Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 November 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.

November 21

Help about a Simple Kitchen Procedure for Testing Yeast Viability before Using

I have used in the past a simple test for determining if the yeast that I have on hand, is still viable....I spread a layer of dry yeast on top of warm (not hot) water in a small glass dish & wait some time (15 minutes or less) to see if the yeast has started to bubble/foam up, but it doesn't seem to work & I always have to go to the store to buy more yeast just in case. Am I missing something like adding a little sugar which I have heard lately is what you should do?

24.77.41.11 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)William R. Olien

Yeast is unlikely to work without food (it converts sucrose to glucose and fructose then to ethanol and carbon dioxide) - so no sugar = no gas, so add some sugar - one teaspoon per pint will do. Very fresh yeast is likely to still have some sugar remaining in it, so if very fresh may well bubble on its own.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The test you describe is called "proofing" the yeast. As Ron mentions, the yeast need food in order to grow. Usually there is enough residual food in yeast powder for a short proofing, but may become an issue. This was particularly an issue for early versions of "Rapid Rise"-type yeasts, which was designed to be mixed directly with the dry ingredients. The yeast companies needed to add extra food to the powders when bakers complained that when they proofed the yeasts instead, the yeast didn't work. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I robot car

does there really exists any car as shown in I ROBOT movie i.e. car with sphere wheels?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myownid420 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no evidence as yet, but I considered the possibility a few weeks ago, and the idea sort of falls apart when you start to wonder where the mechanisms to turn the wheels would be attached, since they are freely moving in all directions. Although, you can get a dyson like this, which has to be pushed around rather than running on an engine. Perhaps something could be arranged with magnets, though? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the wheels in is not hard (see the video below) — you just enclose all of the sphere except for the parts you want to have contact with the ground or with the motor. It's the same principle as a ball joint or a ball bearing or even a ball mouse (imagine that instead of reading the position of the ball in two dimensions, the ball mouse was transferring energy to the ball and thus scooting it around on its own). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In terms of driving it this concept video sort-of shows how one might be 'driven' by a motor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVZK0bVALyg ny156uk (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no obvious physical reason you couldn't do it. My guess is that it is isn't a very efficient way to transfer power from the motor, and isn't not clear to me how you'd have "tires", per se, on such a thing very easily. (And without tires, it would be pretty expensive to replace the whole dang sphere every time it got banged up.) It also strikes me that the tolerances for a sphere are going to be a lot higher than circle in terms of shape — if it got banged up too far in one direction, the whole thing would just get stuck, whereas a circular wheel will limp along even if it is fairly distorted (or blown out). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in Ball transfer unit. From what I can tell these sort ball wheels may be used in robotics and other small specialised vehicles for factories, airports or things like that but Omni wheels and Mecanum wheel are far more popular there. There remains some research interest primarily in one 'wheel'/ball systems [1] [2] [3] Ballbot. One big reason for these appears to be to design a tall (high centre of gravity), thin robot that can therefore negotiate tight places but also interact with humans while not being at risk of tipping over due to an unstable surface, slopes, too sudden acceleration/deceleration etc. In other words, not for a car. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Project Blue Book researchers

My father - James Raymond FitzGibbon (now deceased) is believed to have been on the government "Project Blue Book" team that officially investigated UFO sitings. He would not confirm or deny even on his death bed - a former WWI pilot and trusted government employee he took his oath of silence to his grave. The family would like to confirm his participation. He was employed by the US Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) - was the Chief of the Data and Statistics branch with access to all commercial airline data and pilot cockpit recordings and may have been asked to rule out commercial airline trafic in the areas of the UFO sitings or investigate commercial pilot accounts. I have searched online and did find one reference that the CAB did participate in Project Blue book. We would like to confirm our Father's participation and gain more insight into these activities and the findings.

Thank you.

(email removed) Jean (FitzGibbon) Murphy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.64.113 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You might try perusing the Blue Book Archive. A search for "fitzgibbon" didn't turn anything up, but that doesn't necessary mean he wasn't involved of course - names could have been redacted or documents mentioning him might just not be included. It should be an interesting resource at any rate. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar Websites to Help a Reporter Out?

