Shocking Clothing

Wearing it inside out by drwtsn32 · 2003-05-23 06:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe this will help remove people from the gene-pool who insist on wearing clothes inside out.

Get one for your wife??! by tstoneman · 2003-05-23 06:31 · Score: 4, Funny

What, you're tired of touching her?

Re:Get one for your wife??! by Rick.C · 2003-05-23 06:52 · Score: 5, Funny

It'll put the zing back in your marriage!

--
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Re:Get one for your wife??! by Trolling4Dollars · 2003-05-23 07:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Wife: "Honey! I'm home from work."
Hubby: "Hey sweetie!"

Hubby: Aggggh!!!!

Yes... this is a GRAND idea. I guess there is no limit to fear mongering for profit. I'm not saying these things don't happen (my wife had a man try to force himself on her), but I think money would be better spent on self defense training than that jacket.

--
Un-news
Re:Get one for your wife??! by NanoGator · 2003-05-23 08:07 · Score: 3, Funny

"What, you're tired of touching her?"

Well it did stop her constant complaining about being covered in cat fur.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Get one for your wife??! by urbazewski · 2003-05-23 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or if your wife is the kind of person who might not be inclined to fire a gun at someone who hasn't laid a hand on her yet --- for a gun to be an effective 'defensive weapon' the person carrying it has to be willing to fire at someone while they are still more than an arm's length away from you. Oh yeah, be willing to fire randomly behind then in case there's back there that they haven't seen.
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.
Re:Get one for your wife??! by Cyberdyne · 2003-05-23 10:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or if your wife is the kind of person who might not be inclined to fire a gun at someone who hasn't laid a hand on her yet --- for a gun to be an effective 'defensive weapon' the person carrying it has to be willing to fire at someone while they are still more than an arm's length away from you.
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.

I'll bet.. by dr_dank · 2003-05-23 06:32 · Score: 5, Funny

it'll take care of those pesky RFIDs in clothing these days.

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?

Cruel Intentions... by IpsissimusMarr · 2003-05-23 06:33 · Score: 5, Funny

I can just imagine women having way too much fun with this sort of thing.

Buy a designer Shock-Blouse(tm) and hit the clubs. Have a contest with friends to see how many guys you can knock unconcious in a single night.

--
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"

Re:Cruel Intentions... by captain_craptacular · 2003-05-23 06:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Re:Cruel Intentions... by GMontag · 2003-05-23 06:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes, but women are far too nice for that.

You must not have been around any women at a shoe sale or when another woman is hitting on her guy.

--
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Re:Cruel Intentions... by fubar1971 · 2003-05-23 06:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Imagine if they could incorporate this technology into a G-String! You would have a modern, state-of-the-art, 21st century, chastity belt :)
Re:Cruel Intentions... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-23 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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).
Re:Cruel Intentions... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-23 07:22 · Score: 4, Funny

You forget; "sexism" is defined as descrimination against women. ;-)
Re:Cruel Intentions... by Tenebrious1 · 2003-05-23 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Cruel Intentions... by GMontag · 2003-05-23 07:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Most of the females get indignant.

Yea, you are lucky the women were not wearing these jackets!

--
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Re:Cruel Intentions... by Mignon · 2003-05-23 07:50 · Score: 3, Funny

As told by a guy I know who's been divorced at least twice:
Q: Why are divorces so expensive?
A: Because they're worth it.
Re:Cruel Intentions... by outsider007 · 2003-05-23 07:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Wife beaters throughout history have been barking orders at women...
thanks for that insightful historical perspective on wife beating.
seriously, you just made that up.

--
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Re:Cruel Intentions... by Moofie · 2003-05-23 09:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!
Re:Cruel Intentions... by Xerithane · 2003-05-23 10:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

How long by Timesprout · 2003-05-23 06:34 · Score: 5, Funny

Before we geek geeks trying to reverse engineer this jacket to help them attract members of the opposite sex ?

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

Wait and See by First_In_Hell · 2003-05-23 06:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wait until you see the first court case of a failed rapist suing the woman & jacket maker for millions dollars over the physical damage and mental anguish it caused him in his botched rape attempt. Trust me if this thing goes mainstream it will happen.

Also, why is this only for women? Do they think that men don't get jacked up by criminals too?

