text:
\section{Introduction}
The well studied Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of the strong interaction which binds quarks through gluons to form hadrons.
However, the fundamental picture of hadron structure in terms of QCD is still a mystery because of its non-perturbative nature.
The coupling constants grow large in low-$Q^2$ domain, rendering the traditional perturbative method powerless.
This non-perturbative behavior makes the calculation of hadron properties, such as masses, form factors, an extremely difficult problem pending a solution.
Over the last few decades, lattice gauge theory~\cite{wilson_confinement_1974} has undergone steady development.
Progress has been achieved in the calculation of baryon masses~\cite{durr_ab-initio_2008,*walker-loud_light_2009,*young_octet_2010} as well as electroweak properties~\cite{lin_first_2009,shanahan_electric_2014,*shanahan_magnetic_2014}.
Another important non-perturbative method utilizes the Dyson-Schwinger equations (DSE)~\cite{dyson_$s$_1949,*schwinger_greens_1951}.
Investigations into baryon masses, form factors, PDFs and GPDs have been carried out in this approach~\cite{oettel_octet_1998,*eichmann_nucleon_2010} and provide us valuable insights.
No less important are the phenomenological models which capture the underlying dynamical features of the baryons.
They are able to produce good results and predictions with only a few assumptions.
In this work we are to examine the electroweak form factors of the octet baryons with a light-front quark-diquark model.

The electromagnetic form factors provide information on the internal momentum space distribution of the electric and magnetic charge, thus granting us a chance to glimpse into the substructure of baryons.
In the 2000s, polarization transfer experiments~\cite{the_jefferson_lab_hall_a_collaboration_ratio_2000,*gayou_measurements_2001,*puckett_recoil_2010} revealed that the ratio between the two Sachs from factors of proton, namely $\mu_p G_E^p(Q^2)/G_M^p(Q^2)$, decreases almost linearly with $Q^2$, in contrast to what we assumed to be constant.
It was shown that our model is able to reproduce such behavior~\cite{ma_electromagnetic_2002}.
Recent muonic hydrogen experiments~\cite{pohl_size_2010,*antognini_proton_2013} find that the proton charge radius is measured to be $4\%$ smaller than the results from electron-proton scattering and Lamb shift in electronic hydrogen experiments.
The origin of this deviation is still unresolved.

The diquark describes a two-quark system.
This concept helps us to understand nucleon properties and high-energy collisions.
In the DSE approach, diquark leads to important simplifications which are used extensively in the literature.
This idea was first mentioned by Gell-Mann~\cite{gell-mann_schematic_1964} and then developed by Ida~\cite{ida_baryon_1966} and Lichtenberg~\cite{lichtenberg_baryon_1967}.
The light-front quark-diquark model further extends this picture in the light-front formalism to take relativistic effects into account.
The light-front (LF) formalism, or the ``Front Form''~\cite{dirac_forms_1949}, offers a natural framework to describe hadron structure in terms of their quark and gluon degrees of freedom.
The fields are quantized at fixed LF time $x^+=x^0+x^3$ instead of the standard time $x^0$.
The LF formalism maximizes the number of kinematic generators of the Poincar\'e group, making it ideal for dealing with relativistic systems.
The simple structure of the LF vacuum enables the hadron to be described as an unambiguous frame-independent n-particle Fock-state expansion, with the coefficients called light front wave functions (LFWF)~\cite{brodsky_quantum_1998}.
This formalism has been employed to solve the proton spin puzzle~\cite{ma_melosh_1991,*ma_proton_1993}.
The recently developed light-front holographic method which combines LF quantization with Ads/CFT duality successfully reproduces the Regge trajectories of hadronic spectrum~\cite{karch_linear_2006,brodsky_ads/cft_2008}.

In this work we investigate the electromagnetic and weak transition form factors of the octet baryons in this light-front quark-spectator-diquark model.
The numerical results of electromagnetic form factors, magnetic moments and semi-leptonic decay parameters are presented and compared with experimental results.
Sec.~\ref{sec:model} is a brief review of the light-front quark-diquark model.
We calculate the form factors and magnetic moments in Sec.~\ref{sec:form_factor} and axial charges for the semi-leptonic beta decays in Sec.~\ref{sec:beta_decay} within this framework.
The numerical results are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:numerical}.
Our investigation is summarized in Sec.~\ref{sec:summary}.

\section{Light-front quark-spectator-diquark model for hadrons\label{sec:model}}
In the light-front formalism, the hadron state can be expressed as an expansion with n-particle Fock states as the basis~\cite{brodsky_quantum_1998}:
\begin{multline}
  \Ket{H: P^+, \vec{P}_\perp, \lambda} = \sum_{n,\{\lambda_i\}} \prod^N_{i=1} \int
  \frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d} x_i \ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_{\perp i}}{2{(2\pi)}^3 } (16\pi^3)
  \delta \left(1-\sum_{j=1}^N x_j \right) \delta^{(2)} \left( \sum_{j=1}^N \vec{k}_{\perp j} \right) \\
  \times \psi_{n/H} ( \{x_i\}, \{\vec{k}_{\perp j} \}, \{\lambda_j\} ) \Ket{n: \{x_i P^+\}, \{x_i \vec{P}_\perp + \vec{k}_{\perp i}\}, \{\lambda_i\}},
\label{eq:expansion}
\end{multline}
where $\ket{n}$ are the light-front Fock states quantized at fixed light-front time $x^+ = x^0+x^3$.
$x_i=k_i^+/P^+$, $\vec{k}_{\perp i}$ and $\lambda_i$ are the light-cone momentum fraction, intrinsic transverse momentum and helicity of the $i$th component respectively.
The coefficients $\psi_{n/H}(\{x_i\}, \{\vec{k}_{\perp i}\}, \{\lambda_i\})$ are the LFWFs.
In principle, they can be obtained by solving the light-cone Hamiltonian equation $(H_{LC}-M^2)\ket{B}=0$ although the solution in 4 dimensions is still not achievable at the moment.

Fortunately, the $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ quark-diquark model provides a way to approximate these wave functions.
In the impulse approximation, a single constituent quark in the baryon is struck by the incident lepton, while the remaining part is treated as a quasi-particle spectator which provides other quantum numbers of the baryon.
Thus it is natural and convenient to treat the baryon as a quark-spectator-diquark system.
In our model, the baryon is described as a constituent quark involved in the interaction and a spectator diquark which serves to provide the quantum numbers.
It is also possible to absorb some non-perturbative effects into the diquark parameters.
This model has been proved to be a reliable tool in the calculation of quark helicity and transversity distributions~\cite{ma_x-dependent_1996,ma_quark_1998}, form factors~\cite{ma_electromagnetic_2002,ma_axial_2002,liu_generalized_2014}, transverse momentum dependent parton distributions~\cite{lu_sivers_2004}, Wigner distributions~\cite{liu_quark_2015}, etc.
Nevertheless, we do need to point out that this picture is actually too simplistic.
More realistic analysis is necessary to achieve a better description of baryon structures.

For a baryon, the instant form $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ quark-diquark wave function is written as
\begin{equation}
  \Ket{B}^{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}} =
  \cos\theta \sum_q a_q \Ket{q_{1}S(q_{2}q_{3})}_T^{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}}
  + \sin\theta \sum_{q'} b_{q'} \Ket{q'_{1}V(q'_{2}q'_{3})}_T^{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}},
  \label{eq:quark_diquark}
\end{equation}
in which $\sum_q$ and $\sum_{q'}$ stand for the sum of different quark-diquark components, $\ket{q_1 S(q_2 q_3)}_T$ represents a Fock state with a quark $q_1$ and a scalar diquark $S(q_2, q_3)$, respectively $\ket{q'_1 V(q'_2 q'_3)}_T$ represents a Fock state with a quark $q'_1$ and an axial-vector diquark $V(q'_2, q'_3)$.
The subscript $T$ means these are the instant form Fock states.
$a_q$ and $b_{q'}$ are coefficients from the $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ symmetry satisfying normalization condition $\cos^2\theta \sum_q a_q^2 + \sin^2\theta \sum_{q'} b_{q'}^2 = 1$.
The $a_q$ and $b_{q'}$ for all the octet baryons can be found in Ref.~\cite{lichtenberg_quark-diquark_1968}.
$\theta$ is the mixing angle related to spin-flavor $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ symmetry breaking.
The symmetric case $\theta=\pi/4$ is chosen as in our previous works~\cite{ma_x-dependent_1996,ma_quark_1998,ma_electromagnetic_2002,ma_axial_2002,liu_generalized_2014,lu_sivers_2004,liu_quark_2015}.
We consider only the Fock states with zero orbital angular momentum, thus the state of a quark-diquark system with a certain helicity can be expanded to a quark state together with a diquark state as
\begin{align}
  \ket{q_1 S(q_2 q_3)}_T^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}} =&\,
  \int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d} x \ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_{\perp}}{16\pi^3 }\,
  \varphi_{q_1 S(q_2 q_3)}(x, \vec{k}_\perp) \ket{q_1^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}} S(q_2 q_3)}_T,
  \label{eq:fock_expansion_1} \\
  \ket{q_1 V(q_2 q_3)}_T^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}} =&
  \pm \int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d} x \ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_{\perp}}{16\pi^3}
  \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \varphi_{q_1 V(q_2 q_3)}(x, \vec{k}_\perp) \nonumber\\
  &\,\big[ - \ket{q_1^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}} V^0(q_2 q_3)}_T
  + \sqrt{2} \ket{q_1^\ensuremath{{\downarrow,\uparrow}} V^{\pm 1}(q_2 q_3)}_T \big],
  \label{eq:fock_expansion_2}
\end{align}
where $\varphi_{q_1 S(q_2 q_3)}(x, \vec{k}_\perp)$ and $\varphi_{q_1 V(q_2 q_3)}(x, \vec{k}_\perp)$ are the momentum space wave functions corresponding to each Fock state, in which $x$ is the light-cone momentum fraction and $\vec{k}_\perp$ is the intrinsic transverse momentum of the quark.
Meanwhile the spin-flavor structures are encoded in $\ket{q_1^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}} S(q_2 q_3)}_T$, $\ket{q_1^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}} V^0(q_2 q_3)}_T$ and $\ket{q_1^\ensuremath{{\downarrow,\uparrow}} V^{\pm 1}(q_2 q_3)}_T$.
For the example of a proton, the instant form wave function in Eq.~\eqref{eq:quark_diquark} can be written as
\begin{equation}
  \ket{p}^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ket{uS(ud)}_T^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}
  - \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \ket{uV(ud)}_T^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}
  + \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \ket{dV(uu)}_T^\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}},
  \label{eq:proton_spin_wf}
\end{equation}
with the Fock states expanded with Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fock_expansion_1} and~\eqref{eq:fock_expansion_2}.
Other octet baryons differ from proton only by the coefficients $a_i$, $b_i$ and quark components in Eq.~\eqref{eq:quark_diquark}.
Their wave functions can be obtained in a similar fashion by referring to Ref.~\cite{lichtenberg_quark-diquark_1968}.

With the instant form wave functions available, the LFWFs can be obtained by transforming the instant form spinors to the front form with the Melosh-Wigner rotation~\cite{wigner_unitary_1939,*melosh_quarks:_1974,*[{See also }] buccella_current_1974}.
For the quark spinors in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fock_expansion_1}-\eqref{eq:fock_expansion_2} we have
\begin{equation}
  \begin{bmatrix}
    q_T^\uparrow \\
    q_T^\downarrow
  \end{bmatrix}
  = W_q
  \begin{bmatrix}
    q_F^\uparrow \\
    q_F^\downarrow
  \end{bmatrix},
  \label{eq:wigner_rotation_spinor}
\end{equation}
where $q_T$ and $q_F$ denote the instant form and front form spinors respectively.
The transformation matrix is~\cite{melosh_quarks:_1974}
\begin{equation}
  W_q = \omega
  \begin{bmatrix}
    k^++m & -k^R \\
    k^L & k^++m
  \end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:W_q}
\end{equation}
where $m$ is quark mass, $\omega = 1/ \sqrt{(k^++m)^2+k^Lk^R}$ is the normalization factor, and $k^+=k^0+k^3$, $k^{R,L}=k^1\pm k^2$.
The scalar diquarks remain the same in both forms because of their zero spin.
The Wigner rotation for the axial-vector diquark spinors is
\begin{equation}
  \begin{bmatrix}
    V_T^1\\ V_T^0\\ V_T^{-1}
  \end{bmatrix}
  = W_V
  \begin{bmatrix}
    V_F^1\\ V_F^0\\ V_F^{-1}
  \end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:wigner_rotation_vector}
\end{equation}
in which the transformation matrix is provided as~\cite{ahluwalia_front_1993}
\begin{equation}
  W_V = \omega_V^2
  \begin{bmatrix}
    (k_V^++m_V)^2 & -\sqrt{2} (k_V^++m_V)k_V^R & (k_V^R)^2\\
    \sqrt{2} (k_V^++m_V)k_V^L & (k_V^++m_V)^2-k_V^L k_V^R &
    -\sqrt{2} (k_V^++m_V)k_V^R\\
    (k_V^L)^2 & \sqrt{2}(k_V^++m_V)k^L & (k_V^++m_V)^2
  \end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:W_V}
\end{equation}
where $m_V$ is diquark mass and $\omega_V = 1/ \sqrt{(k_V^++m_V)^2+k_V^L k_V^R}$. $k_V^+$ and $k_V^{R,L}$ have similar definitions as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:wigner_rotation_spinor}.
It has been verified that spinors obtained by Wigner rotation are equivalent to those from direct calculation in the light front formalism~\cite{lepage_exclusive_1980}.

