General relativity includes a dynamical spacetime, so it is difficult to see how to identify the conserved energy and momentum. Noether's theorem allows these quantities to be determined from a Lagrangian with translation invariance, but general covariance makes translation invariance into something of a gauge symmetry. The energy and momentum derived within general relativity by Noether's presecriptions do not make a real tensor for this reason. Einstein argued that this is true for fundamental reasons, because the gravitational field could be made to vanish by a choice of coordinates. He maintained that the non-covariant energy momentum pseudotensor was in fact the best description of the energy momentum distribution in a gravitational field. This approach has been echoed by Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz, and others, and has become standard. The use of non-covariant objects like pseudotensors was heavily criticized in 1917 by Erwin Schrodinger and others.

Question: "Which of the scientists believed non-covariant energy momentum pseudotensor was the best description of energy momentum in a gravitational field?"

Response: "Erwin Schrodinger"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

Problem: Life for the partners of Cates, Katalinic & Lund holds little of the glamour one might expect from a career in law. Instead of lunches at Lutce, they caucus at the Palace Diner in Queens. Wooing clients means passing out fliers on street corners, not securing box seats at Madison Square Garden. To make ends meet, one partner stacks pipe and cleans the yard at a plumbing warehouse. Another handles urine samples in a hospital lab. A sign of failure, of a feeble economy, perhaps? Hardly. They are heeding the call of a growing pool of law schools, which are for the first time pointing graduates in a new direction and teaching them how to get there. Forget the lure of large firms, the security of a government post. Here is how to grapple "in the service of justice," as many of the schools put it, instead. Convinced that corporate largess and government programs barely dent the nation's legal needs, the law schools are urging graduates to buck tradition, pass up big salaries and ignore mushrooming student debt to join tiny neighborhood practices or simply start their own, all with an eye toward charging no more than their clients can afford. This is not pro bono legal work; it is "low bono," a term the schools coined to define the atypical kind of law career they are training students for. While its practitioners do charge for their services, they are also dead set on turning no one away - or at least as few as possible. "When you go into this kind of social justice law, it's really brutal and you're almost guaranteed to struggle for a couple of years before there's a light at the end of the tunnel," said Fred Rooney, director of the Community Legal Resource Network at City University of New York School of Law, from which the lawyers of the newly formed Cates, Katalinic & Lund graduated last May. "But if our graduates don't do it, the millions of people who cannot access justice in this country will continue to soar." The movement, primly called the consortium, started four years ago by CUNY, Northeastern University, the University of Maryland and St. Mary's Law School in Texas. (St. Mary's later dropped out.) Since then, it has drawn seven additional law schools to its ranks: the University of Michigan, Rutgers and Syracuse Law Schools, New York Law School, University of New Mexico School of Law, Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Touro Law School. It has elicited at least initial interest from 19 more.

Question: "Do the lawyers practicing "low bono" work struggle and take side jobs?"

Answer: "Almost guaranteed to struggle for a couple of years"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: yes

Question:
(CNN) -- Beyond skateboards, Silicon Valley and hippies, California has a trendsetting streak of a different kind. The state has been first to pass major public health initiatives that have spread throughout the country. California was first to require smog checks for clean air, pass anti-tobacco initiatives and bike helmets laws. While these laws were met with skepticism and ridicule, they've often become standard practice in other states. The Golden State was first to ban smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants in 1998. Now similar rules exist throughout the country. Some advocates tout the state as a forward-thinking vanguard in which its health and safety laws are routinely emulated by other states. "There have been progressive legislations in tobacco, environment and obesity prevention," said Mark Horton, a lecturer at the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health. "In some respect, the rest of the country looks to California as a laboratory for moving forward with those various types of initiatives." But some critics liken the Golden State to a nanny state. California has 151,002 health and safety laws. "It never ends," said Laer Pearce, who works in public affairs in Orange County. "Every year, several hundred bills come through and dozens of them tell us how to live our lives." Starting in January, 760 new California laws went into effect -- for example, the importing of shark fins is prohibited, student athletes are required to have medical clearance after suffering a head injury, teens are banned from using tanning booths and the sale of caffeinated beer is forbidden. There's a perception that California has "more folks who are health-oriented and more health-minded," said Horton, former director of the California Department of Public Health. It's not just workout fanatics hanging out at Muscle Beach, Sierra Club members hiking mountains or the uber-health-conscious touting organic foods. Californians in general tend to have healthier habits, ranking 10th for physical activity, fourth for healthy blood pressure and fifth for a diet high in fruits and vegetables compared with other states, according to America's Health Rankings. After reading the above, is "That they are a good example in over-controlling the citizens" the correct answer to the question "What does the rest of the county think of California as according to Mark Horton?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no

Input: Animated history of the US. Of course the cartoon is highly oversimplified, and most critics consider it one of the weakest parts of the film. But it makes a valid claim which you ignore entirely: That the strategy to promote "gun rights" for white people and to outlaw gun possession by black people was a way to uphold racism without letting an openly terrorist organization like the KKK flourish. Did the 19th century NRA in the southern states promote gun rights for black people? I highly doubt it. But if they didn't, one of their functions was to continue the racism of the KKK. This is the key message of this part of the animation, which is again being ignored by its critics. Buell shooting in Flint. You write: "Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before". This characterization of a six-year-old as a pencil-stabbing thug is exactly the kind of hysteria that Moore's film warns against. It is the typical right-wing reaction which looks for simple answers that do not contradict the Republican mindset. The kid was a little bastard, and the parents were involved in drugs -- case closed. But why do people deal with drugs? Because it's so much fun to do so? It is by now well documented that the CIA tolerated crack sales in US cities to fund the operation of South American "contras" It is equally well known that the so-called "war on drugs" begun under the Nixon administration is a failure which has cost hundreds of billions and made America the world leader in prison population (both in relative and absolute numbers).

Does the response "Reagan" correctly answer the question "What US president is indirectly linked by the author to the Buell school shooter?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output:
no