Everyone is commenting on a summary of a summary. The original study is much more interesting: http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=36706954. Please check it out -- the summaries leave out some really interesting information.

For example, the study notes that "On the positive side, the results indicate some benefits on cognitive skills". So in fact there was some measurable benefit to the student having the computers. Also they note that students learned basic computer skills -- something presumably they would not be able to do without a computer.

What is interesting is that only 40% of the students were allowed to take the computer home. And it also looks like they mostly don't have access to the internet. Both of those would have to be fixed before I feel like we have done a real test of this program.

Thanks for mentioning the Drake equation. Slowly but surely we are chipping away at the variables in that famous equation. Michael Crichton gave a famous lecture harshly mocking the Drake equation (emphasis is mine):

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live. This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. ETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html

We now are finding lots of extra-solar planets, and have moved on to analzying some of their atmospheres. Is SETI really a "religion"?