Following the above discussion, the light-cone wave function of octet baryons in Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion} can be approximated in the $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ quark-diquark formalism by transforming the instant form spinors in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fock_expansion_1} and \eqref{eq:fock_expansion_2} to front form spinors using Eq.~\eqref{eq:wigner_rotation_spinor} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:wigner_rotation_vector}.
We have after this transformation
\begin{align}
  \ket{qS}_T^\lambda &= \int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d} x \ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_{\perp}}{16\pi^3 }\,
  \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}}A^{i,\lambda}_{qS}\ket{q^i S}_F, \label{eq:felf_1} \\
  \ket{qV}_T^\lambda &= \int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d} x \ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_{\perp}}{16\pi^3 }\,
  \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}}\,\sum_{j=\{-1,0,1\}} B^{ij,\lambda}_{qV} \ket{q^i V^j}_F, \label{eq:felf_2}
\end{align}
in which $\lambda=\,\uparrow \mbox{or} \downarrow$, and
\begin{align}
  A^{i,\lambda}_{qS} &= W_{q}^{\lambda,i} \varphi_{qS}\\
  B^{ij,\uparrow}_{qV} &= \left( -\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} W_{q}^{\uparrow,i} W_{V}^{0,j}
  + \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} W_{q}^{\downarrow,i} W_{V}^{1,j} \right) \varphi_{qV}\\
  B^{ij,\downarrow}_{qV} &= \left( -\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} W_{q}^{\downarrow,i} W_{V}^{0,j}
  + \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} W_{q}^{\uparrow,i} W_{V}^{-1,j} \right) \varphi_{qV},
\end{align}
where $W_{q}^{i,j}$ and $W_{V}^{i,j}$ are elements of the matrices in Eq.~\eqref{eq:W_q} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:W_V}, $\varphi_{qS}$ and $\varphi_{qV}$ are the momentum space wave functions.
Compared with Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fock_expansion_1}-\eqref{eq:fock_expansion_2}, the components $q_2$, $q_3$ of diquark as well as the parameters of the matrix elements and momentum space wave functions are omitted for compactness.
By replacing the instant form Fock states in Eq.~\eqref{eq:quark_diquark} with the front form ones using Eqs.~\eqref{eq:felf_1}-\eqref{eq:felf_2}, we derive the Fock state expansion of octet baryons in front form, written in the form of Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion} as:
\begin{align}
  \ket{B:P^+, \vec{P}_\perp = 0, \lambda} =&\,\int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_\perp \ensuremath\mathrm{d} x}{16\pi^3}
  \Big[ \cos\theta \sum_q \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}} a_q\,A^{i,\lambda}_{q_1S(q_2q_3)} \ket{q^i_1S(q_2q_3)} \nonumber\\
  &\,+ \sin\theta \sum_{q'} \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}}\sum_{j=\{-1,0,1\}} b_{q'} B^{ij,\lambda}_{q'_1V(q'_2q'_3)} \ket{q'^i_1V^j(q'_2q'_3)} \Big].
\end{align}
The desired LFWFs can then be identified as the coefficients of each light-front Fock state:
\begin{align}
  \psi_{q_1S(q_2q_3)}^\lambda(x, \vec{k}_\perp, \lambda_{q_1}=i)  &= a_q\,\cos\theta\,A^{i, \lambda}_{q_1S(q_2q_3)}, \label{eq:lfwf1}\\
  \psi_{q_1V(q_2q_3)}^\lambda(x, \vec{k}_\perp, \lambda_{q_1}=i, \lambda_V=j) &= b_q\,\sin\theta\,B^{ij, \lambda}_{q_1V(q_2q_3)}.\label{eq:lfwf2}
\end{align}
LFWFs in our framework are composed of factors $A^{i,\lambda}_{qS}$ and $B^{ij,\lambda}_{qV}$ together with coefficients $a_q$ and $b_q$.
The factor themselves are expressed as matrix elements from $W_q$ and $W_V$ combined with the momentum space wave function $\varphi_{qD}(x,\vec{k}_\perp)$.
For the example of a proton, the light-front Fock state expansion is
\begin{align}
  \Ket{p:P^+,\vec{P}_\perp,\lambda} =&\,\int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_\perp \ensuremath\mathrm{d} x}{16\pi^3}
  \,\Big[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, \sum_{i=\{\uparrow,\downarrow\}}
  A^{i,\lambda}_{uS(ud)}\Ket{u^i S(ud)}_F \nonumber \\
  &\,- \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\,\sum_{i=\{\uparrow, \downarrow\}}\,\sum_{j=\{-1, 0, 1\}}
  B^{ij,\lambda}_{uV(ud)} \Ket{u^i V^j(ud)}_F \nonumber \\
  &\,+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\,\sum_{i=\{\uparrow, \downarrow\}}\,\sum_{j=\{-1, 0, 1\}}
  B^{ij,\lambda}_{dV(uu)} \Ket{d^i V^j(uu)}_F\Big]. \label{eq:plfexp}
\end{align}
The LFWFs $\psi_{n/H} (x, \vec{k}_{\perp}, \lambda_q)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion} then can be identified as:
\begin{align}
  \psi_{uS(ud)}^\lambda(x, \vec{k}_\perp, \lambda_u=i)  &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} A^{i, \lambda}_{uS(ud)}, \label{eq:plfwf_1}\\
  \psi_{uV(ud)}^\lambda(x, \vec{k}_\perp, \lambda_u=i, \lambda_V=j) &= -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} B^{ij, \lambda}_{uV(ud)},\\
  \psi_{dV(uu)}^\lambda(x, \vec{k}_\perp, \lambda_d=i, \lambda_V=j) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} B^{ij, \lambda}_{dV(uu)}. \label{eq:plfwf_3}
\end{align}
The expansions for other octet baryons have the same structure while the coefficients and quark-diquark components are different.

For the momentum space light-cone wave function, one choice is the Brodsky-Huang-Lepage (BHL) prescription~\cite{brodsky_hadronic_1981}:
\begin{equation}
  \varphi_{qD}(x, \vec{k}_\perp) = A_{qD} \exp\left(-\frac{\mathcal{M}^2}{8\beta_{D}^2}  \right),
    \label{eq:mswf_bhl}
\end{equation}
in which $D$ stands for the diquark with $S$ for the scalar and $V$ for the axial-vector.
$\beta_{qD}$ is a parameter signifying the transverse momentum scale and $A_{qD}$ is the normalization factor.
$\mathcal{M}$ is the invariant mass
\begin{equation}
  \mathcal{M} = \sqrt{\frac{m_q^2+\vec{k}^2_\perp}{x}+\frac{m_D^2+\vec{k}^2_\perp}{1-x}},
  \label{eq:invariant_mass}
\end{equation}
where $m_q$ and $m_D$ are the masses of the quark and spectator diquark respectively.
Other choices are also available, such as the power-law form wave function~\cite{brodsky_wave_1994}
\begin{equation}
  \varphi_{qD}(x, \vec{k}_\perp) = A_{qD} {\left(1 + \frac{\mathcal{M}^2}{8\beta_{D}^2}\right)}^{-3.5}.
  \label{eq:mswf_pl}
\end{equation}
In the low $Q^2$ region, this form and the BHL prescription usually give identical results.

\section{Electromagnetic form factors\label{sec:form_factor}}
The Dirac and Pauli form factors $F_1(Q^2)$ and $F_2(Q^2)$ are defined in terms of the electromagnetic current as:
\begin{equation}
  \Braket{P'\lambda'| J^{\mu} (0)| P\lambda} = \bar{u}_{\lambda'}(P') \left[ F_1(Q^2)\gamma^\mu
    + F_2(Q^2) \frac{i\sigma^{\mu\nu}q_\nu}{2M}\right]u_\lambda (P),
    \label{eq:ff_pauli_dirac}
\end{equation}
where $q^\mu={(P'-P)}^\mu$ is the momentum transfer, $Q^2=-q^2$, $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$ represent the initial and final baryon helicity respectively, the current $J^\mu = \bar{q}e\gamma^\mu q$.
Experimental results are usually extracted in the form of electric and magnetic Sachs form factors, which are defined as combinations of Dirac and Pauli form factors~\cite{sachs_high-energy_1962}:
\begin{align}
  G_E(Q^2) &= F_1(Q^2) - \frac{Q^2}{4M^2} F_2(Q^2), \label{eq:ff_sachs_1}\\
  G_M(Q^2) &= F_1(Q^2) + F_2(Q^2). \label{eq:ff_sachs_2}
\end{align}
The magnetic moment of baryon is simply the magnetic form factor in the $Q^2\to 0$ limit:
\begin{equation}
  \mu = G_M(0).
  \label{eq:ff_mu}
\end{equation}

The Dirac and Pauli form factors can be obtained by examining the plus component of the current:
\begin{align}
  F_1(Q^2) &= \Braket{P',\uparrow | \frac{J^+(0)}{2P^+} | P, \uparrow}, \label{eq:ff_plus_1}\\
  -q^L \frac{F_2(Q^2)}{2M} &= \Braket{P',\uparrow | \frac{J^+(0)}{2P^+} | P, \downarrow}. \label{eq:ff_plus_2}
\end{align}
We choose the frame in which
\begin{align}
  q &= (q^+, q^-, \vec{q}_\perp) = (0, \frac{-q^2}{P^+}, \vec{q}_\perp), \label{eq:dy_frame_1}\\
  P &= (P^+, P^-, \vec{P}_\perp) = (P^+, \frac{M^2}{P^+}, \vec{0}_\perp). \label{eq:dy_frame_2}
\end{align}
It is shown by Drell and Yan that the calculation of current matrix elements at space-like photon momentum can be simplified in such a frame~\cite{drell_connection_1970}.
The expression of form factors in terms of LFWFs can be derived by sandwiching the electro-magnetic current with baryon states in Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion} following Eqs.~\eqref{eq:ff_plus_1}-\eqref{eq:ff_plus_2}. After a little algebra, the form factors can then be expressed as overlaps of light-cone wave functions:
\begin{align}
  F_1(Q^2) &= \sum_a \int \frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_\perp \ensuremath\mathrm{d} x}{16\pi^3}
  e_q \psi_a^{\uparrow *}(x, \vec{k}'_{\perp}, \lambda)
  \psi_a^\uparrow (x, \vec{k}_{\perp}, \lambda), \label{eq:ffc_1}\\
  -q^L \frac{F_2(Q^2)}{2M} &= \sum_a \int \frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_\perp \ensuremath\mathrm{d} x}{16\pi^3}
  e_q \psi_a^{\uparrow *}(x, \vec{k}'_{\perp}, \lambda)
  \psi_a^\downarrow (x, \vec{k}_{\perp}, \lambda), \label{eq:ffc_2}
\end{align}
where $\sum_a$ is the sum over different quark-diquark components, $e_q$ is the charge of the struck constituent, the light-cone wave functions $\psi_a^{\uparrow}(x, \vec{k}_{\perp}, \lambda)$ are given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:lfwf1} and~\eqref{eq:lfwf2}.
It is then straightforward to express the form factors in our quark-diquark model with the LFWFs. Explicit expressions for proton and neutron are illustrated in Ref.~\cite{ma_flavor_2000}.
For the transverse momentum of the final states, the Drell-Yan-West assignment is employed~\cite{drell_connection_1970, west_phenomenological_1970}, in which
\begin{equation}
  \vec{k}'_{\perp i} = \vec{k}_{\perp i} + (1 - x_i) \vec{q}_\perp,
  \label{eq:dyw_quark}
\end{equation}
for the struck quark, and
\begin{equation}
  \vec{k}'_{\perp j} = \vec{k}_{\perp j} - x_j \vec{q}_\perp,
  \label{eq:dyw_spectator}
\end{equation}
for the spectator.

