Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 July 18

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.

July 18

cameos known to be from the ruins of the city of pompeii

I need to find someone in the gulfport ms area to find out if cameo is that material from the time the volcano that covered the city of pompeii in 79 ad. Please email me at >redacted>and let me know if someone is in the area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.14.228 (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to post email addresses here. You can sign up for an account, and validate an email address with that account allowing people to reach you indirectlyμηδείς (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that per the header, people are still unlikely to email you in response to questions here even if you have an account. Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For those who are mystified by the location that the OP states, "gulfport ms" presumably means Gulfport, Mississippi in a country called USA. Here are some Victorian Pompeii Cameo Earrings. Here is a book about Roman cameo glass. I suspect that only a museum such as the British Museum, or perhaps an author of the book if you can find one, can definitively date a Cameo item to Pompeii 79 AD. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See Cameo (carving). Most cameos are probably modern. 92.28.249.93 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many cameo makers in and around Pompeii - it is a specialty of the area. (Here's a NYT article from the 1980s about cameo carving in one nearby town.) If you have a cameo from "Pompeii" that probably just means it is a relatively new cameo from a maker somewhere in the area. I'm fairly confident that cameos have been a popular tourist item around Pompeii for some time - my grandmother has a number of cameos she purchased there in the 1960s. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Television in the United Kingdom

Here in the US, most non-news television series (I think these are referred to as "programmes" in the UK) such as comedies, medical/police dramas, etc run from sometime in the early Fall to sometime in the Spring. This is known as a "season" ("series" in UK parlance, from what I can tell). The summer is known for having what are called re-runs (no idea if the word is the same in British English or not) of the previous season in the same time slot during the week. A season is generally 25 or so episodes.

How is this done with the BBC and such in the UK? I've tried to understand it when I buy new seasons of Doctor Who and Top Gear but can't quite get the hang of it. The seasons/series are much shorter and there seem to be two a year. Am I on the right track? I took a look at Television in the United Kingdom but didn't see anything about the yearly schedule, though it's a long article so maybe I missed it. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There is some (unreferenced) information at Television program#Seasons/series that may be useful. Often, seasons on UK TV last for 13 weeks or less - rarely 25 weeks. But I spend more time on here than watching UK TV, so what do I know.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

13 weeks used to be common, but these days a series is typically 6 weeks. According to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2011/05_may/26/drama.shtml a "series" can be two episodes. I think that we viewers are being short-changed! (Only a few years ago we had 6 episode mini-series.) --TrogWoolley (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There isn't really a yearly schedule in the same way there is in America: that was actually a pretty foreign concept I had to learn when I started following American TV shows. We don't have sweeps, and we don't have seasons in the same way. There are programmes that run over the summer (Big Brother was one), there are programmes that run in autumn, or winter, or spring: basically a series is made to whatever length and fitted into the schedules where people think it will do well, or where there's a gap. We don't tend to do the whole spacing out of new episodes with repeats, to fill a year, either: new episodes in a series tend to run back-to-back in order without repeats until all of the current series is shown. It just doesn't follow the American pattern at all. Sometimes the schedulers don't know what programme they'll be showing in a slot until a couple of weeks before. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

With many of the US cable networks producing their own shows now, the "new shows in the fall, reruns in the summer" paradigm isn't really the standard in the US anymore, aside perhaps from the broadcast Big 3 networks (along with Fox and The CW). Summer reruns have been mostly replaced by other programming, such as Rookie Blue on ABC and Flashpoint on CBS. Reruns themselves tend to have moved to the cable networks; USA Network reruns several NBC properties, presumably due to common corporate ownership. Some shows, for example Psych, do indeed have two "seasons" per year, although the nomenclature gets fuzzy. IMHO, some of the best TV programming begins when the Big 3 seasons end. --LarryMac | Talk 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The concept of a fall-to-spring TV season in the United States has all but fallen by the wayside as the sheer number of programming choices has grown so vast. The networks have experimented with all sorts of schedule options, with the common thread appearing to be reducing the number of rerun episodes; this allows you to promote every episode as "all-new", along with keeping positive buzz going week after week without viewers losing interest or missing episodes when reruns start. During a September-to-May "season", that's roughly 40 weeks, and a full-season order is only 23-25 episodes. So they've tried new things, including splitting the season into two parts by running a batch of new episodes in the fall, then leaving the schedule and resuming new episodes in the spring (like Glee), starting later and running non-stop till spring (like 24 and American Idol) or running two separate "series" during one season (like Survivor). And that's just the regular networks. The cable networks run things whenever they please, and seem to be mimicking the UK model (short seasons with under 10 episodes). --McDoobAU93 17:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fujitel

What is “Fujitel”? --84.61.162.29 (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Google tells me it's a brand of electronic communications devices. Probably derived from 'Fuji' (as in the mountain in Japan, and the name of 'Fujitsu' (electronics maker) and a component in the names of lots of Japanese companies) + 'tel' for 'telecommunications'. The company appears to be based in Thailand, however. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Google says it is a lot more too; have a look.--85.211.128.99 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is their official site. It seems to be a Thai company and to have nothing to do with Japan. See their history and profile. Oda Mari (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Is “Fujitel” a misspelling of Fujitec, Fuji Television, or Funitel? --84.61.162.29 (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see it? This question is meaningless to us without knowing that. Are you asking 'could it be a misspelling'? In which case, yes, it could, I guess. Or do you have a specific instance of this word that you are asking us about? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of English language

Hi, i'm not English as mother language, could you take a little review to the contents here?