Does anyone know of any (preferably free) websites that are similar to Help a Reporter Out? --CGPGrey (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wu" as a family name in Sweden

In The Millennium Trilogy, there is a character named Miriam Wu. "Wu" is a common Chinese family name, but as portrayed in the Swedish film adaptation of the trilogy, the character doesn't look particularly Chinese. Is "Wu" also a family name in Swedish or some other European languages? --173.49.78.43 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the books or seen the movies. But a quick search shows various people online have commented on this who believe the character was Chinese or (East I presume) Asian in the book but not the movies, e.g. [4] [5]. This person suggests they tried to make the actor look (again East I presume) Asian [6] but I guess not very successfully. Whether it's directly stated or strongly implied or people are just going by the name I don't know, I presume someone who's read the books will be along eventually but this one [7] suggests a scene in one of the books (The Girl Who Played With Fire) involve a police officer who is scoffs at an Asian living in Sweden. (Of course the difficulty of finding a Swedish speaking female actor of East Asian descent and suitable age etc for the role may have been a factor.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Miriam Wu appears in the second book of the trilogy. The English translation describes her thus: "Mimmi's mother was from Hong Kong, her father from Boden ... Her mother's genes were visible in Mimmi's raven-black hair, cut short, and her slightly Asian features. Her father had given her the clear-blue eyes. She had a wide mouth and dimples that did not come from either of her parents." (Stieg Larsson, The Girl Who Played with Fire, Maclehose Press 2009 p.102). One might still wonder why Ms Wu has an Asian surname when her father is from Sweden, but yes, she is of mixed race in the books. Karenjc 16:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Children taking their mothers' surname is rare but not unheard of in China. I personally know of two examples - in one, the (rather progressive-thinking) parents decided that one child would take the father's surname while the other child would take the mother's. In another, the child took the mother's surname because the mother came from a large and prominent family while the father's family was relatively unknown. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal or council estate parents

Children born of British royalty in the 21st century can expect a wealthy and glamourous lifestyle. Children born of a single mother living in a council flat can expect very little, except for a few.

What is the ethical justification or moral explaination given by the establishment for this inequality? Thanks 92.28.244.180 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any theory nor explaination, but just one simple observation. The former has the combined resources of two parents and a stable family home and all the resources associated with it. The later has one parent and pretty much that's it. --Chantaiman2 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a moral explanation for royalty. There are however historical, political and sociocultural explanations for them. Mostly we're stuck with them until those in power decide they are more trouble that they are worth. Probably won't be long now... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think the "establishment" (whomever they may be) has ever offered an explanation? 90.195.179.106 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The needs of the latter are covered. There is no law, principle or whatever against differences in general, only against a minimal threshold. Mr.K. (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For most of its history, the 'ethical justification' for the existence of British royalty was that if you thought otherwise, you were liable to be Hanged, drawn and quartered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that there is a moral explanation for circumstances of birth? Have you ever read anything or seen anything that would make you believe that circumstances of birth are arranged by someone for moral or ethical reasons? When two people have sex, sometimes a baby occurs. Wealthy people have more money to spend on babies than poor people. If you are advocating the change in the United Kingdom to pure communism, in hopes that this will lead to all babies being born with equal birth opportunities, Wikipedia is probably not the place to make that change happen. Bear in mind that even when you institute pure financial equality, some babies will still be born with genetic advantages- they will be smarter, stronger, prettier, or taller- so you may need to pass laws permitting only average people to have sex. I'm afraid that even that probably will not lead to perfect equality. Perhaps you should simply reconcile yourself to life's basic and fundamental inequality. Or, as my mother told me when I was a small child, "Life isn't fair." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The amount of unfairness that is tolerated by society has (I hope) had a trend of decreasing with time. For example it is no longer OK to kill people just because you are king. And people cannot choose their parents. 92.15.6.86 (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP has written Children ... living in a council flat can expect very little. This is the perspective of an affluent community. The majority of children in the world today do not have the luxury of a council flat, adequate food and free education. The majority barely have roofs over their heads, they have inadequate food, and formal education won't be available.

In countries where the baseline is a council flat, adequate food and free education, the establishment is doing a good job.