Experimentally, it is possible to obtain the quark sector contributions to the nucleons by assuming charge symmetry between the $u$ and $d$ quark sectors~\cite{cates_flavor_2011}.
Neglecting the contribution of $s$ quarks, the $u$ and $d$ quark sector form factors for the nucleons are given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ff_sector}
F^u_{i} = 2 F^p_i + F^n_i\quad \mathrm{and}\quad F^d_i = F^p_i + 2 F^n_i,
\end{equation}
where $i=1$ or $2$.
The charge symmetry in our model is exact after adopting equal mass and $\beta_{D}$ for the $u$ and $d$ quarks and diquarks composed by them.
This is a natural consequence of the $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ symmetry in our model.
The flavor separation can be achieved by including only one specific quark flavor in the current $J^\mu$.
The result differs from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:ffc_1}-\eqref{eq:ffc_2} in that only LFWFs of the Fock states containing the specific quark are present. For the $u$ sector contribution defined as above, we have
\begin{align}
  F_1^u(Q^2) &= \Braket{\psi_p: P',\uparrow|\frac{\bar{u}\gamma^\mu u}{2P^+}|\psi_p: P,\uparrow} \nonumber\\
  &= \int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2\vec{k}_\perp \ensuremath\mathrm{d} x}{16\pi^3} \biggl\{\frac{3}{2} \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}}
  A^{i,\uparrow\,*}_{uS(ud)}(x,\vec{k}'_\perp)\,A^{i,\uparrow}_{uS(ud)}(x,\vec{k}_\perp) \nonumber\\
  &\quad + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}}\,\sum_{j=\{-1,0,1\}}
  B^{ij,\uparrow\,*}_{uV(ud)}(x,\vec{k}'_\perp)\,B^{ij,\uparrow}_{uV(ud)}(x,\vec{k}_\perp)\biggr\}, \label{eq:fu_1}\\
  F_2^u(Q^2) &= -\frac{2M}{q^L} \Braket{\psi_p: P',\uparrow|\frac{\bar{u}\gamma^\mu u}{2P^+}|\psi_p: P,\downarrow} \nonumber\\
  &= -\frac{2M}{q^L} \int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2\vec{k}_\perp \ensuremath\mathrm{d} x}{16\pi^3} \biggl\{\frac{3}{2} \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}}
  A^{i,\uparrow\,*}_{uS(ud)}(x,\vec{k}'_\perp)\,A^{i,\downarrow}_{uS(ud)}(x,\vec{k}_\perp) \nonumber\\
  &\quad + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}}\,\sum_{j=\{-1,0,1\}}
  B^{ij,\uparrow\,*}_{uV(ud)}(x,\vec{k}'_\perp)\,B^{ij,\downarrow}_{uV(ud)}(x,\vec{k}_\perp)\biggr\}. \label{eq:fu_2}
\end{align}
The $d$ sector contribution can be obtained in the same way:
\begin{align}
  F_1^d(Q^2) &= \int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2\vec{k}_\perp \ensuremath\mathrm{d} x}{16\pi^3} \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}}\,\sum_{j=\{-1,0,1\}}
  B^{ij,\uparrow\,*}_{dV(uu)}(x,\vec{k}'_\perp)\,B^{ij,\uparrow}_{dV(uu)}(x,\vec{k}_\perp), \label{eq:fd_1}\\
  F_2^d(Q^2) &= -\frac{2M}{q^L}\int\frac{\ensuremath\mathrm{d}^2\vec{k}_\perp \ensuremath\mathrm{d} x}{16\pi^3} \sum_{i=\{\ensuremath{{\uparrow,\downarrow}}\}}\,\sum_{j=\{-1,0,1\}}
  B^{ij,\uparrow\,*}_{dV(uu)}(x,\vec{k}'_\perp)\,B^{ij,\downarrow}_{dV(uu)}(x,\vec{k}_\perp). \label{eq:fd_2}
\end{align}
The nucleon form factors are combinations of the $u$ and $d$ sector contributions multiplied by charge of the quark according to our definition in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ff_sector}. Form factors for the rest of octet baryons have almost identical expressions to the above except for the coefficients and Fock state components. A similar kind of flavor separation can also be achieved.

\section{Weak transition form factors\label{sec:beta_decay}}
The semileptonic beta decay of baryons can be described by the interaction Hamiltonian in the low energy limit:
\begin{equation}
  H = \frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}J_\mu L^\mu + \mathrm{h.c.},
  \label{eq:weak_hamiltonian}
\end{equation}
where $G$ is the weak coupling constant.
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:weak_hamiltonian}
\begin{equation}
  L^\mu = \bar\psi_e \gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)\psi_{\nu_e}
  + \bar\psi_\mu \gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)\psi_{\nu_\mu}
  + \bar\psi_\tau \gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)\psi_{\nu_\tau}
  \label{eq:lepton_current}
\end{equation}
is the lepton current, and
\begin{equation}
  J^\mu = V^\mu + A^\mu
  \label{eq:hadronic_current}
\end{equation}
is the hadronic current with
\begin{align}
  V^\mu &= V_{ud} \bar{u}\gamma^\mu d + V_{us} \bar{u}\gamma^\mu s, \label{eq:va_current_1}\\
  A^\mu &= - V_{ud} \bar{u}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 d - V_{us} \bar{u}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 s, \label{eq:va_current_2}
\end{align}
where $V_{ud}$ and $V_{us}$ are the corresponding CKM matrix elements. The contribution of $\tau$ in the lepton current is usually neglected because of the large $\tau$ mass.
In the limit of zero momentum transfer, the hadronic part of the matrix element can be written as
\begin{align}
  \Braket{P'\lambda' | V^\mu(0) | P\lambda} &= V_{q'q} \bar{u}_{\lambda'}(P')
  \left[ f_1(q^2)\gamma^\mu + i f_2(q^2)\frac{\sigma^{\mu\nu}q_\nu}{M_i}
    + f_3(q^2)\frac{q^\mu}{M_i} \right] u_\lambda(P), \label{eq:me_hadron_1} \\
  \Braket{P'\lambda' | A^\mu(0) | P\lambda} &= V_{q'q} \bar{u}_{\lambda'}(P')
  \left[ g_1(q^2)\gamma^\mu + i g_2(q^2)\frac{\sigma^{\mu\nu}q_\nu}{M_i}
    + g_3(q^2) \frac{q^\mu}{M_i} \right]\gamma_5 u_\lambda(P), \label{eq:me_hadron_2}
\end{align}
where $q = p_i-p_f$, and $M_i$ is the mass of the initial baryon. The term $f_1$, $f_2$ and $f_3$ stand for the vector, induced tensor (``weak magnetism'') and induced scalar form factors, while $g_1$, $g_2$ and $g_3$ are the axial vector, induced pseudotensor (``weak electricity'') and induced pseudoscalar form factors.

After adopting the Drell-Yan frame as in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:dy_frame_1}-\eqref{eq:dy_frame_2}, the form factors can be extracted as
\begin{align}
  f_1(q^2) &= \Braket{P', \uparrow | \frac{V^+(0)}{2P^+} | P, \uparrow}, \label{eq:ffe_1}\\
  -q^L f_2(q^2) &= M_i \Braket{P', \uparrow | \frac{V^+(0)}{2P^+} | P, \downarrow}, \label{eq:ffe_2}\\
  g_1(q^2) &= \Braket{P', \uparrow | \frac{A^+(0)}{2P^+} | P, \uparrow}, \label{eq:ffe_3}\\
  q^L g_2(q^2) &= M_i \Braket{P', \uparrow | \frac{A^+(0)}{2P^+} | P, \downarrow}. \label{eq:ffe_4}
\end{align}
$f_3$ and $g_3$ are not calculated since the last terms in the two equations of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:me_hadron_1}-\eqref{eq:me_hadron_2} vanish after setting $q^+$ to $0$.
Eqs.~\eqref{eq:ffe_1}-\eqref{eq:ffe_4} resembles Eqs.~\eqref{eq:ff_plus_1}-\eqref{eq:ff_plus_2} much although it should be noted that the initial and final state in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:ffe_1}-\eqref{eq:ffe_4} are different. It is straightforward to write these form factors in the form of LFWFs as in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fu_1}-\eqref{eq:fu_2} and Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fd_1}-\eqref{eq:fd_2}.

\section{Numerical results\label{sec:numerical}}
We apply different forms of momentum space wave functions as described by Eq.~\eqref{eq:mswf_bhl} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:mswf_pl} in our numerical calculation.
The parameters used are given in Tab.~\ref{tab:par_model}.
We present our numerical results in Tab.~\ref{tab:results}.

Parameters in Set~I and Set~II are used with the BHL wave function. Set~I is chosen according to Ref.~\cite{ma_flavor_2000} as a first-attempt.
The quark masses are identical to those used in non-relativistic models.
The $\beta_D$ parameter, which is presumed to be of same magnitude of the quark mass, acts as a characterization of the transverse momentum of quark and diquark.
In Set~I both $\beta_S$ and $\beta_V$ are simply set to be the same as $m_u$.
It is shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:results} that this set of relatively crude parameters is able to give a reasonable result, although the magnetic moments are noticeably smaller than experimental results.
This is partly because our choice of quark masses is slightly larger than needed, which leads to a suppression of the form factors.

Parameters in Set~II give  better results overall for both magnetic moments and weak charges.
The quark masses are identical to a previous work~\cite{ma_electromagnetic_2002} and other relativistic quark models~\cite{schlumpf_relativistic_1994}.
As has been pointed out in Ref.~\cite{ma_electromagnetic_2002}, the difference of $\beta_D$ between the scalar and axial-vector diquark states is necessary in order to reproduce the magnetic moments and the electric and magnetic radius.
There are abundant experimental results for the nucleon form factors form unpolarized measurements and more recent double polarization measurements.
The calculated electromagnetic form factors of the nucleons as functions of $Q^2$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ffproton} and Fig.~\ref{fig:ffneutron} up to $Q^2=4\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ and compared with experimental measurements.
The form factors for the other octet members are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:gebaryons} and Fig.~\ref{fig:gmbaryons}.
These form factors have been under some theoretical studies although no measurement has been made so far.
Our result is compared with Refs.~\cite{shanahan_magnetic_2014, shanahan_electric_2014} which is obtained from lattice QCD with a chiral extrapolation.
There is a noticeable deviation between the two results.
Namely our results decrease a bit more rapidly with $Q^2$.
As has been pointed out in Ref.~\cite{shanahan_magnetic_2014}, the lattice results need a ``slightly greater curvature in the $Q^2$ fit functions'' to achieve a better agreement with experiment, which means our model results might be giving just the right trend of the curves.

We also employ the power-law form wave function Eq.~\eqref{eq:mswf_pl} in the calculation of magnetic moments.
Parameters are given as Set~III in Tab.~\ref{tab:par_model}.
As the BHL prescription features a Gaussian distribution around the invariant mass, the exponential falloff is too strong for higher $Q^2$.
Thus the numerical results of the BHL prescription should only be valid in the low and moderate $Q^2$ region up to $4\,\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV}^2$.
At high $Q^2$, the power-law form can be a better choice~\cite{brodsky_wave_1994}.
For the results of magnetic moments and axial couplings, the variation resulted from different wave functions is relatively small.
This fact suggests that the qualitative properties at low $Q^2$ are essentially determined by the flavor and spin structures.
The detailed form of the momentum space wave functions only affects our results in a quantitative way.
The same behavior is also present in the model calculation of Ref.~\cite{schlumpf_relativistic_1994}.

