Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

Photo

Entered on: June 19, 2003 12:00 AM by Creeko

I bought red shoes. Dose that make me gay?

PHOTO 46 - 33 Comments
From: Ross Entered on: June 19, 2003 10:38 AM
I actually kind of like the shoe, though not the laces. Might look better if you were standing up. Not sure that I'd wear them to work, either. Out to a bar perhaps.     More important question: Those jeans aren't acid washed, are they? Now that might not make you gay but it would make you hideously out of date, my man.     BTW, you have the same keyboard that I am typing on right now. :)
From: The Bone Entered on: June 19, 2003 10:44 AM
Does Ronald McDonald know you are wearing his shoes? What prompted the purchase? Heinous man, heinous - but you asked.
From: Ross Entered on: June 19, 2003 10:47 AM
Actually I was thinking more like if he bought red socks and then tucked his pants into them, he could be Superman or Spider-Man. At least, that would have been my thinking when I was 5.     Also, it must be nice to have cheap transportation back to GR: all you have to do is click your heels together 3 times.
From: Creeko Entered on: June 19, 2003 11:25 AM
When you are comfortable with your manliness you can wear stuff like this, they have a certain Avantguard Euro styling. (or as John might say, The Euro Style)     Ross -- Working in Spain is much different from the US. Over here construction workers drink 40oz beers on the job and everyone takes two-hour lunch breaks. Smoking is the national pastime and men wear colored shoes to work. Europe is a strange and different place and Spain is perhaps on the forefront of social retardedness.
From: Ross Entered on: June 19, 2003 11:33 AM
Well here in the less-stylish States, some varieties of red shoes are in fashion, but they're more of the bowling shoe look. Let me try to find a picture: I've seen some kind of like this and a bit more red. But mostly only girls have shoes quite as red as yours. My girlfriend just got a pair sort of like the ones above but the bottom is not as thick and they're more red.
From: Ross Entered on: June 19, 2003 11:35 AM
And the lack of 2 hour luch breaks in the US is one reason we have the most powerful economy in the world, my friend. We're not taking siestas every damn day!
From: Creeko Entered on: June 19, 2003 11:55 AM
Don't get me wrong Ross. That?s what I try telling the lazy fuckers, but they love their siestas and cigarettes. Stores aren?t open on Sundays either, they're losing 52 days of potential sales! Not to mention the food that sits rotting on the shelf. And they close at 8 or 9 O-clock (the Wal-Mart types are open until 10). If they extended their hours and opened one more day a week, Spain just might move from BTW (borderline third world) to G8 status.
From: The Bone Entered on: June 19, 2003 12:08 PM
The line has to be drawn somwhere. Euro cuisine - good, Euro hotties - good, red Euro shoes - bad. As an American you have a resposibility to reserve the right to put your foot in someone's ass. Now how can you do that with a red shoe?     By the way, what's interesting is we do have the most powerful economy but the money is made and held by a small percentage of society. There or tons of Americans living below the poverty line for many reasons, two being stupidity and laziness. In days of yore, on the savanahs of Africa, the lazy and stupid would have been eaten by lions, weeding out their inferior asses. Nowadays, government subsistance gives them just enough to survive and breed more stupid, lazy offspring. The process of "survival of the fittest" is breaking down.
From: Ross Entered on: June 19, 2003 1:25 PM
I tend to agree with you, Bone. I have often mused that true natural selection is no longer taking place in industrialized societies. I used to have a friend who is an evolutionary anthropologist who assured me this was not true, but he couldn't give me an explanation that I could understand so I can only assume that he's either incorrect or doesn't have a very good handle on it himself.     I found this on talk.origins:     "One thing about the conjecture that humans are not evolving any more I would like to point out: humans are no less subject to selection now than before we developed a technological society. It's just that the selective pressures on us, as on all other species in our neighbourhood, are the results of technology: chemical, behavioural and other 'social' outcomes cause changes in who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. If those pressures are maintained long enough, and we do not go extinct in the meantime, we will change our genetic and outward makeup to adapt"     I guess, but if this is true I would think we're evolving into stupider, lazier people, as they're the ones having the most kids. Right?     Also I just found this:   http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?article ID=000DABB8-6FD8-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3&top icID=3     and this:     http://www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse/evol2.html
From: Ross Entered on: June 19, 2003 2:36 PM
Also here:     http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,690 3,644002,00.html     and here:     http://artificialintelligence.ai-depot.com/Future/2 40.html     Damn you Bone, I'm getting no work done because I'm reading all about this shit now!
