Slashdot Mirror


Biodegradable Sneakers Sprout Flowers When Planted

Zothecula writes "People may joke about their dirty old sneakers turning into science projects or mini ecosystems, but once OAT Shoes' compostable sneakers become commercially available within the next several weeks ... let's just say, those same people may no longer be joking when they make those kind of statements. Made using hemp, cork, bio-cotton, certified biodegradable plastics, chlorine-free bleach and other nontoxic materials, the shoes are designed to completely break down when buried in the ground – the first batch will even come with seeds in their tongues, so that wildflowers will sprout up in commemoration of users' planted, expired kicks."

242 comments

  1. Obligatory by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    "Made using hemp....."

    How long before teenagers start smoking their shoes?

    1. Re:Obligatory by Burdell · · Score: 1

      Right after the first hot-foot on the bus.

    2. Re:Obligatory by spun · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hemp grown for fiber does not contain enough THC to get a fly high.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately

    4. Re:Obligatory by Velex · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, good grief. Not all cannabis plants contain THC, just cannabis sativa.

      And why do teenager need to smoke their shoes? Can't the free market step in and provide a more cost-effect alternative to meet this demand...?

      Oops, I see what I did there.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    5. Re:Obligatory by geekmux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hemp grown for fiber does not contain enough THC to get a fly high.

      Someone wanna explain that to the Government, or are we just going to continue to deforest ourselves right out of existence because lawmakers are too fucking stupid to know the difference between hemp and weed?

      Damn, I hate it when my sig speaks so loudly...

    6. Re:Obligatory by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about we stop legislating what I am allowed to consume as an adult?

      How about those supposed small government types stop worrying about what people ingest and what people do in there bedrooms.

    7. Re:Obligatory by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dammit! I meant "their bedrooms", of course.

    8. Re:Obligatory by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of a story about an Australian that liked a bit of weed going to Latvia in the summer. Hemp was growing everywhere and he cut and dried bales of the stuff. The type of hemp and short growing season combined meant that there was nothing in the way of THC at all. He was just a dope smoking rope.

    9. Re:Obligatory by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, so you think that marijuana was outlawed simply because it is a drug? Haha, no. The fact that hemp is so useful at producing fiber and paper is actually one of the bigger reasons it was outlawed in the first place. Basically, there were three real reasons: First, it is an effective treatment for many minor conditions, but is not patentable, and therefore, even though big pharma companies all sold it, they would rather sell patent medicines for a higher profit. Second, at the time of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, nylon had just been invented (1935) and DuPont wanted people to buy nylon rather than hemp ropes, especially with war looming. Thirdly, William Randolph Hearst's newspaper empire had begun to crumble when he flipped political positions and began viciously attacking FDR: Hearst's readership were mostly blue collar workers, and not happy with his editorial slant. But Hearst had huge timber holdings, if he couldn't make money selling newspapers, he could still make money selling paper, even more if hemp were out of the picture.

      The legislators who outlawed the demon weed Marijuana at the behest of wealthy interests probably had no idea that marijuana and hemp were the same thing.They were told that it was a drug used by Mexicans and Blacks that made them want to rape white women.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, good grief. Not all cannabis plants contain THC, just cannabis sativa.

      Cannabis Indica would like to have a word with you.

    11. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, good grief. Not all cannabis plants contain THC, just cannabis sativa.

      Don't forget cannabis indica as well..

    12. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hemp grown for fiber does not contain enough THC to get a fly high.

      Someone wanna explain that to the Government, or are we just going to continue to deforest ourselves right out of existence because lawmakers are too fucking stupid to know the difference between hemp and weed?

      Damn, I hate it when my sig speaks so loudly...

      it was stopped cause of the cotton industry, had no relevance to thc content

    13. Re:Obligatory by spun · · Score: 2

      There is some debate as to whether indica is a separate species, or merely a subspecies. In any case, if indica and ruderalis are both subspecies, then sativa is the only cannabis species.

      There are over 170 species of Cannabaceae, including cannabis and hops, perhaps that is what Velex was thinking of.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    14. Re:Obligatory by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      How about we stop legislating what I am allowed to consume as an adult?

      How about those supposed small government types stop worrying about what people ingest and what people do in there bedrooms.

      As a "Tea Party", Fox News Watching, conservative, I agree completely.

      Hmmm. Guess that makes me more of a Libertarian.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:Obligatory by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      Hemp grown for fiber does not contain enough THC to get a fly high.

      The article states that it contains around 0.3% THC. I'm sure if you collected up a say an ounce of industrial hemp buds, performed an solvent extraction, and smoked the results, you would be high. People use similar methods to use up the "cabbage" leaf material from the plant.

    16. Re:Obligatory by hedwards · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You might want to lay off the stuff, I think you've had enough. Hemp is banned in the US because it's easy to conceal pot plants next to them, there is no law against importing the stuff, and AFAIK, never was, which really leads me to question the DuPont conspiracy angle.

      You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma.

      At the end of the day, couldn't this really be just a matter of politicians viewing pot as being dangerous? Legitimate or not.

    17. Re:Obligatory by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      Clearly... ...so this Indica is totally legal, right?

      If the seeds in the tongue are also 'hemp' I may just get a few pair of these to start a....garden, yeah, that's it.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    18. Re:Obligatory by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Same goes for the weed that grows wild in the midwest, it's pot, but it's so weak that nobody is likely to be smoking it. And actually, if that was typical of pot, we'd probably have legalized it by now, as it just isn't strong enough to elicit any of the health problems that people are worrying about, except possible lung damage.

    19. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about cannabis indica?

    20. Re:Obligatory by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 2

      You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma.

      I'll bet the trade name on the bottle makes it expensive.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    21. Re:Obligatory by Stregano · · Score: 1

      Just adding to what above poster is saying. If you truly want to use it, move your happy ass to a state that you can get it legally. There are a bunch now, and it is not that hard to get a card. Now you might ask, Well I found a doctor that helped me get a card, now where do I find it? In dispensaries, of course. After filling out paper work with one of these places (the good ones do it all electronically), you walk into a place that resembles a store and purchase what you want. Any normal dispensary I have dealt with in my state will have a wide range going from the bunk Downtown Brown (that is not the proper name, that is what I call it, the super cheap stuff). up through incredibly expensive strains. Every color of the rainbow. They also sell brownies, cookies, tea, bars (they are like a weird power bar/candy bar type deal). I mean, seriously. I don't understand why anybody would risk doing it without a card. Sure, you can still get fired from your job, but not as easily. I work for an organization that deals with government items (that is all I am saying to stay anonymous online), and I have been tested by them, also informed them of my card, and this place was fine with it since I had a card. Not every job will, but if you can do it legally, seriously, why would you ever risk doing it any other way?

      --
      The world is how you make it
    22. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was put into place on behalf of the textile industry ages ago.

    23. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget indica.

    24. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma.

      Wait...read that again, and try not to laugh. The natural form of THC is illegal, but a patented, artificial alternative is legal? Clearly, theres nothing about Big Pharma here.

    25. Re:Obligatory by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma.

      You're using a drug that was first legally allowed to be sold in 1986 as an example refuting the GPs reasoning behind a law passed in 1937?

      Who's smoking what now..

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    26. Re:Obligatory by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Clearly... ...so this Indica is totally legal, right?

      ...

      This argument has actually been tried in court - when legislation carefully specified not only the species of plant being banned (Cannabis sativa) but even the botanical authority that provided the classification from a type specimen (probably included in legislation because it sounded more imposing), it was argued that C. indica was not covered since it did not conform to the specified plant ban. The great Harvard botanist Robert Schultes testified about this, but the judge (and others after) ruled that what the law actually said, and the scientific facts, were immaterial. If the police and DA said it was the same thing, it was. Cannabis prohibition has long depended on ignoring actual facts and law - the DEA's continued illegal refusal to obey its own administrative law judge rulings on reclassification for medical use (which is supported by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine) is a case in point.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    27. Re:Obligatory by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      ...

      You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma.

      ...

      You mean the fact that the only THC preparation legally available is a patented trademarked synthetic form of THC produced only by one Big Pharma company (Abbott Laboratories), and no plant-based preparation is available, discards the view that it is about big pharma?

      Oh man! What have you been smoking?

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    28. Re:Obligatory by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble.

      The problem with Marinol is that it's usually prescribed for nausea and loss of appetite associated with chemotherapy (cancer, AIDS). It's orally administered. Do you understand why that might be a problem?

      You might want to lay off the stuff, I think you've had enough.

      You'd know this if you weren't such a fucking drunk. YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    29. Re:Obligatory by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Since I can, literally, walk 2 blocks from my work and find I whole shop of hemp gear, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

      I suspect you are wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:Obligatory by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually it makes you a social moderate. It doesn't speak at all of your fiscal views.

