text:
Info: Malcolm Gladwell discusses his writings and books. He is the author of "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" and "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Make a Big Difference."
Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners.C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.
BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Malcolm Gladwell, why do you do what you do?
MALCOLM GLADWELL, AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST, "THE NEW YORKER": Why do I do what I do? Because I failed at everything else, I think is the short answer.
But I'm just curious. You know, I want to know about the world. And I'm in a position where I get to wander around and take a look at all kinds of things I wouldn't ordinarily be able to take a look at. It's like being an 11-year-old for your entire life, which is a fabulous thing to be.
LAMB: When did you know you were curious?
GLADWELL: Well, all children are curious, so I didn't – I don't know whether I felt unusually so.
Like I said, I've just been in a suspended state of childhood ever since.
But I don't know when that kind of – I think it was when – maybe when I sort of got to college and realized that there was a virtually limitless amount of cool things to learn about the world.
I grew up in a very small town, so my horizons were a little bit limited, I think. And then I sort of got into the big, wide world and understood that there was – you know, you could just keep on running forever. And that was a real – that was a wonderful moment.
LAMB: What was this small town?
GLADWELL: I grew up in southwest Ontario. So, about an hour west of Toronto, a little place called Elmira.
My father taught at a place called the University of Waterloo, which is the big Canadian science school, which was just down the street, which is actually where BlackBerries come from.
Waterloo is where the BlackBerry was invented, and it continues to be made. So, that's our great claim to fame.
So, it was a little farming community – 5,000 people. We lived on the outskirts of town. Just a lovely, lovely place to grow up. And my best friends are all still from there. But I go back. My parents still live there.
LAMB: Your mother's from Jamaica originally?
GLADWELL: My mother's Jamaican, yes. My father's English. And they met in England. My mother went to college in England and met my father. And then they traveled about.
I was born in England and then we moved to Canada when I was six or seven. And we've – my parents have been there ever since.
LAMB: When you think back about Elmira, what's the first thing that comes to mind in your childhood? How long did you live there?
GLADWELL: Well, from six until I left for college – 17. So, 11 years.
I think back – well, it was the kind of archetypal small-town upbringing. It was all those wonderful virtues we associate with small towns.
It was – when I compare my childhood to the childhood of my friends who grew up in New York, say, or – there's just no – it's like they're living on a different planet.
It was so much quieter. So much more – so much, sort of safer. But now, I don't mean physically safer, although that's also true. But just, kind of less hectic, less overwhelming. My universe of people was smaller.
I'm very grateful for that kind of upbringing, because I feel like it gives me a kind of base from which to explore the world, you know.
And I didn't get jaded. I often talk to friends of mine who grew up in New York City. And I feel like, by the time they were 17 or 18, they felt that they'd already seen the entire world.
Whereas, by the time I got to that age, I felt that I hadn't seen anything, which is a much better position to be in when you're 17 or 18, because every day is full of excitement
And I still wake up that way thinking, "Oh, my goodness! There's so much more to know."
And that's the gift of starting small, because you always feel there's a great wonderful thing around the corner. Whereas, if you're going to Studio 54 when you're 13, you know, life goes downhill after that.
And that's, I think, one of the great – I think one should grow up in small towns and move to cities. I think that's the kind of perfect way to live life.
LAMB: What's your mom done?
GLADWELL: My mom was a writer. She wrote, actually, a very, very lovely – and a very successful – book, which was a memoir, called "Brown Face, Big Master," which is a – which she wrote in the late '60s.
And it was about – Brown Face is her, Big Master is God – it was about growing up in Jamaica, and moving to England, and in the '50s as a black woman. And then about her sort of spiritual journey and her personal journey.
It's a book that has – it was a bestseller when it came out back in the '60s. It's been, recently been republished by an academic publisher in England, and translated into many languages.
It's a very – you know, the memoir is very much in vogue now. This was very much ahead of its time. My mother was a housewife living in England. She was in her 30s when she wrote this sort of – and so, I always found the book to be very inspirational.
Most – it's so beautifully written. Clearly expressed and simple in the way that it's – and that's a kind of a – it's always served as a kind of model for the way that I would like to write.
LAMB: Were you known in your early days as a Canadian-Jamaican?
GLADWELL: No. You know, one of the kind of wonderful things – my parents bounced around. I lived in many places before they settled in Canada. Before I was born, they lived for a while in America, in Boston, in the '50s – you know, a mixed race couple.
They lived in London. They lived in Jamaica, and then we moved to Canada.
And one of the great gifts of Canada, particularly – the part of Canada we grew up in was a strongly Mennonite area. There are Mennonites in Pennsylvania. There are Mennonites in the prairies and there are Mennonites in southern Ontario. And really, the kind of core of the Mennonite community in North America is there.
And it was an extraordinarily tolerant place. Mennonites are a very kind of special denomination, in that there are – they have this combination of being conservative socially, but also extraordinarily open-minded.
And I felt like – I think my mother would agree with this – that it was not until we moved to this tiny place in rural Ontario that she truly felt accepted, and felt that the issue of race went away, which is an enormous paradox.
You don't think of religious, small town farming communities, small-town farming communities, as being racially tolerant – in the '70s. And yet, that's precisely what happened.
It was – and I think that she felt that – what she wanted was to be treated for who she was, not the color of her skin. And that happened in this kind of miraculous way in this little corner of Canada.
LAMB: What years did you work for "The American Spectator," R. Emmett Tyrrell's publication, conservative.
GLADWELL: Yes.
LAMB: Based in Washington now. And why?
GLADWELL: I – it's a very funny story – I had not read – I wasn't very familiar with "The American Spectator," although when I was in college, I was quite conservative. And a friend of mine – I was graduating from college and I needed a job. I had no idea what I was going to do.
And a friend of mine who read the "Spectator," showed me a little ad in the back. They were looking for an assistant managing editor.
And so, I applied. And they sent me a big, long application. And then on – the last page of which was a full, empty page. And it just said, the question was, why do you want to work for "The American Spectator"?
Now, I had no idea. I barely read it. So I just put, "Doesn't everyone want to work for the 'The American Spectator'?"
And I think that charmed them. And they flew me down and I got the job.
LAMB: What year?
GLADWELL: This was in 19 – the summer of '84. I moved to Bloomington, Indiana, which is where they were at the time. And I think I – I was gone, sadly, by January of '85.
LAMB: Because?
GLADWELL: Well, I don't know. I have very fond feelings, particularly towards Wladyslaw Pleszczynski, who was the managing editor at the time.
But it was not a good fit. And I was too young. I was 21 years old. I turned 20 – I turned 21 in the middle of that job.
And I wasn't very responsible, and I had difficulty with small-town Indiana, which is not the same as small-town Canada – and a number of reasons.
And so, I think, we parted ways and I moved to Washington, D.C., in January of '85.
LAMB: What's the difference between small-town Indiana and small-town Canada?
GLADWELL: Well, small-town Indiana is conservative small-town. The small town I grew up in Canada was tolerant. Not tolerant. That's the wrong word. Not conservative. Not politically liberal.
I mean, Mennonites are pacifists. They're on the other end of the – they're part of the evangelical left, even as they are socially conservative.
And Canada is different. You know, Canada is a European country in many ways. And it's a shock to go from essentially Sweden – right, which is what Canada is – to southern Indiana. Southern Indiana is a very different – now, even though Bloomington is a kind of oasis in the middle of a different kind of – it's like Austin, Texas. It's profoundly different from its surrounding counties.
I think it was a little bit of a shock for me. But more than that, I think mostly it was personal. I was just too young to have a proper nine-to-five job.
You can't – I mean, I was literally – I mean, I was 20 when I arrived. And I was – you know, when I was in college, I had gotten into this habit of going to bed at four in the morning or five in the morning and waking up at noon or one o'clock.
I could not make the transition to nine-to-five. I mean, I would be – I was just asleep at my desk for the first few hours. So, there was – you know, it took me a little while to kind of adjust to the working world.
LAMB: Do you think Wlady Pleszczynski or Bob Tyrrell is surprised that you have two, giant bestsellers, "Tipping Point" and "Blink"?
GLADWELL: Well, I'm surprised. So, if I'm surprised, I imagine they are, too. I don't know if anyone would have predicted that, or could have predicted that, least of all me.
So, I suppose they are, yes. I mean, it's this kind of – I've had this bolt of extraordinarily good fortune. So I think everyone is surprised.
LAMB: Turn it around, though, and rather than say it was good fortune, approach it like this was your idea, you wanted to make it big. And then I would ask you, how did it happen?
Or is that true? Did you want to make it big?
GLADWELL: Well, you know, I always feel that – I've always felt, no matter what you write, that when you write, you don't write with – you can't write in a kind of calculating way. In other words, you can't sit down to write a bestseller. In fact, you shouldn't think about that issue at all when you sit down to write.
What you should sit down – what you should do when you sit down to write is to write what you find interesting and to follow your own curiosity.
So, when I was writing "Tipping Point," for instance, I can honestly say that I never for a moment tried to imagine how well that book would sell.
I thought I was – I just wanted to write something cool. I was interested in this. I wanted to write something that my friends would read, that my mother would like, that, you know – I had very, very small, a narrow set of goals.
And so literally, every time someone buys one of those – that book, or "Blink" – I'm surprised. But not because I think those books are not worthy of that kind of attention, but just because I never wrote them with a thought of future sales in mind.
You can tell when a book is written as a bestseller. And it's not a good feeling. You feel – you know, it seems calculated.
The reason people like books and are drawn to books and read books is, they would like to participate in the world of the author. They don't want to be pandered to. They want to be led somewhere strange and wonderful and unusual.
LAMB: Where did you write "Tipping Point"?
GLADWELL: I wrote "Tipping Point" – I write all over the place. So, I was living in New York, but I write in public. I write in restaurants and cafes.
A friend of mine went on a world tour, who lives in L.A., and I moved for a while into her house in Beetrick (ph) Canyon. A stunning kind of house, perched right by the Hollywood sign, perched on top.
