Jason had been sitting alone at his table, staring at the tall, platinum blonde for an hour. His imagination ran wild with thoughts of kissing her full lips while his hands explored her lean, muscled body. Tonight he didn't need the whiskey to warm him up. But he kept drinking it anyway. She stepped away from the mike, sat her acoustic guitar on its stand, and walked down from the small stage. Jason beat all the other losers to the bar and sat down beside her. "You must be pretty thirsty after all that beautiful singing." How many times had she heard that line? But at age 33, she'd probably heard every pickup line known to man. "Yeah," she said, giving him a quick glance. He wasn't a bad looking guy. Probably a couple of inches shorter than her. At six-foot-two, she was accustomed to that. But a lot of men couldn't deal with her height. They liked to be the tall one in the relationship. Not that she'd had many relationships. Mostly one-nighters. Without her saying a word, the bartender sat a glass of ice down in front of her, and poured her a can of Diet Coke. "Thanks, Joe." She took a sip as he walked away. "I'm Jason." "Sondra," she said, looking straight ahead as she took another sip. "I really enjoyed your music--especially that last song. Did you write it yourself?" "Yeah." "Wow. It was sad, but moving. You've got talent." Here we go, she thought. And I suppose you're a talent agent or a record producer, or you've got a friend in the business. And you'd be more than happy to get me a record deal--assuming I'd be willing to go with you right now to some sleazy motel. "I'm sick of this business. In fact, you just heard my last performance. First thing Monday morning I'm going out to find me a real job. One that will pay the bills." Question: How long has Sondra been probably performing for? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- a couple of decades
- several years
- not enough information
- a few days

Answer: a few days

Question: "Have you ever been in a situation that was getting out of control and you were able to calm it down before it escalated further? What was the situation and what did you do or say?" As senior members of a Boy Scout Troop, other adults and I had to instruct two younger member on how to recognize and control emotions in the context of conflict. These two guys had a history of conflicts and I knew people won't always be present to control them. They had to grow up and be self-sufficient. On one camping trip they yet again had another heated argument over something trivial that kept escalating. Rather than jump in, I wanted to see how they deescalate the situation on their own. Suddenly, one of them pulls out a pocket knife and says "[insert demand here] or I'm gonna [insert some action with a knife to a person]." The situation has clearly escalated too far. Immediately I rushed in and yelled, "STOP! DROP IT, NOW!" He immediately dropped the knife, sat down, and began crying. What happens after that is irrelevant. Perhaps it's due to my quiet nature and sudden outburst that produced the shock effect. But more importantly the use of straight-forward, succinct commands can control the situation because all parties involved are automatically in natural fight-flight mode where elaborate, long explanations aren't going to be interpreted correctly by listeners for the purposes of deescalating the situation's climax. The long talk comes when the immediate conflict is temporarily resolved. * IMPORTANT NOTE: This incident is not a reflection on the Boy Scout of America, its spirit, or the use of such tools. The pocket knife is commonly used throughout camping trips. We have a set of rules and responsibilities set to the users so that they are used for the camping purposes. As an Eagle Scout myself, I am proud of the values promoted. Question: After the author intervened, the young members probably: === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Regretted their actions.
- not enough information
- Cried for acting stupid.
- Apologized to each other.
Answer: Regretted their actions.

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... Question: Why did Google sign the letter? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- They believe the amendment is not just fixing a typo.
- They believe in government access.
- They believe most free people value rights.
Answer:
They believe the amendment is not just fixing a typo.