Actually, the report that article links to lists the figure as 2-8%, not 2-5%. And the problem with that figure, as with all such figures for false accusations, is that that is the percentage of people who get caught making false accusations. It doesn't include the people who successfully get away with it. The actual percentage of false accusations is necessarily going to be higher, since the successful ones are never counted as false accusations.

Similarly, there are "all sorts of clues" when someone does it badly. Those naturally wouldn't be there if someone was doing it well.

"Liberals" in the US believe in liberal government spending on programs designed to remove individual liberty. Of course, so do "conservatives" in the US these days.

Except that isn't what the issue is here. The issue is that Hulu sends the information to Facebook just by loading the like button on the page, regardless if the user ever clicks on it. The linked article gets it wrong, but the article that article links to explains it better.

This is why we can't have nice things.

If you make it undesirable for women to wear skirts, then women won't wear skirts.

Because in certain parts of the US one income is no longer enough to live on, even for DINKs. Both my wife and I have to work professional, full time jobs just to support ourselves and one pet. Forget kids.

And which one of those two reactions sounds less traumatic for everyone involved?

Perhaps if certain people would stop being so uptight, this whole issue would just go away. If you're not interested in the booth babes then just ignore them. And if someone grabs your ass without permission, just tell them off and walk away.

If (straight) men treated women the same way they treat other men, our species would be extinct pretty quickly.

I think you're confusing "True or False" with immortals again.

Why should I assume they are false? To assume anything is foolish, particularly in the given example where it is more likely the statements are true. The correct answer to the question of whether any of those statements is true is "Probably". Claiming something is false because you don't have all the facts is just as bad as claiming it's true.

This "critical thinking" you espouse sounds more like simple contrariness.

The guy who wrote that article is an idiot. As if voting for one of two identical, corporate-owned candidates or a handful of third-party wackos with no chance of being elected is going to make any difference. He chastises the young for not voting and claims "their influence on politics has vast, untapped potential" that could somehow be realized just by voting. He calls the 2010 election "one of the most critical elections in years that tipped the balance of power in Congress." Seriously, just how different do you think our situation would be right now if every election in 2010 had gone the other way? That's why the protesters are protesting instead of voting, because they know that voting accomplishes nothing when the system has already been gamed to make sure the corporations win no matter what happens in the voting booth. In the US, voting is nothing but the opiate of the politically-minded masses.

And yes, I did vote in 2010 for one of the third-party wackos, for all the good it does.

Whoosh!

The part that ends with "expensive legal fees." Unfortunately, just having the law on your side isn't enough to prevail in the US legal system.