      If you're fiscal view are the same as the Tea Party, that makes you a dumb ass.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    31. Re:Obligatory by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The cost difference between Marinol and marijuana is slight. on average. However Marinol id controlled, regulated dosage so you're always getting the same dose, where as marijuana is not.
      So it's isn't 'so expensive'

      Of course, if the removed it from the list and set a THC amount the constitutes 'prescription' level those problems would go away.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Obligatory by Hopium · · Score: 1

      marinol is not anything like real thc in my experience. it gives you a real bad haze on your vision. i took a few of those when i my friend with HIV had it prescribed to stimulate his appetite. and i would rather smoke a joke then take those damn things any day. it feels almost unclean and does not give you the body buzz most people smoke for, only the head buzz that's rather uncomfortable almost like schwag weed(but no seeds:P). to say i can get it without any trouble is a god damn joke too btw prescriptions have to be validated by the attorney general of the state, and to say that big pharma had nothing to do with the ban and then offer a big pharma alternative to the drug IS SO FUCKING FUNNY.

    33. Re:Obligatory by datsa · · Score: 1

      You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma. At the end of the day, couldn't this really be just a matter of politicians viewing pot as being dangerous? Legitimate or not.

      Let me get this straight. THC is legal and safe when it's artificial and patented, but not when it occurs naturally? And that *discards* the Big Pharma angle?

      p.s. Our last 3 consecutive presidents are admitted drug users. Politicians are full of shit when it comes to this issue.

    34. Re:Obligatory by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Marinol has killed and hospitalized people.

      Show me concentrated THC extracts that have done that.

      You can't.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    35. Re:Obligatory by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Same goes for the weed that grows wild in the midwest, it's pot, but it's so weak that nobody is likely to be smoking it"

      Hi, I do landrace preservation for the Dutch. Wild stuff from China, Turkey, Mexico, Russia, even right here in the USA.

      Some of that midwest wild stuff is DAMNED potent.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    36. Re:Obligatory by Nursie · · Score: 1

      "it just isn't strong enough to elicit any of the health problems that people are worrying about, except possible lung damage"

      Eh, isn't lung damage the only "health problem" with the stuff that's worth worrying about? All the supossed evils of THC itself have got little top no backing evidence AFAIR.

    37. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is a common myth that one would be able hide marijuana among hemp plants, but it is an absurd myth to anyone who's read about the issue instead of watching people on TV talk about it. First off, simply comparing the pictures of Cannabis Sativa and Cannabis Indica will show you they don't even look alike. Secondly, hemp grown for fiber is harvested before it ever flowers, as fiber quality will drop if it does. For those grown for seed or oil I am unsure, but the first point stands even if they were harvested at a similar time in relation to flowering. Finally, cross-pollination would render the cannabis recreationally useless. One can only conclude that if it is true growing hemp is banned so nobody hides cannabis in hemp fields, that it is a law made in ignorance that should be repealed.

      With regards to your point about there being no law against importation, it's plenty enough to make it too expensive to compete and gain any significant market share. Have you ever tried to purchase imported hemp cloth or hemp seed? The very cheapest hemp cloth I have run across is about $12 a yard, and it averages about $20 a yard. Compare with $2-$4 a yard for similarly plain, unbleached/undyed cotton. Hemp seed commonly runs $8 to $14 a pound. I would be surprised if they could not be produced at under $2 a yard and under $2 a pound if made inside the country by a well-established hemp industry, which would have been present had it never been banned.

      I was not familiar with Marinol and had to look it up just now. It is true that it is isolated THC, but that's all it is, and cannabis contains dozens of cannabinoids with varying actions. People prescribed Marinol that have used Cannabis describe Marinol as harsh and not very fun, and totally unsuitable for recreational use. Additionally, four deaths have been attributed to Marinol. Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough, but I've never heard of any deaths attributed to cannabis.

      I'm not going to argue it's all a conspiracy for profit, but I will say the details of the passing of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 are all extremely convenient and fishy. Just how many decades more do we have to suffer Anslinger's personal crusade against hemp, even after his death? This lunacy has gone on so maddeningly long that many people don't even question it.

    38. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to lay off the stuff, I think you've had enough. Hemp is banned in the US because it's easy to conceal pot plants next to them, there is no law against importing the stuff, and AFAIK, never was, which really leads me to question the DuPont conspiracy angle.

      You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma.

      At the end of the day, couldn't this really be just a matter of politicians viewing pot as being dangerous? Legitimate or not.

      You might want to check your sources. If you plant pot next to hemp the hemp pollinates the pot, turns it to schwag. That pretty much blows your excuse all to hell.

    39. Re:Obligatory by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      A well thought out, well researched and reasoned response.

    40. Re:Obligatory by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      I don't think the US government cares since it's deforesting other countries.

    41. Re:Obligatory by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Most of the beneficial effects of cannabis come from the cannabinoids and not THC. You aren't going to be able to use that synthetic stuff for any muscular or nervous disorders and forget about using it for glaucoma. Synthetic THC does not have the same medical benefits, performs poorer for the things it can be used for, and has side-effects that cannabis doesn't, and as others have mentionned it can kill, and is physically addictive and causes withdrawal symptoms.

      An interesting side-note about addictions. Most drugs are not physically addictive in their unaltered natural form but become so when you isolate one part. Unsure about opium as can't find any studies done on pure opium and not it's derivatives. Note physical addiction is not the same as mental addiction. Canabis can be mentally addictive but so can food, sex, etc...

      The person who commented that cannabis sativa looks very different from cannabis indica is missing the point that both have high THC strains (pure sativas more in the mountains of the east and mexico, while indica mainly confined to middle east, hot lowlands), while hemp is grown strictly from cannabis sativa.

      The real reason you can't hide hemp amongst marijuana is planting density. Spindly sativas grown for marijuana will spread out and consume up to 25 sqft for one plant. When you plant for fiber densities can reach 100 plants per sqft as you want to reduce any lateral growth and strictly encourage vertical growth as it's the long bast fibers that are used. There's absolutely no way someone can confuse the two.

    42. Re:Obligatory by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      This could be explained by somebody that doesn't know anything about cannabis. Cannabis ruderalis is what's common in Latvia, not indica or sativa which are the high thc strains. Usually easy to identify since they're highly hermaphroditic.

    43. Re:Obligatory by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      Even in states where it is legal licensed farmers are heavily regulated and can only grow so much. This means it cannot be grown in the quantities necessary to replace wood which grows back much slower or petroleum. Also, it is not legal in any state. That was the point that got this thread started, not getting high. Also, the federal government still officially bans it in the entire US even if a state allows it. Whether they are currently actively enforcing it or not in those states there is still the possibility of the feds breaking down your door at any time they chose to.

    44. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a cap made out of hemp. On the inside there is a warning label "Do not smoke this cap".

    45. Re:Obligatory by clem · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're sure you didn't mean "them thar bedrooms"?

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    46. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the perfect opportunity and you missed it.

      That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Overruled.

      FTFY.

    47. Re:Obligatory by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Moderators: the above is factual, not funny.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    48. Re:Obligatory by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Echoing what Khyber said, Marinol only exists because the government was pressured into making marijuana illegal. So bringing it up in an argument as proof that you can get it via prescription is arguing in circles. That, and the documented fact that it is not as useful for chemotherapy patients who have a habit of vomiting it up; they can't do that with something they absorb via their lungs.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    49. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be me that messed up on the point about Sativa, thanks for clearing that up. I would like to add a little bit about planting density, that when planting for seed and oil it is still far more dense at roughly 25 plants a square foot than could be mistaken for recreational/medicinal cannabis. (I was actually planning to include this point originally but gave up when I couldn't find numbers right away for plants grown for THC.)

    50. Re:Obligatory by haruchai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't expect the judiciary of a great christian nation to not care that you might be jerking off in your bedroom with a giant dildo up your asshole for you aren't truly alone in your bedroom but are a naked offense in the sight of the LORD, the omnipotent omnivoyeur

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    51. Re:Obligatory by haruchai · · Score: 1

      You may want to check out the Myths and Realities on this page: http://www.gametec.com/hemp/hempandmj.html
      It seems that trying to hide your MaryJane plants among the hemp fields will be a real downer

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    52. Re:Obligatory by lieden · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you use the phrase "If you're fiscal view are the same as the Tea Party", then you are also probably a dumb ass.

    53. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, how good it would be if they instead monitored and controlled what sellers sell in terms of recreational drugs, keeping fraudulent products off the market...

    54. Re:Obligatory by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      So... the reason it's illegal in most places outside of the US is? I love the conspiracy theories on hemp.

      You can use it as paper... but renewable forests are easier and cheaper to manage than fields of crops. You can use it as rope... but Silk and nylon have the nice handy bonus of not rotting from the inside out (which you usually only discover when your hemp rope suddenly breaks). You can use it for clothing... but it's very coarse, creases easily, scorches if you try to iron it and rots very easily. You can eat it, but it's pretty horrible tasting. It can shrink cancer but not cure it, just like hundreds of other existing treatments.

