Slashdot Mirror
Shocking Clothing
harmonics writes "This is absolutely hysterical, it seems a "No-Contact Jacket" has been developed for women by MIT. This thing carries enough voltage to knock you on your duff (80,000 volts), and is decently stylish too. Now to find out how I can get my wife one. Just don't wear it in the rain!" The real question is whether the submitter knew the origin and full meaning of the word "hysterical".
You use the "power switch" to "turn it off".
Yes, but women are far too nice for that.
The jacket is designed for women only. Its small size and narrow armholes are intended to prevent men from using it as an offensive weapon. Whiton conceded that women could use it offensively, and that it would be hard for police to arrest anyone wearing one.
Men on the other hand, can't be trusted. Yet this isn't sexist somehow?
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
...that's like saying about a fire: it's not the flame that kills you, it's the heat.
Then there's this little tidbit from the second page.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
...enough said
You will have to pry my proprietary software $$$ from my cold dead hands!
I live in Manhattan. What would stop some sociopath from donning one of these jackets and getting on the subway at rush hour? I could imagine the East Village punks getting a real charge out of this (pun intended).
A taser at least resembles a weapon and give an aggressor some cue that you are wielding a weapon, this thing looks like a jacket (although it apparently doesn't sound like one). I think that's crossing a line and as such requires more thought. Maybe a warning label or something.
One cannot legally rig up a shotgun or some other dangerous device to automatically discharge upon the violation of a perimeter, how is this different? What happens to mens rea (malicious intent)? How does one assert that merely touching someone is an act for which you can cause physical harm?
It's sort of like invading and occupying a country just because they could be a threat in the future, we don't do tha...oh, wait.
The best way to do is to be.
why let attackers get so close. just get yourself a snubby .357, ah hell, just get yourself a .45.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
This product is yet another thing to encourage women to be fearful of the night and men in general. Sure there are bad dudes out there, but the fact is that if a woman is halfway careful the odds of being attacked are very small.
One thing that rarely gets pointed out is that men are much more likely to be victims of random assaults than women. So, why do men never get encouraged to buy whistles, or to take self-defense classes?
No, wait until you see the wrongful death suit filed by the children of the little old man or woman who accidentally bumps into one of these chicks on the street.
This thing wont go mainstream, it'll be illegal in most states. It's like putting bear traps in your front yard to enforce your "do not trespass" sign. It's a reckless disregard for human life and/or safety and should be illegal.
And for the NRA nuts; there's nothing in the consitution about being able to electrocute people.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
No you can only use as much force as is necessary to protect your own life. You cant murder someone to stop him from carrying off your TV.
If the burglar enters your home armed (most dont - 'rob a house with gun in hand, get 10 to 20 in the can'), all bets are off. Then its self defense.
It's generally a case by case thing, but it make sense. Burglar or not, a human life is worth more than your piggy bank or xbox.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Male sexism is present all over the place.
In Seattle, there are billboards done by Dodge announcing "Gets more done than most husbands".
Can you imagine if someone went up there and replaced "husbands" with "wives"? There'd be such a HUGE backlash.
Of course, women have been and still are discriminated and such due to their sex, but it's less so all the time. However, this sort of thing only serves to spread the gap (pun not intended).
I once pointed this exact dichotomy out to a mixed group. Most of the guys just nod their heads. Most of the females get indignant.
If you say to a buddy 'Hey, man, on your way out, take out the garbage,' nobody will bat an eye. If you say to a femail friend 'Hey, woman, on your way out, take out the garbage,' you're in trouble.
Why? Both are correct designations for the two sexes, yet one is considered colloquial slang, the other considered directed insult.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
This is a lawsuit waiting to happen. I can see it now. You're in a crowded subway, and you accidentally bump into a woman wearing this. You get the shock of your life. What if you have a weak heart? What if you have a pace maker? How will this jacket effect it?
Well, if you'd read the article, you would have noticed that the jacket is not powered on 24/7. The intent is to power it up (where it actually generates sparks and makes noise) if you feel threatened by someone, or in a situation where you feel unsafe like walking to your car alone in a dark parking lot. You wouldn't have it charged entering a crowded subway. If you did, then yeah, a lawsuit is in order for using force without RCTB you were in physical danger.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Ok, woman turns on jacket and walks through dark carpark to her car...
She can't allow any of the electrified material to contact her bag whilst taking out her keys, and has to discharge it before sitting down in her car.
Shoulder bags and scarves are probably out anyway, and you don't want to be wearing it while walking your dog, or small child, in case they leap up and touch the jacket. Take care when holding metal railings in carpark staircases. Do not brush against elevator walls.
This is going to need a very good disclaimer.
Stay alert and sidestep suspicious situations.
It's not.
The only possible use I could see is if your wife is such a flake she couldn't be trusted with a handgun... then I guess it might be ok.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Though parent might not have R'dTFA, his analogy is still sound - there's a reason stun guns aren't legal. Now if we can only get real guns out of the hands of morons...
Yes, stun guns are illegal because there is no distinction in their use; they can be used just as effectively as an offensive weapon as they can as a defensive weapon. Ditto with handguns. A jacket, however, designed to be worn, designed to be powered on and used only when worn, designed too small to be worn by (more aggressive as implied by the article) men. It's not the same as either a handgun or stun gun in that the design has clearly defensive in nature.
