No, these are different things.

The "Hawking radiation" is a mechanism, by which a black hole would not be completely black. Hawking proposed that two particles created outside the black hole with opposite velocities (to conserve momentum), one of these particles could escape the black hole if it's velocity was high enough (the other one would be captured). The energy for creating the two particles would be from the black hole itself.

He calculated that the probability of this happening is inverse to the mass of the black hole (don't ask me how), thus leading to a high probability for smaller black holes, in which case tiny (planck-sized) black holes would quickly evaporate. This was the argument put forward to defend the LHC when the black hole argument came up.

What the parent suggested was "foreign" mass (not created by the black hole) falling into the black hole never reaches the black hole. This is what an outside observer would see, because information takes ever more time to reach as you approach the event horizon. This is standard textbook physics.

Not impressed by a 1-2 MP camera? Well: it was tested and developed for about 5 years before getting on the rover, which means it didn't get further in the chip development road.

Industry graded cameras are still in the VGA-5 MP range. Check out companies like ISVI, AVT, PointGrey, Basler. Only specialized companies offer sensors like 29MP full frame chips. The grunt work is done in low megapixels.

I used superconducting quantum interference devices in university to measure single flux quantums (5E-18T=5aT).
The electronics was off the shelf scientific equipment, but the cryogenics were of some sophistication (to reach 300mK) and the manufacturing of the SQUIDs required high purity aluminum and a controlled level of oxidation (the hardest part). It took about a day to manufacture a simple sample.

This. With an exception to #2: I'm still using one-time codes as of now (Commerzbank), though they offered to change it. I've refused so far.

In Germany you can't undo a transfer order you placed, neither can the bank. If you were doing business with someone, you call them up and ask them to wire it back to you (you need to inform your account information, too, because these are not visible to the receiving end). This is the case here. The guy should have called the cops right away. Bank transactions leave paper trails.

BTW: I still use throw-away passwords for transactions (Commerzbank). I just don't enter many passwords in a single form that looks a lot like my home banking site. It works fine or am I missing something here?

A different ruling in Germany holds owners of open wifis accountable for any illegal action undertaken by its users. You're required to keep intruders off with authentication and encryption (unless you're a cafe or so). Now people could use closed wifis for illegal activities and the courts would have to hold the wifi manufacturer accountable.

They won't. They'll go "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"