dr1819

:drinking: What the hell are you smoking?

Every time I see this I'm :rofl:

You're not subtle, are you?

Any act of self-justice is forbidden in Germany.

micha

What about self-defence? If a guy attacks me, am I supposed to just attempt to run away (not a bad strategy, by the way, especially if you're a good runner). But what if it's in my own home? Do I have the right to protect my own property? Do I even have the right to protect myself? If so, by what means and to what extent?

These are some questions no one's ever raised before with respect to my being in Germany!

In the states, the right to self defence is pretty much a given in all 50 states, but the means and the extent do vary. In some states, if someone walks into your house uninvited, you could legally shoot and kill and merely say "his uninvited presence in my house was in itself very threatening" and you'd be exonerated, unless the prosecution could prove you somehow invited him or let him in (merely opening a door after a knock or doorbell is neither inviting someone in or letting them in).

In other states, however, unless you could prove imminent danger from an intruder, such as a loaded gun or knive the intruder had on their person at the time you shot them, they could rule it as manslaughter.

About the only time any state would rule your shooting another person in your own home to be murder is if you invited/let them in, the prosecution proved there was no danger to you, and you killed the other person anyway. The key thing is the element of danger. If you kill someone you invited in, you had better be prepared to show signs of a struggle!

Meanwhile, other people are quite able to multitask without any such risk - amazing! Not really, and if you're one of the ones that don't multitask well, by all means stay off that phone! But if you do multitask well, then by all means you should be free to go ahead and do so. Here's my pet peeve: Built-in GPS moving map displays. Let's face it, folks, while radios take but a glance to operate, these puppies really drag your attention away from what you're doing, particularly when they're located mid-dash about half way from top to bottom. Why haven't car manufacturers become more savvy and simply created a 16x9 main display screen just below the dash where your current instruments are displayed? Then they could put anything they want on there, with controls mounted on either the steering column or just to the upper right of the wheel, where the road and traffic would still be in your field of vision. But the mid-dash ones in most cars today are far more dangerous than driving while using your cell phone because they divert both your attention AND your eyes.

Well, the title of this thread is "real wear" platform heel pics, and to date there's only one pic I saw which might have been "real wear." The rest were contrived, for fetish purposes, etc. Yes, I've seen real women wearing platforms outside the club scene, but only on extremely rare occasion.

PS: I briefly dated a basketball player (female) in college. Even though she bested me by two inches barefoot, she still wore 3" heels one night when I took her to dinner. Gorgeous! Sadly, she also still wore a size smaller than I did, but that was way before I had developed any interest in heels, so it really didn't matter back then. Interesting thing, though - her roommate (4 inches shorter) wore almost the same size as I did (about 1/2 size smaller), and she talked me into going drag for Halloween that year, so I wore her old wooden sandals (heels about 3-1/2"), one of my girlfriend's dresses, and assorted other "acoutrements." They made me up, we had a good time, and that was that. I guess I'm just not into cross-dressing. Men have been wearing skirts much more than not over the last 50,000 years, and have been wearing heels more than not over the last 500 years. So, I take the wear of either as my simply enjoying the wear of long-term men's fashion (even if it is found in the women's section). Historically speaking, I'm not cross-dressing at all.

Results so far: 1/3 object to it, 2/3 don't care, and no one actually supports the practice.

Micha, various scientifically-conducted polls reveal that more than half of all men between the age of 20 and 50 have tried on a pair of heels, that 30% have done so more than once, voluntarily, not because they were coerced at some party but because they wanted to know what if felt like, that 10% have done so on some sort of regular basis, and that 2% have done so on a continual basis, with about 1/10th of that 2% actually having worn heels in public, and not for some stunt (like the Amsterdam heel sprint), but because wearing heels in public is what they wanted to do. Even if you just look at the lowest category, two out of a thousand men is a lot of men. Given the 30% who've worn heels more than once because they wanted to know what it's like, that's an awful lot of men - 1 in 3. It's no wonder that men are as supportive as they are. I'm willing to bet that if the styles came out that appealed to men, heels on men would become a solid fashion trend. I think the style that would work the best would be like those in the Harley Davidson line of boots, but without the flash. They're great boots, but sadly, their sizes end at 11. I find this a horrible shame, as they're a mid-heeled (3"), often round-toed boot made of real leather. If I could find them in my size, I'd probably own half a dozen pair! They're cool, tough, intriguing, without being feminine (except for the fact that they have a heel).

Why thank you, Shafted!

Truth be told, heels are all about accentuating the feminine form. Wear whatever you're comfortable wearing.

