Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

10 Wearable Habitats To Shelter You From the Apocalypse

samzenpus posted 1 year,27 days | from the tucking-in-for-the-night dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 135

fangmcgee writes "The end may not be nigh, but with vicious storms, severe flooding, and rising temperatures becoming the new normal, the apocalypse might be closer than we think. In the case of a cataclysmic event that could displace thousands, if not millions, of people, the availability of emergency shelter becomes a pressing concern. Here are 10 'wearable shelters' that serve as protective all-weather garments in the day and insulating dwellings at night."

cancel ×

135 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Universal survival tool (5, Funny)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479447)

All one needs is a towel.

Re:Universal survival tool (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479625)

All one needs is a towel.

That isn't entirely correct. One of the big issues I have with Mr. Adams is that he totally ignored WD40 and Duct tape. I don't care if he thinks he knows the answer to everything, your travel bag is not complete without those two essentials.

Re:Universal survival tool (5, Funny)

Noughmad (1044096) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479807)

That may be true. However,

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitchhiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have "lost." What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

To summarize, if you know where you towel is, other people will lend you WD40, duct tape, cats and toast with butter. That should be enough for any apocalypse.

Re:Universal survival tool (1)

jellomizer (103300) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479821)

For the most part a towel is more handy.
However if you go bare bones, I would suggest a good quality Pocket knife (no extra stuff just the knife).
A towel is a nice extra.
WD-40 for the wilderness isn't that much use, for the most part you will want more friction not less.
Duct tape, has a limited use time until your roll runs out. A knife you can use over and over again, sharpen it on a stone and keep going.
You can strip bark and make rope, which can allow you to tie the knife at the end of a stick to make a deadly spear. You can scrape it against some flint to start a fire.

Re:Universal survival tool (1)

war4peace (1628283) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480649)

Or simply cut yourself in it, lay down and die of thirst/starvation, if you're the average city dweller.

Re:Universal survival tool (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480791)

For the most part a towel is more handy.

Once a towel gets wet, it starts to smell funny. Apocalyptic survivors want to smell fresh and clean.

WD-40 for the wilderness isn't that much use, for the most part you will want more friction not less.

Speak for yourself, brother... You're forgetting the 1000s of other uses - fire starter, mosquito repellent, zombie repellant, bear repellant. The list goes on and on. Just because you're in the wilderness, doesn't mean that you can just ignore civilization.

Duct tape, has a limited use time until your roll runs out.

Again, such a failure of imagination. You can build a house, a dress, a condom (well, that might be a stretch). Fix a car / boat / airplane / bicycle. Splint a fracture, cover a wound.

A knife you can use over and over again, sharpen it on a stone and keep going.
You can strip bark and make rope, which can allow you to tie the knife at the end of a stick to make a deadly spear. You can scrape it against some flint to start a fire.

Well, yes, of course. But if you just have a little knife and I've got a can of WD 40, then I'm going to spray you in the face, grab your knife and make some sparks.

Kids these days.

Re:Universal survival tool (5, Funny)

g0bshiTe (596213) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480047)

Strange, add WD40 + duct tape + towel and you get 42.

tie-wraps! (1)

jago25_98 (566531) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480691)

AND tie wraps - that's the trinity

6th mass extinction of biodiversity (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44479849)

A towel might actually be as useful as anything else, given the circumstances.

Despite the joking, people who don't think that "the end is nigh" probably haven't looked up "mass extinction" [wikipedia.org] and specifically, the 6th mass extinction that's currently underway.

You can't argue with biodiversity plummeting towards the zero axis. Prior mass extinctions have been relatively gradual downward curves in geological time. This one is a vertical drop.

Nothing like this has ever happened before, and the maths says we will shortly be toast, for values of "shortly" ranging from a few decades to a few centuries. And nobody knows exactly where the tipping point lies, the point where the interdependencies between species are no longer self-sustaining and the biosphere collapses like a house of cards.

At that point it's bye bye homo sapiens. We *are* part of the biosphere, not outside of it.

In case anyone's wondering, there is no likely solution to this, because the extinction isn't being caused by anything as simple as CO2 or global warming, it's being caused by destruction of habitats as a direct result of what we call "civilization". Good luck trying to get humans to stop the impact of technology on the biosphere and live with nature, it's not gonna happen.

