Ultra-rare Apple sneakers from the 1990s on sale for $50,000 A pair of Apple-branded sneakers have gone on sale for $50,000 through art broker Sotheby's. Seeing what retro Apple tat sells for these days, someone with incredible precog powers picked these up from a giveaway at a mid-'90s sales conference and decided never to wear them. That, or they didn't fancy a call from the fashion …
Not according to the nice Hig Hurtenflurst:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/2Cwv5Fwc25PKRyyyLZKT2R/hig-hurtenflurst
Arthur Dent: 'why are they limping?'
Hig Hurtenflurst: "Their feet are the wrong size for their shoes.'
(Obligatory Hitch-Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy reference.)
Ah, the heady days of such Apple products as:
* Powerbook 5300 ("widely considered one of Apple's worst products."[1])
* Mac Performa x200 series (It often appears on the "worst Apple products of all time" type lists[1])
* Macintosh TV (With a price tag of $2,000, it was doomed to failure[1])
* The eWorld service, a private network service that was separate from the internet
And oh so many more delights. If nothing else there were enough dodgy releases that you could make a decent collection out of them.
[1] quotes and more listings from 17 Apple Products From the 90s We Forgot About
They cost what, under a buck and a quarter to make, and are clearly throw-away items, like fast-food wrappers. And yet people pay that much money for them. Do they honestly have more money than brains? If I had $50,000 to throw away, I'd find a worthwhile charity to give it to. At least it'd help me with my taxes ... and I'd have one less thing to very carefully store (the box is sometimes more than half the value in such "collectables"), hiding away from daylight so it doesn't fade. If indeed they even came in a box, which is unlikely as a trade-show give away.
It's not the shoes... it's the magic "Apple" on the side.
You know that already causes people to lose their minds...
And like the article says, it's still better than an obsolete phone in a box that wouldn't work with the current network, and probably doesn't have a functional battery.
No, it is not only the magic fruity logo, other "sneaker" brands (or whatever these shoes are called) have a similar weird collectibles market. I only skimmed over an article in a newspaper (actually one of the more reliable ones...) on that subject. Mind was thoroughly boggled. But hey, people collect all sorts of things.
No, it is not only the magic fruity logo, other "sneaker" brands (or whatever these shoes are called) have a similar weird collectibles market.
You speak the truth. In my home town there's a shop that sells what I insist on calling trainers (for that is what they are) at vast prices. On some mornings there's a queue around the block waiting for them to open because some particular new shoe is about to come on sale.
On one such morning I was sitting in the coffee shop across the road and watched as one of the people who had been queueing came out with his purchase and handed it to someone outside, and got a very large wodge of cash in return. Madness.
If you really want to advertise your brand allegiance, but don't want to get too invested, LIDL had its garish trainers in this week and I think Primark still has its Greggs range.
I once bought a T-shirt from Primark (or maybe it was H&M on a day I had more money in my pocket) with, unexpectedly, a PDP-11/45 on the front. Not sure the designer even knew what it was.
It's a financial exploitation of poor emotional understanding.
A lot of people out there don't know how to trigger themselves beneficially. Furthermore they don't know how to condition beneficial triggers unto self in a conscious manner
As a result, people go chasing after physical items to indirectly access their own feelings.
Such is the motivation to pay for nostalgia.
The more inventively intelligent quickly learn how to bypass the dependency on physical symbols to access these states directly.
I think a lot of it is simply acquisition of money laundering tokens. Houses, artworks, somewhat unique or at least rare items like original iPhones etc are just symbols of value that can be exchanged with less chance of triggering tracing or taxing.
I see no conflict.
If not for emotional ignorance regarding how to generate the feeling of nostalgia internally,
People would not be perceiving value in these "trinkets" as a means of positive emotional production in the first place and there would be no market. They would be enumerated as useless relics with no value. And thus no projected profit to invest in.
The market for collectibles is one built on exploitation of emotional ignorance.
Without that basic ignorance there is no perception of value, as one can generate the end experience internally absent dependency on the physical tokens.
Thus there would be no demand, and so no monetary redemption for such hoarding.
In the commercially compromised modern world, I see little hope that such ignorance will reduce except for the occasional individual.
But the origin of mechanisms by which the psychological perception of value manifests in this context still maintains it's relevancy.
And that is still good to know.
So if Adam and Eve really were first people, their children would have to have been incestuous to get more descendants. This got waved away as “there’s more people” by one church leader I knew. My conclusion? It’s mostly symbolism with some small grains of truth (eg someone found a place that matched the description of Eden, so that could have been a place handed down through oral history).
