1.) don't be an asian helicopter mother
- you are not their parents

- best way to engage most children is when they have fun taking things step by step, with fun and encouragement

- some kids want a challenge, those are eager, give them a challenge they can handle, be present, wait for the question, don't explain things they want to tackle themselves

2.)
show them how they can let their computer + learned skills work for them
- understand what they are doing in school (don't introduce partial differential equations to a 5th grader except they ask you to do so)
- explain their current topic on math with the help of excel (no VBA)

-sine, cosine tables, sine charts etc..

3.)
The computer is a tool, make it a place to toy with things

4.)
- don't be ProfX
- use your empathy
- but actually the best choice would be to empower them to tackle their current tasks, a little surplus of knowledge won't hurt
- don't present big problems, demonstrate how you can approach a - school-world-problem by breaking it down,

These are computer/programming skills: to understand a problem, breaking it up into small understandable pieces then describing the whole problem, formulate a solution approach and testing that method.

With the help of a useful tool called computer+software.

There are multiple.

1.) simple sftp reachable cloud (very cheap, no need for special cloud software)

2.) root server (you can get these with ~4tb space minus the OS) for arround 20â (you don't need a power horse) even a vserver is ok, if it has the space and you can sftp into it
traffic is mostly multiple times storage cap

3.) having offsite sftp storage is great the connection+login/pass is encrypted + save the ssh-fingerprint and check for manipulation, only filezilla needed to retreive all data

otherwise you can automate many things like offsiting your archive hashes / etc.. via script, curl can pop3s and smtps your data.

With tcls "expect" you can automate sftp backups and automatic storage.

4.) Multiple independend hosts are also a nice idea

5.) -> Test your backup system Encryption
I suggest everything you store offsite and also onsite should be encrypted.

Everything you store offsite should have at least two layers of strong encryption using different crypt-algorithms

1.) AES or twofish/serpent

2.) additional to that
That big archive should be split into 50-100mb chunks of data and encrypted with their own hash hash value as key value
you need to store the hashes

3.) encrypt the hash lists

4.) store them in cheap or free email accounts

Hi,
I've written a tutorial for installing freebsd on an encrypted root using a serial console. That should actually explain some things.

http://forums.smallnetbuilder....

Otherwise:

Get an installer image:
https://www.freebsd.org/where....

The release version is FreeBSD-10.1

try the memstick image
a "cp FreeBSD.img /dev/sdX" will copy it to stick

While you install:
don't install the package ports, you will get the freshest ones
through portsnap

Add an "admin" user make him member of group "wheel"
because that user can ssh and then "su" to root.

When you have installed FreeBSD

a.) run portsnap fetch extract
- after this your ports tree is up to date

b.) run freebsd-update fetch install
- after this your FreeBSD-system is up to date

c.) kill sendmail-demon
- after this you will feel no change at all

d.) installa samba via ports(verbosive) or via pkg add samba

you install things using the ports collection by enter the directory /usr/ports
where you choose the category for example the midnight commander can be found under "/usr/ports/misc/mc"

you start the installation using make install
afterwards you can do a make clean
or make distclean.

ports is "just" make-scripts

Hint:
svn is included in the FreeBSD base distribution
it can be called via svn-lite

So you can also checkout the current freebsd-head (FreeBSD handbook says how), browse the /usr/src directory or where yyou will then recognize that every command's source has a separate directory with make file etc..

Meaning you can now play with the source of the base distribution(userland) and kernel

FreeBSD is fun, and a base system really has a small footprint.

The key to understanding why the whole debate is doubtable and nationalistic from the beginning, is to understand that general mathematics is a universal science.

You cannot invent mathematics.

(Remark: This should also be true with physics, these physics inventors haven't even their free energy device running so well it could power their cell phone.)

Basic mathematics like pythagorean theorem is discovered,
and Pythagoras didn't invent it, he discovered that just some basic relationships but he wrote down a universal formula..

(And I think he also managed to geometrically proof the theorem. I'm not sure)

So even if you find some of these so called pythagorean relationships and use the numbers in your construction - then if you don't write down a formula you have no theorem at all. And however sometimes a library burnes down and papyrus with the theorem is lost.