And I – you know, on her veranda with L.A. spread out before me, and wrote a couple of chapters there. And, you know, I kind of – I moved around.
LAMB: Where else?
GLADWELL: Where else did I write that book? I remember, I wrote a big chunk of "Blink" in Italy. I just holed up in a hotel in Rome for a couple of weeks.
I mean, I wrote – you can write – you know, you get all of these thoughts in order. You do all your reporting and you think things through and then you can – I can sit down and I can just go voom! And I can, you know, put out 1,000 words a day for 20 days. That's 20,000 words. That's a quarter of the book.
LAMB: Do you write it longhand or on a computer?
GLADWELL: I write on a laptop.
But I find writing such an immensely pleasurable act, I don't ever get writer's block. I know some writers find it painful, which fills my heart with sadness, because I think, how tragic to find the act, to find your life's work painful.
I feel, if I can find a couple of hours to write in a day, I'm just thrilled.
LAMB: Did you go from a salaried job at "The New Yorker" magazine to being so successful – the last thing I read, you get $40,000 a speech, or more.
Was that a big jump for you personally?
GLADWELL: Oh, yes.
LAMB: I mean, did it change your life in any way?
GLADWELL: Well, did it change my life? It changed my – I mean, I went from making a nice amount of money to a lot of money. And when that happens to one, that changes your life, sure.
In my case, it's just meant that I don't have to worry about money in the same way anymore, which is a wonderful kind of freedom.
It hasn't changed my life materially that much. You know, I don't drive a big, fancy car.
But it just has given me a sense of freedom. I mean, it allows you to kind of – once you remove strictly economic considerations from the table, I feel like it can have the effect of unleashing your imagination a bit. And that's a good thing, I think.
So that – and it's given me a certain amount of confidence to roam further from my kind of comfort zone.
LAMB: Who hired you at "The New Yorker"?
GLADWELL: Tina Brown was the editor. She hired me.
But I had known – Tina hired many people from the "Washington Post," which is where I was working prior to coming to "The New Yorker," and so I knew – I knew David Remnick, who was, obviously, this sort of legend at the "Washington Post." And Rick Hertzberg, who was Tina's number two was a Postie. And there were a number of people.
And so, I had – you know, I had contacts. But Tina, who is very, very efficient, we met for lunch down the street from here – for breakfast – down the street from here. And she had her grapefruit. And breakfast lasted 12 minutes.
She basically said, "Do you want to work for us?" And I said, "Yes." And she said, "All right."
And she finished her grapefruit and we left. It was the shortest job interview of my life.
But I'm enormously grateful to her, because it's hard to find – writing for "The New Yorker" – a "New Yorker" article is a very difficult thing to write. And it's very hard to know whether someone can do it when you hire them.
I mean, I had done smaller things for them before I was hired, but you're always taking a chance on somebody. She really did take a chance on me, and I'm very grateful for that.
LAMB: You were nine years at the "Washington Post"?
GLADWELL: Yes, nine years.
LAMB: And did what at the "Post"?
GLADWELL: I started out as a business writer, and I covered health care and the pharmaceutical industry. And then I was a medical writer, a science writer. And I covered HIV and FDA and NIH.
And then I was the New York correspondent for the last three years, which was a great job.
LAMB: Why did she know by the time you got there that she wanted to hire you? What were the dynamics of all that? And you knew, undoubtedly, that she wanted to hire you when you went to the breakfast.
GLADWELL: Yes. I had been writing smaller things for them, the "Talk of the Town" pieces, comments. And then I had written a number of book reviews for Henry Finder, who's a big editor at "The New Yorker."
And then I wrote a piece – they did a race issue. And I did a piece about the difference between – the difference in the way that Jamaicans were treated in America versus Toronto – in New York versus Toronto.
And that was the piece that I think kind of sealed the deal, that made her realize that maybe I could do this weird thing called writing a "New Yorker" story.
So, I had – she had a lot – I think that was the kind of track record I had going in.
LAMB: What is the number one difference between Jamaicans living here and those living in Canada?
GLADWELL: Well, this strange thing happened. You know, in the '70s, there was a big wave of immigration out of Jamaica, of basically middle-, lower- and middle-class Jamaicans, simultaneously to Brooklyn – Flatbush – and Toronto. We're not talking small numbers. Enormous numbers, hundreds of thousands of people.
And, you know, Brooklyn to this day has been transformed by the West Indian presence. And in Toronto, as well, was transformed by the West Indian presence. But the way in which both – the groups – these are the same people. Just arbitrarily, half of them go to Toronto and half of them go to New York.
But the way in which they've been greeted has been profoundly different.
In New York, to be a West Indian is an advantage. It's – they're considered the "good" immigrants.
And they have privileged access, you know, in the kind of – in that world, privileged access to certain kinds of jobs, that when you meet, they're considered to be – you know, there's all kinds of positive stereotypes attached to being a West Indian.
In Toronto, on the other hand, they're considered the problem. And there's all kinds of negative stereotypes. They're considered to be the people who are running the drug trade, and they're the problem. They're the bad blacks. And they're the – and it's the same people.
And that's what the article is trying to figure out. Well, how did this happen?
The answer was, in New York there is an existing body of black people who are lower on the totem pole – African-Americans. And as long as you're – the whole idea of the piece was that prejudice exists along a hierarchy. And as long as you're not at the bottom, you can be OK.
And there's an implicit hierarchy of ethnic groups in New York. There's been some really wonderful sociological work on this. And so long as there are black people at the bottom, black people who can distinguish themselves from those people at the bottom can kind of thrive.
Toronto, there was no one – they were – Jamaicans came in and they found themselves at the bottom of the totem pole.
And that's what's been so painful for West Indians in Canada, which is that, you know, the West Indians who immigrated to Canada were my cousins, you know. These are people who – my cousin is an executive at IBM. He has a wife with graduate degrees and kids who score at the 99th percentile of their class.
He thinks – he comes from – you know, my family in Jamaica are people who are educated, sophisticated. They think – they're the people who, you know, principals of schools and – they think of themselves as every bit the equal, if not the superior, of their fellow, when they moved to Canada, their fellow Canadians.
And yet they're treated as if they're, you know, these kind of inferiors. And it's baffling.
Someone looks at my – at Jamaicans in Toronto and they think of – or you think that they're criminals, right. They're like, what? Me a criminal? Are you kidding me?
I'm – you know, I'm – that is – and that's a – that is a, first of all, a very different experience than African-Americans have in this country, who have this whole long, depressing history that they're dealing with.
Jamaicans don't have a depressing history at all. Are you kidding me? They've come from this sort of top of their world.
And so, they treat discrimination as a very different, psychologically different process when you're coming from a place where you were at the social top than if you're coming from a history where it's a social bottom.
LAMB: Your father was British, your mother was Jamaican. You were born in Canada.
Your mother is black, your father is white. You live in New York.
What do you think of yourself when you get up every day? And, by the way, do you hold American citizenship?
GLADWELL: No, I'm still a Canadian.
What do I think of myself?
Well, I think of myself as many things, depending on where I am. But I mostly think of myself as a Canadian. And that's odd, because I haven't lived there since 1984, 20 years now.
But I think that that experience, my Canadian experience is so fundamental to who I am and so formative. And I like Canada so much, that I think I principally identify at this point.
And you know, we chose Canada. And the country that you choose is, in many ways, the country that always is closest to your heart.
And I feel like the Gladwells, back in 1969 – I mean, I was a small child – but the group, the Gladwell group decided that Canada was where our future lay.
And so, like any kind of immigrant – you know, this is why actually I find – to totally go off on a tangent – I find the whole debate going on right now about immigration in this country so frustrating, not because I don't think there are legitimate arguments to be made by people who are threatened by illegal immigrants.
But I think we've forgotten something, which is, those people – illegal immigrants – chose this country. They have affection for it. I know this, because I've been through this myself. You know, I'm an immigrant twice over. If you choose a country, your affection for it is – your love for it is overwhelming.
These people who were angry about it, love this country as much or more than we do. And when you're dealing with people with that level of affection for your country, for their country, you have to treat them with respect.
They're not here because – they're here because they want to be.
LAMB: You said, though, you think of yourself as Canadian, but you chose America.
GLADWELL: I chose – and I have an enormous amount of affection for this country, as well. There's no, you know.
But I feel I was shaped. At that moment when, the place when you are, or where you are when you're an adolescent and when you're in college and when you're running around when you're seven years old, that's a place I feel you'll have, you'll always have a special place for.
LAMB: How many copies of "Tipping Point" – hardback and paperback – are sold?
GLADWELL: I don't know. I think it's probably north of – somewhere between 1.5 and two million. Something like that.
LAMB: How many copies of "Blink"? And it's still in the hardback.
GLADWELL: Somewhere around 1.5 million, I think.
LAMB: You analyze everybody else in the world. Why do you think you have succeeded with this? What's the draw? When was the first "Tipping Point" book written – 2000 copyright – when did you write it?
GLADWELL: Back in, you know, '98, '99.
LAMB: And "Blink" was …
GLADWELL: Written in 2003, I guess.
LAMB: So, why has it succeeded? I mean, those numbers are way beyond what most people that write nonfiction ever get.
GLADWELL: You know, I realize it's very ironic, because I'm Mr. Analyst. I'm always trying to make sense of other people's business, but I'm very bad at making sense of my own business.
Why have they succeeded? You know, quite honestly, I don't know.
LAMB: Let me ask this. What was the tipping point for the "Tipping Point"?
GLADWELL: I don't know. I mean, I don't even know if there was one.
"Tipping Point" – I kept waiting for it to go away. It just wouldn't. It just kept chugging along. It kept on being discovered by some other group.
LAMB: Who discovered it first?
GLADWELL: The nonprofit world. The first round of people, after that book came out, I got all these calls. And it was all from people in the nonprofit world. It was people running – and I went out and gave talks to, like, community groups in Oakland.
LAMB: Why did they want to hear from you?
GLADWELL: Because they were – you know, the book – that book deals with social change, and they are in the social change business. And that book talks about making large differences with small sort of inputs. And that's the game there, as well.
