Billy Jean is not my lover... she's just a girl who thinks that I am the one... but the kid is not my sonǃ--Mostargue 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking about specific or unique prisions. I'm talking about prison systems as a whole within certain countries.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking at some of the work by

USA's worst prisons were in Alabama, but if that was ever so, it may be out of date? Xn4 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Why not read both books and find out for yourself? AnonMoos 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the two books have in common is that they are both set in the future, as seen from the writer's point of view, and aim to predict a completely new order of society. But

Second World War and christened 'Winston') is an independent thinker who finds himself barely surviving in a totalitarian state run in the name of Big Brother. Morris holds out hope, whereas Orwell gives us a terrible warning. Xn4 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Its a very long time since I read them, but as far as I recall NFN was a utopia, NEF was a dystopia. William Morris was in favour of hand-made crafts and nature, so NFN would be set in a nature setting, while NEF was in an industrial setting. I read NFN so long ago I cannot remember anything about the plot or characters, so that may not be reliable. As someone else suggested, try reading them. 62.253.52.156 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first similarity is that they were both written by professed socialists, though one is optimistic and the other pessimistic. Orwell's pessimism was born of the times he lived through; a time of betrayal, of cynicism, of brutality and of dictatorship. Perhaps if he had been born a generation or two earlier he would have taken the same hopeful view of a potential future than Morris. And who can say that if Morris had witnessed the

It's an awful moment in Coming up for Air when George Bowling arrives at the end of his journey back into his childhood, the lovely hidden lake in the woods with big fish in it he has dreamed all his life of catching, to find the lake has gone, turned into a Pixie Glade for a new housing estate. Xn4 02:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the relationship between Germany and the France of Marshall Petain as close as usually assumed?86.147.191.30 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, yes, although he had less complete authority than his titles and your question may imply. Certainly, after the

Free French and Charles de Gaulle. Xn4 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So, for this reason, and others, France continued to be viewed as a potential threat, and was monitored as such, not just by the control commission allowed for by the Compiègne agreement, but by agents sent in to the unoccupied zone by both the Sicherheitsdienst and the Abwehr. Ironically, the Germans were aware of the Versailles precedent, and were determined that the French should be given none of the 'loopholes' that they themselves were formerly accorded by the victorious powers. They were also alert to the possibility of clandestine rearmament, for any sign of a French version of the Black Reichswehr. Of particular concern here was arms dumps in North Africa, French troop movements and even the rate of recruitment into the French Foreign Legion.

Senior Vichy politicians, even Pierre Laval himself, generally reckoned to be one of the architects of Franco-German collaboration, were kept under close scrutiny. Much of Laval's correspondence was forwarded to the Abwehr by an agent in his office. German intelligence agents, and locally recruited operatives, were active at all levels of government and adminstration, from Laval downwards. The French were alert to this and set up their own, highly effective, counter-intelligence operation. Indeed, there was something of a proxy war going on between the Germans and the French at the level of espionage. In the two years after the armistice close on 2000 people were arrested in the unoccupied zone, charged with spying for the Germans, some of whom were executed as traitors. This last vestige of political sovereignty only ended with the German occupation of southern France in November 1942. Clio the Muse 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petain was sentenced to be executed by firing squad, not by guillotine, although his sentence was commuted. Pierre Laval was executed by firing squad.

What three things led to the growth of government in ancient Egypt? I read everything in the Ancient Egypt but I couldn't find anything so I would like some help.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very regular flood of the Nile helped - they could coherently organize agriculture, and when people weren't busy with that, they could be recruited to build monuments. If it happened more randomly the government would not have been able to develop their authority like that. A written language was definitely useful, they could organize an effective bureaucracy with it. And I suppose their relative isolation...it was difficult for their neighbours to cross the deserts or the sea to attack them. Thus the government was (usually) stable and peaceful. At least, this is what I remember from high school Ancient Civilizations class, where we had pretty much the same question on a test, but that was a long time ago. Adam Bishop 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would humbly disagree with the previous answer... A regular flood of the Nile wasn't a requirement: States arose in many different regions of the world, even where there weren't regularly flooding rivers. Also, written language in Egypt was a result, not a prerequisite, of state formation. In some other parts of the world, complex societies managed without written language. I would also not call Egypt isolated: there was plenty of trade and regular conflict with other nearby polities. My answer would be: a (relatively) stable agricultural surplus, internal and external competition, and a very powerful and flexible ideology. Random Nonsense 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The regular flooding of the Nile is what spawned EGYPTIAN culture - it created a fertile place for them to settle and develop agriculture. In other regions of the world, there are other conditions - in desert regions without regular flooding of rivers, you tend to get nomadic civilizations since there's no reason to stay put if you don't have any crops. Non-desert regions, of course, tend to have fertile soil that doesn't need flooding. If it flooded at random, though, their crops would go under. Kuronue | Talk 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no argument there - I'm just questioning whether the rise of the Egyptian state depended on the flooding's regularity, as Adam Bishop argued. It depended on a surplus of food, yes, and the regularity of the Nile affected the shape of the Egyptian state, massively, and was a cause of its longevity, sure... But for its rise, its emergence, no, the river's regularity was not responsible. As in Mesopotamia, where the rivers were way more irregular, a state could still have developed. Random Nonsense 11:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If

Yes, after Victoria, her father the

Hanover, the succession to which was subject to the Salic law - that is, women were excluded. Ernest Augustus was the Heir presumptive to the British throne until the birth of Victoria, Princess Royal, in 1840. Xn4 19:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.232.98 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably India and the United States. Corvus cornix 20:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Bollywood and Hollywood. dr.ef.tymac 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

India AFAIK makes about 730 films/year - more than any other country. Note that Bollywood isn't India as a whole, only Bombay.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this is just a question, I'm not searching for legal advice. In Canada, is there a point where one parent can ask for child support from let's say 5 years ago, 10 years ago, that is...if the child is still a minor at the time child support is being asked for, and get the money? Or is there a point in time where child support has to have been requested for it to be accepted, and after that period, it is no longer valid?

207.161.45.11 22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]