Re:Wait and See by stratjakt · 2003-05-23 06:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!!!!

Re:One question: by jandrese · 2003-05-23 06:35 · Score: 5, Funny

It would probably involve readinging the instruction manual that comes with the jacket, as skill similar to reading the article.

The jacket has a switch in the sleeve you have to hit to turn it on. The idea is to only turn it on when you feel threatened, not to leave it running 24/7.

--

I read the internet for the articles.

Re:One question: by RealityMogul · 2003-05-23 06:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Reading instructions? Do you know what website you're posting on right now?

Women only by aridhol · 2003-05-23 06:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

It also prevents men from using it in defense. Everybody "knows" that women are alwasy being assaulted. Everybody "knows" that men are always safe. Bullshit.

Whiton conceded that women could use it offensively,

But that's OK, because they're more likely to use it defensively.

and that it would be hard for police to arrest anyone wearing one.

If this becomes more common, I can see a grounding strap being added to standard police gear. And to mugging gear.

Then there's this little tidbit from the second page.

In fact, statistics from the Department of Justice show men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women.

--
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.

Okay.... by foxtrot · 2003-05-23 06:39 · Score: 5, Funny

The story has three icons next to it.

Technology. OK. I get that.

Toys. OK. Maybe.

Entertainment. That's twisted...

I dunno about this... by Gudlyf · 2003-05-23 06:40 · Score: 5, Funny

It sure seems both the attacker and the attackee are enjoying this (taken from the article) a bit too much.

--
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.

Do we really want this? by rdewald · 2003-05-23 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Do we really want this? by bravehamster · 2003-05-23 06:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Did you even read the article??

The jacket has to be unlocked and charged up by holding down a button before it can harm anyone. That takes care of your automatic discharge. Add to that the *visible* arcs of electricity and the loud buzzing noise associated with said arcs, and I think that pretty much covers any sort of warning required by law.

--
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!

Re:Kinda like Rogue... by Glytch · 2003-05-23 06:42 · Score: 4, Funny

What if Rogue were wrapped in a full-body skintight latex suit? ..Nah. It'd never happen. That's far too ridiculous for a comic book character.

Re:Duh ... by stratjakt · 2003-05-23 06:45 · Score: 5, Informative

It's both.

There's enough amperage in a AA battery to stop your heart, but not enough voltage potential for it to travel from one fingertip to another.

By the same token, 50 amps at a couple picovolts wouldnt do anything either.

That 300mA at 80,000 volts could kill you, because the current could then reach your heart or cause your diaphragm to convulse.

People with weak hearts or other conditions could easily be killed by one of these. Thats why Tasers are illegal in many places.

I see nothing but trouble the first time some helpless little old lady brushes against one of these chicks in the subway and winds up dead.

I dont know if a prosecuter would look like walking around with a garment on thats potentially lethal to anyone who touches it would count as "reckless disregard for human life" or "negligence".

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

effective defense by urbazewski · 2003-05-23 06:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Unlike weapons and sprays, the jacket can't be grabbed from a woman and used against her. And it's not as lethal as a gun.

This addresses some important issues in self-defense, like the possibility of being grabbed from behind. More importantly, it overcomes the resistance that many many women have against taking direct action, especially against someone who hasn't actually harmed them (yet).

I remember that the first thing that we did in self-defense class was practice yelling "NO" loudly in a strong tone of voice --- just this was extremely difficult for about half the women in the class. This is why a gun is a poor defensive weapon for most women, you have to be willing to shoot someone who has not laid a hand on you, who is more than an arm's length away. All this device requires is that it be turned on, a clearly defensive action.

--
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.

stun guns are not that effective by The+Tyro · 2003-05-23 06:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

All this jacket is going to do is make the rapist jerk his hand back for a second... it won't knock anyone out.

Stun guns in general are a poor weapon... people that advocate them instead of more-effective weapons, typically have another agenda. You really need to hold a conventional stun gun on a major muscle group for a prolonged period of time (multiple seconds, sometimes 8-10 seconds) before you can even hope to incapacitate someone. Now, tasers are a very different animal, and slightly more effective, but they are a projectile-firing weapon (darts with wires trailing behind), and are designed to deliver a prolonged shock, at the discretion of the wielder.

