If all that hatred came from moral indignation, why is it that almost all of the protesters were college students who were worried about keeping their student deferments. Somehow the 4-F's were drastically under-represented, possibly because they didn't have to worry about the draft.

Incidentally, since you're judging others from such a high horse, when did you serve and what battle ribbons did you earn? Or perhaps you didn't serve at all.

I spent over 7 months in Tonkin Gulf in '72, most of it on the Gun Line doing shore bombardment, and I have the service-connected hearing loss as a souvenir. My ship was one of the 38 that helped throw back the NVA during the Easter Offensive by taking advantage of the fact that their plans had completely ignored the fact that the USN completely controlled the eastern flank of the battlefield.

And, as far as how we were treated by the anti-war movement, I must congratulate you on your selective memory.

Why does opposition to war automatically mean you're anti-military and vilifying soldiers?

Nobody ever said that it does, and there are many people today who oppose our nation's current overseas adventures but support the troops. However, back during 'Nam, that wasn't true, and those who opposed the war (mostly because they didn't want to be drafted) constantly showed their hatred of anybody in the US Armed Forces.

Only once every 40 years or so. Not so wrong in reality, for most applications anyway.

No, Leap Seconds are added at irregular intervals to adjust for the slowing down of the Earth's rotation. The last one was added on June 30, 2012, only three years before this one. The 40 years you're referring to is how long the system has been in place. Do try to keep up.

I never claimed that I was rebutting the statement that "cocoa without sugar is nasty." My intent was to point out an exception to the claim, which I did.

That implies that you think I'm lying. Do you?

If you use enough cocoa that you can actually taste it as such, you've put at least three times as much on as is needed. One generous pinch per side is ample.

You get that even without the cocoa powder. What I'm talking about is the effect the dark brown cocoa has on the surface color and the way the cocoa's flavor enhances that of the meat. To see for yourself, grill two burger patties, but sprinkle a little cocoa on both sides of one of them before cooking. Then taste them and see the difference. If you can taste the bitterness of the unsweetened cocoa, you've probably put too much on.

Not always. If you want to give a grilled steak a beautiful dark-brown color, rub a little bit of unsweetened coco powder on it before you cook it. It also adds depth to the flavor. It also goes well in chili in small quantities.

If all that you write is true, there's only one question left to ask: why do you continue to use it?

I've not seen the film, but as it happens, I've read the non-fiction book it was based on. If you want to know more about the battle, you might consider doing the same. It's a gripping read largely because it doesn't demonize either side but shows their humanity.

How many Russian troops would storm Stalingrad if not for the _Russian_ machine guns aimed at their backs?

You do understand, don't you, that for the first six months of the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were attacking the city and the Soviets were desperately hanging on while slowly being pushed back against the Volga? And, for most of the last three months, the surrounded Germans were being besieged and starved out. Yes, there have been times that Soviet security forces have forced the front line troops into combat, but this wasn't one of them.

Considering that the ransom-ware in question is Windows-specific, using a Mac (or a PC running Linux/BSD) is all it takes to keep you safe.

(But, to use the article's term, "broken".)

What makes you think that the term "broken English" was invented by whoever wrote that article? It's been around long enough that Shakespeare used it.

The whole idea of having to store the spent fuel rods for 100,000 years is based on conflating the concepts of "long-term radioactive" and "highly radioactive." With the obvious exception of Uranium, the two concepts are inversely proportional: the longer the half-life, the lower the radiation and the more radioactive it is, the shorter the half-life. The isotopes that remain radioactive that long aren't very dangerous because they break down very slowly, and the ones that are the most radioactive don't last very long. And, of course, Uranium is an exception because it goes through several different reactions before becoming stable and non-radioactive so that even though it breaks down slowly, each breakdown results in a cascade of radiation.