Question: The biggest change in this year's census was in racial classification. Enumerators were instructed to no longer use the "Mulatto" classification. Instead, they were given special instructions for reporting the race of interracial persons. A person with both white and black ancestry (termed "blood") was to be recorded as "Negro," no matter the fraction of that lineage (the "one-drop rule"). A person of mixed black and American Indian ancestry was also to be recorded as "Neg" (for "Negro") unless he was considered to be "predominantly" American Indian and accepted as such within the community. A person with both White and American Indian ancestry was to be recorded as an Indian, unless his American Indian ancestry was small, and he was accepted as white within the community. In all situations in which a person had White and some other racial ancestry, he was to be reported as that other race. Persons who had minority interracial ancestry were to be reported as the race of their father. 1. Was there a term related to race that was taken out of the census?
2. Which one?
3. One with White and American Indian heritage would be classified as what?
4. Was there a shortened version of the term Negro that could be used?
5. What is it?
6. How could one with mixed Indian and White heritage be accepted as White?
7. Which parent's heritage was deferred to in some mixed heritage situations?
8. What was the largest alteration in this year's census?
9. Is "blood" another way of referring to heritage?
10. What is the name of the rule associated with mixed race heritage? Provide a numbered list of answers.
****
A numbered of answers: 1. Yes
2. Mulatto
3. Indian
4. Yes
5. Neg
6. If his American Indian ancestry was small, and he was accepted as white within the community.
7. Father
8. Racial classification
9. Yes
10. One-drop rule

Q: (CNN) -- We've all done things in our past we might prefer the general public not talk about, but only the lucky few get to be the targets of whole industries dedicated to digging those things up.

Targets like celebrities.

Politicians.

And apparently CEOs, that is if the abrupt resignation of Mozilla's new chief Brendan Eich is any indication.

For many, the story of Eich -- who stepped down this week amid criticism of his contribution to a 2008 initiative to ban same-sex marriage-- is one of freedom of speech trampled by the intolerant.

I don't see it that way.

Don't get me wrong; to paraphrase Voltaire, I disagree with Eich's views on marriage equality but will defend to the death his First Amendment right to express them. But as I've written in the past, the First Amendment doesn't protect him, Mozilla, or anyone else from others' using their First Amendment right to signal their disapproval.

To me, Eich's case is about the power of information, and how -- with technology, 24-hour news and social media- -everyone's past is just a hashtag away from being the present.

Sometimes this is a good thing for the public, like the digging up of David Duke's KKK past as he attempted to climb the political ladder. Sometimes the information is significant, but used mainly to score points against a political opponent, as in the GOP's escalation of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky saga. But more often than not it's about gossip to sell magazines or get clicks on a website.

1. Brendan Eich
2. Mozilla's
3. No
4. resigned
5. a 2008 initiative
6. to ban same-sex marriage
7. No
8. his right to express them.
9. First Amendment
10. Technically yes, but author doesn't think so.
11. David Duke
12. climb the political ladder
13. Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky
14. the GOP's
15. with technology

Numbered questions:
1. Who was a CEO?
2. Of what company?
3. Was he fired?
4. How did he leave?
5. What did he contribute to?
6. Wanting to do what?
7. Did the author agree with his thoughts on this matter?
8. But what did the author think he should be able to do?
9. Which is protected by what?
10. Does that also protect people who don't agree with him?
11. Who was a part of the KKK?
12. What was he trying to do?
13. Who else has been exposed?
14. Who increased the attention on that?
15. How can people share things that happened in the past?

input: CHAPTER XIII: THE FRENCH CONVOY

A report having arrived at the camp of the Count of Cifuentes that the peasants around Saragossa had risen in insurrection, Jack thought that he should be doing more good by discovering the truth of the rumor, and by keeping the earl informed of the state of things in the enemy's rear, than by remaining with the count. He hesitated whether he should take his two orderlies with him, but as they were well mounted he decided that they should accompany him, as they would add to his authority, and would, in case of need, enable him the better to assume the position of an officer riding in advance of a considerable force.

After a hearty adieu from the Count of Cifuentes, he started soon after daybreak. After riding for some hours, just as he reached the top of a rise, up which he had walked his horse, one of the orderlies, who were riding a few paces behind him, rode up.

"I think, Captain Stilwell," he said, "I hear the sound of firing. Brown thinks he hears it too."

Jack reined in his horse.

"I hear nothing," he said, after a pause of a minute.

"I don't hear it now, sir," the man said. "I think it came down on a puff of wind.. If you wait a minute or two I think you will hear it."

Jack waited another two minutes, and then was about to resume his journey, when suddenly a faint sound came upon the wind. 1. Who had started a conflict?
2. Near what area?
3. Who set off in order to send back information?
4. Who was he supposed to keep informed?
5. Who did he consider bringing?
6. How many?
7. What was one reason he decided to take them?
8. Were they good horsemen?
9. With their help, who could he impersonate if need be?
10. What time did he take off?
11. Who bid him a hefty goodbye?
12. How long did he travel?
13. Via what mode of transportation?
14. Who heard something first?
15. Did the other orderly hear it, also?
16. What did they think they heard?
17. Did Jack hear it, too?
18. How long did they pause before hearing it again? Return numbered answers in your output.

output:
1. the peasants
2. Saragossa
3. Jack
4. the earl
5. orderlies
6. two
7. to add to his authority
8. yes
9. an officer
10. soon after daybreak
11. the Count of Cifuentes
12. for some hours
13. horse
14. the man
15. yes
16. the sound of firing
17. no
18. two minutes