Experimentally, the flavor separation of the nucleon electromagnetic form factor has been achieved by combining data of corresponding Sachs form factors~\cite{cates_flavor_2011}.
The flavor separated form factors in our model are obtained with Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fu_1}--\eqref{eq:fd_2} and compared with experimental results in Fig.~\ref{fig:udneutron}.
Up to $Q^2=1 \ensuremath\mathrm{GeV}^2$ the $u$- and $d$-contributions are identical after scaling the d-contribution to $F_1$ and $F_2$ with a factor of 2.5 and 0.75 respectively.
Above $1\,\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV}^2$ the two contribution differ from each other.
In our model this difference comes from the $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ spin-flavor structure and the Melosh-Wigner rotation.
The power-law wave function gives a reasonable description of both the contribution to $F_1$ and $F_2$, while the BHL wave function produces significantly lower results for the $F_1$ case.
The strong fall-off of the BHL results in the high $Q^2$ region is partially a result of the exponential in the wave function, suggesting again that the power-law wave function could be a better choice for higher $Q^2$.
Flavor separated contributions to the octet magnetic moments can also be obtained using Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fu_1}-\eqref{eq:fd_2} for proton and their variants for other baryons. The results are presented in Tab.~\ref{tab:magnetic_moments_flavor}.

The vector and axial-vector couplings $f_1(0)$ and $g_1(0)$ for the semileptonic decays are listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:coupling} for completeness.
Our results of the couplings are in agreement with another light-cone model calculation in Ref.~\cite{schlumpf_relativistic_1994}.
In the $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ symmetry limit, the weak electric form factor $g_2$ should vanish.
Our model indeed gives vanishing or very small $g_2$ despite the fact that different mass and $\beta$ have been used for the quarks and diquarks which breaks the $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ symmetry explicitly.
For all the decays calculated, our model gives $|g_2(0)/f_1(0)|<0.2$. As $f_1(0)$ vanishes for $\Sigma^- \to \Lambda e^- \bar{\nu}_e$, $g_2$ is compared in this case with $g_1$ instead.

Additionally, the spin contents of proton can serve as another test of our model. The quark spin content of proton $\Delta \Sigma$ is given by
\begin{equation}
  \Delta \Sigma = \Delta u + \Delta d,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta u$ and $\Delta d$ are the first moments of the helicity distribution functions of $u$ and $d$ quark.
For a proton, given the spin-flavor wave function in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:plfwf_1}-\eqref{eq:plfwf_3}, the quark helicity distributions are given as
\begin{align}
  \Delta u(x, \vec{k}_\perp) =&\ \frac{3}{2} \left( \lvert A^{\ensuremath{\uparrow,\uparrow}}_{uS(ud)} (x, \vec{k}_\perp) \rvert^2 - \lvert A^{\ensuremath{{\downarrow,\uparrow}}}_{uS(ud)} (x, \vec{k}_\perp) \rvert^2 \right) \nonumber\\
  &+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=\{-1,0,1\}} \left(\lvert B^{\uparrow j, \uparrow}_{uV(ud)} (x, \vec{k}_\perp) \rvert^2 - \lvert B^{\downarrow j, \uparrow}_{uV(ud)} (x, \vec{k}_\perp) \rvert^2 \right), \label{eq:su} \\
  \Delta d(x, \vec{k}_\perp) =&\ \sum_{j=\{-1,0,1\}}
  \left( \lvert B^{\uparrow j,\uparrow}_{dV(uu)} (x, \vec{k}_\perp) \rvert^2 - \lvert B^{\downarrow j,\uparrow}_{dV(uu)} (x, \vec{k}_\perp) \rvert^2 \right), \label{eq:sd}
\end{align}
where $\vec{k}_\perp$ is the transverse momentum. $\Delta u$ and $\Delta d$ can be obtained by integrating $x$ and $\vec{k}_\perp$ away.
Utilizing the BHL wave function and parameter set II, our model yields $\Delta u = 1.02$, and $\Delta d = -0.24$, giving the spin fraction carried by the quarks as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:spin_fraction}
  \Delta \Sigma = \Delta u + \Delta d = 0.78.
\end{equation}
The value is much larger than the global analysis result $\Delta \Sigma = 0.366$~\cite{deFlorian_global_2008}.
This is not very surprising as our current framework provides only valance contributions.
Sea contribution to magnetic moments is weakened somehow.
Since Eq.~\eqref{eq:ffc_1} can be interpreted as an integration of charge density for the $Q^2=0$ case, $F_1(0)$ receives no sea quark contribution.
However, no such cancellation happens for the helicity distribution so sea polarization has to be considered in order to give the whole picture.

One possible improvement over this situation is to consider the contribution from the meson clouds.
In our model, some of the higher-order contributions can be effectively absorbed into the diquark degree of freedom by adjusting the parameters.
Introducing the meson clouds, nevertheless, is still beneficial as there are evidences that the sea quark distribution is flavor-asymmetric~\cite{Ma:2000uv} and polarized~\cite{deFlorian_global_2008}.
Both the form factors and the spin contents are expected to receive corrections from these effects, which can not be fully included in our wave function as they break the $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ symmetry.
One similar light-cone model in Ref.~\cite{cloet_nucleon_2012} has attempted such an approach and achieved good agreement with experimental result for the proton spin contents.

\begin{table}
  \caption{Parameters used in model calculations.\label{tab:par_model}}
  \begin{ruledtabular}
  \begin{tabular}{cddd}
    Quantity  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Set I (BHL)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Set II (BHL)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Set III (PL\footnotemark[1])} \\
    \colrule
    $m_u=m_d\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.33 &  0.22 & 0.22 \\
    $m_s\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV} )$ & 0.48 & 0.39 & 0.39 \\
    \colrule
    $m_{S(ud)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.60 & 0.49 & 0.48 \\
    $m_{V(ud)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.80 & 0.71 & 0.76 \\
    $m_{S(us)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.75 & 0.85 & 0.80 \\
    $m_{V(us)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.95 & 1.06 & 1.04 \\
    $m_{V(ss)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 1.10 & 1.11 & 1.12 \\
    \colrule
    $\beta_{S(ud)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.33 & 0.24 & 0.31 \\
    $\beta_{V(ud)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.33 & 0.31 & 0.32 \\
    $\beta_{S(us)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.36 \\
    $\beta_{V(us)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.33 & 0.28 & 0.28 \\
    $\beta_{V(ss)}\,(\ensuremath\mathrm{GeV})$ & 0.33 & 0.37 & 0.34 \\
  \end{tabular}
  \end{ruledtabular}
  \footnotetext[1]{Power-law wave function.}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
  \caption{Magnetic moments and ratio of axial charges from model calculations. The last two ratios are compared with the BSE calculation in Ref.~\cite{carrillo-serrano_su3-flavour_2014}. Data are from Ref.~\cite{olive_review_2014}.\label{tab:results}}
  \begin{ruledtabular}
    \begin{tabular}{cdddD{+}{\,\pm\,}{-1}}
      Quantity  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Set I (BHL)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Set II (BHL)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Set III (PL\footnotemark[1])} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Expt.\cite{olive_review_2014}/Ref.\cite{carrillo-serrano_su3-flavour_2014}} \\
    \colrule
    $\mu_p$ & 2.21 & 2.82 & 2.79 & 2.792+10^{-8} \\
    $\mu_n$ & -1.26 & -1.70 & -1.69 & -1.913+10^{-7} \\
    $\mu_\Lambda$ & -0.52 & -0.61 & -0.60 & -0.613+0.004 \\
    $\mu_{\Sigma^+}$ & 2.03 & 2.45 & 2.50 & 2.458+0.010 \\
    $\mu_{\Sigma^-}$ & -0.84 & -0.97 & -1.01 & -1.160+0.025 \\
    $|\mu_{\Sigma^0\to\Lambda}|$ & 1.10 & 1.41 & 1.39 & 1.61+0.08 \\
    $\mu_{\Xi^0}$ & -1.10 & -1.26 & -1.28 & -1.250+0.014 \\
    $\mu_{\Xi^-}$ & -0.59 & -0.65 & -0.65 & -0.6507+0.0025 \\
    \colrule
    $g_1/f_1(n\to pe^-\bar{\nu}_e)$ & -1.30 & -1.26 & -1.25 & -1.2723+0.0023 \\
    $g_1/f_1(\Lambda\to pe^-\bar{\nu}_e)$ & -0.82 & -0.83 & -0.81 & -0.718+0.015 \\
    $g_1/f_1(\Sigma^-\to ne^-\bar{\nu}_e)$ & 0.28 & 0.26 & 0.26 & 0.340+0.017 \\
    $f_1/g_1(\Sigma^-\to\Lambda e^-\bar{\nu}_e)$ & <0.01\footnotemark[2] & <0.01\footnotemark[2] & 0.05 & 0.01+0.10 \\
    $g_1/f_1(\Xi^0\to\Sigma^+e^-\bar{\nu}_e)$ & -1.38 & -1.28 & -1.25 & -1.22+0.05 \\
    $g_1/f_1(\Xi^-\to\Lambda e^-\bar{\nu}_e)$ & -0.28 & -0.25 & -0.26 & -0.25+0.05 \\
    $g_1/f_1(\Sigma^-\to\Sigma^0 e^- \bar{\nu}_e)$ & -0.52 & -0.46 & -0.46 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-0.44$ \cite{carrillo-serrano_su3-flavour_2014}}\\
    $g_1/f_1(\Xi^-\to\Xi^0 e^- \bar{\nu}_e)$ & 0.27 & 0.23 & 0.23 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$0.28$ \cite{carrillo-serrano_su3-flavour_2014}} \\
  \end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\footnotetext[1]{Power-law wave function.}
\footnotetext[2]{The upper limit of absolute values are given here.}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
  \caption{Vector and axial-vector coupling $f_1$ and $g_1$ in semileptonic decays, compared with results in Ref.~\cite{schlumpf_relativistic_1994}. The signs of the form factors in Ref.~\cite{schlumpf_relativistic_1994} are adjusted to meet our choice of baryon wave functions and form factor definition.\label{tab:coupling}}
  \begin{ruledtabular}
    \begin{tabular}{cdddd}
      \null & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Set II (BHL)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Ref.~\cite{schlumpf_relativistic_1994}} \\
      \null & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_1$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$g_1$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_1$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$g_1$}\\
      \colrule
      $n\to pe^-\bar{\nu}_e$ & 1.00 & -1.26 & 1.00 & -1.25 \\
      $\Lambda\to pe^-\bar{\nu}_e$ & 1.18 & -0.98 & 1.04 & -0.79\\
      $\Sigma^-\to ne^-\bar{\nu}_e$ & -0.97 & -0.25 & -0.87 & -0.22\\
      $\Sigma^-\to\Lambda e^-\bar{\nu}_e$ & <0.01\footnotemark & 0.58 & 0.04 & 0.62\\
      $\Xi^0\to\Sigma^+e^-\bar{\nu}_e$ & 0.98 & -1.26 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} \\
      $\Xi^-\to \Lambda e^-\bar{\nu}_e$ & -1.18 & 0.30 & -0.91 & 0.25 \\
      $\Sigma^-\to\Sigma^0 e^- \bar{\nu}_e$ & 1.41 & -0.65 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} \\
      $\Xi^-\to\Xi^0 e^- \bar{\nu}_e$ & 1.00 & 0.23 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} \\
    \end{tabular}
  \end{ruledtabular}
  \footnotetext[1]{The upper limit of absolute values are given here.}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
  \caption{Quark sector contributions to the octet magnetic moments. Only valence quark contributions are present in our model.\label{tab:magnetic_moments_flavor}}
  \begin{ruledtabular}
    \begin{tabular}{cdddddd}
      \null & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Set II (BHL)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Set III (PL)} \\
      \null & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu^u$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu^d$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu^s$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu^u$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu^d$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu^s$} \\
      \colrule
      $p$ & 2.64 & 0.19 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & 2.60 & 0.20 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} \\
      $n$ & -0.38 & -1.32 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & -0.39 & -1.30 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} \\
      $\Lambda$ & 0.09 & -0.04 & -0.65 & 0.14 & -0.07 & -0.64 \\
      $\Sigma^+$ & 2.29 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & 0.17 & 2.34 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & 0.15 \\
      $\Sigma^0$ & 1.14 & -0.57 & 0.17 & 1.17 & -0.58 & 0.15 \\
      $\Sigma^-$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & -1.14 & 0.17 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & -1.16 & 0.15 \\
      $\Xi^0$ & -0.40 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & -0.86 & -0.41 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & -0.84 \\
      $\Xi^-$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & 0.20 & -0.86 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & 0.21 & -0.85 \\
    \end{tabular}
  \end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure*}
  \subfloat[\label{proton_ge}]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{proton_ge.pdf}%
  }\hfill
  \subfloat[\label{proton_gm}]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{proton_gm.pdf}%
  }
  \caption{(Color online) Electric~\protect\subref{proton_ge} and magnetic~\protect\subref{proton_gm} form factors of proton calculated with different wave functions and parameters. Data are from Ref.~\cite{borkowski_electromagnetic_1975,*andivahis_measurements_1994,*walker_measurements_1994,*arrington_global_2007}\label{fig:ffproton}}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
  \subfloat[\label{neutron_ge}]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{neutron_ge.pdf}%
  }\hfill
  \subfloat[\label{neutron_gm}]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{neutron_gm.pdf}%
  }
  \caption{(Color online) Electric~\protect\subref{neutron_ge} and magnetic~\protect\subref{neutron_gm} form factors of neutron calculated with different wave functions and parameters. Data are from Ref.~\cite{rohe_measurement_1999,*zhu_measurement_2001,*bermuth_neutron_2003,*warren_measurement_2004,*glazier_measurement_2005,*riordan_measurements_2010,*rock_measurement_1982,*markowitz_measurement_1993,*bruins_measurement_1995,*kubon_precise_2002}\label{fig:ffneutron}}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lambda_ge.pdf}%
  }\hfill
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sigma_plus_ge.pdf}%
  }\\
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sigma_minus_ge.pdf}%
  }\hfill
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sigma_zero_ge.pdf}%
  }\\
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{xi_zero_ge.pdf}%
  }\hfill
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{xi_minus_ge.pdf}%
  }
  \caption{(Color online) Electric form factor of the octet baryons calculated with different wave functions and parameters, compared with lattice results in Ref.~\cite{shanahan_electric_2014}.\label{fig:gebaryons}}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{lambda_gm.pdf}%
  }\hfill
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sigma_plus_gm.pdf}%
  }\\
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sigma_minus_gm.pdf}%
  }\hfill
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sigma_zero_gm.pdf}%
  }\\
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{xi_zero_gm.pdf}%
  }\hfill
  \subfloat[]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{xi_minus_gm.pdf}%
  }
  \caption{(Color online) Magnetic form factor of the octet baryons calculated with different wave functions and parameters, compared with lattice results in Ref.\cite{shanahan_magnetic_2014}.\label{fig:gmbaryons}}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
  \subfloat[\label{ff_flavor_f1}]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{ff_flavor_f1.pdf}%
  }\hfill
  \subfloat[\label{ff_flavor_f2}]{%
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{ff_flavor_f2.pdf}%
  }
  \caption{(Color online) The $u$- and $d$-contributions to the proton form factors (multiplied by $Q^4$). The $d$-contributions are multiplied by a factor for better comparison. The normalization factor $\kappa_q$ is given by $\kappa_q=F_2^q(0)$. Experimental data are from Ref.~\cite{cates_flavor_2011}.\label{fig:udneutron}}
\end{figure*}

