5 ms·
Shock in the Shower (1997)
- RDeckard 11y agoLove the 1996-era website design. Loads instantly, no ads, no non-sense.
- miander 11y agoThey say you don't know what you have until it's gone.
- 0x400614 11y agoAnd the Browsers back button works flawlessly, wow.
- cbd1984 11y agoThe animated GIFs are an especially nice touch.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoWith the fubared background transparency.
- curiousjorge 11y agosecure as hell too when you are just serving html files.
- gruez 11y agobut no https
- Everlag 11y agoI'm sorry to inform you that line twelve of that html has a script tag. Here's the kicker: it's google analytics.
- MichaelGG 11y agoI'm not sure that 1996-era HTTP server software was "secure as hell" even if serving static content. Browsers certainly were not.
- jameshart 11y agoSuper secure, except the information leakage: <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97"> ... <META NAME="Template" CONTENT="C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT OFFICE\OFFICE\html.dot"> (Okay, probably not much use now but when this was published, that could maybe have been used to target macro attacks)
- andrewliebchen 11y agoYeah, that yellow text in a blue background has aged so well. At least there won't be a link to that "Contrast Rebellion" site...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- gruez 11y agob-b-but it's not responsive!
- ashark 11y agoAh, a time when HTTP was for documents, not applications and APIs. And when most of the content was posted by enthusiasts wanting to share something with the world, not people trying to sell something to you or sell your clicks to someone else. Obviously lots of things sucked about the 90s web, but it was really cool when it at least seemed like the web was for something other than making money. Actually, it was also nice when the web was merely a tiny sliver of the world that one interacted with only by choice. Hey, remember the distant past of 10 years ago when even glancing at your cell phone while in the company of others was widely considered to be outrageously rude? It's strange because we won, but it feels like we lost. I know, I know. "Old man yells at cloud".
- knodi123 11y agoWhy don't they name the brand of the shampoo, or the manufacturer? The article says this problem was observed by customers, so this ought to be public information... And since this happened 37 years ago, I'm not sure why they would be worried about libel lawsuits or anything....
- cooper12 11y agoThe last sentence: > It should be noted that the product is still sold today, but in a bottle that does not give you a "Shock in the Shower". Based on the depth/access to information presented, the writer was likely an employee or bought on for the investigation. So they probably didn't want to embarrass their employer. (Also the article is from 1997, so it was 19 years ago from their perspective)
- userbinator 11y agoThe new shampoo and conditioner product was contained in a very artistically designed bottle with special graphics on the outside. A national ad campaign had just started and the distinctive bottle was becoming recognizable. This description sounds like someone in the US in the 70s might be able to recall which brand it was. A quick search also finds someone with a similar experience many years later, probably different brand since the original manufacturer would've learned to avoid it: http://jayderose.blogspot.com/2006/09/my-shampoo-shocked-me.html http://jayderose.blogspot.com/2006/09/my-shampoo-shocked-me....
- mikestew 11y agoThere are a couple of problems with pinning it down. First, how much "literary license" is the author using to describe the bottle? It might be much more plain and undistinguished than described. Second, it could have been any number of brands, as funky bottles and labels were not uncommon. Hell, even the syrup for our pancakes came in a glass bottle shaped like a woman. That said, if I had to guess I'd offer two candidates that stand out in my head. First is Farah Fawcett Shampoo. Full color picture of the woman, though the bottle shape was forgettable. Second is Body on Tap: "made with 33% real beer", or something like that. I mention it only because the bottle was cone-shaped ("artistically designed"?), and if the claim is true maybe the beer adds extra loose electrons, I dunno. Or it very well could have been any number of shampoos that showed up briefly, didn't sell, and was yanked so fast even us olde parts who were there don't remember them. EDIT: or maybe I should read the whole article, as it mentions at the end that it's still sold, which eliminates my two candidates.
- userbinator 11y agoThe first time a bottle was opened resulted in a discharge approximately 1.5 inches in length from the shampoo to the metallized film cap seal. The dielectric strength of air is ~3kV/mm. That corresponds to roughly a 114kV potential. It's a good thing these bottles didn't contain something flammable like hairspray.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mrfusion 11y agoCould this be used as a new type of battery? It seems to hold way more energy than a typical capacitor.
- userbinator 11y agoYou've confused energy with potential (voltage). Despite the potential being extremely high, the energy is very low. Otherwise these people would not only be receiving shocks, they'd be burned and/or electrocuted. A capacitor the size of a typical shampoo bottle can definitely hold a lethal amount of energy.
- bognition 11y agoi'm seeing spam links. me thinks this page was hacked