Activation File Delphi 2010 .slip [NEW]
CLICK HERE --->>> https://urllie.com/2sXYTj
I had a similar problem when renaming my Windows 10 computer. Apparently the license is bound to the computer name. I had to re-register Delphi after renaming my computer but failed because of the limit of my license key. Solution was renaming back my computer and renaming C:\ProgramData\Embarcadero\.cgb_license.corrupted and C:\ProgramData\Embarcadero\.licenses\.cg_license.corrupted to files without the .corrupted as suffix. My licence slip file was C:\ProgramData\Embarcadero\.2016_2.#############.slip.
After a bit more digging around on the internets, I found a reference to the location of some other .slip files, in ProgramData\Embarcadero (I can only think that the one in the License folder of the installation itself is just there for decoration?)
Oh well, at least what should have taken 30 seconds or a couple of minutes, at most, only took the best part of TWO HOURS! (Now that I know about those additional .slip files, it will be much quicker next time of course, as it will be for you, dear reader ? ).
Poor ovarian response (POR) to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) is one of the most challenging issue in the field of reproductive medicine. However, even if improving IVF outcome in poor responders (PORs) represents a main priority, the lack of a unique definition of POR has hampered research in this area. In order to overcome this impediment, an ESHRE Campus Workshop was organized in Bologna in 2010 and reached a consensus on the criteria for the diagnosis of POR ("Bologna Criteria"). In this review we aimed to estimate the prognostic potential of the ESHRE definition, to elucidate its possible weaknesses and to analyze the economic aspects of IVF in a population of poor responders (PORs). Available evidence confirmed that the Bologna criteria are able to select a population with a poor IVF prognosis thus supporting their validity. Nonetheless, different aspects of the definition have been criticized. The main points of debate concern the homogeneity of the population identified, the cut-off values chosen for the ovarian reserve tests and the risks factors other than age associated with POR. Data concerning the economic profile of IVF in PORs are scanty. The only published study on the argument showed that IVF in these cases is not cost-effective. However, considering the potential substantial impact of cost-effectiveness analyses on public health policies, there is the need for further and independent validations. 2b1af7f3a8