And now a group of archeologists have found some 300,000 year old ancestors of ours (see Netflix latest documentary series, cave of bones).
"Have you read them?"
Yes. For comprehension, even, Can you say the same?
"They don't contradict. One simply expands a little on the other."
In the one, god created the animals, and then he created mankind, male and female simultaneously. In the other, god created adam first, then the animals, and then he created adam's helper[0]. Clearly, these two accounts are not the same, at all. Looks like contradiction to me.
[0] And adam's helper, being a clone grown from his rib (allegedly), would have been male. So "eve" was clearly trans, at least at some level. But I digress ...
"The Bible is not a cookbook, it is a conversation."
It's just a book compiled of many stories, written, transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated and re-written (lather, rinse, repeat) by many people, over a LONG period of time. It contains errors, and even outright faults (and bad math, sex, gore and violence ... but that's just gravy).
The fundies I've met claim it is the Word Of God (you can hear the CAPS in their voices), is a perfect work, and contains absolutely no errors whatsoever. Why they refuse to use the brains their supposed god gave them to critically look at an obvious work of man is beyond me.
I'm just waiting for the day that an archaeologist uncovers a previously-missing first page of the bible which includes the text "The persons and events portrayed in this book are fictional and any similarity to real people, living or dead, is purely coincidental"
> It seems incongruous to me that so many people attacking creationists so often show they read the Bible literally, also.
If Bert tackles creationists using literal readings is just using their own weapons* against them.
Doing so does not imply that Bert actually believes the Bible *should* be taken literally (he might, but to correctly infer that would require other evidence).
* Unless you have found a creationist who doesn't take the Bible literally, in which case, um, well, errrr
It's a series of disjointed stories pasted together into an incoherent whole in order to separate fools from their money.
That's not the complete truth...you missed the bit about if it's applied correctly then it can separate innocent people from their freedom as well.
This post has been deleted by its author
Why aim anything at fanbois? First of all it's an assumption, second of all it's none of anybody else's business what people choose to like or not like.
Besides, anti-fanbois are also pretty annoying. And usually hypocritical, because hiding inside every anti-fanboi of company A is a fanboi of company B.
"> because hiding inside every anti-fanboi of company A is a fanboi of company B.
> First of all it's an assumption
"
Everybody is a fan of something. Everybody. Literally every single human being on the planet. It's not an assumption, it's an absolute literal God-given fact. Because dividing the world up into things we like and things we don't like is a defining aspect of Humanity.
Don't be a dick. It doesn't suit you.
> Because dividing the world up into things we like and things we don't like is a defining aspect of Humanity.
You must know a very weird subset of humanity.
Just for a start, it is possible to be indifferent to something.
And "liking something" does not mean you are a "fan" of it (the other way around, yes); and being a "fan" does not meany you are a "fanbois" (the other way around, yes).
Meh < like < fan < fanbois*
There are even various levels of "not liking" something!
The world and "defining aspects of Humanity" (whatever the heck those are) are not all just binary, black and white; there are shades of grey in between and, gosh, also colours.
> It's not an assumption, it's an absolute literal God-given fact.
Got a bible verse to back that up, if you are going to start invoking God in this absurdity?
* note: you can also just be a superfan, you don't have to take the obnoxious path and be a fanbois once you have gone beyond the level of just a normal fan.
” You must know a very weird subset of humanity.“
Name, show or point me to one single human who doesn’t like or dislike ANYTHING.
”And "liking something" does not mean you are a "fan" of it (the other way around, yes); and being a "fan" does not meany you are a "fanbois" (the other way around, yes).“
Fan noun to admire, be enthusiastic or think positively.
Again. Point me to ANY human being who has EVER lived, who has never admired, been enthusiastic or thought positively about something.
” The world and "defining aspects of Humanity" (whatever the heck those are) are not all just binary, black and white; there are shades of grey in between and, gosh, also colours.“
Well done. You just defined the spectrum of ‘like’ and ‘dislike’.
” Got a bible verse to back that up, if you are going to start invoking God in this absurdity?“
Do you believe the bible is the correct or absolute reference here? Dear oh dear. This is a scientific site; do better.
” * note: you can also just be a superfan, you don't have to take the obnoxious path and be a fanbois once you have gone beyond the level of just a normal fan.“
Correct, and well done again. Now go and tell the author of the article; he seems to disagree with you.
