Why do you assume "thousands M1 tanks" would be available? Even for advanced space-faring species there would be some logistical constrains. They will have to bring "thousands M1 tanks" along with them across the stars. Much better question would be, could a couple modern tanks, some drones, a helicopter or two, and maybe a nuke win WWI against BOTH sides? Clear answer is no, not unless one of the sides decides to ally with the invaders.

Very soon we will completely cure AIDS and Cancer in monkeys.

When Internet revolution arrives, they will be first up against the wall.

It's just the first step in defeating anti-surveillance measures taken by terrorists.

Also, the quoted number of drinks needed to put you in the danger zone (1 drink = 0.05%) doesn't match those found in other studies. In the Netherlands, the traffic bureau advises as a rule of thumb that 2 drinks put you near that limit (which is the legal limit here). Of course they mention that it's an average that can vary wildly, and that it's better to drink nothing at all before driving, but in general the 2 drink rule seems to work fine for most adults.

Here is an article with plenty of references, though this guy focuses more on computers as a teaching aid.

Did they compare test scores between kids using only the software, and kids using nothing at all (no teachers / classrooms)? Or did they test how well kids from illiterate families did in their first few years in school, comparing those having used educational software against those without? Because that's what we're talking about here.

Besides, one of the tested products apparently did have a significant impact on test scores, showing that computers can be effective as a supplement to regular education as well. I agree that there's a lot of rubbish educational software out there, but not all of it is.

Most tests (from manufacturers as well as consumer advocate groups) seem to indicate 10 years of service or about 3000 runs on average, with a few top brands consistently scoring 1.5 - 2x as good (5000 runs). This is for front loaders, mind; perhaps the numbers are different for top loaders (top loaders are virtually nonexistent here).

Every brand will have their good and bad models. My first combi oven was a Whirlpool and I was rather pleased with it: quiet, reliable and extremely intuitive to use. So when I moved house I got the latest model Whirlpool oven... and found it to be poorly built with an insane user interface.

The one brand I'd recommend (for dishwashers and washing machines) without hesitation is Miele. Expensive but built like a rock, they ought to last you a good 15-20 years (my parents replaced one after 28 years, during 15 of which it had run a load a day).

In Russia I can believe it, but things there aren't always what they seem. I remember seeing a picture of a shopkeeper lady surrounded by guys in body armor, ski masks and carrying automatic weapons. Looked like a serious robbery, but the caption below read: "tax inspectors check the books in a shop on famous Arbat street.

A lot of cases where drones are being used commercially (aerial photography / site surveys / inspection of industrial installations) can still be done within the line-of-sight restriction. Because the operator still enjoys the other major aspects of drones: stable flight characteristics, and a telemetry+video downlink. I'm not a ig fan of regulations, but in this case I understand why they take a conservative stance for now.

There is plenty of evidence that computer programs can effectively teach basic math and language skills, and that they are good for rote learning of various subjects. Are they better than a teacher or parent? They are better than no teacher or parent. And in addition to special teaching programs (which have limited application), computers can bring traditional learning materials to student at a much lower cost. If there is a shortage of teachers or if there aren't any in some remote area, kids can be taught in a MOOC or virtual classroom. Not as effective as small local classes, but better than none at all.

The question is not whether computers can improve education in underdeveloped countries; they can. The real question is how to apply computers in this (varied) environment so that they actually are effective... or whether it would be more cost-effective to spend the money on teachers.

Computers did not teach you anyything, because you had a school with teachers and good learning materials (and probably well educated parents too) to learn from. Kids in underdeveloped countries often lack some of these, but they do (or will soon have) access to connected smart phones as that kind of tech is making its way into those markets. This will give kids access to teachers and books at the very least, and software can provide additional education. Software aimed at basic math and language is shown to be plenty effective.

Most of us have good ideas from time to time, and frequently at a time when conditions are favourable. What matters is what you do with that opportunity. First you have to recognize that the time and market are right for your idea, or you have to be willing to take a gamble on that. Next you need to organize capital and people to make it happen. That is where the accomplishment is.

Trickle-down works in economics as well, just not the way the likes of Bush promoted it. What is good for the super-rich is not necessarily good for the rest of us (usually it isn't), but a strong middle class has a positive impact on the lower class. Middle class wealth most certainly trickles down.