instruction:
Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
question:
CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though.  <sep>  Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character  Q: what is the role? is anything curious thing is there? A: The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig  Q: oh! then what about the main theme of his movie? A: Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though  Q: oh! then what about the end of the story? A: This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: do you personally know about bond?
answer:
No


question:
CONTEXT: It seems as though you answered your own questions, and that's the answer I was going to give: Caleb knew (or suspected) that Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava. If Caleb hadn't tried to get Nathan drunk that morning, Nathan would have known that Caleb ALREADY completed his plan, and he would have undone the computer code that Caleb altered.  <sep>  Q: Was Nathan listening in on his conversations with Ava? A: Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What were the conversations about?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human. The primary difference in the end was that Neo was hardwired to the source and not jacked in from a regular pod or an illegal back door entry. When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be undone across the Matrix. In short, Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source.  <sep>  Q: How did they kill Agent Smith? A: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: how did the first one die?
answer:

Yes