But again mathematics is universial, so if a theorem is truely universal it can be rediscovered. And this is what's happening, some pupils and students have the capability to rediscover mathematical principles using just their education they received to a certain point, with having never heard about before. Brilliant!

The real genius idea is after discovering a numerical relationship to write down a "general" formula, this is what he did.

Discoveries are made sometime, and sometime they are forgotten. It is possible that Pythagoras is just a "late" inventor, but understand the indian minister you need to understand that he is a hindu nationalist, and as any nationalist, he believes in the superiority of his "peer group".

This reveals an inferiority complex nationalistic indians are worried that their country was and is a develloping country - aside from their huge steps in science and engineering.

They just have too put their name on everything and claim everything, it's just sad, because these people will not stop there, where science and philosophy would return to a more rational debate.

The basic reaction that such hydrocarbons can be created exists.

But it cannot lead to the conclusion that because of this oil would be renewable.

Actually, there are some "theorists" (like Gold) that pronounced & defended the abiotic theory of oil creation. Which directly goes into that direction, that only some of the oil is created from biological "residue".

Thus stating that due to this process oil reserves would be able to renew theirselves, as complex hydrocarbons are chemically produced without the help of bacteria with the earths crust, and therefore denying the existence of a "real" peak oil and that oil reserves are infinite according to their theorie as they renew their self.

Basically, it means that even without bacteria you can reform hydrogen, carbon and oxygene in succeeding chemical reactions to produce hydrocarbons (more complex than just methane) About the abiotic methane creation we know from cosmologists. Also looking at the saturn moon titan, were it seems that there are indeed huge amounts of abiotic created methane that concentrates in forms of seas.

Algae are a good point, they can be cultivated on a much smaller space, and also test appliances are beyond the stadium of just being an experiment.

Sorry to devide the answer into more than one part,
but the scifi-solution you mentioned (off world) I'd like to argument against it.

Where: Titan
Why: Titans atmosphere and sea are liquid methane CH4 not because of life

Problem:
Adding matter to earth
- yes, we have an addition of matter to the earth (comets, meteorites)
- yes, we have a loss of mass (atmosphere)

At the moment the increase or decrease rate I think is at an equilibrium.

The solution to space mine(minerals) or prospect(hydrocarbons) would actually add matter to the earth and if the earth will increase mass so will our orbit around the sun decrease. I judge this effect not to be desired. It will get hot hot hot!

Yes, I don't give a thought to the transfer of kinetic energy from titan to the earth.

The argumentation wasn't about biofuels or their feasebility. It was just about why it is safe to assume that oil reserves are limited.

The thought you indirectly implied with hinting at biofuels, so to substitute part of the oil consumption - with biofuel - so that oil reserves will last longer.

Biofuels will be a part of the energy mix for propulsion of the future yes, but only a part.

a.) yes, at some point in time biofuels may/will become economical enough to compete with petrol. Some still are,
depending on where you use them (ethanol production in brazil for example).

b.) Till today the advantage of using fossil fuels is that it is "free" energy. As you just need to get it out of the earth but you don't need to put resources(usable land area) into just to create it.

The production of biofuels however is limited as they compete with food (except jatropha which is poisonous) but also with cultivating land.

c.) I indeed see the ethical problem in using food to drive a car,
however I do also think that it can be solved if the priority is on the food production for humans and that biofuel production is only secondary.

Looking into the energy markets, electrical propulsion is the most likely the biggest part of the "mix" solution. Because you can harvest the (renewable-)energy for it it on very small areas.

Also some areas that are ideal for solar for example are barren dry land or deserts

"oil production": Yes, term oil production is actually wrong.

You should use authentification and encryption NOW!

On your remote switch* or we will see many islamists detonating in their training camps, instead detonating at a market square.

Actually then the term suicide bomber would be appropriate - because it's not essentially suicide but essentially it's murder, suicide is just a byproduct

*Suicide bombers have their paket often equiped with a fail over switch if the bomber rethinks pressing the button, it will be pressed remotely.