    55. Re:Obligatory by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      You might want to lay off the stuff, I think you've had enough. Hemp is banned in the US because it's easy to conceal pot plants next to them

      You have no idea what you are talking about. When you plant hemp you don't separate males and females. A pollinated male isn't commercially viable as marijuana. The market wants its weed sin semilla.

      there is no law against importing the stuff, and AFAIK, never was, which really leads me to question the DuPont conspiracy angle.

      Imported hemp with import tariffs (which contradict the constitution) cannot compete with the local alternatives, just as Mercedes (which are just another car in Germany) cannot compete with Toyota because of high tariffs against german imports as opposed to Japanese ones. (Consequently they don't compete with Toyota... Lexus being no competition for a MBZ.)

      You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol

      Marinol is a synthetic substitute for just one of the many psychoactive compounds in marijuana and it is about an order of magnitude less effective than the real thing. Also, Marinol comes from big pharma, so they make money on it. Which pretty much proves that it's about big pharma. I can't even believe you said what you said. How much did big pharma give YOU?

      At the end of the day, couldn't this really be just a matter of politicians viewing pot as being dangerous?

      Yes, but only completely fucking ignorant ones who have no business voting on anything marijuana-related.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    56. Re:Obligatory by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A UCLA study proved that weed didn't raise your lung cancer risk and may actually reduce it some years ago. ALL the supposed evils of WEED have got NO backing evidence.

      Our government is seriously fucking evil. They force companies to print a label about how milk with rBGH is indistinguishable from milk without it even though it has been shown in a court of law in this country that it IS distinguishable and further, it is PROVEN INFERIOR. They tell us that Marijuana has no medical benefit while big pharma profits from selling us an inferior synthetic copy of one of the major constituents of marijuana. They told us they knew Saddam had WMDs — and we did know that he had them at one time, because we managed to find traces of the sarin gas that we sold him... but no smoking gun, just a little smoke. Bush promises to simplify the tax code and its size quadruples during his administration. Obama promises to close gitmo which can be done with a signature. At this point I assume that everything my government tells me is a lie. It is safer than the alternative.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and indica...

    58. Re:Obligatory by xaxa · · Score: 1

      This argument has actually been tried in court - when legislation carefully specified not only the species of plant being banned (Cannabis sativa) but even the botanical authority that provided the classification from a type specimen (probably included in legislation because it sounded more imposing)

      Without the authority you can't be certain what someone's talking about -- multiple people can have used the same name to refer to two different plants.

      This is a problem for customs people, when people trying to smuggle stuff use an old name which isn't explicitly on a "banned" list. It's also a problem in other laws, but I don't have any examples.

      (I tried to find the type specimen for Cannabis sativa, but I don't think it's been digitised.)

    59. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded funny and not informative?

    60. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So... the reason it's illegal in most places outside of the US is?

      Because America spent decades applying strong diplomatic pressure to encourage first, the creation of the various UN anti-drug treaties and second, their adoption by countries that didn't much care either way.

      If you think this is impracticable, look at the zeal with which America is trying to foist its vision of intellectual property upon the world, and the success it's having.

    61. Re:Obligatory by squizzar · · Score: 1

      True, but then surely it's up to god to judge you for your sins. Judgement is for god, everyone else should love you as they love themselves. Of course I can see how people would feel awkward if they misunderstood that sentence...

    62. Re:Obligatory by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you truly want to use it, move your happy ass to a state that you can get it legally.

      There is no such state. There are only states where getting it is not a violation of state law.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    63. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You characterise Him as being a voyeur, but God doesn't have a choice! He doesn't have a choice about being omnipresent, it's just the way He is. When will people learn that He just doesn't want to see you slamming your junk all the time! I mean, what would you do if you HAD to see all the shit people do across the world 24/7. I'd flip shit and tear things up like in the Old Testament, and I'd probably go all loopy like in the New T as well.

    64. Re:Obligatory by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Actually it makes you a social moderate. It doesn't speak at all of your fiscal views.

      If you're fiscal view are the same as the Tea Party, that makes you a dumb ass.

      Tell that to those that wrote the 10th Amendment.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    65. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off.

    66. Re:Obligatory by spun · · Score: 1

      No, "below 0.3%" is not the same thing as "around 0.3%." You could try it, but most industrial hemp has a LOT less than 0.3%, to ensure the suppliers do not get into legal trouble.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    67. Re:Obligatory by spun · · Score: 1

      The laws have changed since the Tax Act was first implemented, basically, when the program was started, you needed a stamp on your cannabis and hemp in order to get a stamp on your cannabis and hemp. Simply putting a bunch of domestic hemp growers out of business was good enough for DuPont. Marinol was patented when it first came out, which actually makes my case for me: big pharma would rather sell a patented synthetic chemical compound than an unpatentable plant which contains the same compound.

      You might want to try the stuff, did you know it can relax the anal sphincter and help get your head out of your ass?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    68. Re:Obligatory by spun · · Score: 1

      Marinol is now out of patent, but it was certainly patented (and expensive) when it first came out.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    69. Re:Obligatory by spun · · Score: 1

      Obama has instructed the DOJ not to investigate or prosecute medical marijuana cases.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    70. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it makes you a social moderate. It doesn't speak at all of your fiscal views.

      If you're fiscal view are the same as the Tea Party, that makes you a dumb ass.

      it's "If your fiscal views are"...

    71. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're sure you didn't mean "them thar bedrooms"?

      ...says the guy named "Clem"

    72. Re:Obligatory by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      One can only conclude that if it is true growing hemp is banned so nobody hides cannabis in hemp fields, that it is a law made in ignorance that should be repealed.

      Since when has ignorance been grounds for repeal of a law???

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  2. Makes Sense by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    It makes sense that they would sprout flowers considering my shoes end up smelling like fertilizer after I've worn them too long.

    1. Re:Makes Sense by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Packaged with seeds in the tongue doesn't sound too promising either.
      People wash sneakers. (Well, ok, Moms wash sneakers). And it rains.
      I'm not sure walking around with feet looking like a Chia Pet is going to be that big of a fashion statement.

      Still there is a wide variety of what people consider biodegradable. Rock is biodegradable. Years ago
      several grocery chains came out with biodegradable plastic bags which they claimed would be degraded by sunlight.

      Stapled to the side of my house, they showed not the slightest sign of weathering or degrading for
      5 years till my wife made me take them down.

      Out of sight out of mind. But how long in the ground?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Makes Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You honestly think washing biodegradable sneakers is a good idea?

    3. Re:Makes Sense by icebike · · Score: 2

      I've had teenagers.
      They've had sneakers.
      So.... Yeah, not only a good idea, but an absolute necessity.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Makes Sense by jshackney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or wearing them in the rain?

      I don't know about you, but I keep my sneakers for a VERY long time. I can count on one hand the number of pairs I've purchased over the past 20 years--and still have a couple free fingers. I love the biodegradable idea, and I really like the photo of the shoes. They look great! I just don't want to take a chance that flowers are going to sprout from my shoes before I'm done with them.

    5. Re:Makes Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can count on one hand the number of pairs I've purchased over the past 20 years [...] I just don't want to take a chance that flowers are going to sprout from my shoes before I'm done with them.

      What about some mushrooms? In the absence of them, some microscopic fungi perhaps?

    6. Re:Makes Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wearing your sneakers to climb the stairs from your parents' basement to the dining room doesn't count.

      As a teenager, I probably went through a pair every 6 months, whether by growing out of it or by wear and tear. It's stabilized now, but then you and I are not the target market of this product.

    7. Re:Makes Sense by macshit · · Score: 1

      Packaged with seeds in the tongue doesn't sound too promising either. People wash sneakers. (Well, ok, Moms wash sneakers). And it rains.

      hmm, well they could encapsulate the tongue-seeds in some of the "biodegradable plastic" from the soles; then they wouldn't sprout until a shoe was well and truly kaput...

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    8. Re:Makes Sense by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I keep my sneakers for a VERY long time. I can count on one hand the number of pairs I've purchased over the past 20 years--and still have a couple free fingers. I love the biodegradable idea, and I really like the photo of the shoes. They look great! I just don't want to take a chance that flowers are going to sprout from my shoes before I'm done with them.

      Do you actually wear them? Mine seem to wear out in less than a year. Even if I buy slightly more expensive ones they don't last.

      However, I do walk at least 3km outside and cycle at least 15km every day, which is (unfortunately) a lot more than many people.

    9. Re:Makes Sense by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      You can air them out by slinging them over some power lines. That seems to be where allot of old shoes end up.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    10. Re:Makes Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Packaged with seeds in the tongue doesn't sound too promising either.
      People wash sneakers. (Well, ok, Moms wash sneakers). And it rains.
      I'm not sure walking around with feet looking like a Chia Pet is going to be that big of a fashion statement.

      Good point, the seeds might not be the biggest problem - will they begin to break down if you step in a puddle?

