I also note how history has been rewritten in the linked article - at the time that Higgs came up with the Higgs model he wasn't "trying to understand the origin of mass" - at least not directly. They were trying to resolve the difficulties of two other mechanisms/models - that were already well known. Yang and Mills's non-abelian gauge theory and Goldstone's spontaneous symmetry breaking. The latter gave mass to one particle at the expense of creating another one that HAD to be massless whilst the former also seemed to give rise to massless particles. Now there would be no problem with this but for the fact that we don't see the massless particles - the ones we do have (eg the photon) don't have the right "signature".
What Higgs did was to put the two theories together, stir the mathematical pot a bit and then... Voila! the two sets of massless particles stuck together and became massive as if by magic.
The remaining problem was that we didn't see the massive particles either.
Of course if you can't see a massive particle that isn't a problem - it may just mean you haven't cranked up you particle accelerator enough.
For the last 50 years physicists have been progressively cranking up their accelerators - and finally they found all the massive particles - the lst being the so called Higgs itself.
Unfortunately you have bought into the analogy too strongly. One other problem with physics is that over time the analogies used to explain to those who can't do the maths start to acquire a life of their own.
The existence of the Higgs field must be universal - like the electric field, the gravitational field and the fermionic fields that give rise to the electron etc etc.
The value of the Higgs field in vacuum could (in principle) change from place to place - BUT that would create an energy gradient that would self resolve at the speed of light See Coleman's paper "The fate of the false vacuum"
Foreign inventors and authors are able to engage in business activities within the US and eligible to secure the benefits of US law. US businesses attempting to engage in business in foreign countries in many instances are ineligible to secure the same benefits as the nationals of other countries.
Whereas in the 19th century
US inventors and authors were able to engage in business activities within Britain and eligible to secure the benefits of British law. British businesses attempting to engage in business in the United States in many instances were ineligible to secure the same benefits as US nationals.
The US is indulging in "do as I say - not as I did".
The Miners of Silverwood, having been told they were confined to six pickets only, built themselves a seventh comrade in the shape of a large snowman, wearing for good measure a plastic policeman's helmet.
Next morning, Chief Inspector Nesbitt appears on the scene and seeing the jeering miners and their steely eyed companion, ordered the constables to knock it down . This order brought rebellion to the police ranks as PCs declined to, "look so fu**ing stupid knocking down a snowman". "Very well," shouts the irate Nesbitt, jumping in his Range Rover and charging off to demolish the snowman, as pickets ran laughing for cover.
Maybe it was a trick of the light, or maybe a twinkle glistened in the icy countenance on the snowman's fixed expression - we shall never know, as the Range Rover made contact and came to a dead stop, smashing front grill, bumper and headlamps and hurling the shocked Nesbitt into the steering wheel. PCs found excuses to walk away or suppress body shaking laughter while pickets fell about on the ground with side splitting mirth. The snowman had been constructed around a three foot high two foot thick concrete post!
The above classic story is totally true and is from the book - 'All power to the imagination!' by Dave Douglass. You can buy the book online here(http://www.minersadvice.co.uk/furthread.htm)
the BBC tried to make a compilation of all the shows.. MISSING over 1/2 of them to TIME and destruction of tapes. they SEARCHED the world for copies..
Actually the BBC wasn't being particularly careless here. At no time did anyone knowingly wipe a tape that they believed to be the only copy. The problem was that there were two subsections of the BBC involved and each one thought that the other one was keeping the reference copy.
Actually this is worse because it points out that even when rightsholders are trying to keep things they are still likely to fail.
and btw Dr WHo started in 1963 - not late 60's. In fact the first episode was broadcast on the day that John Kennedy was assassinated!
Nor is there any requirement that any copyright holder preserve a copy of those works it holds under copyright in pristine condition for the day it does enter public domain.
Of course there used to be - in the days when registration was required - a requirement to lodge a copy of any registered book with the so called "Copyright Libraries " ("Copyright in this case meaning that they had the right to a copy!). In the UK this mean the British (Museum) Library and the Libraries of certain universities. In the US I believe it meant the Library of Congress. That at least meant somebody responsible had a copy and could preserve it.
They show up in discount DVD bins, or more often today online, sometimes looking a little worse for the wear. A general pall of darkness might cloud the image; the dialogue might be a bit tinnier than you remembered.
Re: Re: Re: OMG, my trade deficit with Amazon.com never goes down!
You are flat out wrong about tariffs. Your duly handwaving nonsense about 'consumer is the producer' ignores completely that consumers is a massive group, orders of magnitude larger than producer in this or any other specific case. Tariffs and other forms of protectionism make them all worse off to enrich a tiny subset, not the group as a whole.
Unfortunately consumers have to get the wealth to consume from somewhere - and if competitive advantage drives all the jobs offshore then they don't have the money to buy stuff even if the price has gone down.
The reality is that both sides of the argument are mostly trying to further the interests of elite groups at the expense of the mass of the population. The so called free traders want to be able to buy cheap goods produced outside the influence of laws to protect workers' rights and then sell them at a bigger markup than would be possible for home-produced items.
True free trade would mean the following
1. Free movement of labour worldwide.
2. Uniform terms and conditions for workers worldwide.
Without these two (and a decent amount of time for the system to stabilise) the benefits of free trade will mostly go to an elite - albeit a different elite from those who benefit from protectinism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG, my trade deficit with Amazon.com never goes down!
Well "National Security" as used by politicians - is a rather different thing from true national security.
Having said that I feel that most of the comment about US vs UK growth in the period in question are somewhat off beam.
The US could afford to be protectionist because it had a large amount of empty space to expand into and a rapidly growing population during that period. Thus the usual problems of protectionism did not arise. The UK could not have performed better by being protectionist itself because it had already finished most of its population growtn and did not have scope for geographic expansion.
The UK would have done best if it had hung on to the American colonies and been inside the US trade barrier.
However you look at it the relative performance of the US and the UK during that period is not simply explained by differences in trade policy.
They are not as bad as advertised. Here is the official response to the e-petition against them
"From the end of this year, when new customers set up a broadband account, they will be prompted to set up parental controls. If a customer repeatedly clicks ‘yes’ to get through the set-up quickly, filters will be automatically selected. Parental controls are easy for the account holder to change, so customers who do not want filters can simply switch them off."