The original question looks a bit like If Royal children equal ten and children on council estates equal zero, how come there is such a disparity? However, if the question becomes If Royal children equal ten and children on council estates equal eight, how come there is such a disparity? the question rather vanishes. What would be a much better question would be If children in western countries equal eight and children in third world countries equal zero, one or two, why is there such a disparity? Dolphin (t) 01:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You could also ask the same question concerning children of the royals and children of parents in third-world countries. Ethically speaking, the overwhelming priority and primary goal of people in the west ought to be raising living standards in the third-world rather than our current fripperies. 92.29.115.8 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

NASA Channel

Quite often, they will just have silent footage for many minutes at a time of some people sitting at their desks or in an aisle of a cube farm staring at their computers or maybe typing or writing something. Why do they broadcast this mundane material? 76.27.175.80 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Realism? Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it's inexpensive to produce. NASA's Public Affairs Office has a finite (and small) budget, so spending resources to produce shows or even simply offer commentary on the footage being shown may not be an option. anonymous6494 02:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

NASA TV output is real-time and even an activity as exciting as space travel has, in reality, long periods in which nothing of consequence happens. As output is also in the public-domain and paid for by US taxpayers NASA may have an obligation to broadcast it in its entirety. Blakk^{and ekka} 17:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What is this?

[8] ? Kittybrewster ☎

I'd like to help but your web site is unreachable. Dismas|^(talk) 19:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see the picture, but I'll be damned if I know what it is. The closest I'd seen to anything like this where various bird whistle imitators, but obviously that's not what this is, it has nowhere for the air to flow and resonate in a bird whistle-like sound. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see it now but I don't know what it is. The bars inside make me think that you can hang items in the box to keep them neat and then it is mounted on a wall but there is no obvious way to mount it. Dismas|^(talk) 20:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The site is reachable for me - It is straight-sided wooden box, with a bottle-like or jar-like cross section; a short neck tapering to about half the width of the base. The lid is hinged on the base of the bottle, and there is a hook latch at the top with corresponding strike-plate on the lid. Inside the box near the bottle base there are two thin dowels running the width of the box, equally spaced from the base, and each about halfway from the lid to the bottom of the box. Unfortunately, I don't know what it is. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it is a case for some kind of scientific instrument. 92.28.253.9 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You've given no hint of the scale. --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd assumed the paper was A4, which hints at a scale. But what the hell it is I have not the foggiest. Richard Avery (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Could it be a cribbage board? At the right scale, it could hold a deck of cards and two sets of pegs. Staecker (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I've seen boards vaguely like this, but both sides are normally the same height so the board sits open side down. This has a definite lid and I don't think a single side would be large enough to hold a full size board. I think 92.28 has it - this is meant for holding a tool or gauge or instrument of some kind. I've seen collections of router bits and woodworking tools that came in boxes somewhat like this. Kitty, are there no markings at all on the outside? Matt Deres (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing beyond a crest. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nothing beyond a crest"! That could be very telling. Do you have a picture of it please? By the way, it looks like a mid-20th. century case, as a more modern one would be made of plastic. It would also be for something expensive or carried around in daily use, as otherwise the difficult-to-make curved sides would not be bothered with. 92.15.6.86 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if it contained something expensive. It is wooden. [9] and [10] Kittybrewster ☎ 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the crest of Clan Arbuthnott. See Clan Arbuthnott#Clan symbolism. William Avery (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

With that in mind, could it be a sporran holder? DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Classy alternative to a brown paper bag, for a whisky flask and quaiche? William Avery (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

. . .or possibly a quaich Richard Avery (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the two dowels are in different positions. It may be that the object the case held had something at the end that would fit between the two dowels, and they were placed there to stop it moving about. Their staggered positions would allow the object to be raised or lowered at its other end and thus fit snugly in the case. 92.28.251.194 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

