've been working my hands hard all day, mine do. Otherwise no. Alansplodge (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Cracking joints which might be of use Zoonoses (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A trio of questions about Katherine Philips...[edit]

Yesterday, I've stumbled upon the article of King Charles I and I read the section of it about his execution.I've read that several poets had written poems to express their displeasure of the execution. One of them that caught my attention was Katherine Philips' "Upon the Double Murder of King Charles". I've read the poem, and from my looking up a bit of information, I had three questions on my mind about Katherine Philips:

1. Why did Katherine Philips refer to the execution as a "double murder" in the poem?

2. I've read on a site that Katherine compared the execution to a lion being attacked by a group of donkeys, and it showed the esteem in which she held the King. How deep is Katherine's esteem for King Charles?

3. I've read in the article of King Charles that Katherine questioned the human race over the execution. I've read on another site that "Philips has a sense of foreboding that if men are willing to overthrow their king how far will they go in an attempt to change things for the better. Philip’s hints that men might be willing to overthrow their own religion should such revolutionary fervour continue." About this, had Katherine actually had her faith in humanity shaken, and what event had made her believe in humanity in a positive tone again?

I want thoroughly explained answers so I could understand. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about the poem Upon the Double Murder of King Charles. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article Charles I of England, did it not answer your 1st question in In her poem, Phillips describes the "double murder" of the king; the execution of his life as well as the execution of his dignity. ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I forgot about that line in the article. My bad. ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be enough sources extant documenting her personal thoughts to answer those questions, but my advice is that you read some of the literature mentioned in the article Katherine Philips. Because if there are they will surely be covered there. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

paternity leave[edit]

If I make lots of women pregnant, is there a limit on how much paternity leave I could be granted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.8.232 (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is going to depend greatly on what country you are in. Googlemeister (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the Child support. APL (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Paternity leave#Europe currently imply that Austria grants 1 - 3 years of paid paternity leave? -- 124.157.254.112 (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be odd because...? To the OP: I don't think it works that way. As Nil points out, the leave is, I imagine, meant for either one or the other parent (I think the first two or three weeks may be an exception) so good luck convincing all those lucky ladies to give up their time with their newborns so you can lay back and enjoy the, ehm, fruits of your labor. Also, I believe it's also connected to the age of the child - you can't decide when the kid is 15 years old that you'd now like to take that paternity leave you never used up - so, if we consider your scenario, you'd have a fairly narrow window of time to use it up. In any case, two points: firstly, you'd have to tell us where you are for a more definite answer, and secondly, sheesh, that really is a grossly self-centered way to think, isn't it? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is in many countries only one parent can take the leave at a time. I don't know how it's divided if there is disagreement, I presume it may depend on a custody agreement. Nil Einne (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., paternity leave is covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, for which childbirth is a protected reason for taking leave. For certain types of employment, a father has the same rights as a mother to take a limited amount of unpaid leave as part of his FMLA rights; basically his employer must "hold" his job for him, though he is not required to pay him. --Jayron32 07:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK: "employees are entitled to take one or two weeks' paternity leave (paid at a statutory rate) which can start at any time after the baby is born or on a particular date after the first day of the week in which the baby is expected. However, paternity leave must usually finish within 56 days of the baby's birth. Regardless of how long is taken, statutory paternity leave must be taken as one continuous block and cannot be split up into odd days. It can be claimed by: "The biological father of the child, the husband or partner of the child's mother, one who is adopting the child, or the husband or partner of the child's adopter" but must be spent caring for the child (so you couldn't go off on holiday without the baby)[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]