They're trying to bring down the teen pregnancy rate in the town of X, and they've got a budget of – they've got $20,000. It's an enormous problem, right.
So, they're thinking, well, can I do anything with $20,000 and with 15 volunteers?
And so, I think they were – they found the book profoundly hopeful.
LAMB: You talk about a word-of-mouth epidemic in this country, or in the world, or whatever. Is your – was yours a word-of-mouth?
GLADWELL: I think so.
LAMB: And explain what that means.
GLADWELL: Well, word-of-mouth – I mean, it's just a book that's spreading virally and socially, as opposed to, you know, from the top down.
As opposed to seeing the author on the "David Letterman Show" or "Booknotes." That's kind of top-down.
But I feel like this book was very much a book that somebody read and told all their friends at work. In fact, I got that thousands and thousands of times. People have said, I read it and I couldn't stop talking.
Or, you know, the e-mail. I've gotten this following e-mail in one form or another, literally hundreds of times, which is: "I read your book, because my boyfriend read it and could not stop talking about it. He was driving me crazy, so finally I just said, all right, I'll read it."
That's, you know – and I think, going back to the question of, so, why were these books successful? You know, I have always said that I think people are experience-rich and theory-poor, and that we have these lives that are dense with really interesting experiences. Things happen to us.
I mean, and now more than ever, right, we're exposed, we travel. We have these jobs which are involving and fascinating.
And what we lack is some way of making sense of all that. And what these books do, I think, is they give people tools – cognitive tools, intellectual tools – to order their experiences. To say, when this and this and this happened, that's what it meant.
And so, they're kind of – in that sense, I think that's maybe why, particularly now, they're so appealing. I don't know if they would have been as appealing 30 years ago.
But at a time when I feel people are sort of overwhelmed with things that they don't know what to, how to categorize and how to explain.
LAMB: You have – nonprofit groups were the first to discover. Who was second?
GLADWELL: Advertising. Marketers.
LAMB: Right here in New York.
GLADWELL: Yes. Sort of talking to – the second round were account planners at ad agencies.
LAMB: How big a timeframe was it between the first discoverers and the second?
GLADWELL: You know, like a couple of months.
I feel like, it all happened so, kind of – it was all so kind of drawn out. So, I feel like, by the sort of summer, that there was a kind of quickening level of interest among marketers, in particular, and ad people, who were attracted to this word-of-mouth idea.
So they were picking up on something quite different than what the nonprofit people were picking up on.
LAMB: Did the word-of-mouth thing just come from the top of your head?
GLADWELL: No. I mean, there's a lot of kind of – I was drawing on a lot of really good sort of sociology. I mean, I was kind of repackaging it in a certain way.
You know, we're not good – I'm not good and no one is very good – at really understanding all the sources of inspiration for new ideas. I mean, we draw on so much stuff, and then we kind of mush it together in our unconscious and it comes out in some form. And some bits of it are mine and some bits of it are the people that I talk to and whose books at read and experiences I observe.
But it was – you know, there were some really wonderful books like Everett Rogers' book, "Diffusion of Innovations," which is a kind of classic, which, you know, I was clearly very drawn to the ideas in that book.
And a lot of work by epidemiologists. That book was inspired by epidemiology. And I was sort of taking their ideas, as well, and kind of playing with them.
LAMB: Who was third?
GLADWELL: Who was third? I don't know.
LAMB: Eventually, you found your way to business, where, it seems to me, businesses …
LAMB: Are they the ones that want you to come into their board rooms the most often? Now?
GLADWELL: Yes. Now it's sort of become mainstream business. It's a kind of – eventually, the people who got interested in it were – the next round, I would say, were people – businesses who got interested in it as a way of understanding internal change in their organization.
So, I have an organization that's here. I want to be here. How do I get there?
And there was an awful lot of – you know, in the – with the rise of the sort of the digital revolution, there was this feeling on the part of many organizations that they had to restructure, right. And how do they get there? How do they change the – how do you sort of renovate the culture of an organization?
And that's a perennial question, but I feel it was very top-of-mind in the kind of 2000-2001 era. And that was the next wave of people who were like, you know, how do we change our internal …
LAMB: How many times do you think, since the book came out, you have actually stood in front of an audience?
GLADWELL: Oh, I have no idea.
LAMB: A hundred?
GLADWELL: In excess of 100, yes.
LAMB: So, what is predictable about an audience, about your book, "Tipping Point" or "Blink"? What do they always come back to?
GLADWELL: Well, they don't always come back to the same thing. And that's what's interesting, is that there's so much – the books are – there are many different ways into these books.
And I think – going back to the question that I didn't answer before – that's part of, I think, the explanation, maybe, for their longevity, is there's – there are many different lessons you can pull from them. And there are many different ways to experience the book.
So, different groups have very, very different kind of reactions to the material. If everyone reacted in the same way, that would be depressing, and also, I'd go crazy.
But what's striking to me is just how different, what people get out of the books, the kind of lessons they draw. And that's – and these books are kind of – they're not cookbooks. They're not – they don't have a simple, linear argument.
Basically, I'm taking people on a journey. And I don't tie up all the threads, particularly in "Blink." "Blink" doesn't – and some people have made this as a criticism of the book – I don't tie everything together neatly at the end.
I don't come down and say, instinct of judgment is good or it's bad. I say it's a little bit of both, and you have to work it out for yourself.
But that's – so the books are hard in a certain way, and I think that's a real advantage. And that allows people to experience them in these disparate ways.
LAMB: Did you really name "Blink" because of your hair?
GLADWELL: I didn't name it because of my hair, but the hair experience was so striking. You know, I used to have very short hair, and I went – I just cut it – but I had this huge Afro.
And just kind of noticing how profoundly different the way the world treated me was just this eye-opener. And I was just like – you know?
Many, many different people have had this experience in one way or another. I had never had it before.
And I began to think, this is something that is not central to who I am; I just haven't gone to the hairdresser for a while. And yet, it's having a profound difference in the way that I am received by the world.
And that difference is all in the moment. It's like boom! They look at me and are thinking, you're over here, and I used to be over here. You know?
Cops are suddenly thinking, "You're a lawbreaker." People are thinking – people began to think that I was – when I grew my hair out, I was perceived as being far more dangerous, but also positive things as well – far more interesting. Far more kind of hip. Funnier, kind of weirder.
All these kind of things that – you know, I was a – and I remain – pretty much a dweeb. You know, I'm not a – I'm a guy who goes home and reads books.
And all of a sudden I was plucked from that world and everyone thought I was Lenny Bruce, or something. I mean, it was this kind of – and that transformation was so remarkable that I thought, you know, these snap judgments we make about people, they're important.
I mean, in this case, it wasn't that it was accurate. It was that it was just important. It was like – it was driving the way people perceived me.
LAMB: When did you grow your hair long?
GLADWELL: Like in '98, maybe.
LAMB: Let me ask you this simple question. Did people before the hair was long and short – and I've seen pictures of you – think you were white? And when you grew it long and had an Afro, did they think you were black? Is it that simple?
GLADWELL: No, it wasn't about race, because I'm so fair-skinned. And only black people ever really suspect that I am part black. So, that wasn't what – that was not the key variable.
It was just a kind of – you know, we have a certain set of inferences that we draw about people – unconsciously and automatically – who have long hair. Right?
Long, crazy hair means something in our world. And a lot of it, what it means is, if you have long, crazy hair, you don't work at a law firm, right. And you aren't a junior executive at GE.
I mean, you can draw accurate conclusions about people from the length of their hair.
But this is – you know, I think that we take – I think we go much further than that, and we start drawing inferences about, you know, having long, crazy hair does not mean you're funny. It doesn't mean that you're charming. And it doesn't mean that you're on the cutting edge.
You could be quite out of it and have long, crazy hair. But I do think, you know, that this is what we do. And this is part of why I wanted to write the book, was I wanted to explain, what are we doing when we make these snap judgments? Because we're running with them an awfully long way.
LAMB: What's the difference between listening to somebody on the radio and watching them on television? Because this interview will be both on the radio and on television.
GLADWELL: Well, on the radio, obviously, certainly, my voice is going to matter way more.
But what's going to happen on the radio is, people are going to fill in the blanks. We know this with e-mail, for instance.
What's problematic and also interesting about two people communicating on e-mail, is that you only get a very limited stream of information, right. So what you do is, you fill in the blanks with your imagination.
So, when a man and a woman are flirting on e-mail, to the man, the woman is gorgeous, right. And to the woman, the man is devastatingly handsome.
Why? Because you're not given any of that information, so you supply it from your imagination.
We know that when people communicate on e-mail, their impressions of each other are far more positive than they would be if they were talking face-to-face, because the information we fill in is the information we choose.
So, I wouldn't – you know, it's quite possible – and I'm just making this up – that the people who are listening to us now on the radio have a far more favorable impression of both of us, than those who are watching us on television.
Or, that's actually – another way of putting it is, they have a far more polarized impression of us. So, either far more positive or far more negative. Whereas, the more information I give you, the more you're going to be, the more kind of fleshed-out and reality-based the impression of the person is going to be.
LAMB: I want to make a giant leap in this discussion.
The president of the United States picks up the phone and calls you and says, "Malcolm, come to the Oval Office, please. I need to talk to you. I need some advice." That's all he says.
"And I've read 'Tipping Point.' I've read 'Blink.' There's a lot there, and I want you personal advice."
And let's just assume you'd do it. Forget whether you like him or dislike him.
What would you tell him if you were sitting there in the Oval Office, based on what you know about human response?
GLADWELL: Well, I would tell him – I mean, it's a shame, because I would – this advice would have been most useful a couple of years ago.
He is someone, our president, who has enormous respect for – he's an instinctive decision-maker, right. He strongly believes in his instincts.
And the one – and the thing – and I believe in that kind of thinking, so long as it comes from a position of experience. Instinct grounded in a lifetime of experience is an enormously powerful thing, and far more powerful than the kind of formal analysis that we do.
