Gallia Belgica was a province of the Roman Empire located in the north-eastern part of Roman Gaul, in what is today France and Luxembourg, along with parts of the Netherlands and Germany. In 50 BC after the conquest by Julius Caesar during his Gallic Wars, it became one of the three newly conquered provinces of Gaul. An official Roman province was created by emperor Augustus in 22 BC; the province was named for the Belgae, as the largest tribal confederation in the area, but included the territories of the Treveri, Leuci, Sequani and others. The southern border of Belgica, formed by the Marne and Seine rivers, was reported by Caesar as the original cultural boundary between the Belgae and the Celtic Gauls, whom he distinguished from one another; the province was re-organised several times, first increased and decreased in size. Diocletian brought the northeastern Civitas Tungrorum into Germania Inferior, joining the Rhineland colonies, the remaining part of Gallia Belgica was divided into Belgica Prima in the eastern area of the Treveri and Leuci, around Luxembourg and the Ardennes, Belgica Secunda between the English channel and the upper River Meuse.

The capital of Belgica Prima, became an important late western Roman capital. In 57 BC, Julius Caesar led the conquest of northern Gaul, specified that the part to the north of the Seine and Marne rivers was inhabited by a people or alliance known as the Belgae; this definition became the basis of the Roman province of Belgica. Caesar said that the Belgae were separated from the Celtic Gauls to their south by "language and laws" but he did not go into detail, except to mention that he learnt from his contacts that the Belgae had some ancestry from east of the Rhine, which he referred to as Germania. Indeed, the Belgian tribes closest to the Rhine. Modern historians interpret Caesar and the archaeological evidence as indicating that the core of the Belgian alliance was in the present-day northernmost corner of France; these were the leaders of the initial military alliance he confronted, they were more economically advanced than many of their more northerly allies such as the Nervii and Germani Cisrhenani.

Apart from the southern Remi, all the Belgic tribes allied against the Romans, angry at the Roman decision to garrison legions in their territory during the winter. At the beginning of the conflict, Caesar reported the allies' combined strength at 288,000, led by the Suessione king, Galba. Due to the Belgic coalition's size and reputation for uncommon bravery, Caesar avoided meeting the combined forces of the tribes in battle. Instead, he used cavalry to skirmish with smaller contingents of tribesmen. Only when Caesar managed to isolate one of the tribes did he risk conventional battle; the tribes fell in a piecemeal fashion and Caesar claimed to offer lenient terms to the defeated, including Roman protection from the threat of surrounding tribes. Most tribes agreed to the conditions. A series of uprisings followed the 57 BC conquest; the largest revolt was led by the Bellovaci after the defeat of Vercingetorix. During this rebellion, it was the Belgae, they harassed the Roman legions, led by Caesar, with cavalry detachments and archers.

The rebellion was put down. The revolting party was slaughtered. Following a census of the region in 27 BC, Augustus ordered a restructuring of the provinces in Gaul. Therefore, in 22 BC, Marcus Agrippa split Gaul into three regions. Agrippa made the divisions on what he perceived to be distinctions in language and community – Gallia Belgica was meant to be a mix of Celtic and Germanic peoples; the capital of this territory was Reims, according to the geographer Strabo, though the capital moved to modern day Trier. The date of this move is uncertain. Modern historians however view the term'Gaul' and its subdivisions as a "product of faulty ethnography" and see the split of Gallia Comata into three provinces as an attempt to construct a more efficient government, as opposed to a cultural division. Successive Roman emperors struck a balance between Romanizing the people of Gallia Belgica and allowing pre-existing culture to survive; the Romans divided the province into four "civitates" corresponding to ancient tribal boundaries.

