Actually, it wasn't my statement, but I did defend it as not too far from true.

Because many over 60 have very little experience with computers, you have more knowledge to backfill in order to teach them about computers (starting with de-mystifying the magic box). Again, not a question of intelligence or educability, just a matter of experience.

That will be true for many (more often than not), but clearly is far from universally true.

I have little doubt most of those things are magic to most people, but through using them for decades, they have learned to deal with them from a black box perspective. The 60 somethings who have recently found a good enough reason to bother with a computer will get there too.

I can see that, but that group was a small minority of people who are now 60+ years old. It's enough that one shouldn't assume a 60+ year old is a computer novice, but not enough to invalidate the claim that most 60+ year olds are less knowledgeable of computers.

Actually, growing up in the cold war did the opposite for me. I see our government doing more and more of the things that made "the Russians" the bad guys. I guess I'm "doublethink impaired".

Based on the last few years, I'd have to say neither one. They seem more interested in listening to the demographic that has millions to billions of dollars under their control.

With cancer, even the very expensive and carefully researched drugs can't guarantee a cure. A lot of people die of cancer while recieving the best treatments known to medicine. That doesn't mean they are worthless.

However, shame on anyone convincing cancer patients to forgo potentially curative medicine in favor of some unproven home remedy.

AHH, I see the confusion. I *DID* say that people actually working in the field were the exception. I'm not speaking of them. I'm speaking of "muggles". Doctors, nurses, mechanics, engineers, lawyers, secretaries, etc. People not in the "DP" department.

I was still in Elementary school in the '70s. I knew exactly one family that had a computer and it was a TRS-80. Mostly because the dad was an electronics engineer. My dad used a computer at work (civil engineer) but really didn't know how it worked beyond the programs he used. He also had a scientific calculator in the early '70s. A true rarity at a time when even a 4-banger cost $50 (and that was real money then).

At that time, balancing the check book was generally done un-aided with pencil and paper math. At most, a simple calculator might be involved. Why would anyone in that time feel that they NEEDed a computer to balance the check book? Especially given how much it cost. My friend's dad didn't evenm use their TRS-80 to balance the checkbook, it was too cumbersome for that.

My next-door neighbor was a programmer on a mainframe (COBOL IIRC) but didn't have a computer at home. I imagine he is now one of those 60+ who does have a clue about computers.

My contact with computers beyond the TRS-80 was dialing into the school system's mainframe with a Honeywell terminal as part of a summer program for gifted students. Very occasionally, we used punch cards.

By the '80s when I was in high school, we started getting C64s when the price came down but our parents weren't even vaguely interested in them and had no idea how they worked. I would guess perhaps 10% of the students used and understood computers. Another 20-30% saw them as advanced game consoles.

By the late '80s I had an XT clone with the v20 upgrade. I was building and repairing PCs. The customers were definitly using them by rote and had no idea how they actually worked.

Kinda like those people taking their statins like clockwork in spite of no proof that they do any good whatsoever. And all those people avoiding salt. And the people eating the trans-fat laden margarine because the fats in butter are harmful. How about those people alternately eating and not eating eggs because they are either good for you or lethal in any amount?

When "science" and "medicine" give such crappy advice, is it any wonder people start listening to woo from other sources too?

More to the point, frankly W wanted to be a war president like his daddy and he found a poor excuse to make it happen.

What did an adult in 1977 need a spreadsheet for at home? More to the point, what did they need it for badly enough to spend $1300 (in 1977 dollars) on?

I was there. I saw it. I helped them. It was certainly by rote. They understood the computer like they understood an instamatic camera. In the '70s, for the most part if there was a computer at work, it was a vt100 terminal connected to a mainframe or a mini. IT was still called "DP". In the '80s, the PC started to take hold.

Cough and cold tablets are a stimulant, but not amphetamines. Otherwise nobody would bother with the lithium and iodine, they'd just eat a whole pack of cold pills.

Adderall is actually amphetamine (not methamphetamine), so it is safer than meth but not as safe as cold pills. It's actually the stuff bikers were so in to in the '60s.

Nah, what does the employer care if after 5 years they develop an untreatable and disabling neurological disorder? They'll just burn 'em and churn 'em like always.

This is the *mobile* i5, not the full blown desktop i5. It's basically the Broadwell successor to the Haswell 29xx series. 15W TDP or less. The BRIX runs 8W idle (not sleeping) and 20W at 100% cpu (all 4 threads full out). Intel is playing fast and loose with their naming schema for Broadwell.

-Matt

All the older haswell-based boxes have dropped in price significantly. They make decent boxes too as long as you are not compute-heavy. E.G. the 2957U is 2-core, no hypthreading, 1.4 GHz, no-turbo, and no AESNI (so https and other crypto is slow). Whereas even the Broadwell i3-5200U is 2-core/4-thread, 2.2 GHz with Turbo to 2.7 GHz, and has AESNI.

I have an Acer C720P chromebook running DragonFly (BSD) with the 2955U in it, which is very close to the 2957U. I would call it decent for its purpose and it can certainly drive the chromebook's display fairly well. Firefox is not as snappy as I would like, though.

On the i5-5200U even unaccelerated video decoding can run full frame at full speed on my 1920x1050 monitor and firefox is quite snappy.

If I had to make a cost-concious decision on using the older Haswell based cpu and giving up some cpu power I would say that it would still be a reasonable choice *BUT* I would compensate at least a little by throwing in more ram (at least 4GB).

-Matt

Meth and coffee are a world apart in strength and effect. Meth and Adderall, not so much.

It's specced way too low to really be useful as a general computing device, and the form factor is 'weird' to say the least. It's too big to really be called a stick, and too small to be able to pack a decent cpu. There's plenty of space behind the monitor for a somewhat larger device in a better form factor. The stick is a play toy that you will become disappointed with very quickly (think the old 'netbook' concept Intel tried to push a few years ago... that's what the stick feels like).

Honestly, the 'compute stick' makes zero sense for a TV-mounted device. It is far better to just go with a chrome cast stick or an AppleTV for airplay and using a pad or cell in your hand to control it if you want to throw a display up on the TV. Otherwise you will be fumbling around with a horrible remote or you have to throw together a bluetooth keyboard (etc...) and it just won't be a fun or convenient experience.

My recommendation... don't bother with this gadget. Instead, spend a bit more money and get an Intel NUC or Gigabyte BRIX (both based on Broadwell). And get at least the i5 version, the lack of turbo in the i3 version is telling. e.g. i5-5200 based box or better. It will cost significantly more than the stick, but it packs a decent cpu, can take up to 16GB of ram (2x204pin SO-DIMM DDR3), and depending on the model might even have room for a 2.5" SSD or HDD in it. The broadwell i5-5200U makes for quite a reasonable compact workstation and boxes based on it will be almost universally dual-headed. Of course, whatever floats your boat but I would definitely say that the lowest-priced Intel NUC or Gigabyte BRIX that is haswell-based or broadwell-based is still going to be an order of magnitude better than the compute stick.

I have one of the Gigabyte GB-BXi5H-5200's myself ('H' version fits a normal 2.5" SSD or HDD) and packed 16GB of ram into it. It is dual-headed so I can drive two displays with it and the box is small enough to mount on the back of a monitor if you so desire (it even includes a mounting plate and most monitors, such as LG monitors, are ready to take it). And if mounting it on the back of a TV doesn't make sense, mount it on the back of a monitor instead or just let it float behind the monitor. It's a small box, after all, it won't get in the way of anything. 4-thread (2-core), 2.2 GHz turbo to 2.7 GHz. Dual-head. Decent.

-Matt