    11. Re:Makes Sense by jshackney · · Score: 1

      Yep, well, sort of. At home, I generally remove my shoes and muck about in slippers or barefoot. The Adidas Supernova Control 10 that I have right now was purchased about 4 years ago. I thought I was going to run with them, but knee problems have cancelled that plan permanently. The only thing wrong with these shoes is that they have the most annoying squeak when the heel strikes. Otherwise, they're in great condition (just a little stretched and greyed, and the sole is losing some of its tread) I only wear them when exercising now, mostly due to the noise. Otherwise, I have some slip-on shoes that I've had since probably around 2002 or so. They're finally starting to fall apart on the inside. I go through work shoes a little faster--about one pair every two years right now. I usually just get rid of them when they will no longer take a polish.

      Since high school, I've had one pair of Nike Air Pegasus and two pairs of Adidas Supernovas for my regular every day sneakers. The thing is, I'm usually either in slippers or my dress shoes.

  3. Life Time by KermodeBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long are these shoes expected to last under normal use? I have shoes that I bought four years ago, and aside from replacing the insoles a few times, they're perfectly fine. No reason to toss them out. I'm not sure how viable a product these would be if they need to be replaced every few months because they're disintegrating.

    --
    Love sees no species.
    1. Re:Life Time by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What brand was that?

      I cannot get a pair of sneakers to make it more than a year tops and dress shoes never past a couple. I am not buying walmart shoes here, so a shoe that lasts 4 years would be a huge money saver.

      I used to buy doc martins, but paying $100+ for a chinese made shoe is crazy talk.

    2. Re:Life Time by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      My $15 Starbury hightops have lasted me for 4 years.
      My $10 Starbury lowtops lasted 1 year
      My Born leather dress shoes have lasted 7 years(I have black and brown)

    3. Re:Life Time by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      How are the soles doing? I usually wear down the tread in about a year.

    4. Re:Life Time by heypete · · Score: 2

      How about the Doc Martens For Life shoes?

      Sure, they're made in Thailand, but they've held up really well for me. Not like the cheaper Chinese ones. For $20 in shipping/handling, they'll replace them for life. Not a bad deal in my view.

      The Vintage line of Doc Martens is still made in England. While not guaranteed for life, they're still better quality than the Chinese-made Docs.

    5. Re:Life Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I find the fancier the shoe.. the quicker it wears out.

      I actually buy most of my cloths from a place that sells mainly to people who work in construction / oil / other trades. The cloths I find there tend to be more aimed at someone who has to actually move around and spend a day working in their cloths, rather than just looking nice while standing. Where I work I have to look "respectable" but not "uptight business" .. so I can usually find something I can get away with.

      The shoes I'm wearing look dressy-enough .. but are steel toe and sole .. and have handled multiple atlantic canada winters trudging through salt and snow with nothing that a wipe down now and then to get the salt buildup off. Not to mention they have a tread on them that rivals most snow tires and are completely waterproof. Contrast that to the fancy dress shoes I used to buy that wouldn't even make it through the year.

    6. Re:Life Time by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      $150 for life sounds interesting. Thanks for letting me know about that. I totally stopped paying any attention to Doc Martens when they started producing shoes in China and still charged the old prices.

    7. Re:Life Time by DRMShill · · Score: 1

      Well the cushioning on running shoes becomes ineffective past about 6 months so I could see a use for it there.

    8. Re:Life Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say I've been buying those Walmart House brand shoes. My last pair of slip-on tennis shoes, despite me stomping down the heel to slip them on quicker, lasted me for about 3 years before they finally started showing holes (the elastic went out quicker, but I had sized them close enough that it didn't matter, and up until I started slogging through the yard in the rainy season in them they looked plenty presentable.

      Point being: Just because they're selling them for more money, doesn't mean they're any better. I got a hundred plus dollar pair of Nike Cross-trainers back in Junior high, and after slipping and almost breaking my neck in them on some glazed concrete at my school (which never gave me any trouble in my hiking boots, which cost half as much) I came to the conclusion spending anything more than a pair of converse all-stars (back before they were nike) is unnecessary except for dress and hiking purposes.

    9. Re:Life Time by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      With further reading it is not $150 for life. You must also pay shipping, and a $30 fee each time you send them back for repair. So this is really just normal shoes with discounted repair prices.

    10. Re:Life Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actually what I did, then they eminent domained the place that had been in downtown for 50 years in order to let Westfield or someone 'redevelop' it. They then sat on it for like 4-5 years before basically slapping a coat of paint on it and charging people out the ass for rent.

      Score one for american free market. The market is free of competitors that is :D

    11. Re:Life Time by sexconker · · Score: 1

      What brand was that?

      I cannot get a pair of sneakers to make it more than a year tops and dress shoes never past a couple. I am not buying walmart shoes here, so a shoe that lasts 4 years would be a huge money saver.

      I used to buy doc martins, but paying $100+ for a chinese made shoe is crazy talk.

      You may not be buying shoes from WalMart, but you're buying the same shoes from the same workers in the same factories run by the same companies.

      Unless you're buying hand-crafted shoes from a shop where you can shake the hand of the person that made the shoe, you're getting slave labor, mass-produced, low-quality, "WalMart shoes".

    12. Re:Life Time by peragrin · · Score: 2

      that is my problem. i usually break the sole every 6 months or so no matter how much money i spend on them. Doesn't matter if it is 100 dress shoe, $100 cross trainers, or $30 cheap sneakers, 6-9 months is all the last. and then I have cracks in the sole that lets water seep through, the sides are well worn, and I have replaced the laces once.

      I am on my feet 10 hours a day, every day. My feet don't hurt when i get home unless the insoles break so I know I need replacements simply because my feet get wet and are sore.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    13. Re:Life Time by hedwards · · Score: 2

      The answer to that, is don't waste your money on running shoes. The cushioning actually causes you to strike the ground harder as your feet can't sense that they're on solid ground. Despite what shoe companies might tell you, the reality is that most of those injuries didn't become prevalent until the introduction of running shoes.

      As long as the shoes are still level they're still perfectly good. The one thing you do want to avoid is where they cause your ankles to get out of alignment.

    14. Re:Life Time by jshackney · · Score: 1

      I get about 5-7 years out of my Adidas Supernova. I've been getting the Control 10 model. They run about $80 and up. I used to run a lot more than I do now and that would push the life of the shoe down to about 6-12 months.

      At $40 a pair, my work shoes are now going into year three and will probably need replacing in the next six months. $40 every three years beats the hell out of my old Johnston & Murphy's which barely made it a year before falling apart.

    15. Re:Life Time by heypete · · Score: 1

      More or less. That said, the "for life" shoes are made a bit more tough than the ordinary shoes. There's a thicker sole, different leather for the shoe, and what appears to be heavier stitching (I'm sure the website has all the details). I'm still on my first pair of them, and they seem to be lasting quite a bit longer than my previous shoes.

      Even if I did need to replace them annually through the warranty (and, after about a year of owning them, it looks like it'd be far longer than that) I'd end up saving money rather than buying new shoes every year.

    16. Re:Life Time by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So then please provide at least a website that would let one do something like that.

      My next jeans are going to be some made in Texas ones, so at least they are getting paid minimum wage.

    17. Re:Life Time by wrook · · Score: 1

      My guess is that water is needed to break down the materials. Some of the plastics might break down from sunlight, though. If you are using them a lot outdoors, then I think they will break down. If you are storing them in your closet, or wearing them around the office, I bet that they don't.

      I chew through shoes at a fairly fast rate. But I usually walk about 10 km every day in them. For a shoe similar to the ones in the photo, it usually takes only 6 months before they have enough holes in them that I have to chuck them. For that kind of use they would be ideal. My office shoes are perfectly intact after 4 years, but I only wear them indoors. I would guess these shoes would perform similarly.

    18. Re:Life Time by tsm_sf · · Score: 1
      Got to plug a local favorite here...

      I don't know that Filson has an explicit lifetime guarantee, but they've repaired a jacket belonging to my grandfather, then my dad, then myself for free ever since the GP (hehe) bought it in the 40's.

      Oh wait, they sort of do:

      "We guarantee every item purchased from us. No more, no less. Your satisfaction is the sole purpose of our transaction."

      -Clinton C. Filson, 1897

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    19. Re:Life Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never had sneakers last more than two years under moderate use. I mean, I could technically keep using them, and they look OK, but they're significantly degraded as far as comfort goes.

    20. Re:Life Time by IICV · · Score: 1

      Do you wear the same shoes every day?

      I've found that even if I only alternate between two pairs of shoes, they last more than twice as long as a single pair worn every day.

    21. Re:Life Time by hldn · · Score: 1

      i've been wearing a pair of stanley work shoes (they have steel toes, but they look just like a pair of sneakers) for about 7 years now, and they show no signs of slowing down any time soon. i replaced the shoestrings about a year ago, but that's it.

      i think they were on sale when i got them, $40~ at payless.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    22. Re:Life Time by Afty0r · · Score: 1

      How long are these shoes expected to last under normal use?

      Until they go out of fashion. So 12-24 months.

    23. Re:Life Time by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As long as the shoes are still level they're still perfectly good. The one thing you do want to avoid is where they cause your ankles to get out of alignment.