\section{Summary\label{sec:summary}}
In summary, we study the electromagnetic and weak form factors of the ground state octet baryons using a light-cone quark-diquark model.
Our model gives a consistent description of the electroweak properties of the baryons in the low momentum transfer region.
Relativistic effects are taken into account by considering the Melosh-Wigner rotation of the quarks and spectator diquarks.
The model results of the baryon magnetic moments and weak charges are in good agreement with experimental as well as with other model calculations.
Two different forms of momentum space wave functions are employed in our calculation.
It is shown that the dependences of magnetic moments and weak charges on the momentum wave functions are small.
We present the Sachs form factors as functions of $Q^2$ up to $4\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$.
Although there is currently no measurement of the form factors except for the nucleon cases, we do notice good agreement between our results and recent lattice results.
Moreover, it is interesting to study other baryon properties within this framework.
Beyond our oversimplified ``quark-diquark'' picture, it is possible to derive the LFWFs from the DSE and light-front holographic~\cite{brodsky_ads/cft_2008} approach, which is also a subject worth exploring.

\begin{acknowledgments}
  The numerical integrations were performed using the CUBA library~\cite{hahn_cuba_2005}. This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No.~11035003 and No.~11120101004).
\end{acknowledgments}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Dividing Functions Questions
Thread starter CanadianEh
CanadianEh
Quick question. For F(X)= X/Sin(X), is there a hole at X=0?
Bohrok
What do you get when plugging 0 into F(X) ?
tiny-tim
CanadianEh said:
Hi CanadianEh!
At x = 0, obviously, it's 0/0, which is undefined (it's known as an "indeterminate form"), so yes in that sense there's a hole …
of course, F(x) does tend to a limit at as x -> 0
0/Sin 0 = undefined.
So basically, there's my answer. There is a hole at x=0. There is also an oblique asymptote of f(x)=x, correct?
tiny-tim said:
Thanks so much! Can you help me explain why there is an oblique asymptote?
uhh?
wot's an oblique asymptote?
When a linear asymptote is not parallel to the x- or y-axis, it is called either an oblique asymptote or equivalently a slant asymptote.
In the graph of X/Sin(X), there appears to be an asymptote at y=x
The function continues to have a defined value as you get arbitrarily close to zero, thus the limit as x->0 is defined. The function itself is undefined only exactly at zero.
- Warren
Try graphing x/sin(x) and you'll only see vertical asymptotes when the denominator, or sin(x), is 0.
As far as I know, a rational function P(x)/Q(x) where P and Q are polynomials has an oblique asymptote only when the degree of the numerator is one larger than that of the denominator. In x/sin(x) you have a transcendental function in the denominator.
Ok, so NO oblique asymptote, correct?
Still totally confused as to why this is called an asymptote instead of a tangent.
Anyway I can't see how it's slanting ……
what is limx -> 0 x/sinx ?
That's right.
A slant asymptote
http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/precalc/precalc-fig12-03.gif [Broken]
Bohrok said:
So that's only at infinity?
and also negative infinity if the domain goes there too.
HallsofIvy
tiny-tim, the word "asymptote" was wrong here. He intended "tangent" as you suggested. Because there is a "hole" at x= 0, there is no tangent there.
Related Threads on Dividing Functions Questions
Dividing with exponential functions
Dividing polynomial matrices
Dividing differential equations
Dividing out differentials
Dividing complex numbers
2 Questions about functions
Several questions about functions
Hard problem - dividing the subs
2 questions on vector functions
Number theory; primes dividing proof
Consider the subset U ⊂ R3[x] defined as
Integral of 1 / (x^2 + 2) dx ?
Show that the series ##\sum_{n=2}^\infty\dfrac {1}{n^2\ln (n)}##converges
Bounded operators on Hilbert spaces
A quite verbal proof that if V is finite dimensional then S is also...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
#include <iostream>
#include <armadillo>
#include "diffraction.h"
using namespace std;
using namespace diffraction;
using namespace arma;
//#define ARMA_NO_DEBUG

fcube CDiffraction::f_hkl;
fcube CDiffraction::f_hkl_list;

CDiffraction::CDiffraction() {
}

void CDiffraction::displayResolution(detector::CDetector* det, beam::CBeam* beam) {
	double d = det->get_detector_dist();
	double pix_height = det->get_pix_height();
	int py = det->get_numPix_y();

	double theta = atan((py/2*pix_height)/d);
	double qmax = 2/beam->get_wavelength()*sin(theta/2);
	double dmin = 1/(2*qmax);
	cout << "max q to the edge: " << qmax*1e-10 << " A^-1" << endl;
	cout << "Half period resolution: " << dmin*1e10 << " A" << endl;
}

double CDiffraction::calculate_Thomson(double ang) {
// Should fix this to accept angles mu and theta
	const double re = 2.81793870e-15;			// classical electron radius (m)
	double P = (1 + cos(ang))/2;
	return pow(re,2) * P;	// Thomson scattering (m^2)
}

void CDiffraction::calculate_atomicFactor(particle::CParticle *particle, detector::CDetector *detector) {
	// Atomic form factor
	f_hkl.zeros(detector->py,detector->px,particle->numAtomTypes);
	fmat q_mod_Bragg = detector->q_mod * (1e-10/2);
	gsl_interp_accel *acc = gsl_interp_accel_alloc();

	gsl_spline *spline = gsl_spline_alloc(gsl_interp_cspline, particle->numQSamples); // 200 should be function of numQSamples
	double qs[particle->numQSamples], ft[particle->numQSamples];
	// silly copying of arma::rowvec to vector
	for(int i=0; i<particle->numQSamples; ++i) {
		qs[i] = particle->qSample(i);
	}
	for(int j=0; j<particle->numAtomTypes; ++j) {
		// silly copying of arma::rowvec to vector
		for(int i=0; i<particle->numQSamples; ++i) {
			ft[i] = particle->ffTable(j,i); // 0 is first row
  		}
		gsl_spline_init(spline, qs, ft, particle->numQSamples);
		for(int a=0; a<detector->py; a++) {
		for(int b=0; b<detector->px; b++) {
			f_hkl(a,b,j) = gsl_spline_eval(spline, q_mod_Bragg(a,b), acc); // interpolate
		}
		}
	}
	gsl_spline_free (spline);
	gsl_interp_accel_free (acc);
}

void CDiffraction::get_formFactorList(particle::CParticle *particle) {
	for(int j = 0; j < particle->numAtoms; ++j) {
		particle->formFactorList(j) = (unsigned int) particle->xyzInd(j);
	}
}

void CDiffraction::get_atomicFormFactorList(particle::CParticle *particle, detector::CDetector *detector) {
	f_hkl_list.zeros(detector->py,detector->px,particle->numAtoms);
	for(int j = 0; j < particle->numAtoms; ++j) {
		f_hkl_list.slice(j) = f_hkl.slice((unsigned int) particle->xyzInd(j));
	}
}

cube CDiffraction::get_FourierMap(particle::CParticle *particle, detector::CDetector *detector) {
	cube map = zeros(detector->py,detector->px,particle->numAtoms);
	frowvec r(3);
	fcolvec c(3);
	for (int ind_x = 0; ind_x < detector->px; ind_x++) {
	for (int ind_y = 0; ind_y < detector->py; ind_y++) {
	for (int j = 0; j < particle->numAtoms; ++j) {
		r = detector->q_xyz.subcube( span(ind_y),  span(ind_x),  span() );
		c = strans(particle->atomPos.row(j));
		map(ind_y,ind_x,j) = as_scalar(r * c);
	}
	}
	}
	map = 2*datum::pi*map;
	return map;
}

// Calculate molecular form factor |F_hkl(q)|^2.
// Rename to calculate_molecularFormFactorSq
fmat CDiffraction::calculate_molecularFormFactorSq(particle::CParticle *particle, detector::CDetector *detector) {
	/*fmat F_hkl_sq;
	F_hkl_sq.zeros(detector->py,detector->px);
	fcolvec map;
	frowvec f;
	fcolvec q;
	for (int ind_x = 0; ind_x < detector->px; ind_x++) {
		for (int ind_y = 0; ind_y < detector->py; ind_y++) {
			//f_hkl_list.slice(j) = f_hkl.slice((unsigned int) particle->xyzInd(j));
			f = CDiffraction::f_hkl_list(span(ind_y),span(ind_x),span()); // 1xN
			q = detector->q_xyz(span(ind_y),span(ind_x),span()); // py x px x 3
			map = 2*datum::pi*particle->atomPos * q; // Nx3 3x1
			F_hkl_sq(ind_y,ind_x) = as_scalar( pow(f * cos(map),2) + pow(f * sin(map),2) ); // 1xN Nx1
		}
	}
	return F_hkl_sq;
	*/

	fmat F_hkl_sq,F_re,F_im;
	fmat map; //px*py
	//detector q_xyz [Y,X,3]
	//particle atomPos [Row,3]

	F_re.zeros(detector->py,detector->px);
	F_im.zeros(detector->py,detector->px);
	for(int atm=0;atm<particle->numAtoms;atm++){
		map=2*datum::pi*(particle->atomPos(atm,0) * detector->q_xyz.slice(0)+
						 particle->atomPos(atm,1) * detector->q_xyz.slice(1)+
						 particle->atomPos(atm,2) * detector->q_xyz.slice(2));

		//px*py
		F_re+=f_hkl.slice((unsigned int) particle->xyzInd(atm))%cos(map);
		F_im+=f_hkl.slice((unsigned int) particle->xyzInd(atm))%sin(map);
	}
	//cout << map;
	F_hkl_sq=pow(F_re,2)+pow(F_im,2);
	return F_hkl_sq;