So, I would – I mean, had this been a couple of years ago, before we went into Iraq, if I was him, I would have gathered a roomful of 10 retired generals of every type.
And I would have said to them, "I know you guys aren't in the loop right now, but give me your gut on this."
"What's it going to be like? What's going to happen? How long are we going to be there? How many troops do we need? What are the five things that are going to go wrong, you know, after – from day one on?"
Because I – it's funny, because when I was doing my book and I talked to all – I had that chapter on the Pentagon war game. And I had those …
LAMB: General Paul Van Riper?
GLADWELL: Yes. And this was before the war had started. And I had those kinds of conversations with these guys.
And, you know, we have in these – this is what is frustrating to me about what's going on now, which is that – we have in this country these guys, these retired generals, for instance. They are extraordinarily intelligent men. They have incredible experience – 30, 40 years of experience. Colin Powell is chief among them.
By the way, Colin Powell, my distant cousin – I don't know if you knew that – but he's another one of these guys. These guys are an incredible resource.
And if I was a president, I wouldn't do a thing – and we sort of have that in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But I feel like, why stop there? You've got a resource; use it.
And I feel like – I mean, if I can venture one small criticism – I feel like what happened in the decision-making structure in this administration prior to the war was, you had a very small group of people, and they had a very kind of internalized decision-making process, which drew from a very, very narrow ideological perspective.
And that, to me, is a mistake in any kind of – and not just in foreign policy. I would do this – if I was a president, every week I would get together with a group of people who have a broad – a group of retirees, you know, people in their 70s and 80s – who have broad experience in a given area, and just have a conversation.
If I'm going to do Medicare reform, I'm going to gather 10 people who have been in that world, who have seen it all, who went through what we went through in the '60s, and just have lunch with them and just say, what do you think? When you think about this, what do you think?
Tap into that kind of – get outside of the very narrow world in Washington and find out – you know, that have got wisdom.
LAMB: To take what you learn from "Tipping Point," when do you think the president's tipping point was in regard to the war? Or his popularity?
GLADWELL: Good question.
LAMB: And explain what tipping point really is.
GLADWELL: Well, tipping point is just this kind of – it is the moment at which kind of gradual change turns into dramatic change, where something changes state.
When water freezes at zero, that's a tipping point – or 32 degrees. I'm using my Canadian.
It is – so it's that kind of – it's the moment when the curve goes like that.
So, what was that moment in the war?
Don't know. There was some moment when the kind of accumulation of detail about what was happening in Iraq, when I think the public went from, this is the normal shake-out after a war to its chaos.
I think that was – there was a moment when, after the kind of 15th bombing, when a lot of us said, it's not – we're not in control. It's out of control. And that's when I think people began to – when the president's popularity began to dip.
I also feel there was some – you know, when the thousandth person, or whatever, solder died, or – there are kind of some symbolic kind of milestones in a war, where you begin to shift your perspective – rightly or wrongly. But I just think that's the way we operate as human beings. There are kind of these sort of milestones that matter to us.
LAMB: Go back. You're still in the Oval Office. We're not letting you out, by the way.
What would you tell him about appearance, about speaking, about how he relates to the American people, based on what you've learned?
GLADWELL: Oh, that's a good one.
He – well, he's a man with an enormous amount of personal charm. And I feel like he should give himself more opportunities to use it and show it.
So, I think that, if there was ever – the irony of this administration is that we have a president who has this kind of personal charm, and yet he appears to be hidden away.
He should be out there. He should be talking to the press. Why doesn't he personally have a press conference every week? Why doesn't he disarm us?
He shouldn't have a – you know, I think there's a feeling in the press that you've got this very difficult – you've got this wall up, right – an administration that's very disciplined and kind of locked down. And you've got a press secretary who is very difficult to get through and evades questions.
LAMB: But you do have a new one.
GLADWELL: Yes, we do have a new one.
But I feel like, why not put the president out there? I mean, he has – it's one of his strengths, right? He has great interpersonal gifts.
And I think he should show himself and build on that strength. That would be my kind of – I suppose that would be my advice to him.
LAMB: OK. Let's say, then, Hillary Clinton calls you. And we're talking about 2008. From what you know of her, what are the first things that come to mind? Define the blink.
LAMB: Should she run? And I'm not asking you as if you're a soothsayer, or something, or a psychic; I just mean, based on the things that people respond to. What would you advice her?
GLADWELL: Well, you know, she's in a very difficult position, which is the difficult position that women are always in, which is, there is no – there's a – it's hard for a woman to be tough. We have different standards for toughness.
This is an obvious point, but I think it really, really, really is a hurdle for women who are looking to occupy positions of power, which is, when they try and be tough, we think of them as – you know, they become unattractive to us. They become shrill. They become bitchy. They become all these kinds of very, very negative things.
There isn't a sort of easily available social stereotype for being a strong leader, the way there is for a man. And I think she falls into that.
I mean, I think she is an extraordinarily intelligent person, who is also someone with a strong personality. And we have difficulty with that in a woman. And I'm not sure I have an easy answer for her.
I think that one of the problems with her approach is – I wish there was an easier way for us – I think she does too much kind of political triangulation. I think she's trying to be too many things to too many different people.
And I think that she needs to have a clear – she needs to give off a clear sense of what she stands for.
You know, it's one thing to do that if you're Bill Clinton, and you have an enormous amount of personal charm, right. We're talking about one of the most extraordinary politicians that we'll ever see. He can pull it off.
The rest of us can't. And I think the rest of us, if we want to present a public position, have to be much more kind of clear in the way we …
LAMB: On the other side of the aisle, only because he's got an issue that may or may not be higher profile – and when you mentioned the Mennonites, it came to mind – Mitt Romney might run for president. He's the governor of Massachusetts.
He's a Mormon. And Bob Novak wrote about it a couple of days ago, that that could be an issue among evangelicals.
Knowing what you know about people's reaction to religion and to the Mormon Church, what would you advise him?
GLADWELL: Well, there's a question where I think he has to frame the issue. I mean, one of the things I talked about – have thought about a lot since writing "Tipping Point" was – it matters enormously, if you want to bring about any kind of transformative change, in how you frame the issue. You control kind of the language and the kind of conceptual – the way we conceptualize an issue from the outset.
So, to give an example, we will never have health care reform in this country unless we figure out how we want to frame it. Do we want to frame it in terms of access? Quality? Cost? Cost-effectiveness? Consumer choice?
There's a million different ways you can do health care, right. We can't decide which way, and so, we can't do anything. Each one of those has something to be said for them.
But you've got to – I think he's got to come out – he's got to frame it. He's got to say – you know, he has to confront the issue and say, you know, we believe – this is a country that stands for religious tolerance and freedom.
And I think once he reminds us of that and sets the conversation in that way, he's fine. Because in reality, it's not a big issue, right. Bottom line is, it shouldn't be something that anyone should ever for a moment raise a question about.
And I just – so long as he, I think, attacks it right away, gets it out of the way, and we can move on to things that really matter.
But I don't think evangelicals have, as a core value, a deep and abiding respect for spirituality. And there shouldn't – I disagree with those who think that this is going to turn into a big issue.
LAMB: You still work for "The New Yorker." Where do you live?
GLADWELL: I live in the West Village, downtown New York.
LAMB: Are you married?
GLADWELL: No, not yet.
LAMB: Are you writing another book?
GLADWELL: Not yet. There's a whole list of things that have to happen, that haven't happened yet.
LAMB: Do you want to write another book?
GLADWELL: I do. I do, yes. It's just a question of having enough time and a good enough idea. I'm sort of gathering string, as we used to say in the newspaper business.
LAMB: Who named "Tipping Point"?
GLADWELL: That idea, that phrase has been around for a long time. It was my idea to – I mean, it was the – I wrote an article for "The New Yorker" called "The Tipping Point," and so we took it from there.
But I guess it was originally my idea to use that term of art, which had been around in the sociological community for awhile.
LAMB: We talked a lot about what the "Tipping Point" – what audiences it affected and the sequence.
What about "Blink"? Was there any new people that came in because of that? And who named "Blink"?
GLADWELL: I named "Blink." It came to me in a blink.
New audiences. Yes, I gave a talk recently at a kind of – something called the "Omegan Stew" (ph) which is a kind of New Age, kind of very spiritual.
That was cool. That's a new audience for me. And they were extraordinarily responsive to the message, to that part of the message. This idea that we could have knowledge without understanding, that there are, you know, that there's more to what we know than we can express, is something that they are very interested in.
So, that's a kind of – that was an example of a – it's not my typical audience, but one that I felt my message really resonated with, and that I resonated with.
You know, I'm not New Age-y, but having written that book, I have an enormous amount of respect that I didn't have for a kind of, sort of spiritual sources of knowledge. You know what I mean?
It's not all – not everything that we know can be represented on the page. There's a whole – all kinds of stuff going on back there, that we only have dim access to, but which is enormously powerful and useful in making sense of the world.
LAMB: A couple of things we need to fill in the blanks.
You graduated from what college in what subject?
GLADWELL: The University of Toronto in Canadian history.
LAMB: Do you have brothers and sisters?
GLADWELL: I have two older brothers.
LAMB: What do they do?
GLADWELL: My middle brother is an elementary school principal, and my older brother works in the chicken business.
LAMB: In Canada.
GLADWELL: Both in Canada, yes.
LAMB: And your parents, they both alive? And are they still working?
GLADWELL: They are both retired, although to call my father retired is, you know, is to stretch the case, he's still working, but he is no longer – he's a professor of mathematics.
And my mother was a writer and then she was a therapist. And she's not retired.
LAMB: And your blog is …
GLADWELL: Well, I have a Web site, gladwell.com. And you can just click to my …
LAMB: Gladwell.com.
LAMB: That takes care of everything.
GLADWELL: It takes take care of everything.
LAMB: Do you answer people's questions on the blog?
GLADWELL: I do. I try to answer – and e-mails. I try to answer them. Sometimes I get an awful lot and I get overwhelmed. But I try, and do communicate with people who communicate with me.