From: The Bone Entered on: June 19, 2003 2:45 PM
I don't think the evolutionary process ever stops but I think natural selection is at least diminished by technology. I see us relying less on physical attributes and more on mental. However, there are few genetic "flaws" nowadays that prevent a human from procreating. Stupidity is a fine example of this. In fact, as Ross' article suggest, less industrialized societies (read lazy/stupid) produce more kids. I think we might be devolving. Don't worry though, I think the industrialized societies will destroy human life before too long. What was that physicist's paradox again Ross?
From: Ross Entered on: June 19, 2003 2:58 PM
Fermi's paradox. I honestly don't know if we will kill ourselves off or not. It's a tough question to know the answer to.     Another great site I found just now, this guy seems to be the most articulate and well-considered of the ones I've read so far:     http://mwillett.org/Matters/evolved.htm     As far as "devolving" goes, as the guy in the above article says, it's basically not possible since evolution has no direction. The only success criteria is to live long enough to reproduce and reproduce a lot.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 19, 2003 4:10 PM
So all these millions of years of evolutionary change has resulted in... Creeko and his red shoes?     This does not bode well for the human race.
From: The Bone Entered on: June 19, 2003 7:48 PM
I use the term "devolve" loosely. It seems to me, more intelligent and motivated people tend to reproduce less than lazy stupid people. The net effect over time is natural selection will favor the "inferior" species.Thus why I use the term "devolve". Of course I sound like a Nazi but I'm not refering to race, simply all races that include lazy stupid people.
From: The Bone Entered on: June 19, 2003 8:00 PM
Back to Creeko's original question; Do the red shoes make him gay? Probably not. Certainly fashion impared. Hopefully this was a lapse in judgement and he return to a manly shoe. Remember your H.H. Brown Congos? The red faggot shoes may be more comfortable but god damnit, the Congos would be kicking Spanish ass.
From: The Bone Entered on: June 19, 2003 9:35 PM
Ross, the link to mlwillet.org is pretty good. There is a real good article by a guy on why he's an atheist. It's funny and pretty much describes how I feel about the whole thing.
From: Creeko Entered on: June 20, 2003 2:41 AM
Doesn?t Darwin state that in order to be successful, a species must adapt to its environment or die. Well, my red shoes help me to adapt. If I tried to maintain my American style I would most likely be rejected and left to the lions. Therefore, My red shoes put me in the upper echelon of the evolutionary chain.
From: Ross Entered on: June 20, 2003 7:56 AM
Wow, I didn't read the rest of that guy's site. It's pretty good! I think I'll waste more time today reading it. I found this on the page where combats the classic arguments for God:     "The argument commits suicide: God can be conceived to have infinite mass or infinite non-existence or infinite potatoey-ness or whatever. And how, exactly, does existence in conceptual terms transfer over to reality? If I imagine a seven-foot green monster called Boomerang McCheese III, does it now exist? No, for all of you reading this on acid."     Hahaha, infinite potatoey-ness...
From: BigFatty Entered on: June 20, 2003 9:04 AM
How does a discussion of Creeko's red shoes turn into a discussion on evolution? I am witness to the absurdity of European footwear. Current trend - red wrestling shoes for men and women. Europe may be the fashion capital of the world, but it does not mean that everything Europe does is fashionable. Think of Europe as a huge fashion lab. Things that work get exported, things that don't get shipped to Spain for ex-patriot fashion mavens.     I didn't read the articles so this might be trite - I don't think technology changes natural selection as a foreign input in the natural evolutionary process. Technology is a product of humans evolving.
