input: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Trump
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
- Senate Judiciary Committee Now, answer this question: The battle lines are drawn once again. U.S. law enforcement agencies and Silicon Valley are getting ready to face off on the issue of privacy. This latest battle is focused on a 30-year-old law on government access to electronic communications and associated data. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was a forward-looking statute when enacted in 1986, but technology has dramatically outpaced the ECPA. The U.S. Congress has been looking into ways to revise the law in order to preserve the privacy of internet users while also preserving the legal tools necessary for government agencies to enforce the law and protect the public. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called privacy "the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people." The Senate Judiciary Committee this week is considering an amendment to the ECPA that would expand the government's ability to collect data using a National Security Letter, which doesn't require a court order. The amendment would authorize the FBI to demand a person's internet browser history and internet protocol address, enabling investigators to see what websites a person visits, how much time is spent on a particular site and the location of the internet user all without judicial oversight. The FBI contends that such data is covered implicitly under current statute, which was written years ago and only explicitly covers data normally associated with telephone records. FBI Director James Comey has said the amendment is needed to fix "a typo" in the ECPA that has hindered the bureau's ability to work in "a very, very big and practical way." But a letter sent earlier this week warned Congress that such an amendment is opposed by tech giants and civil liberties organizations. "This expansion of the NSL statute has been characterized by some government officials as merely fixing 'a typo' in the law," the letter said. "In reality, however, it would dramatically expand the ability of the FBI to get sensitive information about users' online... Question: Who said that privacy is the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

I don't see a point. That's the biggest problem with my life currently. I honestly, don't see a point. Am I working towards temporary monetary gain? Is my goal supposed to be buying my dream car(s)? Is my goal spiritual? I'm currently Catholic, but I've seen how spiritually those around me have changed. I've even wondered what's the point of heaven, if everything I want is there. I like life because of the ups and the downs. I enjoy learning and discovering new things. The idea of perfection seems like an impossible concept to me. Maybe even an unenjoyable one. Maybe my goal is to have a family. Being catholic naturally we gravitate towards larger families. But as a libertarian I don't see a lot of potential in the United States at it pertains to economic freedoms. I see the government encroaching more and more into our lives. Is this the type of country I want to raise a family in? I certainly don't want to be outside the United States (no offense towards anyone outside of the U.S). Maybe my goal is political. I've always wanted to run for office. Maybe governor one day. Would I be able to avoid the waves of bipartisanship, and actually do what I believe is the best for the people of my state. Or would I collapse under the political pressures and sign up for agreements I know in my heart and mind won't help the people. Only time will tell. I just don't see a point. I actually have many goals, but I struggle to see the overall point of accomplishing any of it. Especially seeing as anything I do will be lost in the ink-blots of history. Question: Following the story, the author most probably leans which way politically? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- he/she is a Democrat
- not enough information
- he/she is a Republican
- he/she still identifies as a Libertarian

Answer: he/she still identifies as a Libertarian

Cooking food is something we have done since the first caveman threw a mammoth steak on the fire. While it is true that cooking does cause chemical changes in food and a loss of some nutrients, it is a clear case of being alert and not alarmed. Every time we cook food, there is some degree of nutrient loss. Exposing food to heat, oxygen or light alters the nutrients found in food. It is not all bad news though because cooking food also has its advantages. Cooking food can increase its digestibility, meaning you will get more nutrients out of it. And even though there may be less of some nutrients from cooking, it is swings and roundabouts as the availability of certain phytonutrients increases. And of course, let's not forget that heating food kills some of the nasty microbes that can cause food poisoning. The principle behind a raw food diet is that cooking food destroys the natural enzymes and nutrients that would otherwise give us optimal health and control body weight. A raw food diet is almost entirely plant-based and includes fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, vegetable oils and juices in their natural uncooked state. Now on the pro side for a raw food diet, it means if you are currently eating a lot of processed food, then switching to raw food will be a clear nutritional win. So that gets a big tick. Unquestionably, there are many benefits to eating plenty of fruits and vegetables. These foods are high in nutrients and fibre and low in kilojoules. But is raw superior to cooked? A review of 28 research studies found eaters of both cooked and raw vegetables had a lower risk of cancer compared to people who did not eat many vegetables in the first place. Where the science gets murky is the claim that raw food is better because cooking destroys the enzymes found in plants. It is 100 percent correct that cooking will do this. But so too does digestion. Few enzymes survive their trip through the hydrochloric acid spa bath in the stomach. And those plant enzymes are essential only to the plants. The... Question: Foods lose nutrients: === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- when they are exposed to oxygen
- when they are digested
- not enough information
- when they are cooked

Answer:
when they are cooked