LAMB: You told an interviewer that the only other job you want to do in your life is become a commercial real estate salesman?
GLADWELL: Developer.
LAMB: Or a developer. Excuse me. A different word.
LAMB: Is that true?
GLADWELL: Yes, it is, actually. I mean, it's never going to happen, but …
LAMB: Why not?
GLADWELL: You know, I'm not – that's not the track I'm on anymore.
I would love to – I'd love to – I'm fascinated with and obsessed by buildings and by urban design and by cities. And the idea of creating something that permanent is just enormously – I mean, can you imagine?
I mean, this building that we're that we're in right now is a beautiful building. Somebody built it. And somebody drove by it every day for, you know, I don't know how many years, and got to look at it and say, I built that.
That's an incredible feeling. And that's just something that I have always thought would be cool.
LAMB: The building you're talking about is the Pace University Midtown campus on Fifth Avenue in New York City.
And Malcolm Gladwell – author of "Tipping Point" and "Blink," and "The New Yorker" articles – thank you very much for joining us.
GLADWELL: Thank you. It's been fun.


text:
Defining Facebook Friendships
Facebook is changing the way our culture interacts within itself more intrinsically than any other social networking site. Its appeal spans the reach of the niche sites; its control of commercialism keeps the environment clean and personal. It grabs appeal from more than just the MySpace crowd with its intuitive innovations (even if borrowed), consistent format, and levels of privacy controls.
It's the new soda fountain after school, expanded water cooler circle between 9 and 5, and the high school reunion on eternal tour. You can communicate with other Facebookers via private message (email), confidential instant messaging, public postings, status reports, and photo feedback. With its virtual life hub, it combines and connects so many types of interaction that it's making other solitary forms of correspondence less necessary.
With the new dynamics of communication comes new definitions of the relationships that develop on Facebook. I'm just bold enough to categorize them. Ironically, we are probably many or all of these to different members on our friends list. With 285 [at time of writing] Facebookers linked to me, I've found a good core sample to mine some universal stereotypes you can use to sort your own drop down list.
The Backwater Bandit
You're going through your friends list and see someone you can't believe is on the list. "How the heck did they get here?" or worse: "Who is this?" Senility strikes the young, too. Before you check into sabotage conspiracies, realize that the criteria we use to accept friends changes the more and different people comprise our respective lists.
The Time Traveler
You have not talked to these folks in years, maybe decades. That being the case, you may not have ever had a substantive conversation with these people. You might not now. But your mutual desire for the "Where are they now?" links you for the world to wonder, "How do those two go together?" The Facebook Way Back Machine lets them catch up with you on their terms, their schedule. They can absorb as much as they want and only as much as they want—unlike a class reunion.
The Bonus Buddy
You didn't talk to this guy much, if at all, in college or that gal in high school. But you guys are regular knuckleheads on Facebook. Now you're in more than just the same life stage with similar reflections, senses of humor, and interests. It's a new friend recycled from an old acquaintance—like that comfortable Goodwill shirt you wear on Saturdays around the house. Sometimes, your spouse's friends fall in this category.
The Brady Bunch
You were friends with this guy or gal and hung out with them in a family setting. You know the whole gang; you like them all—most, anyway. If you saw any of their sibs or parents in the grocery store, you'd say, "Hey!" You may even get honorary inclusion in a family holiday. You wouldn't call them long distance except to set up a surprise birthday party for your friend, but you're comfortable Facebooking each other.
The Poster Child
You had no idea. You wonder if they have a clue. They're posting content that is vulgarly offensive, racially derogatory, overly political, uncomfortably religious, sexually inappropriate, etc. Now it makes interactions outside of the 'book a little more guarded or awkward. They don't fit the status quo of your typical friend filter, because you didn't know this about them when you clicked "accept." But you can't excommunicate them, due to extenuating circumstances. You just hope they don't share on your wall or blast a comment that'd disqualify you later from a run for public office.
The Cool Memory
You met these people on vacation, at a rally, or at a wedding. They were cool. It was good conversation, and you'd probably be friends if your paths crossed more often. On Facebook they can and do. You might never see them again in person, but you'll hang onto their Facebook friendship as long as they do.
The Dilbert
You put up personal pictures at work; so, it's not a stretch to allow work mates into your Facebook circle. Some are even your real life, happy-hour buddies. There comes a day, though, when you realize everything on your profile is available to them. You can't give them only limited profile access, because this is office politics or united underground in motion. You either guard everything you post as aggressively as the new security guard at the mall, develop a second Facebook account with your middle name for your friends, or relinquish your rights to discreetness.
The Captains Choice
It's the golf outing guy, the BNI newbie, the representative from one of your vendors. They're trying to network; so are you. You may not have actually conversed much more than exchanging business cards. Worse yet, they may be part of your professional association; and you just want to be connected—in case anyone else is paying attention. But now you can't delete them after your peek into their personals, because you're afraid it'll look bad or get noticed by the movers and shakers to whom they're connected.
The Face in the Crowd
You have no clue who these people are; but they go to your school, your church, or your convention. They know people who know you—maybe even some of your closest Facebookers. So, you figure they can't be nefarious; in a moment of weakness, you click that "accept" button. When they start posting weird crap or typing cryptic status updates, you regret this almost enough to 86 them from the list.
The Spouse
No, not the one you are just short of legally required to include as your friend—this is the Facebooking wife of one of your internet-phobic pals. You can't reach him other than with old school media like email, phones (maybe only a land line), snail mail, or carrier pigeons. It feels weird to ask this member of the opposite gender to be your friend on the solo, but the satellite relationship is too important to fuss with the rules of engagement. Sometimes, the spouse is more careful or proper than your friend; especially when sending messages through them, you have to be on your best behavior.
The Two-Headed Monster
Couples sharing a Facebook . . . a flat out enigma. They typically hyphenate their first names together, like "John-Sarah," stopping just short of tabloid amalgamations like "Brangelina" and "Bennifer." You can usually tell which half of the equation is doing more of the maintenance and communication, but there's enough of both to make things awkward.
The Band Wagoneer
These guys are part of a (fringe) group or cause on Facebook. That entity holds such a strong sway over you, that you extend a welcome mat: "my face' is your face'." You are a dumb butt. But thankfully, they don't know you, either, and probably won't embarrass you in any other forum but the group/cause/fan page you share in common.
The Charity Case
This is different from the person you're trying to get started on Facebook by introducing to new people or referring mutual friends. "I don't want them to feel rejected." This person may have a bevy of friends, but you all know you're all just being nice.
The Inner Circle
Your best friends in non-virtual life—can't get enough of them (or they don't share your same mobile phone carrier and its free mobile-to-mobile minutes). This is just one more place they can drop one-liners like Robin Williams or relive what just happened (with the real story). These are your partners in crime. They generate the comments in your mini feed that draws the fringes to your content.
The Blood Line
You stock your friends list with sibs, parents, cousins—basically anyone in your gene pool. Unlike a family reunion, you can usually avoid the uncomfortable ones, since they aren't looking for you over here, either. If you're distanced geographically like I am, Facebook lets you stay in touch without figuring out everybody's schedule and gathering at Mom and Dad's house. Plus, you can spend your live get togethers talking and eating rather than sitting through slide shows.
The Stalker
You are afraid to say "no" to them, or you don't have a good excuse when they ask you about the invitation they sent. You hope they don't start virtually following you online or pestering people who comment on your stuff.
And those not on your Facebook friends list . . .
The Conduit
These folks aren't actually on your friends list. But they probably know a lot of people that you do. So, you click on their friends list to snag some friend requests without thanking them or accepting their friendship. It's using people. I do it. There's no support group for that yet; so, I'll probably continue as long as you do.
The Withering Vine
They've asked to be your friend, but you're not sure you want to do that. So, you leave their friend request in your notification box for weeks on end. You eventually figure they understand, or you grow to not care. Whether you accept them or not, it's usually a compulsive decision a month from now.
The John Smith
You will never find them. There are 394 people with their names in the system. You have to hope they find you or a mutual friend. I read an article that said, in China, the quantity of last names is equivalent to all of the citizens in Japan and the US sharing 5 last names. Welcome to Facebook China! It won't get any better.
The Unbeliever
"I can't believe they're not on Facebook yet." This isn't as much a big deal, if you never would have seen them anyway. College was good, but it can't be a frat party forever. Don't worry: you'll bump into them at a rest stop in Utah during a vacation with your grandkids. Your local friends say they "don't have time for Facebook." Yet they have time to burn your text message plan quota.
The Pedestal
You know who they are. They were a caste or more above you in high school, college, or Green Peace. They were probably better looking, richer, more athletic, cooler, and/or more connected than you were. So now, even though you're probably on more of an even playing field, you're not in their circle. The time machine can't go back, and all you'll know of their life now is their miniature profile picture or occasional comment on a mutual (former middle-caste) friend's content.
The Small Face
"I can't tell if that's her!" The small profile picture and poor photo composition keeps you from requesting or accepting a friendship. "I'm not sure who that is. Honey, is this one of your college girl friends?" "I don't recognize the name. I can't tell."
The Skeleton
Be it an ex-girlfriend or that high school buddy your wife can't stand, you have to keep these folks away from public connection. You can send them benign messages through their boxes on your mutual friend's friends list, whereas sending them personal notes in real life might invite a private investigator or divorce attorney—marriage counselor at least. There's no relationship to hide, just a morbid curiosity—maybe even some schadenfreude. Facebook allows both parties a guided escort through each other's limited profile long enough to know your life is better than it could have been if things had things "worked out."
The Contestant
One dude asked to be my friend. I answered with my typical, "How do I know you?" "You don't. I just want friends." That's bold. Still doesn't earn a hole in the firewall, but it's pretty much a social networking site-only phenomenon.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Melt Flow Index testing
Published: January 31st, 2013
Here is the scenario...I have a material cert from the manufacturer that shows a melt flow index of 11 g/10min with test conditions of 300°C/1.2Kg. We want to test the incoming material on our melt indexer but do not have a 1.2Kg weight. We only have a 4.2Kg weight. If I go ahead and run the test at 300°C/4.2Kg, is there some mathematical cartwheels I can do that would correlate the two indexes and tell me if they are close to equivalent?
