Depends on whether you still need the database around if the power ever goes off.

In some applications the DBs are just read-only or temporary and you copy/build them from permanent storage so it doesn't matter.

But in many other DB applications you do need to write and it needs to actually be permanently written (within monetary and physical constraints). And it often has to be written when you tell the user it's written. Bad stuff happens if you tell the users/customers "transaction succeeded", delay writing the transactions till later but then the power/battery fails and there's completely no record for thousands of transactions.

After marvelling, compare with a housefly (or similar) to see how far behind we are in terms of technology.

"AI" (including basic prediction), navigation, collision avoidance, flight performance (including flight time, speed and range, acceleration/"gees"), location of fuel and raw fuel conversion tech, self-manufacture (including autonomous miner bot aka maggot and fly-factory - pupae), etc. All in a 12 milligram package (typical).

An unladen honeybee is about 80mg.

Also compare with the smallest bird in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_Hummingbird
Weighs about 2 grams (for the US folk that's less than half a nickel).

Doesn't seem geeky to me. How about programming games:
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_(video_game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_War
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Programming_games

How much geekier can it get than writing programs as a game?

I think a boomerang was thrown further.

So my question is: what roughly is the maximum theoretical distance an unpowered flying object can be thrown by a top athlete? Assuming no wind, level ground and the usual stuff for a record.

If I were allowed one more question I'd ask what might be the optimum shape of that object, but nevermind :).

Hope they treat accidental shoplifters in your country just as nicely then.

Because some favoured corporation is doing it?

My advice is if you want to avoid (not evade) tax in a big way you should consult a real pro.

I don't know much about tax stuff but if I understand correctly the Tax arms of many governments are able to use the "guilty till proven innocent" approach.

e.g. if one day your undisclosed profits amount to something significant and you have a more lavish lifestyle, more expensive house and car than explainable by your tax filings the Tax Dept may require you to prove yourself innocent or get in big trouble.

I don't know whether this is also true for Norway.

That's why I find it worrying when people do research into human-animal hybrids, etc. The technology may be ready long before human society is ready for the results.

Would the benefits be worth it? And what would the "benefits" be - a new class of slaves?

More and more we should start considering whether we should do research on stuff based on the long term consequences than merely it can now be done, or "someone else will do it if I don't" (that someone may only do it much later).

But how can anyone be sure that "sensitive" information won't be planted on his devices? Can I trust someone who steals my stuff to not frame me?

Encrypting everything might make it harder to plant something on the laptop in a convincing manner, but it might increase the odds of your stuff being stolen by them.

Speaking of Tibetan singing bowls and doorsteps if your doorstep is in the USA maybe not. But if Tibet is near your doorstep maybe...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57601531-76/drones-in-china-deliver-packages-even-a-birthday-cake/
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/02/amazon-is-joining-not-starting-the-drone-delivery-revolution/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/tech/2013-09/03/content_16941199.htm

Not saying it's a good idea. Just pointing out that drones may be dropping packages off sooner than you think, depending on where your doorstep is.
quote from the last link:

Really? Citation please. Why is there this observer phenomenon that I experience?

Or maybe you're someone who doesn't experience it and hence don't know what I'm talking about.

I find it funny people can have so much faith and certainty there's no God and use simple trite logic to prove it when the same simple trite logic proves that our universe is stranger than most think.

For example, scientists can't even explain one of the first observations each and every one of them makes - consciousness - self awareness in the way we experience it. By the same logic of Russell's teapot and Occam's razor wouldn't the "consciousness" phenomenon not exist, other than we personally observing it? Couldn't you in theory have a machine or a human being that behaved exactly as if it was self aware, but didn't experience what we experience? If not, why not? Prove it. Or conclusively prove that other people do or do not experience this consciousness you do. In short, explain your invisible little friend that is yourself and why others do or do not have their own little friends that is themselves.

I have no proof that others experience this consciousness, I have faith that they do because I experience it myself and don't believe that I am so special. But I find no way to prove it conclusively.

In line with the weirdness of our universe perhaps there both is and is not a God. Just like we've shown that stuff can be in a superposition. And each of us is also in a superposition, and what happens in the end for each of us depends on whether we interfere constructively or destructively.

And why wouldn't .Net stuff that works on XP not work on an XP compatible OS?

I'm not saying ReactOS is fully XP compatible, it's far from it at the moment. But perhaps with enough resources it would become compatible enough? Then maybe Microsoft will think twice before shoving stuff like Vista and Windows 8 to customers.

As it is you can already install the .Net 2.0 redistributable package on it. http://www.reactos.org/wiki/Tests_for_0.3.15
Whether it works or not is another thing ;).

Doesn't refute my point at all. In this case the benefit of developing nuclear weapons outweighs the cost/danger of not developing nuclear weapons.