mens nike air max 90 nike air max 90 cheap cheap nike air max shoes Back
6 Weird Fashions From History With Weirder Explanations The Egyptians produced so much art in their time that you can almost certainly reproduce your average Egyptian fresco from memory with a pencil and paper everyone in profile, standing around and staring out with one giant eyeliner ringed eyeball.There was a practical purpose behind the distinctive Egyptian chic. It turns out that the Egyptians affinity for eyeliner served the same purpose as the black smears on a modern football player s cheekbones it helped to reduce glare from the oppressive desert sunlight."Dude, we know you re the sun god, but do you have to carry the damn thing around with you?"Not only was the Egyptian desert bright enough to begin with, but as we ve pointed out before, the pyramids were originally covered in a white limestone coating so that every venture outside your hut was like someone shining a spotlight directly into your eyes nike free run womens for 10 hours. Slapping a thick layer of black gunk around their eyes was a minor but welcome relief from the constant light assault the Egyptians were subjected to.Presumably why they went around in single file.Also, see those little cone things on their heads? They really served as the Egyptian method for dealing with the fact that they all reeked like nothing you could imagine. The lifestyle of a desert environment comes prepackaged with the reality that most of your daily activities are going to revolve around contact with nike free running somebody else s sweat. The cones were actually composed of animal fat and perfume, which would melt during the day and produce an aroma to offset their intolerable stench.After the melted deodorant glued their eyes shut, they painted eyes on straight over the eyelids.2. Those Terrifying Old Timey Bird MasksIf you ve seen any film or documentary dealing with the Black Death, chances are you saw glimpses of people dressed in weird steampunk crow costumes and carrying orchestra conductors batons. This wasn t just a 14th century goth fashion statement."Oh, nike free run grey the overwhelming incessancy of my own existence. Poor me, caw caw."Back in the 1300s, we didn t really know what caused disease, so advice about how to prevent it was about as reliable as advice on how to ward off Bigfoot. This was really inconvenient when the worst pandemic in human history strolled into Europe and said "What up?"The very least we were able to discern back then was that breathing the same air as a sick person was likely to make you sick as well. Because rotting food, feral animals and other things that made people sick all shared the feature of smelling really bad, the medical consensus was that disease was caused by bad smells. The "miasma theory" of disease was air max 90 essential the best theory about why people were dying by the tens of millions in medieval Europe they stank like shit.That s the only reason they buried corpses; otherwise, they d just prop them up for decoration.The people dressed in bird masks were freelance doctors hired by villages that were hit hard by the plague. What look like beaks were actually cavities stuffed with spices, rose petals and other sweet smelling stuff that they hoped would offset the odors they figured were the source of the outbreak in short, a kind of medieval gas mask. They carried batons to lift up clothes and blankets so they could make their diagnosis without touching anything.Sadly, they couldn t raise an eyebrow and rub their chin in thought.Since a competing theory about disease was that it was caused by evil spirits or something, as an added precaution the costumes were designed to be really freaking scary in the hope that they would just scare the ghosts right out of you. And they made them look like giant crows because they presumably confused ghosts with worms.1. Pale and Chubby Renaissance WomenGiven today s culture of enforcing tanned, size zero models as the standard of female beauty, it s kind of confusing that all the women in those famous paintings from the Renaissance are lovingly portrayed as plump, pale and happy. How did the cultural ideal of female beauty change so radically in only a few hundred years? After all, men think with their dicks, right? Isn t what we find attractive just animal instinct?Is she comfortable in her own skin? Disgusting.The chubby, white women you see in these paintings kind of prove otherwise. What society finds attractive about women is tied to how well off they are, socially and economically. And it was the Industrial Revolution that changed everything.So nowadays, pale skin tends to signify someone who spends too much time indoors playing World of Warcraft. But in earlier times, it was fashionable for women to pile on makeup in order to make themselves as white as humanly possible. Back then, having a tan was a giant fashion faux pas, a sign that you were destitute enough to have to go out and till your own fields. The paler you were, the surer it was that you had enough slaves to do all that for you.We re sure we ve seen these women in The Matrix.The pale skin trend didn t really let up until influential women like Coco Chanel started taking extravagant vacations, reinventing bronze skin as a sign of wealth and comfort. A pale complexion became a symptom of spending all your time working indoors.As for the love handles those girls were sporting, before the Industrial Revolution and the era of easily accessible fatty foods, people who carried a few surplus pounds were those who simply had enough money to afford the extra food. Back then, the women who today adorn the front nike max air pages of fashion magazines would have been seen as poverty stricken charity cases, much more objects of pity than desire.Now, the dynamic is completely reversed being thin requires more wealth and spare time, since an organic vegan diet and a personal trainer are more expensive than a daily diet of fried meat.