Interesting... I tend to dangle, but only one pair. Not sexy, though - definately not sexy!

Who'd have thought that Richie's little sister would ever have gone on to be so hot? Too bad her acting career hasn't caught up with her looks.

If it's not sexual in nature, it's not a fetish. If it takes up an inordinate amount of time, to the point of neglecting other important things in your life, it's an obsession. If it's something you spend a good deal of time on, but it's neither sexual nor neglecting your other responsibilities, it's just a hobby. For me, it's partly a hobby, partly medical - I'm just a better person in heels.

If you have a narrower foot than normal, be suspect. The vast majority of close-toed Pleasers have a pointed toebox. Usually my size in women's is a little loose, but the one pair of Pleasers boots I purchased (in leather) were loose everywhere but the toebox, where it was so cramped I could have screamed. So - short, stubby toes, no problem. Anything else, look elsewhere. But by no means are they "anatomically correct" shoes like Clarks, Franco Sarto, or other better-known manufacturers with whom I've been very pleased. My favorite pair of boots are made by Predictions. Leather, side-zips, no lacing, with the rubber bottom and 2-1/2" block heel. Absolutely exquisitely well-fitted boots and have probably put more than 100 miles on them walking around town and all over Germany over the last year.

I agree with you in part. Seeing men in heels and hose etc. does nothing for me. Though, and I think this is where we have different tastes, I believe a women in heels “FMP’ or not is always, always great.

Definately!

^ Exactaroo, and that's why I was incensed at the way people were talking of you in that wikipedia talk page thingy. People who knew nothing about something you possessed a wealth of knowledge about figured they could shut you down simply because THEY didn't know about MUGs, then said your language was more "talking down" than "talking to."

However, there are office managers et al who will speak to their office workers as if their sole intent is public humiliation.

Hi, Danielle - I sincerely appreciate your words of encouragement.

While searching for information or content on MUGs on Wiki, I ran across another person's home page. He's called mugaliens, and one comment hints that he's interested in this topic, as well. I may be able to persuade him to rewrite the page properly. He's some bang-up edits on other pages, so...

I've seen a lot of heels on a lot of different body types. While I agree some heels look better on the thin and spindleys, other heels look fine on all body types.

There's nothing sexier than a great pair of legs!

I'm sure it was "enlightening." However, the brain most certainly multitasks on many cognitive and autonomous levels.

Consider what I'm doing now, all at the same time:

1. Thinking, specifically formulating this

2. Typing

3. Listening to music

4. Chewing gum

5. Breathing (this begins the autonomic nervous system part)

6. Heart-beating

7. Body temperature regulation

8. Regulation of intestinal functions

There's about another thirty items going on, right now, all the time, all together. The brain does not "task-switch." It multitasks.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

Humans have unique neural capacities, but much of their brain structure is similar to that of other mammals. Basic systems that alert the nervous system to stimulus, that sense events in the environment, and monitor the condition of the body are similar to those of even non-mammalian vertebrates. The neural circuitry underlying human consciousness includes both the advanced neocortex and prototypical structures of the brainstem. The human brain also has a massive number of synaptic connections allowing for a great deal of parallel processing.

That's a computer term, and it's synonomous with u]multitasking.

The brain has been described by brain experts as a "massively parallel processing machine." In fact, so much goes on in the brain at the same time that it's utterly amazing.

What you're probably confusing the issue here is the fact that our cognitive attention is usually focused on between one, and at most, three areas. However, this totally ignores the fact that as you learn, whether that's how to ride a bike, walk, talk, drive, react to situations, etc., these processes are no longer controlled by the cognitive portion of the brain, concentration primarily in the procencephalon, but are instead relegated to autonomous functions, carried out primarily in the mesencephalon and the rhombencephalon.

It's a well-known fact that top atheletes in high-speed endeavors such as ping-pong have absolutely no time to think about their shots, but that those decisions have been learned and are executed at the spinal cord level most of the time, and occasionally in the hind brain. Every once in a while enough time exists for the forebrain to have some input (usually during lobs), and the result is often strange - a missed shot, despite the extra time.

The reason for this is simple survival - deeply learned responses are often executed at far greater speed and accuracy than shallower learned responses. This is one of the principle reasons tribes for years (and today) practice war - to ensure that all the lessons of fighting are deeply learned and nearly automatic, because the forebrain is just way, WAY to slow to actually handle critical tasks such as driving, dodging other band members, auto racing, except as an overseer and a key component of the feedback loop which trains the mesencephalon and the rhombencephalon and spinal cord.