So we're toast. I'll have a towel too please.

Re:6th mass extinction of biodiversity (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480013)

Oh No! We're all gonna die!

Re:6th mass extinction of biodiversity (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480139)

It's possible that we're all gonna die (our descendents that is), we just don't know, as it's never happened before.

It probably depends on the details of what exactly happens when the biosphere collapses. A few million might be able to survive in isolated regions where the biosphere hasn't fallen apart and turned into a rotting stench, but there will be virtually no food and the atmosphere won't be breathable after a few years, so the bulk of the human population will certainly die shortly after their crops die. Even those isolated regions will lose their crops after a while as O2 and CO2 recycling dwindles.

The odd aren't good.

Re:6th mass extinction of biodiversity (1)

Soft Cosmic Rusk (1211950) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480241)

Is this you? [xkcd.com]

Re:6th mass extinction of biodiversity (2)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480889)

You can't argue with biodiversity plummeting towards the zero axis.

But it's not actually plummeting towards the zero axis, let us note.

Nothing like this has ever happened before

You're making the fundamental error of assuming that geological era mass extinctions are measured in the same way that the current era's extinctions are. For example, the extinction that marks the end of the Cretaceous period killed 75% of all organisms that left fossils. It is worth noting here that the only large animals to survive were reptile scavengers like crocodiles. That is, if you were a large land animal of the Cretaceous and you didn't feed on dead meat or could survive months without food, then you didn't make it.

In comparison, plenty of large animals survive today with little threat looming on the horizon. That tells me right there that the harm of the current period of humanity is exaggerated.

In case anyone's wondering, there is no likely solution to this, because the extinction isn't being caused by anything as simple as CO2 or global warming, it's being caused by destruction of habitats as a direct result of what we call "civilization". Good luck trying to get humans to stop the impact of technology on the biosphere and live with nature, it's not gonna happen.

The likely solution is the creation of some wilderness zones, which has already been shown successful in North America.

Re:Universal survival tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480843)

All I need is a case of beer and pack of smokes. I could trade for almost anything I could imagine. Works great in jail.

Re:Universal survival tool (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481527)

Sadly enough, I read that as [i]trowel[/i] on my first pass and found it a surprisingly interesting statement. Compact, can be used to dig a hole for shelter, a sharpened edge can be used as a knife, build a dam, uproot plants for transit, go gardening... then I saw the response and it turned out to be nothing more than a Hitchhiker's reference. Sigh.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers (1)

shortscruffydave (638529) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479471)

The 4th one reminds me of something from a Red Hot Chilli Peppers video

Re:Red Hot Chilli Peppers (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479985)

WhatIGotYouGottaGetItPutItInYou...

That one?

Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479473)

Homeless people get robbed if they have anything valuable or as useful as a sleeping bag.

(Also, the one in the main cover image (images 7/10/11 in the gallery) is clearly just taking the piss.)

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (1)

couchslug (175151) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479785)

"Homeless people get robbed if they have anything valuable or as useful as a sleeping bag."

The first tool to "wear" when you start moving away from a disaster is your legal concealed firearm (which you have PRACTICED with and are proficient in handling).

Bug out defense can be advanced:

One vet I know has a short-but-legal AR-15 with a folding buttstock (not retracting, folding) that fits nicely in a standard small backpack. Of course he has a pistol handy because CHUDs won't give you time to free your rifle, but its main duty is feral hogs and dogs where its ability to fit under a truck seat is handy.

The other thing to do is make sure you don't stand out as a target. For example, a small shelter could be useful for concealment just-off-highway when doing a long march away from the disaster area.

No need for anything special though. At least four pairs of good socks, broken-in hiking boots, and a poncho should do for temperate weather.

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480067)

The first tool to "wear" when you start moving away from a disaster is your legal concealed firearm (which you have PRACTICED with and are proficient in handling).

Way to rub it in, asshole. Some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in the bible belt, appalachia, or some other shithole where "legal concealed firearm" isn't an oxymoron. And I say this as an owner of several firearms, a few of which could be (and would be) carried concealed if the legal climate in the developed states wasn't so fucking unconstitutional.

because CHUDs

LOL.

