帮忙翻译一下吧,谢谢!，帮忙翻译保密协议中的一段话(请人工翻译谢谢)
被美海关拒绝允许装载货物和/或拒绝允许卸下货物。托运人将负责所有的由于不遵守规定而产生的相关费用。受益人有通知托运人这项任务的责任。
大家好，今天小编在百度知道关注到一个比较有意思的话题，就是关于increasing the fines for ships that fail to comply with regulations的问题，于是小编就整理了4个相关介绍increasing the fines for ships that fail to comply with regulations的解答，让我们一起看看吧。
文章目录：
- 帮忙翻译一下吧,谢谢!
- 帮忙翻译保密协议中的一段话(请人工翻译谢谢)
- 麻烦哪位高手帮忙译一下,急用!谢啦!
- ...1901,Error attempting to read form the source installation databas...
一、帮忙翻译一下吧,谢谢!
有效期至2003年2月2日衡握，不遵守上述规定，受益人接受托运人罚款，被美海关拒绝允许装载货物和/或拒绝允许卸下货物哪兄。托运咐缓庆人将负责所有的由于不遵守规定而产生的相关费用。受益人有通知托运人这项任务的责任，并且看看要求是否得到履行。
水平有限，仅供参考。
二、帮忙翻译保密协议中的一段话(请人工翻译谢谢)
GE和公司各方都同意采取这样的必亩让要措施，来保证保密信息的公开必须遵守约束这种公开的出口贸易管制法律。接收方声称并保证，没有任何与保密信息有关的，受到美国出口贸易管制法律约束的技术信息，会从美国出口，或从岁扮最开始的出口就没有遵守美国政府的全部出口贸易管制法律和而规定乎耐灶从其他国家再转口，这些法律和规定还包括获得出口执照的要求，如果可以申请的话。接收方还需通过赔偿和承担来保证公开方，所有因为没有遵守这些条款以及适用的出口管制法律和规定而引起索赔，请求，损坏，成本，罚款，制裁，律师费以及其他的任何费用不会对其造成损害。
三、麻烦哪位高手帮忙译一下,急用!谢啦!
供应商的确定义务。供应商的义务包括（1）提供符合订单的商品，（2）提供的符合订单的发票以及其他所需文件，（3）供应商承担风险和费用以从原产国和/或出口国获取许可/文件，包括货物运输到出口的位置，以便对方在毕派指定港口进口，（4）承担货物灭失或损坏的风险，直到适用的DEQ证书到达有效日期和时间，（5）利用买方或买方的代理指定的货运承运人由出口口岸运至指定目的港，和（6）在适用的DEQ证书指定的日期时间，在指定的目的港交付和转让货物的所有权给买方。如果供应商不提供正确的文件以便迅速在目的港清关，供应商应负责，直至货物清关的任何一般的顺序仓储费用，罚款及罚则。此外，如果由于供应商没有按保单规定遵守其义务，供应商的货物不被加拿大边境服务机构手清贺放行，被要求重新提交至加拿大边境服务机构入关并放行，或被要求返还到供应商/买方或买方的代理人，除了按规定向买方或买方的代理提供其他补救措施，买方应有权拒绝向供货商付款；或者，如果付款已付，由于供应商舶运货物延迟，买方或买方的代理人应有权从供应商收回付正银款或拒绝付款。
四、...1901,Error attempting to read form the source installation databas...
安装包有问题，最好重新下一个
我帮你查了一下贺轿，原禅含肆因之一是环境变量修改错误，老庆但jdk安装不需要手动修改环境变量，所以排除，原因之二是你的版本本身的错误，要不你换个版本试试。。。
s been increasing exponentially over the past decade, roughly doubling every 18 months. Not so with disk performance. In the 1970s, average seek times on minicomputer disks were 50 to 100 msec. Now seek times are slightly under 10 msec. In most technical industries (say, automobiles or aviation), a factor of 5 to 10 performance improvement in two decades would be major news, but in the computer industry it is an embarrassment. Thus the gap between CPU performance and disk performance has become much larger over time.
As we have seen, parallel processing is being used more and more to speed up CPU performance. It has occurred to various people over the years that parallel
I/O might be a good idea too. In their 1988 paper, Patterson et al. suggested six specific disk organizations that could be used to improve disk performance, reliability, or both (Patterson et al., 1988). These ideas were quickly adopted by industry and have led to a new class of I/O device called a RAID. Patterson et al. defined RAID as Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks, but industry redefined the I to be “Independent” rather than “Inexpensive” (maybe so they could use expensive disks?). Since a villain was also needed (as in RISC versus CISC, also due to Patterson), the bad guy here was the SLED (Single Large Expensive Disk).
The basic idea behind a RAID is to install a box full of disks next to the computer, typically a large server, replace the disk controller card with a RAID controller, copy the data over to the RAID, and then continue normal operation. In other words, a RAID should look like a SLED to the operating system but have better performance and better reliability. Since SCSI disks have good performance, low price, and the ability to have up to 7 drives on a single controller (15 for wide SCSI), it is natural that most RAIDs consist of a RAID SCSI controller plus a box of SCSI disks that appear to the operating system as a single large disk. In this way, no software changes are required to use the RAID, a big selling point for many system administrators.