NBC / MSNBC

I’m a new user at Wikipedia, and a Wikipedia user told me that I should the questions I have here instead of the Discussion page of the article. My questions are about MSNBC and NBC, so here I go. What’s the reason why MSNBC is allowed to be more left leaning than all the other NBC divisions? MSNBC currently has 14 hours of liberal opinion programming each weekday starting with Cenk Uyger at 3:00 P.M; then Dylan Ratigan at 4:00 P.M; Chris Matthews at 5:00 P.M and 7:00 P.M; Ed Shultz at 6:00 P.M and 4:00 A.M; Keith Olbermann at 8:00 P.M, 11:00 P.M, and 2:00 A.M; Rachel Maddow at 9:00 PM and 12:00 AM; and finally Lawrence O'Donnell at 10:00 P.M and 1:00 A.M. Also, why does it seem that NBC is allowing MSNBC to lean to the left, but not the other NBC outlets? The NBC network correspondents and producers, who attempt to be straightforward reporters, say they are embarrassed to be associated with the liberal cable outlet and fear being “tainted” by association with it. The situation became more apparent when NBC News decided to keep Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw away from MSNBC during the November 2, 2010 midterm election coverage. MSNBC was taken out of NBC News’s portfolio, so in reallity, MSNBC doesn’t follow NBC News’s standards anymore. Now, to msnbc.com…. Msnbc.com is considering changing its name because it doesn’t want to be tainted with the left-leaning television network, MSNBC. CNBC is home of conservatives such as Rick Santelli and Larry Kudlow. In fact, CNBC is sometimes associated with the birth of the Tea Party movement because of Rick Santelli. There are other generally non-partisan networks such as Telemundo, The Weather Channel, msnbc.com, etc. If the reason for NBC’s allowing MSNBC’s explicit partisanship for the left, unlike the rest of the other NBC outlets is money, why would NBC act so fearful of MSNBC as mentioned above? Willminator (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Because that way they cover a wider part of the market? News corporations are hardly political entities, they are businesses, and if there is business to be had in covering a certain political field, why not? TomorrowTime (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But look at how some NBC employees and outlets are reacting negatively to MSNBC as I've demonstrated above. Willminator (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The question doesn't make sense. MSNBC is different than CNBC and NBC News because they are different stations and programs. If they were the same, there probably wouldn't be more than one station, because they'd be showing the same programming. The question is a bit like asking why Fox News so rarely has musical numbers, when they're a required ingredient on Fox's 'Glee' program. It sounds like you are trying to make a political point with your question, but I am not sure why- some news programs are neutral, some have a clear political position. If you would prefer to see news with a political position on the right side of the US political spectrum, you should watch Fox News. If you prefer news with a more centrist political position, watch CNN. The reason for all television programming, both political and nonpolitcal, is money, with the exception of public broadcasting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful answer, but I'm not making a political statement. I don't see how asking a legitimate question, in my opinion, would be considered a political statement. I have just one more question now. As you know, MSNBC is the cable news arm of NBC News, and NBC is the parent of MSNBC. Shouldn't the rules from NBC and NBC News apply to MSNBC too, and should Steve Capus demand for more journalistic professionalism on MSNBC as he does for NBC News, instead of running away in disgust from MSNBC? Willminator (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Although they have the same parent company, the different stations and programs operate independently, with independent rules. In the same way, although ESPN and Disney share a parent company, they operate under different rules, reflecting their different goals and their independent leadership. If you are interested in discussing why you think they should share common rules, I do not think that the reference desk is the right place for such a discussion- all we do is offer to help research factual answers to questions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your geat help. Please keep in mind that I wasn't trying to put down MSNBC. I just wanted to understand how it works. My questions simply came from my observations and readings. I was told and directed by a Wikipedia user that the reference desk was the place to ask such questions instead of the Discussion pages of Wikipedia articles. I've been a Wikipedia user since a few days ago, so I'm still learning about the rules here. Willminator (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason to the OP is exactly the same as the reason why Coors make a lite beer: to reach a different market segment. No more, and no less. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be about market segmentation. Some folks prefer Coca-cola, while others prefer Pepsi. If only Pepsi is sold by an establishment, then sales will be lower than if there are more choices. The owners of MSNBC make money by delivering viewers to advertisers. Without speculating whether the owners and managers of the network are rightwingers or leftwingers, some viewers would never consider watching Fox "News" since they feel it only expresses rightwing opinions and exists to promote the Republican Party. Why is Fox allowed to be so right leaning? If an advertiser sponsors one of the progressive shows on MSNBC, those viewers might watch and see the ad and buy the product. The OP's belief that everyone at NBC is horrified by the political stance of MSNBC seems doubtful. Edison (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edison, one of the differences between Fox and MSNBC is that Fox News is not the cable news arm of any parent news division unlike MSNBC. MSNBC is the cable news arm of NBC News. By the way, I didn't say that everyone at NBC is horrified by the political stance of MSNBC. I only said that many in NBC are