      I don't think this is true. I think old running shoes with worn out foam soles probably cause worse posture. You end up with some broken-ass old foam in the back, for example. Odds are you'd be better off barefoot if it weren't for all the broken glass, discarded nails and so on that we've littered our environment with. And of course, walking around barefoot for a day in any city coats the bottoms of your feet with road oil. Yum.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Life Time by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Imagine what running across a wet field would do to them.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    25. Re:Life Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The manufacturer will put seeds in the tongue. In my case, to keep changes to the environment a minimum, they will be skunk cabbage seeds.

    26. Re:Life Time by PickyH3D · · Score: 1

      I would bet that it depends on the use of the shoes. In the shoes that I use to work out in, then I get less than a year out of them before they are done. Shoes that I only wear to work tend to last about two years before they either look too ratty (one too many trips in the rain), or they themselves wear out (usually because I'll forget my workout shoes occasionally, and use these instead).

      On the other hand, my Bostonians are going on 3+ years now. But they better, because I take good care of them and hardly use them!

  4. Flower Power! by iRommel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's not kid ourselves, this will get you laid in the right social circles.

  5. It's a trap by zoobaby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good way to introduce invasive species.

    1. Re:It's a trap by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Like everyone else, they too are just trying to get a shoe in.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a Monsanto trap!

    3. Re:It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warning to wearers: DO NOT SWEAT unless you want trees in your shoes.

    4. Re:It's a trap by RancidPeanutOil · · Score: 1

      it's the classic "think globally, introduce non-native species locally."

    5. Re:It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you I thought. Won't get them here in Australia.

  6. The important question is... by bwayne314 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How much of a pollution footprint do these generate *during production*?

    1. Re:The important question is... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1, Informative

      Just look at the price, that will give you a ceiling anyway.

  7. paul stamet's lifeboxes by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Fungi fun guy paul stamets has invented and sells a cardboard box then when planted first grows a crop of mushrooms, then old growth forest trees.
    http://www.lifeboxcompany.com/

    1. Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fungi fun guy paul stamets has invented and sells a cardboard box then when planted first grows a crop of mushrooms, then old growth forest trees.

      That explains a lot. My backyard has been infested with a large number of tree-hugging hippies and I didn't know why.

      I was mildly surprised to see a large of mushrooms come up where we buried Tabby when she died. Then a bit more surprised to see my backyard turn into an old-growth forest. But the last straw has been these hippies driving spikes into the trees at all hours of the day and night.

      I should have gone down to the FedEx store and bought a real box to put her in instead of using one I had lying around.

    2. Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far superior to the first design, which only grew new growth trees.

    3. Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes by maxume · · Score: 1

      An old growth forest tree is a tree growing in an old growth forest (which apparently largely refers to the forest having recovered from any human disturbance).

      Seedlings in a box don't seem to be old growth trees.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Old growth forest trees for... where? I live in the Pacific Northwest, where the climax forest is very different from where I grew up in the Carolina Piedmont. New England is different from both, and much of the Midwest was prairie rather than forest... And that's just here in the United States!
       
      Nor can you just plant an old growth forest, as often they go through multiple cycles with different tree and plant species mixing before reaching the metastable climax state.

    5. Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Paul Stamets had a ted talk on this subject. His research shows that fungi can cause the creation of fertile topsoil for plants to grow.

      http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_the_world.html

    6. Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Google was also sending out letters to adwords people with seeds embedded in the paper so you could just plant the paper.

    7. Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      If you have to "tabby" any of these hippies, for whatever reason comes to mind, make sure you check their shoes first.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  8. Remember Customatix? by sdguero · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customatix

    My friend worked for them circa 2001-2003. People thought they were going to blow up. Problem is, the kids want shoes that they have heard of. Addidas, Vans, Nike. Screw the environment if you are going to look like a dork.

    1. Re:Remember Customatix? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Looks like they let you customize what the shoe looks like, which seems like the wrong thing to be customizing. Making shoes from molds of the wearers feet would have been at least interesting to someone.

    2. Re:Remember Customatix? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Depends on the age. Most kids just want shows the light up, preferably with spiderman on them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  9. This is a great idea by arcite · · Score: 1

    I think they could bring to the next level though. Tree seeds! The world needs more forests, clearly. Although I fear that implanting walnut seeds or pine-cones may too drastically affect the aerodynamics of the sneaker. But at least it would be for a good cause.

    1. Re:This is a great idea by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Neither walnut or pine seeds are large. They're about the size of the fingernail on your pinkie, or even smaller. But we have no shortage of forests in North America, or well really even Europe. There's been a net gain in the last 100 years by a staggering amount, and the places where you'd want forests(like parts of Africa, or South America, and Asia), no one will buy these anyway.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:This is a great idea by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      But we have no shortage of forests in North America, or well really even Europe.

      For a given value of 'forest'.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    3. Re:This is a great idea by macshit · · Score: 1

      But we have no shortage of forests in North America, or well really even Europe. There's been a net gain in the last 100 years by a staggering amount.

      Of course, one of the big reasons for that is that in the slightly-more-distant past, people had gone completely bonzo insane with their forest-razing. More recently, the forest-razing hasn't been quite as bonzo...

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    4. Re:This is a great idea by tragedy · · Score: 1

      There might not be a shortage of forests, but there's a bit of a monoculture problem.

  10. Seeds on my shoes? by Octopuscabbage · · Score: 2

    Last time i tried to put my seeds on someones shoes I was put in jail for a quite a long while. So unfair :(

  11. Seeds in the Tongue by theelectron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Bio-cotton?' As opposed to what? Is that a way of saying organic cotton in other cultures? Also, what advantage does organic cotton have over regular cotton when used for shoes? The feel good factor, I suppose. Anyway, wouldn't the seeds in the tongue be a problem when they start sprouting from the moisture/sweat from your feet?

    1. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I would imagine the advantage is to the people living near the cotton field more than the wearer. When we lived in Georgia as kids my bother always had "asthma" when they sprayed the cotton to kill it. Growing cotton is nasty business. As an army family we moved a lot and no where else did he ever have "asthma". I call it that as it is what the DR claimed it was.

    2. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by heypete · · Score: 1

      I suppose it's because they don't use artificial pesticides and the like on the cotton, which is intended to be better for the environment (not being an environmental scientist, I have no idea if this is actually the case). While it might not directly benefit the shoe-wearer, being able to have less of a personal impact on the environment seems like a reasonable benefit.

    3. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call it that as it is what the DR claimed it was.

      #SYNTAX ERROR.

    4. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by egladil · · Score: 1

      I've alwats found "organic something" to be quite a strange way to indicate that something is environmentally friendly or the such. Organic cotton as opposed to inorganic cotton? It's a plant, it's organic by default :)

    5. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by Demonantis · · Score: 1
      I have seen the numbers cited on the news now and again. But all I could find is this shitty article with google. It is a huge problem and it is not being addressed. I guess people forget that cotton is a plant.

      Cotton is the most toxic crop on the planet. While only three percentof the world's farming acreage is cotton, these crops are sprayed withup to 25 percent of the world's pesticides and herbicides, includingsome of the most toxic ones, such as aldicarb.

      http://wafreepress.org/60/cottonWorldsMostToxic.htm

    6. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      REDO FROM START

    7. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, the strong voice of anecdote.

      Sigh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by moonbender · · Score: 1

      'Bio-cotton?' As opposed to what? Is that a way of saying organic cotton in other cultures?

      Yep. Blame somewhat careless translation (from Dutch, apparently).

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    9. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by sirrunsalot · · Score: 2

      'Bio-cotton?'

      Biocotton(?):

      BioCotton is the brand name of a new semi-manufactured finished product derived from organic cotton, which is obtained using bio-dynamic cultivation techniques. This form of cultivation substitutes chemical fertilizers and pesticides with certified natural fertilizers and with a programmed rotation of the cotton fields . Bio-dynamic cultivation takes into account the lunar phases best adapted for sowing. This is preceded by the introduction of homeopathic substances into the earth (such as mineral silicon) which reinforces soil structure. From this type of cultivation comes a high quality and easily worked product. The pure biological nature of the cotton makes this fiber both non-allergic and usable without warning indications even for people who are hypersensitive or affected with special skin pathologies (it doesn't alter neutral Ph), by breastfeeding or future mothers, by hospitals.

      P.S. I'm just the messenger. Don't shoot.

    10. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by ekgringo · · Score: 1

      +++ OUT OF CHEESE ERROR

    11. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by RancidPeanutOil · · Score: 3, Funny

      My Mom's old boyfriend did a study on anecdotes and it turned out that anecdotes are generally accurate. That's just one study, but it's pretty easy to extrapolate to a larger sample.

    12. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah the strong sound of wind coming out of an oddly shaped hat....

      Ewww.

    13. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by blinkus · · Score: 1

      Seriously?

