I'm neither a lawyer nor intimately familiar with the details of this particular case, but I'm a bit confused how EU law would apply to a US based company running a US-based service (such as an outlook.com email address), regardless of the nationality of the person who signed up for said service.

No, they don't (well, some of them do, I can't really speak for all of them). God doesn't have to guide evolution: why would he? He's an omnipotent omniscient being in Catholic theology: he is completely capable of creating the universe with a set of physical laws that will result in evolution following the path he wants it to without intervening directly in it later.

Scientifically, yes: the universe with a god is indistinguishable from one without one (well, aside from the fact that the universe does actually exist, but that's a long argument I won't engage in here). That makes sense: science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. In fact, even if God did regularly directly intervene in the physical world, there still would be no scientific proof he exists: science would attribute it either as a natural process if it happened regularly (even if it didn't fully understand why) just as it does with all regular processes we see in the world, or a statistical anomaly also caused by natural processes (albeit unknown ones) if it happened irregularly. That's because that is all science can do: to ask it to talk about supernatural beings is like asking your eyes what noise tastes like. That is simply not how it works. Science looks for natural processes governing nature. It literally cannot see supernatural events. All it would say is "some effect we cannot yet fully explain."

I just checked, TLS 1.2 when supported, but they will fall back to 1.0 if the browser doesn't support newer 1.1/1.2. Didn't see if they'll fall back to SSL or not (or if it falls back to 1.1 at all).

Or minorities aren't following the education or career paths to become qualified even under reasonable requirements. This could be because of cultural bias among the minority group or bias against the minority group in the education system.

I'm not even sure what "unfairly tough and racially biased requirements" means (aside from the obvious "you must be white to apply", which seems... well, unlikely): if some people are qualified (no matter their race), than it doesn't seem to be unfairly tough... unless you're implying minorities are incapable of meeting those requirements.

This bit is false, an extremely strong password still cannot be brute forced (once you get over ~10 characters long, even an Amazon E3 instance starts taking unrealistic times to brute force it). Most password cracking, even GPU powered, relies on passwords being either short or sufficiently non-random.

Sure, we technically don't have to intervene. Unless we want the entire world to know that assurances of protection given in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons are worth slightly less than the paper they're written on. Which means every country in the world will (and ought, if they intend to remain safe) seek nuclear weapons to prevent this kind of aggression in the future. You sure that humanity won't start using nuclear weapons if 90%+ of countries have them? Because I'm definitely not sure about that.

Yes, what you actually want for nuclear waste is something that either has a short half-life (a hundred years or less), or a very long half-life (millions or billions of years). The former won't remain waste for long and can easily be contained for the required time, and the latter produces so little radiation it's not terribly harmful if it is released. The big problem are the isotopes with half-lives in the thousands of years, because those require good containment that lasts for thousands of years.

To be fair, the average farmer would also spend probably 1/10th (or less) the time on that 20 acres growing corn: planting, spraying, irrigation, harvesting is all handled with heavy equipment in corn production. You can't do that with tomatoes. Well, the irrigation is probably automated, but if it's organic, you've gotta hand-examine plants for bugs and weeds. Not sure how they're raising sheep and everything else, you need probably 1/4-1/2 an acre per sheep (unless you grain feed them), which doesn't give you a lot of room for produce. I'm guessing the sheep are just for show.

Well, considering at least one Slashdot poster commented about his 3-year-old wracking up charges, I would say at least some of of the children are toddlers and they probably are using $300 dollar devices.

Perhaps it shouldn't, but considering that you got it wrong, as Microsoft added DX11 support to Vista, obviously it's slightly more difficult to grasp than you seem to think it is.

We know it works at large scales. We don't know if it works at small scales. Since the entire goal is small-scale fusion (i.e. something that doesn't require an entire solar mass of hydrogen to maintain), we really don't yet know if it works as a viable contained power source.

I suspect the issue is more "why?" Why would they bother spending even a few thousand dollars on a satellite that was supposed to have been shut down 15 years ago and for which they (quite clearly) have no more use? And it would cost money, if only the time they spend using the amplifiers/antennas. Considering that the DSN communications system already has to support multiple missions, adding one extra that serves no useful function is a complete waste of resources.

Except that's not really true. Our current Big Bang cosmological theory rose into the forefront (despite being derisively named the "Big Bang" by the proponents of the earlier reigning cosmological theory of the steady-state universe) when the cosmic microwave background was discovered. Quantum mechanics is the reigning theory for explaining particle behavior at very small scales, despite Einstein's well-known dislike for the theory. The fact is: you don't have to convince your opponents, you have to convince everyone else. It doesn't matter if you have a bunch of scientists unwilling to give up their "sacred cows", because you have a bunch of other scientists who have no stake in one theory or the other but are perfectly capable of judging between the evidence. Thats really the key: scientific progress is made by the community testing and accepting theories. Of course, some people (like Hawking) have a significant influence, but it's not like Hawking is never willing to admit he's wrong either: he has famously made several bets with John Preskill/Kip Thorne about singularities and black holes, which he has lost (and admitted to losing).

Unfortunately, we can't. From TFA:

And just as fast as those physicists have come up with those equations, they have been ruled out. Currently, none of the equations explain the phenomenon better than dark matter (and they're often much much worse). It's not equally as possible that dark matter exists as that it doesn't: the current evidence points to dark matter being more likely to exist than not. Tweaking equations and throwing in correction terms to force the model to fit the observations is usually a bad approach in physics (or science in general).

BTW, looking for side-effects that would result if dark matter does exist is, far from being stupid, a decent method of indirectly confirming the existence of dark matter in the first place (since observing dark matter directly is really, really hard, perhaps even impossible).