Miscellaneous desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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.

March 16

Chasquis, first human mail carriers?

The following is a quote from the work of Celso Enriquez, Sports in Pre-Hispanic America: "It is well known that the first human mail carriers that the world has known were the CHASQUIS, wonderfull natural athletes of the Empire of the Incas." If true, I have the source and could cite it in the mail article or something of that sort. However, I am not sure if this claim is true or false? I didn't take this to the RSN since Enriquez is a reliable source. It's an interesting claim, but I find it hard to believe considering the several earlier states in the world. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Persian Royal Road is a couple of thousand years earlier than that. The Romans also had the cursus publicus. I suppose it depends on the definition of "human mail carriers" though. What does Enriquez mean by that? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The normal definition of mail is written communications, so this would limit mail delivery to right around the invention of writing. However, I'm sure messengers have existed as long as humans (and probably before), if delivering a spoken message is considered. StuRat (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in Pheidippides. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The story of Marathon is exactly what I had in mind when I posted this question. What Enriquez seems to mean is that the chasqui carried their messages only by themselves (no horses or llamas), and their only method of delivery was to run fast (very fast). The source is from 1968; Enriquez is several feet under by this point, so I can't contact him for questions.

However, the only difference I see between Pheidippides and the chasqui: The chasqui were an established mail system, but Pheidippides was one person providing a (highly important) message. I'm sure the Romans and Persians had horses; there were none of these in South America (and, no, normal adults cannot ride llamas).

So, I'm still confused. Any suggestions as to what I can do? Perhaps write "According to Celso Enriquez, the chasqui were the bla bla bla"? I still find it a really strange claim, and the only logic to it is that Eurasia (and Africa) had cavalry to deliver their messages while the Americas did not (until after Columbus).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be true that the Chasqui were the first (and possibly only) long-distance public mail service that relied solely on human power to transport mail, though I'd be inclined to fact-check that. I suspect that both the Chinese and Egyptian postal systems (predating the Incas by well over a thousand years) employed foot couriers for some routes (even some long routes) at various times and places, though both empires would also have used horses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I asked the question here; so we're back to square one.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is an interesting enough fact to include anyway. If they are only first because everyone else domesticated animals for transport before they made wide use of written messages, that isn't much of a claim to fame. I would just say the Chasqui transported messages by running without saying they were the first to do so. --Tango (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times

Hi! Can anyone say me please, how many pages the LA Times editions have? I need this information for a library order. Thank you, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, it varies from day to day. Have you tried contacting them directly? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly! I'll tried here first. I have to know only the average number of pages, not exactly. -- Doc Taxon (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictionary

Years ago I played Yahoo Graffiti. I went to find it tonight and had to do a Google search. The game only had like 5 players. Is there a new name for Pictionaryon Yahoo Games, or a good place to play it online, with mutliplayer. CTJF83 10:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the site OMGPop, there's a game called Draw Something which is essentially Pictionary. It is possible to play it with Facebook friends, or with strangers. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

iSketch is pretty popular, and you can just swing by anonymously and join a game. Each game room has up to 10 players. It can be a bit of a pit of trolls and filth, sometimes: if that bothers you, stick to the official rooms at the top of the list where you can at least boot the obscene and game spoilers out. 86.164.69.49 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when a car loan's term ends but money is still owed?

My friend has a car. In the past, she had financial difficulties and missed payments. Now, the term of the loan is going to end, but she still owes money. What is most likely to happen next? Will the bank expect a lump-sum payment of the balance, or will she be able to keep making payments until the total is paid? Is this a problem that can be solved, or is she likely to end up with her car repossessed? (We are in the United States. Yes, the best answer will come from the financer of the car, but she's experiencing some anxiety about the question and an advance idea of just exactly how screwed she is would be helpful.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'll depend on how much is owed and other factors, and laws vary from state to state. The best course is to speak with the finance company as soon as possible: don't wait until the loan expires. Probably it will be possible to reschedule payments, although they may well add late-payment fees or interest: if the loan company thinks they will get the money soon, then they will probably accept that and not repossess the car. If you want peace of mind, you'll get that from your actual creditor, not from random people on the internet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FTC say:

