Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: We all present these glossy lives to the world; coffee cups presented to dewy sunrises, champagne in airport lounges, luxurious restaurants that cost more than they should and share the blue skies days of exploration. I’m as guilty as anyone. But, what about behind those scenes? Those days where the wind is so strong you can’t instastory for talking (I’m looking at you Cornwall), when travel mistakes happen (like in Vienna where I accidentally booked our trip a day short) or when everyone asks you what your next trip will be and you sheepishly have to answer ‘er, not sure’. So I thought I’d get a few things off my chest, and confess a few of the reasons why I probably shouldn’t be calling myself a travel blogger. And yes, these are all very much first world problems. 1. I hate photographs of myself. Ironic, no? Especially when one of the first rules of blogging is all about the cult of personality. I just don’t like them. I wish I did, but there are few times that I fancy a photo and even less when I like the result. 2. We nip into a MacDonalds at least once every trip. It has now become a tradition between nicer restaurants to nip in and order a Big Mac and fries at some point of our trip – but especially in Europe for some reason. Why do their MacDonalds meals taste better? 3. Pastels aren’t really my shade. Again, I wish I could be super girly, twirling in gossamer skirts painted in spring shades but I’m just not. My colour palette is decidedly autumnal/jewel hued and usually sticks to a scarf draped around my neck in a hopefully fashionable manner. And I’m totally ok with that. 4. I once travelled all the way to New Zealand and back (stopping in 3 countries enroute) without a lens cap on my brand new, fairly expensive camera. This is in no way a #humblebrag about the trip, but a comment on how impractical I can be – and how careful I also am. I lovingly wrapped my camera in a soft scarf every day for 3 weeks, growled under my breath at anyone who looked like they might jostle me and at one point found... Question: Why does the blogger consider herself impractical? Answer:
A: She left the lens cap off her camera

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: "Hey, guy." "No, this is Ray." He smiled, leaned back in his chair. It was, of course, Pete. Pete was the night shift guy at Crossroads Detox across town. Ray called it the Jesus Shop because it was wholly supported by a contingent of local churches who saw addicts as a potential ministry. Apparently Jesus saved--not only from sin and hell, but also from Dark Eyed Jim Beam. Pete was a relatively innocuous born again fundie who volunteered his time two or three nights a week. When he was not saving the world, his Clark Kent was actually a steady CPA job with the local H&R Block. He'd been pulling shifts for about six months, knew nothing about drugs beyond that bad people used them to escape their problems and that they were tools of Satan, and he always needed Ray's advice about one thing or another. This arrangement was not problematic as Pete had long ago given up trying to convert him. Pete was also the only guy in the city who was, as Ray figured it, making less money than he was at such an hour. In return for Ray's magnanimity, Pete had done Ray's taxes for free last year. They had never actually met, though Ray had faxed him the tax forms and Pete had faxed back a photo of his two pre-teen daughters and his geriatric Lab. "What's the problem?" Ray asked. "I have a recalcitrant." That's what he called them, the drunk and definitely disorderly. Pete's vocabulary did not include the word shithead either in its singular or plural. "Pete, they're all like that. Alcohol is bad medicine. That's why places like ours are in business. To make them calcitrant." "I know that." Pete sounded a little annoyed. There was some commotion in the background, a knocking on doors. Question: How long have Pete and Ray known each other for? Answer:
A: Few month

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: About 15 years ago I met Stuart ‘Aq’ Langridge when he walked into the new Wolverhampton Linux Users Group I had just started with his trademark bombastic personality and humor. Ever since those first interactions we have become really close friends. Today Stuart turns 40 and I just wanted to share a few words about how remarkable a human being he is. Many of you who have listened to Stuart on Bad Voltage, seen him speak, worked with him, or socialized with him will know him for his larger than life personality. He is funny, warm, and passionate about his family, friends, and technology. He is opinionated, and many of you will know him for the amusing, insightful, and tremendously articulate way in which he expresses his views. He is remarkably talented and has an incredible level of insight and perspective. He is not just a brilliant programmer and software architect, but he has a deft knowledge and understanding of people, how they work together, and the driving forces behind human interaction. What I have always admired is that while bombastic in his views, he is always open to fresh ideas and new perspectives. For him life is a journey and new ways of looking at the road are truly thrilling for him. As I have grown as a person in my career, with my family, and particularly when moving to America, he has always supported yet challenged me. He is one of those rare friends that can enthusiastically validate great steps forward yet, with the same enthusiasm, illustrate mistakes too. I love the fact that we have a relationship that can be so open and honest, yet underlined with respect. It is his personality, understanding, humor, thoughtfulness, care, and mentorship that will always make him one of my favorite people in the world. Question: How is Stuart likely to respond to someone who has a new fresh idea? Answer:

A: he is likely to be open to it