Manufacturers jumped all over the chance to sell netbooks with real Windows to customers afraid of Linux. Economies of scale prevented manufactures from producing better "Linux only" low cost netbooks. They raised prices for "Windows based" netbooks just at the time regular notebook prices were plummeting. The price/performance delta shrunk and you were left with a single core Atom, low resolution, 1GB - upgradable to 2GB - netbooks, versus a full blown notebook for $100 more.
Microsoft killed the low cost netbook in a calculated move to kill Linux on netbooks. Ultrabooks became the only remaining (high cost) viable alternative for lightweight, low power, ultra portable computers. It is funny that Chromebook, with the exception of size, is now becoming the "new" netbook that the old netbook could have been if Microsoft had not sabotaged the market.
The image of a business person using a netbook is just that. Users of netbooks were people with little money looking for a new toy, and nothing more.
I guess that depends on your definition of "business." One company that I consult bought three EEEPCs for field computers. They use them for data collection at wellsites. They are great for that: long battery life (whole workday), cheap, lightweight, no spinning hard drive, and fairly rugged. Another large HVAC firm bought a shitload for service techs. It works out great for the same reasons.
Travelling "executives" are not the only "business" people who use computers.
So basically, you believe I, as an author, should be required to release ALL my work on your time schedule [...]
Absolutely. If you want copyright which lasts two lifetimes, there should be a compulsory publishing duty. If there is no incentive for the rights holder to publish, the copyright has no value anyway. Locking up works (essentially indefinitely) with no copyright value deprives the public domain. Disney's Song of the South is a great example. My kids have never seen it and have no idea what the characters or songs on Splash Mountain are about.
I will not produce anything under those terms. Ever. I will go get a construction job rebuilding Initech first.
Did you ever stop to consider that discrepancies within the dispensing system may be maladjustments or hardware failures? It's not always malicious. Inspections pick those things up too. Just because people bent on fraud can get away with it by going around inspections given enough effort, that doesn't mean there is no value.
If you want to go for "self regulation" or Angie's List style regulation, I demand vigilante justice for fraudsters. It's only fair.
Nice to see you had the balls to post under your real account. Nice to see that the Tea Party-ers proudly stand up for their beliefs.
One of my coworkers had a septic system failure and it backed up into his house. He had his " septic tank" uncovered and found out someone had buried a bread truck in his yard and used it for the tank. He had no leach field at all. They ran a pipe from the window of the truck over to a dry well.
I bought a house in 2002 that had numerous problems like that too. My bathtub drained into the crawlspace; no connecting pipes. The electric forced air furnace was installed upside down. (I'm sure he got a good deal on it) No conduit for the water heater. The garbage disposal was not grounded. (That one was fun to discover)
It's not just unscrupulous contractors, it's unscrupulous/incompetent home owners as well.
[...] if they're not actively looking for it, there's no reason they should be exposed to it.
And they aren't with Safe Search turned on. The issue is whether or not people may opt out of safe search. If you are so worried about what your kids view, why not install a filtering program like McAfee? That's what I do for my kids.
I think the bigger picture is the damage that will be done to Google's business model. This marks the first time that they actively reduced the quality of their search results intentionally. They made their service harder to use and less useful and this was not some government mandate.
If this was an attempt to become more "business friendly", then Google needs to recognize that consumers are their target audience and where the advertising dollars are, not business. Google has had a near monopoly for a long time, but the tech world is notoriously fickle. Boneheaded moves to downgrade service usability may bite them in the ass. As it is, I am using Bing and other search engines more and more when I have difficulty retrieving useful results. Instead of bolting on training wheels for lazy parents, Google needs to concentrate what made them the biggest: Retieving the best, most relevant, and most useful results for a search query. I remember the pre-Google days of wading through tens of pages of results looking for that one relevant page and Google was great at figuring that out.
This has the odor of a committee decision about it. When business decisions are made that don't increase customer value, business begin the downhill slide. This can only end badly for them.
Microsoft dealt netbooks the death blow with their "reference platform" for Windows Starter Edition. You couldn't have more than 2GB of memory with only 1GB installed and still get the super duper netbook discount for Windows. You couldn't have a screen larger than 10.2". Only single core CPUs were allowed. This stagnated the netbook market at the same time when full sized laptop prices were dropping and hardware was improving while people shifted away from desktops.
