X-Socks. Yes, they're extreme socks, ok?

The only thing "extreme" about our socks tends to be the wretching convulsions they send our respective podiatrists into, but for those ready to take their feet to the next level of extremity, peep the X-Socks. They feature a "Traverse AirFlow Channel System," a bunch of other extreme buzzwords, and sport a ton of synthetic materials. But mostly they're extremely effective at helping people spend their money on gimmicks.

[Via TRFJ]

[Pat @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Ok it has to be said....

TO THE X-TREME!!!

[fred @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

from the picture i think i might have some of these, as a long distance runner they are great, they're really lightweight and specialy designed to prevent blisters and cushion your feet.

[OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

I think the most extreme socks I ever got were a gift from some friends I made when I was last in Japan.

As a foreigner and a guest in their land, they gave me all kinds of stuff, a bottle of coffee, seasonings for rice, a set of handkercheifs, a couple neckties, and a very interesting pair of socks (this all from the the lady of the house where we were having a bible study session...my first time meeting her/them).

As I have grown in my understanding of Japanese I now realize these particular socks are 'SUPER' odor resistant. Just the thing to give a foreign barbarian visitor...

The kicker is, they actually work. And if you know me, you know that means their odor fighting power has GOT to be extreme...

[spliket! @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

extremity. HAHA.

[Rocket Punch @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

I am not buying into these so called "high Tech" sock until somebody make one with built in WIFI and mp3 player.

[jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

At least they are not called iSocks.

[kuperman @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Screw these, I'll just stick to my Thorlos.

[Christopher @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

These need to come in a Pat Robertson edition.

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Can you run in these without your shoes on?

On a separate subject, I propose that Engadget writers be banned from using words like 'peep' and 'deet' in their effort to be extra cool.
It impairs readability of the information (at least for me). You can keep up your wittiness while still using regular words.

[Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

"On a separate subject, I propose that Engadget writers be banned from using words like 'peep' and 'deet' in their effort to be extra cool.
It impairs readability of the information (at least for me). You can keep up your wittiness while still using regular words."

Dag breh, y'un be buggin, pho' shotie.

[Jes @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

deet? Like the bug repellant? Also, the flash animation thing on the site... I swear it starts off showing a naked chick, but I'm probably wrong.

[Luke @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

These socks might suck, I dunno, but don't knock the thought of socks making a big difference -- SmartWool's low-cut running and cycling socks really are significantly better than any other socks I've tried. The additional cushioning, the different material on top than on bottom, and the wicking, breathable, non-odorous wool combine to make a sock that beats anything else I've ever seen.

[Michael May @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

these socks are old, my friend got a couple pairs 2 yrs ago. they seem to work

[carl @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Jes, she's x-tremely naked all right. 'cept for the socks, of course. In the download section at the site you can look through their 200 page pdf catalog, where there are more naked people running around. x-tremely.

[Samuel Lago @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

I hope these are just for men, I hate it when girls wear socks.

[Ryan Block @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Jeff,

Perhaps, then, you should read some other sites instead. Here are a few suggestions:

http://www.pcworld.com
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=738
http://news.com.com
http://www.zdnet.com

Have fun.

Best,
Ryan

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Ryan,
Thanks for the response. I didn't really expect one.

I've been reading Engadget for about a year. Pretty soon after it started. I consider myself a loyal reader (don't you want to keep those?) I am here for the content, not the language. Believe me, if yahoo could provide your content, I would be reading their style news. In fact I have Engadget RSS on top of 'My Yahoo' page.

As far as my language complaint goes... I noticed a shift towards more youth oriented, hip, bling style a few months ago. I understand the directive comes from your sponsors, advertisers etc. Since you aim at 14-21 target audience, you need to speak their language. But you also have a lot of readers who read and speak normal English. I am *gasp* in my late 20s, probably outside
of your prime demographic range. But guess what? I probably have a lot more buying power than your average 14 year old, so do not dismiss my comments so easily.

[Peter Rojas @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Actually, our sponsors have no input on our editorial style, so stating as fact that they've made some directive about our writing style is simply 100% wrong. We're just writing the way we feel like writing. We're bored with how staid and tired most tech writing is, so forgive us for trying to do something a bit different. You can't please everyone, believe it or not, we've also gotten plenty of complaints from readers about how "bland" the writing is.

By the way: Jeff, we don't appreciate the fact that you've been comment spamming Engadget, either. We don't allow links to those lame "free iPod" sites in our comments.

[Ryan Block @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

As Peter said, our editorial is not at all influenced by any directions but our own--we have said time and time again that we keep very strict delineation between editorial and advertising.

You've been reading Engadget for about a year, but I've been writing it much more than a year, and I can tell you that our style of writing has changed very little since the early days.

I don't hear you mentioning when I make references to designer furniture (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000890056122/) or the SF/NY/Tokyo art scene (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000427056029/), so why complain when we make references to hip-hop vernacular?

leybonn,
I'd hardly call that aggressive--I was making a point. For stale traditional-media writing go elsewhere.