Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Technology

Shocking Clothing 751

Posted by michael from the material-girl dept.
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".
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shocking Clothing More

Shocking Clothing

Comments Filter:

  • Wearing it inside out (Score:5, Funny)

    by drwtsn32 ( 674346 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:31PM (#6025826)
    Maybe this will help remove people from the gene-pool who insist on wearing clothes inside out.

  • Get one for your wife??! (Score:5, Funny)

    by tstoneman ( 589372 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:31PM (#6025828)
    What, you're tired of touching her?

    • Re:Get one for your wife??! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rick.C ( 626083 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:52PM (#6026077)
      It'll put the zing back in your marriage!

    • Re:Get one for your wife??! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Trolling4Dollars ( 627073 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:05PM (#6026199) Journal
      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.

    • Re:Get one for your wife??! (Score:4, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:07PM (#6026740) Homepage Journal
      "What, you're tired of touching her?"

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

  • I'll bet.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:32PM (#6025829) Homepage Journal
    it'll take care of those pesky RFIDs in clothing these days.

  • One question: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tigertigr ( 610853 )
    How the fuck do you put it on/take it off?!

    • Re:One question: (Score:5, Funny)

      by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:35PM (#6025876) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re:One question: (Score:5, Funny)

        by RealityMogul ( 663835 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:39PM (#6025928)
        Reading instructions? Do you know what website you're posting on right now?

      • Re:One question: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Daemonic ( 575884 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:41PM (#6026501)
        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.

    • Re:One question: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by drwtsn32 ( 674346 )
      You use the "power switch" to "turn it off".

  • Cruel Intentions... (Score:5, Funny)

    by IpsissimusMarr ( 672940 ) * on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:33PM (#6025841) Journal
    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.

    • Re:Cruel Intentions... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by captain_craptacular ( 580116 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:38PM (#6025908)
      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?

      • Re:Cruel Intentions... (Score:4, Funny)

        by GMontag ( 42283 ) <gmontag@guymontag. c o m> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:42PM (#6025977) Homepage Journal
        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.

      • Re:Cruel Intentions... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:53PM (#6026084)
        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... (Score:4, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:22PM (#6026344)
          You forget; "sexism" is defined as descrimination against women. ;-)

        • 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.

          • Re:Cruel Intentions... (Score:4, Funny)

            by GMontag ( 42283 ) <gmontag@guymontag. c o m> on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:41PM (#6026500) Homepage Journal
            Most of the females get indignant.

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

          • Re:Cruel Intentions... (Score:3, Interesting)

            by TKinias ( 455818 )

            scripsit SuiteSisterMary:

            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.

            Or, if you happen to be white and in the States, try this: Say to a female African-American friend, ``Hey, girl, can you grab that for me?'' Now say to a male African American, ``Hey, boy, can you grab that for me?'' Talk about a world of difference.

            It doesn't have to make sense

        • 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).

    • Re:Cruel Intentions... (Score:5, Funny)

      by fubar1971 ( 641721 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:45PM (#6026011)
      Imagine if they could incorporate this technology into a G-String! You would have a modern, state-of-the-art, 21st century, chastity belt :)

      • I re-read recently Snow Crash and..

        WARNING: SPOILER!

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        I re-read actually the part where YT has a dentata. She forgets about it, and, when she is going to have sex with the Aleut, it works. Instead of the mythical version that chews penises , this one had a microsyringe injecting a narcotic into the (dilated) blood vessels of the penis. Now that's a 21st century chastity belt.

        Actually a chastity belt blocks the man from having sex but also the woman. William Gibson's version in "Blue Max"(?) was a

  • A great use for geek girls (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:33PM (#6025849) Homepage
    From how I've seen geek women treated in comic book stores, software stores, internet cafes, computer science classes, and other "geek" hangouts, this is the perfect accessory.