Why would anyone buy a crippled netbook for $250-$300 over a cheap laptop with a real version of Windows, optical drive, multicore processor for $300 - $350? The weight and battery life weren't worth the drawbacks for $50. I was shopping for a netbook for my daughter to take to school during this time and opted to get a laptop instead.
Microsoft disrupted the natural market with their license demands in an attempt to kill Linux on netbooks. Unfortunately for them, the iPad shifted the market for low power computing out of their sphere of influence.
However, if for the child, a job that pays in exchange for 60 hours a week, represents a financial boost, that could be a good thing. It's better than languishing in poverty.
Yes, because it's good to send a developing child into labor instead of educating him. Maybe we can model our Brave New World on China's sweatshops and take back our jobs.
It has never been illegal to neglect people and allow them to die.
Jesus... Just Jesus... I'm guessing you quit reading "A Christmas Carol" after the first chapter. Dickensian England is not an aspirational example.
Besides you are just fucking wrong anyway. Try letting you kid starve to death while you party and see if you still think it's "not illegal." Or a parent dependent on you. Hell, they will jail you for starving your damn dog.
This is probably better handled through expensive high-profile lawsuits.
Because remediation is SOOOOO much cheaper than prevention. Talk to the people of Chernobyl... or Fukishima... Or Three Mile Island... or Prince William Sound... or any of the other poor bastards who live near brownfields and Superfund sites.
You need to grow up and think of somebody other than yourself. That's how we got into this economic mess anyway.
Amen brother! Let go back to the good old days when an employee that lost a hand in a machine could be shown the door and children were allowed to work 60 hours a week. Ahh... Even the the good old days of the 1950s where life expectancy was 20 years less so there was no need to take care of those useless old folks. No do-gooder social justice freaks trying to make sure people could eat once a day. Let's go back to the days when business was allowed to dump TCE and dioxins into aquifers and people had no recourse. Let's all wax nostalgic over the days when the Cuyahoga river could support a good fire.
Fuck all those Social Security leeches that paid in over their lifetimes. They don't deserve shit from us job creators that need our taxes cut. Ramen noodles and cat food are good enough for them if they have the poor sense to stay alive past their usefulness.
My ex and I used to argue over this point constantly. She was a "fine arts" major. What you and I call art, she claimed we confused with craftmanship. If it "evoked a feeling or response", it was art in her book.
Some of the junk she thought was art, created a "feeling" in me. I "felt" it was crap.
It is undisputed that the first part of the statement is clearly non-objectionable because selling of GPL software is entirely permitted. Therefore at least half of the O.P.'s assertions are non-sequitor. Why, would anyone object to selling GPL software unless they were unaware of the working mechanisms of the GPL? That part of the statement is pointless and redundant since the O.P. meant to declare grievance (i.e. "ripped off") from the point of view of a copyright holder. Therefore it is LESS of a stretch to interpret that he linked these two statements, rather than meant for them to stand each on their own. The G.P.'s interpretation is by far most likely the correct one.
Because I can see that 2 + 2 doesn't make over $9000?
LOL. No. Because you STILL don't get it. You are either totally clueless to what I am saying or you are willfully ignorant. You don't seem to understand the difference between a policy decision and a financial one. EVERYTHING is financial to you. You have an accountant's attitude complemented with a self serving, narrow minded disposition. You keep ranting and raving about the (totally self fabricated) numbers but you do not understand that I never disputed the cold, hard, financial situation. Your eagerness to protect the CEO and other management staff that "made out good"(sic) and your suggestion that he would be better off to "cut-and-run" demonstrates that your priority would not be to work with employees to return the company to profitability, which is the ultimate responsibility of the CEO. The primary obligated job of the management team is to increase shareholder wealth, not personal wealth. Failing to understand this fundamental fact is why you would not make a good CEO or perhaps even a leader.
Try to wrap your mind around this: The goal of both management and labor is to make more money. For labor, they want more money for their effort and management wants more revenue and profit. Their goals are aligned. By failing to work together to achieve their goals and creating a bitter adversarial environment, they both failed. The leaders bear the responsibility for cultivating a positive working environment and making decisions conducive to cooperation. With Hostess management's missteps and self indulgent attitude (like yours), nobody can be surprised at the resulting animosity from labor.