nike air max 90 cheap

60 Minutes except on the West Coast I ve just been watching the Chargers Raiders game. Here in Denmark we get the pictures from CBS dubbed with Danish commentary. Around the end of the game a graphic on screen read "Coming up: 60 Minutes (except on the West Coast)". I ve noticed this before and it strikes me as odd, especially since the game was between Oakland and San Diego and I would imagine there were more viewers on the West Coast than on the East Coast. Why do they do this? What s coming up on the West Coast? posted by sveskemus to sports, hobbies, recreation (11 answers total) nike air max torch 4 60 Minutes airs at 7 PM on the east coast and on the west coast. The football game ends after 7 pm EDT but before 7 PM PDT, so in the Pacific Time Zone they will go to local news or other filler until 60 Minutes airs at its regular time. posted by Saucy Intruder at 5:18 PM on October 16, 2005 The West Coast usually gets a bum deal on scheduling, since most TV scheduled are devised black nike free run for Eastern. As a non native who lived in LA for a while, most of this confused me to the extreme. posted by wackybrit at 5:18 PM on October 16, 2005 Part of the reason for this is that scheduling is not only focused on the East coast, the time differences can cause issues. Mountain and Central time zones are far less populous, and relatively close in time difference. However, three hours is enough to completely skew what is "Prime Time", so West coast TV is scheduled to be at the same relative time as East coast TV, not simultaneous broadcast. Some things, such as sports, are aired live regardless of timing. So, oddities like this can pop up, which is confusing for pretty much anyone outside of the US, and often anyone outside of the Pacific time zone. posted by Saydur at 5:40 PM on October 16, 2005 Generally after the afternoon football game, the station will air infomercials, some other syndicated show, and eventually the local news followed by the standard primetime network programming. Sometimes the station carrying the game will also have a post game show, shot live at a local bar or restaurant with the local TV news sports guy and someone who used to play for the team as a color guy. Speaking subjectively, the period between the end of the football game and the beginning of the primetime schedule is a hellish no man s land on the channel that carried the game, so we usually flip over to ESPN to watch NFL Primetime (obviously inappropriately named for us West Coasters, coming on at 4:30pm), followed by the Sunday night game. posted by LionIndex at 5:46 PM on October 16, 2005 I should also mention that in the case of football, there are only two starting times air max ltd 2 for all games, not counting the night game or Monday night. So, on the East Coast, a bunch of games start at 1pm ET (generally those played in the eastern part of the country) with more games at 4pm ET (generally the western games). On the West Coast, it s just shifted earlier 3 hours, but it seems that local games are pretty universally scheduled for around 1pm. At least for the coasts. posted by LionIndex at 5:53 PM on October 16, 2005 Also, prime time nike free 3.0 womens on the east coast is 8 11, in the central time zone, it s 7 10, so actually prime time is at the SAME time in those two zones. So, if a game ends just before prime time in the east and central, west coasters have to wait 3 hours for prime time. (I don t know what happens in the mountain zone do people even live there? ;) posted by clh at 7:38 PM on October 16, 2005 "Late Night nike running free 5.0 with Conan O Brien" each year broadcasts Happy New Year for the Central Time Zone, sent out an hour after the ball drops in Times Square. posted by gimonca at 9:31 PM on October 16, 2005 Here s the Straight Dope s take on the US time zone/ delayed broadcast issue. They do the same thing for the Emmys and the Oscars even though the show is broadcast from LA, because about half the country s population live in the Eastern time zone, they get it live, and we West Coasters have to live with the tape delay. posted by Guy Smiley at 9:59 PM on October 16, 2005 Wow. That s really confusing. But I guess it s pretty hard to schedule tv for people in different time zones in a way that makes 100 % sense to everybody.