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (1)

jafiwam (310805) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480147)

The first tool to "wear" when you start moving away from a disaster is your legal concealed firearm (which you have PRACTICED with and are proficient in handling).

Way to rub it in, asshole. Some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in the bible belt, appalachia, or some other shithole where "legal concealed firearm" isn't an oxymoron. And I say this as an owner of several firearms, a few of which could be (and would be) carried concealed if the legal climate in the developed states wasn't so fucking unconstitutional.

because CHUDs

LOL.

Move? Or, stop voting for the idiots that don't let you carry? Carry anyway?

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480313)

>Move?

What states allow concealed-carry, but don't have conservative christians imposing, or trying to impose their superstitions on kids at school? Illinois is a possibility as long as you avoid southern Illinois, but I'd wait a couple of years to see of the new concealed carry laws hold up.

>Or, stop voting for the idiots that don't let you carry?

Not a bad plan, unless their opponents have larger issues, which is often the case.

>Carry anyway?

Really terrible idea, unless you're trying to go to jail, in which case it's a pretty good idea.

Re: Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44482311)

Washington has legal pot, gay marriage, and conceal carry. Also good tech work and its beautiful

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480441)

Move? Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said "some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in..."

Moving costs money. Living somewhere that lacks tech jobs costs opportunity. Being surrounded by rednecks, hicks, and the Jesus fan club costs sanity.

Also, I don't see how not voting in elections would bring about legal concealed carry. In case that last sentence went over your head, I'm implying that the only ones on the ballot are the idiots that don't let you carry. Despite voting for write-ins for the last few elections, I still can't legally carry concealed, so this suggestion of yours doesn't seem to be panning out either.

And yes, carry anyway. That's a great way of earning yourself a mandatory minimum sentence. I refer you to the exciting story of Brian Aitken [wikipedia.org] who had the pleasure of exploring the maze of NJ firearms laws personally. Carrying anyway is only a good idea if you don't mind spending several years in prison.

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (1)

stoploss (2842505) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481357)

Move? Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said "some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in..."

Oh, please. Don't couch this as a need, when it's clearly just the integrated outcome of your decisions to stay in (what I infer to be) "...god damn New Jersey".

I know for a fact that I would literally turn down $500k/year in salary if the job required me to live in NJ (or any of those other godforsaken liberal hellhole states). I would be much happier even if I could only make a tenth of that while living in relative freedom.

So, I believe that when you define moving to live in freedom as impossible, you must be including your standard of living preconceived notions, etc. This is disingenuous if you don't qualify your absolute "can't afford it" statement. Otherwise, are you literally claiming you can't just walk away from your material possessions and start over someplace more free? Or is it, as I suspect, more that you just don't want to do so?

Re: Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44482353)

More free is a bit subjective. Anyhow there are some liberal places that are ok with guns

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481619)

Being surrounded by rednecks, hicks, and the Jesus fan club costs sanity.

Nothing like sheltered Yankees with no clue about life outside the beltway that they didn't learn from reruns of the Beverly Hillbillys. AMIRITE?

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480081)

RTFA, most of these were intended for existing homeless people in cities, or for temporary mass refugees. Not paranoid survivalist teotwawki gun nuts who presumably can just buy a regular sleeping bag and/or bivy.

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (3, Interesting)

g0bshiTe (596213) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480123)

Or better yet a blue tarp, multifunction at it's finest, fold your gear into it and it's a makeshift Yukon pack http://kayakdave.com/2012/09/13/how-to-build-a-yukon-portage-pack/ [kayakdave.com] it also doubles as a makeshift tent at night or in rain.

Part of surviving something like that is too look like you have nothing. Someone with a ragged tarp looking backpack may be less of a target than someone toting a North Face backpack.

This guy http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz179/556mp/IMG_3213.jpg [photobucket.com] probably stands a better chance of not getting robbed as opposed to this guy http://attractions.uptake.com/blog/files/2009/06/camping-backpack.jpg [uptake.com] who you can clearly see has a nice toasty warm sleeping bag and even a foam sleeping pad.

