Good riddance. This project was a failure before it ever got off the ground. Not because they couldn't build the hardware or software (they did) or because they lacked smart, talented people (the didn't), but because handing laptops to poor kids was just never that great an idea to begin with.
Technology isn't magical, it's a force-multiplier, and anything multiplied by zero (or something very small) is still zero (or very small). To make matters worse, a great deal of resources went into the project, resources that could have been used providing more basic types of development aid that would have created something to multiply in the future.
As an aside, has there been any serious evaluation into whether the laptops "worked"? Were there actually even any metrics laid out in advance by which success can be judged now? I'd be willing to admit that I'm wrong about the efficacy of the project (though the cost-effectiveness could still be debated) if there are positive empirical results.
Technology isn't magical, it's a force-multiplier, and anything multiplied by zero (or something very small) is still zero (or very small). To make matters worse, a great deal of resources went into the project, resources that could have been used providing more basic types of development aid that would have created something to multiply in the future.
As an aside, has there been any serious evaluation into whether the laptops "worked"? Were there actually even any metrics laid out in advance by which success can be judged now? I'd be willing to admit that I'm wrong about the efficacy of the project (though the cost-effectiveness could still be debated) if there are positive empirical results.