Would you be willing to pay Microsoft US to store you data if one day they could say "whoops, we gave it to Microsoft Ireland and now it is illegal to get it back. Here's your bill"?

Irrelevant. The US court isn't ordering Microsoft Ireland to do anything, it is ordering Microsoft US. If Microsoft US can't get it back from Microsoft Ireland that is not the US court's problem.

Why should it tolerate a multi-national corporation getting itself into a situation where observing the laws of one nation put it violation of another?

No individual country has an obligation to make it easy or hard for a multi-national corporation to comply with the laws of multiple countries simultaneously. That is a responsibility the corporation took on when it entered business in multiple countries.

"When a company says that they'll protect your data, can they really speak for every one of the employees or contractors they hire?"

Who else can they be speaking for? A company is not a person in the sense that it cannot do anything. Only its employees and contractors can do anything.

"Sorry, mate, but if this is too difficult for you, you shouldn't BE setting up SSL sites."

It is in our interest that everyone else have secure setups. We have no means of stopping people from setting up SSL so we might as well help them do it right.

" they have no jurisdiction over a seller residing outside of their own borders"

This was not your original point, which is why I did not address it before you made it.

"That is why you are legally required to pay sales tax on all interstate purchases for which sales tax was not otherwise collected.

You do do that, right?"

Of course not: I was smart enough to move to a state without sales tax.

"a quarter of the state the feds have given to Indian reservations"

This is an interesting use of the word "given".

"Why should a mom-and-pop internet business be exempt from taxes that the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store has to pay?"

Because a business also need authorization to collect sales tax for a state.

"It's because states cannot legally impose these kinds of taxes without the consent of congress."

The states cannot impose import duties, but they are not trying to (in this case). They are imposing sales taxes which apply to all sales, regardless of whether the product was imported across state lines or not.

I'd probably be better off buying some property in the UK to establish a mailing address to get that service to use exclusively in the USA than keeping my current AT&T plan.

TO quote myself from io9:
"So group cries that political consideration prevent works from being chosen on their merits, advances politically-motivated slate with a lot of crap."

A slate that no one knows about be definition cannot affect voting.

"It one of the least efficient form for transporting ethanol. "
But still more efficient that carrying the potable form which multiplies the mass by another 2.5x.

"You're better off transporting a small flask vial of pure ethanol."
In which case you now have to account for the mass of a container for liquid and the potential for damage to it and the cost of that container, vs. a paper/foil packet for the powder.

The Executive Order cites the laws that are claimed to authorize the order in the first paragraph, to wit "including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code".

The alluded-to impact is not transportation but rather usage.