In addition to appearing like a single disk to the software, all RAIDs have the property that the data are distributed over the drives, to allow parallel operation. Several different schemes for doing this were defined by Patterson et al., and they are now known as RAID level 0 through RAID level 5. In addition, there are a few other minor levels that we will not discuss. The term “level” is something of a misnomer since there is no hierarchy involved; there are simply six different organizations possible.
RAID level 0 is illustrated in Fig. 5-19(a). It consists of viewing the virtual single disk simulated by the RAID as being divided up into strips of k sectors each, with sectors 0 to k – 1 being strip 0, sectors k to 2k – 1 as strip 1, and so on. For k = 1, each strip is a sector; for k = 2 a strip is two sectors, etc. The RAID level 0 organization writes consecutive strips over the drives in round-robin fashion, as depicted in Fig. 5-19(a) for a RAID with four disk drives. Distributing data over multiple drives like this is called striping. For example, if the software issues a command to read a data block consisting of four consecutive strips starting at a strip boundary, the RAID controller will break this command up into four separate commands, one for each of the four disks, and have them operate in parallel. Thus we have parallel I/O without the software knowing about it.
RAID level 0 works best with large requests, the bigger the better. If a request is larger than the number of drives times the strip size, some drives will get multiple requests, so that when they finish the first request they start the second one. It is up to the controller to split the request up and feed the proper commands to the proper disks in the right sequence and then assemble the results in memory correctly. Performance is excellent and the implementation is straightforward.
RAID level 0 works worst with operating systems that habitually ask for data one sector at a time. The results will be correct, but there is no parallelism and hence no performance gain. Another disadvantage of this organization is that the reliability is potentially worse than having a SLED. If a RAID consists of four disks, each with a mean time to failure of 20,000 hours, about once every 5000 hours a drive will fail and all the data will be completely lost. A SLED with a mean time to failure of 20,000 hours would be four times more reliable. Because no redundancy is present in this design, it is not really a true RAID.
The next option, RAID level 1, shown in Fig. 5-19(b), is a true RAID. It duplicates all the disks, so there are four primary disks and four backup disks. On a write, every strip is written twice. On a read, either copy can be used, distributing the load over more drives. Consequently, write performance is no better than for a single drive, but read performance can be up to twice as good. Fault tolerance is excellent: if a drive crashes, the copy is simply used instead. Recovery consists of simply installing a new drive and copying the entire backup drive to it.
Unlike levels 0 and 1, which work with strips of sectors, RAID level 2 works on a word basis, possibly even a byte basis. Imagine splitting each byte of the single virtual disk into a pair of 4-bit nibbles, then adding a Hamming code to each one to form a 7-bit word, of which bits 1, 2, and 4 were parity bits. Further imagine that the seven drives of Fig. 5-19(c) were synchronized in terms of arm position and rotational position. Then it would be possible to write the 7-bit Hamming coded word over the seven drives, one bit per drive.
The Thinking Machines’ CM-2 computer used this scheme, taking 32-bit data words and adding 6 parity bits to form a 38-bit Hamming word, plus an extra bit for word parity, and spread each word over 39 disk drives. The total throughput was immense, because in one sector time it could write 32 sectors worth of data. Also, losing one drive did not cause problems, because loss of a drive amounted to losing 1 bit in each 39-bit word read, something the Hamming code could handle on the fly.
On the down side, this scheme requires all the drives to be rotationally synchronized, and it only makes sense with a substantial number of drives (even with 32 data drives and 6 parity drives, the overhead is 19 percent). It also asks a lot of the controller, since it must do a Hamming checksum every bit time.
RAID level 3 is a simplified version of RAID level 2. It is illustrated in Fig. 5-19(d). Here a single parity bit is computed for each data word and written to a parity drive. As in RAID level 2, the drives must be exactly synchronized, since individual data words are spread over multiple drives.
At first thought, it might appear that a single parity bit gives only error detection, not error correction. For the case of random undetected errors, this observation is true. However, for the case of a drive crashing, it provides full 1-bit error correction since the position of the bad bit is known. If a drive crashes, the controller just pretends that all its bits are 0s. If a word has a parity error, the bit from the dead drive must have been a 1, so it is corrected. Although both RAID levels 2 and 3 offer very high data rates, the number of separate I/O requests per second they can handle is no better than for a single drive.
Figure 5-19. RAID levels 0 through 5. Backup and parity drives are shown shaded.
RAID levels 4 and 5 work with strips again, not individual words with parity, and do not require synchronized drives. RAID level 4 [see Fig. 5-19(e)] is like RAID level 0, with a strip-for-strip parity written onto an extra drive. For example, if each strip is k bytes long, all the strips are EXCLUSIVE ORed together, resulting in a parity strip k bytes long. If a drive crashes, the lost bytes can be recomputed from the parity drive.
This design protects against the loss of a drive but performs poorly for small updates. If one sector is changed, it is necessary to read all the drives in order to recalculate the parity, which must then be rewritten. Alternatively, it can read the old user data and the old parity data and recompute the new parity from them. Even with this optimization, a small update requires two reads and two writes.
As a consequence of the heavy load on the parity drive, it may become a bottleneck. This bottleneck is eliminated in RAID level 5 by distributing the parity bits uniformly over all the drives, round robin fashion, as shown in Fig. 5-19(f). However, in the event of a drive crash, reconstructing the contents of the failed drive is a complex process.
到此，以上就是小编对于increasing the fines for ships that fail to comply with regulations的问题就介绍到这了，希望介绍关于increasing the fines for ships that fail to comply with regulations的4点解答对大家有用。