input: OPTIONS:
- Sheila is gone forever.
- not enough information
- Capitalism is bad.
- He does not understand himself at all. Now, answer this question: Sheila split open and the air was filled with gumballs. Yellow gumballs. This was awful for Stan, just awful. He had loved Sheila for a long time, fought for her heart, believed in their love until finally she had come around. They were about to kiss for the first time and then this: yellow gumballs. Stan went to a group to try to accept that Sheila was gone. It was a group for people whose unrequited love had ended in some kind of surrealist moment. There is a group for everything in California. After several months of hard work on himself with the group, Stan was ready to open a shop and sell the thousands of yellow gumballs. He did this because he believed in capitalism, he loved capitalism. He loved the dynamic surge and crash of Amazon's stock price, he loved the great concrete malls spreading across America like blood staining through a handkerchief, he loved how everything could be tracked and mirrored in numbers. When he closed the store each night he would count the gumballs sold, and he would determine his gross revenue, his operating expenses, his operating margin; he would adjust his balance sheet and learn his debt to equity ratio; and after this exercise each night, Stan felt he understood himself and was at peace, and he could go home to his apartment and drink tea and sleep, without shooting himself or thinking about Sheila. On the night before the IPO of gumballs.com, Sheila came to Stan in a dream. She was standing in a kiddie pool; Stan and his brothers and sisters were running around splashing and screaming; she had managed to insert herself into a Super-8 home movie of Stan's family, shot in the late 70's. She looked terribly sad. "Sheila, where are you?" Stan said. "Why did you leave me, why did you become gumballs?" "The Ant King has me," Sheila said. "You must rescue me." Question: Stan believes that: === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: Sheila is gone forever.

It's always interesting to read back on why people do things, especially people who end up making a career or a fortune out of the seemingly benign choices they make. Thelma Schoonmaker, the film editor whom my previous post was about was one of those people; she got into editing after seeing an ad in the New York Times. I'm in no way suggesting I'm going to make a fortune, nor that I'm a Thelma Schoonmaker in the making, but I certainly do make a lot of benign choices. Art blogging, for me, was one of those benign choices. I made the decision to start an art blog very randomly, so randomly I'm not even sure where the idea came from. At the time I had been studying a bachelor of psychology for about two years and found myself interested in the subject, but underwhelmed with the lack of creative ideas and media I was being exposed to. I'd always been interested in art and most creative mediums, often recording music or taking photographs on the side. But the pages and pages of white and black scientific journal articles must have got to me, because I found myself yearning for splashes of colour, moving imagery, challenging concepts and undefinable ideas. The next thing I knew I had started an art blog aptly titled: Artistic Expansion and I began spending hours a day searching through the internet for content, often finding my best pieces in the most random places, often not even defined intentionally as 'art'. Over the last two years I must have blogged hundreds of multi-coloured, multi-textured and multi-layered images, accumulated over 2000 followers and consumed more art than I ever had in my entire life. I find it interesting not because of it's success, but because before I started my art blog, I really had no idea how much I did or could love art and once I had made my art blog I couldn't imagine how I ever functioned without it. Question: When did te author started the art blog? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- during college
- before college
- not enough information
- after college

Answer: during college

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... Question: What was probably true about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- he agreed with The Senate Judiciary Committee
- not enough information
- he thought the right to privacy should be guaranteed to all
- he thought the ECPA had been outpaced

Answer:
he thought the right to privacy should be guaranteed to all