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."
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.
Good way to introduce invasive species.
How much of a pollution footprint do these generate *during production*?
'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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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