}

fmat CDiffraction::calculate_intensity(particle::CParticle *particle, detector::CDetector *detector) {
	fmat F_hkl_sq;
	F_hkl_sq.zeros(detector->py,detector->px);

	fcolvec map;
	frowvec f;
	fcolvec q;
	for (int ind_x = 0; ind_x < detector->px; ind_x++) {
		for (int ind_y = 0; ind_y < detector->py; ind_y++) {
			f = CDiffraction::f_hkl_list(span(ind_y),span(ind_x),span()); // 1xN
			q = detector->q_xyz(span(ind_y),span(ind_x),span()); // py x px x 3
			map = 2*datum::pi*particle->atomPos * q; // Nx3 3x1
			F_hkl_sq(ind_y,ind_x) = as_scalar( pow(f * cos(map),2) + pow(f * sin(map),2) ); // 1xN Nx1
		}
	}
	return F_hkl_sq;
}

// Calculate static structure factor S(q) and number of free electrons N_free(q)
void CDiffraction::calculate_compton(particle::CParticle *particle, detector::CDetector *detector, fmat* Compton) {
	fmat& _Compton = Compton[0];
	fmat S_bound;
	float N_free;
	_Compton.zeros(detector->py,detector->px);
	S_bound.zeros(detector->py,detector->px);
	N_free = particle->nFree(0);

	fmat half_q = detector->q_mod * (1e-10/2);
	gsl_interp_accel *acc = gsl_interp_accel_alloc();

	gsl_spline *spline = gsl_spline_alloc(gsl_interp_cspline, particle->numComptonQSamples);
	double qs[particle->numComptonQSamples], ft[particle->numComptonQSamples];
	// silly copying of arma::rowvec to vector
	for(int i=0; i<particle->numComptonQSamples; ++i) {
		qs[i] = particle->comptonQSample(i);
	}

	// silly copying of arma::rowvec to vector
	for(int i=0; i<particle->numComptonQSamples; ++i) {
		ft[i] = particle->sBound(i); // 0 is first row
  	}

	gsl_spline_init(spline, qs, ft, particle->numComptonQSamples);

	for(int a=0; a<detector->py; a++) {
	for(int b=0; b<detector->px; b++) {
		S_bound(a,b) = gsl_spline_eval(spline, half_q(a,b), acc); // interpolate
	}
	}

	gsl_spline_free (spline);
	gsl_interp_accel_free (acc);

	_Compton = S_bound + N_free;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
SEIDENSTICKER & SALOUR 3 Titles
SEIDENSTICKER & SALOUR
Love for Sale EP
TREAT YOUR DJ RIGHT
TURDJR 006EP
Treat Your DJ Right releases Seidensticker & Salour from Hamburg. Some of you might know Jakob Seidensticker as one of the masterminds from Wareika whose productions have been released on labels such as Perlon and Visionquest, amongst others. After years of playing as a DJ-team in Hamburg's famous clubs, they are eager to focus on their own "house-influenced" club productions. This EP is devoted to minimal house music and contains two tracks on 12". A sharp, intelligent release and a huge rollercoaster ride through moods from contemplation to euphoria.
Welcome to Our Ageing Chamber
WIR 024EP
$12.00 NOT IN STOCK
Hamburg residents Jakob Seidensticker and Bardia Salour, together known as Seidensticker & Salour are hardly newcomers to the scene. Jakob has been producing music as one-third of the internationally-known Wareika, and Bardia has made a name for himself through playing regularly amongst the Hamburg club circuit. "Welcome to Our Ageing Chamber," their debut for WIR is a wonderful illustration of their talent. They have kept the soundscape free from overwhelming textures and effects, leaving room for each instrument.
Weird Bazar EP
EINMAL 058EP
Einmaleins Musik presents Seidensticker & Salour from Hamburg. Some of you might know Jakob Seidensticker as one of the masterminds from Wareika whose productions have been released on labels such as Perlon, Liebe*Detail, Tartelet, etc. After years of playing as a DJ-team in Hamburg's famous clubs like EGO, Waagenbau, Purgatory, Kubik, etc., they are eager to focus on their own "dub-influenced" club productions. The Weird Bazar EP is a deep confession to dub- & house music.


text:
Minority Companies Get Fewer Loans Than White Peers — Is That Racism?
By Maureen Foertsch McKinney • Aug 29, 2019
Christopher Fuller Photography
A recent report illustrates just how much harder it is for people who aren't white to get small-business loans.
Illinois Issues: How Uber And Lyft Are Catering To Communities Of Color
By Tara García Mathewson • Nov 5, 2015
As they grow their reach in the state, ride-sharing companies are bringing transportation and jobs to underserved neighborhoods in some Illinois cities.
Made In America: Helping Or Hurting Illinois Businesses?
By Lisa Ryan • Apr 10, 2015
A proposal in the Illinois House that would require all state vehicles to be manufactured in North America sounds patriotic, but some groups say it would hurt Illinois businesses.
The Department of Transportation and the Illinois' Manufacturers Association are among those who oppose House Bill 3438. Randy Nehrt of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce says this could actually hurt Illinois businesses, especially those that supply parts to car manufacturers in Mexico.
WUIS/SJ-R Business Report: Casey's Expansion; Parsons In Court; Farmland Prices Fall
By Sean Crawford • Sep 2, 2014
SJ-R.com
This week, State Journal-Register Business Editor Tim Landis tells us about the growth of Casey's General Stores and the company's plans for the future.
We'll also get an update on the case against THR and Associates founder Jeff Parsons and the decline in farmland prices.
New Chamber President Says He Will Keep A Local Focus
By Sean Crawford • May 8, 2014
GSCC
Chris Hembrough said he wasn't looking for a new job. He's been the Executive Director of the local Big Brothers Big Sisters for the past 7 years.
"I wasn't looking around, but sometimes opportunities come your way, especially when trusted folks give you a lead of advice. So I threw my hat in the ring," Hembrough said.
Hembrough was selected as the new President and CEO of the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce, starting July 1.
Quinn, Rauner On The Business Of The State Budget
By Amanda Vinicky • May 7, 2014
Amanda Vinicky/WUIS
The two men dueling to be Illinois' next governor tried Thursday to win over business leaders with their plans for the state's finances. They both made appearances before a joint meeting of Illinois' retailers and manufacturers in Springfield.
Quinn got a standing ovation as he took the stage, but the response after that was lukewarm.
Just before Quinn's speech, several business owners had been at the podium, complaining about Illinois' high unemployment rate, regulations and taxes.
New Springfield Chamber CEO Announced
By Sean Crawford • Apr 29, 2014
Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce
The Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce has announced the next President and CEO of the organization. Chris Hembrough will assume the duties in July.
Hembrough has served as Executive Director of Big Brothers Big Sisters since 2007. Before then, he managed Fink's Superior Cleaners for 5 years.
Hembrough is 1981 Griffin High graduate. He also starred on the football field, going to the University of Miami and playing on that school's 1983 national championship team.
New Tax Appeals Tribunal Open For Business
By Amanda Vinicky • Jan 2, 2014
Illinois Department of Revenue
An Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal years in the making is up-and-running today. It gives businesses and individuals who have problems with their tax bills a new avenue to get them overturned. Still there are early concerns over who Gov. Pat Quinn has nominated to serve as the tribunal's Chief Administrative Law Judge.
Say a business doesn't agree with how much the state Department of Revenue says it owes in sales taxes. Before, it had two options: fight the tax bill in court (though that costs time and money) or plead the case to the Department of Revenue.
Strange Bedfellows Could Kill Leaders' Pension Deal
By Amanda Vinicky • Dec 3, 2013
Brian Mackey/WUIS
Illinois legislators will be asked today (12/3) to take what many say could be the most important vote of their careers. They've been called back to Springfield to take up a measure that would drastically alter the state's retirement plans. Doing so would have obvious ramifications for state employees, teachers and university workers whose pensions are at stake. But the impact of a vote is far more widespread. What happens could also affect everything from the state's credit rating and Illinois' next budget, to the 2014 elections. The outcome is anything but certain.
WUIS / SJ-R Business Report: Nov. 26, 2013
By Sean Crawford • Nov 26, 2013
SJ-R
WUIS' Sean Crawford talks with the State Journal-Register's Tim Landis about outlet malls planned for Springfield. Are there enough shoppers to support all the stores?
We also discuss an expansion for Springfield Clinic and the shutdown of the final unionized mine in the state of Illinois.
Sangamon County Businesses See Economic Growth Amid Concerns
What do Sangamon County employers see in the year ahead? The fall economic outlook survey shows they have a positive outlook about their individual business and sector, but not about the overall economy. As for jobs, nearly half expect employment rates to stay stagnant.
Greg Baise: Illinois Has To Compete For Jobs
By Sean Crawford • Nov 4, 2013
A key Illinois business leader says the state is facing tough competition when it comes to keeping jobs. Greg Baise is President of the Illinois Manufacturer's Association. He says controversial legislation in Illinois that would offer tax breaks to certain firms is an effort to keep pace.
Among the firms, agribusiness leader Archer Daniels Midland, which wants to move it's corporate headquarters from Decatur to a larger city. Illinois and other states are wooing the company with promises of tax incentives.
Senator Wants Job Commitment From ADM
By Associated Press • Oct 31, 2013
ilga.gov
New legislation would bring jobs to Decatur as a condition for Archer Daniels Midland Company to receive state incentives it wants to keep its headquarters in Illinois.
State Sen. Andy Manar introduced an amendment Thursday to require the company
to relocate at least 100 jobs from out of state to Decatur and hire at least 100
new full-time employees a year in the city for five years.
ADM announced earlier this year it will move its 100-employee global
headquarters out of Decatur. ADM is reportedly considering Chicago and other
ADM To Move Headquarters From Decatur
By Associated Press • Sep 23, 2013
Agribusiness giant Archer Daniel Midland Company says that after 44 years in Decatur, Ill., it is looking for a new location for its headquarters.
CEO Patricia Woertz says in a news release Monday that ADM needs what she called a global center with better access to customers and employees around the world.
The company says it doesn't plan layoffs and will keep a workforce of 4,400 in Decatur, which also will become ADM's North American headquarters. ADM says the new headquarters would have about 100 employees.
ADM is the largest employer in Decatur.
Departing Chamber President: Politicians Not Doing Enough To Create Jobs
By Amanda Vinicky • Sep 6, 2013
After twelve years as President of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Doug Whitley's retiring next year.
Whitley says he's leaving disappointed, as the latest data showed Illinois with the second highest unemployment in the nation, behind Nevada.
And he says political leaders haven't done enough about it, except for one - Chicago's mayor: "With the exception of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, I don't hear any other political leaders in our state talking about jobs, trying to recruit jobs, trying to announce new jobs and showing a sincere concern with unemployment," Whitley says.
WUIS / SJ-R Business Report: July 9, 2013
By Sean Crawford • Jul 9, 2013
The State Journal Register's Tim Landis talks with Sean Crawford about efforts to get a Schnucks' grocery store on Springfield's east side, a couple of bank mergers in the area and what might be Springfield's oldest fitness center is up for sale.
Read the latest business stories in the SJ-R
Sangamon County Employers Have Mixed Outlook
The survey of employers find many have positive expectations for their own firms, but have a negative overall outlook for the coming year. Ashley Kirzinger, Director of the UIS Survey Research Office, spoke with us about the findings:
The survey is sponsored by the University of Illinois Springfield's Chancellor's Office, the Center for State Policy and Research at UIS and the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce.
All About Business: Indications Point to Favorable Legislative Conditions in Illinois
By Jamey Dunn-Thomason • Nov 1, 2011
"We have to improve – if nothing else – the image of Illinois." – David Vite, president Illinois Retail Merchants Association