From: Ross Entered on: June 20, 2003 9:53 AM
Red wrestling shoes? Now THAT'S bad fashion! That makes Creeko look like Johnny Versace.     Willy - Technology is a product of our evolution but it is also currently the driving force behind it. There are no longer any natural selections occurring as a result of being fittest to breed - technology overcomes these hurdles for people now where it once would not (eyeglasses, fertility drugs, crutches, brick houses to barely scratch the surface).     However, one potential outcome is this: as time goes on, the need for unskilled labor goes way down as we automate more and more functions and increase efficiency. As population rises, the only people able to gain wealth are ones who are highly skilled. Therefore, there could be selective pressure to breed people who tend to be intelligent and capable of becoming skilled at technical jobs. But for this to happen, there would have to be mass deaths of the unskilled masses.
From: The Bone Entered on: June 20, 2003 11:05 AM
I'ts really hard for the laymen like us too really make guesses at what might happen with evolution since noticeable differences occur over a very large time scale and were basing guesses over a miniscule window of observation. I tend to lean towards the Fermi Paradox which basically states that there is limited amount of technological advancement that can occur before it gets out of control and destroys the civilization that develops it. Just my guess based on the nature of man. Any species that would develop a red shoe and actually spend money to buy it, and ultimately wear it - well like Jack said, "It doesn't bode well".
From: Ross Entered on: June 20, 2003 11:49 AM
The interesting thing I've picked up from reading about all of this though, is that the human gene pool at this point is so big that big changes in the entire population are almost impossible. They just get smoothed out by interbreeding. Real speciation (or macroevolution) is thought to occur only in smaller, isolated populations. Which makes sense, since humans evolved brains 3 times the size of an apes in a very short 2 million years. No way could that have happened in a large, geographically diverse population.     And Bone, I don't take Fermi's Paradox to necessarily lead to your conclusion. I just read it to say "If intelligent life can and does develop elsewhere in the universe, where are they?" Some people answer it with your conclusion, some say other intelligent beings wouldn't be explorers, some say intelligent life is exceedingly rare, some say there might be a group of intelligent beings keeping others from messing with us until we come of age, technologically (ala Star Trek). Nobody knows.     I just found a great site with lots of articles on it:     http://www.etcontact.net/newsite/TopicMain.asp?Topi c=Fermi
From: Ross Entered on: June 20, 2003 3:27 PM
While wasting time, doing reading on this particular Bone-inspired conversation, I found a good explanation to Fermi's Paradox (from one of the sub-links from the link above):     All technologically advanced civilizations conceivably pose a threat to all other civilizations. Therefore, one of them has taken it upon themselves to destroy the others. Furthermore, they police the galaxy and when a civilization reaches technological maturity (space-faring, basically) they blow up their sun. I call it "The Highlander Explanation": there can only be one.     Another possibility that struck me a year or so ago, one that I have never read anyone else come up with: some have postulated that there is galactic colonization going on, but we haven't noticed. The doubters then said they found it hard to believe there would be no evidence. However, consider this: recently, it has been discovered that ordinary matter can account for only about 4% of the mass of the universe (calculated by gravity influencing the expansion of the universe). What if the resulting dark matter and dark energy is somehow tied up with these guys? What if THAT'S where they are?     I know these things are pure conjecture and in the absence of facts you end up seeing people's true personality when they speculate. (Carl Jung said something like that, I think) But I fullly expect to get a Nobel Prize when I'm proven right.     EDIT: Holy crap, I have to take it back! I just found a guy saying roughly the same thing, in a much more intelligent fashion. About 2/3 down the page:     http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/FermiHowler1984.htm
From: Ross Entered on: June 20, 2003 2:43 PM
And finally, for the answer given with the Singularity in mind:     http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0188.html?pri ntable=1
From: jeurge Entered on: June 20, 2003 4:27 PM
I was in desperate need for a break at work due to the kind of craziness that can only ensue on the dementia wing of a nursing home. So I decided, what the hell, a little jackassery might be just what I need. So I enter the sight and go to the most recent comment and inadvertently find myself reading a discussion about evolution instigated by a pair of red shoes. You guys, along with John, give me hope that men of intelligence and humor do still exist. I am being serious, not at all facetious in saying this. As for your conversation, the facilitator in the last three classes I have taken has repeatedly mentioned that he feels that we are allowing technology to weaken our species. He points to our ever increasing life expectancy due to advances in medical technology. The average age of citizens, in the US at least, is getting older and older. Younger people are reproducing at decreased rates, while the elderly live longer, and not necessarily in a condition of true health or ability (the patients I care for daily serve as a case in point). I know that death is not a palatable option, but if we continue to strive to keep individuals alive into their 80s, 90s and older we will be decreasing the available resources for future generations. Where is the tresh-hold where we say long life is good but x amount of years is enough. Considering that I am a geriatric nurse I know this sounds like sacrelige but I think that there should be some limit on the use of medical technology in the elderly who are experiencing failure in many of their systems.