nike air max 90 cheap

60 Minutes on Eyewear and Luxottica xpost FP I spent a lot of time working in this industry as a management consultant, doing work on everything from marketing to operations to manufacturing, and can say this piece is very much a hit job that misses the point. I said it nike air max 90 white in many threads here, too. There are some very big issues. The one that irks me the most is when she demands an answer to why, if they own the entire vertical, the products aren cheaper in their own stores. Are iPads cheaper in the Apple store? No, because then no one would buy one from Best Buy, and Best Buy would sue them for being anti competitive. It a question naive to the point of stupidity, but Stahl asks it in a way that gets people to believe it fair. Luxottica doesn dominate the eyewear industry, they dominate the luxury eyewear industry. There are significantly more cheap Walmart sunglasses sold than Luxottica could ever hope to. Luxottica only plays in the over $50 area, and, even then really more the over $100 area. And their overall margins aren as good as people make it out to be. They had something along the lines of $900MM in operating income on $7.4B in net sales. That good, but not incredible. The bottom line, though, is that this is a fashion company. Luxury fashion, in most cases. That depends on cost and a feeling of exclusivity. You can buy a Chanel bag in Walmart hell, if you don live near a major city you likely dozens, or hundreds, of miles from where you can buy a Chanel bag. So why should Chanel sunglasses be different? Chanel doesn think it should be, so Chanel won license out to anyone not maintaining their brand prices and exclusivity. There good reason for this, even with RayBan. RayBan was owned by B for years, and B brand team stopped really caring about exclusivity. They started overproducing and dumping. In the late 80s you could find RayBans extremely cheap in gas station convenience stores across America. They became what people nerdy uncle wore because he accidentally sat on his pair of Foster Grants and these were the same price at the same store. So people stopped wearing RayBans. For the first time in their history they became uncool, and in the 90s they were the butt of jokes (along with Member Only jackets.) Wearing RayBans was like wearing bootcut jeans or super tall spiked hair would be today it was a sign you were a decade or more behind the times. The brand plummeted, and B sold it to Luxottica. Luxottica took all the original machinery and moved it to Italy. They basically pulled it off the shelves in this time. They made it scarce. Then they came back at higher prices with "Made in Italy" stamped on it. It surged again. Coincidence? Not according to basic fashion rules. Brands need some semblance of unattainability to be popular. I can really think of any industry where the cheapest is the most liked. In any case, I probably still under NDA on cost structure, but just know that a pair of lenses in your RayBans cost more to make than the entire selling price of those sunglasses you can buy at the gas station down the street. They more likely to have UV protection, as no one checks cheap sunglasses and some are sneaking in with stickers and no protection, and that UV protection will last, because some cheap sunglasses just have a cheap UV protecting coating that will rub off when you clean them on your shirt. The lenses will be more clear, too, as cheap sunglasses tend to be mirky. Your RayBans will also have hydrophobic coating and backside anti reflective coating. The frame designs, particularly on the aviators, could be better in many cases, but Luxottica is preserving the original designs. Yeah, your 3025s feel flimsy, but it a classic design that they aren messing with. None of this means you need to buy $150 sunglasses for something decent. But, by and large, you really do need to spend $50ish. I remember taking samples of some expensive glasses back from one of the manufacturing facilities and giving them to a few female friends that only wore $15 or under sunglasses. They flipped out over how much more clearly they could see, and these were sunglasses used for a demonstration and were filthy with fingerprints. There a definite difference, but also a point of diminishing returns. Honestly, I think it worthwhile to save up and go for Persol if you can. I believe some people here have found reputable eBay sellers that have them for $120 $150. Everything about Persol will be better. I like Oliver Peoples, too, which Luxottica technically owns but hadn been terribly involved with (Oakley bought OP, Lux bought Oakley, Oakley runs OP) but Persol is absolutely a better product. Persol was perfectly positioned for the RayBan overflow. Around 2010 or 2011 RayBan really hit critical mass in NYC, where every single person on a sunny day in Manhattan had a pair. Persol became the exclusive, then. If you lived in Manhattan, you wanted to be seen in RayBans, but if you wanted to seem just a bit cooler, and more important, you had Persols. It douchey, sure, but walk down to Wall Street and look at anyone under 35 they in Persols. There are enormously underpenetrated areas, most specifically Asia (not Australia) and South America. Expect Brazil to be their second or