Feel free to rant and rave some more about numbers you pull out of your ass, but I am done with this thread.
Being a CEO requires leadership not prayer. Continual "cost cutting" on the bottom line without raising the top line will never save a failing business model. Taking away your employees' living wages, while helping yourself to seconds won't either. Hostess found this out the hard way. They also discovered that they actually *GASP* needed those employees to run their business.
Instead of working with employees from the beginning to save a failing concern drowning in debt and losing mindshare, those in the corner offices helped themselves to a bigger piece of the shrinking pie while asking others to do more with less. Like it or not, their "people" decided they would rather be unemployed than work under the conditions dictated by management. That says a lot about the leadership qualities of management. If you fail to see this obvious evidence, you probably aren't cut out for leadership or management either. Your self interested "cut-and-run" ideology corroborates it.
And the captain doesn't always have to go down with the ship when you hire someone other than Joe Hazelwood to pilot her through the Sound.
You are clearly fixated on the numbers and completely missing the big picture. It's not about the spreadsheet, bean counter justifications. The appearance of impropriety that the Hostess CEO demonstrated by his HUGE multimillion dollar payraise (~240%) and capital mismanagement just prior to the third bankruptcy while asking employees for a 20% paycut just months later that sewed the seeds of this fiasco. This set the stage for a "us vs. them" battle with management. Management cannot expect a harmonious partnership with labor when they exhibit an "I got mine; sorry about YOUR luck" attitude.
Management was not a team player with Hostess workers. A team player takes his lumps along with his teammates. This is called setting an example even if it only amounts to a symbolic token. Unfortunately, they set the wrong example. Management is in large part about leadership and motivation. Hostess's team failed at both. Unfortunately, they also failed in innovation, vision, and strategy.
Did unions kill Hostess? No, they merely drove the last nail into the coffin. Management is ultimately responsible the company's demise. Management decides product mix and sales forecasts. Management controls debt load and production capacity. And company stewardship make the fateful decision to give the CEO a 225% pay raise just months prior to bankruptcy.
Unfortunately the news media will not report that aspect of the story. They will perpetuate the story that the union forced liquidation of a great American icon. Rank and file labor across the country will get indignant and heap hate onto the union employees for their role all the while remaining blissfully ignorant about the terrible missteps by those who actually controlled the company.
Ultimately, the only control that the union had was whether or not they went to work in the morning. Managment made all the other decisions about the fate of the company.
Why do people always demand the executives take salary cuts so they can make everything better?
Because, you see, corporations need labor. The idea that the executives are making out like bandits, while the guys who actually make the products are being screwed left and right make for poor employees. Even those employees that are initially grateful to have a job tire of the perceived inequality by this type of behavior. This leads to a unmotivated workforce and poor relations with management.
If employees are not invested in the company, the adversarial relationship harms the company. There is little incentive to innovate or increase productivity. And at the extreme, employees would rather see a company dead than take the table scraps that remain.
I am often astonished at the number of wage slaves that denigrate unions, yet complain that they have no health insurance. They feel entitled to paid holidays, yet have no idea where the concept arose. Have unions sometimes gotten out of hand? Yes, but that doesn't preclude the need to keep management in check. Otherwise, you exist at the mercy of the company and whatever economic conditions prevail.
Yeah, it would be much easier for them to just hire twice as many 20 hour a week employees
That works in a high unemployment environment; not so much long term. Labor rates usually rise and/or labor quality usually drops when companies resort to these kind of tricks. Crappy employees can kill a business as quickly as high cost. Health care rules are now the new norm, like it or not. Businesses can try to avoid it, but labor will shift to jobs where they qualify for health care unless employers make it worth their while. No business exists in a vacuum.
It is absolutely incredible that anyone would moderate the parent post as flamebait. It is a simple, verifiable and accurate statement. This just demonstrates how low the human race has fallen when so many believe that speech must be silenced when they don't agree.
I guess the next step is shooting 14 year-old girls on buses that blog about education for females. Just incredible...
Slashdot Mirror
How does this guy keep finding work? His track record seems iffy since his last "big" win against Microsoft.
