Efficiency Comparison Sample Clauses

Efficiency Comparison. The results of the efficiency comparison between SGPAKE and PL-GAKA are illustrated in Table 3. Since this paper focuses on the cloud meeting and improves SGPAKE in the cloud meeting, we compare PL-GAKA with SGPAKE. For the Exponentiation evaluation, SGPAKE requires 4(2a ) because of two modular exponential computations for generating session keys. According to the properties of cloud meetings, the participant list can be determined before PL-GAKA starts, so the heavy work can be well prepared, and the computation cost can be finished from an offline computation. Table 3. The efficiency comparison between SGPAKE and PL-GAKA. Password Maintenance Yes No Exponentiation Yes No Key Calculation Modular Exponentiation Extented Choatic Map For the efficiency of the session key calculation process, PL-GAKA considers the extended chaotic map, which is a lightweight calculation compared with the modular exponential computation. Thus, PL-GAKA requires less computation time to generate a session key than that of SGPAKE. On the other hand, the meeting member does not require a password to verify the identity in PL-GAKA, so the password maintenance mechanism is not necessary in Pl-GAKA, but it is required in SGPAKE. Putting the above together, PL-GAKA is more efficient than SGPAKE in terms of key generation and the user maintenance.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Efficiency Comparison. Compared with similar KA protocols, the proposed KA protocol in this paper has many advantages. The comparison results are shown in Table 2. The protocols in Refs. [21,29] are based on bilinear pairings, which are time consumption as one pairing operation is about 11110 multiplications in finite field F3163. Then, the main operation in these protocols is point multiplication, and the proposed KA protocol utilizes the least point multiplication computation. Moreover, the proposed KA protocol only needs one-time information transmission, which can save half the time burden of the information authenticated in the session key agreement phase compared with one-round protocols. Although the KA protocol in Ref. [29] is also one-pass, it needs bilinear pairings, which are the time consumption operations.

Related to Efficiency Comparison

  • PRODUCTIVITY The Union shall place no limitations upon the amount of work which an Employee shall perform during the working day and there shall be no restrictions imposed against the use of any type of machinery, tools or labour saving devices.

  • Energy Efficiency The contractor shall comply with all mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub.L. 94-163) for the State in which the work under this contract is performed.

  • Mileage Measurement Where required, the mileage measurement for LIS rate elements is determined in the same manner as the mileage measurement for V&H methodology as outlined in NECA Tariff No. 4.

  • Profitability The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by XXXX under the Agreement. The Board considered the estimated costs to XXXX, and pre-tax profits realized by XXXX, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed XXXX’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by XXXX in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by XXXX and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. Economies of Scale. The Board considered whether there are economies of scale with respect to the management of the Fund and whether the Fund benefits from any economies of scale. The Board noted that the Fund’s investment management fee schedule includes fee breakpoints. The Board concluded that the Fund’s fee schedule represents an appropriate sharing between the Fund and DIMA of such economies of scale as may exist in the management of the Fund at current asset levels.

  • Level Three Director of Elementary or Secondary Education or the Administrator responsible under the superintendent’s level or his/her designee. In the event a grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved at the second level, the aggrieved employee shall file, within five (5) working days of the principal’s or immediate supervisor’s written decision at the second level, a copy of the grievance with the Director of Elementary or Secondary Education or the Administrator responsible under the superintendent’s level or his/her designee. Within ten (10) working days after such written grievance is filed the aggrieved and the Director of Elementary or Secondary Education or the Administrator responsible under the superintendent’s level or his/her designee shall meet to resolve the grievance. The Director of Elementary or Secondary Education or the Administrator responsible under the Administrator responsible under the superintendent’s level or his/her designee shall file an answer within ten (10) working days of the third level grievance and communicate it in writing to the employee and the principal or immediate supervisor.

  • Net Operating Income For any Real Estate and for a given period, an amount equal to the sum of (a) the rents, common area reimbursements, and service and other income for such Real Estate for such period received in the ordinary course of business from tenants or licensees in occupancy paying rent (excluding pre-paid rents and revenues and security deposits except to the extent applied in satisfaction of tenants’ or licensees’ obligations for rent and any non-recurring fees, charges or amounts including, without limitation, set-up fees and termination fees) minus (b) all expenses paid or accrued and related to the ownership, operation or maintenance of such Real Estate for such period, including, but not limited to, taxes, assessments and the like, insurance, utilities, payroll costs, maintenance, repair and landscaping expenses, marketing expenses, and general and administrative expenses (including an appropriate allocation for legal, accounting, advertising, marketing and other expenses incurred in connection with such Real Estate, but specifically excluding general overhead expenses of REIT and its Subsidiaries, any property management fees and non recurring charges), minus (c) the greater of (i) actual property management expenses of such Real Estate, or (ii) an amount equal to three percent (3.0%) of the gross revenues from such Real Estate excluding straight line leveling adjustments required under GAAP and amortization of intangibles pursuant to FAS 141R, minus (d) all rents, common area reimbursements and other income for such Real Estate received from tenants or licensees in default of payment or other material obligations under their lease, or with respect to leases as to which the tenant or licensee or any guarantor thereunder is subject to any bankruptcy, reorganization, arrangement, insolvency, readjustment of debt, dissolution, liquidation or similar debtor relief proceeding.

  • Metrics Institutional Metrics System-Wide Metrics

  • Performance Expectations The Charter School’s performance in relation to the indicators, measures, metrics and targets set forth in the CPF shall provide the basis upon which the SCSC will decide whether to renew the Charter School’s Charter Contract at the end of the charter term. This section shall not preclude the SCSC from considering other relevant factors in making renewal decisions.

  • Performance Monitoring ‌ A. Performance Monitoring of Subrecipient by County, State of California and/or HUD shall consist of requested and/or required written reporting, as well as onsite monitoring by County, State of California or HUD representatives. B. County shall periodically evaluate Subrecipient’s progress in complying with the terms of this Contract. Subrecipient shall cooperate fully during such monitoring. County shall report the findings of each monitoring to Subrecipient. C. County shall monitor the performance of Subrecipient against the goals, outcomes, milestones and performance standards required herein. Substandard performance, as determined by County, will constitute non-compliance with this Contract for which County may immediately terminate the Contract. If action to correct such substandard performance is not taken by Subrecipient within the time period specified by County, payment(s) will be denied in accordance with the provisions contained in this Paragraph 47 of this Contract. D. HUD in accordance with 24 CFR Part 570 Subpart O, 570.902, will annually review the performance of County to determine whether County has carried out its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assisted activities in a timely manner and has significantly disbursed CDBG funds and met the mandated “1.5 ratio” threshold. Subrecipient is responsible to ensure timely drawdown of funds.

  • Excellence excellence is the result of always striving to do better. This is represented by constant improvements to the way in which we deliver our services, which results in a high performing health service. • Respect – we demonstrate respect through our actions and behaviours. By showing each other respect, in turn we earn respect. • Integrity – integrity is doing the right thing, knowing it is what we do when people aren’t looking that is a true reflection of who we are. • Collaboration – collaboration represents working together in partnership to achieve sustainable health care outcomes for our community with a shared understanding of our priorities. • Accountability – together we have a shared responsibility for ensuring the best health care outcomes for our community. This is a reminder that it is not only our actions, but also the actions we do not do, for which we are accountable.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!