Miscellaneous desk
< August 19	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 21 >

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.

August 20

Palm trees in Nepal?

The opening scene of The Expendables 2 is set in Nepal, but there are palm trees in the background. Are there palm trees in Nepal, or are they trying to pass off some more tropical location for Nepal? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google images gives your answer, one specific example of which is Trachycarpus martianus. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, filming was actually carried out in Bulgaria, Hong Kong and New Orleans. I doubt that palm trees are a part of indigenous Bulgarian flora, though they might well be grown there. Honk Kong and New Orleans would seem more likely places to find palm trees, though and I'd think that if one was trying to find a Nepal 'substitute' the higher parts of the Hong Kong 'new territories' would be the best bet. See list of mountains, peaks and hills in Hong Kong for a few possibilities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palm trees do grow in France, California, and Odessa, so I doubt they are unfound in Bulgaria. Not that I have any evidence one way or the other between Bulgaria and Hong Kong (although the mountain types are different). Not having seen the movie I can have no opinion. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal is a producer of coconuts. I have no idea how they pull that off. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although we associate Nepal with the tallest mountains in the world, the article points out that the southern portion of Nepal is actually sub-tropical to tropical, so it should not be difficult to grow palm trees.[1] Either that, or they come from Shangri-La. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even within the tropics, coconuts only have a limited range. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were carried there by swallows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African or European swallows? --Jayron32 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rarely seen Sherpa swallow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Map

I'm searchng for a blank editable map with national borders (at least post WW1) like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/BlankMap-World-2009-2011-28-02.PNG but with the proportions/projecton of this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Wallace03.jpg Is there a place where I can find it?--151.41.160.11 (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is a Mercator projection. A quick search at The Commons turns up http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mercator_Projection.svg maybe that will do? Pfly (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in US

Anecdotal evidence suggests that corruption in “daily life” in the US is very low – you can’t get away by bribing a policeman, there is no corruption involved in citizen services whether it be getting a birth certificate or a passport. But there is corruption at higher levels that comes to the fore from time to time. How has this situation come about? Is it due to social values? Anti-corruption laws and the legal system? A strong judiciary? I would like your opinions on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.147 (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with good manipulative skills who knows how to boil a frog (see the story by Christopher Brookmyre) might be well paid to gradually corrupt someone in a senior position. Such long-term and expensive effort would not be worthwhile at a junior level, since the rewards would be small. Dbfirs 12:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would never say "no corruption" but in general most people agree that the level of small, casual corruption in the US is pretty low, even while the level of high political and financial corruption is potentially quite high. I think all of the factors you've named contribute to it and work together. But even then it should be remembered that there have been spectacular cases of low-level corruption in the not far past. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relatively low level of everyday corruption in the U.S. is due to a number of factors, of which perhaps the most important is a societal consensus against corruption. Other important factors are the existence of an experienced civil service that provides a living wage and a general system of checks and balances. Let's suppose that a police officer stops me for speeding. Financially, it would be worth it to me to pay a bribe that is larger than the ticket, because a speeding ticket will make my insurance rate go up. But I don't. The police officer doesn't ask for a bribe, because he knows he would get caught eventually, losing his job and perhaps going to jail. I don't offer a bribe, because I don't expect it to be accepted, because I believe it would be wrong to do so, and because getting caught offering a bribe would destroy my career. In the old days, people would just put money under their license, but police officers now are trained to ask that the license be removed from the driver's wallet before being passed to the officer for inspection.