Some will even shake off a taser... Rodney King was still game after getting hit twice (not to open up THAT can of worms... just making a statement on the effectiveness of the taser).

Some people push electrical weapons like they are some kind of panacea. Look, folks... there's a reason why cops still carry guns, and it's not because they refuse to use a more-effective alternative... it's because there's NO substitute.

I have to admit though... the jacket is sexy... mmmm....

--
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.

Re:stun guns are not that effective by FroMan · 2003-05-23 07:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think one thing this article points out is that you do not want to give the attacker a weapon. A hand gun can be taken and used by the attacker and used against you.

Personally, I am all for an armed populace. But, since we typically do not have everyone on the streets armed, this kind of thing is useful.

You see, if everyone has a gun on them, then even if you are attacked, there is someone else who can cover you, since the odds are if you are attacked by surprise you will not have time to pull your gun.

Cops typically move in pairs if there is something of concern because if one is surprised, the other can help bail them out.

When you are one person, I think a jakect like this is a cool idea, since you have a certain amount of time between when the attacker attacks and when he can re-attack. You can pull out a gun at that point.

So, I guess in combination this is a good idea.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.

Life imitates Dilbert? by kent_eh · 2003-05-23 06:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Dilbert already invented Shock Pants almost 3 years ago.

--

---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh

Perfect gift for your dominatrix by Wesley+Everest · 2003-05-23 07:03 · Score: 4, Funny

They need to put up a video of that woman in high-heal boots holding a whip. The "attacker" stands in front of her and she shouts "kneel!", but he refuses. She then grabs him, sparks fly and he is knocked on the ground, begging for mercy.

Come on, admit it. You pictured that too...

Yellow Alert by dfn5 · 2003-05-23 07:06 · Score: 5, Funny

You're walking down a dark alley at 3am. Suddenly the HUD in your glasses displays PROXIMITY WARNING!! You whisper "Hull plating to maximum. Legs... evasive maneuvers". You take a hit to your hind quarter but your assailant loses his impulse manifold giving you the opportunity to make your escape. You emerge from the alley unscathed. Condition Green.

--
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.

Completely illegal in MA, and hence, at MIT by SuperBanana · 2003-05-23 07:16 · Score: 5, Informative

Maybe the MIT boys shoulda thought of the fact that they're now in posession of an illegal item. From a self-defense-widgets store's "where you can legally have the stuff we sell" page:

Massachusetts State Law. Ann. Laws of Massachusetts. Chapter 140. Sale of Firearms. Section 131J: Sale or possession of electrical weapons; penalties. Section 131J. No person shall sell, offer for sale or possess a portable device or weapon from which an electric current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill. Whoever violates this provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years in a jail or house of correction, or both.

--
Please help metamoderate.

those MIT frat boys by mblase · 2003-05-23 07:28 · Score: 4, Funny

it seems a "No-Contact Jacket" has been developed for women by MIT

Only at a college where the women are outnumbered by the men about ten-to-one would something like this even be conceived.

Flamebait Friday by Duck_Taffy · 2003-05-23 07:31 · Score: 3, Funny

New on slashdot - Flamebait Fridays! Post all the flamebait you want, all Friday long. No negative karma! Why? Because it's Friday!

Offer void where prohibited, see CmdrTaco for details.

--
Karma: Ran over your dogma.

Clever idea. Lousy product. Snake oil. by Walter+Wart · 2003-05-23 07:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

OK, a bit of background here. My wife and I have been adjunct professors of PE. Published in journals and everything. We specialize in crime prevention and women's self defense. And we test out a lot of self defense products. This critique is by no means exhaustive, but it should give people some things to think about. For more background on where we are coming from look at some of our class notes.

