Comparison. All statements furnished under clauses (a) or (b) above shall set forth in comparative form the amount for the end of the corresponding fiscal year, or corresponding period of the preceding fiscal year, as the case may be.
Comparison. Attach an itemized comparison of the proposed substitution with product specified, including test performance data.
Comparison. For the purpose of assessing compatibility with television stations (see section 5.1 above) or protection to service areas of existing sound broadcasting transmitters (see section 5.2 above), the existing situation has been used as a reference situation and has been compared with the new Plan in the course of its development. To permit these comparisons, it has been necessary to calculate (as in section 5.6 below) the usable field strength (Eu) for all television transmitters and all existing sound broadcasting stations (as in sections 5.1 and 5.2 above) at a number of test locations (not more than 12) within the existing service area, as specified by the administrations concerned.
Comparison. Where the information compares investment or ancillary services, financial instruments or persons providing investment or ancillary services, the following conditions need to be satisfied: • The comparison must be meaningful and presented in a fair and balanced way. • The sources of the information used for the comparison must be specified. • The key facts and assumptions used to make the comparison must be included. FINANCIAL SUCCESS Promising financial success, whether implied or explicit, is prohibited. • Do not promise profits. • Do not make unwarranted claims of success by other traders or yourself. • Do not promise that one can learn to trade easily or profitably unless the word “learn” is connected with thedemo mode or the platform usage. • Do not use the word "play" or “game” even when the advertisement/promotional material is related to demo mode/ practice mode, as the word “play” or “game” implies that our services, even the demo service isa game, thereby undermining risks involved. Practical examples of the above restrictions are as follows: “Say”: • "Easy learning platform" • "Simple platform tools" • "Easy to use the platform" • "Easy to navigate the platform" • "Intuitive platform" • "User-friendly platform" • "Practice trading using an unlimited demo account" • "Get to know to trade using your free demo account" • "Learn how to use the platform by trading in the demo mode" • "You can learn to trade using a demo account on the platform and start trading anywhere, anytime" Do not say: • "Easy profits with Freedom Finance Europe Ltd." • "Guaranteed profits by trading with our platform" • "Trading is simple to learn with us" • "Start learning to trade, and make a profit anywhere and anytime” • "Trading is simple, even for beginners"
Comparison. Four scenarios were reviewed in order to compare the options that Columbia County has to review. The scenarios were prepared to illustrate a range starting with our Current License (Scenario 1) all the way up to the Enterprise Agreement (Scenario 4). Scenarios 2 and 3 are provided to show compare the cost of the licensing that ESRI offers vs. the EA. • Scenario 1 has glaring shortcomings because we are 1) Short on AGOL licenses, 2) In need of additional ArcGIS Desktop licenses, and 3) Short on ArcGIS Enterprise licenses for the number of cores on our servers. In short, Scenario 1 is shown to illustrate what we have now but it is not a viable path forward. The annual amount for maintenance of these licenses is subject to change (per contract), so the amount shown below is an estimate subject to increase by a few hundred dollars per year. • Scenario 2 illustrates 100% compliance and coverage for growth. “Growth”, means that we can install ArcGIS Desktop for more end users and accommodate new personnel using the ArgGIS Collector and ArcGIS online. • Scenario 3 illustrates the purchase of more licenses, but not necessarily permitting room for growth. Scenario 3 is currently programmed for 5 more ArcGIS licenses instead of the 10 in Scenario 2. We could change the number of AGOL licenses to save money, but there are already over 100 potential users of those tools. • Scenario 4 is the Enterprise Agreement. Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Description Existing License Situation 100% Compliance and New Licenses to cover new needs with room for growth 100% Compliance and New Licenses to cover bare minimum needs. Enterprise Agreement Quick Assessment We are “under- licensed” in certain areas and cannot meet demands. This option is not realistic because we will need growth, so the numbers will change based on future purchases. This option covers compliance and all identified growth needs. This option covers compliance but could leave some customers in need. This covers all our potential needs. Capital / New License Cost (one- time purchases) $0 $193,800.00 $138,800.00 $0.00 Annual Maintenance Cost $46,564.11 (includes County GIS + Broadband) $120,644.11 $84,404.11 $109,500.00 (will include $6,000 for Geoevent) 3-Year Maintenance Fee $139,692.33 $361,932.33 $253,212.33 $328,500.00 Total Expenditure $139,692.33 $555,732.33 $392,012.33 $328,500.00 CONCLUSION The licensing scheme applied by ESRI has been geared to push customers the size of Columbia County to ...
Comparison. This section makes a comparison amongst TLPKA, Xx et al., Xxx et al., and Xxxxx et al.’s. The comparison is divided into three parts: security property, computation overhead, and communication overhead.
Comparison. 8.2.5.1 Compare with a file... (CTRL+K) Opens a second file and lays it over the first file that has been opened. It is only possible to compare files for the Smarty devices compatible with each other (see following table), for example, it is not possible to compare JR with SSR files, or TNTR with REVO. The sample files are read only and can not be modified! The colors and way of visualization of the comparison file can be customized in the basic options.
Comparison. As is evident, the determination whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is distinct from the determination whether the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the alleged offense. For competency, the court must assess the defendant’s current mental health status to determine whether the defendant is able to understand the 31 At the time of the Circuit Court proceedings in this case in June 2018, the statute required the court to commit the defendant to the Health Department in somewhat different language. The statute was amended during the 2018 session of the General Assembly, effective October 1, 2018, to its current form. Chapters 188, 189, 702, 703, Laws of Maryland 2018. The changes wrought by the 2018 amendment are not pertinent to the issues in this case. proceedings and assist in the defense. For criminal responsibility, the court must assess the defendant’s past mental health status at the time of the commission of the offense, which may or may not be the same as the defendant’s mental health status at the time of trial. See Xxxxxx v. State, 282 Md. 353, 373 (1978). When a defendant enters a plea of not criminally responsible, the court may order an evaluation of the defendant’s competence to stand trial, presumably on the theory that whatever condition is the basis of that plea may have persisted and may affect the defendant’s ability to assist in the defense. See CP §3-111.32 In any event, a defendant may be found competent to stand trial at present, yet deemed not criminally responsible for the past conduct at issue. Indeed, that is precisely what happened in the case at hand.
Comparison. CTRL + K Compared with file... CTRL + SHIFT + K Remove comparison 11 Mouse and keyboard in the map views
Comparison. Correlation studies were done using the Helena Protein S system and a reference method. The specimens used met the same criteria as those for the normal range study. The following data was derived. Total S Free S n = 49 31 Y = Helena Protein S Y = 0.917X + 6.975 0.981X + 0.498 X = Reference Method r = 0.849 0.906 SENSITIVITY Sensitivity for this procedure is expressed in relative percentages compared to a pool of normal plasma, such as S.A.R.P. Patient values greater than the highest value on the normal standard curve must be diluted and retested. The sensitivity threshold for the Helena Protein S Kit is 6% of the normal human level.