Could it be used as an offensive weapon? Yes, sure. Baseball bats can be used as offensive weapons. So can tire irons. Neither are illegal to carry... in context. If you have a baseball bat over your shoulder- on a sunday afternoon with a bunch of other guys carrying helmets, dusty uniforms, duffels, then it's in context and no problem. Lurking around a closed grocery at 5am with a baseball bat is a different story. Most women wearing the jacket aren't going to be a problem, like most guys and girls on sunny sunday afternoons with baseball bats. However the guy with this jacket baled in his hands is just like the thug with a bat. Out of context. And there are already laws for that type of thing.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
If someone comes into my house stealing stuff I have no way of knowing if he's armed or not, and I have no way of knowing if he intends to off me before or after he gets the TV. I can, must, and will destroy him where he stands to protect my own life. Bleeding heart morons and lawyers can argue about it afterwards all they want.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Three female volunteers currently are testing prototypes in the field.
So how do they do that? Walk around with a "rape me" sign? =)
Another question: If someone with a cardiac pacemaker accidently touches this thing, wouldn't he die?
I agree that this jacket isn't a first best solution, but it seems better to me than the alternative technologies: guns, mace, pepper spray.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
Astoundingly enough, there do exist men who have not ever beaten a woman.
Me, I find the presumption that any man would abuse women far more repugnant than the idea that somehow women are inferior to men.
Both are artifacts of defective thinking. Both are sexist. Both have no place in civil society. One is on the way out. One is on the way in.
Go figure.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
So how would you wash this thing? Is it even dry cleanable?
We're men. We can take it. We shouldn't have to, but we can.
Just for the record every advertiser that uses the "smartass women is obviously smarter than her lovable but stupid husband/boyfriend" advertising tactic when touting some product or service has lost me as a customer.
Of course, they probably don't realize how offensive it is, but... (shrug).
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
No, pointing it would often be enough: if you're (say) advancing towards your target with a baseball bat, and when you're 10' away she whips out a gun - are you really going to keep coming? Maybe she doesn't have the will to use it - it might not even be loaded, or indeed real - but are you willing to take that chance just to take her wallet? (Or whatever you're attacking for.)
Oh yeah, be willing to fire randomly behind then in case there's back there that they haven't seen.
Don't be silly. Keeping this thing 'live' without any apparent threat would never work: one person brushes against you, gets 50kV for it, and sues you into the ground. Or dies, leaving you with some very difficult questions to answer (and probably a long jail sentence) about why you electrocuted the person. Very useful. Whatever your chosen weapon, you need to be aware of a threat in order to react to it; only a defensive system (some kind of armor) could help there.
I agree that this jacket isn't a first best solution, but it seems better to me than the alternative technologies: guns, mace, pepper spray.
I'm not sure it beats any of them! With any of the three you list, pull it out and threaten a would-be attacker - end of attack, unless they're really desperate and/or stupid; with this jacket, they'll just hit you over the head and switch it off while you're out cold.
When women stop getting payed 70% of a man's salary for doing the exact same job, then we can talk about reverse discrimination.
When women stop expecting me to buy them drinks, dinner, and dates, I'll expect them to get paid the same.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Texas law gives open season on anyone on your property for any reason? I find it a bit hard to believe that some additional justification isn't needed.
Of course they have a reason - trespassing!
In the example discussed here, the homeowner has every right to protect what's his, including life and property.
I should rephrase. There's a difference between self defense and simple revenge. Have you seen American History X? There's a good example in that movie. Some men are trying to rob a guys truck during the night, and the guy comes downstairs with his pistol. The guy comes out and opens fire without warning. Perfectly justified imo as at least one of the robbers obvioulsy is carrying a gun. After that one of the robbers is dead, one of them is trying to get away in the stolen truck, and the last is down in the street with a couple of bullets in him. The guy then goes over to the one in the street and proceeds to curb him.
Self defence is shooting somebody because you're afraid for yourself or others. Revenge is taking somebodies life for taking your tv because you can.
a) Please excuse me Mr. Attacker while I charge up my 9 volt battery b) Wait, no, don't touch me there, the jacket, the jacket! c) Hard for police to arrest someone wearing one? Ma'am, take the jacket off or we will shoot you d) Cmon, a crackling sparkly sound....I thought this was supposed to repel attackers, not attract onlookers for a firework show?
No, pointing it would often be enough: if you're (say) advancing towards your target with a baseball bat, and when you're 10' away she whips out a gun - are you really going to keep coming?
Sure. Women won't pull the trigger, or rather, it would be very rare. I'd play the odds. I can cover 3 metres and turn her skull into mush before she can muster the courage to pull the trigger. After all, if I'm the one advancing on her with a baseball bad, then she's the one with a conscience, not me.
Trust me, women relate to others more easily, therefore women have a harder time defending themselves than men do. There is a valid reason behind the stereotypical woman frozen with fear and screaming in a horror movie. Sorry, but the truth hurts. A woman will probably not act until it's too late. Giving her a gun won't help. Besides, how long do you think it would take her to find that little gun in her purse? Let's be realistic here: many women are attacked every day, and many of them carry mace, pepperspray, or even guns, and they don't stand a chance. Many have black belts in martial arts, and that barely helps them.
Why not just live in a place where violence is 3 to 5 (or even 10) times lower? I guess that wouldn't occur to you. Why not try to actually REDUCE violence where you live?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Ahh.... Simple way around this lame jacket
WEAR LEATHER OR RUBBER GLOVES
Why do people come up with these stupid ideas ?!?