Check your REAL history. Microsoft set maximum specs for netbooks that were allowed to install cheap XP starter licenses.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/22/microsoft-publishes-maximum-windows-7-netbooks-specs/
XP/Vista/Windows 7 netbook specs
Manufacturers jumped all over the chance to sell netbooks with real Windows to customers afraid of Linux. Economies of scale prevented manufactures from producing better "Linux only" low cost netbooks. They raised prices for "Windows based" netbooks just at the time regular notebook prices were plummeting. The price/performance delta shrunk and you were left with a single core Atom, low resolution, 1GB - upgradable to 2GB - netbooks, versus a full blown notebook for $100 more.
Microsoft killed the low cost netbook in a calculated move to kill Linux on netbooks. Ultrabooks became the only remaining (high cost) viable alternative for lightweight, low power, ultra portable computers. It is funny that Chromebook, with the exception of size, is now becoming the "new" netbook that the old netbook could have been if Microsoft had not sabotaged the market.
I guess that depends on your definition of "business." One company that I consult bought three EEEPCs for field computers. They use them for data collection at wellsites. They are great for that: long battery life (whole workday), cheap, lightweight, no spinning hard drive, and fairly rugged. Another large HVAC firm bought a shitload for service techs. It works out great for the same reasons.
Travelling "executives" are not the only "business" people who use computers.
Absolutely. If you want copyright which lasts two lifetimes, there should be a compulsory publishing duty. If there is no incentive for the rights holder to publish, the copyright has no value anyway. Locking up works (essentially indefinitely) with no copyright value deprives the public domain. Disney's Song of the South is a great example. My kids have never seen it and have no idea what the characters or songs on Splash Mountain are about.
And nothing of value will be lost...
Did you ever stop to consider that discrepancies within the dispensing system may be maladjustments or hardware failures? It's not always malicious. Inspections pick those things up too. Just because people bent on fraud can get away with it by going around inspections given enough effort, that doesn't mean there is no value.
If you want to go for "self regulation" or Angie's List style regulation, I demand vigilante justice for fraudsters. It's only fair.
Nice to see you had the balls to post under your real account. Nice to see that the Tea Party-ers proudly stand up for their beliefs.
One of my coworkers had a septic system failure and it backed up into his house. He had his " septic tank" uncovered and found out someone had buried a bread truck in his yard and used it for the tank. He had no leach field at all. They ran a pipe from the window of the truck over to a dry well.
I bought a house in 2002 that had numerous problems like that too. My bathtub drained into the crawlspace; no connecting pipes. The electric forced air furnace was installed upside down. (I'm sure he got a good deal on it) No conduit for the water heater. The garbage disposal was not grounded. (That one was fun to discover)
It's not just unscrupulous contractors, it's unscrupulous/incompetent home owners as well.
No it doesn't. In fact it is just the opposite. The choice to not filter is removed. You ALWAYS had the choice to filter.
It amounts to reducing the relevance of unfiltered results that were specifically configured to be unfiltered. Your agenda is showing.
And they aren't with Safe Search turned on. The issue is whether or not people may opt out of safe search. If you are so worried about what your kids view, why not install a filtering program like McAfee? That's what I do for my kids.
I think the bigger picture is the damage that will be done to Google's business model. This marks the first time that they actively reduced the quality of their search results intentionally. They made their service harder to use and less useful and this was not some government mandate.
If this was an attempt to become more "business friendly", then Google needs to recognize that consumers are their target audience and where the advertising dollars are, not business. Google has had a near monopoly for a long time, but the tech world is notoriously fickle. Boneheaded moves to downgrade service usability may bite them in the ass. As it is, I am using Bing and other search engines more and more when I have difficulty retrieving useful results. Instead of bolting on training wheels for lazy parents, Google needs to concentrate what made them the biggest: Retieving the best, most relevant, and most useful results for a search query. I remember the pre-Google days of wading through tens of pages of results looking for that one relevant page and Google was great at figuring that out.
This has the odor of a committee decision about it. When business decisions are made that don't increase customer value, business begin the downhill slide. This can only end badly for them.
Really? What was all that bullshit granting the telecoms immunity for their little indiscretions all about then?
Microsoft dealt netbooks the death blow with their "reference platform" for Windows Starter Edition. You couldn't have more than 2GB of memory with only 1GB installed and still get the super duper netbook discount for Windows. You couldn't have a screen larger than 10.2". Only single core CPUs were allowed. This stagnated the netbook market at the same time when full sized laptop prices were dropping and hardware was improving while people shifted away from desktops.
Why would anyone buy a crippled netbook for $250-$300 over a cheap laptop with a real version of Windows, optical drive, multicore processor for $300 - $350? The weight and battery life weren't worth the drawbacks for $50. I was shopping for a netbook for my daughter to take to school during this time and opted to get a laptop instead.
Microsoft disrupted the natural market with their license demands in an attempt to kill Linux on netbooks. Unfortunately for them, the iPad shifted the market for low power computing out of their sphere of influence.
Yes, because it's good to send a developing child into labor instead of educating him. Maybe we can model our Brave New World on China's sweatshops and take back our jobs.
Jesus... Just Jesus... I'm guessing you quit reading "A Christmas Carol" after the first chapter. Dickensian England is not an aspirational example.
Besides you are just fucking wrong anyway. Try letting you kid starve to death while you party and see if you still think it's "not illegal." Or a parent dependent on you. Hell, they will jail you for starving your damn dog.
Because remediation is SOOOOO much cheaper than prevention. Talk to the people of Chernobyl... or Fukishima... Or Three Mile Island... or Prince William Sound... or any of the other poor bastards who live near brownfields and Superfund sites.
You need to grow up and think of somebody other than yourself. That's how we got into this economic mess anyway.
Amen brother! Let go back to the good old days when an employee that lost a hand in a machine could be shown the door and children were allowed to work 60 hours a week. Ahh... Even the the good old days of the 1950s where life expectancy was 20 years less so there was no need to take care of those useless old folks. No do-gooder social justice freaks trying to make sure people could eat once a day. Let's go back to the days when business was allowed to dump TCE and dioxins into aquifers and people had no recourse. Let's all wax nostalgic over the days when the Cuyahoga river could support a good fire.
Fuck all those Social Security leeches that paid in over their lifetimes. They don't deserve shit from us job creators that need our taxes cut. Ramen noodles and cat food are good enough for them if they have the poor sense to stay alive past their usefulness.
My ex and I used to argue over this point constantly. She was a "fine arts" major. What you and I call art, she claimed we confused with craftmanship. If it "evoked a feeling or response", it was art in her book.
Some of the junk she thought was art, created a "feeling" in me. I "felt" it was crap.
It is undisputed that the first part of the statement is clearly non-objectionable because selling of GPL software is entirely permitted. Therefore at least half of the O.P.'s assertions are non-sequitor. Why, would anyone object to selling GPL software unless they were unaware of the working mechanisms of the GPL? That part of the statement is pointless and redundant since the O.P. meant to declare grievance (i.e. "ripped off") from the point of view of a copyright holder. Therefore it is LESS of a stretch to interpret that he linked these two statements, rather than meant for them to stand each on their own. The G.P.'s interpretation is by far most likely the correct one.
LOL. No. Because you STILL don't get it. You are either totally clueless to what I am saying or you are willfully ignorant. You don't seem to understand the difference between a policy decision and a financial one. EVERYTHING is financial to you. You have an accountant's attitude complemented with a self serving, narrow minded disposition. You keep ranting and raving about the (totally self fabricated) numbers but you do not understand that I never disputed the cold, hard, financial situation. Your eagerness to protect the CEO and other management staff that "made out good"(sic) and your suggestion that he would be better off to "cut-and-run" demonstrates that your priority would not be to work with employees to return the company to profitability, which is the ultimate responsibility of the CEO. The primary obligated job of the management team is to increase shareholder wealth, not personal wealth. Failing to understand this fundamental fact is why you would not make a good CEO or perhaps even a leader.
Try to wrap your mind around this: The goal of both management and labor is to make more money. For labor, they want more money for their effort and management wants more revenue and profit. Their goals are aligned. By failing to work together to achieve their goals and creating a bitter adversarial environment, they both failed. The leaders bear the responsibility for cultivating a positive working environment and making decisions conducive to cooperation. With Hostess management's missteps and self indulgent attitude (like yours), nobody can be surprised at the resulting animosity from labor.
Feel free to rant and rave some more about numbers you pull out of your ass, but I am done with this thread.
LOL. You MUST be an accountant.
