Comparison Clause Samples

Comparison. Attach an itemized comparison of the proposed substitution with product specified, including test performance data.

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. Table I in Section II-A6 has shown comparisons of the proposed protocols with some existing ID-based AKA pro- tocols in terms of efficiency, leakage-resiliency, and provable security. It shows that Protocol I has the strongest provable security among all non-leakage-resilient protocols, and Proto- col II has the strongest provable security among all leakage- resilient ones. Here we use Table VII to compare the peformance of the proposed protocols with some representive ID-based AKA protocols (pairing-free and/or leakage-resilient ones) which can be used in the same scenario. In the table, denotes group exponentiation (or scalar multiplication in elliptic curve group), and denotes bilinear pairing. The computing cost on a user is evaluated by the number of time-consuming operations during key agreement process. TABLE VII: Comparison for performance computing time on each device. Each protocol is run 10 times to test the computing time. The average computing time is compared in Fig. 3. From the comparison we can see that: The secure storage cost is tested via the files size of private keys on each device. The file size is compared in Fig. 4. From the comparison we conclude that: Protocol Computing cost on a user Security Protocol I 6E ▇▇▇ Protocol II (4m + 4)E (m ≥ 2) CAFL-▇▇▇ [14] 4E mBR [15] 6E ▇▇▇ [16] 4E Modified ▇▇▇ [25] 4E CK [26] 3E CK [27] 7E ▇▇▇ [28] 5E × [29] 2E mBR [11] 8E + 2P BAFL-▇▇▇ [12] 4E + 3P ▇▇-▇▇▇ According to Table VII, among all non-leakage-resilient and pairing-free protocols, the computing cost of Protocol I is equal to or lower than that of the other protocols ([15], [27]) Participant Device CPU Memory Storage Cloud server (KGC) Desktop 3.2 GHz Intel Core i5 8 GB 921 GB Edge device (A or B) Laptop 2.3 GHz Intel Core i5 8 GB 256 GB End device (A or B) Raspberry Pi 1.5 GHz Cortex A-72 2 GB 16 GB

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. 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. 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. Yhere are three instances of subclauses in a metaphorical comparison where a sub- junctive is used. In the English translation, it is necessary to express the fact that the comparison clause is not actual with a were-conditional. Normally, such irreal clauses are formed with the optative in Yocharian, so that it is surprising to find a subjunctive instead. However, the interpretation is beyond doubt and so we are forced to add this category to the use of the Yocharian A subjunctive. It is striking to note that in the first case, the main clause is even past, whereas the subjunctive is normally not used in past contexts (the same is true of A 12a1, not cited here, but see . .1 , p 21 ). In the second example, the main clause is a general present. Apparently, the tense of the main clause did not affect the finite verb of the comparison clause – a clear relative tense feature (see footnote 11). Yhe structure of the second example is a bit more complicated, the first two subjunctives tā? being part of concessive subclauses; the finite verb of the main clause is päZPä?. A12b2- tämne ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ pra?țaṇ päZPāZ tāP mäṇtne ?pänso so DEM DEM moment see:SBJ.GER be: SG.PRY like sleep:INS PZiso sne wāsPZune Pesār śiśäP tā? lie:PRY.PYC without motion Kesara lion be: SG.SBJ ‘At that moment it looked like it were a motionless Kesara lion, lying asleep.’ oo tā? penu (wra)[a ]som arämpātso PaPnu ZPātsi Pāswe Pnānmune be: SG.SBJ also being figure:INS provided see:INF lovely wisdom ats mā tā?-äṇ täpreṇ ats päZPä? mäṇ(tne) [a4] tsePe?i just not be: SG.SBJ- SG.SUFF then just look: SG.PRS like fashioned pePe?i pat arämpāt tā? painted or figure be: SG.SBJ ‘Even if a being is provided with a [beautiful] figure [and] lovely to look at, [but] it has no wisdom, then it looks exactly like it were a fashioned or painted figure.’ o1 299 Geng and Klimkeit (1988: 1 6-1 7). oo ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ (1944: 15).

Comparison. 8.2.5.1 Compare with a file... (CTRL+K)‌

Comparison. Every 6 months following the Effective Date, the Franchisor will compare the Gross Fees of the Franchisee for Customers whose primary offices are located in the Territory, with the average gross fees attributable to other franchisees having, in the opinion of the Franchisor, a substantially similar territory or market as the Franchisee. The Franchisor will notify the Franchisee of the results of such comparison.