- Login to post comments
- Email this page
ASTM D1238 (I believe) gives
ASTM D1238 (I believe) gives specifics for the test. All materials are tested at a specified temperature and weight. I would not suggest you simply change the weight and try to do some "mathematical cartwheels" (love that term) to determine what the MFI at the lower weight would be. Not sure you can even do that without having additional information. I guess you could do a benchmark study if you test the material that you are certain you have the actual ASTM data on with the correct weight and then use the higher weight and record the data to use that as your benchmark. Perhaps you can build an internal spec but I would test more that one lot of material in this manner because there probably won't be a linear relationship with changes in MFI at the lighter weight versus those at a heavier weight. PLUS the big problem is that I am pretty sure if there was a problem and you tried to reject the material your material supplier would not accept your findings since you did not follow the ASTM test procedures.
The weight drives the shear rate, which in turn drives the "viscosity" value in terms of grams/10 mins...if you can think of viscosity in those terms. Be careful of this test and how much you rely on it. It is at very low shear rates, done at one temperature, and the shear rates are not controlled in this test. Plus there are not flow corrections taken into account (entrance loss being one of them). If you are using the test for incoming lot to lot inspection, it should be fine provided you have the correct weight. Using the test to compare one grade of material to another to make a material switch may get you into some troubles...even if the two materials have the same MFI value.
- Login to post comments
Maybe it is just that I am
Maybe it is just that I am not familiar with how the Dynisco Indexer in question really works. I think that when you are initially setting up the test you have to enter temp and the load being used. Maybe the tester does the work and spits out the results no matter what weight you use therefore the MFR shown should be similar no matter which weight was selected? Or am I completely off base on this?
- Login to post comments


text:
The over/under for today's game between the New York Jets and Chicago Bears: 35.5. The actual total almost doubled that, as two top-ten defenses couldn't contain Matt Forte, Jay Cutler, and Mark Sanchez during two explosive quarters. In fact that over/under was almost met during the second quarter alone, when the Jets broke out for 24 and the Bears hung in with a touchdown of their own.
Forte ran for 169 total yards and WR Johnny Knox added 92 in receiving yardage, while RB Shonn Greene's 70 and TE Dustin Keller's 79 led New York. Cutler started sluggish, but bounced back to throw three touchdowns in the third quarter. Sanchez, meanwhile, threw the game-sealing interception after completing 10 of his first 11 to start the game.
The 10-5 Jets get the Buffalo Bills next week. The 11-4 Bears travel to Green Bay, needing a win to ensure a first-round bye.
For more on this game, join Windy City Gridiron and Gang Green Nation.


text:
(Sighs)... There goes the chance af finishing the road trip .500.
But, what if Gagne wasn't hurt? Would he have made the save? Can another loss be placed on Gagne's shoulers?
How about this: Two runs today were scored on wild pitches. Was the loss Rivera's fault? I did not watch the game, could Kendall possibly have gotten to those balls?
If anybody could, would you take the wild pitches thrown in the games Kendall caught divided by the games he caught, to find a sort of "Wild Pitch Avg." and then do the same with Rivera?


text:
Top 20 of the World's Richest Porn Stars (20 pics)
Celebs | 28 Aug, 2012 | Views: 524466 | +20 |
Tori Black – Net Worth $1 Million
Do you like it?
Email this link
It is just one of the thousands of posts that we have on the Acidcow.com.
Please visit our main page to see other great pictures and videos!


text:
Miami Chat Thread
View Single Post
Mar 26th, 2013, 12:49 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 8,644
Re: Miami Chat Thread
Originally Posted by
I'm probably one of the few folks who doesn't mind seeing her having this kinda late career surge - her game is pretty fun to watch and she's very feisty and entertaining too. She's not a pusher either in a sense of Moonballniacki - her net game is solid at worst and she can attack too when given a chance. I guess I just don't see a reason to hate on her
she is not a pusher , she is just always forced to defend by big hitters , without serve even in serve games she is always defending. When she has a chance she can hit winners. Also her netgame, dropshots make her game entertaining.
I think she can make very entertaining matches versus players who can't overpower her and who are not best returners
Maria Sharapova
Career Grand Slam Winner
Wimbledon 2004 ~ US Open 2006 ~ Australian Open 2008 ~ French Open 2012 and 2014
WTA Championships 2004
London Olympics silver medallist
32 WTA titles , including 12 Tier I titles
21 weeks #1 player
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by NashaMasha
View Blog


text:
Findlay residents know that flooding has become a year-round problem, but finding a fix could come faster now that Marathon Petroleum is hoping to build in one of the flood zones downtown.
Marathon Petroleum has announced plans to expand its headquarters in Findlay. Leaders say first, they need to address flooding concerns in the city.
"We need to get this thing done. We need to get it done now," said Findlay Mayor Lydia Mihalik.
The mayor, along with other city leaders, hope for a renewed sense of urgency from the army corp of engineers now that Marathon has announced plans for its new $80 million campus on South Main Street. It could bring more than 100 new jobs to Findlay.
Marathon, like many homes and businesses, has been affected by the rising Blanchard River. In 2007, its first floor and basement were flooded, causing more than $4 million worth of damage.
City leaders hope Congress will start viewing the river flooding as not just a local issue, but a national one.
"When you're looking at a corporation like Marathon, who controls a significant amount of the distribution and transportation of fuels throughout not only the United States, but throughout the Midwest, any time they don't have the business continuity that they need in order to get people into work so that they can keep those pipelines running, that becomes a national interest, and that's an issue," explained Mihalik.
Mayor Mihalik, along with a commissioner and local economic leader, made a trip to Washington last week, pushing to finish flood control studies. They may return to the Capitol before the end of the month.
Do you have to deal with flooding? Get flood insurance, find a local agent, learn additional flood facts, assess your flood risk, and file a claim with Flood Smart.
Copyright 2014 Toledo News Now. All rights reserved.
730 North Summit Street
Toledo, OH 43604
FCC Public File
EEO Report
Closed Captioning
FCC Public File
EEO Report
Closed Captioning


text:
|Project by jaykaypur
|posted 814 days ago
|964 views
|1 time favorited
|9 comments
Made out of cedar and sycamore with walnut splines. The box measures 7'' x 7'' x 3'' and the top is 8'' x 8''. Each side of the box is half of each wood and the sides are alternated. It turned out better than I had envisioned. This was also my first attempt at spline joints and although small, they went better than I expected. I left the inside unfinished until I get a sliding tray put in it but I was so happy with the way it turned out, I wanted to go ahead and post it. Hey at least it aint a spoon! LOL Thanks for the looks/comments.
-- Use it up, Wear it out --------------- Make it do, Or do without!
9 comments so far
#1 posted 814 days ago
Nice looking box. Good color & grain.
-- Mother Nature created it, I just assemble it. - It's not ability that we often lack, but the patience to use our ability
#2 posted 814 days ago
thats really purdy.. hey, a box to keep those spoons in.
-- Roger from KY. Work/Play/Travel Safe. firstname.lastname@example.com
#3 posted 814 days ago
It looks good and I'll bet it smells good too! Love that quarter sawn sycamore on the lid borders.
-- " I'll try to be nicer, if you'll try to be smarter" gfadvm
#4 posted 814 days ago
I really like the lift off lid!
-- Lew- Time traveler. Purveyor of the Universe's finest custom rolling pins.
#5 posted 813 days ago
cedar is so cool looking when it is kept "wet" looking with a finish. But it stops the awesome smell too
Will wood movement effect your box with outside being finished and inside not?
-- Ev in Framingham, MA
#6 posted 813 days ago
Nice looking box Jay. I've been thinking about picking up some sycamore, how is it to work with? This is a great example that not ever box needs a handle. That lid looks great.
-- JoeyG ~~~ http://www.facebook.com/JHGWoodWorks
#7 posted 813 days ago
Really nice work Jay. Always love your work with cedar. Looks great!
-- "Make something you love tomorrow...and do it slowly" JLB
#8 posted 813 days ago
Nice Box Jay. It came out really great. I can't wait to see what you do with the inside.
-- Bill Native Texan
#9 posted 813 days ago
great work on the grain and the splines
-- KOOG plan today...survive tommorow
Have your say...
You must be signed in to post the comments.


text:
The Bay Area's gang injunctions explained
Today, Oakland City Attorney John Russo announced he'll file a new gang injunction targeting the Norteño Street gang in the Fruitvale neighborhood.
OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY JOHN RUSSO: The Norteños have been one of the most destructive, vicious and sociopathic gangs in Oakland, not just for years, but literally for generations.
Gang injunctions are increasingly being used to combat crime. Many law enforcement officials support their use, like Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts:
OAKLAND POLICE CHIEF ANTHONY BATTS: The purpose of an injunction is to put on notice the gang members or people in the community who are causing so much harm and to allow good people who live in those neighborhoods to come back and reclaim their civil rights and liberties and go out in public in a safe manner.
The gang injunction is a civil lawsuit introduced in California in the mid-1980s that restricts the activities of alleged gang members in certain neighborhoods. In the past three decades, their use has spread across California, including the Bay Area.
On September 30, a judge approved San Francisco's fourth injunction, targeting two gangs in the Visitacion Valley neighborhood. And tomorrow, an Alameda Superior Court judge will review the implementation of Oakland's first gang injunction, five months after it was approved.
KALW's Ali Winston has been reporting on gang injunctions in Oakland and San Francisco for the past few months. He explains the history of gang injunctions in California and the Bay Area, and how they are being used today.
* * *
HOLLY KERNAN: So Ali, let's start with Russo's announcement this morning.
ALI WINSTON: Well, the city attorney of Oakland John Russo announced that he is seeking a gang injunction against 42 individuals who are members of the Norteños street gang in the Fruitvale neighborhood of East Oakland. And according to the city attorney's office and the police department, these individuals are responsible for a great deal of violence, shootings, robberies in the neighborhood through their own activities and through conflict with two rival gangs, the Border Brothers and the Sureños.