Meet in the afternoon at our hotel in Platja D'Aro, originally a small fishing village, Platja d'Aro is one of the picture postcard seaside towns that you can find on the Costa Brava. These days it is a cosmopolitan resort, that has some stunning views, clear water and beautiful coves, plus a great historical heritage.
In the early evening we'll have a leg stretcher of around 20 Km to dial in the bikes, followed by dinner in the hotel.
After breakfeast in the hotel, we will set off for the Medieval walled village of Verges, crossing the Les Gavarres Mountain Range, an area of outstanding natural beauty and classed as an area of special natural interest.
This route combines mid-mountain roads with flats surrounded by fields of orchards and vineyards.
Returning for lunch at the hotel about 13:30h.
After our healthy breakfast at the hotel, we will prepare for a day in the Garrotxa Volcanic Area Natural Park.
The Garrotxa Volcanic Zone Natural Park is an area covering a Holocene volcanic field (also known as the Olot volcanic field). The volcanoes, of which there are about forty within the park, are no longer active, with the last eruption (Croscat) occurring about 11,000 years ago.
We will reach the area around lunchtime with time to shower, change clothing and have a typical local lunch, in a restaurant specialising in traditional and catalan cuisine. Once we are fed and rested, we will take a tour through the natural park, visiting some inactive volcanoes.
After the visit, we will take a transfer back to Platja d'Aro, where we will have dinner at the hotel.
Once we've got the all-important breakfast out of the way, we'll follow an easy flat coastal route to the village of L'Escala.
L'Escala is an important fishing village, taking its name from the word Scala, meaning natural port. Famous for it's anchovies, which have a Denominacion de Origen, and having shops dedicated to the sale of this treasured delicacy.
L'Escala is also the modern home of the ancient city of Empuries, Founded by Greek colonists as a trading port in around 575BC and later taken over by the Romans around 218BC it remained an important trading port and a coin mint until it was abandoned during the medieval period.
Lunch will be taken in a traditional fish restaurant and the afternoon will be at your leisure to visit the town, explore the ruins or allow our guides to suggest one of the many activities on offer.
We will then take a transfer to the hotel arriving in time for dinner.
Breakfast followed by a stunning mixed terrain route of about 70Km taking in Tossa del Mar, considered to be the most beautiful walled city in Spain.
Once a meeting place for artists from around the world, it was dubbed the "blue paradise" by painter Marc Chagall. Tossa de Mar dazzled actress Ava Gardner while she was filming Pandora and the Flying Dutchman (1951), and her time there is still remembered today through a statue of her that stands in the city. You can also find "besos de Ava Gardner", Ava Gardner's kisses, which are sold in bakeries in the area.
You will have time to explore the city before the return leg to the hotel for lunch.
After lunch we will take a transfer to Girona, one of the most wonderful cities in Catalonia and now famous for the filming of season six of the cult series Game of Thrones. Explore the city, taking in the Jewish Quarter, the Gothic Cathedral and the 12th Century Arab Baths.
In the evening we will be dining at a traditional Catalan restaurant before picking up our transfer back to the hotel.
After breakfast, we will departure to Port de la Selva to tackle the Queen stage of this tour.
This is one of the most spectacular routes on the whole tour, encompassing the full range of landscapes that the area has to offer: mountains, forests, wine regions, agricultural areas, dreamy meadows and breathtaking coves and beaches.
The route includes the climb to the medieval mountain village and monastery of Sant Pere de Rodes, an area of special interest.
Our final destination is the beautiful little fishing village of Port de la Selva. There we will enjoy a traditional lunch in a local restaurant with a maritime flavour and atmosphere.
We will keep the afternoon free in Port de la Selva, so you can take a stroll around the village or enjoy its scenic coves and beaches.
Tonights Gala Dinner will be held in a winery at the area.
After dinner, we will take the transfer back to Platja d'Aro.


It is an excellent way to be creative with large groups of peoples and other friends who are artists.
Welcome! I'm the mentor for August. If you don't find answers to your questions in the ASK group, get in touch. I might be able to help.
Welcome to IUOMA! Hope it stirs your creativity.


text:
Hawaii Condos For Sale > Browse Condos For Sale by Area
Browse Individual Listings within an Area
City Area Zip Code AllAIEA EWA BEACH HALEIWA HAUULA HONOLULU KAHUKU KAILUA KANEOHE KAPOLEI MAUNALOA MILILANI PEARL CITY WAHIAWA WAIALUA WAIANAE WAIPAHU ALA MOANA DIAMOND HEAD DOWNTOWN KAKAAKO KAPIOLANI KO OLINA LOWER HAHAIONE MAILI MAKAHA MAKIKI MILILANI AREA MILILANI MAUKA MOILIILI OCEAN POINTE PEARL RIDGE PUNAHOU PUNCHBOWL AREA PUNCHBOWL-LOWER SALT LAKE WAIKIKI WEST MARINA 96701 96705 96706 96707 96717 96730 96731 96734 96740 96744 96746 96748 96753 96761 96762 96770 96782 96786 96789 96790 96791 96792 96797 96813 96814 96815 96816 96817 96818 96819 96821 96822 96825 96826
Min Beds: All 1 2 3 4 5
Max Price: No Limit $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 125,000 $ 150,000 $ 175,000 $ 200,000 $ 225,000 $ 250,000 $ 275,000 $ 300,000 $ 325,000 $ 350,000 $ 375,000 $ 400,000 $ 425,000 $ 450,000 $ 475,000 $ 500,000 $ 525,000 $ 550,000 $ 575,000 $ 600,000 $ 625,000 $ 650,000 $ 675,000 $ 700,000 $ 725,000 $ 750,000 $ 775,000 $ 800,000 $ 825,000 $ 850,000 $ 875,000 $ 900,000 $ 925,000 $ 950,000 $ 975,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,025,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,075,000 $ 1,100,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000 $1,500,000 $1,750,000No Limit
Area # Listings Min Price Max Price PPSQFT
ALA MOANA 103 $15,000 $10,880,000 $1,522
DIAMOND HEAD 41 $193,000 $6,300,000 $1,362
DOWNTOWN 74 $68,000 $5,800,000 $575
KAKAAKO 204 $25,000 $22,800,000 $1,206
KAPIOLANI 27 $274,900 $1,350,000 $542
KO OLINA 28 $514,900 $1,999,888 $647
LOWER HAHAIONE 16 $213,000 $998,000 $420
MAILI 4 $94,000 $400,000 $185
MAKAHA 30 $120,000 $599,000 $309
MAKIKI 40 $85,000 $1,148,000 $456
MILILANI AREA 22 $295,000 $510,000 $413
MILILANI MAUKA 15 $245,000 $719,000 $435
MOILIILI 3 $80,000 $525,000 $460
OCEAN POINTE 12 $435,000 $573,000 $475
PEARL RIDGE 27 $325,000 $535,000 $423
PUNAHOU 10 $225,000 $770,000 $397
PUNCHBOWL AREA 15 $90,000 $759,000 $423
PUNCHBOWL-LOWER 3 $345,000 $425,000 $484
SALT LAKE 24 $198,500 $858,000 $542
WAIKIKI 621 $29,999 $23,000,000 $914
WEST MARINA 27 $379,000 $1,200,000 $501
Browse Hawaii Area Condos by Area
$29,999 to $23,000,000
$68,000 to $5,800,000
PEARL RIDGE
KAPIOLANI
MILILANI AREA
LOWER HAHAIONE
MILILANI MAUKA
OCEAN POINTE
MAILI
MOILIILI
WAIKIKI Condos For Sale
Waikiki is not just a top tourism destination in Oahu, it's a hip urban neighborhood and one of the hottest places to live. Not many neighborhoods can boast of a world-class beach and some of the best restaurants and shops in Hawaii - all within walking distance of Waikiki condos. Not to mention the views of Diamond Head and the close proximity to Kapiolani Park, a 170-acre, tranquil, ocean front oasis.
KAKAAKO Condos For Sale
Kakaʻako is billed as the new 'live, work, play' neighborhood on Oahu's southern shore, and it's one of the hottest places to live. Nestled between Downtown and Ala Moana, this area is undergoing an exciting revitalization and a variety of new condominium and retail developments are in the works.
ALA MOANA Condos For Sale
The vibrant area of Ala Moana is tucked between Waikiki and Honolulu Harbor and is one of the most sought after areas to live in. It's bordered by the chic Ala Moana Center, the world's largest open air shopping center. Stroll four levels of trendy, high-end stores and popular eateries interspersed among koi ponds and tropical landscaping. There's even a farmer's market located on Level 2. Shop here for goodies like Big Island Abalone, sea asparagus, chicken mango summer ...
DOWNTOWN Condos For Sale
The lively downtown area of Honolulu is an eclectic mix of contemporary mirrored high rises that border the bustling harbor, Asian markets and restaurants selling exotic food, and historical landmarks like the stately Aliiolani Hale, home to the Hawaii State Supreme Court and the King Kamehameha I statue.
DIAMOND HEAD Condos For Sale
If luxury living is what you're after, the exclusive Diamond Head area should be at the top of your list. Located on Hawaii's Gold Coast that runs along the base of the volcanic cone, this area is close to Waikiki Aquarium and the gorgeous 170 acre Kapiolani Park that borders the Pacific. Diamond Head condo owners are within walking distance of Waikiki and just a ten minute drive to downtown Honolulu.
MAKIKI Condos For Sale
Makiki has a small town charisma although it's only two miles from high energy in downtown Honolulu and slightly more than seven miles from the tourist excitement in Waikiki. But that's the beauty of condo ownership here - a quiet lifestyle on the edge of high energy and excitement. Lower Punchbowl, an extinct volcanic crater, and Tantalus Mountain are prominent elements of Makiki's natural landscape. While some condo dwellers are participants who thrive on facing the rugged ...
MAKAHA Condos For Sale
Make your home in Makaha in affordable oceanfront condos with stunning views of the ocean and the lush Waianae Mountains. This small community is located on the Leeward side of the island, just north of Waianae along an unspoiled stretch of coastline
KO OLINA Condos For Sale
The resort community of Ko Olina is situated along a secluded portion of Oahu's leeward coast. This is a magnificent stretch of quiet, white sand beaches and crescent shaped lagoons. While it's a famous vacation destination - featuring resorts like JW Marriot's Ihilani Resort & Spa, the Aulani Disney Resort, and Ko Olina Beach Villas Resort, it's also home to year round residents that live in six unique communities interspersed throughout the area.
PEARL RIDGE Condos For Sale
Pearl Ridge is a major condo market on the island of Oahu and for good reason. Since Pearl Harbor Naval Base, Hickam Air Force Base and Camp Smith are just minutes away, the area is a convenient favorite for military and civilian personnel. Condo choices - which range from boutique high rises to charming townhouse neighborhoods - match the economics and preferences of a broad audience. Located near the Pearl Harbor shore and Aiea - a census-designated place (CDP) within ...
WEST MARINA Condos For Sale
Tucked into the Hawaii Kai region of Oahu on the eastern tip of the island is the area of West Marina. Communities here are built along the seven fingers of land that make up the Hawaii Kai Marina, allowing many homes to have spectacular waterfront lots. West Marina condos are made up of a diverse collection of communities ranging from older, remodeled, resort-style developments overlooking the marina to newer, modern mid-rises with luxurious upgrades like marble flooring.
KAPIOLANI Condos For Sale
The cozy neighborhood of Kapiolani is just north of Waikiki and east of Ala Moana, bordered by the bustling Kapiolani Boulevard. It's a quiet residential area and the perfect place to live if you commute to downtown Honolulu for work, which many residents here do.
SALT LAKE Condos For Sale
Salt Lake is a Honolulu suburb that originated in the 1960s during the height of a building boom. Today a collection of nearby military installations is creating a twenty-first century boom for housing and urban amenities.
MILILANI AREA Condos For Sale
The city of Mililani is newer than some condo buildings in Honolulu. Located near the center of Oahu, the city went on the drawing board in the early 1960s as a master planned community to help answer Honolulu's rising housing demand. Since the first homes went on the market in 1968, rapid population booms led to the formation of two census-designated places (CDPs) - Mililani Town on the West Side of Interstate H2 and the newer Mililani Mauka on the East Side. The city's explosive ...
LOWER HAHAIONE Condos For Sale
The lush Hahaione Valley is situated in the Hawaii Kai region of Oahu on the southeast side of the island, just twelve miles from downtown Honolulu. This tranquil residential area is tucked between the Koolau Mountains and the sea and is divided into Upper Hahaione and Lower Hahaione.
PUNCHBOWL AREA Condos For Sale
The Punchbowl Area of Oahu is one of the most historically significant areas of the island. It's home to the Punchbowl Crater, an extinct volcanic tuff cone. This crater now serves as the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, one of the largest military cemeteries in North America, second only to Arlington National Cemetery. Most visitors are awed at the beauty of the cemetery including the stunning views from the top of the crater which include Downtown Honolulu, the valley, the mountains, and the sea.
MILILANI MAUKA Condos For Sale
Like many areas of Honolulu, Mililani Mauka originated as a master planned community on the outskirts of the city.
OCEAN POINTE Condos For Sale
This beautiful master planned community was built on 1,100 acres in Ewa Beach on the Leeward side of Oahu. Neighborhoods are fringed with palm trees and lush tropical foliage and feature relatively new condos built between 2000 and 2008. It's a wonderful place to live, close to beaches, shops, and golf courses.
PUNAHOU Condos For Sale
Punahou is a corridor that runs inland through Makiki and into Manoa from Waikiki. Though the area may seem small in comparison to others, it's big on prestige.
MAILI Condos For Sale
Maili may be one of the best kept secrets on Oahu. With a population of around 9,500, the 2.8 square-mile census-designated place (CDP) offers an ideal mix of island charm and small town feel. In addition to popular surfing and swimming spots at Maili Beach Park and Lualualie Beach Park, a handful of great restaurants and bars are favorite gathering places. Waianae town, which contains a mall and lots more dining choices, is less than two miles down the Farrington Highway, and the bright ...
MOILIILI Condos For Sale
Moiliili is one of the best kept secrets in Honolulu. Forty years ago, educators at the University of Hawaii wanted to create a college town ambiance around the campus.
PUNCHBOWL-LOWER Condos For Sale
One of the many advantages of living in Lower Punchbowl, an area surrounding the base of the Punchbowl Crater, is the near proximity to Downtown Honolulu. Located close to the business district, this is downtown living at its best, ideally located within walking distance of a wide variety of restaurants, shops, and coffee houses.