• Unione Cestistica Casalpusterlengo
• Basket Rimini Crabs

Thank you! --El cestofilo (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This has also been posted at the language desk. Please reply over there. —Akrabbim^talk 20:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Physical relations in life-time relationships

Many a times i see people get into a relationships just to have sex. & There are people who Dont give much importance to sex that much which they should give. Now here my questions arises that In a true Realtionships, Is having sex before marraige necessary ? If yes, Then why do old people oppose that & If 'NO' then why do people of this time dont understand that?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaival.acharya (talk • contribs) 23:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those questions have simple answers. We aren't very good at answering questions like that. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Old people have probably figured out that liking someone is important to a relationship. Pillow talk doesn't only take place on pillows. Our "pillow talk" article was probably written by teenagers or the silly elderly. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What's a "true relationship"? Isn't the truthiness of a relationship determined by the people involved? This is an incredibly individualized question. I could impose a thousand criteria on a relationship before I deem it a Real Relationship, and nine hundred of them might be different than yours.Foofish (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many good answers to this question. Yes, many people begin relationships based on carnal desires. Libido and Lust both deteriorate with age, yet "Love never fails." In answer to your question "Is having sex before marraige necessary," the answer is a definite, "No." In fact, many people whom I respect have chosen to abstain from fornication and to remain married unless his or her partner commits adultery. The follow up question you ask ("why do people of this time dont understand that") the answer is much more in depth, combining morals, sociology, and opinion, one of which follows: Ever since near the beginning of the human race people decided to forego self-control and embrace the aforementioned carnal desires, while others chose to be in good standing in their society and in the view of their God by choosing to save the gift of sex following the ritual dedication of husband and wife becoming "one flesh." Schyler (one language) 02:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Schyler, I'd say that enjoying premarital sex is always going to effect one's "standing in their society" nor the "view of their God," not everyone follows the same religious beliefs you do, even though you state them as if they were universal fact. --Daniel 05:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he did preface it by calling it an opinion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim that "old people oppose sex before marriage" and "people of this time (young people I suppose) support it" is definitely questionable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example article from 2006 which shows that clearly, our perceptions that old people now had less sex when they were young is clearly wrong. The issue, as I read it (as someone who, while I am not old, I am getting closer to that than I am to my youth) isn't that old people didn't have premarital sex when they were young themselves, it is that in all generations the older people want their children to be better off than they were. I was in my 20's before I learned about some of the "questionable" things my dad did in his youth, and when I asked him why he never told me about them, he said "because I didn't want you to think that because I did them it would be OK for you to." The idea is that the old aren't being hypocritical for not wanting the young (especially their own children) to do what they did, they realize that the lives of the young would be easier if they didn't make the same mistakes they did. And kids don't necessarily understand the nuanced difference of "Look, kid, I did this when I was a kid, and trust me, you'll be better of if you don't start" vs. "I'm a prude/hypocrite". So, when your mom tells you that she doesn't approve of premarital sex, it may be more a case of she remembers a nasty case of the clap than that she was a prude when she was your age. --Jayron32 12:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is interesting but lacks details to really clarify the picture. It tells us most Americans have had pre-maritial sex since the 40s and the percentages haven't changed much, it doesn't really rule out increasing amounts of pre-marital sex. It doesn't address things like age of first contact, number of sexual partners, frequency of sex before marriage etc. It does mention because people remain single for longer they are sexually active as singles for longer periods, which would suggest a larger number of sexual partners. And also "among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44" which suggests to me the age of first contact reduced over that time period.

Personally I suspect the age now is lower then the 40s or 50s although this is somewhat complicated by the fact people got married earlier then. I also suspect the frequency and number of partners has gone up although precisely by how much I don't know. Other then cultural reasons (including changes in living arragements), there's also vast changes in the availability of effective birth control methods and to some extent understanding and control of STDs although the rise of HIV since the 80s has probably put somewhat a damper on the later.

In other words, while the number of people having pre-marital sex may not have changed much, it doesn't automatically follow that 'old people now had less sex when they were young is clearly wrong' even if our perceptions on how few people did it and how little they did are wrong. To put it a different way, they may have done it, it doesn't mean they did it the same amount (implied by they didn't have less sex). And many non-religious people (and even quite a few religious people) would consider there to be a difference between someone who had pre-marital sex with someone they are engaged to and someone who has sex with many of the random people they meet at a bar (or wherever). Note this doesn't have to relate to morality.

I do agree many older people hope that the younger generations don't repeat their mistakes, which they made many of, but don't talk about. BTW a complicating factor when answering this question is I suspect the OP is from India and while it's likely there are some similarities there in perceptions vs reality, it wouldn't surprise me if the numbers and reality is also rather different.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)