Electronic theft by foreign and industrial spies and disgruntled employees is costing U.S. companies billions and eroding their international competitive advantage. That was the message delivered by government and private security experts at an all-day conference on corporate electronic espionage. "Hostile and even friendly nations routinely steal information from U.S. companies and share it with their own companies," said Noel D. Matchett, a former staffer at the federal National Security Agency and now president of Information Security Inc., Silver Spring, Md. It "may well be" that theft of business data is "as serious a strategic threat to national security" as it is a threat to the survival of victimized U.S. firms, said Michelle Van Cleave, the White House's assistant director for National Security Affairs. The conference was jointly sponsored by the New York Institute of Technology School of Management and the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, a joint industry-government trade group. Any secret can be pirated, the experts said, if it is transmitted over the air. Even rank amateurs can do it if they spend a few thousand dollars for a commercially available microwave receiver with amplifier and a VCR recorder. They need only position themselves near a company's satellite dish and wait. "You can have a dozen competitors stealing your secrets at the same time," Mr. Matchett said, adding : "It's a pretty good bet they won't get caught." The only way to catch an electronic thief, he said, is to set him up with erroneous information.

Question: "Can amateurs pirate any secret transmitted over the air?"

Response: "Yes but they need to spend few thousand dollars on that"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: yes

Problem: Expansion quickly peaked however, and the European powers who had carved up the New World set about testing each other in dynastic conflicts and colonial rivalry. The English were the main rivals of the Dutch on the high seas, and there were several wars between the two in the 17th and 18th centuries. In 16651667 the Dutch sailed up the River Medway and sank the British fleet moored there. The 18th century saw Amsterdam grow into the foremost financial center in the world, but the seeds of decline had already been planted. When the English colonies in New England rose up in revolt against the British, they found ready Ailies in the Dutch. From their colonies in the Caribbean they sent caches of arms and ammunition. The British were furious and went to war in 1780, destroying the Dutch navy and signaling a sudden decline in power and influence from which the Netherlands never recovered. Trade suffered to such an extent that in 1791 the VOC went into liquidation. In the latter part of the century there were anti-Orange demonstrations by pro-French factions in the country, and in 1795 Napoleon Bonaparte took the Netherlands in his epic march across Europe. Under the yoke of another foreign power, and with trade at an all time low, the Golden Age was truly dead. The Return of the House of Orange Napoleon installed his brother Louis as King of Holland and he chose to take the fine Town Hall on Dam Square as his palacenow the Koninklijk Palace. But only four years later he fled the city after civil disturbances broke out when he raised taxes. When Napoleon's bubble burst and French power began to wane, William of Orange emerged from exile and was proclaimed king in 1813. Amsterdam had to work its way out of economic decline, but throughout the 19th century the city grew steadily. Industrialization changed the city. With the building of the Central Station at the end of the century, Amsterdam turned its back on its seafaring past and looked towards the mechanical age for its future. The station was built over the old harbor wall and some of the oldest canals in the city center were filled in to allow better access to motorized vehicles. Dam Square was landlocked for the first time in its history.

Question: "What caused Dam Square to become landlocked for the first time in its history?"

Answer: "The government"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: no

Question:
When 74-year-old Penny Sweat was evicted from the HUD-subsidized Glendale Senior Housing in Salt Lake City last month, she moved to a nonsubsidized apartment at five times her previous rent because she was unaware of her rights. It turns out the manager of the seniors complex, its attorneys and government overseers were unaware, too. Lee Kemp, a hearing-impaired World War II disabled vet, also was evicted, but he contacted Utah Legal Services and was told to stay put. Attorney Marty Blaustein then notified Utah Nonprofit Housing Corp., the building's owner, that Kemp's eviction was not legal and that he had a right to a hearing. That didn't stop Utah Nonprofit Housing's attorneys from then sending Kemp a summons to show cause why he had not moved out. Meanwhile, Sweat's granddaughter called Salt Lake City housing officials, federal housing officials, state officials and several agents of Utah Nonprofit Housing to find out about her grandmother's rights. Nobody knew. Blaustein then took Sweat's case along with Kemp's and demanded her ousting be rectified. Utah Nonprofit Housing President Marion Willey returned from an out-of-town trip and learned HUD procedures were not followed. The eviction was activated because of ongoing personality conflicts among seniors in the complex, he said, and the new building manager decided the problems were with Sweat and Kemp. Several tenants blame other neighbors as perpetrators of the rift, however. Willey said when his building manager called attorneys retained by the company, they erroneously told her she could go ahead and kick out the tenants. When she called HUD to make sure, the inquiry got bogged down in bureaucracy and nobody called her back. Willey says he has offered Sweat and Kemp apartments in another complex operated by his company at their old rates. He also is retaining new attorneys. After reading the above, is "Lee Kemp" the correct answer to the question "Who were the two tenants that were being evicted?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Input: Relying on an animal to come by is risky. A flower may have to wait a long time for the right animals to come by. What if one never passes close enough to the flower? Hoping the wind will blow is also risky for a plant. What if the wind does not blow? What if the blowing pollen does not land on another flower? The wind could even blow the pollen over the ocean where it is wasted. Giving free nectar is costly. It is not a good use of the plants energy. A plant uses a lot of energy to produce nectar. Some animals may just drink the nectar. They may not carry off any pollen in return. To improve their chances, plants evolved special traits. For example, they developed ways to hide their nectar. Only certain animals were able to get at the plants hidden nectar. These specific animals might be more likely to visit only flowers of the same species. This was also a benefit for some animals. Animals also evolved special traits to get to the nectar.

Does the response "Pollen" correctly answer the question "To improve their chances what traits did plants evolve?"?

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