Collisions. 14 A. Each County Vehicle shall be equipped, at a minimum and at all times, with a first-aid kit and 15 fire extinguisher for use in an emergency.
Collisions h. Weather changes;
Collisions. In case of discrepancies or contradictions between the terms of this Agreement and the terms of the Contract, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail, unless this Agreement expressly stets that the Parties may agree on a different condition in the contract document (contract, order to the contract, appendix to the contract, supplementary agreement to the contract).
Collisions. Multicoordinated rounds have a drawback that does not exist in single-coordinated ones—collisions. In multicoordinated rounds, a collision happens when commands proposed concurrently arrive at the coordinators in different orders and this leads to their forwarding of incompatible c-structs. If no coordinator quorum forwards c-structs whose glb can extend the values previously accepted by the acceptors, the round is stuck since no new command can get accepted.
Collisions. 2 A. Each COUNTY Vehicle shall be equipped, at a minimum and at all times, with a first-aid kit 3 and fire extinguisher for use in an emergency.
Collisions. The Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (Ratification) and for Matters Connected Therewith Law of 1980 (Law No. 18/80), and the follow- ing amendments: • the Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (Ratification) and for Matters Connected Therewith (Amendment) Law of 1981 (Law No. 8/81); • the Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (Ratification) and for Matters Connected Therewith (Amendment) Law of 1982 (Law No. 66/82); • the Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (Ratification of Amendments) Law of 1989 (Law No. 4/89); and • the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, 1952 (Ratification) Law of 1993 (Law No. 31(III)/93). Salvage • The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Assistance and Salvage at Sea and Protocol of Signature, Brussels 23 September 1910 (extended to Cyprus on 1 February 1913).
Collisions. When different values are proposed simultaneously, this optimization can be coun- terproductive as it may require the execution of a time consuming recovery procedure. In case of competing proposals, no value can be safely chosen (see Figure 3.6). The usual way to recover from such a collision is to begin a new round. A coordinator Xx that learns of a collision in round i must start a new round with a number j > i. More precisely, Ci must initiate a Prepare phase by sending a Read request. In [37], Xxxxxxx suggests to optimize the classical mechanism of recovering from collisions. However, this optimization is only possible under stronger assumptions. If i is a fast round and Ci is coordinator of rounds i and i + 1, the information last sent during round i can be used during round i + 1. Based on this observation, Ci can skip the Prepare phase for round i + 1 as it knows that no one else has acted as a leader between rounds i and i + 1. Therefore, round i + 1 can begin directly with the Propose phase. Two collision recovery mechanisms are described in [37], namely coordinated and uncoordinated recovery. The main disadvantages of this optimization are the following: • it relies on a static a-priori convention on the fast rounds numbers. • larger quorums (Any quorums) must be used. • if collisions are frequent, it can be counterproductive as it requires an expensive recov- ery procedure.
Collisions. The optimal conditions in which optimization RO has a positive impact on the latency by allowing a performance gain, require the absence of collisions. In performing our experi- ments, we also focused on assessing the performance degradation when the conditions that have motivated the use of optimization RO become less favorable. We considered a simple scenario: we deployed 3 coordinators, 5 acceptors and 2 proposers on 10 nodes of a local cluster situated on the Rennes site. We analyze the two possible behaviors of Paxos-MIC-SO and Paxos-MIC-SO-RO. We also slightly modify Paxos- MIC to execute a new Prepare phase after each decision. In that case, the observed behavior is quite similar to that of classic Paxos (with no optimization). In order to simulate the degradation of the conditions favorable for optimization RO, we introduce the notion of probability. As we have 2 proposers, p is defined as the probability that an acceptor adopts the value from the first proposer while (1-p) is the probability to adopt the value from the second one. Figure 6.5 illustrates the latency (y-axis) measured for the three behaviors of Paxos-MIC, previously mentioned. For each point on a curve, we run 400 consensus instances and we compute the mean latency for one instance. The parameter that varies in this set of experiments, is the probability p, previously defined. On the x-axis, the value of p varies from 1 to 0.5. When p = 1, no collisions occur as the value provided by the first proposer will always be adopted by all acceptors. The worst scenario happens when both values have equal probabilities of being adopted by acceptors, in which case p = 0.5. The probability does not impact optimization SO nor the behavior of Paxos-MIC when no optimization was used. However, the latencies of these two behaviors (which are constant) are also displayed in the figure, to serve as a comparison point. When p = 1, we measured for Paxos-MIC with both optimizations a latency that is more than twice better than the one obtained for the Classic Paxos protocol. Compared to the Paxos-MIC-SO, Paxos-MIC with both optimizations exhibits a significant gain as latency is reduced by 30%. As expected, the latency of the Paxos-MIC with both optimizations starts to be higher than the latency of the Paxos-MIC-SO protocol very quickly (when p < 0.97). In other words, even a small number of collisions is sufficient to eliminate the performance gain brought by optimization RO. Then, when p reaches almos...
Collisions. Damage caused by (sea-going) vessels and animals may disconnect or damage grid connection cable(s) of the electrical components of the wave energy converters; Offshore operations may result in collisions with vessels or induce corrosion that may cause leakage of the floating modules, resulting in (partly) sinking. Other failures and events Due to excessive weight a module may start (partially) sinking. Partial sinking can also result in tilting of the module; Shifting and falling of unfixed items due to the movements of modules; Due to multiple mechanical systems vibrating in cohesion with wave vibrations mechanical resonance can occur; Due to motions people may getting injured by sharp objects (knives, needles); The hydrodynamic response of the platform and sea state in the berth behind floating breakwaters is very complex to model. Incorrect assumptions may cause installations to happen at environmental conditions that may cause uncontrollable motions and damage during installation of large structures and or smaller substructures; Due to exceedance of limits or a power loss, the vacuum mooring systems may fail. This causes the ULCV to possible drift off due to wind and current; Failure in the motion compensation systems and load control systems, i.e. due to power loss, multiple sensor failure, control system instability or other unexpected failures. May cause uncontrolled load motions. Risk The risks are related to the behaviour of the floating system, equipment such as cranes and vessels as a result of uncontrollable motions that may occur as a result of sea state, i.e. motions induced by waves, currents and wind. The consequences are very diverse and include all assets considered (people, equipment, infrastructure and ecosystem), and the severity of consequences ranges from small personal injuries to the sinking of modules. Prevention and/or mitigation Some level of prevention can be achieved by ensuring stability of movements, by stabilizing equipment and loads, e.g. by installing these on the centre of modules, and to secure mobile tools to avoid falling or flying around. All of these hazards mainly involve the adequate design of the modules, their connection and mooring system, and of equipment. Their design has to fulfil safety requirements, including mandatory testing and the definition of mitigating measures in case of failure. The risk of collision may be prevented by installing tug boats that can respond in case uncontrolled vessels float in th...
Collisions a. Light contact that does not affect the lead cars line or angle will not suffer a point deduction. Continued light contact may be judged in favour of the lead car for maintaining their drift, line and angle.