Although outright corruption at higher levels (and, for that matter, lower levels) does exist, most of what occurs is due to systemic problems that are difficult to eradicate. For example, in our system politicians need money to run for office, and they are forced to solicit and accept campaign contributions. Politicians rarely alter their views in order to get contributions; instead, contributors seek out politicians who already share their views and contribute to them. Still, the campaign contributors get access to the politicians to whom they contribute, and politicians naturally will give more priority to the issues that are bringing in contributions. John M Baker (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the US puts six times as much people in jail as the rest of the world, so the petty cash involved with corruption wouldn't be worth it. The situation in the US doesn't seem much different from other Western countries, see the ranking in Corruption Perceptions Index. Ssscienccce (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The raw conviction rate tells you nothing about the prosecution of corruption, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for why there is high-level corruption, it's because the laws are made by rich, "high-level" people. So, Congressmen have made it so that they can't easily be convicted, and, even if they are, they won't go to jail for long, if at all. In theory, you'd think a $100,000 "campaign contribution" which gets a Congressman to change his vote should be punished 1000x more severely than a $100 bribe to get out of a traffic ticket, but this is not the case. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume part of the reason is that the tax system in the United States is designed to catch mysterious acquisition of large sums of money. If the majority of your income is coming from illicit sources, you'll have the IRS breathing down your neck in no time (or at least they'd like you to think that). So you're limited to only acquiring small sums of money through corruption, and getting caught will cost you your job and potentially your freedom, so it's simply less worth it. Yes, the best way to fight crime is not to actually catch it, but to make it less profitable. And with so many civil servants not taking part in corruption, anyone thinking of offering a bribe might be afraid to actually do so, lest they land in jail themselves. The only widespread small-time corruption you typically see in the US is not profit-bearing, such as in the case of "fixing" traffic tickets for friends and family [2]. Now, when you go to the high end of corruption, you have people who have the money and clout to simply change the legal definition of corruption to their own benefit. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Corruption Perceptions Index cited by Ssscienccce puts the U.S. a little lower than I think is justified - immediately under Qatar, Chile, and the Bahamas, and I doubt that any of those is less corrupt than the U.S. I think that the perception of the U.S. as being relatively corrupt is encouraged by partisan considerations and by public frustration with the highly publicized bailouts of large financial institutions. John M Baker (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the effects cultural aspects have on corruption, it's useful to compare countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. All of these countries are on the Malay peninsular and have broadly similar demographics (primarily Malay with significant ethnic Chinese and majority muslim with the exception of Singapore). Their ratings on the Corruption Perceptions Index however are very different, with Singapore being amongst the least corrupt in the world (#5), Brunei(#44), Malaysia (#60) with moderate levels of corruption and Indonesia with widespread endemic corruption (#100). 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't always this way. Low level endemic corruption was rife in the 18th and 19th century United States. It was endemic in regional politics and law throughout the 20th century. Often this corruption was nepotism or spoils system or selective enforcement. Well done, United States, for removing endemic low level corruption from public life! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what makes the attitude change. In the US for instance, politicians historically did not consider the spoils system to be a form of corruption. In the most corrupt nations today, the sort of low level corruption of demanding kickbacks from government contractees or under-the-table payments for filing forms are often seen as simply the cost of doing business. And today, the US public remains split on whether campaign contributions are a form of corruption. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sort of. People who get legislation enacted because of their contributions don't complain much. People who don't have enough money in their savings account to influence legislation have a different opinion. A cynical person may say that the split you note is between people rich enough to bribe politicians and those that aren't. --Jayron32 04:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a clear majority which thinks some type of change in campaign contribution laws is needed. It only becomes an even split when you talk about completely abolishing all campaign contributions. Personally, I'm fine with many people giving small contributions. (It's safe to say that your $100 isn't going to buy off a politician.) StuRat (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While in many respects the USA is an admirably corruption-free country, I think it's worth noting that some practices are legal in the US (gerrymandering especially springs to mind, but political control of school syllabuses is another) which would be viewed as corrupt elsewhere. Here in the UK, electoral boundaries are drawn by the Boundary Commissions, and for a politician to try to control seat boundaries directly (rather than through the indirect and non-partisan means of legislation, for example) would be viewed as scandalously corrupt. But conversely, our upper house of legislature consists mostly of political appointees, whereas in the US they're 100% directly elected. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; Dean Heller was appointed by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, and is running for the November 6, 2012 general election for the following term. Appointments replace those who resign, die in office, or who are removed from office. Dru of Id (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Alex was refering to the US Senate where deaths and resignations result in special elections (like when Ted Kennedy died), not the Nevada senate.~~Sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote. It depends on state law. But I'm not sure about what he's implying there with moving the boundaries of electoral districts. I'm pretty sure they require legislation to do in the US too, the legislation is just usually prescriptive on what changes are to be made, rather than delegating the authority to some other department. In the end I don't think it makes much difference either way since their delegates still have to answer to the legislature. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with AlexTiefling that there's a big difference in perception of the processes (from a commonwealth realm POV) used in the US which I believe commonly has the legislature drawing up the boundaries directly, usually based on a simple majority; and a body trusted and perceived as truly independent doing it, and the legislature usually having no say (and if they did try to change something with a simple majority even if it was allowed, their moves are likely to be seen rather negatively). Of course just setting up a body even if you don't directly interfere doesn't guarantee this outcome, e.g. the system in Malaysia isn't usually seen as fair. Whether this difference in perception is an accurate reflection of the results I can't say, although I note only the US seems to have much recent stuff discussed in Gerrymandering compared to Commonwealth realm countries, including criticism from the OSCE. This applies to drawing up boundaries, but also running the elections, one of the reasons I think many in such countries were shocked from the 2000 Presidential election controversy. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the perception is common here that in the US elections are less than democratic, we do it in Australia too (or in some states, have done it frequently in the past), just with a different mechanism. The article on the Australian electoral system even says at one point (without citation) that malapportionment has been abolished in all states before it goes on to explain (with citations) exactly how it is still done in Western Australia. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering 'malapportionment' is a complicated one since the concern is usually over the difficulties representing a large area with a small number compared to a smaller area with the same number of people. In other words, while rural areas having effectively a larger percentage of the vote is controversial, it's often perceived effective representation does mean with a single member constituency rural areas do need to have a larger number of representatives to the population. This may be unfair to those parties who are less popular in rural areas, only using a proportional system like in NZ seems to provide any real ability to keep (close to) true proportionality while still allowing effective representation. (There is of course the complicated issue over whether issues that affect rural areas may be ignored in a truly proportional system.) The levels in Australia do seem a bit extreme, but it's not clear to me that it was carried out with the intention to benefit any particular party or the attempt to balance population density and representation issues simply got out of hand. When Chinese dominated areas somehow seem to always be larger then Malay dominated ones i.e. when electorate sizes seem to change not based on their population density but based on which party they support, then you have a real problem. Whatever the problems in the Australian system, particularly in recent times, it's not clear to me it amounted to the same level as the problems are perceived in the US, where it's suggested parties explicitly change boundaries to suit them. To me despite not being an Australian nor particularly liking the IMO often unresonable expectations those from rural areas seem to have, I still don't see the problems in Australia being anywhere near as bad as in the US, although perhaps it's just that our respective articles are unfair. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from Crime and Punishment, "Raskolnikov notes that all great leaders are in some form or another, criminals. His definition of the exceptional man is one who can give the world something new. He divides the world according to those who live under control and those who lead them. The semi-exceptional man who commit crimes for advancement is punished; the truly exceptional man who commits crimes of great magnitude are honored."