KERNAN: So that's the big news today. I'd like to back up and get a little context here. How did gang injunctions first come to be used to fight gang activity in California?
WINSTON: Well, they originated in Los Angeles in the mid-1980s, when then-City Attorney James Hahn filed suit against the Playboy Gangster Crips in 1987. The initial filing didn't name any individuals, it just named 300 "Does."
KERNAN: John Does?
WINSTON: Yes – people yet to be named. These people would not be allowed to congregate in groups, wear certain colors and would be subject to a curfew in a geographic area outlined by the injunction lawsuit.
And over the next several years, Los Angeles courts would go on to approve over 30 injunctions against street gangs throughout the county. They also spread to other cities in other parts of Southern California, San Jose, as well as other states.
KERNAN: So when did gang injunctions reach Oakland and San Francisco?
WINSTON: Well, San Francisco was the first city out of those two to file an injunction in October 2006. City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed a gang injunction against the Oakdale Mob, a street gang in the Bayview-Hunter's Point neighborhood of San Francisco. And since then, San Francisco courts have granted three more injunctions – one in the Western Addition, one in the Mission District and one in Visitacion Valley.
KERNAN: What is the reaction in a neighborhood where a gang injunction is imposed? What are residents saying? Are they for this or against it?
WINSTON: Well, it's a mixed bag. In all these neighborhoods, there are serious concerns about street violence and public safety, and there are residents who are welcoming to any approach that would make them and their families safer. There are also people who aren't really in favor of the injunctions because there are concerns about restrictions on civil rights. And then there are also concerns about racial profiling because all these injunctions are in majority-minority neighborhoods and do target people of color. In fact, throughout California, there's only one injunction that does target a white group, which is an injunction in Palos Verdes against a group of surfers called the Dirty Underwear Gang.
This point about racial profiling has come up in political races throughout the Bay Area, especially in the District 10 Board of Supervisors race. I spoke with one of the candidates, Malia Cohen, on the matter and this is her take on the issue:
MALIA COHEN: The gang injunctions are happening in project areas where there's redevelopment going on, where I think there's a systematic effort to possibly "clean up the streets." Some folks I've heard go so far as to say ethnic cleansing.
KERNAN: So Ali, I take it the injunction hasn't been too popular in places like Visitacion Valley?
WINSTON: No, it hasn't. A number of the District 10 candidates have come out against the injunctions and base a lot of their campaign on it.
But on the part of the authorities, City Attorney Dennis Herrera and the San Francisco Police Department maintain that the injunction is necessary to bring down the crime rates in the area. The authorities have linked 10 homicides over the past three years to the gang feud in the injunction. I heard SFPD Lieutenant Mikail Ali of the Ingleside Station speak at a press conference in August about this matter. He was a lead investigator on an investigation five years ago that sent 12 members of one of these two gangs to federal prison.
LIEUTENANT MIKAIL ALI: There needs to be some level of parameters on behavior. And if we can intervene before this behavior manifests itself and rises to the level and the need for federal prosecution where you're looking at individuals spending 40 years of their lives in federal prison, then perhaps we should do something on the low end.
KERNAN: If they started to be used in about 1993, we have almost two decades of evidence. How are injunctions working in terms of reducing violence?
WINSTON: Well, there's conflicting research on that matter. Some studies have found drops in violent crime after these court orders are approved, while other research found no correlation between the injunctions and changes in the crime rate. In San Francisco, Dennis Herrera's office released statistics claiming fewer and fewer gang members were arrested for non-injunction crimes after they were filed. However, it's not clear whether this is because they're incarcerated or whether other people have taken their place in these gangs.
What is clear, though, is that being listed on an injunction can be very damaging to someone's future prospects. Violating the injunction adds misdemeanor charges to someone's criminal record. And in every injunction filed in San Francisco, there have been multiple individuals listed as gang members who have no criminal charges.
On this matter, I spoke to a Larry Jones Jr., a Visitacion Valley community activist who works ex-offenders and youth. He is pretty upset by the severity of the injunction.
LARRY CARL JONES JR.: Who's next to be injuncted? Me? My little brother? Someone who probably has some past ties but are doing a whole lot for this community? Say if a cop gets mad at me and throw me on the list and then it's just gonna be a gavel slam and my life is ruined? These young mens lives are ruined.
KERNAN: So, what is next for Oakland?
WINSTON: Well, once the city attorney files the gang injunction against the Norteños, they'll be given a court date which will be in about a month's time. There is a court date tomorrow, a status conference on the northside Oakland injunction. We also obtained contracts from the city attorney's office last week and published them on the Informant about the city attorney's contract for a third injunction in deep East Oakland. It's not clear who that will be against but it's almost certain that it will come down some time this year.
If you're interested in discussing the Oakland gang injunction, you can attend a hearing tomorrow afternoon at the Alameda County Courthouse. The hearing will begin at 2 p.m. in Department 20.
Ali Winston is one of our criminal justice reporters. You can follow his blog at The Informant.


text:
Dave Hendricks | April 23, 2014 | Comments
Recent trends have led to email service providers (ESPs) and data management platforms (DMPs) becoming hot commodities in the mergers and acquisitions world.
If you have been reading any marketing and advertising trade press in the last year, chances are you've noticed a couple emerging mergers and acquisitions (M&A) trends:
The two beneficiaries of these trends have been companies that two years ago had previously found themselves out of favor: email service providers (ESPs) and data management platforms (DMPs).
After Adobe bought pioneering DMP Demdex way back in 2011, there seemed to be little appetite for another similar acquisition. But sentiments changed. According to former Forrester Research principal analyst Joanna O'Connell last fall:
"Little more than third-party audience targeting platforms two years ago, today's leading DMPs are ingesting a wide range of owned and licensed data streams for insights and segmentation and are pushing data into a growing number of external targeting platforms, helping marketers deliver more relevant and consistent marketing communications."
The market definitely has a sudden appetite for DMPs. BlueKai, Aggregate Knowledge, and Knotice all saw exits that totaled more than $500 million to large players in the last six months. That's a whole lot of cookie segments. Is that all there is to a DMP?
As hot as DMPs have been, the email-marketing sector was 10 times hotter over the last 12 months. Once seen as a commoditized offering with many undifferentiated players competing on price, there were five major M&A events in the ESP market just in the last year: Oracle bought Eloqua and Responsys, Salesforce.com bought ExactTarget, Adobe bought Neolane, and IBM bought SilverPop. The combined exits exceeded a whopping $6 billion in transactional value.
What do acquirers see in these two sectors? They aren't social media and they aren't photo-sharing.
There are two big reasons that enterprise software companies suddenly started buying up ESPs and DMPs like hotcakes: chief marketing officers (CMOs) and mobile adoption.
The market for big IT software changed forever with application outsourcing. With large companies able to shift to nimble virtual data centers like Amazon AWS/EC2, the chief information officer's (CIO) role changed and their budget authority and need to spend money on expensive IT assets was proportionately reduced.
This C-suite shift left the CMO in charge of the fastest-growing sector of tech spending. According to Gartner, "Marketing is so inextricably linked to technology that by 2017, CMOs are projected to spend more money on information technology and analytics than CIOs."
Smart enterprise buyers realize that ESPs and DMPs are now largely bought and managed by CMOs. If you want to obtain a fantastic client list as well as a disruptive technology, you can do worse than buying an ESP. Besides a profitable revenue stream, it is also going to come with a list of hundreds or thousands of clients to cross-sell the rest of your enterprise stack.
Are ESPs really getting bought just for client lists? Just to reach the CMO?
There has to be another reason. Could it be email subscriber usage patterns?
Email is a native mobile application. As people started consuming information more on smartphones and tablets than other devices, email consumption and usage soared. Mobile email usage now exceeds 50 percent. And email is by far the number one app on mobile platforms.
The fact that DMPs aren't directly solving anyone's mobile targeting problems may explain why they are not as hot as ESPs.
When enterprise companies buy ESPs, it's obvious they're getting a great profitable revenue stream. But they're also getting access to CMOs, first-party data, and the mobile consumer. That sounds like a pretty good deal.
Join the Industry's Leading eCommerce & Direct Marketing Experts in Chicago
ClickZ Live Chicago (Nov 3-6) will deliver over 50 sessions across 4 days and 10 individual tracks, including Data-Driven Marketing, Social, Mobile, Display, Search and Email. Check out the full agenda and register by Friday, Sept 5 to take advantage of Super Saver Rates!
As president of LiveIntent, Dave Hendricks has overall responsibility for revenue, finance, legal, and operations. Prior to joining LiveIntent before its 2009 Series A, Dave was EVP of operations at PulsePoint (then known as Datran Media), where he worked with LiveIntent founder and CEO Matt Keiser and ran Datran's ESP StormPost. Before all that, Dave held senior roles at data management companies InfoUSA and Experian. A member of the founding executive team at ExperianCheetahMail, Dave began his email adventure at Pioneering ESP MessageMedia after running global partnerships for Oracle Corp. Dave was named one of Silicon Alley Insiders Top 100 technologists in 2011 and is active in several IAB Committees including Mobile and Email. Follow him on Twitter @davehendricks.
AdWords' New HTML5 Feature Makes It Easier to Create Mobile Content
Ritz-Carlton Strives to Improve Customer Stays With App Upgrade
Twitch + Extra Data = One Potentially Powerful Amazon Ad Network
October 16, 2014
November 3-6, 2014
November 11-12, 2014
Dec 2-4, 2014
IBM Social Analytics: The Science Behind Social Media Marketing
80% of internet users say they prefer to connect with brands via Facebook. 65% of social media users say they use it to learn more about brands, products and services. Learn about how to find more about customers' attitudes, preferences and buying habits from what they say on social media channels.
The Multiplier Effect of Integrating Search & Social Advertising
Latest research reveals 68% higher revenue per conversion for marketers who integrate their search & social advertising. In addition to the research results, this whitepaper also outlines 5 strategies and 15 tactics you can use to better integrate your search and social campaigns.
