Input: Even though electronic espionage may cost U.S. firms billions of dollars a year, most aren't yet taking precautions, the experts said. By contrast, European firms will spend $150 million this year on electronic security, and are expected to spend $1 billion by 1992. Already many foreign firms, especially banks, have their own cryptographers, conference speakers reported. Still, encrypting corporate communications is only a partial remedy. One expert, whose job is so politically sensitive that he spoke on condition that he wouldn't be named or quoted, said the expected influx of East European refugees over the next few years will greatly increase the chances of computer-maintenance workers, for example, doubling as foreign spies. Moreover, he said, technology now exists for stealing corporate secrets after they've been "erased" from a computer's memory. He said that Oliver North of Iran-Contra notoriety thought he had erased his computer but that the information was later retrieved for congressional committees to read. No personal computer, not even the one on a chief executive's desk, is safe, this speaker noted. W. Mark Goode, president of Micronyx Inc., a Richardson, Texas, firm that makes computer-security products, provided a new definition for Mikhail Gorbachev's campaign for greater openness, known commonly as glasnost. Under Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Goode said, the Soviets are openly stealing Western corporate communications. He cited the case of a Swiss oil trader who recently put out bids via telex for an oil tanker to pick up a cargo of crude in the Middle East. Among the responses the Swiss trader got was one from the Soviet national shipping company, which hadn't been invited to submit a bid. The Soviets' eavesdropping paid off, however, because they got the contract.

Does the response "A Swiss oil trader" correctly answer the question "Who did the Soviets contract with to pick up a cargo of crude oil in the Middle East?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Growing up on a farm near St. Paul, L. Mark Bailey didn't dream of becoming a judge. Even when he graduated from North Decatur High School in 1975, sitting on the bench someday seemed more like a leisurely activity than a career. Somewhere along the line, all of that changed. Bailey received his bachelor's degree from the University of Indianapolis in 1978 and a jurisprudence doctorate from Indiana University-Indianapolis in 1982. After several years of private practice from 1982-90, he became the judge of Decatur County Court for a year. The Indiana legislature renamed that judgeship and Bailey was tabbed Decatur Superior Court judge from 1992-98, winning reelection twice. From there, his career continued on the fast track and Bailey was appointed by Gov. Frank O'Bannon to sit on the Indiana Court of Appeals First District, where he works today. Despite his quick climb up the legal ladder, Bailey has always found time to help out in causes he feels strongly about. It was for his dedication to the law and the people that are affected by it that he was recently recognized. The Indiana Pro Bono Commission hosted its annual celebration event, the Randall T. Shepard Dinner, at French Lick Springs Spa in October. More than 100 judges, lawyers and dignitaries were present for the gathering. One of the highlights of the event was the presentation of the first-ever Randall T. Shepard award for excellence in pro bono work. Bailey received the award for his three years of volunteer work at Indiana Pro Bono Commission. The award was named after the chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court to honor his statewide vision on justice. The qualifications for the award were based upon demonstrated dedication to the innovative development and delivery of legal services to the poor in one of the 14 pro bono districts of Indiana. "This award came as a real surprise to me. It is truly an honor. Just being the first chair of the commission which began the implementation of the pro bono process was somewhat humbling.

Does the response "After several years of private practice from 1982-90, he became the judge of Decatur County Court for a year" correctly answer the question "When did L. Mark Bailey's life changed allowing him to become a judge?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Bin Laden and his aides did not need a very large sum to finance their planned attack on America. The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack. Consistent with the importance of the project, al Qaeda funded the plotters. KSM provided his operatives with nearly all the money they needed to travel to the United States, train, and live. The plotters' tradecraft was not especially sophisticated, but it was good enough. They moved, stored, and spent their money in ordinary ways, easily defeating the detection mechanisms in place at the time. The origin of the funds remains unknown, although we have a general idea of how al Qaeda financed itself during the period leading up to 9/11. General Financing As we explained in chapter 2, Bin Laden did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses in Sudan. Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fund-raising network developed over time. The CIA now estimates that it cost al Qaeda about $30 million per year to sustain its activities before 9/11 and that this money was raised almost entirely through donations. For many years, the United States thought Bin Laden financed al Qaeda's expenses through a vast personal inheritance. Bin Laden purportedly inherited approximately $300 million when his father died, and was rumored to have had access to these funds to wage jihad while in Sudan and Afghanistan and to secure his leadership position in al Qaeda. In early 2000, the U.S. government discovered a different reality: roughly from 1970 through 1994, Bin Laden received about $1 million per year-a significant sum, to be sure, but not a $300 million fortune that could be used to fund jihad. Then, as part of a Saudi government crackdown early in the 1990s, the Bin Laden family was forced to find a buyer for Usama's share of the family company in 1994. The Saudi government subsequently froze the proceeds of the sale. This action had the effect of divesting Bin Laden of what otherwise might indeed have been a large fortune. Nor were Bin Laden's assets in Sudan a source of money for al Qaeda. When Bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996, he owned a number of businesses and other assets.

Does the response "The Saudi government froze the proceeds of the sale and Bin Laden was divested" correctly answer the question "How was Usama cut off from the funds of the Bin Laden family?"?
***
Output:
yes