Input: Oscar-winning actress Joan Fontaine died Sunday, her longtime friend Noel Beutel said Monday. She was 96. Fontaine died "very peacefully" in her sleep of natural causes, Beutel said. She was in her Carmel, California, home. She is survived by her older sister, actress Olivia de Havilland -- with whom she had not spoken for decades. Fontaine was born Joan de Beauvoir de Havilland in 1916 in Tokyo, Japan, where her British father was a patent lawyer and teacher. She and her sister moved to Saratoga, California, with their mother in 1919 when her parents separated. Fontaine was a teenager when she began her acting career as Joan Burfield in the 1935 film "No More Ladies." She later adopted the stage name Fontaine -- the name of her mother's second husband. She wrote in her 1978 autobiography, "No Bed of Roses," that her mother, who was an actress, began encouraging the rivalry with her older sister at an early age. The feud extended to their careers when both sisters were nominated for best actress Oscars in 1942. Fontaine, who was nominated for Alfred Hitchcock's "Suspicion," beat her sister Olivia de Havilland, who was nominated for "Hold Back the Dawn." De Havilland won the first of her two Oscars in 1947 when she was given the best actress award for "To Each His Own." De Havilland and Fontaine remain the only sisters who have best-actress Academy Awards. The long-standing feud with de Havilland was at such a peak during one Oscar winners' reunion in 1979 that they had to be seated on opposite ends of the stage. "I was shocked and saddened to learn of the passing of my sister, Joan Fontaine ... and I appreciate the many kind expressions of sympathy that we have received," a statement released by Olivia de Havilland to CNN said.

Does the response "1918" correctly answer the question "Where and when was Joan Fontaine born?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no

Input: Registration fees for Illinois lawyers could jump as much as $49 a year if lawmakers adopt two separate measures to bolster pro-bono services and support for lawyers with drug and alcohol problems. The Illinois Supreme Court is pushing for legislation that would allow it to dedicate money raised through the fee hikes to legal services to the poor. The justices are floating a $42 increase to shore up financing for pro-bono work, as the normal funding mechanism for legal services has fallen short in recent years. Currently, support for non-profit legal aid groups comes from interest generated on the Lawyers' Trust Fund, which pools clients' money that attorneys hold for such matters as escrow funds. But low interest rates and a sagging economy mean there is less money being generated. After hours of discussion, the high court agreed that raising the registration fees would be the best way to address the declining revenues, Chief Justice Moses W. Harrison II said. The judges were reluctant to raise those fees but eventually decided that supporting probono services was important enough "and lawyers had a responsibility to contribute" to the cause, Harrison said. Last year, the high court raised the base fee for active attorneys to $180 from $140. Lawyers in their first three years of practice or who are inactive pay $90, and retired lawyers pay nothing. Legislation circulated by the high court's lobbyist specifies that the hike would apply to attorneys "paying full annual registration fees." In 2001, there were 57,392 active attorneys in Illinois and 74,311 on the full roll, according to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The hike would raise roughly $2.4 million. Last year, interest on the trust fund totaled $4.5 million, but service and handling fees consumed $538,000 of that amount. This year's returns are projected to be anywhere between $700,000 and $1 million short of that mark, said Ruth Ann Schmitt, the executive director of Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois. Harrison said the fee hikes are designed only to counter the shortfall in interest income, not add to the total amount available. "Our legal services are already stretched to the breaking point," Schmitt said. "We have a tough time raising enough money to properly fund services that our clients need." Neither the Illinois State Bar Association nor The Chicago Bar Association has taken a stance on the proposed hikes.

Does the response "$140" correctly answer the question "The Judges reluctantly raised the rates to how much?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no

Input: After the August missile strikes, diplomatic options to press the Taliban seemed no more promising than military options. The United States had issued a formal warning to the Taliban, and also to Sudan, that they would be held directly responsible for any attacks on Americans, wherever they occurred, carried out by the Bin Laden network as long as they continued to provide sanctuary to it. For a brief moment, it had seemed as if the August strikes might have shocked the Taliban into thinking of giving up Bin Laden. On August 22, the reclusive Mullah Omar told a working-level State Department official that the strikes were counterproductive but added that he would be open to a dialogue with the United States on Bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan. Meeting in Islamabad with William Milam, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Taliban delegates said it was against their culture to expel someone seeking sanctuary but asked what would happen to Bin Laden should he be sent to Saudi Arabia. Yet in September 1998, when the Saudi emissary, Prince Turki, asked Mullah Omar whether he would keep his earlier promise to expel Bin Laden, the Taliban leader said no. Both sides shouted at each other, with Mullah Omar denouncing the Saudi government. Riyadh then suspended its diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime. (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates were the only countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.) Crown Prince Abdullah told President Clinton and Vice President Gore about this when he visited Washington in late September. His account confirmed reports that the U.S. government had received independently. Other efforts with the Saudi government centered on improving intelligence sharing and permitting U.S. agents to interrogate prisoners in Saudi custody. The history of such cooperation in 1997 and 1998 had been strained. Several officials told us, in particular, that the United States could not get direct access to an important al Qaeda financial official, Madani al Tayyib, who had been detained by the Saudi government in 1997.67Though U.S. officials repeatedly raised the issue, the Saudis provided limited information. In his September 1998 meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah, Vice President Gore, while thanking the Saudi government for their responsiveness, renewed the request for direct U.S. access to Tayyib. The United States never obtained this access. An NSC staff-led working group on terrorist finances asked the CIA in November 1998 to push again for access to Tayyib and to see "if it is possible to elaborate further on the ties between Usama bin Ladin and prominent individuals in Saudi Arabia, including especially the Bin Laden family." One result was two NSC-led interagency trips to Persian Gulf states in 1999 and 2000. During these trips the NSC, Treasury, and intelligence representatives spoke with Saudi officials, and later interviewed members of the Bin Laden family, about Usama's inheritance.

Does the response "Tayyib" correctly answer the question "Vice President Gore never received access to whom?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output:
yes