      Screw the parent. What does it matter if he's wrong or right? Do you really need some guy's word to prove or disprove the obvious harm to the environment and human health that industrial agriculture produces? The evidence is, literally, all around you!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_cotton
      http://www.ota.com/organic/environment/cotton_environment.html

      Do your own fucking googling next time and save your smart ass quips.

    14. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The advantage of organic cotton is the lack of negative impact on the soil. Pesticides and herbicides eventually kill the organisms that give dirt it's vitality thus requiring continued applications of unsustainable inputs. Not to mention the detrimental effects of petrochemical-based fertilizers, dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi as the most well-known example. There's been a massive loss of top soil in modern times that's directly related to non-organic farming. See the movie 'Dirt' iffen you're interested. http://www.archive.org/details/DirtTheMovie

      Seeds sprouting from your sweat sounds like classic planned obsolescence to me...

    15. Re:Seeds in the Tongue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To tell you the truth I have problems with the term "organic crops" too. All plants are organic because they are organism! And the we have "people talking with bluetooths" man it drives me insane.

  12. Ma! My sneaks got wet! by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

    There's flowers growin' out of 'em!

    --
    Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
  13. Have Fun in the Rain by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    That tread pattern looks like it's going to make your ass glide like an ice skater when you take a step on wet cement.

  14. Re:Ma! My sneaks got wet! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Look on the bright side. At least your shoes will always smell like flowers instead of stinky feet. No more odor eaters needed.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  15. No Shit? by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

    That is amazing!

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  16. Easier method: by The+Hatchet · · Score: 0, Troll

    Go barefoot. It is healthy, clean, fun, cheap, easy, etc. The dangers that you will undoubtedly list in response to this are not dangerous at all, I, and many people I know, have spent years walking long distances, even running them, totally barefoot on everything from gravel to bushwhacking to hot asphalt. Shoes collect sweat and hold it against the skin, in a dank, warm, dark environment. Perfect for growing fungus and bacteria. The feet of a barefooter look leaps and bounds better those of a shoe-person.

    So seriously, if you want to be environmentally friendly, just stop wearing shoes altogether.

    --
    Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    1. Re:Easier method: by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So broken glass, sharp rocks etc, how do you deal with those?

    2. Re:Easier method: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Umm...I don't step on them when barefoot?

    3. Re:Easier method: by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      What device do you use to detect very small pieces of glass, especially the clear kind from car headlights that often ends up on sidewalks after accidents?

    4. Re:Easier method: by adamdoyle · · Score: 1

      Or you could just wear flip-flops. Eliminates the sweat problem AND the dangerous surface problems. And you can wear them in stores that say "shoes required."

    5. Re:Easier method: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this works brilliantly for those of us with Raynaud's syndrome who need to wear socks to keep our feet warm.

    6. Re:Easier method: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not wearing sues is for amateur environmentalist! I mean without shoes you can't go into a store or a restaurant, or most places of business. So as a second way of helping mother earth, surely you are consuming less of everything! Surely the nasty look and smell of your feet is a small price to pay for saving the entire planet...

      Now, why not go even further? I believe normal progression is to next stop wearing clothes completely to prevent all those slave shops from operating and textile mills from polluting our planet! Surely your hippie friends won't mind and since you don't wear shoes, you probably never leave the house anyways...

      And don't even think about reading or watching any form of media as it is a gross waste of natural resources! If you really, really wanna save the planet, just withdrawal from society completely!

    7. Re:Easier method: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the same thing people did for thousands of years. Step more carefully. Pay attention to where you walk. It isn't as hard as it sounds.

      I hate wearing shoes. I wear them as little as I can, though I usually wear them when I got outside, I find myself doing that less and less these days (even when it is 20 to 30 degrees outside, as long as I don't have to be out there for more than a few minutes.) With proper callouses, even sharp rocks aren't as much of a problem as you expect. People didn't wear shoes for a very long time, and even sandals are newer than most people think.

    8. Re:Easier method: by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Go barefoot. It is healthy, clean, fun, cheap, easy, etc

      No no no NO! Wrong! The use of the shoe has been used going as far back as 8000 BC and maybe even to 40,000 BC. And there's a reason. Thorns cut and rocks hurt. They also lead to infection and WORMS should you be walking around in shallow freshwater with a cut. Some regions on Earth maybe more safe than others, but it's always risky regardless. Hence why man invented the shoe so long ago.

      Now with modern materials, you can still have that free feeling of running barefoot with barefoot running shoes. Just Google them. They're supposed to be the next fad in sportswear.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:Easier method: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Band aids

    10. Re:Easier method: by heypete · · Score: 1

      What device do you use to detect very small pieces of glass, especially the clear kind from car headlights that often ends up on sidewalks after accidents?

      Feet.

    11. Re:Easier method: by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Not a lot of glass to avoid thousands of years ago.

    12. Re:Easier method: by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. You are fucking up your feet.
      Have you looked at the feet of people that never wear shoes? I have and it's nasty. The have a hell of a lot of foot problems.

      People invented foot wear for a reason. Which goes back 1000's of years.

      research this shit, don't just spew what you 'think' is right.
      Start here:
      http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4185

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Easier method: by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they are and they aren't good for your feet.
      Better then bare foot, but no support causes pains in the knees and back later in life.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Easier method: by geekoid · · Score: 0

      People din't have tiny sliver of glass 1000 years ago, they did, however, have foot wear.

      Sandals data back 10,000 years, so I don't know that the fuck you are talking about, and I suspect you don't either.

      moron.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Easier method: by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      Hominids have been walking barefoot for 1.5 million years. We had simple sandals, thin leather, to make running long distances easier. Right now we don't have that, we have thick, obstructive, ridiculous blocks of plastic.

      Also, thin slivers of wood, cactus needles, rocks, and obsidian, snakes, and any other harmful things to step on. People dealt with it, and shoes were at most for occassional use, or very cold weather. Not this 24/7 obsession with the beastly shit.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    16. Re:Easier method: by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      Anything that small doesn't penetrate the skin.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    17. Re:Easier method: by moonbender · · Score: 1

      People didn't wear shoes for a very long time, and even sandals are newer than most people think.

      Thank you. That simple comment just had me

      • read/gloss over the Wikipedia articles for sandals and footwear
      • look for (unsuccessfully) an article on "history of footwear"
      • google for "footwear in the (sic!) ancient greece" (wanted to go for the middle ages initially)
      • stumble on a blog named History of Sandals
      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    18. Re:Easier method: by sirrunsalot · · Score: 1

      Lots 'o rocks though.

    19. Re:Easier method: by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Those are all completely false allegations. First of all, anything large you can avoid stepping on, and anything small doesn't penetrate the skin. Worms need an opening to get through, and in primitive peoples entered most often from the food people ate, not from the surface of the skin.

      Also, shoes increase the likelihood of getting an injury infected. Shoes are, like I said, warm, dark, and dank. Perfect for bacteria to grow and multiply. Wearing shoes keeps the injuring material in the foot, and the hazard carries bacteria from the shoe into the wound.

      Also, the furthest back record of shoes is 10,000 years ago, and in those cases all that was found was simple, flexible leather soles. The first record of closed toed shoes was only 3,000 years ago, and the first record of rigid soled shoes was purely high fashion around the past few hundred years, but barefooting has been standard behavior for almost everyone in society everywhere in the world except China and parts of the Arab world for all but the past 40 years.

      It appears you are not only clueless, but deluded, moronic, and prone to make snap judgements when you have no information pertaining to the subject at hand. It is people like you that have allowed sick bastards to work their way into our legal system for the express purpose of making the rich richer at the expense of everybody else in society, while hurting business, markets, consumers, the environment, and long term economic and political stability. You should be ashamed.

      Also, I have a pair of Vibram 5 fingers only because footwear is required in my chemistry labs, and for a research project I did last semester that involved studying an urban stream full of rusted metal, glass, and crap like that that was obstructed from view by murky water and mud. For everyday walking, I much prefer to keep my feet out in the open air, showing off my wonderfully well kept feet and bold colors of nail polish. Not in those disgusting foot coffins thank you.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    20. Re:Easier method: by The+Hatchet · · Score: 0

      Clearly you are misinformed, there are huge bodies of research studying the biomechanics of walking in and out of shoes. Shoes force feet into unnaturally contorted positions, permanently deforming them, atrophying the muscles and skin, and destroying a persons feet.

      Two years ago, I wore shoes all the time, I had nasty, ugly feet. I have been going barefoot for two years, and my feet have transformed to looking absolutely sexy. Most girls I know agree with me, and many other time lapse photos of barefooters feet show drastic improvements once shoes have been ditched. Clearly you don't have a fucking clue.

      That article was poorly written, sickeningly biased, presented no evidence, no studies, no anything at all to back up its claims.

      Two years ago, when I walked long distance, my ankles hurt, my feet hurt, my knees and back hurt, and I wore shoes with strong arch supports. Fast forward to today, after 2 years of no footwear whatsoever, and I have no foot, ankle, knee, or back pain at all anymore.