From: Ross Entered on: June 20, 2003 5:49 PM
Hmm, that's an interesting point Jeurge, but I have a problem with the phrasing "weaken our species." Although our life expectancy is rising (note: not our life-span, which has always been a constant 85-95 years) there is no genetic impact on our species as a result of this.     But if you meant weaken in the sense that we're expending too many resources on those who gives us very little return, I guess I would have to agree. The trouble is that the only sane way to deal with old people is to let them decide when enough is enough. I realize that by the time the question is worth asking, most of these coots are too far gone to truly understand they're being asked. We can hope for two things: 1) technology for production increases to such an extent that it doesn't take much effort to keep elderly people alive and further down the line, 2) if we someday reach a Singularity, we can break away from the prisons our bodies impose. Way out there, I know, but I believe it's either that or we die off as a species.
From: Creeko Entered on: June 21, 2003 9:41 AM
Bone, I can understand that, as a rule, you probably wouldn't wear red shoes. But to say that mine are heinous is a bit harsh. When you moved to Hawaii, I imagine you bought an Hawian shirt and flip flops. Why, because that's what people wear in Hawaii. Now if you were to move to Minnisota, Turkey or The UK for an extended period of time, I don't think you would wear the same garb there. You would inevitably try to blend in. wheather it be by motu propio, or because you simply can't find flowery shirts even if yo wanted to.   I desperatly looked for a pair of ECCO's, but I can't get them in Spain for a reasonbale price. Howeve, I got a pair a red shoes, that are considred stylish where I live for a price that fits my budget. Besides, Its good to take fashon risks every once-in-a-while. Otherwise you run the risk of getting stuck in a fashon vortex and when your 40, you'll be dressing just as you did in High School.
From: The Bone Entered on: June 21, 2003 11:25 AM
Very good point Creeko. Using that logic, let's hope you never move to homosexual land, where men wear yellow/green, V-cut, G-string bathing suits like the guy in the pic Ross posted a little while back. But again, at least your zapatas will fit right in.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 21, 2003 2:58 PM
There's no room to fit your zapatas in a suit like that!
From: The Bone Entered on: June 21, 2003 6:40 PM
There is if you packin like Creeko.
From: John Entered on: June 23, 2003 9:46 AM
HA,Ha,AAAAAAAAA, That was harsh Bone.
From: The Bone Entered on: November 5, 2004 8:37 PM
I looked up a thread where we had discussed artificial intelligence and the singularity. I found this one. Somehow it started out as a discussion on Creeko's red shoes, got intelligent, then came back to the shoes. I've got some zingers in it.     But the reason I looked for the sigularity was to find a good place to post this good news for science. We are now just a little bit closer to some interesting times we may see during our lifetimes     http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999 6631
From: BigFatty Entered on: November 6, 2004 7:04 AM
Ross - Where does the FRICCC system rate on the top 500 supercomputers list?     Personally, The highest performance I've achieved is 2 flipflops - and that is only in the summer in warm weather.     Bone - keep on keeping it on with all your Naval sponsored research ;)