I had this one guy, who enjoyed being a part time bully and part time neutral to me. To say the least he was annoying. He'd take the liberty to hide my backpack, borrow my books without consent, doodle scandalous stuff on my notebooks with a pen and yada yada. So one day, I was showing this cool trick I learned on an anatomy program on the TV to a couple of classmates who used to sit around me. The thing was that you can't flex your ring finger upwards if you put your middle finger under the palm (try that) We were all kids, and soon everyone in the class started staring at us weirdos looking laughing at out hands. The bully noticed it too, and came near to inquire about this hand stuff. I described the trick and he was impressed. And then, I saw our teacher walking up the corridor, just a couple paces behind the class door. So, I asked him (the bully) if he wanted to see another trick and to that he nodded a big yes. Cool, What I did was, that I grabbed his right arm by the thumb and put it on my throat right above the larynx. Then I quickly shifted my grip to his wrist. He without batting an eye, asked what I was doing, but then I started beating the desk with my other hand and made squeaking noises while pushing his hand against my throat harder with every turning head. And voila! Every one in the class (including the teacher) thought he was smothering me. After a few ifs and buts between him and the teacher, he was summoned at the principal's chambers, from where, later he was sent home, where presumably judging from the look on his face for the next few days, he was beat to crap by his folks. And after that, never was I ever bothered by anyone in the school.(^^) How does the bully probably feel about his past actions now that he no longer bothers anyone? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - Justified - Indifferent - Remorseful - not enough information
Remorseful

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may be open to new limits on the government's ability to track someone's movements by accessing data on that person's cellphone. A case before the high court could result in a landmark decision in the ongoing debate over civil liberties protections in an era of rapid technological change. At issue is whether law enforcement will be able to access cellphone data that can reveal a person's whereabouts without having to first obtain a court-issued search warrant. The case stems from the conviction of Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies back in 2010 and 2011. Prosecutors were able to obtain cellphone records that indicated his location over a period of months, information that proved crucial to his conviction. On Wednesday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement should be required to obtain a court-ordered search warrant before obtaining such information. They also argued that allowing law enforcement to access the cellphone data without a warrant would violate the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "It is impossible to go about our daily lives without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs that reveal where we have been over time, what we have done, who we spent time with," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court following oral arguments. "It is time for the court, we think, to update Fourth Amendment doctrine to provide reasonable protections today." Some of the justices also raised concerns about privacy in the digital age. "Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often sides with the liberal wing of the court, said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who often sides with conservatives on the court, said the central question was whether the cellphone information should be accessible to the government "without a warrant." After the amendment, Wessler probably is Pick the correct answer from the following options: - indifferent - not enough information - in favor of the warrant - against the warrant
in favor of the warrant

WHITE HOUSE The United States is escalating trans-Atlantic and North American trade tensions, imposing a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports from the European Union, Canada and Mexico beginning on Friday. The U.S. also negotiated quotas or volume limits on other countries, such as South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Brazil, instead of tariffs, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross also told reporters Thursday by telephone. China's foreign ministry said on Friday all countries should protect the normal trade order, when asked about U.S. decision. President Donald Trump said Thursday that the days of the U.S. being taken advantage of in trade deals "are over'" in a harshly worded statement responding to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's criticism of new steel and aluminum tariffs. He intensified his criticism of Canada Friday for what he says are the country's "highly restrictive" trade practices. Trump has repeatedly said measures such as tariffs are necessary to protect American jobs and industries in key manufacturing sectors. "The president's actions are about protecting American steel, American aluminum," a White House spokesman, Raj Shah, said on Fox News. "They're critical for national security." But the negative reaction from some of America's most important strategic allies has been quick and fierce. European Union Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said shortly after the tariffs took effect they were illegal and the 28-nation bloc would initiate a settlement dispute case with the World Trade Organization. "We can do so. We have the right to do so. I think we must do so, as well, to show that we cannot just take these tariffs and stand silent and we do not accept these kind of imposed illegal tariffs," said Malmstrom. Without elaborating, Malmstrom also said the EU would explore "rebalancing measures," which typically are retaliatory actions. Trudeau called the tariffs "totally unacceptable" and vowed retaliation. "This decision is not only unlawful, but it is... After the end of this story, Macron probably is Pick the correct answer from the following options: - still young and dashing - not enough information - still in the Oval office - still enjoying a lavish welcome from Trump
still young and dashing