Question:
Simply put, energy is the ability to a cause change. Energy can cause many types of change. Think about when you have a lot of energy. You are able to do a lot of things. When you dont have a lot of energy, you may sit around and do very little. A similar thing happens to particles of matter as energy is added. The more energy there is, the faster the particles of matter move. Energy is also the reason you are able to move around. In fact, matter is always in motion. It can even change from one form to another. For example, electrical energy can be converted into heat energy. You see this every time you use the toaster. Energy causes a change in matter when you lift your arm. Energy can be used to move matter. You use energy to take a step to move forward. Thanks to energy, your body moves. The energy of moving matter is called kinetic energy. After reading the above, is "Particles with little energy move slow, while particles with a lot of energy move fast. The more energy there is, the faster the particles of matter move" the correct answer to the question "What happens to particles with little energy as opposed to particles with a lot of energy?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Input: The CIA's senior management saw problems with the armed Predator as well, problems that Clarke and even Black and Allen were inclined to minimize. One (which also applied to reconnaissance flights) was money. A Predator cost about $3 million. If the CIA flew Predators for its own reconnaissance or covert action purposes, it might be able to borrow them from the Air Force, but it was not clear that the Air Force would bear the cost if a vehicle went down. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz took the position that the CIA should have to pay for it; the CIA disagreed. Second, Tenet in particular questioned whether he, as Director of Central Intelligence, should operate an armed Predator." This was new ground,"he told us. Tenet ticked off key questions: What is the chain of command? Who takes the shot? Are America's leaders comfortable with the CIA doing this, going outside of normal military command and control? Charlie Allen told us that when these questions were discussed at the CIA, he and the Agency's executive director, A. B." Buzzy" Krongard, had said that either one of them would be happy to pull the trigger, but Tenet was appalled, telling them that they had no authority to do it, nor did he. Third, the Hellfire warhead carried by the Predator needed work. It had been built to hit tanks, not people. It needed to be designed to explode in a different way, and even then had to be targeted with extreme precision. In the configuration planned by the Air Force through mid-2001, the Predator's missile would not be able to hit a moving vehicle. White House officials had seen the Predator video of the "man in white." On July 11, Hadley tried to hurry along preparation of the armed system. He directed McLaughlin, Wolfowitz, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Richard Myers to deploy Predators capable of being armed no later than September 1.
"Why was Tenet appalled?" is "Because this was happening outside of the normal military command and control, and he felt they didn't have the required authority"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: yes

Question:
Reuters Holdings PLC said Michael Reupke resigned as general manager to pursue unspecified interests, a move the news organization termed an "amicable separation." Mr. Reupke, 52 years old and a 27-year Reuters veteran, had been the information-services company's general manager for only six months. His appointment to that post, which has senior administrative, staff and policy responsibilities, followed a several-year tenure as Reuters's editor in chief. No successor was named, and Mr. Reupke's duties will be split among three other senior Reuters executives, the company said. In a telephone interview, Mr. Reupke said his departure was for "personal reasons," which he declined to specify. "There is no business reason for my departure," nor any disagreement over policy, he added. He also rejected reports that his departure stemmed from disappointment the general manager's post hadn't also led to a board directorship at the London-based news organization. Mr. Reupke was one of three executives on Reuters's eight-person executive committee who didn't also serve on the company's board of directors. "If I were choosing the people of tomorrow, I would have chosen the people who are now on the board," he said. A Reuters spokesman said the departure reflects "no change in strategy or profits." Mark Shepperd, an analyst at UBS Philips & Drew in London, said, "I suspect (the departure) will be fairly irrelevant for the company. I would be very surprised if his departure signals any change in strategy or change in profit expectations." On London's Stock Exchange, Reuters shares rose five pence to 913 pence ($14.43). In the U.S. over-the-counter market, American depositary shares for Reuters, each representing three shares in the London market, closed unchanged at $43.875. The senior of the three executives who will assume Mr. Reupke's duties is Nigel Judah, 58, finance director and a Reuters board director. Peter Holland, 45, deputy general manager, becomes director of corporate affairs. And Patrick Mannix, 46, international technical manager, becomes director of group quality programs. After reading the above, is "Reupke" the correct answer to the question "Name one person Reupke referred to as "The people of tomorrow.""? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no