      You should be modded -5 Troll

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    21. Re:Easier method: by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Since there is essentially no protection of the foot, some of the more obvious issues include cuts, abrasions, bruises, or puncture wounds from glass, nails, rocks, or thorns. Poisonous plants, animals, or parasites can enter the body through the cuts on an injured bare foot – footwear can be valuable in protecting them. Hookworm larvae (found only in warm, moist climates), can also easily burrow through a bare human foot.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot

      How in the hell did you get modded up? Mods are on crack today.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    22. Re:Easier method: by rylin · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.
      I thought I had a tiny splinter in my heel a few months ago, which was seriously annoying me when I wanted to go get shitfaced.

      Couldn't see it with my own eye, and couldn't feel it sticking out with my finger.

      Went to my local doc who numbed my foot, made a tiny incision and pulled out a 3cm glass shard out of my heel.
      The thing was around half a milimeter wide; and the only reason I could actually see it up close was because it was covered in blood.

      YMMV, of course, but if I couldn't see that from half a meter, I doubt you'd be able to see it on the pavement.

      Unless you're a midget.

    23. Re:Easier method: by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      You may not agree with him, but sickeningly biased? His main point seemed to be that "the jury is still out" and that some of the benefits listed in the materials presented by proponents are unproven.

    24. Re:Easier method: by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      Assuming that was attacking me (as it was a response to my message) then let me just say that that is totally fallacious. I know podiatrists and have been going barefoot for years, as have hundreds of others on www.barefooters.org and none of us have ever had a parasite issue, none of us have ever run into anything but minor injuries and cuts (nothing comparable to a broken ankle though), and it foot wear does far more harm than good.

      Take this for example: Going barefoot, there is a *small chance* of minor injury like cuts and scrapes. Wearing shoes, there is a *large chance* of major injuries like broken ankles, permanent ankle, knee, hip, back joint damage and it is *inevitable* that you will acquire fungal infections of the foot wearing closed shoes more than 2 hours a day.

      I would take small chance of minor injury over large chance of major injury and inevitable health problems in eventuality.

      All parasites that enter the human body do so through the digestive track, from either end, with a few exceptions that enter the body anywhere on the skin, and those are far more likely to penetrate the thin skin of the arms, legs, chest, stomach, back, than they are to enter the very thick, strong skin on the soles of the feet or the palms of the hand.

      But don't let facts stop you.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    25. Re:Easier method: by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      And let me guess, you wear shoes all the time? The skin on your feet is probably what, 1/8 of an inch thick? 1/16th? That is not natural. The skin on my feet is more like 1/4 inch thick, soft and leathery, and I have never gotten a sliver in 2 years of urban barefooting, walking over broken glass for part of my walks every single day, traversing more than 2 miles per day. So Bullshit on you.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    26. Re:Easier method: by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      Thats just it, the jury isn't still out, there are enormous piles of research, not to mention anecdotal evidence from people who haven't worn shoes for years, in environments from woodland trails to urban wastelands, never with any issues, everything from walking to sprinting.

      Second, there has never been a study, a research paper, or any evidence whatsoever that footwear can provide any kind of help whatsoever, but tons of evidence that shoes are incredibly harmful.

      I read through the article he posted, and it was full of hate language, the language was angry and just smelled of bias, and the information presented was the same old urban myths about the possible benefits of shoes that have never been proven, but are often disproven.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    27. Re:Easier method: by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      Interesting thought. Try wearing a mitten on your non-dominant hand for 8 hours a day, except splint it so that your hands can't move at all and put in supports to mold to the shape of your hand. I give it 30 days before your hand is so weak that trying to type with it causes pain and gets sore after more than a few words. Arch supports serve no purpose besides stopping the muscles in your feet from working.

      When I ditched shoes, the pain that I had in my joints when I wore shoes disappeared, and I can now exercise many hours a day and live my life pain free. Shoes were slowly destroying my health. Many barefooters have done it for decades and are reporting positive results into their 60s, and even 70s.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
  17. Hmmm ... I wonder where the seeds come from ... by jc42 · · Score: 2

    What will most likely happen when you plant your shoes is that you'll get a crop of plants native to Asia, which will quickly become agricultural pests in your part of the world.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:Hmmm ... I wonder where the seeds come from ... by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      The danger of invasive species is indeed a big worry with a product like this, ignoring its other, more pressing and short term problems.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
  18. Grim Fandango? by hobb0001 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who immediately thought of Grim Fandango and sproutella darts?

    1. Re:Grim Fandango? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We may have days, we may have hours. But sooner or later, we all push up flowers...

  19. I'll buy them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if they come in size 14 - but only because I can't afford to be picky. Stupid bell curves.

  20. You're not a runner by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Someone who runs 10 - 20 miles / week is supposed to replace their shoes at least twice / year

    1. Re:You're not a runner by Hatta · · Score: 1

      How often are they supposed to replace their knees?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:You're not a runner by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not true, there's no particular clinical evidence to support that claim. It's something that the shoe companies tell people to justify overspending on shoes. You wear the shoes until they haven't got any traction or they start to let your legs out of alignment as you run. Depending upon the shoe that might be sooner, or later than that. Guidelines like that tend to be largely useless.

      And personally, I've found shoes to be the main source of my foot problems. It's hard to have good posture or motion if you're feet aren't strong, and shoes tend to discourage your feet from staying strong.

    3. Re:You're not a runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhat less often than non-runners, recent studies have shown.

    4. Re:You're not a runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      constantly...
      don't over do it...
      run with proper technique, eat right and get plenty of rest...
      Your body will do a surprisingly good job of maintaining itself...

    5. Re:You're not a runner by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Considering that the standard running shoe design isn't really that good for you to begin with, you should probably replace them right now.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    6. Re:You're not a runner by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That seems rather often.

      Maybe runners should switch to aussie farmer work boots: http://www.elitefeet.com/the-legend-of-cliff-young ;)

      --
    7. Re:You're not a runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once every 30000 miles / 50000 kilometers.

    8. Re:You're not a runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sneaker snob alert!
      Please don't tell me that you're out Chi running in your Vibram Five Fingers, because then I would feel obliged to become an internet tough guy and threaten to slap you .

  21. Seems like it should be filled with... by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    ...hemp seeds and acorns.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  22. New meaning by petteyg359 · · Score: 1

    It brings new meaning to the phrase "Don't make me plant my boot up your rear!"

    1. Re:New meaning by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      You, sir, made my day.

  23. Flowers? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    Unless you plan to bury your shoes in a hot-house, you've only got a small window in which you can bury them and get flowers. And that can depend on the seeds involved.

    Four years may not be entirely unreasonable for my shoes either. How long would it be reasonable to expect the seeds to remain viable, given the various environments shoes have to put up with.

    I'm also curious about whether there can be problems of "early germination". If I wade through too many puddles and leave my shoes in a warm-but-humid environment, am I going to come back to find them "running back to nature" without me?

    Still, it's a nice thought.

  24. I want my shoes to last forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now my shoes turn to crap even faster than normal? Great idea, idiots.

  25. I can see it now in my rainy climate by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    Time to throw out my sneakers again, begonias are sprouting out of the heel, and tulips are between my toes.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  26. My purchase depends on by makubesu · · Score: 1

    how good these flowers are at holding off zombies.

  27. Slight problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you prevent the flowers in question from becoming an invasive species?

    If these shoes are to be distributed widely the ideal design would incorporate seeds local to a given region in which they are used... glad to hear that only the first batch will have the seeds.

  28. Ch ch ch chia! by eamonman · · Score: 1

    I think of that old SNL commercial when I hear about this.

    --
    0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
  29. Rose Seeds? by mim · · Score: 1

    Moses supposes his toses are roses, but Moses supposes erroneously, Moses he knowes his toeses aren't roses, as Moses supposes his toeses to be.

  30. Next up: by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Evasive species destroying local eco system do to shoes.

    I'm just being tongue in cheek here.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  31. prior art exists ;) by swschrad · · Score: 1

    yes, my sneakers grow things shortly after I start wearing them.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  32. Can I get a refund ... by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · · Score: 1

    if the seeds don't grow? I mean, if they're targeting the tree-hugging crowd, shouldn't there be some guarantee the shoes will sprout as advertised?

  33. Disinfo by rusl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason it is called weed is because it is and yes, it is potent. Obviously a wild plant is not going to be as intensely potent as something bred for potentcy and grown in "optimal" conditions. However, the potency is plenty sufficient. The same goes for Papovar Somniferum aka the Opium Poppy. The DEA and other anti-drug liars like to say things like it is a "fact" that these plants do not grow wild except in Colombia or some place like that. But that is just their little way of rationalising their absurd law that actually criminalises weeds. Because these plants are so prolific and common it is common for "innocent" people to be growing them in their garden - especially the poppy flower. The only difference between "evil" drug cultivation and "innocent" flower gardening is the awareness of the full use of the plant. Hence, it is the knowledge that makes it illegal. Effectively the DEA then has the job of fighting against knowledge with disinformation or "drug facts" that conflate Heroin with Opium, Hemp with THC Cannabis etc etc.