It won't work Stun guns have a poor record in police work. Even the manufacturers say that you should hold the stun gun against the eyes, throat or genitals for 4-5 seconds. I maintain that if you can hold a shocker against someone's goolies for the count of four you aren't in a fight. Look at the video on the home site. It doesn't incapacitate. It just gives a little spark.
It is using an inappropriately low level of force for the threat it is designed to defend against Without pussyfooting what are we talking about? Rape. Armed Robbery. Abduction. Ask any trained police officer - the guys who carry clubs, guns and a lot of training in unarmed tactics - what they would do if a bigger, stronger person was attempting to do these to them. They will mostly say "Shoot him". What we are talking about with this jacket is the equivalent of slapping someone in the face. It doesn't go nearly far enough for what it's supposed to do or what women will buy it for.
It encourages an attitude of helplessness and dependency The most important thing, in the end the only vital thing in self defense is attitude. The attitude that you will do whatever you need to to keep yourself safe. This sort of device fosters dependency and complacency. The woman is led to believe that her magic jacket will keep her safe from harm. When it doesn't (and it won't) she will be left for vital seconds without an idea of what to do.
It provides very limited protection Even if this device worked it would provide protection against a very limited range of things - grabs to the arms and torso. Not against strikes. Not against attacks to the head. Not against being dragged down (one of the most common attacks against women).
Reliability We have no idea about battery life. How long does this work for in active duty? How long does it hold its charge? How well does it work after the normal wear and tear that a real garment goes through? How prone is it to shorts?
Bad investment This thing costs over a thousand dollars. For that kind of money a woman could get extensive training from some of the best in the world like Awakening the Warrior Within or Modern Warrior, Marty and Gila Hayes or Massad Ayoob with enough left over to buy a nice pistol.

I could go on. But you get the idea. This is a clever hack. But it is not the sort of self defense tool I would feel comfortable recommending to most women.

--
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake

Re:One question: by Daemonic · 2003-05-23 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I expect there's a whole lot of care got to be taken.

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.

In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-23 08:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Muggers start wearing gloves

How do they test this thing? by MongooseCN · 2003-05-23 08:25 · Score: 5, Funny

What I always wonder is how they test the effectiveness of these things. How do they know that it's going to knock people out?

Bob: Uuughh.. what day is it?..
Tester: Grab her again Bob.
Bob: What? Who?
Tester: The lady in front of you.
Bob: Uh, ok like here... ZZZZZZZ AAAAARGH!!
person crumples to the floor
Tester: Wake up Bob.
kicks person lying unconcious on the floor
Tester: We pay by the hour here.

--

Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl

Since no one else has started singing yet.... by mnemotronic · 2003-05-23 08:36 · Score: 4, Funny

To the tune of "Singing in the Rain"

I'm stingin' in the rain.
Just standin' here in pain.
What a glorious feelin' .. bug zapper humane.
I laugh at your clothes, but don't get me wrong,
I need insulation to finish this song.
Let the volts I wear toast
All the fools that boast
Of their trouser snakes
Which I'm ready to roast.
I walk down the lane
With a zapping refrain
Just zinging, zinging in the rain.

(Boy, am I wasting my time writing software....)

--
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.

From across the room... by mattsucks · 2003-05-23 09:06 · Score: 3, Funny

.. our eyes met.

We spent the evening circling each other, tension building.

At last! We are alone!

Our hands touch. There is a spark.

I wake up the next day in the hospital.

Whoa. What a rush.

Tomorrow... by jez9999 · 2003-05-23 09:35 · Score: 3, Funny

"Hi honey, I'm home!! Oh, you look great today. So warm and inviting, here let me give you a hu...ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZ..........!"

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

Is this really NEW?? by MrMac · 2003-05-23 18:02 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm pretty sure this has already been done.... About 10yrs ago I was looking at the 'stun guns' and other "non-lethal" stuff in a catalog that had a leather stun jacket, it had copper wire embedded into the surface of the leather and a switch that came out the sleeve into the hand... if anyone touches you (on the coat)... you turn on the switch and ZAP. Also they had a leather glove built the same way... switch and battery on belt opposite to the glove hand. This was geared towards bodyguards and bouncers. I searched the Pat office briefly tonight, but couldn't find the jacket, although I did find a 'Electric Glove" that might have been the prototype for the one I saw.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,370,696.WKU.&OS=PN/4,370,696&RS =PN/4,370,696

I did find a cool 'Counter-measure' jacket/garment.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,272,781.WKU.&OS=PN/6,272,781&RS =PN/6,272,781

Hope MIT dosen't have probs with patenting theirs.

--
*** I Know Everything, But Can't Remember It All At Once ***

49 of 603 comments (clear)