It is not just that the powerful become corrupt, but that the corrupt become powerful. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing coordinates?

As I was updating my county table, I noticed the newest U.S. Census Bureau gazetteer has slightly different latitude and longitude coordinates than the 2000 gazetteer had for every county. Now it is possible for some counties to have adjusted their borders, but every one? Besides, I looked at some counties that I am personally familiar with and know that they have not made any changes, yet their coordinates are different this time. The differences are tiny, only a small fraction of a degree. Does anyone know what is responsible for this variation? Thank you. (By the way, I used the newer figure in the table.) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may be using a different set of geographical standards for latitude and longitude. Given that the earth is not a perfect sphere, and also that nothing on the surface actually stays still (plate tectonics and all that) depending on how fine you measure latitude and longitude there can be different numbers. The difference is likely in which "official" standard latitude and longitude data they used, and those standards are modified and updated periodically. It isn't likely to change much, but when you start getting down to fractions of a second, you start getting to areas of a few square feet, and at that level there is just too much noise to make much of a difference. --Jayron32 20:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ask the OP how much difference the he or she has observed. Different geographic sources would explain several orders of magnitude more difference than the explanations suggested above. Tom Haythornthwaite 21:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

I will use my home county as an example. The 2000 listing is +41.537490° −75.960911°, while the 2010 listing is +41.525137° −76.008780°. Both from the U.S. Census Bureau, just 10 years apart. (Plotting them both with Google Earth, they appear to be a couple of miles apart.) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria are used for the location of a county, which covers usually hundreds of square miles? Is it the geographic center? Is it the county seat? If it is the county seat, where in the county seat? The city/town hall? County courthouse? What part of the courthouse? Did the criteria for picking the location change between censuses? Did the location itself move (new courthouse, etc.)? Which latitude and longitude standard is being used? (WGS84 or ED50 or NAD83 or any of another set of standards)? These are all possibilities. --Jayron32 22:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at where the coordinates land in my home county, the 2000 numbers end up in the county seat (just a couple of blocks from the courthouse, but that could be a mapping error). The 2010 coordinates are in the middle of the woods, which could very well be the geographic center. I will have to check this with some other counties. ... Jayron, I specifically looked at my own county and surrounding ones because I know nothing has changed there (no new courthouse, no changed borders). The Census Bureau site does not indicate which standard it uses. (The reason I came up with the table a few years back was due to a discussion about which standard, if any, Wikipedia uses. I'm still unsure of that.) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit a request to U.S. Census Bureau: FAQs.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at a topo map of San Francisco, a small county, using Acme Mapper. Considering only the main land area, the range of latitude is 0.10263° and the range of longitude is 0.15793°. —Tamfang (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we are talking about representative points, rather than boundary coordinates! (Perhaps all the other editors already knew this.) There are many ways including proprietary software ways to generate these. Even the term 'geographic center' mentioned above is ambiguous. (Middle of the bounding box depends on the coordinate system and might not fall inside the county...; center of gravity is unambiguous but might not fall inside the county...; center of largest included circle might not be unique...) While the observed changes might seem disturbing, neither version is really more correct and meaningful than the other. Tom Haythornthwaite 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification! I was wondering what this question was all about. I hardly ever see maps with representative points here in the UK -- are they common in other countries? Dbfirs 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not saying that. That is why I am confused, because for each census there is a single point for each county, yet it is not the same point. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]