concerned, and maybe horrified, by MSNBC's political stance. Just in case, if my belief that many at NBC are horrified by the political stance of MSNBC seems doubtful, then explain to me these reactions. Sorry, it might take me a while to write some of these NBC comments and complaints. When MSNBC announced that they were going to start a new campaign and slogan called "Lean Forward," why did msnbc.com (NBC and MSN wants to change the website's name too) made public that it wants to change its name? Why did, according to Howard Kurt’s piece on The Daily Beast, Tom Brokaw of NBC News expressed concern to management that "Keith Olbermann has badly damaged MSNBC's reputation for independence"? Why did Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams tell friends and colleagues in the past that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend MSNBC, even while in the past they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening? Why did one senior NBC staff member say that “MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict. They’re living from fix to fix and swearing they’ll go into rehab the next week (See the NYT link above).” Why are there news sources that say that many NBC News's correspondents and reporters are embarrassed to be associated with MSNBC and fear being “tainted” by association with it? Why did one NBC News insider say that "it's common knowledge within the organization that MSNBC's increasingly left-wing programming and personalities aren't required to abide by NBC News' exacting rules—if they were, it would be a much less bombastic and politically charged network?" In addition, why did that insider say that "the standards department has told us that MSNBC doesn't answer to NBC News standards. They don't have coverage over MSNBC. They used to, back before MSNBC went political, but at some point it became too hard and MSNBC was taken out of their portfolio" (The comments from this NBC insider is one of the reasons why I previously asked the question that shouldn't the rules from NBC and NBC News apply to MSNBC too, and should Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, demand for more journalistic professionalism on MSNBC as he does for NBC News, instead of running away in disgust from MSNBC)? Why is it that NBC's "unprecedented" decision to expand its Nov. 2nd mid-term election coverage into late night hours seems like an obvious way to keep both Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw away from MSNBC? There are many more reactions from NBC against MSNBC, but such reactions plus personal observations are what has been bringing up my questions. Don't get me wrong. I love MSNBC, but I'm trying to understand the relationship between NBC and MSNBC, and the marketing strategies of MSNBC that some, not all, in NBC are not happy about. Again, sorry Edison for this reply being so long. However, I didn't know how long this was going to be, so wow! Willminator (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cable operations exist to make money by getting good ratings, not to make the employees on other related cable operations happy. If MSNBC slanted everything the same way as Fox, do you think their ratings would be higher? Edison (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Edison, to my unfortunately very long reply above. I hope that didn't get you too bored :) Anyway, wouldn't the employees from the other related cable operations have some say and influence? By the way, I haven't mentioned anything about ratings in my posts here, but I don't know if MSNBC slanting everything the same way as Fox would make their ratings higher. However, I have a feeling that if MSNBC started leaning to the right when Comcast takes over, their ratings might devastatingly go down because they'll lose many of their devout liberal and even conservative viewers, and MSNBC would continue to have a negative reputation among many conservatives for a long time because they'll think that MSNBC will just be trying to deceive and show-off since conservatives in general are a group of skeptical people. MSNBC is already beating CNN in the ratings, so I imagine that MSNBC and it's viewers, including myself, are satisfied the way things are at MSNBC, but in my opinion, MSNBC has the potential to do just as good in the ratings or even better if it started to seriously follow NBC News's exacting rules and policies, which, according to what I think that anonymous NBC News insider I quoted previously in my latter long reply tried to imply, would make MSNBC a much less bombastic and politically charged network. It'll increase it's reputation among its critics. It'll also be better off internally in terms of many NBC employees becoming content with the network, and as a result, start appearing there like they used to years ago. Unfortunately, MSNBC would become less interesting to me if all those things I mentioned above happened. Willminator (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on US news but from what I read before your post I find your claim on what would happen to MSNBC if they follow NBC News policies questionable. My understand is CNN is still following their traditional rules and policies and have a resonable reputation. However as you yourself said, they aren't doing well. From what I've read Fox News has changed the way news works in the US with things like neutrality, unbiased coverage and telling both sides seen as less important as hype and playing towards your support based. MSNBC is sort of seen as the left's answer to Fox News. For now, what they're doing seems to be working if they're overtaking CNN. Of course there is a risk if they play it too far they risk alienating their support base or even without that people will start to want more neutral and unbiased coverage and CNN is clearly hoping for this but it doesn't seem to be working for them at the moment. And even with whatever demand there is for this sort of coverage it's already semi-occupied by CNN whereas MSNBC have their own niche to the left (like Fox News have their rather large niche to the right). BTW I find it unlikely employees in different divisions will have any real say on what goes on in another division. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