    "Wow - so like, you're a girl - and you like computers."
    "Um, yeah."
    "Hey, can I ask you out sometime to play Pong in my mom's basement?"
    "Er, um, no."
    "Oh, please, I've got some Bawls, and - oh, let me get that lint off of your jacket - ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzt!"
    "Did I mention I'm into fashion too?"

  • The question is not whether the poster knew it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mbourgon ( 186257 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:33PM (#6025850) Homepage
    it's how the heck did the editor know it?
    • For those not in the know, Hysteria was the second most diagnosed illness for women in the 19th century. Here's somthing I found on this web site [sdsu.edu]
      As a disease of the womb, Hysteria was believed to be treatable with exercise and massage and was generally caused from a "lack of sexual intercourse, deficiency of sexual gratification, or both". Therapy sometimes included energetic intercourse with one's husband or even more commonly genital massage which resulted in climax. This created a superb market for the newly established authority of the male gynecologist. Even with strict cultural taboos against masturbation, the stimulation of the clitoris was not specifically viewed as sexual in nature (Maines,23).

  • How long (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:34PM (#6025854)
    Before we geek geeks trying to reverse engineer this jacket to help them attract members of the opposite sex ?

    • Re:How long (Score:3, Funny)

      by kavau ( 554682 )
      How long [b]efore we geek geeks trying to reverse engineer this jacket to help them attract members of the opposite sex ?

      Easy. Just construct a jacket that builds up a charge of the opposite sign as the "No-Contact Jacket." The result is instant attraction of female individuals wearing this type of jacket (okay, okay, strictly speaking it's a retarded interaction, but for females moving significantly slower than the speed of light we can treat it as instantaneous.) Don't ask me what's going to happen upo

  • Wait and See (Score:4, Interesting)

    by First_In_Hell ( 549585 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:35PM (#6025871) Homepage
    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?

    • stun guns are not that effective (Score:5, Interesting)

      by The Tyro ( 247333 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:55PM (#6026105)
      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....

      • 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 gu

  • Stylish is an understatement... (Score:5, Funny)

    by zutroy ( 542820 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:36PM (#6025884) Homepage
    ...these clothes are absolutely stunning.

  • wired (Score:2, Funny)

    by rpeppe ( 198035 )
    There's something very appropriate about this being reported in Wired magazine... :-)

  • April fools could be fun... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dtolton ( 162216 ) * on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:36PM (#6025890) Homepage
    I can see this being useful in some situations, but I wonder how
    useful it would be in the long run. The fact that you have to
    pre-charge it makes it less useful (also less dangerous) than if
    you could insta-shock someone.

    "When charged, the jacket crackles audibly", heh

    Several years ago they built the clapper, maybe we they can
    modify this one so that it charges if the woman screams. Then
    they could call this jacket the Screamer. Yes they would still
    need a button in case someone covered the woman's mouth.

    "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.", April fools would never be the same again.
    • Several years ago they built the clapper, maybe we they can modify this one so that it charges if the woman screams. Then they could call this jacket the Screamer. Yes they would still need a button in case someone covered the woman's mouth.

      ...one could also conceive of creating a version that monitors the wearer's pulse. Panic => sudden spike in heartrate => charge.

      • ...one could also conceive of creating a version that monitors the wearer's pulse. Panic => sudden spike in heartrate => charge.

        Ummmmm ..... yeah.

        1. Take your date in her spiffy new jacket to the cinema (where did she get that? Ask after the film).
        2. Watch Alien on the big screen.
        3. Watch as the chestburster makes it's appearance.
        4. Become aware of hair standing up on end, a funny crackling noise on your right and the sudden rush as an electrical discharge chucks you four rows forward and left.
        5. ...
        6. Profit!

  • Hysteria (Score:5, Informative)

    by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:36PM (#6025894) Journal
    A diagnosis originally applied to women, often treated with electrical shocks, or sometimes vibrators. Weird, eh?

  • I guess this means that... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rusty0101 ( 565565 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:37PM (#6025897) Homepage Journal
    ... now any woman can be a knockout.