    As well, the prohibition is what leads to the higher potency as more dense narcotic effect is really most useful when you have contraband that needs to be hidden. Heroin, crack, and other high potency drugs are going to be a lot less popular if they are legal. Alcohol is a good analogy. Alcohol is partially criminalised. For underage drinkers it is, adults not. Adults mostly drink beer and wine with relatively low potency. If they drink hard liquor it is more often a sipping drink or mixed with flavours that weaken the potency. Underage drinking is a different story. The cheapest most potent gutrot is the best formula for booze when your supply is limited. Of course its not like this across the board (for instance addicts) but generally when people are allowed to take what they prefer (instead of just what they can get their hands on) they are going to choose something more moderate. One could go on.

    --
    Stupidity is its own reward.
    1. Re:Disinfo by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      Not true:
      - Adults may choose to drink soda or acohol. Most choose alcohol, especially where I live.
      - People can hardly choose between cigarette and marijuana because marijuana is forbiden (at least where I live), so they do not smoke marijuana
      - Marijuana smoking is allowed in Amsterdam, guess what, people smoke it. Bottom line is state policy does influence people's behaviour and health. Legalizing something does help it propagate

  34. Wonder how long... by renedox · · Score: 1

    It'll be till parents can't use "shoes don't grow on trees, you know" when they don't want to get new shoes for their kids.

  35. It's a bummer when... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    You're trekking through a wet landscape for a few days, and the seeds start sprouting out of your shoes. (Hope they're not bamboo shoots, 'cos that'd just be torture.)

  36. What if... by buzuku · · Score: 1

    What if the shoes start degrading while on your feet? I could see this becoming a fashion trend - celebrities wearing shoes with flowers growing on them!

  37. The Seeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they don't include some invasive species in the tongue of their shoes.

  38. Trackers by triclipse · · Score: 1

    So many trackers on that web site, no? Why not link to the company itself, which seems to be in early stages. Its like people make up topics that they know will get traffic and then load a web site site up with trackers. Is that really a business model?

    --
    No Inflation Taxation without Representation
  39. Momma always told me, by idommp · · Score: 1

    she'd say "If you just keep standing there you're gonna take root". She always was ahead of the curve when it came to stuff like this.

  40. And fly to boot by Primegraffix · · Score: 1

    I expected the people who thought of this would make them only fairly attractive. I like the look of them, I'd rock them even if they weren't biodegradable

  41. Seeds in the Tongue, eh? by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

    Whatever plants they sprout can't be native to everywhere. This sounds like a great way to spread invasive species. Way to protect nature, jerk!

  42. your wrong on all points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can't conceal 'pot' plants next to hemp cause it will be fertilized by aforementioned hemp, thus causing it to cease thc production. as for Marinol, its synthetic thc--nowhere near as effective. oh, and most politicians where teenagers once.

  43. Damp Countries = Degrading trainers by Cookeisparanoid · · Score: 1

    I love the idea but living in the rather rainy North of the UK I can't imagine it would be a very good idea to have shoe that start to degrade in a damp environment.

  44. Flowers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely hemp is more likely to sprout weeds

  45. Typical by captainpanic · · Score: 1

    How much of a pollution footprint do these generate *during production*?

    Whenever something green comes out, everybody is ready to fire their critical questions.
    Whenever something made of oil and animal skin, looking identical, everybody goes: "Oh well, we know it pollutes, but we don't really care how much it pollutes. We know it's made in poor countries by kids, but I don't really care how bad their situation is".

    But when it's claimed to be made green and sustainable - oh boy, then it'd better be perfect, otherwise we'll bury it under hypocritical comments!

    1. Re:Typical by bwayne314 · · Score: 1

      You totally didn't see what i did there...

      But anyways, it is not unreasonable to question the cleanliness/efficiency of new production techniques - there is often a reason for them not having been used in the past - maybe they are more energy-demanding, require more raw materials, or generate more waste which also has costs associated with it.

      For arguments sake, if producing a conventional shoe generates a pound of waste, plus a shoe that is not easy to dispose of (today), and this new shoe generates two pounds of waste plus a fully biodegradable product, then what is really more clean? 2 pounds of waste, or 1 pound + shoe?
      Factoring out a pound of production waste from both, what is worse, a pound of production waste, or a shoe in a landfill?

      Depending on the nature of the waste, and the persistence of the shoe, this is an important question to ask before all the hippies jump on the bandwagon.

  46. Should all be like that by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    All consumables should be like this, shirts, pants, shoes etc.... all should be made of stuff that degrades, forget the rine stones and all the rest....it would be really nice to see more companies think like this....make it really green to buy their stuff. If only Nike or Adidas coudl follow suit....I prefer Lugz, but I doubt they will have a pot plan coming out anytime soon...

  47. bummer (to US consumers) by samsonov · · Score: 1

    Looks like they are only going to be available in Europe initially.

    --
    "You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
  48. Pfft.. Amateurs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I've got a pair of converse basketball boots which are 20 years old. I originally got them in a sale for about £ 20 (probably $ 30 at the time) and I used to play basketball in them until the heels of the soles wore out (about 17 years ago).

    So I resoled them (glued on some new soles) and from then on they've been my pushbiking shoes. And I've just had to touch up the soles with ShoeGoo where they were leaking slightly and I expect to get another 10 years or so out of them.

    I wash them every year and they smell fine. The leather has become a little scuffed, the lining isn't as great as it could be (I've always used insoles which helps) but overall they're great.

    I just wish I could get another pair like 'em.

  49. A nit... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Actually both indica and sativa have cultivars that are useful as recreational drugs. My understanding is the hemp is produced from sativa, but different cultivars than those meant to be smoked.

  50. My question... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    How viable would the seeds be after a year or so of wear? For non-running shoes, I can easily get a year and probably more of life before I'd be ready to compost them, and I have to think that the germination rate wouldn't be that great after so long.

  51. Sure, if they're invasive species seeds. by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    But if they just use zinnias or marigolds or whatever I doubt anyone has too much to worry about.

  52. Cannot be used for international flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really like the idea of it, however when travelling internationally there is commonly a requirement to declare good such as vegetables and seeds.

    I can see it now, flying for 12 hours to get to your destination you arrive at the airport walk up to the last stage of security and a bored official asks "Anything to declare?"
    you reply honestly "My shoes have a few seeds planted in them."
    with a curt nod in the direction of garbage bin "Throw them in there." and then you try to argue your case. . .

  53. I start a lot of plants from seed by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Let's just say that if the tongues of your shoes get (and stay) consistently wet enough to sprout seeds, you've got bigger problems than flowers growing out of your shoes. Like, say, trench foot. Most seeds need to stay fairly damp, consistently, for a while, to sprout.

  54. oh, ok by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    First of all, anything large you can avoid stepping on, and anything small doesn't penetrate the skin.

    Right. After all, it's a well-known fact that no barefoot person in history has ever injured their feet.

    Whatever, dude. Don't want to wear shoes? Fine, don't. But lets not pretend that wading around streams "full of rusted metal and glass" without injury is anything more than good luck on your part. Or that going barefoot makes you somehow morally superior to us shoe-wearing clods.

    1. Re:oh, ok by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      I was pretty clear that I wore shoes in the stream, a pair of Vibram 5 fingers. None of the barefooters I know (and I know many) have gotten severely injured. Only minor cuts and scrapes.

      On the other hand, there is enormous evidence that shoes with any kind of sole on them at all, the thicker and the more stiff it is, the more likely injury is. Serious injuries like broken ankles too, because they decrease your lateral stability and make it easy to roll your ankle. Not to mention shoes inevitably cause fungal infections if you don't follow the CDC guidelines for only wearing any certain pair of shoes once every 3 days to let them adequately dry out, and not wearing them for more than 1 hour at a time, and washing your hands or wearing gloves while handling them.

      I wasn't stating moral superiority, I just want to be able to live my life without total assholes always telling me to wear shoes wherever I go despite the harm it does to me and my body.

      And this is /. facts are supposed to matter here. Not 'screw you and your facts, leave us alone' kind of crap.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
  55. sweaty boot rash by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 1

    It seems that my sweaty boot rash won't do too well with this. I'll be walking for a few hours and stems will start to grow overnight. If I don't leave the house for a week, which isn't that uncommon, I might end up having to mow my shoes before leaving -- as if it wasn't bad enough to mow my chest (think Austin Powers).

  56. How will Customs view these? by srodden · · Score: 1

    When I travel internationally, they want to know if I'm carrying food, plants or animals, if I've been near a farm or similar in the last 3 months, etc. Even some states in my country have no-transit zones for food and fruit to limit the spread of noxious plants and animals.

    These shoes may require an internationally recognisable "live-bioplasm!" warning badge so Customs people can confiscate and destroy them!

    --
    Why can't we let people believe whatever they like? It's not like a little religion has ever hurt anyone.
  57. make sure they are seeds of an invasive species. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeds of scotch broom! (Washington joke)