Input: Iwasaki's careful respect for the Long Beach program and its lawyers earned him the political capital he needed to complete his takeover in a matter of weeks. "The Long Beach program had strong support in the community so in a situation like that, one has to recognize that it's not like a takeover where I have all the answers and I know best," Iwasaki said. "The people in the community who are working there have the contacts and the knowledge that will allow service to continue." Things have gone less smoothly across town. There, Dudovitz, a longtime poverty lawyer and executive director of the San Fernando Valley's 36-year-old legal aid program, continues to struggle with his hostile takeover of the neighboring San Gabriel-Pomona Valleys service area one year after it was accomplished. On the bright side, Dudovitz has extended his respected program to clients in the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley, and he now operates on a much larger budget, $6.5 million last year. However, his clash with the old San Gabriel program resulted in litigation, bitter feelings and a mission that some say is not clearly focused on serving poor people. "It was a difficult situation that was probably mishandled by everyone," a longtime observer of the public interest community said of the San Fernando Valley-San Gabriel-Pomona Valley merger. "There are very few people who come out as the heroes. Personalities got involved when they shouldn't have. Things were said that caused bad feelings and couldn't be unsaid." Iwasaki's merger with the smaller, 48-year-old Long Beach program was friendly and fast, and no one - not even Long Beach board members - lost a job. When it was over, Iwasaki had $1 million more in federal dollars and two new offices. Long Beach clients regained services they had lost years ago when federal budget cuts and dwindling grants reduced the staff of 15 lawyers to five and cut immigration and consumer law programs. Iwasaki said, "[I judged the transition] better than I could have hoped for."

Does the response "6.5" correctly answer the question "In the eyes of the public interest community, was Dudovitz's hostile takeover well-handled?"?
***
Output: no

Input: Dylan and Jez are two orphans who meet in their twenties and vow to achieve their shared childhood dream of living in a stately home . In pursuit of this dream they spend their days living in a disused gas holder , spending as little money as possible and conning the upper classes out of their riches . During one of their biggest cons , their lives are touched by Georgie , who needs money to save the Down's syndrome foundation that her brother attends . When a con goes wrong , the two find themselves in gaol to be released only after their entire fortune is rendered useless because of a recall of 50 notes . It is down to an elaborate plan involving Dylan , Jez and Georgie , to break them out of gaol in order to save their dream . The film , in essence , is part Ealing comedy , part underdog farce with a sequence of madcap adventures set against a striking soundtrack by contemporary Britpop artists . Unlike straight rom-coms or mainstream comedies of the period Shooting Fish contained a generous blending of fact and fantasy .

Does the response "Twenty years old" correctly answer the question "What did Dylan and Jez share in common?"?
***
Output: no

Input: The after-action review had treated the CIA as the lead agency for any offensive against al Qaeda, and the principals, at their March 10 meeting, had endorsed strengthening the CIA's capability for that role. To the CTC, that meant proceeding with "The Plan," which it had put forward half a year earlier-hiring and training more case officers and building up the capabilities of foreign security services that provided intelligence via liaison. On occasion, as in Jordan in December 1999, these liaison services took direct action against al Qaeda cells. In the CTC and higher up, the CIA's managers believed that they desperately needed funds just to continue their current counterterrorism effort, for they reckoned that the millennium alert had already used up all of the Center's funds for the current fiscal year; the Bin Laden unit had spent 140 percent of its allocation. Tenet told us he met with Berger to discuss funding for counterterrorism just two days after the principals' meeting. While Clarke strongly favored giving the CIA more money for counterterrorism, he differed sharply with the CIA's managers about where it should come from. They insisted that the CIA had been shortchanged ever since the end of the Cold War. Their ability to perform any mission, counterterrorism included, they argued, depended on preserving what they had, restoring what they had lost since the beginning of the 1990s, and building from there-with across-the-board recruitment and training of new case officers, and the reopening of closed stations. To finance the counterterrorism effort, Tenet had gone to congressional leaders after the 1998 embassy bombings and persuaded them to give the CIA a special supplemental appropriation. Now, in the aftermath of the millennium alert, Tenet wanted a boost in overall funds for the CIA and another supplemental appropriation specifically for counterterrorism. To Clarke, this seemed evidence that the CIA's leadership did not give sufficient priority to the battle against Bin Laden and al Qaeda. He told us that James Pavitt, the head of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, "said if there's going to be money spent on going after Bin Laden, it should be given to him. My view was that he had had a lot of money to do it and a long time to do it, and I didn't want to put more good money after bad." The CIA had a very different attitude: Pavitt told us that while the CIA's Bin Laden unit did"extraordinary and commendable work," his chief of station in London "was just as much part of the al Qaeda struggle as an officer sitting in [the Bin Laden unit]." The dispute had large managerial implications, for Clarke had found Ailies in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Does the response "The millennium alert" correctly answer the question "What alert caused the CIA's managers believe that they had already used up all of the Center's funds for the current fiscal year, and caused Tenet to want a boost in overall funds for the CIA?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Sometimes a full Moon moves through Earths shadow. This is a lunar eclipse . During a total lunar eclipse, the Moon travels completely in Earths umbra. During a partial lunar eclipse, only a portion of the Moon enters Earths umbra. When the Moon passes through Earths penumbra, it is a penumbral eclipse. Since Earths shadow is large, a lunar eclipse lasts for hours. Anyone with a view of the Moon can see a lunar eclipse. So unlike a solar eclipse, it doesnt get dark on Earth. Instead it gets dark on the Moon. Partial lunar eclipses occur at least twice a year, but total lunar eclipses are less common. The Moon glows with a dull red coloring during a total lunar eclipse.

Does the response "Less often than partial lunar eclipse which happen at least twice a year and the moon glows a dull red" correctly answer the question "How often does total lunar eclipse occur and what color is the moon?"?
***
Output:
yes