    As if women wern't having enough problems finding men they liked, now they end up knocking him out at first contact.

    -Rusty

  • "really evil crackling sound" (Score:5, Funny)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:37PM (#6025902) Homepage
    From the article:

    When charged, the jacket crackles audibly. A pair of slits in the outer lining shows the electric arcs that course across the entire middle layer. It's an impressive display of the jacket's power.

    Damn.

    Now, it seems, would be a good time for me to give cross-dressing a whirl.

  • Screw protection... (Score:3, Funny)

    by EnVisiCrypt ( 178985 ) <groovetheorist@h ... m minus caffeine> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:38PM (#6025912)
    ...I'm going to retrofit one so that I can fit in it and I can be an unarrestable supervillain!

  • If I were a criminal... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dantes ( 89932 )
    I'd want one of these. I'll be surprised if this type of jacket isn't classified as a weapon, with all of the regulatory implications. Can't imagine cops would look too kindly on a device that makes criminals literally untouchable.

    "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."

    Riggght, so as

  • Lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by capnjack41 ( 560306 ) <spam_me@crapola.org> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:39PM (#6025921)
    Something tells me that all this will do is create lawsuits. Even though they say it gets the "green light" if the jacket "isn't used to commit a crime", it sounds like the same type of deal where someone breaking into your house and injuring themselves can sue you for negligence (and win).

  • idea! (Score:2, Funny)

    by b0tman ( 667349 )
    i especially like the line about how it comes in small sizes, and has narrow armholes, to prevent men from wearing one for offensive purposes.

    hmm, i'm a pretty small guy...

    1. buy electric jacket
    2. jump on people while charged
    3. ????
    4. PROFIT!

  • Response from muggers (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord Grey ( 463613 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:39PM (#6025923)
    Soon we'll hear about a new crime wave where the victim is first doused with a bucket of water, then mugged.

  • Not impressed (Score:4, Funny)

    by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:39PM (#6025924) Homepage
    I won't be impressed until the Tesla Coil version comes out and can shock those pesky dogs at 10 ft.

    --trb
  • I can just imagine some old man with a pacemaker touching some lady on the arm to ask for directions and getting his answer from Saint Peter.

  • Several questions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SuiteSisterMary ( 123932 ) <{slebrun} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:39PM (#6025929) Journal

    What would happen if you were wearing rubber gloves when you grabbed this?

    What would happen if you grabbed her face, then her coat?

    What would happen if you squirted her with water?

  • Women only (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aridhol ( 112307 ) <ka_lac@hotmail.com> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:39PM (#6025930) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Okay.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by foxtrot ( 14140 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:39PM (#6025932)
    The story has three icons next to it.

    Technology. OK. I get that.

    Toys. OK. Maybe.

    Entertainment. That's twisted...

  • hey bebe... (Score:3, Funny)

    by bilbobuggins ( 535860 ) <bilbobuggins@[ ]tjunt.com ['jun' in gap]> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:40PM (#6025941)
    did i sense a spark between us? ;)
  • Sure to get a charge out of any would-be assailant! Ok .. bad puns aside, who's going to take the lead and develop the dentata? (if you've no clue what that is read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.)
    A.M.

  • I dunno about this... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gudlyf ( 544445 ) <.gudlyf. .at. .realistek.com.> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:40PM (#6025944) Homepage Journal
    It sure seems both the attacker and the attackee are enjoying this [akamai.net] (taken from the article) a bit too much.

  • Rubber gloves.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DailyGrind ( 456659 )
    ...enough said
  • This sounds like a wonderful device and well worth the money. Let's hope the assailant hasn't thought to wear rubber soled shoes and gloves.
  • umm... duh... he *conceded* that criminals could use it as an "offensive" weapon, he made a difference between male criminals and female criminals. It's a weapon for cripes sake it shocks people who touch you. Now, let me see... ask for a ride home, get frisky, charge jacket, shock victim, steal car. Now how that really matters what gender you are when it takes place, i don't know.