I've just finished reading "Better: A Surgeon's Notes On Performance" by Atul Gawande, and as the title suggests, it's a clear look at ways in which doctors can do better. Gawande looks at everything from eradicating polio to handling malpractice – and treating of the injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The chapter on how combat medicine has reduced mortality for the first time in decades is illuminating.
Rapid casualty evacuation by helicopter can only do so much. When the MASH units of the Korean War were working, mortality for combat injured was 25%. This figure remained unchanged right the way through to the first Gulf War. Doctors had to get to the casualties even quicker. The answer was Forward Surgical Teams (FST or 'Fast').
Supplies to immediately resuscicate and operate on the wounded are in give black nylon backpacks: an ICU pack, a surgical-technical pack, an anesthesia pack, a general-surgery pack and an orthopedic pack.
The mobile teams carry out Advanced Trauma Life Support, the lifesaving measures that are needed to stabilise the injured. Because they're ont he spot, they can often do this within the vital first few minutes. A few hours later the casualties are shipped off, in many cases still anesthetised and on a ventilator, to the next level of care, the Combat Support Hospitals. These perform the next level of treatment and the wounded are sent on to final care in the US – on average within four days, compared to 45 days in Vietnam.
Just 10 per cent of the wounded now die - down from the previous 24%, so less than half as many now die on the battlefield. This is a huge reduction, and a testimony to the effectiveness of the system and the skill of dedication of military medical teams.
Gawande also sounds a cautionary note. The improved care means that many are now surviving who would otherwise have died, including some with multiple amputations, major organ damage and other extreme injuries.
Saving lives on the battlefield is vital. But it is only the start of the process for wounded soldiers, not the end.


COMIC EMPORIUM, LLC has been set up 3/11/2010 in state FL. The current status of the business is Active. The COMIC EMPORIUM, LLC principal adress is 2403 HIGHWAY 231, PANAMA CITY, FL, 32405. Meanwhile you can send your letters to 2403 HIGHWAY 231, PANAMA CITY, FL, 32405. The company`s registered agent is HALL GINA 2403 HIGHWAY 231, PANAMA CITY, FL, 32405. The company`s management are M, R - Ray Gregory W, M, Secretary, . - Hall Gina L. The company annual reports filed on Annual reports – 3/24/2015.


text:
Galaxy Note 8 Force Touch: Samsung Adds 3D Touch-Like Feature To Phablet
By Corazon Victorino
If a new report is to be believed, Samsung's Galaxy Note 8 flagship phone will launch later this month with a feature that's very similar to what Apple is using on its iPhones. According to the report, the upcoming phablet is arriving with force touch technology.
On Wednesday, The Investor learned from South Korean news outlet ET News that Samsung Electronics will be adopting force touch technology for the Galaxy Note 8. The company is doing this because the Note 7 successor will not have a physical button just like the Galaxy S8 and S8+. In order for the device to interact efficiently with users, the tech giant has designed its display to read the amount of pressure being applied to the screen before displaying certain options.
This is not the first time that Samsung is using force touch technology. The South Korea giant applied the same feature onto the Galaxy S8 and S8+ in lieu of the physical home button. With this feature, users are able to launch a hidden menu for shortcuts every time they put pressure at the bottom of the screen of the two handsets.
ALSO READ: Samsung Galaxy Note 8 will ship with free original case in South Korea
Back in March, The Verge pointed out that the inclusion of touch-sensitive, on-screen buttons on the Galaxy S8 did not only make up for the absence of physical keys, but also allowed the company to put much slimmer bezels on the front of the device. The only downside that this technology brought with it is the fact that Samsung was forced to relocate its fingerprint sensor to the back of the phone. The new placement has inadvertently drawn backlash from fans and consumers who complained about the camera lens being easily smudged by fingerprints whenever the adjacent fingerprint scanner is used.
Apple is known for using force touch technology on its iPhones' displays. The Cupertino giant even trademarked 3D Touch — another term for force touch — to make it clear that the technology is its own invention. While Samsung's force touch technology has the same mechanism as that of Apple's, there's a big difference between the two. Samsung is only using the pressure-sensing functionality for the navigation bar at the bottom of its phones' display, as per Android Authority. On the other hand, Apple's 3D Touch spans the entire screen of its smartphones, so that iOS apps can also take advantage of this feature.
Meanwhile, Samsung is poised to unveil the Galaxy Note 8 on Aug. 23 in New York. The device is rumored to sport a 6.3-inch Super AMOLED display that will cover most of its front for a stunning bezel-less design similar to that of the Galaxy S8. The handset is also reportedly housing Qualcomm's Snapdragon 835 or the Exynos 8895 processor, and it is anticipated to come with 6GB of RAM and 128GB of storage space.
ALSO READ: Limited flexible AMOLED display supply forces Samsung, Apple rivals to adopt alternative
Other reports and leaks claim that the Galaxy Note 8 will be powered by a 3,300 mAh battery and that it would feature a USB-C port. There's also mention of a dual-lens camera on its back and an improved stylus for all of its note-taking features. In addition, it was found out recently that Samsung will still place the fingerprint sensor on the back of the Note 8 after failing to come up with a display-embedded solution.
Samsung, Apple's Chinese Rivals To Use Rigid AMOLED Phone Panels
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Specs Showcased In Live Leak
Samsung TV Plus Lands Europe


text:
Paul Krugman | The Real Trouble With Economics
The Real Trouble With Economics
August 27, 2013 11:39 am August 27, 2013 11:39 am
I'm a bit behind the curve in commenting on the Rosenberg-Curtain piece on economics as a non-science. What do I think of their thesis?
Well, I'm sorry to say that they've gotten it almost all wrong. Only "almost": they're entirely right that economics isn't behaving like a science, and economists – macroeconomists, anyway – definitely aren't behaving like scientists. But they misunderstand the nature of the failure, and for that matter the nature of such successes as we're having.
Let's start with the giveaway passage:
An effective chair of the central bank will be one who understands that economics is not yet a science and may never be. At this point it is a craft, to be executed with wisdom, not algorithms, in the design and management of institutions. What made Ben S. Bernanke, the current chairman, successful was his willingness to use methods — like "quantitative easing," buying bonds to lower long-term interest rates — that demanded a feeling for the economy, one that mere rational-expectations macroeconomics would have denied him.
Whoa! They apparently imagine that QE was an intuitive reaction by Bernanke, one that academic macroeconomics would never have suggested. Nothing could be further from the truth. By the time 2008 came along, the issue of how to conduct monetary policy at the zero lower bound had been extensively discussed, notably in Krugman 1998 (pdf), Eggertsson and Woodford (2003), and, yes, Bernanke-Reinhart-Sack 2004 (pdf). Indeed, the Fed's QE policies initially followed the latter paper closely; its more recent shift to a greater emphasis on forward guidance is a move in the direction of the Krugman-Eggertsson-Woodford approach.
In other words, far from acting as a free-spirited improviser, Bernanke has been largely implementing recipes developed in the academic literature years before.
So Rosenberg and Curtain completely misunderstand what's been going on at the Fed. They also misunderstand the nature of economists' predictive failures. It's true that few economists predicted the onset of crisis. Once crisis struck, however, basic macroeconomic models did a very good job in key respects — in particular, they did much better than people who relied on their intuitive feelings. The intuitionists — remember, Alan Greenspan was supposed to be famously able to sense the economy's pulse — insisted that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring, that the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet would be inflationary, that fiscal austerity would strengthen economies through "confidence". Meanwhile, wonks who relied on suitably interpreted IS-LM confidently declared that all this intuition, based on experiences in a different environment, would prove wrong — and they were right. From my point of view, these past 5 years have been a triumph for and vindication of economic modeling.
Oh, and it would be a real tragedy if the takeaway from recent events becomes that you should listen to impressive-looking guys with good tailors who stroke their chins and sound wise, and ignore the nerds; the nerds have been mostly right, while the Very Serious People have been wrong every step of the way.
Yet obviously something is deeply wrong with economics. While economists using textbook macro models got things mostly and impressively right, many famous economists refused to use those models — in fact, they made it clear in discussion that they didn't understand points that had been worked out generations ago. Moreover, it's hard to find any economists who changed their minds when their predictions, say of sharply higher inflation, turned out wrong.
Nor is this a new thing. My take on the history of macro is that the notion of equilibrium business cycles had, by the standards of any normal science, definitively failed by any normal scientific standard by 1990 at the latest. The original idea that money had real effects because people were surprised by monetary shocks fell apart in the face of evidence of business cycle persistence; the real business cycle view that nominal shocks didn't actually matter after all was refuted by decisive evidence (pdf) that, in fact, it did. Yet there was no backing off on this approach. On the contrary, it actually increased its hold on the profession.
So, let's grant that economics as practiced doesn't look like a science. But that's not because the subject is inherently unsuited to the scientific method. Sure, it's highly imperfect — it's a complex area, and our understanding is in its early stages. And sure, the economy itself changes over time, so that what was true 75 years ago may not be true today — although what really impresses you if you study macro, in particular, is the continuity, so that Bagehot and Wicksell and Irving Fisher and, of course, Keynes remain quite relevant today.
No, the problem lies not in the inherent unsuitability of economics for scientific thinking as in the sociology of the economics profession — a profession that somehow, at least in macro, has ceased rewarding research that produces successful predictions and rewards research that fits preconceptions and uses hard math instead.
Why has the sociology of economics gone so wrong? I'm not completely sure — and I'll reserve my random thoughts for another occasion.
News Flash: The CBO Isn't Stupid
The Asian Crisis Versus The Euro Crisis


text:
José Roberto de Oliveira, conocido como Zé Roberto (Itumbiara, Goiás, 9 de diciembre de 1980), es un futbolista brasileño. Juega de volante ofensivo y su actual equipo es el EC Bahia del Campeonato Brasileño de Serie A.

Trayectoria
En agosto de 2007 los representantes de Zé Roberto llegaron a un acuerdo de traspaso entre el Botafogo y el FC Schalke 04 por 3 millones de euros. Su llegada a Alemania se produjo en enero de 2008. Debutó con el Schalke 04 el 3 de febrero, al ser sustituido en el minuto 90; a los 33 segundos de estar en el campo anotó su primer gol en la Bundesliga.

Clubes

 El símbolo (→) indica que fue cedido a préstamo.

Palmarés

Campeonatos nacionales

Distinciones individuales

Referencias

Enlaces externos
 Ficha en la web oficial del Schalke 04
 Ficha en Sambafoot (en inglés)
 Ficha en GloboEsporte.com (en portugués)

Nacidos en Goiás
Afrobrasileños
Futbolistas de Brasil
Futbolistas del Clube Atlético Juventus
Futbolistas del Cruzeiro Esporte Clube
Futbolistas del Sport Lisboa e Benfica
Futbolistas de la Associação Portuguesa de Desportos
Futbolistas del Esporte Clube Vitória
Futbolistas del Kashiwa Reysol
Futbolistas del Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas
Futbolistas del FC Schalke 04 en los años 2000
Futbolistas del Clube de Regatas do Flamengo
Futbolistas del Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama
Futbolistas del Sport Club Internacional
Futbolistas del Esporte Clube Bahia

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia