Shock in the Shower (1997)

http://www.esdjournal.com/static/shower/shower.html

by jms • 11 years ago

92 22 11 years ago

esdjournal.com

RDeckard• 11 years ago

Love the 1996-era website design. Loads instantly, no ads, no non-sense.

miander• 11 years ago

They say you don't know what you have until it's gone.

0x400614• 11 years ago

And the Browsers back button works flawlessly, wow.

cbd1984• 11 years ago

The animated GIFs are an especially nice touch.

kevin_thibedeau• 11 years ago

With the fubared background transparency.

curiousjorge• 11 years ago

secure as hell too when you are just serving html files.

gruez2• 11 years ago

but no https

Everlag• 11 years ago

I'm sorry to inform you that line twelve of that html has a script tag. Here's the kicker: it's google analytics.

MichaelGG• 11 years ago

I'm not sure that 1996-era HTTP server software was "secure as hell" even if serving static content. Browsers certainly were not.

jameshart• 11 years ago

Super 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• 11 years ago

Yeah, that yellow text in a blue background has aged so well. At least there won't be a link to that "Contrast Rebellion" site...

gruez2• 11 years ago

b-b-but it's not responsive!

ashark• 11 years ago

Ah, 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• 11 years ago

Why 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• 11 years ago

The 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)

userbinator3• 11 years ago

The 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....

mikestew• 11 years ago

There 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.

userbinator3• 11 years ago

The 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.

mrfusion• 11 years ago

Could this be used as a new type of battery? It seems to hold way more energy than a typical capacitor.

userbinator3• 11 years ago

You'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• 11 years ago

i'm seeing spam links. me thinks this page was hacked

Shock in the Shower (1997)

Related Stories