NBC News and MSNBC are separate entities. 71.98.180.41 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to all who participated in this discussion. You were all of great help to me. You have all helped me clear up my confusion about how MSNBC worked. If anyone else would like to answer, I'd be glad too. Willminator (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Engines replacement

Kindly, can someone help me? My car features 4A-FHE 16valve EFI-S engine and I want it replaces. Which one can fit without much change if that particular engine is not available in my locality. Urgently advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selimfk (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a specific ban on giving technical advice about cars, but you need to be aware that the people who help out on the reference desks are just ordinary users like you. It's possible (if unlikely) that one of us has professional expertise in Toyota engines and could advise you, although such advice would be original research without citations to support it. It's even possible that we could find some information online for you, from someone who has encountered a similar situation. But you need to think hard about the risks of relying on this sort of information, from strangers about whom you know nothing. To follow poor advice on this subject would be very risky: it could cost you a lot of money and even put your life at risk, or the lives of your passengers. In your situation I think I would consult qualified experts in this type of engineering, or even speak directly to someone at Toyota or at a Toyota dealership, rather than asking on this reference desk. Good luck anyway. Karenjc 12:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Toyota A engines with a subsection about the Toyota A engine#4A-FHE. This is one of numerous variations of the 4A engines series produced 1980 - 1998,. and seems to have been fitted only to cars in Japan. I think it likely (no guarantee) that other engines from the series can fit your car. Some more information. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Songs

I don't like current "pop songs" and I hate rap which is becoming more and more prevalent in western societies musical output. Basically (and you're probably going to laugh but I'm used to it so no worries) I'm looking for songs which are similarly lighthearted and fun like Winnie the Pooh intro theme. Do you have any recommendations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.26.108 (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please please please, allow me to be the first - and please don't be offended by my response - but please please please allow me to say that if something offends you - don't listen to it. That seems to be the standard response whenever I ask a similar question here on Wikipedia. I always say thanks for pointing out the obvious but you are the first OP to give me the opportunity to be the responding moron. Thankyou so much for fulfilling my dream of answering likewise. Bliss - oh - Bliss - I am now in Wikipedia Heaven - and Jimmy Wales will no doubt ask me for a membership fee to justify my wikipleasure. 92.30.152.117 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's all very well, and I hope you're feeling good now. But the OP did not come here just have a whinge. They were after recommendations for certain types of songs they DO like. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like modern pop music, and you enjoy cheerful, simple music with a strong melody, you might enjoy the pop music of the pre-rock and roll era. Try The Andrews Sisters, perhaps. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Or indie pop, especially the more twee groups. Paul (Stansifer) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I like Cat Stevens music; some of it is lighthearted and fun, some thought provoking and sad - but all of it very nice to listen to. Interestingly, his song "Two Fine People" sounds remarkably like the Winnie the Pooh theme, see here. I'm convinced they copied it, although I can't find any sources to support that. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've recently rediscovered early Travis albums... on the other hand, currently (winter, long evenings) an absolute must is Telefon Tel Aviv in the afternoon. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere. For lighthearted songs I suggest you put "Gilbert & Sullivan" into the Search field of www.youtube.com and see whether you like the operetta songs that appear. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You can use a music recommendation service such as Pandora Radio (availability depends on your locality) to find similar music to what you like. - Akamad (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Mumford and Sons,The Wailin' Jennys,The Monkees for great pop songs,The Buzzcocks were often humorous,Kaiser Chiefs,Joni Mitchell is very witty,John Cooper Clark,the punk poet.Hotclaws (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Or if you don't mind time-traveling, it's never too late to discover Billy Murray ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)