Question: GoDaddy has pulled the plug on another online peddler of violence. The popular internet registration service last week shut down altright.com, a website created by white nationalist leader Richard Spencer and popular with many in the so-called alt-right movement. The takedown is the latest example of how companies like GoDaddy are increasingly responding to growing public pressure to clamp down on violent sites in the wake of the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last summer. GoDaddy, which registers domains for more than 75 million websites around the world, said it generally does not delist sites that promote hate, racism and bigotry on the ground that such content is protected as free speech. But it said altright.com had "crossed the line and encouraged and promoted violence in a direct and threatening manner." "In instances where a site goes beyond the mere exercise of these freedoms, however, and crosses over to promoting, encouraging or otherwise engaging in specific acts of violence against any person, we will take action," GoDaddy said in a statement emailed to VOA. The company would not say whether it canceled altright.com's domain registration in response to pressure but it stressed that "we take all complaints about content on websites very seriously, and have a team dedicated to investigate each complaint." The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington-based civil rights organization, said it filed such a complaint with GoDaddy last month, citing several instances in which altright.com carried content that advocated violence. In one example, a January 26, 2018, article encouraged "use of live ammunition at the border, in order to create a substantial chance that they [immigrants crossing the border] lose their life in the process," according to the organization's complaint. Kristen Clarke, the group's president and executive director, said the shutdown of altright.com was part of her organization's campaign to combat a recent "hate crime crisis" in the... According to the above context, answer the following question. Who will take action:
OPTIONS:
- The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
- not enough information
- GoDaddy
- Under the Right rally
Answer: GoDaddy

input with options: SEOUL Arms control experts estimate that the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program could take a decade to complete, and cost $20 billion, if a nuclear agreement is reached between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when they meet in Singapore on June 12. "The hard work has not yet begun, and it is gong to take sustained energy on the part of the United States, South Korea, Japan, China and North Korea. It's going to be a multiyear long process," said Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. President Trump has said he expects a "very positive result" from the North Korea nuclear summit, but he also said it will likely be the beginning of a process to resolve differences over the extent of the North's denuclearization, and the specifics regarding what sanctions relief, economic aid and security guarantees would be offered in return. U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that North Korea would only receive sanctions relief after it takes "verifiable and irreversible steps to denuclearization." This position aligns closer to the Kim government's stance that denuclearization measures and concessions be matched action for action. And it backs away from demands made by some in the president's national security team that Pyongyang quickly and unilaterally dismantle all its weapons of mass destruction before any concessions would be offered. North Korea is estimated to have 20 to 80 nuclear warheads, both known and covert nuclear research and processing sites, and thousands of ballistic missiles that can be launched from mobile vehicles, and submarine based launchers have been tested in recent years. With such an extensive nuclear arsenal it could cost $20 billion to achieve the U.S. goal of complete, irreversible, and verifiable nuclear dismantlement (CVID), according to a recent study conducted by Kwon Hyuk-chul, a Kookmin University professor of security strategy. Kwon based his assessment in part on past nuclear deals... According to the above context, answer the following question. What is Darly Kmball the executive director of
OPTIONS:
- Kookmin University
- The Arms Control Association
- U.S Defense Department
- not enough information
output: The Arms Control Association

Q: At an early meeting of the British Sociological Association's "Activism in Sociology Forum" members met to discuss how we might play a more campaigning role in the world outside the academy. Pragmatically, academics tend to work long hours. We are faced with multiple and competing demands: teaching, administration, publishing, marketing, research, grant-bidding, and so on. The REF has ramped up the requirement to demonstrate the efficacy of our research in "the real world" (our impact upon society, economy, and culture rather than upon knowledge per se, or upon the academic discipline). Maybe here I suggested, as my contribution to the meeting was a chance for those of us interested in progressing social justice to lever officially sanctioned space, in our busy day-to-day lives, to do more of this sort of work? Maybe we should welcome the REF impact agenda? I learned afterwards that eminent British sociologists, whom I respect enormously, regarded such a viewpoint as "naive" and "embarrassing". Indeed, critics interpret REF as just one mode of the heightened, neoliberal, managerial control that is degrading academic life and infesting universities. So, how should we think about the REF impact agenda? Because of its obvious connections with social improvement and reform through policy action, social policy is regarded as one disciplinary area that is well-placed to meet and benefit from the impact agenda. Yet there has been surprisingly little concerted discussion amongst scholars about REF and impact. This is despite the fact that many millions of pounds of public funding accrue to the proposed or claimed impact of research (with monies channelled through research councils to individual projects or via regular, six-yearly centralised assessments of the quality of research in university departments). In addition, there is substantial funding directed toward the "impact industry"; the consultants, think tanks, PR firms, funding schemes, new software programmes, impact managers, specialist impact case study... According to the above context, answer the following question. How does the author feel about PR firms?

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- He thinks they are harmful.
- He thinks they are helping.
- He thinks that they work long hours.

A:
He thinks they are harmful.