third biggest country in a few years, same for most luxury brands. And while $900MM isn anything to sneeze at, it isn indicative nike air max bw of the monopoly with 600% markup for pure profit that some claim. Their stock won move huge amounts because it largely family owned, though. And most of their competitors are in other areas, too. Marchon is owned by VSP, who bought them to offer more complete insurance services to doctors (kind of the opposite of how Lux bought EyeMed to sell more frames.) Saffilo is tiny, I believe lesser quality, and always makes bad decisions (buying Solstice to compete with SGH then basically doing nothing with it other than rot.) Marcolin makes predominantly garbage and then Tom Ford. The best way to get around Lux is to buy from a small, handmade company. All the others are obsessed with cutting costs, a smaller company isn And, incidentally, Luxottica isn They are pretty content sinking money into production, knowing that their vertical lets them make it up elsewhere. The Italian production is pretty intense. Oakley as well. Yeah, I known about Luxottica for a while and I agree with you on this point of contention (along with a few others). While judgeholden72 did a decent job of explaining things, it really feels like PR for Luxottica (and Persol in specific). Lenses do not cost as much to make as they claim. His post is disputed by what was in the news report alone when they mentioned that the sales are for up to 20x the amount of the cost to produce. The CEO of that company had the smoothness of a mafia don. Seriously, watching him was laughable. Admittedly most CEO would try to say the same thing in defense of their company (rightly or wrongly) but the way he did it was just smooth. They bought out Oakley, they didn merge. They have a straight up monopoly on the market but because they an Italian company and nobody cares enough, nothing will be done about it. I just surprised at how many people are siding with the guy just because he did a half (yes, half, it wasn that good) job of trying to explain things after claiming to be a consultant. In regards to the Apple comparison, no, doesn work. Apple products do have competition and they do lower the prices of models over time. The same pair of Oakley Juliet have gone up over 100.00usd nike free 4.0 v2 from what they used to be years ago. Why? Cause you don have any choice, that why. OK, let toss the tech analogy out the window for the sake of argument and go with strictly fashion. There are still many makers of watches and you can get all kinds for prices that range from low to high. Therefore when you buy different brands, there are over a dozen different movement makers. Because of that, the competition is truly there not only because of name brand but because of a (potential at least) difference in quality. A Rolex is literally an entirely different watch from a Breitling, they not the same thing with two different brand names stamped on them and a design tweak. So if Rolex don perform well, eventually their brand name will become less valuable and the price will drop. In the case of Oakley Ray Ban etc they all made by the same company using the same techniques and the same workers. There no difference aside from design. That would be fine if they didn jack up the prices on all of their nike free 3.0 pink lines to make it seem as if some (prestige pricing, right?) were more valuable than others. Thus there no actual competition in the marketplace, it faked. When you control the market, the prices are no longer set by supply/demand, they set by the producer. Now sure, people could just stop buying them entirely but they can no longer buy alternatives (aside from extremely cheaply made sunglasses, but then that not really the same thing). So in order to buy a decent pair of sunglasses, you going to end up buying them from that one company. Monopoly. It an actual word, with a definition and most of society has pretty much agreed it a bad thing. You can argue for it all you want but the question isn whether a monopoly is good or bad, right now it only if Luxottica has gotten to that point or not. I say it has and you free to say it hasn Good question. I was speaking mostly about sunglasses. Lux obviously has more of a stranglehold over the US optical system, but even then, just the big retail chains. nike free clearance Your insurance is probably VSP, which won work with their retail. But the lenses are a medical device. The frames are a fashion product. The extent of how "medical" they are is very much a US thing, as well, due to the power of the AOA. Go to almost any other country and a doctor is not involved in the process (British Columbia is either the only Canadian province that does or does not, I can remember.) In most of the world you walk into an optical shop, have your prescription quickly taken, and that it. The pair I got in China was done by a very, very meticulous girl probably making $0.25 an hour, but man was she thorough. And even in the US, many of the online companies don really require a doctor. Zenni has no prescription verification process, which isn really legal, but they aren really a US company. Most of the ones doing all the labor overseas will let you put anything in your order and happily ship it to you.