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. 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. Attach an itemized comparison of the proposed substitution with product specified, including test performance data.
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. • 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. • "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" • "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. If we compare the statistics of the population and the Party elite of Kayseri and Balıkesir a number of differences and similarities emerge. First of all, although the city of Kayseri had almost twice the population of Balıkesir, the province of Balıkesir had twice the population of the province of Kayseri. Secondly, the workforce of the city of Balıkesir was quite different from that in Kayseri. The percentage of civil servants was 20% in Balıkesir and only 10% in Kayseri, indicating a far stronger state presence (state departments, educational and administrative institutions, civil servants and professions) in Balıkesir.263 This presence is also evident if we compare the percentage of students in the population of the two cities; 10% in Balıkesir, a mere 6% in Kayseri. The comparison of the number of schoolteachers between the two towns and their surrounding provinces yields the same results: for 229 (107 women) teachers in the town of Balıkesir in 1932, just 88 (18 women) teachers in Kayseri. Similarly 260 (35 women) teachers were employeed in the rest of the province of Balıkesir, and just 141 (6 women) in Kayseri.264 The percentages of farmers and merchants are almost identical for both cities, while the numbers of industrial workers and artisans are quite dissimilar indicating the presence of a growing industrial workforce in the factories of Kayseri, something missing in the city of Balıkesir (18,4% in Balıkesir, 29,4% in Kayseri). Interestingly the comparison of the Party elite (Party Administrative Committees) of the province of Kayseri and Balıkesir does not yield any analogous differentiation. On the contrary, there is not any great dissimilarity between the Party bosses of the two provinces; there is a slight larger number of civil servants and merchants in the Administrative Committees of the city of Balıkesir, but what differentiates the two cities, i.e. the industrial working force, is completely absent from the Party statistics. In other words, the local Party leaders in both cities (and in the rest of the towns of the two provinces) were by and large stemming from the commercial and artisanal segments of the local society. A number of professions (doctors, lawyers) and various state employees were also Party executive members, mostly in the two cities rather than in the smaller towns, a quite reasonable phenomenon given that the occupational environment of these occupational groups, related as it is with the presence of state services (hos...
Comparison. The comparison of our construction to Pilloni’s relies on the fact that ω becomes trivial after pull-back to XΓ(p∞)(ϵ)a, and we can give an explicit section using πHT. In the following, we essentially follow [17] and [10], although our comparison will be a bit different: For instance, we note that the comparison in [17] is local, whereas our definition will be global on X (ϵ). We start by trivialising &(1) locally on P1 via an explicit non-vanishing section, and pulling this back along the Xxxxx-Xxxx period map. This section can be defined as follows: Regard P1(K) as the moduli space of lines L ⊆ K2, or equivalently of one-dimensional quotients K2 → Q := K2/L, then we can regard the total space of the line bundle &(1) as the moduli space of points of Q. The image of (1, 0) ∈ K2 → Q defines such a point, and thus gives a global section s of &(1). Away from (1 : 0) = ∞ ∈ P1, this section is non-vanishing. Therefore s gives a trivialisation of &(1) over the chart A1 ⊆ P1 away from ∞ with parameter (z : 1). One checks that the action of Γ0(p) on this chart is described by ц∗s = (cz + d)s for all ц ∈ Γ0(p). (6) Let now s := πH∗ Ts. Then we see from the moduli description of s that for any (C, C+)-point x ∈ XΓ(p∞)(ϵ)a corresponding to an elliptic curve E with trivialisation α : Z2 → TpE, the point s(x) ∈ ωE is given by the image of α(1, 0) under HT : TpE → ωE. By the moduli description of T (ϵ), we may regard s as a morphism of adic spaces
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.
Comparison. The results from the internal and external parents’ questionnaires are, to some extent, divergent, therefore this section comprises of the results and analysis of the differences. Looking at the perception about usefulness shows that the scepticism is higher in the internal group where over 60% think that educational games will not be helpful or have no opinion, whereas the external group conclude very differently and definitely think educational games are helpful (97% either helpful or very helpful). The large group in the internal having no opinion shows that more information about educational games, their limitations and their potential is required, but also in general to better inform under which circumstances games may have a positive effect on the learning progress and motivation of their child. The results related to how often parents monitor their children’s progress are similar. 65% to 75% of the parents look after the progress of their children at least once a week. 25% of internal parents are completely not involved in their children’s school activities. This is also true for 5% of external respondents. What would the parents like to know about their children’s school achievements? 65% of internal parents would like to know the challenges their children face in school and if they are struggling in their learning process. This is much higher for the external ones where only around 22% are interested. For those, score and grades, were of more interest, followed by challenges they face and a minority would like to know about their relationship to their children’s’ tutors. Additionally, more than 20%, both internal and external, do not want any information or do not know what information they would like to have. A significant difference between the groups can be seen in their willingness to play with their children where internal would not engage themselves in a location-based educational game with their children (75% no). External parents asked would (71% yes). This continues in the differences related to if the children may participate - 35% of the internals would not allow, whereas 86% of the externals would allow. Only 20% (internal) and 38% (external) of the parents would pay for participation in a location- based educational game. Related to special needs and impairments, the results show that Beaconing should support people with dyslexia (36%) and autism (20%), but also be adaptable for sight and hearing impairments. The main security issue...
Comparison. This sub chapter describes the differences between the internal and external school’s administration and the similarities and dissimilarity that can be seen in their schools. The first difference between the internal and external school’s administration is the choice of learning technologies they are using in their schools. Internals prefer Learning Managements System and then MOOC and digital education games while 69% of external respondents prefer digital education games at first and then 50% of participants use a LMS. Furthermore, one of the externals also uses different types of technologies like e-learning, video and audio material and AEL. Desktop and laptop computers are available in most of the interviewed schools. In external schools there is a lot of different hardware available for usage, such as tablets (44%), multimedia (31%), networks (19%) and smartphones (13%), while internals just make use of some items, like white boards and multi touch devices. Internal schools use different types of technological platforms such as educational forums, the internet and MS Office, while externals use a wide range of technology, such as diverse operating systems as a technological platform followed by virtual labs, LMS, AEL, Google services, MS Office and many more other third parties’ software. It can be seen that the costs of the internet connection is around 100€ per month or balanced for the internals while externals manage it via school administrations, use their school budget or get local funds. The feature of feedback and accessibility is the most important thing externals think a learning platform must have, followed by the ability to personalise it and to track the learning progress. The internal administrations have equally voted that a learning platform must have a user friendly interface and the ability to overcome any difficulty. Internal administration of schools assume that forums are the best way for communication while the majority of externals consider audio video calling as the best way to communicate while being online. Externals voted chatting in second place while internal schools do not seem to like using them. Half of external respondents like using forums for communicating with their students. Requiring compliance with the regulation authorities and the real life situations are the most important needs for internals. Although most of the participants from the external group did not answer the question a few say the level of access...
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. 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 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.