September 17, 2014
12:00pm ET
September 23, 2014
1:00pm ET
September 30, 2014
1:00pm ET/10:00am PT


text:
Route Guide - iPhone / Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New - School of Rock
Routes Sorted
L to R R to L Alpha
This route most certainly must have been done previously. It may be the same as that mentioned on p. 274 of Gillett's fine RMNP, Estes Park Valley guidebook. From below, it is the line that calls out to be climbed. Unfortunately, the climbing is not as steep as you would like, the rock is a bit scruffy, and it is shorter than you would like. Still, for an easy romp in the sun, it could fit the bill.
This is the very obvious ridge climb on the second from the right crag. It looks steeper than it is from certain angles.
A rack with wires, cams to a #2 Camalot, and long slings would be adequate.


text:
BWW Reviews: Facts Are Subjective in THE LIBRARY
In an age where countless commercial media outlets compete to be the first covering a news story and anyone with Internet access can report their opinions as fact, the truth has never been so subjective.
Unconfirmed reports are accepted as fact by a public that tends to form quick unwavering opinions. Eye-catching headlines give misleading summaries of an article's content. Activists turn previously anonymous people into national heroes or villains as it suits their causes. Trials begin with public verdicts already decided based on media reports instead of the permitted evidence and if an undeniable truth is ever proven, the news of it could wind up buried beneath the ever-lasting perceived truth.
In Scott Z. Burns' tense and effective drama, The Library, a sixteen-year-old girl's future is decided as she lies unconscious in a hospital bed; not only by the doctors who save her life, but by a classmate who gives an eyewitness account of how she told a gunman on a shooting rampage in their high school library where a group of kids were hiding.
When Caitlin (an excellent Chloë Grace Moretz) has finally regained consciousness - suffering permanent disfigurement and recurring internal damage from gunshot wounds - she's told by her parents (Michael O'Keefe and Jennifer Westfeldt) that the police have confiscated her phone and that she's not allowed to watch television reports of the shooting. Though she denies having helped the gunman in any way, a police detective's (Tamara Tunie) interrogation brings up past encounters between the two.
As the teenager follows her instructions not to talk to the press about what happened in The Library, the shaken Ryan's (Daryl Sabara) description of the event spreads across national news unquestioned. Her friends have distanced themselves from her and those that do show compassion express disbelieving forgiveness, thinking she's just a frighten child protecting herself or that perhaps her brain has suppressed the memory of what really happened.
But when an article quotes her as saying she heard a voice that had previously been praying tell the gunman where the others were hiding and follows her statement with the name of a student, now dead, who was said to be leading others in prayer, it's misinterpreted as Caitlin laying blame on a student who is no longer alive to defend herself.
The dead girl becomes a national symbol of bravery and proceeds from a best-selling book about her (that quotes Ryan's account of Caitlin's actions) written by her mother (Lili Taylor) seed a charity in her name. Meanwhile, public sentiment against Caitlin threatens to ruin her family financially and a victim's foundation refuses to grant assistance unless she admits to having helped the killer.
Tightly constructed and economically written, Burns' plot-driven text only develops the characters with as much information as you might know from media accounts of the story. This is emphasized by Steven Soderbergh's simple staging on designer Riccardo Hernandez's sparse set, enhanced by David Lander's emotional lighting.
The Library slips a bit toward the end, with a conclusion that seems incomplete and a scene that leans toward the heavy-handed cliché of faith promoting closed-mindedness, but its depiction of a competitive media putting profit over accuracy and its effect on the public mindset isn't about to lose relevancy any time soon.
Click here to follow Michael Dale on Twitter.


text:
|Key Info
In a quiet rural location this semi-detached house is ideally situated for the visitor who wants a relaxing break or who wants to explore the many varied delights of Dorset.
The house is well equipped and is comfortably furnished to ensure that you can enjoy its peaceful location to the full. In the garden you will find a patio with table and chairs and a raised sun terrace with a small lawn; access to the terrace is up 7 steps. From the front of the house you can enjoy the lovely views of the surrounding countryside.
FREE Wi-Fi is available. 32" LCD television with Freeview. DVD player. iPod docking station.
The village of Milborne St Andrew has a licensed shop which keeps a good stock of fresh and frozen food and basic household items, and the Royal Oak pub which serves a wide range of very good food including takeaways! There is also a Post Office.
Dorchester and Blandford Forum are just 15 minutes drive away and are also served by the regular bus service which runs through the village. The well known internationally renowned Jurassic Coast and the South Coast Path with stunning views, fine beaches and good walking are just 25 minutes away.
|Sleeps up to 4, 3 bedrooms
|Nearest beach
|Lulworth Cove or Ringstead 22 km
|Will consider
|Short breaks (1-4 days)
|Car advised
|Nearest Amenities
|500 m
|Nearest travel links
|Nearest airport: Bournemouth 40 km, Nearest railway: Dorchester 12 km
|Family friendly
|Suitable for children over 5
|No pets allowed, No smoking at this property
|Internet access, DVD player
|Central heating, TV, Satellite TV, Wi-Fi available
|Kettle, Toaster, Iron, Hair dryer
|Clothes dryer, Cooker, Microwave, Fridge, Freezer, Washing machine
|3 bedrooms, 1 bathrooms of which 1 Family bathrooms
|Single beds (2), Double beds (1), Dining seats for 4, Lounge seats for 4
|Linen provided, Towels provided
|Balcony or terrace, Private garden
|Further details indoors
There is a good range of DVDs, books and games to keep the whole family entertained and occupied.
The main bedroom has a double bed; the second bedroom has a 3ft single bed; the third bedroom has a 2ft 6in single bed. There is ample storage space in the bedrooms in the chest of drawers and wardrobes.
In the bathroom there is a shower over the bath in addition to the usual handbasin and toilet. There is also a downstairs toilet.
Linen and towels provided, visitors are asked to bring their own beach towels.
|Further details outdoors
Off-road parking is provided for two cars on the gravel driveway.
Situated on the corner of the cul de sac gives The Clovers a larger than average plot which therefore enjoys a lovely light and open feeling around the property.
|Further details
Start date Saturday; the start date can be flexible depending on availability, contact the owner for details.
Short breaks for a minimum of 3 days; there may be availability for short breaks at times other than as shown, subject to other bookings, please contact the owner for details.
The magnificent Dorset coastline, together with the outstanding natural beauty of the unspoilt countryside, makes this county a very special place to come and explore. There is plenty for everyone from couples to families.
Along the Jurassic Coast you will find many accessible places where fossil hunting is a popular pastime. Beach lovers have a wide choice of beaches to enjoy including the sandy expanses at Swanage and Weymouth.
Inland Dorset's landscape is delightfully varied. Towards Swanage and Studland in the east you will find flat heathland with an abundance of wildlife. The centre of Dorset is chalk downland, with extensive rivers and streams. To the west of Dorset beyond Dorchester the land is more hilly, with a rich landscape of woodland and small fields.
For walkers Dorset offers great variety through wonderful scenery, from short and middle distance strolls to long distance national trails. Around the village of Milborne St Andrew there are a number of footpaths including one which runs up the lane next to the house and leads into open countryside.
For those looking for a more relaxed break there is a wealth of delightful villages and historic buildings to browse and explore with many National Trust properties including Thomas Hardy's cottage near Dorchester and Brownsea Island in Poole harbour. For those looking for the seaside you will find many beaches and coves only a short drive away.
Dorchester is a bustling market town with over 400 shops and businesses (including a new major development started in 2011 which includes a new cinema and will soon have a range of shops and restaurants) to satisfy everyone's interest. As well as a great selection of high street regulars, Dorchester has its own speciality shops that attract people from all over the south west. There is an extensive weekly market on Wednesdays where you can buy local produce as well as browse the wide variety of stalls.
There is a choice of museums including the award winning County Museum with information about Thomas Hardy, the Jurassic Coast, the county's history and much more.
Other attractions in the area of interest to families and those with specialist knowledge, too numerous to list them all here, include the Bovington Tank Museum, Monkey World, Abbotsbury Swannery, Durlston Country Park and the Swanage steam railway.


text:
A fire in Tennessee destroyed a home Friday
It happened on Remington Drive in
Fayetteville. It took firefighters several hours to put out the flames. The
homeowner was not present at the time of the fire.
The Tennessee State Fire Marshal was on-scene
trying to determine the cause. Investigators are expected to return to the scene
Saturday morning.
Remember, when
breaking news happens, we break it first online, by email, and by text. If you
want to receive our breaking news alerts by text, pull out your phone right now
and text NEWS to 44848. Message and data rates may apply. You can text STOP at
any time to cancel your subscription, text HELP for more information, or call
877-571-0774 for support.
Copyright 2014 WAFF. All rights reserved.
1414 North Memorial Parkway
Huntsville, AL 35801
WAFF Is a Proud Member
of the Raycom Family of Stations
FCC Public File
EEO Report
Closed Captioning


text:
U.S. News & World Report Guide Ranks ODU's Darden College of Education among nation's top 100 education schools
The 2010 U.S. News & World Report guide to university graduate programs has ranked Old Dominion University's Darden College of Education as a Top 100 graduate school of education. The 96th ranking places the college among the nation's best graduate schools of education.
"I am pleased that the Darden College of Education has been recognized by U.S. News & World Report as a top graduate school of education for 2010. This ranking is a reflection of the excellent contributions in scholarship and teaching of the faculty and staff of the college as well as the quality of students entering and graduating from our outstanding degree programs," said William Graves, dean of the Darden College.
The U.S. News rankings are based on two types of data: expert opinion about program quality and statistical indicators that measure the quality of a school's faculty, research and students.
These data come from surveys of more than 1,200 programs and some 14,000 academics and professionals that were conducted in fall 2009.
This article was posted on: April 21, 2010
Old Dominion University
Office of University Relations
Room 100 Koch Hall Norfolk, Virginia 23529-0018
Telephone: 757-683-3114
Old Dominion University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution.