2016 definitely has patch speed issues, with the same set of patches taking roughly 20 mins on 2012R2, vs 3+ hours on 2016. So far, this does not appear limited to any particular circumstances, so Essentials suffers the same as Core and Desktop, etc.

One thing that helps speed it up a little is to manually grab the latest cumulative from the WU Catalog, but this still takes a while.

How about no, this doesn't apply at all to the question as it was asked. Dishonor on you, and dishonor on your cow.

I've often thought about trying to directly route wifi signals over coax, but coax doesn't work so well up in the Ghz range, and you still have the impedance difference and extremely abnormal gain to compensate for. Besides that, digital audio or MoCA ethernet probably remain the most viable options.

I think the solution is going to be fixed wireless, whether it's dedicated infrastructure or piggybacked on cellular. Current LTE deployment in those rural areas is fair to middling, and can provide acceptable speeds and latency in most areas. The advent of 5G could shake things up even more, not only by increasing the infrastructure capacity on 5G itself, but also by freeing up capacity in 4G as more device move to 5G. The only problem is that all cellular providers, and most other fixed wireless providers institute usage caps that are way to low for any modern internet usage. However, since they're still technically providing what's considered "broadband", regardless of whether it can actually stand in as a replacement for physical wireline connectivity. As a result, they can proceed to rake in federal and state-level grant money, despite not providing what is actually needed: a wireline replacement connection at an affordable price. About all that's needed to make these connection more feasible is to get average usage caps raised by an order of magnitude, from 10GB to 100GB.

Multiple counties in that area (including my county just north of Cville) are trying to find solutions, but the best thing us techies can do is to convince them that they need to push not for universal connectivity, but for universal "wireline equivalency". As long as fixed wireless companies (like VABB) and cell providers keep doing what they're doing, they will continue to take credit for providing access, while failing to present any real competition to wireline providers like Comcast or Centurylink.

What Verizon doesn't say is that there's a large chunk of users who are just waiting for Verizon to ship them new phones before they send back the Note7s. Orders of Google Pixel XL phones from Verizon are at least 3 months and counting behind schedule.

I don't think MS need ext support as much as they need btrfs and SFTP support. Btrfs looks poised to eclipse ReFS on Storage Spaces, and bringing massive support and development to a budding open source project would really help their image. As for SFTP, well, I'm just plain greedy.

I've got 277 items in my add/remove list, dating back to about 2.5 years ago, yet my system is almost as fast as it was back then. Why? I'm not naive. I have no PUPs, malware, or other unwanted programs, I run MBAM and MBAE instead of a "real" AV (much lighter real-time protection), and I'm smart about what I let run at boot. Registry bloat is not a problem, it's clueless users who cannot maintain their system. The only issue right now is that my memory usage is a bit high after a clean boot, but that's because I'm running Nvidia drivers, Geforce Experience, uTorrent, Steam, three different cloud storage programs, and a file indexer covering 500,000 files (Everything FTW!).

In other news, professional behavioral psychologists teach a new dog old tricks.

http://blogs.mcafee.com/consumer/smartphone-pin-codes

http://www.syssec.rub.de/media/emma/veroeffentlichungen/2014/06/30/GraphNeighbors-Sicherheit14.pdf

Please, do everyone a favor and get your units straight. You probably mean 5.5 KWh. Apart from that small mix-up, thank you for the additional perspective.

Not sure exactly what you're referring to here. I assume you mean to say that "why rely on the increased efficiency of some devices rather than be more aggressive at turning them off". My point is that as we get more and more efficient with a technology (e.g., large displays), the importance of it's energy consumption pales in comparison to other, more power-hungry technologies, like our forced air AC systems, V8 engines, and deep fat fryers ('Murica!!!).

They are, but much more slowly than anything computer-related. Take for example, your standard chest freezer or AC unit. How will it take before we double it's energy efficiency? 20 years, probably more? This is in comparison to modern electronics, which tend to double their efficiency roughly every 5 years (correct me if I'm wrong here), even less if you count modern CPUs in the last 10 years. The point is that our appliances are approaching the practical limits of efficiency, yet we let them draw tremendous amounts of energy without batting an eye.

There is exactly no effort put forth on your part to see and understand the reasons for my rant.

1. The comment I replied to stated that consuming power to display images is "pointless". I refuted this by giving an example of a computer in a home office.

2. The comment also implied that utilizing an idle display for *anything* was pointless. Hence, my example of displaying Linux stats and uptime.

3. I was tired of people championing aggressive energy savings in an small area, while many large areas go unobserved.

4. I was tired of people who shove energy efficiency in everyone's faces without considering that most people are perfectly fine with consuming extra energy so long as it improves their quality of life (including, but not limited to, displaying pretty pictures).

FYI, using the Mac program Little Snitch was not what found the problem. He merely used it to verify that the Mac wasn't *the* problem. Admittedly, you can have some grace there because the ITworld article was mistaken, but don't forget to read the original source next time.

Although it isn't a hard-and-fast rule, screensavers nowadays are less about preventing burn-in and more about utilizing idle displays. For example, on a Linux-based machine, it's not unusual to have screensaver options that let you display the system load and uptime. Photo screensavers are another prime example. If I'm in my home office for an hour at a time, but only using the computer for 10 minutes, why not have my otherwise idle screen act as a large digital photo frame? You are correct in asserting that power consumption is an issue, but display technology has come a long way, so my 24" monitor draws much less power than my 19" CRT. Reducing power usage is a wonderful slogan, but modern society has a very poor grasp on exactly how much power their devices consume compared to their microwave, water heater, air conditioning, dusk-to-dawn lighting, and other amenities. It's great to hear that your cell-phone charger now reduces it's power consumption by 95% when not in use, but do you have any idea how that compares to an running your AC and heat an extra day each fall/spring, microwaving your pre-cooked meal every other night? /rant