Question:
The violent arena of domestic abuse litigation has grown a bit more volatile here, now that a judge has decided to hold two women in contempt of court for returning to men who had been ordered to stay away from them. "You can't have it both ways," said Judge Megan Lake Thornton of Fayette County District Court in recently fining two women $100 and $200 respectively for obtaining protective orders forbidding their partners from contacting them, then relenting and contacting the men. Ruling that the order was mutually binding, Judge Thornton also cited the men for contempt. "It drives me nuts when people just decide to do whatever they want," said Judge Thornton, who is experienced in the state's thick domestic abuse docket, which produces close to 30,000 emergency protective orders a year. Kentucky officials say there is a virtual epidemic of abusive relationships in the state. Judge Thornton's ruling has alarmed advocates for battered women, who plan to appeal it. The advocates say the finding goes beyond existing law and is unrealistic because some renewed contacts often prove unavoidable in domestic abuse cases, which involve economic and family dependency and other complications of daily living. The state office on domestic violence has pointedly agreed, warning that the ruling could cause abused women to hesitate in bringing their plight before the courts for fear of being chastised for their trouble. "The reality is it's easy to say they should never have contact," said Sherry Currens, executive director of the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association, an advocacy and legal protection group. "But we're talking about people in long-term relationships. They may have children in common. It's pretty hard to say, 'Never speak again.' People have financial difficulties. They may love the partner. It's not an easy thing." But Judge Thornton declared in court, "When these orders are entered, you don't just do whatever you damn well please and ignore them." The ruling stunned Cindra Walker, the lawyer for the two women, who is with Central Kentucky Legal Services, which represents many of the thousands of indigent women caught in abusive relationships. "For over five years, I've been in court practically every day on these abuse cases," Ms. Walker said, "and I've never before had a victim threatened with contempt." After reading the above, is "Stupidity, sex" the correct answer to the question "What are two of the reasons Sherry Currens gives for people violating protective orders?"?

Answer:
no

Question:
You may be wondering, how can a glacier get so big? Why does it move? These are both good questions. In the winter months, precipitation falls as snow. This solid form of water builds up on the ground as long as the temperatures stay cold enough. As the temperature rises, the snow starts to melt. The frozen water changes state back into a liquid state. Nearer the poles, summer does not last very long. If the summer is long enough and warm enough, all the snow may melt. This is what typically happens now. The earth was a little cooler 12,000 years ago. As a result, during the summer months, that amount of snow did not melt. It may have only been an inch or so of snow that melted. The following winter, snow fell on top of this left-over snow. This next winters snowfall had a head start. Year after year, the snow that did not melt became thicker and thicker. Inch by inch the snow started to build up. Over many years, layer upon layer of snow compacted and turned to ice. After reading the above, is "By melting of ice" the correct answer to the question "How do glaciers form?"?

Answer:
no

Question:
In actual practice, however, we act too often as if we only cared for economic values. If we are to live up to our educational profession, we must look our aim in the face and honestly practise what we believe. While training of character and conduct is the accepted aim for education in general, to make this useful and practical each teacher must fix her attention on how this ultimate aim affects her own special part of the whole work. By watching the free child she will discover how best she can help him: he knows his own business, and when unfettered by advice or command shows plainly that he is chiefly concerned with _gaining experience_. He finds himself in what is to him a new and complex world of people and things; actual experience is the foundation for a complete living, and the stronger the foundation the better the result of later building. _The first vital principle then is that the teacher of young children must provide life in miniature; that is, she must provide abundant raw material and opportunities for experience_. After reading the above, is "By watching the free child" the correct answer to the question "How can a teacher discover the best way to give a strong foundation for complete living?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
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. After reading the above, is "They kept moving around" the correct answer to the question "How did the attack plotters avoid detection?"?

Answer:
no