*Question*
U.S. President Donald Trump expressed optimism about a planned meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un following conversations Saturday with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Trump tweeted he had a "very good talk" with Moon and updated Abe on plans for his anticipated summit with Kim. Key U.S. leaders are expressing growing optimism that decades of hostility on the Korean Peninsula are closer than ever to coming to an end. Trump said at a White House news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel Friday "I don't think he's playing" when asked about the historic summit between North and South Korea. Trump added a meeting would be scheduled "very shortly" but didn't specify a timeline, saying up to three possible sites are being considered for the much-anticipated summit in late May or early June. Earlier Friday, Kim became the first North Korean leader to set foot in South Korea, when he crossed the border to shake the hand of South Korean President Moon Jae-in. The two leaders agreed to work toward removing all nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula and vowed to pursue talks that would bring a formal end to the Korean war. North Korea has in the past made similar commitments about its nuclear program, but failed to follow through. Asked whether Pyongyang's commitment is real this time, Trump said "we're not going to get played." "This isn't like past administrations. We don't play games," said Trump, adding that previous administrations had been "played like a fiddle." "We will come up with a solution, and if we don't we will leave the room," he said. U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also expressed hope Friday that talks with North Korea will bear fruit. "I can tell you that we are optimistic right now that there's opportunity here that we have never enjoyed since 1950," Mattis said before a meeting at the Pentagon with the Polish defense minister. "I don't have a crystal ball," he added. "So, we're going to have to see what they produce." why is Jim Mattis hopeful? - That Trump can meet Kim Jong Un - That they can remove North Korea's nuclear weapons - That Trump will talk to Moon Jae-in - not enough information
**Answer**
That they can remove North Korea's nuclear weapons

*Question*
"Hey, guy." "No, this is Ray." He smiled, leaned back in his chair. It was, of course, Pete. Pete was the night shift guy at Crossroads Detox across town. Ray called it the Jesus Shop because it was wholly supported by a contingent of local churches who saw addicts as a potential ministry. Apparently Jesus saved--not only from sin and hell, but also from Dark Eyed Jim Beam. Pete was a relatively innocuous born again fundie who volunteered his time two or three nights a week. When he was not saving the world, his Clark Kent was actually a steady CPA job with the local H&R Block. He'd been pulling shifts for about six months, knew nothing about drugs beyond that bad people used them to escape their problems and that they were tools of Satan, and he always needed Ray's advice about one thing or another. This arrangement was not problematic as Pete had long ago given up trying to convert him. Pete was also the only guy in the city who was, as Ray figured it, making less money than he was at such an hour. In return for Ray's magnanimity, Pete had done Ray's taxes for free last year. They had never actually met, though Ray had faxed him the tax forms and Pete had faxed back a photo of his two pre-teen daughters and his geriatric Lab. "What's the problem?" Ray asked. "I have a recalcitrant." That's what he called them, the drunk and definitely disorderly. Pete's vocabulary did not include the word shithead either in its singular or plural. "Pete, they're all like that. Alcohol is bad medicine. That's why places like ours are in business. To make them calcitrant." "I know that." Pete sounded a little annoyed. There was some commotion in the background, a knocking on doors. Who calls the drunk and disorderly recalcitrants? - Clark - Ray - Pete - not enough information
**Answer**
Pete

*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... Why is the Senate Judiciary Committee considering an amendment to the ECPA? - they think the FBI has too much access to individuals' personal records - not enough information - they think there is not enough judicial oversight - they think the FBI is invasive
**Answer**
they think the FBI has too much access to individuals' personal records