It's not free money. You do understand how insurance works, right? You pay into a system based on estimated risk and if bad things happen, they pay a large lump sum to your survivors to help with expenses. It's not unreasonable to force an insurance agency to cover all types of work so long as they get to set the premiums and deductibles.

You clearly can't read spec sheets. Go read what the Nexus 7 specs actually are and then try again.

"User License Agreement", ie, Contract. In order for a contract to be valid, a few things have to be true, in this case, the contract has to be legible/readable, and the other party must affirmatively agree to it. (This isn't an argument so much as just fact, which I'm sure you'll agree to).

I'm going to argue that most EULAs represent a "sticker contract", and would typically be considered non-binding because they fail to be readable by any average person and that no affirmative consent is given. Legally, EULAs may or may not be legally enforceable in different states. South Carolina considers EULAs not-enforceable while some states may consider otherwise. From my own reading of the law, I think any "Here's a long complicated 20 page essay on how you don't have rights, written in a foreign language, click 'I Accept' to install" type thing doesn't constitute an actual legal binding agreement - YMMV, it's usually up to the court in question.

Several authors did specifically file just "complaints", not DMCA takedowns. Whether or not there were DMCA takedowns in there, we don't know.

You are correct about not needing a EULA, it just helps.

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.