Presumably Clause Samples
Presumably. 22ºCA was raised at a slightly lower average temperature leading to generally slower development. Furthermore, in an ANCOVA on protandry, there was no interaction between collection and the covariate of overall development time (F2,22 = 2.02, p = 0.16), and overall development time (mean of male and female development time) did not explain variance in protandry (F1,24 = 1.40, p = 0.25). To further test whether protandry changed with development time, we performed an orthogonal regression on male and female development time. The slope of the regression was 1.02, with the lower 95% confidence limit at 0.95 (correlation = 0.985, figure 5.1). Because the slope is not significantly different from unity, there is no change in the relationship at these intermediate to high temperatures between male development time and female development time with increasing overall development time. Although development times varied considerably between the different cages and egg batches (figure 5.1), the amount of protandry remained constant at these intermediate to high temperatures (wet seasonal conditions). At all three temperatures spanning the relevant range, egg-to-adult development time of males was shorter than for females (ANOVA, 18ºC: F1,113 = 50.01, 22ºC: F1,356 = 60.31, and 27ºC: F1,218 = 16.79, all p < 0.0001), but females had a significantly shorter pupal phase than males (18ºC: F1,113 = 15.54, 22ºC: F1,356 = 58.69, and 27ºC: F1,218 = 16.61, all p < 0.0001). Data on differences in length of (components of) development time for the two sexes are shown in table 5.1. Protandry significantly increased with decreasing temperature (F2,28 = 21.54, p < 0.0001). Differences in larval time between the sexes were significant between temperatures (F2,28 = 29.29, p < 0.0001), but differences in pupal time were not (F2,28 = 3.26, p = 0.054). Tukey comparisons showed that differences between the sexes were always larger at 18ºC than at either 22ºC or 27ºC (table 5.1). Addition of the covariate overall development time did not increase the explanatory power of the model, and at no temperature was there a significant relationship between protandry and development time (regressions, p > 0.30). Although the difference in development time increased with decreasing temperature, male development time as percentage of female development time showed no change across temperatures (F2,28 = 0.79, p = 0.47). This was true for each component of development time (larval time: F2,28 = 0.61, pu...
Presumably. Port officials concluded at some time that this nebulous scope of work provision or it predecessor, applicable to all of the workers in all of the trades employed by the Port under the DcTU agreement, included the specific tasks of plug- ging, unplugging, and monitoring reefers decked at T6 and assigned that work to the electricians covered by the DCTU agreement. No one provided the underlying rationale for this anomalous assignment decision obviously made long ago but ICTSI continued the practice of using the Port’s electricians to perform the disputed reefer work rationalizing that the lease required it to honor the historical work jurisdiction of those workers whose terms and conditions of employment were pro- vided for under the Port/DCTU agreement. Unquestionably, the Local 48-represented electricians have many other responsibilities in connection with their facility maintenance responsibilities. Quite unlike the reefer work, these other responsibilities appear to require the knowledge, training, and skills ordinarily associated with tradesmen who work in that craft. A March 2010 position description for a Port “Marine Electrician” summarizes the work functions of a Port electrician. The functions shown in the job description document include an estimate of the amount of time a Port electrician might expect to spend performing a particular task along with a summary description of the separate tasks listed in order of their importance. It shows the following: (50%) 1. Perform maintenance of electrical control systems on Port container cranes; the ability to troubleshoot and repair large DC motors and DC motor controls; Trouble-shoot elec- trical and electronic controls, including relay logic, Program- ▇▇▇▇▇ Logic Controller (PLC) programming and trouble shooting, and radio and/or micro-wave controls. Perform maintenance of electrical distribution systems from voltages that range from 120 to 12.5KV volt branch circuits. (30%) 2. Repair and/or replace any and all electrical systems at Marine facilities.
Presumably the billing cycles of the City of Surrey and its Designated Customers could be different. How do the monthly transactions and annual true-up transactions (if applicable) capture the difference in carbon tax?