    Also, it'd be interesting what kinda singatures this thing makes when it charges up. I bet it's not even compatible with bl

  • Do we really want this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rdewald ( 229443 ) * <(moc.liamg) (ta) (dlawedr)> on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:42PM (#6025968) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re:Do we really want this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:50PM (#6026054) Homepage Journal
      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.

  • just use a .357 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by b17bmbr ( 608864 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:42PM (#6025971)
    why let attackers get so close. just get yourself a snubby .357, ah hell, just get yourself a .45.

  • effective defense (Score:4, Interesting)

    by urbazewski ( 554143 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:46PM (#6026018) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Life imitates Dilbert? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kent_eh ( 543303 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @01:58PM (#6026133)
    Dilbert already invented Shock Pants [tvtome.com] almost 3 years ago.

  • Perfect gift for your dominatrix (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wesley Everest ( 446824 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:03PM (#6026183)
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

    by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:06PM (#6026213) Journal
    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.
  • http://merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book= Dictionary&va=hysterical [merriamwebster.com]

    One entry found for hysteria.

    Main Entry: hysteria
    Pronunciation: his-'ter-E-&, -'tir-
    Function: noun
    Etymology: New Latin, from English hysteric, adjective, from Latin hystericus, from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus
    Date: 1801
    1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
    2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess
    - hysteric /-'ter-ik/ noun
    - hysterical /-'ter-i-k&l/ also hysteric adjective
    - hysterically /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

  • Completely illegal in MA, and hence, at MIT (Score:5, Informative)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:16PM (#6026297)

    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.

  • It is not enough to knock anyone out. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:27PM (#6026391) Homepage Journal
    I watched the demo quicktime movie. The guy grabs the model and he jerks his hand away. Big deal. It's not useful unless it puts people on the ground, shaking and twitching. You can still punch the shit out of someone wearing one; If you're willing to rape someone you're probably willing to beat them up.

  • Clever idea. Lousy product. Snake oil. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Walter Wart ( 181556 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:38PM (#6026483) Homepage
    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 [selfdefense.info].
    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 [transforma...titute.com] or Modern Warrior [mwarrior.com], Marty and Gila Hayes [firearmsacademy.com] or Massad Ayoob [ayoob.com] 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.

  • How do they test this thing? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MongooseCN ( 139203 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:25PM (#6026904) Homepage
    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.
  • 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....)

  • From across the room... (Score:4, Funny)

    by mattsucks ( 541950 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @04:06PM (#6027215) Homepage
    .. 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... (Score:4, Funny)

    by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @04:35PM (#6027423) Homepage Journal
    "Hi honey, I'm home!! Oh, you look great today. So warm and inviting, here let me give you a hu...ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZ..........!"

  • too bad they crippled the damn thing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rifter ( 147452 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @04:37PM (#6027440) Homepage

    To prevent accidental discharges, the wearer must arm the jacket before it can deliver a shock. A lock on the sleeve must first be opened with a key, and then the charge is built up by holding down a button inside one of the sleeves.

    It reminds me of the research into "smart guns" that decide whether they want to fire or not, and "smart bullets" that are designed to cause less damage.

    What is the point of giving a woman a weapon with the claim she can use it in unexpected situations without being disarmed and then put on so many safeties it becomes useless? If the attacker can take a gun out of her hand, he certainly can grab the key from her, or stop her pressing the button that causes the shock... criminey!

  • Discrimination! (Score:3, Funny)

    by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @05:01PM (#6027576) Homepage Journal
    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.

    I'm sorry, but how can anyone defend this assumption? The jacket _clearly_ discriminates against fat women! :-)

  • Is this really NEW?? (Score:3, Informative)

    by MrMac ( 116497 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @01:02AM (#6029614)
    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.
    [uspto.gov]
    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 [uspto.gov]

    Hope MIT dosen't have probs with patenting theirs.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close