The capital cities of these districts included modern Cassel, Bavay, Thérouanne, Arras, St. Quentin, Reims, Amiens, Triers and Metz; these civitates were in turn were divided into smaller units, pagi, a term that became the French word "pays". Roman government was run by Concilia in Trier. Additionally, local notables from Gallia Belgica were required to participate in a festival in Lugdunum which celebrated or worshiped the emperor’s genius; the gradual adoption of Romanized names by local elites and the Romanization of laws under local authority demonstrate the effectiveness of this concilium Galliarum. With that said, the concept and community of Gallia Belgica did not predate the Roman provi

William M. Hart-Bennett was a British government official who served overseas, he was a British colonial minister in Nassau, Bahamas and a governor of British Honduras from 29 January 1918 to 4 September 1918, before, employed as Colonial Secretary of the Bahamas. Hart-Bennett was married on 27 April 1899 to Ella Mary Tuck, the daughter of Charles E. Tuck and his second wife Emily Mary Tuck of Norwich, England. Ella was a prominent figure in Nassau's society, she was president of the Nassau Dumb Friends League and a member of the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire. She is best remembered as the author of the book An English Girl In Japan. Ella died at the age of 49 in the sinking of the RMS Empress of Ireland on 29 May 1914. Bennett himself died on 4 September 1918 from injuries sustained in a fire on 17 August 1918, when a flagpole at the courthouse fell on him. A new building was completed in 1926, its clock tower memorializes him

In digital logic, a hazard in a system is an undesirable effect caused by either a deficiency in the system or external influences. Logic hazards are manifestations of a problem in which changes in the input variables do not change the output due to some form of delay caused by logic elements This results in the logic not performing its function properly; the three different most common kinds of hazards are referred to as static and function hazards. Hazards are a temporary problem, as the logic circuit will settle to the desired function. Therefore, in synchronous designs, it is standard practice to register the output of a circuit before it is being used in a different clock domain or routed out of the system, so that hazards do not cause any problems. If, not the case, however, it is imperative that hazards be eliminated as they can have an effect on other connected systems. A static hazard is the situation where, when one input variable changes, the output changes momentarily before stabilizing to the correct value.

There are two types of static hazards: Static-1 Hazard: the output is 1 and after the inputs change, the output momentarily changes to 0,1 before settling on 1 Static-0 Hazard: the output is 0 and after the inputs change, the output momentarily changes to 1,0 before settling on 0In properly formed two-level AND-OR logic based on a Sum Of Products expression, there will be no static-0 hazards. Conversely, there will be no static-1 hazards in an OR-AND implementation of a Product Of Sums expression; the most used method to eliminate static hazards is to add redundant logic. Consider an imperfect circuit that suffers from a delay in the physical logic elements i.e. AND gates etc; the simple circuit performs the function noting: f = X1 * X2 + X1' * X3If we first look at the starting diagram, it is clear that if no delays were to occur the circuit would function normally. However, no two gates are manufactured the same. Due to this imperfection, the delay for the first AND gate will be different than its counterpart.

Thus an error occurs when the input changes from 111 to 011. I.e. when X1 changes state. Now we know how the hazard is occurring, for a clearer picture and the solution on how to solve this problem, we would look to the Karnaugh map; the two gates are shown by solid rings, the hazard can be seen under the dashed ring. A theorem proved by Huffman tells us that by adding a redundant loop'X2X3' this will eliminate the hazard. So our original function is now: f = X1 * X2 + X1' * X3 + X2 * X3Now we can see that with imperfect logic elements, our example will not show signs of hazards when X1 changes state; this theory can be applied to any logic system. Computer programs deal with most of this work now, but for simple examples it is quicker to do the debugging by hand; when there are many input variables it will become quite difficult to'see' the errors on a Karnaugh map. A dynamic hazard is the possibility of an output changing more than once as a result of a single input change. Dynamic hazards occur in larger logic circuits where there are different routes to the output.

If each route has a different delay it becomes clear that there is the potential for changing output values that differ from the required / expected output. E.g. A logic circuit is meant to change output state from 1 to 0, but instead changes from 1 to 0 1 and rests at the correct value 0; this is a dynamic hazard. As a rule, dynamic hazards are more complex to resolve, but note that if all static hazards have been eliminated from a circuit dynamic hazards cannot occur. In contrast with static and dynamic hazards, functional hazards are ones occurred by a change applied to more than one input. There is no specific logical solution to eliminate them. One reliable method is preventing inputs from changing, not applicable in some cases. So, circuits should be designed to have equal delays in each path. Hazard Race condition 2. Http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Projects/Labview/Sequential/Course/02-Hazards/hazards.htm#FunctionHazards