I believe most computations of the bound state are currently just assuming things about them (charge is a point source, nothing about quarks).
This is my suspicion as well, specifically about the charge distribution. I think a 4% effect could easily be explained using a model with distributed charge.
In economics people like to discuss job creators and wealth movement, trickle-up and trickle-down, the loss of businesses, poor people and rich people... but they fail to understand wealth. Take the "shop locally" thing... if you have a local bookstore versus Amazon, people tell you to shop locally because it "keeps the money in the community." Problem is the local bookstore is crap, they order from the big publishers and distributors, etc; some folks argue Walmart or B&N are as bad as Amazon and not like a local bookstore, but their stores still pay local taxes on their income, they still pay rent, hire sales people, and order from the same distributors.
Now let's say you order from Amazon because it's $10 cheaper. That money leaves the local community, but $10 stays
The problem is that the local bookstore doesn't have to be crap to go out of business, and why does someone who decides to save $10 by buying from amazon decide to shop at a farmer's market (less convenient, can be more expensive) instead of a grocery store? I know you have a good point about what makes the community wealthier, but there are advantages to having retail stores in your area beyond price and selection - I like having a downtown to stroll around and look at things in shops, and I know I'm not alone - I don't want to see a bunch of failing businesses with scary homeless people begging for change (this is the way it's headed) with the "normal" people isolated in their suburban house getting goods shipped to the house.
I wouldn't really describe this as confirming the arrow of time.
The really powerful arrow of time is the thermodynamic one. The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases. This thermodynamic arrow is essentially the same arrow as the psychological one, which allows us to remember the past but not the future, and all the other ones we see in nature, such as the laws of black hole thermodynamics, which say that the area of a black hole's event horizon always grows with time. This group of time-arrows, which are all essentially the same time-arrow, appear to occur because the big bang was fine-tuned to be extremely low in entropy, with its gravitational-wave degrees of freedom inactive. Nobody knows why we had a low-entropy big bang, when a random choice of initial conditions would be overwhelmingly more likely to produce a maximum-entropy one. (In particular, inflation doesn't explain it. Also, statistical mechanics doesn't explain it, because to produce the second law from statistical mechanics, you need to assume a low-entropy initial state.)
Would cooling from expansion and corresponding symmetry breaking explain it? Why would the big bang have to be a low-entropy state in any global sense (and what difference would that even make?), wouldn't entropy still be able to increase from any initial point?
This paper is about an arrow of time that is obscure and completely unrelated to the others. It has to do with the weak nuclear force. Unlike the others, it has essentially no effect on the world we see around us.
Is it possible that this observation is related to an increase of entropy that is not properly described by the particles in the model?
The limitations of the GPL exist for a reason, without them it would be too easy to "embrace and extend" any open source solution and we would either be back to square one, or spend all our time trying to reinvent the wheel....
While I understand your point, which would be true if everyone was working on GPL'ed code, in practice, incompatible licenses directly lead to people spending time "reinventing the wheel". Even though code is available with a restrictive license, they rewrite it to avoid the licensing issues. I think we would be better off with people just published code with no restrictions - how bad would that really be, and for who??
Works pretty good even for C#!
do you get intellisense? (or whatever it should be called?) - I use aquamacs on OsX for non-c# projects and monodevelop for c#, but would be happy to abandon monodevelop, but it's just so much faster for me to code and explore classes and things with intellisense.
When you create the walled garden you allow developers to focus on apps, but exclude them from the areas that may have a large impact. Apple needs to do it themselves for the newest innovations. That fancy new, revolutionary FS or networking will need to be ported. Or they'll need to come up with it themselves. Either way, they'll start to lag behind and be restricted in what they can do.
You may be right, but it's pretty likely that the fancy new FS or networking won't be very hard to port, since it's going to come from Linux... I think the real downfall of the walled garden approach is more likely to come through division of the content - right now, everybody knows that they can get the good movies from Itunes, and that Netflix is filled with B-movies (Chop-Kick Panda? really??) . Someday though, there will be some licensing battle that leaves a major chunk of content not available inside the walled garden, and people won't be thrilled that their home ecosystem of iOS devices can't watch their favorite show or movie, but some other OS can...
Intel is the master of segmenting markets. Different chips at different price points have different features enabled. Cheaper chips are as crippled as possible, to encourage you to buy a more expensive chip.
This is enough for them to fail. It is a gross waste of resources to make crippled hardware. I think they have enjoyed a monopoly position and they are finally facing a disruptive technology.
You know, you'd probably get used to it
I'm sure you are right, but it seems like the distance of the camera off of the wrist is essential to get a good view of the fingers, which would limit the ability to make it flush like a watch band. I think a camera embedded where your eyes are will be the most intuitive to the user - it sees what you see, more or less, so it's easy to aim and understand why it is or isn't working well.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