Most automobile financing agreements allow a creditor to repossess your car any time you're in default. No notice is required. If your car is repossessed, you may have to pay the balance due on the loan, as well as towing and storage costs, to get it back. If you can't do this, the creditor may sell the car. If you see default approaching, you may be better off selling the car yourself and paying off the debt: You'll avoid the added costs of repossession and a negative entry on your credit report."[1]

--Colapeninsula (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provided the terms of your loan allows you to sell the car before the loan is fully paid.Sjö (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to depend on details that we can't know. When she missed the payments, she was in default and the loan company could probably have repossessed the car then. Since they didn't, that suggests some agreement was reached between her and them. What happens will depend on what that agreement said. I would expect the agreement would just have extended the term of the loan - I've never heard of an agreement where you have to pay the missed payments at the end of the original term. You'll need to find out exactly what it was she agreed to, though. Remember, there will have been additional interest accrued because the amount of loan outstanding since the missed payments was larger than it should have been, so the extra amount she'll need to pay will be larger than just the sum of the missed payments. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She should have an agreement she signed. The answers, however obtusely worded, will be found in that. Beyond that, this question feels too close to legal advice to answer anything else. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the OP carefully, I gather that the missed payments took place sometime in the past. The fact that the car company is accepting payments and not repossessing means they probably are going to be reasonable. I suggest calling them. I suspect they are likely to be open to a deal. After all, they do still have a lien on the vehicle, and that does not go away until they clear the lien. I don't want to give legal advice, and I won't, but their accepting payments would, I suspect be a point in your favor if push ever came to shove. But the bottom line is, they'd rather have the money than the car. Work out a payment plan.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one with no legal expertise but with some experience, I find that talking with the other party about financial issues demonstrates good faith, and the odds are much better that they'll work with you, than if you try to stonewall them. As Wehwalt says, they don't want your car, they want their money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

associates finance warrington

associates finance co warrington 1998 how do i find this co — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.88.202 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you provided more information. Warrington is a location in the UK and at least two places in the United States, possibly there are many more. What does the "1998" mean? What is the purpose for locating this company? Do you want a physical address, website, telephone number ....? --LarryMac | Talk 18:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

prisoners murdered in custody

I was just there, and got notice that not many people check its Talk page, so I am writing here. Try seeing if William Remington, who was murdered in 1954 in prison, fits the category; he has a page on Wikipedia (make sure you don't confuse him with another William Remington). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that he would fit in the category of Prisoners murdered in custody. He is in similar categories though, so someone might call it over-categorization. Dismas|^(talk) 19:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World dependence on American grain

Thread retitled from "Question".

Is it true that in the 1970s the "whole world was dependent on American grain"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.227.217.228 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is certainly an exaggeration. China (a big part of the world's population) was self-sufficient in grain. Many other grain-exporting countries were also self-sufficient. Certain African countries relied on U.S. grain, and the Soviet Union had a number of poor harvests that led it to import grain from the United States, but the Soviet Union and parts of Africa do not equal the "whole world". Marco polo (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Marco Polo is right. But I'm curious. The IP editor asking the question placed the statement in quotation marks, as if it it came from some other article. Which other article? HiLo48 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can find interpretations of the statement that are true. The US was certainly a major player in the world grain market. If it had suddenly stopped producing grain, the result would have been a major world shortage and would have driven up the price even in self-sufficient countries (because the domestic market would have the compete with the export market, assuming a reasonably free market without major export restrictions). That's not particularly remarkable, though. The same thing would have happened if China, say, had stopped producing grain, or any other large producer. You don't need a very large shortage to have a significant change in price. This is due to staple foods having a low price elasticity of demand - people will still buy the same amount of food regardless of how much it costs, increasing the price will decrease the amount of other things they buy, but not the amount of food (they will change what foods they buy, but that's difficult with your staple foods) - that means the price has to increase by a very large amount in order to reduce demand by enough to make supply and demand equal again. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the short-term your argument might be true (assuming ceteris paribus), but the removal of US grain production from the market (and the short-term profit gains of the other producers) would attract new producers in the long-term. In the long-term, world grain prices could have even been lower (assuming different countries enter the competition, therefore preventing a single country from controlling grain prices through production restrictions). In that scenario (which is just an assumption), the world would be better off without US grain production.

