(Q).
I was fencing wire at Flat Broke Acres and trying to tighten up the wire a bit. I lost the grip of the fencing wire and the pliers smacked me in the mouth. This is what I hit myself in the mouth with. The curved end glance off my left front central incisor. It hurt some, my lips were lacerated, I scared my wife when I came in to take a look at it in the mirror but the pain to come was far worse. Tooth was intact thank goodness and was a bit wobbly and I said to myself yup, this could be a problem. A month or two later I hit it again when I was putting a portable step fence panel in the bed of the truck and it bounced and split the bridge of my nose and hit the tooth again. did not break or get displaced. Thank goodness I have a particularly thick head. Tooth trauma is a strange thing. It can blow up anywhere up to a year later. So almost 6 months later I was flying to a meeting in Orlando and of course the tooth decided to react to changes in atmospheric pressure just so I could experience the exquisite pain of barodontalgia. Kind of pain that makes you want to pry the top of your head off with a pitchfork because it would take your mind off the pain. Problem was it did not resolve after landing or anytime during the 4 days I was at the meeting. A combo regimen of acetaminophen and ibuprofen manage the pain well enough until I could get home and have it seen to. Pain did not end but the Xray showed no fracture or endodontic lesion. Strange. Then as suddenly as it occurred, the pain ceased. Strange x 2. Snapped another film and there was no pathology. Tooth was vital on pulp testing. So I did nothing more. I chalked it up to it being a karmic reminder about patients and dental pain as I've never had a cavity let alone a dental abscess. It let me feel your pain. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What was the meeting in Orlando for? Options: - buying supplies - sales - workshop - not enough information
(A).
not enough information

(Q).
Few athletes would disagree that more muscle is an advantage in their sport. And protein is the perfect source of amino acid building blocks needed for new muscle growth and repair. Taken together, strength training and sufficient protein will stimulate new muscle protein synthesis. Note that the keyword here is sufficient, because this is where protein supplement marketers like to extend to "the more the better". So how much protein do sportspeople need? Consensus position statements such as those produced by the American College of Sports Medicine give the range of 1.2 grams to 1.7 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. But the top end of that range is for elite endurance athletes, power sportspeople and those in the early stages of a strength training phase. The "recreational athlete", which describes the majority of active sportspeople, should aim for the bottom end of the range. So how do those protein requirement numbers stack up against a regular diet? Protein intake and body weights collected in the 2011-2012 Australian Health Survey, as an example, show the average Australian male already eats 1.2 grams and the average female 1.1 grams of protein per kilogram body weight. And this is for mostly sedentary people who are not following any special "high protein" training diet. Sportspeople do have higher energy needs. But by simply eating a greater volume of food with a focus on higher protein content, it's very feasible for an athlete to get their protein requirements from food alone. This has been backed up by research; numerous dietary surveys show the normal diet of strength-based athletes provides around two grams of protein per kilogram body weight per day. And that's before using any protein powders. But protein supplements can't be dismissed altogether. There are circumstances where supplementation is an appropriate and convenient option for athletes, such as when travelling, or during an intense training schedule. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who recommends always using protein supplements? Options: - not enough information - American College of Sports - Protein supplement companies - the author
(A).
Protein supplement companies

(Q).
Facebook has a long track record and sordid history of abusing their users' trust and privacy, including the most recent and egregious cases currently making headlines with Cambridge Analytica as well as election meddling in the US and Britain. As if that wasn't enough, it then came to light that they have also been tracking and storing users' phone call and text message data, including "who contacted whom, what time, and how long the conversation was." This is nothing new, as we can see from this 2012 "study" in which they deliberately manipulated news feeds to influence users' emotional state. And again with their settlement with the FCC back in 2011 (that they likely violated with their recent offenses) over deceiving consumers by telling them their information was private, but then repeatedly sharing it and making it public. And then there's The Ugly Memo, in which a FB exec justifies growth at any cost in the name of connecting people, even if that results literally in people dying: We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly. We connect people. That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good. And up until this most recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was negotiating with various healthcare organizations to share patients' health data with FB so they could match it up to your social circle to allegedly provide better health care. Um yeah right. Each time this stuff happens, they issue an apology (or a justification for their behavior) and promise they will take steps to better inform users and protect their privacy, but it's clear that this is just lip service at this point. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How long has facebook been reported violating of user privacy? Options: - since 2011 - not enough information - since 2012 - Recent times
(A).
since 2011