You realize that's not a EULA, right? EULA stands for End User License Agreement. Those last two words there - License Agreement - actually have meaning. This isn't the fourth grade, learn how to use a dictionary.

Yeah! Let's burn down all the libraries! We'll murder the inter-school lending programs too! And all of their administrators!

EULAs, like any contract, are limited to what is legal.
It IS legal, as per the DMCA, to bill for false takedowns.
Therefore, so long as the EULA otherwise survives Probate (and is a valid contract), then you can, in fact, bill people for wrongful takedowns.

However, in this case, it seems like these are just very loud complaints, not actual DMCAs. Complaints carry no legal weight, but may, say, convince your hosting company to turn you off.

Fingerprint readers are a lot more expensive then a card reader. It's also trivial to install a second magstripe in an existing card reader, but it's a lot harder to mess with a fingerprint reader. Fingerprints aren't perfect (and fingerprint readers can certainly be broken), but they are a big step up from 4 or 6 numbers.

Here's a great experiment for you in order to answer your own question.
1. Turn off Javascript
2. Go to facebook
3. Click an ad.
(Wee bit difficult without grabbing the JS source and manually getting the links, ain't it?)

Because surely if he didn't build them, nobody else ever would. The entire point is that he makes the vulnerabilities known, posts them publicly, and often (if not always) gives the manufacturer a chance to correct the issue FIRST.

So then the next question is, did Ubisoft get my permission? EULAs are not *nearly* as binding as manufacturers like to make out.

I would double check that bit about "legally owned firearms". I'll give you a hint here - you're wrong. Only a *very* small amount of killing sprees are done with legally owned automatic weaponry.

Chernobyl is actually an exception to my argument. There was never an issue as far as the reactor being kept up (or, at least not one that got any attention) but rather it was during a training/testing exercise that was mis-managed (mostly due to an idiotic grid controller).

Because taking away legal firearm ownership clearly reduces the chances of getting shot... (That was sarcasm for the slow among us)

That plant was correctly designed - according to original spec. The spec was modified some years later (citing concerns over the height of the wall, especially in case of Tsunami), and Fukushima was one of the plants which didn't update as they were supposed to. Strictly speaking, I suppose the plant simply stuck to the original design which turned out to be bad in this instance, but the core issue remains - if they had invested money instead of being cheap bastards, we wouldn't know or care about them today.

My concerns are not the original designs, or the engineers. It's the cheap profit seeking idiots who attempt to cut corners while running them. Fundamentally, Nuclear is a great idea! Unfortunately, Nuclear Power in the hands of a capitalist society which values immediate profit over the chance of blowing themselves up is actually really freaking dangerous.

This is what we saw with Fukushima. That reactor was well designed - and the others in the region held up decently. If the plant had been kept up even close to spec - there wouldn't have been a disaster. Hell, even if after the initial issue, if they had just dumped the core, it would of been a passing mention in the newspaper. Instead, somebody who valued money over other peoples lives, decided to make a profitable decision instead of a safe one.

It only takes one stupid idiot to ruin a good thing.

It's called a right to bear arms. It's a right because it was considered necessary for the defense of our basic rights.

In addition, most gun related homicides stem from drug or gang violence - and a large percentage of those cases are using illegally obtained firearms.

Some of those "homicides" (depending on the statistic set you're using) may be self defense cases.

So, I'm going to argue that we shouldn't be banning magnets just because some kid is stupid enough to swallow one. I'm also going to argue that banning guns, opposed to banning Bucky balls, does more harm then good, if only because gun ownership does not correlate with homicide.. (Some recent numbers for you)

No, I think he's suggesting that the writer is a self serving idiot who is clearly biased.

Actually, per US law, they have stolen money. They intentionally lead their client who was acting in good faith into a business deal which Goldman-Sachs could reasonably believe would go very badly, and without warning them - and they accepted money for this.

That *does* count as theft in the US.