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".

34 of 603 comments (clear)

  1. Wearing it inside out by drwtsn32 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  2. Get one for your wife??! by tstoneman · · Score: 4, Funny

    What, you're tired of touching her?

    1. Re:Get one for your wife??! by Rick.C · · 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
    2. Re:Get one for your wife??! by Trolling4Dollars · · 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.

  3. I'll bet.. by dr_dank · · 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?
  4. Cruel Intentions... by IpsissimusMarr · · 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"
    1. Re:Cruel Intentions... by captain_craptacular · · 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
    2. Re:Cruel Intentions... by fubar1971 · · 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 :)

    3. Re:Cruel Intentions... by Anonymous Coward · · 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).

    4. Re:Cruel Intentions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forget; "sexism" is defined as descrimination against women. ;-)

    5. Re:Cruel Intentions... by Tenebrious1 · · 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.
    6. Re:Cruel Intentions... by outsider007 · · 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
  5. How long by Timesprout · · 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
  6. Wait and See by First_In_Hell · · 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?

    1. Re:Wait and See by stratjakt · · 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!!!!
  7. Re:One question: by jandrese · · 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.
  8. Re:One question: by RealityMogul · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Okay.... by foxtrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    The story has three icons next to it.

    Technology. OK. I get that.

    Toys. OK. Maybe.

    Entertainment. That's twisted...

  10. I dunno about this... by Gudlyf · · 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.
  11. Do we really want this? by rdewald · · 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.
    1. Re:Do we really want this? by bravehamster · · 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!
  12. Re:Kinda like Rogue... by Glytch · · 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.

  13. Re:Duh ... by stratjakt · · 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!!!!
  14. stun guns are not that effective by The+Tyro · · 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.
  15. Life imitates Dilbert? by kent_eh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dilbert already invented Shock Pants almost 3 years ago.

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  16. Perfect gift for your dominatrix by Wesley+Everest · · 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...

  17. Yellow Alert by dfn5 · · 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.
  18. Completely illegal in MA, and hence, at MIT by SuperBanana · · 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.

  19. those MIT frat boys by mblase · · 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.

  20. Clever idea. Lousy product. Snake oil. by Walter+Wart · · 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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?
    6. 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
  21. Re:One question: by Daemonic · · 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.

  22. In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Muggers start wearing gloves

  23. How do they test this thing? by MongooseCN · · 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.

  24. Since no one else has started singing yet.... by mnemotronic · · 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.