Additionally, we are not considering substitutes. No grain from the US would mean people would eat something else (for example, Quinoa), which in a sense would help out other sectors of the economy (the concept of "losers and winners"). So, plenty of scenarios exist which deem this claim an exaggeration.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the heading of this section from "Question" to "World dependence on American grain", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried some quick Google searches and have found nothing on this topic; so it's an exaggeration (as noted by Marco Polo). Perhaps the information is in quotations because he heard it from the television (or radio).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or an exam....... grain like most commodities has a low elasticity so short term supply disruptions are quite meaningful to short-term prices. I think that Marshal is overestimating the time that production increases can occur. At the very least, if an entire grain crop was wiped out, it would require at least 6 months (assuming the opposite hemisphere had ample farmland available) to replant. And while there's some grain shifting... (oh yes the utopia that quinoa has been for world hunger... wheat is so boring isn't it) there's no way you could replace that deficit quickly. So while yes, economically you're correct, your tone gives way too much optimism about the time-frame in which such a shift could occur. Commodities, particularly agricultural ones, have always been subject to these forces, and in some cases these have been the driving factor for a large piece of the world's conflicts. Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard and read several reports of how governments throughout the world (USA and India, for example) destroy surplus grain production. My assumption partially stands on this concept of overproduction, which from a country like India could certainly replenish the loss of US grain. By the way, Quinoa is a surprisingly tasty crop; you should try it sometime. Since it's mostly produced in the Andes, the lack of US grain might allow it to reach wider audiences.

Perhaps the biggest flaw of my assumption is on the decade this would have taken place (1970s). I have next to no idea how grain production was divided in the world during those times, but I am 100% sure that by then overproduction and disposal of overproduced crops already existed. The international trade network was also probably slower than nowadays (no superfast shipments of food to help the hungry). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mice and sanitation

So I had about a dozen 1-lb boxes of dry spaghetti in a kitchen cabinet. The cabinet had a hole in the back where a water pipe came in, and some mice got into the cabinet through the hole, nibbled their way through the cardboard boxes and started eating the spaghetti (it took me quite a long time to figure out what that crunching sound I kept hearing at night was). I've covered up the hole with stiff plastic, but I've got all this spaghetti in boxes that were attacked by these ~~metal munching~~ mice. They seem to have holes a cm or two in size that the mice ate through, and I guess this took place over a period of months.

My question: if I'm not especially squeamish and if I don't find visible debris (mouse turds) in the boxes, should I just go ahead and use the spaghetti? These were presumably ordinary house mice and maybe I should worry more about inorganic toxins the mice may have brought from inside the walls (I'm in an old apt. building) than pathogens. I figure that boiling the spaghetti should kill any germs, right? And should I take any particular precautions about cleaning up the (dry-looking, rice-grain sized) turds (at least I think that's what they are) that I found in the cabinet? Any reason to not just vacuum them then scrub down?

I'm imagining people who grew up around farms are completely used to this and think nothing of it, so I shouldn't be bothered by it either, but as a city dweller this is all pretty weird to me.

Thanks.

67.117.144.57 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would toss it all. As for cleaning up the turds, I believe inhaling the dust poses a potential danger, and since most vacuum cleaners blast dust throughout the house, I'd avoid those. Instead, open a window, wear a dust mask and spray the area with a cleanser containing bleach, and then wipe it up. Incidentally, I doubt if a piece of plastic will stop the mice for long, they will chew through that or make another hole. I suggest glue traps. And be sure to wash your hands and change and wash your clothes after cleaning up. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that works is steel wool (the genuine metal stuff, not the plastic imitations that are common). --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta is cheap enough to throw out without remorse. You can assume your food's been peed on and pooed on, and while we all end up eating rodent pee and poo to some extent without knowing about it, it's not worth the savings, even if boiled (yuck). As for cleanup, aerolsolizing rodent pee in particular is bad: see hantavirus, Virus sin Nombre and a variety of other charming afflictions spread by rodent excreta. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would be inclined to throw out the pasta, too, but, if I was further below the poverty line, especially in a country where food is more highly valued, I would probably cook eat the spaghetti. The risk is actually quite small, but please don't take this as advice because I can't afford to be sued! Dbfirs 06:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]