> Name, show or point me to one single human who doesn’t like or dislike ANYTHING.
That isn't just shifting the goalposts, that is putting them on an express train to Reading!
You *do* remember your original point, don't you? In case not, it was: "because hiding inside every anti-fanboi of company A is a fanboi of company B."
> Well done. You just defined the spectrum of ‘like’ and ‘dislike’
Oh good, given you attitude in the line about "inside every..." you were clearly struggling with the idea of anything like a spectrum. You are making progress, gold star.
> Do you believe the bible is the correct or absolute reference here? Dear oh dear. This is a scientific site; do better."
You were the one to invoke God, now you are back tracking on that. Do better. Taking away the gold star, you only set a silver one now.
” You *do* remember your original point, don't you? In case not, it was: "because hiding inside every anti-fanboi of company A is a fanboi of company B." “
Actually my original point was “The negativity, bitterness and anti-Apple sentiment in this article absolutely ruins what could have been an interesting piece.”
Does selective reading run in your family, or are you just special?
” you were clearly struggling with the idea of anything like a spectrum.“
*I* was clear. You, on the other hand… well. Do you know the expression ‘when in a hole stop digging’? Or ‘Better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt’?
Back to the drawing board old chap.
"of all it's none of anybody else's business what people choose to like or not like."
True.
All the people who just quietly enjoy what they enjoy: well, they are just "fans", not "fanbois", and all the best to them. Have fun.
It is the fanbois that make so much effort to make damn sure everyone else knows what they like that are the annoying ones.
Especially the ones that do it by inventing slights that they can rail against.
Ah, gotcha.
If they were insanely overpriced sneakers with another logo, they wouldn't be tat?
Who can understand the mind of any fanboi, no matter the subject? That is why the pejorative form is used.
You believe a letter from Einstein isn't better news than any advertising giveaways?
> If the author was any more bitter, they’d be pissing lemon juice.
Unlike your calm and entirely rational demeanour.
This post has been deleted by its author
If they were insanely overpriced sneakers with another logo, they wouldn't be tat?
It's not up to you, me or the article author to determine what 'tat' is and what not. 99% of the items sold at most major auctions wouldn't interest me, including these sneakers, but that doesn't mean I would call it 'tat'. I would simply move on. Somebody clearly finds it valuable, and that is their right.
Who can understand the mind of any fanboi, no matter the subject? That is why the pejorative form is used.
I'm aware of why the pejorative form is used. The implication is that only a fanboi would have bought these sneakers, and that fanboi's minds are un-understandable. Neither statement is substantiated, and both are arguably insulting in nature.
You believe a letter from Einstein isn't better news than any advertising giveaways?
Define 'better'. Einstein's letter is fascinating to be sure, but ultimately it's a curio, a snippet of history, a peek into a great mind. There's no new physics in it, and It doesn't 'contribute' to the advancement of Humanity any more or less than the Apple sneakers do. It's arguably equivalent.
If the author was any more bitter, they’d be pissing lemon juice.
Unlike your calm and entirely rational demeanour.
I'm very calm and rational. And this is an unnecessary ad hominem. Be better.
I have been an Apple (or actually a Steve Jobs) fan since very long.
I even went to 1 Infinity Loop to get myself photographed way back in 1999 during one of my initial visits to the US !! True fan boi
But, even for a person like me, $50k for a pair of sneakers is still a bit too much. :)
There's an error in the English translation of Einstein's letter which loses the original meaning:
The German part of the sentence
"Wenn man aber daran geht, die Bibel symbolisch zu interpretieren, ist es nicht mehr klar, ob Gott als eine Person zu denken ist, die den Menschen irgendwie analog ist,"
has been translated as
"If you are however to interpret the Bible symbolically (metaphorically), it is not clear anymore whether God is in fact to be thought of as a person [and therefore not a monotheistic deity], which is somehow analogous to humans"
which conveys a different meaning than the original (Einstein wants to express that God can't be thought of as a person the same way a human can be, while the translation suggests that the fact that it's not clear whether God can be thought of as a person is somehow analogous to humans, which makes no sense).
The translation of the first part of the sentence is also not quite right, as "wenn man [...] daran geht" means starting or beginning to do something. And the German "man" is really "one" in English, not "you" (like in "one goes to the pub to drink")
A better translation for this sentence would be:
"However, when one begins to interpret the Bible symbolically, it is no longer clear whether Gott can be thought of as a person in a way that's at least somewhat analogous to humans."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
