Not entirely correct.

You have two very successful cases for nation (re)building. Japan and Germany, post WWII.
But that involves:
- Time (on a scale that people aren't willing to think nowadays).
- Money (lots of it). To repair infra-structure, and lots and lots of education.
- Be willing to accept that you can't transplant one's political system to very different sociological and psychological conditions.
- Be willing to occupy and fully control the geography (which imply there will be casualties)
The rewards are immense, as can be witnessed by the stability of Japan and W. Europe since WWII, which allowed the US to reap significant economic and political gains

In contrast you have the disaster of post-soviet invasion Afghanistan (where a lot of money was invested on defeating the
USSR, but almost none in helping the resulting "free" country),
and the missed opportunity of "war on terror" Afghanistan (where the US got distracted by "OMG Sadam Hussein has WMDs" ,
and the resources to fully pacify Afghanistan got diverted).

Unless ?
It WILL compete for resources.
At the very least, Energy.

Count also on competition for materials for replication , enhancement of capabilites, and continuation of it's own life (AKA survival).

In the development of our current civil aviation environment, it has been found that the following process results in MORE safety.
If a certain technology is new:
- DO NOT allow widespread operation until such time that RISKS are well UNDERSTOOD and MITIGATED.
- Do a comprehensive (which means veeeery lengthy and expensive) test regime
- Account for risks (in terms of safety, security, etc...)
- Find ways to mitigate risk
- Create the relevant regulations
- Allow operation within the regulations

This means: NO commercial operations before this process is complete.

All aircraft manufacturers put their new designs (and in most cases , modifications of designs) through a demanding test regime.
Not doing so has been proven to be very very (very !!!!) bad !
Reading accident reports from the 1950 will show exactly why this is needed.

In this case, it is not only the design, but the mode of operation, which is significantly different from the remainder of aircraft (routes, density , etc..).
Any responsible regulator will be very careful with this.

With regards on commercial delivery operations on territories not under FAA regulations, I believe most advanced countries have the same kind of restrictions.
Most of the Civil Aviation authorities of advanced countries, will have regulation regarding experimental aircraft, and these will exclude commercial operations.

All this said, I believe most major Civil Aviation Authorities are looking into comercial drone operations.

You probably mean Asymmetric.

I would think consumer and small business Internet access will keep on being asymmetric for the most part, whatever the technology.
Most users on those markets are consumers and not producers of data, which means more downloads than uploads.

Combine that with bandwidth being ALWAY scarce, you will have Engineers , network architects, product managers
and management designing their products taking that into account.

The market need for a symmetrical or a reverse ratio of uploads to downloads on the consumer segment is minuscule.

So right , I propose a grass roots movement: Citizens agains chemicals on food

We should start with lobying the food industry in order to ban hydrogen and oxygen , those two are EVERYWHERE !!!
Think about the children!!!!!111!!!one

I would guess the "everyone" you are refering to is some subset of the countries on the report.

If you look closely, you will see that some put some very stringent limitations on what info can be obtained, when can it be intercepted and by whom.
And , gasp , some even report the number of intersections and requests.

Not being a US citizen/resident, it's none of my bussiness what the NSA does in the US, but I do take offence at their actions abroad, specifficaly those that impact MY leaders, MY country and MY liberties.

Unbelievably bad !

The Bugatti 100 wasn't a JET , much less an "advanced fighter jet". (Note to the author: Jet isn't synonym with combat aircraft).

It wouldn't be computer controlled . No computers with the right size and speed for controlling an aircraft where available (also, for the size, the control surfaces would be "muscle" powered, as where all aircraft of comparable size and era).

Being on the prototype stage, it would not ever be combat ready and in wide operational use for it to make any difference on the Battle of Britain (The prototypes for the Spitfire and the bf109 had first flights in 1936 and 1935 , operational around 1938 and 1937).

Compared to the previous issues, the "zero-drag cooling system" is of little consequence.

Also, no excuse for the author not being an "expert" on the subject .
Some basic fact checking ("oh, look it s got a propeller" or "when was the first flight control computer introduced ?") would keep the piece honest. (but would certainly intrude upon the the sensationalist tone).

An armed society is a FEARFULL society. FTFY

If you have to be "polite" because you fear someone shoots you because you may sound "disrespectfull/unfriendly/annoying" the "politeness" is completely hollow and is in fact fear.
Social norm would then be "who has the biggest most prominent guns wins/has right of way/is right".
Sounds too much like medieval times...

And don't tell me that if everyone has a gun it will be a level playing field. (think weapon, fitness, health, mood, social settings, fear of injuring someone you love or have some responsibility over, etc..., etc.. ,etc...)

The fear is that the US may be able to get Snowden's location by backtracing his connection, not what he may be saying.

Inferiority complex much ?

Doesn't that make it even worse ? (and it was the Bolivian President's aircraft, and he wasn't intercepted, was rerouted as overflight clearences were whitdrawn and had is aircraft searched in Vienna ).

Had it been the "Air Force One", there would have been a war....

A dark episode on Europe's foreign relations, now (unfortunately) forgotten.

If a state is willing to strong-arm other states into viollationg international law, diplomatic immunity and common courtesy to an head-of-state, then it certainly only has good intentions....

By the way things are going, the "EU legal system" part may be unavailable some time in the future....

The insistence on exceptionalism with regard to rules that apply to all the remaining member states is starting tho chaffe, and the constant "euro-ceptic" noises are starting to get a different reponse from people I know (It has change from "Why ?" to "Leave already").

The UK public should be aware that some day their government will insist on another exception (threatening to leave if they don't get their way) and they will be told "Then leave".
Europe as a political and economic entity will be weaker, the UK will be much much weaker (and it's citizens will loose access to a different legal safety net). The winners will be : China, Russia, etc ...

Brazil ?!?!
I believe Brazil hasn't any claim over the Falklands/Malvinas (although they support Argentina's claim)

-20 , Title is moronic.

Why should any product (commercial or otherwise) be the future of education ?
The future of education isn't on buzzwords/marketing items/products with a limited shelf life.
It's on philosophies, methods and concepts.

I Keep seeing this argument "X also does it" , but the proponents seem to forget that other Electronics intelligence agencies don't have the capacity to do data collection on the same scale as the NSA (Not even close).
They don't have:
- The manpower.
- The bilateral agreements with the same number of inteligence agencies
- The scale of technical infra-structure
- The number of locations where to implement listening posts (military bases, diplomatic posts, comercial entreprises).

This means that they won't have the capability to get the same volume of information as the NSA, and as a consequence, have less access to information they shouldn't have.

For Brazil (which isn't next door to Sweden), this means they will be less intruded on by the FRA than by the NSA.