They started by stripping out the rightward shift and rotate instructions from the instruction set.

Interesting to take the green example. Over here in Flanders the founding father of the Green party lamented more than a decade ago that his movement has been hijacked by extreme left activists to push their red agenda under the green flag. This week I read an article about the consolidated international pirate party. http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/?id=657895&r=1&tbl_archief Mixed with the free copying issue, which I would support, there were all sorts of neomarxist, anticapitalist and drug legalization agenda points. These varied from the mandatory left mantra of "open borders" and "free unemployment handouts, no work ethic required", even going as far as "legalize incest" http://www.piratenpartei.de/2012/04/13/piratenpartei-lehnt-inzestverbot-ab/ . Unfortunately, now they have left me no other option than to strongly oppose them, not because of the original founding ideal, but because of the unsavory red star package deal they have gotten themselves into. To put in to torrent terminology, there's some nasty left-wing spyware hitching along with the installer. Sad, really.

The search page says "Since many items in the Einstein Archives can presently be dated only within a certain range of uncertainty...". So it seems they experience trouble determining simultaneously where the document is and when he wrote it.

... if I can prove they both are possible and impossible?

Actually, a correct observation should read, "people accused of hatemongering and thoughtcrime don't smile when the thoughtpolice takes their picture."

... but do you think they'd bother to have a look at the diodes down my left side? Of course not!

Quite right. The real God particle should be called Theon.
And it will be the only hypothesized particle with two hypothesized antiparticles: the atheon and the Saton. Now there's a triplet to try and collide!

It's funny how conservatism (keeping/cherishing good things) is criticised and mocked as "people don't like the change, even if it's for the better". Isn't democracy about the majority deciding what's for the better of said majority? And if their decision is that the change doesn't benefit enough to compensate risks, then the best decision can well be to keep the tried recipes. Any company will also avoid risky changes "for the better" before they know damn well that they *will* be. So no matter if the losing ("progressive"?) side thinks their view is "for the better", you have to define the will of the majority as the best choice. Any other choice would be an oligarchy of self-appointed "screw the majority, I know what's best" dictators.