Florsheim Mens Hamilton Cap Toe Oxford Black RPMo1

B01A93CXZC
Florsheim Mens Hamilton Cap Toe Oxford Black RPMo1
  • 100% Calf Leather
  • Imported
  • Rubber sole
  • Breathable leather lining
  • Xl extralight sole
  • Fully cushioned footbed
  • Smooth sheepskin lining
Florsheim Mens Hamilton Cap Toe Oxford Black RPMo1 Florsheim Mens Hamilton Cap Toe Oxford Black RPMo1 Florsheim Mens Hamilton Cap Toe Oxford Black RPMo1 Florsheim Mens Hamilton Cap Toe Oxford Black RPMo1 Florsheim Mens Hamilton Cap Toe Oxford Black RPMo1
This documentation is for an out-of-date version of Apache Flink. We recommend you use CafePress US Navy Proud Cousin Black Flip Flops Funny Thong Sandals Beach Sandals QvvO44
.
This documentation is for an out-of-date version of Apache Flink. We recommend you use the latest stable version .

Iterative algorithms occur in many domains of data analysis, such as machine learning or graph analysis . Such algorithms are crucial in order to realize the promise of Big Data to extract meaningful information out of your data. With increasing interest to run these kinds of algorithms on very large data sets, there is a need to execute iterations in a massively parallel fashion.

Flink programs implement iterative algorithms by defining a step function and embedding it into a special iteration operator. There are two variants of this operator: Iterate and Delta Iterate . Both operators repeatedly invoke the step function on the current iteration state until a certain termination condition is reached.

step function Iterate Delta Iterate

Here, we provide background on both operator variants and outline their usage. The Easemax Womens Elegant Bows Metal Buckle Peep Toe Low Top Platform High Chunky Heel Slip On Pumps Shoes Apricot Nbz7XB16
explains how to implement the operators in both Scala and Java. We also support both vertex-centric and gather-sum-apply iterations through Flink’s graph processing API, Gelly .

vertex-centric and gather-sum-apply iterations

The following table provides an overview of both operators:

Iterate Operator

The iterate operator covers the simple form of iterations : in each iteration, the step function consumes the entire input (the result of the previous iteration , or the initial data set ), and computes the next version of the partial solution (e.g. map , reduce , join , etc.).

iterate operator entire input next version of the partial solution Iteration Input Step Function Next Partial Solution Iteration Result

There are multiple options to specify termination conditions for an iteration:

termination conditions Maximum number of iterations Custom aggregator convergence

You can also think about the iterate operator in pseudo-code:

See the Programming Guide for details and code examples.

In the following example, we iteratively incremenet a set numbers :

Home > Part 22 Section 41 - Capable of Distinguishing > 3. Inherent adaptation to distinguish

Part 22 - Section 41 - Capable of Distinguishing
Trade Marks Office Manual of Practice Procedure

The first question to be determined in deciding whether a trade mark is capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods and/or services is: to what extent is the applicant's trade mark inherently adapted to distinguish their goods or services?

All trade marks examined will fall into one of three categories:

trade marks that are sufficiently inherently adapted to distinguish and are therefore prima facie capable of distinguishing;

trade marks that have some limited inherent adaptation to distinguish but are not prima facie capable of distinguishing;

trade marks that have no inherent adaptation to distinguish.

Inherent adaptation is a concept that refers to a quality of the trade mark itself and cannot be acquired through use in the market place. In Burger King Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks (1973) 128 CLR 417 at 424 (‘ The Whopper Case ’) Gibbs J said in relation to paragraph 26(2)(a) of the 1955 Act:

Inherent adaptability is something which depends on the nature of the trade mark itself - see Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks [(1964) 111 CLR 511 at 515 - the Michigan case ] - and therefore is not something that can be acquired; the inherent nature of the trade mark itself cannot be changed by use or otherwise.

In Michigan Kitto J at 513 sets out the criteria for deciding whether a trade mark is inherently adapted to distinguish:

That ultimate question must not be misunderstood [that is, "whether the mark is registrable as being 'adapted to distinguish' the applicant's goods"]. It is not whether the mark will be adapted to distinguish the registered owner's goods if it be registered and other persons consequently find themselves precluded from using it. The question is whether the mark, considered quite apart from the effects of registration, is such that by its use the applicant is likely to attain his object of thereby distinguishing his goods from the goods of others. In Registrar of Trade Marks v W. and G. Du Cros Ltd . (1913) AC 624 at 634, 635) Lord Parker of Waddington having remarked upon the difficulty of finding the right criterion by which to determine whether a proposed mark is or is not "adapted to distinguish" the applicant's goods defined the crucial question practically as I have stated it, and added two sentences which have often been quoted but to which it is well to return for an understanding of the problem in a case such as the present. His Lordship said: "The applicant's chance of success in this respect (i.e. in distinguishing his goods by means of the mark, apart from the effects of registration) must, I think, largely depend upon whether other traders are likely, in the ordinary course of their businesses and without any improper motive, to desire to use the same mark, or some mark nearly resembling it, upon or in connection with their own goods. It is apparent from the history of trade marks in this country that both the Legislature and the Courts have always shown a natural disinclination to allow any person to obtain by registration under the Trade Marks Acts a monopoly in what others may legitimately desire to use." The interests of strangers and of the public are thus bound up with the whole question, as Hamilton L.J. pointed out in the case of R. J. Lea, Ltd. 30 RPC 216 at 227; but to say this is not to treat the question as depending upon some vague notion of public policy; it is to insist that the question whether a mark is adapted to distinguish be tested by reference to the likelihood that other persons, trading in goods of the relevant kind and being actuated only by proper motives - in the exercise, that is to say, of the common right of the public to make honest use of words forming part of the common heritage, for the sake of the signification which they ordinarily possess - will think of the word and want to use it in connection with similar goods in any manner which would infringe a registered trade mark granted in respect of it.