Re:Shelters for people who don't need shelter. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481911)

The first tool to "wear" when you start moving away from a disaster is your legal concealed firearm (which you have PRACTICED with and are proficient in handling).

Illegal in many states, and illegal or effectively illegal in most states.

One vet I know has a short-but-legal AR-15 with a folding buttstock (not retracting, folding) that fits nicely in a standard small backpack.

Illegal virtually everywhere, if you actually carry it in the backpack anyway.

No need for anything special though. At least four pairs of good socks, broken-in hiking boots, and a poncho should do for temperate weather.

Emergency blankets and butane lighters, and a knife, in addition to your large environment-colored waterproof poncho. Exposure kills surprisingly many people.

Bivy Sacks... (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479501)

Bivy sacks those are not.

I like turtles (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479521)

Are you a turtle?

Re:I like turtles (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44479717)

Indeed I am. A turtle with a huge hard on.

Re:I like turtles (2)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480479)

Are you a turtle?

YBYSAIA!

good to know (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480763)

someone got it

Re:good to know (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | 1 year,27 days | (#44482009)

It's been a very long time since I've seen that bumper sticker...

Habitat =! habitation (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479575)

Similar terms, but they do not mean the same thing.

=! is not equal to != (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44479619)

Similar, but they do not mean the same thing.

-1 Annoying (4, Informative)

pspahn (1175617) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479595)

Main reason I often don't read TFA? Because of trash sites like the one linked in TFS.

Anything where normal parts of the article are disguised as ads (or vice versa) is an immediate bounce for me. Present your content like a responsible adult and people might read.

Bingo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44479667)

Also, the only "wearable" I'll be concerned with in the event of an apocalypse is my rifle. It can gain you access to many shelters.

Re:Bingo. (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480541)

Until you run out of Ammo. I'll stick with my sword, knife and crossbow.

Re:-1 Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44479721)

Salshdotted now anyway...

Re:-1 Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480167)

My thoughts exactly.

And I wonder who decided this should be on slashdot, and why?

Seems like a garbage article that is click bait. I have suggested much more worthy items that were turned down.

There must be some mistake.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44479621)

What? There's no tin foil outfit. They missed their biggest market...

Not impressed (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479641)

Ok, I looked it over and am not impressed.

A hammock and a plastic tarp stuffed into a jacket pocket is not a bad solution.

Re:Not impressed (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479651)

And none of these can be created with a 3D printer. What is wrong with these people?

Re:Not impressed (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479671)

Your 3D printer works when the power is out? It uses all natural resins for "ink".

gotta have the Sleep Suit (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479685)

Nobody will know it's me falling asleep on my keyboard.

Advertrash (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44479709)

Why is trash like this appearing on Slashdot?

Perhaps it's time to reconsider how this site is run.

And this one comes complete with (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479735)

And this one comes complete with a tin foil brain protection system, and the tin foil is completely inspectable and replaceable by you, the whackjob^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hintelligent purchaser of portable habitats.

Vicious Storms? What??? (-1, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479791)

Enough with the exaggerated apocalyptic BS.

Total global cyclonic energy ("vicious storms") has been at a 40-year LOW. Yes, the Atlantic got some storms last year but they were only seemingly "more vicious" because they happened near cities. The overall rate of "vicious storms" is DOWN, not up.

I would thank you to stop spreading the alarmist BS. Look at the actual figures instead.

Re:Vicious Storms? What??? (1)

couchslug (175151) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479971)

Got a particularly good link?

Re:Vicious Storms? What??? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480163)

Well, I retract my original statement. Apparently energy is up slightly in the last few years, with the result that we are now in a 30-year low, no longer a 40-year slump.

Here is one source, [wattsupwiththat.com] and here is another. [theinconve...keptic.com]

Just two examples. It is pretty easy to google that, and the information is not somebody's "opinion", it is what the science says. BUT... while those particular sources are often attacked, keep in mind that they are presenting someone else's scientific studies, they are not "the source". You aren't likely to find that information on sites about "climate change" because they don't want to point it out to you; it weakens their arguments and apocalyptic prognostications.

Storms irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480001)

Enough with the exaggerated apocalyptic BS.

Have you checked the state of the biosphere recently? Look up fisheries, biodiversity, anoxia.

Storms are immaterial to human survival, and humans won't go extinct from global warming nor even a 100m rise in ocean levels. But we can't survive without the biosphere, and we're doing an excellent job of killing it off, very rapidly indeed.

Re:Storms irrelevant (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480945)

Have you checked the state of the biosphere recently?

He might or might not have done so. We can't tell from available evidence. However, we can determine from your baseless concerns that you haven't.

But we can't survive without the biosphere, and we're doing an excellent job of killing it off, very rapidly indeed.

I'm chilling in Yellowstone National Park as I type this. There's no evidence of biosphere killing going on here. So it can't be "very rapid".

Re:Vicious Storms? What??? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480445)

Hahaha. As usual, contradicting "mainstream" rhetoric -- no matter how correct I was -- got me modded "troll" again.

It's no longer even just sad. It has gotten to the point it's almost amusing.

Re:Vicious Storms? What??? (1)

Valdrax (32670) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481261)

Total global cyclonic energy ("vicious storms") has been at a 40-year LOW. Yes, the Atlantic got some storms last year but they were only seemingly "more vicious" because they happened near cities. The overall rate of "vicious storms" is DOWN, not up.

Well, 40-year low is possibly a bit misleading if you intend to imply there's a downward trend. ACE varies pretty wildly from year to year, so it's extremely hard to say if there's a trend in one direction or the other. This is why most climate and atmospheric scientists are extremely reluctant to blame any one storm season on climate change, despite the media biting at the bullet to do so.

Though, what's interesting to me is how strong everyone predicted this season was going to be in the Atlantic and how anemic it has been so far. I haven't seen a good explanation of that, though we've got 3 more months to go.

Re:Vicious Storms? What??? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481379)

"Well, 40-year low is possibly a bit misleading if you intend to imply there's a downward trend. "

Well, first, I corrected this to 30 years. And second, I wasn't suggesting a downward trend, but a persistent dip in ACE for a number of years. It is my understanding that it has actually been up a bit, on average, over the last few years but that we are still at a relatively low spot in the long-term record.

Apocalypse? (3, Funny)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479839)

How can they handle the apocalypse when they can't even handle being Slashdotted?

Re:Apocalypse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480273)

The apocalypse will be caused when the next super collider goes on line and the onsite web server is slashdotted causing the collider control system to overheat and.... You get the idea...

Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479885)

This Apocalypse stuff is really starting to annoy me. If civilization falls, it will be gradual. And we won't go back to the stone age.
Why because we know how to not live in the stone age.

We know about metals and melting ore to to create them. We know about magnets and how they can be used to generate electricity or using electricity to create maniacal energy. We understand that silicon has a semi-conductive state and how to arrange semi-conductors into not gates and not gates into And and Or gates and further on to a computer.

As a group of people we know a lot of stuff. and will not live like in a stone age. Short term we may be living in camps. But we would have a lot of things to help out.

Re:Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480041)

Yes, we do, but not the average BO voter, just look at Detroit.

Re:Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480175)

Sure, now ya'll want to look at Detroit. Where you guys been the last 30 years while the gradual decline was happening? Looking the other way, no doubt..

Re:Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480269)

Hiding in my bunker at night and taking care of my own yo. Can't fix stupid that has become America.

Re:Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480401)

Hey, wait a minute, don't you mean B *H* O, for the maximum tinfoil conservitard impression?

You just can't type the name out of the marxist fascist hippie communist USURPER, otherwise his drones will getcha, Clem!

BO vs. BHO (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480747)

BHO sounds less like body odor. It also sounds more like well-liked Presidents such as FDR and JFK.

Re:Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480275)

Some people know about magnets. Insane Clown Posse is not part of that group.

Re:Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480371)

You got Apocalypse running on Mame? How did you do it?

Re:Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (3, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480381)

This Apocalypse stuff is really starting to annoy me.

That I agree with, but remember, this is marketing hype. "Apocalypse" is trending pretty high right now, so it's one of the buzzwords that's en vogue. Next week it might be "Green," oh wait that was last week; thus is the mercurial nature of advertising.

Long story short, "Wearable Apocalypse Shelter" probably generates a lot more impressions than "Stupid Art Projects That Emulate Clothing"

If civilization falls, it will be gradual.

Depends on what causes the fall; an asteroid strike, fast-moving plague that wipes out 3/4 - 2/3 of the human populace, or all-out nuclear holocaust would tear down what humanity has built in a hurry. Hell, some anomalous event that completely wipes out all digitally-stored information, but doesn't touch infrastructure, would be pretty devastating to modern society.

We know about metals and melting ore to to create them. We know about magnets and how they can be used to generate electricity or using electricity to create maniacal energy. We understand that silicon has a semi-conductive state and how to arrange semi-conductors into not gates and not gates into And and Or gates and further on to a computer.

Collectively, perhaps that's true. And, presuming our civilization has a long fall that does not include destruction of knowledge (which, as any student of history can tell you, never happens; consider the Library of Alexandria, for example, which was believed to have contained the sum of human knowledge up to that point in history - burned by invading armies).

However, there are some issues. First, we should presume that any information that is stored in a purely digital format (i.e., no hard-copies, or so few hard-copies that spreading the knowledge across a vast geographic area quickly without electronic transmission would be nigh impossible) would be lost completely. Second, we should also consider that it's likely a majority of survivors would either A) not understand much of the material, and thus consider it to be more useful as fuel than as knowledge, or B) be too busy just staying alive to care how things like semi-conductors, which would not be essential to daily life, work. So, aside from the 0-day loss of all digital-only information, you'd also see a steady decrease in the amount of material available due to human nature (and, let's face it, general stupidity).

Plus, presuming the need to completely rebuild civilization from the ground up, computers are one of the last items to consider in terms of importance. So, while falling all the way back to the actual Stone Age is pretty unlikely, considering, it's not too far fetched to imagine the post-apocalyptic future as a modified reboot of the Iron Age.

Re:Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (1)

Shortguy881 (2883333) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480395)

This isnt true. Check out this study:

http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/PopulationSize.pdf [santafe.edu]

If the population shrinks enough, ie massive plague or apocalyptic type stuff, technology will regress, even to a stone age like state.

Re:Is anyone else sick of the Apocalypse mame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44481589)

You might understand how to go from sand to transistors to logic gates to a computer. Understanding is not ability. You need a lot of people cooperating to transform that understanding into ability. In a global disaster, those people are dying and using all their brainpower to obtain the essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Their children, if they are lucky enough to have them, will be taught to shoot first, and reason later. That's all it takes...

Pointless story. (3, Informative)

ttucker (2884057) | 1 year,27 days | (#44479939)

It is a collection of ten photos of art projects, which are neither useful, nor available for any practical use. Sort of like showing an exotic concept car.

Why is this on Slashdot? (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480017)

It's not survival gear, it's silly jackoff "art" and it's not news for nerds and it doesn't fucking matter.

Want to survive? Arm your mind, arm yourself (with a legal concealed weapon) and have a serious bugout bag and serious clothing (including BROKEN IN combat or hiking boots).

Re: Why is this on Slashdot? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480231)

In the end of civilization as we know it you are really concerned for your concealed weapon to be legal?

Do you remember mars attack? Would you want to bet who do you remember me from that film?

By the way, good luck with your legal concealed weapon without ammunition (you didn't mentioned it, did you?)

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480277)

If things have gotten bad enough where people are "bugging out" en masse and a weapon is required for protection, is the legality of that weapon really an issue any more?

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480555)

Want to survive? Arm your mind, arm yourself (with a legal concealed weapon) and have a serious bugout bag and serious clothing (including BROKEN IN combat or hiking boots).

If you are in a position to execute such a strategy you must have no children, no pets, no worthwhile romantic or platonic relationships etc.

I would rather live a fulfilling life now, while it is still possible, and accept my untimely demise with the comfort that I enjoyed life while it was enjoyable.

Not interested in scraping through some post-apocalyptic existence, which no matter your preparation, is sure to be short and thoroughly un-enjoyable.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480701)

Not interested in scraping through some post-apocalyptic existence, which no matter your preparation, is sure to be short and thoroughly un-enjoyable.