In short, ANYONE can learn to multitask. All they must do is practice. That's what it takes for the neurons to associate, for the management functions of the brain to develop, and for true multi-tasking/parallel processing to move from cognitive function to learned function, which is handled much more efficiently in the lower brain functions than the higher ones.

It's the way the human brain was designed to funtion following 100,000,000 years of evolution.

It's simply the way we are. Put in the right situation, nearly everyone can multitask! It may be scary, it may be intense, but your brains are already wired for it.

Guaranteed.

The problem is that you are in the minority, not the majority. While some people are better at doing multiple things seeminly simulataneously many are not.

I'm pretty sure everyone has talked while riding a bike...

And the brain does not multitask. It handles one thing at a time. We found this out in a conference by someone studying exactly this (cognitive psychology professor/researcher, first degree is engineering). Some people are better at task switching than others.

Even seen a marching band at halftime? The bandmembers march to complex choreographics while simultaneously playing complex music while simultaneous listening to others play while simultaneous watching the bendleader for timing cues.

It's not task switch, for if it were, there's be a lot of dropped notes and people running into one another.

If you had to pick a law/rule/convention for EVERYONE to follow, would you ban cell phones or allow them? Personally, I'd ban them. The bar is too low to get a drivers license.

Cars are dangerous, too. Some 35,000 people loose their lives in auto accidents each year. Following the logic behind banning cell phone use while driving, let's solve both problems and simply ban cars!

All of life carries risk. The appropriate solution isn't to ban things that are dangerous. The right approach is to educate people so that they make wise decisions. That way they're allowed to be adults, instead of being treated like children: "no talking in class" = "no using cell phones while driving."

I ceased being a child more than 30 years ago and will not allow anyone, including the government, to begin treating me like one.

If the government can't treat me like an adult, I'll simply move elsewhere so my tax dollars can support a government who will.

And some people really do have a bit more (or a lot more) knowledge than the rest of us. Take Dr. Shoe, for example - he's quite well-versed in everything having to do with heels. But I don't see him as being one that lords it over others or speaks condescendingly. Nevertheless, when someone is sharing their knowledge, it can seem consdescending, even when it's not. That's all part of debate. Similarly, JimC is very knowledgeable about guns, way, way more than I know, yet when he speaks I don't feel like he's being condescending, even if he were to disagree with something I'd posted and put me in my place! But I choose to recognize that his expertise does exceed my own in that area. On the other hand, I probably know more about flying than he does.

well for your information DR1819, even blue tooth head sets cells are very dangerous, be cause there is STILL a distraction on the road while driving!! when you are driving, you SHOULD pay attention to the ROAD and NOTHING else!!

Over the last 28 years, I've owned five cars until their deaths (by old age) and have driven somewhere between 600,000 and 750,000 miles, all while multitasking as our human brains were designed to do, eating burgers, talking on my cell phone, singing with my family, discussing topics, listening to music, etc.

I've never had an accident, except while parked (like stoplights) and someone has hit me (rear-ended three times).

Just lucky?

No. Rather, I'm simply able to focus an appropriate portion of my attention where it needs to be - on the road, while allowing the non-critical portion of my attention to attend to other tasks.

This talent is common among pilots, who must fly the plane, communicate with ATC, coordinate actions with other crewmembers, and operate often complex navigational equipment and aircraft controls. These tasks are far more involved and complex than driving while talking on a cell phone!

This talent is common among many professions, and others just possess it naturally. Some don't.

If you're among those who find it difficult to multitask, then by all means please do focus 100% of your attention on the road. But please don't tell me (or fine me) for doing things I've been doing all my life with aplomb and without any adverse consequences whatsoever.

I find that as offensive (and ridiculous) as other people passing laws against men wearing heels, skirts, or wearing their hair long, or getting earrings, etc.

In summary, by all means, do what suits you, but please refrain from telling others to do things that do not suit them.

O'k...

Linksys and some other router manufacturers have the capability of keeping the connection up indefinately.

Nice. And how did the police "determine" she wasn't using due care and attention? Obviously, if she caused an accident, that would be one thing. I do NOT support banning people's driving, unless their faculties have deteriorated to the point where they can no longer safely drive. For several reasons: 1. It's long been proven that punishment doesn't work. The US jails have the highest percentage of it's population incarcerated and gang violence continues to rise. 2. It's a horrible deterrant. Fines proportional to net income are far more effective. 3. Retraining and encouragement are, by far, the best proven means of changing people's behavior. Think of the horrible cost - no transportation often means a change in jobs, costing tens of thousands of dollars - the punishment is WAY out of proportion to the crime.

If it had been me, I'd have made it a mid-heeled slide so the top part wouldn't catch all that air!