Presumably this means that a person returned from Canada should receive a full hearing before an immigration judge to assess his or her claim to refugee status, and avoid the risks of expedited removal. But the U.S. was not willing in its regulations to forbid the application of expedited removal for those asylum seekers being returned by Canada.99
Presumably. ONA will request remedial orders relating to the expansion of the occasions when nurses should be provided with N95 respirators. The PRHC pointed out that the standard of evidence required to justify such a change in policy is onerous. It also referenced the comments of ▇▇▇▇▇▇, J in Ontario Nurses Association v. Eatonville/Henley Place, supra, that the evidence regarding the transmission of the COVID-19 virus “continues to evolve”.
Presumably. 1 reinstatement will be a rare occurence, as the lessee 2 is almost by definition in serious financial trouble. 3 4 Industry opposes having both pre- and post- 5 repossession cure rights. One or the other, they say, 7 repossession cure, however, is that it requires the 8 holder to retain the vehicle through the cure period. 9 10 The Reporter suggests the parenthetical sentence 11 in Option B as a way for the holder to ▇▇▇▇▇▇ a full- 12 payoff, or purchase, figure. Does this help? Might it 13 be made mandatory? 14 15 (c) Where a lessee is not entitled to reinstate under 16 subsection (b), or if so entitled, does not do so by the date 17 stated in the notice, the holder must apply the realized value of 18 the vehicle, determined under Section 318(b),and any security 19 deposit, in order, to --
Presumably the reason for this and for the date that's been put on the first page, of 21 June 2018, is that this document is meant to be justifying payments that were made by GCEN on and after 22 June 2018. The payment, in respect of which ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ said he would require documentation, was the first payment by GCEN on 22 June, so they need to give him a document that predates that. If the document is dated the 21st, then clause 3.2 has to refer to the lower amount because this document is based on the assumption that the payments through GCEN haven't been made yet. My Lord saw this was sent to ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. He forwards it to ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇. We see that at <MDR00160089>. He sends it to ▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ bit later, two weeks later now, I don't know why he's delayed, but this is 17 July 2018. The email we just saw was the 3rd. There is no text. He just forwards the share purchase agreement. To confirm that the attachment is the version we saw, that's <MDR00160093>. No, it is not. I will have to check that. It is a bad reference. But it is the same version that was attached, <MDR00160093> should be the document, but I may have got that wrong. Yes, I have got that wrong. But the correct document is the one -- my Lord can see that because he just forwarded the email from ▇▇▇▇▇▇. I said I would tell my Lord about the ownership of LPE Enterprises. We can see that in a structure chart at <▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇>. This is the technology structure chart current as at October 2018. LPE Enterprises Limited is owned by TW Private LLP, formerly London Private Equity LLP, the members of which are ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and London Group LLP, and the members of London Group LLP are ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇.
Presumably these factors would facilitate the ability of the surviving members of the killer population to colonize susceptible hosts. In this report, we present evidence for a new mechanism by which bacteria kill members of their same genotype that we discovered serendipitously. While performing experiments to estimate the rate constant of recombination (▇▇▇▇▇ 1981) in chemostat populations of Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) strain R6, we observed oscillations in density of up to five orders of magnitude with an apparently constant period. These oscillations were not restricted to this domesticated laboratory strain but it was also obtained for the three clinical isolates of pneumococcus we examined. Although oscillations of substantial amplitude in the density of bacteria are expected when predators like lytic bacteriophage are present (▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1977; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2007), they are not anticipated in monoclonal cultures of bacteria free of a third trophic level of organisms. Under these conditions, bacteria are expected to maintain a constant density the magnitude of which depends primarily on the concentration of the limiting resource (Monod 1949; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1970; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1973). Our theoretical and experimental analysis indicates that these oscillations in S. pneumoniae R6 can be attributed to the waxing and waning in the concentration of an agent (a toxin) that is released by the bacteria via an autocatalytic process and either lyses cells directly or induces their autolysis Our experiments indicate that the toxin responsible for these oscillations is a protein that can also lyse or induce lysis in closely but not distantly related species of Streptococcus. Since we can rule out the six known suspects anticipated for this lysis, we conjecture that this oscillation-driving toxin is novel, i.e. has not been previously identified or characterized. We present and, with the aid of a mathematical model, explore the properties of a fourth hypothesis for the evolution and maintenance of the observed, and other toxins, that kill members of the same clone: allelopathy to prevent invasion of established populations by competing strains of the same and different species. We briefly discuss why resistance to the suicidal agent observed here has not evolved and the potential for using these toxins for the treatment of bacterial infections.