Being a CEO requires leadership not prayer. Continual "cost cutting" on the bottom line without raising the top line will never save a failing business model. Taking away your employees' living wages, while helping yourself to seconds won't either. Hostess found this out the hard way. They also discovered that they actually *GASP* needed those employees to run their business.
Instead of working with employees from the beginning to save a failing concern drowning in debt and losing mindshare, those in the corner offices helped themselves to a bigger piece of the shrinking pie while asking others to do more with less. Like it or not, their "people" decided they would rather be unemployed than work under the conditions dictated by management. That says a lot about the leadership qualities of management. If you fail to see this obvious evidence, you probably aren't cut out for leadership or management either. Your self interested "cut-and-run" ideology corroborates it.
And the captain doesn't always have to go down with the ship when you hire someone other than Joe Hazelwood to pilot her through the Sound.
More commercials
You are clearly fixated on the numbers and completely missing the big picture. It's not about the spreadsheet, bean counter justifications. The appearance of impropriety that the Hostess CEO demonstrated by his HUGE multimillion dollar payraise (~240%) and capital mismanagement just prior to the third bankruptcy while asking employees for a 20% paycut just months later that sewed the seeds of this fiasco. This set the stage for a "us vs. them" battle with management. Management cannot expect a harmonious partnership with labor when they exhibit an "I got mine; sorry about YOUR luck" attitude.
Management was not a team player with Hostess workers. A team player takes his lumps along with his teammates. This is called setting an example even if it only amounts to a symbolic token. Unfortunately, they set the wrong example. Management is in large part about leadership and motivation. Hostess's team failed at both. Unfortunately, they also failed in innovation, vision, and strategy.
Besides, Hostess was a walking corpse anyway. Check out business writer Adam Hartung for a good analysis. http://www.thephoenixprinciple.com/blog/2012/11/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-failure.html
Did unions kill Hostess? No, they merely drove the last nail into the coffin. Management is ultimately responsible the company's demise. Management decides product mix and sales forecasts. Management controls debt load and production capacity. And company stewardship make the fateful decision to give the CEO a 225% pay raise just months prior to bankruptcy.
Unfortunately the news media will not report that aspect of the story. They will perpetuate the story that the union forced liquidation of a great American icon. Rank and file labor across the country will get indignant and heap hate onto the union employees for their role all the while remaining blissfully ignorant about the terrible missteps by those who actually controlled the company.
Ultimately, the only control that the union had was whether or not they went to work in the morning. Managment made all the other decisions about the fate of the company.
Because, you see, corporations need labor. The idea that the executives are making out like bandits, while the guys who actually make the products are being screwed left and right make for poor employees. Even those employees that are initially grateful to have a job tire of the perceived inequality by this type of behavior. This leads to a unmotivated workforce and poor relations with management.
If employees are not invested in the company, the adversarial relationship harms the company. There is little incentive to innovate or increase productivity. And at the extreme, employees would rather see a company dead than take the table scraps that remain.
I am often astonished at the number of wage slaves that denigrate unions, yet complain that they have no health insurance. They feel entitled to paid holidays, yet have no idea where the concept arose. Have unions sometimes gotten out of hand? Yes, but that doesn't preclude the need to keep management in check. Otherwise, you exist at the mercy of the company and whatever economic conditions prevail.
And NO, I am not a member of any union.
And yet. Nearly everyone agrees that the noisy IBM model M is the pinnacle of keyboard development.
That works in a high unemployment environment; not so much long term. Labor rates usually rise and/or labor quality usually drops when companies resort to these kind of tricks. Crappy employees can kill a business as quickly as high cost. Health care rules are now the new norm, like it or not. Businesses can try to avoid it, but labor will shift to jobs where they qualify for health care unless employers make it worth their while. No business exists in a vacuum.
That was Apotheker, but don't forget Hurd either. HP has had a long string of bad CEOs.
The last annual statements available doesn't even put them in the top 100 global companies by revenue. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/full_list/index.html and here are the global 500 by profits http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/performers/companies/profits/
I do believe, however, that Apple is by far the biggest company by hype.
It is absolutely incredible that anyone would moderate the parent post as flamebait. It is a simple, verifiable and accurate statement. This just demonstrates how low the human race has fallen when so many believe that speech must be silenced when they don't agree.
I guess the next step is shooting 14 year-old girls on buses that blog about education for females. Just incredible...