Unlikely to happen, the abiotic theory in the creation of oil by Gold is mostly viewed as disproven, because it lead to deep drilling efforts, these got not much oil out of it but showed that even there bacteria (extremophiles) were present so deep inside the earth.

If you would now jump off your seat and say again that this is proof that we just must dig deeper. This can be disproven to be sustainable by logic, meaning yes there is little oil, but again "little" not the amounts needed.

The steps to disprove:
a.) The creation of oil needs at least plant life (the biomass of plant life is enormous), while it may not need the life itself(chemical proccession is possible) but life (our known carbon based life) accumulates water and carbon,
and these things can recombine to hydrocarbons (under the influence of heat and pressure)

This means to create oil reservoirs you need and accumulation of the right components and life has the ability to accumulate.

hydrocarbons == oil

If those elements would have been scattered there would be no such oil "stashes" found in the earths crust.

b.) the past view of the O2 content over the last billion of years
- some 650 million years ago the O2 concentration began to rise,

deduction: that this must be initial starting point in develloping of plant life. This is our ground zero for oil creation inside the earth

If you accept the assumption that 99% of the oil resources are based on reprocessed biological matter. The next deduction is, that: There is only a limited amount of oil because of the limited time span of life on earth.

Evidence can be seen, when you look at all discoveries of oil reservoirs, they have two huge peaks(40s and 50s), and many small peaks, but the trend is going downwards, even with the invention of new techniques.

Also discovery doesn't mean production, so basically the reservoirs that are in production now(yes fracked and tar sands) were found some 40-20 years ago, (tar sands are known even longer before) and fracking is also sucking the last drops from known deposits.

Deduction: Digging deeper means just going longer back into the earths biological history And this also means that you are just going back to that point when the "tank" (meaning all that biological matter that was conserved and did not decompose) was started to be filled.

Meaning: The deeper you dig the less you will find.

The other evidence proving the reality of peak oil is that this oil is used for rougly 130yrs. at industrial scale.

These resources were never drained before. So even that right now hydrocarbons are formed in the earth crust. The rate of oil creation by this process can deduced to be very slow.

Taking into account the long time for creation, the total consumed amount and the growing hardships that prospectors face since the 60s it can be logically deduced that there is a limited amount of oil, and if you start to drain it, the creation rate of new oil due to biological processes does virtually not even cover for about 0-point-0-somehting percent of the whole oil production. This means it is logical and safe to assume that peak oil (production) is very real.

And if you look into the future consumption of China and India which I did not, it looks just more severe.

Yes, your conclusion is basically what my argumentation is based uppon.

And I'm sure that you are just funny, go back to sleep kid.

perhaps some managers took engineering classes and started to re-project peak oil and realized:

That peak oil will still be there, just a bit later. And that when you have cheap oil at hand and you make yourself highly depended on such a resource, where we have seen everything from extreme low to painfully high within a very short time.

That not looking on efficiency and substitution you wouldn't be prepared for the future, when such choices would be made by many companies+people that would increase the demand on renewables to a stretch where markets simply cannot deliver any more. When markets cannot deliver anymore prices go skyrocketing making that late choice for renewables really painfull.

(we saw this in 2007/2008 when market demand for renewables was so high, that the demand could not be satisfied any more)

Windows Vista - not somehting it could do
WIndows 7 - not something it could do

WindowsXP - can do
Windows2000 - can do

That's part of the answer why winnt5/5.1 are actually widley used, they are used in realtime equipment, along with their low memory and cpu footprint (winxp can be tuned very good).

And hopefully nobody dares to connect Win2ksp4 or winxpsp3 on these appliances to the pure-internet nor to any intranet consisting of more than one not connected computer.

But WinXP and 2k are very good & smooth OSes (Microsoft did much on XP to optimise it to the performance level of 2k) for these types, and many people with these needs, are not very pleased with win7.

But PREEMPT is funny that it is mentioned now, I can remember some 2.4.X kernel, or was it even 2.2.16/18ish ? when I patched the Preempt scheduler into and needed to make manually a new patch from the previous patched kernel source because one version later the patch failed.

Later the option was present in the menuconfig as experimental.

Really was preempt forgotten so fast ??