Just because you aren't, doesn't mean that everyone else shares your views. I must admit that I probably would find day to day life in such a world more fulfilling (where merely surviving helps future humanity in a big way).

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (1)

Valdrax (32670) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481275)

I must admit that I probably would find day to day life in such a world more fulfilling (where merely surviving helps future humanity in a big way).

Well, it certainly lowers the bar for meaningful participation, doesn't it?

BuzzFeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44480077)

Has Slashdot become buzzfeed or something? WTF?

I'll be the envy of all... (3, Funny)

mt1955 (698912) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480143)

... at the next Occupy Movement sit-in with my new Ecouterre wearable habitat!

News for nerds (2)

harvestsun (2948641) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480335)

Stuff that matters

They weren't all awful. (1)

RSKennan (835119) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480345)

"The Vessel" looked good and seemed useful (I'd actually buy it), and the "JakPak" and "Refugewear" seemed useful, even though they look like crap. The rest were pretty lame, though.

Apocalypse .. or light spring drizzle? (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480405)

And lo, out of the four corners came a misting of water that fell on all the sons of Abraham.
And the iniquitous were chilled slightly by it, and proclaimed their shame...
The children of the lamb were sheltered by their light clothing.

Everyone PANIC! (3, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480533)

In the case of a cataclysmic event that could displace thousands, if not millions, of people, the availability of emergency shelter becomes a pressing concern.

The things that will actually make a difference in your ability to survive a cataclysmic event have very little to do with simple products you can buy. Some things that will make a huge difference:
- How much warning you get: The more time you have, the more survivable the mess is.
- Your willingness to believe the warning: If you don't believe it (not uncommon at all), you won't react in time to do anything useful.
- Whether you have the resources to get to somewhere else in between the warning and the actual cataclysm: If you don't have anywhere to go, don't have a car, etc, then leaving is much more difficult.
- Your willingness to lose most of your stuff: Many people have died going for their valuables rather than going to a safer place.
- Whether you have any chronic medical conditions: A lot of deaths in disaster areas are people not getting the medication they need to treat chronic illness.
- Your age: Elderly and young children will get the worst of it.
- Your physical fitness: If you're hale and hardy, you can consider options like loading up everything you need in a backpack and walking out of the disaster area. If you're morbidly obese, you can't.

Basically, the standard strategy for dealing with a serious but localized disaster is (1) Try to get everyone out of there before it strikes. (2) After it strikes, bring as many supplies into the area as you can while getting as many people out of the area as you can as quickly as possible. (3) As the people are leaving, start fixing the underlying problems to the degree possible. (4) As the disaster area recovers, people start trickling back in.

I don't think that's going to work... (3, Insightful)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480545)

Frilly cover over a miniskirt and heels for the Apocalypse? About as good as a wrapper on a hamburger, and will probably serve the same purpose.

I would envision something like a space suit, with chain mail over Kevlar to resist bladed weapon puctures and bullets. It would not need to be airtight, but would allow a slight overpressure for nuclear/biological/chemical survival, something like armored firefighter turnout gear with SCBA, with an armored helmet with facemask.

Accessorize with melee weapons and big guns...ouila! The fashion statement of the Apocalypse.

Re:I don't think that's going to work... (1)

jago25_98 (566531) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480813)

Amen, the photos had me in stitches that's for sure :D

That won't work either. (3, Informative)

Valdrax (32670) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481301)

I would envision something like a space suit, with chain mail over Kevlar to resist bladed weapon puctures and bullets. It would not need to be airtight, but would allow a slight overpressure for nuclear/biological/chemical survival, something like armored firefighter turnout gear with SCBA, with an armored helmet with facemask.

Accessorize with melee weapons and big guns...ouila! The fashion statement of the Apocalypse.

Spoken like someone who has never hiked long distance. Weight is your enemy.

You are no better than the fashionista, proposing something so utterly impractical yet "cool" looking.

Re:That won't work either. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481933)

They just forgot to mention the baby tokamak power source, and the actuators... yep, they've been playin' too much Fallout, and they're planning for Powered Armor.

Problem with Powered Armor is maintaining a charge. You will never again think it's a cool idea for disaster relief, or even war, if you read Steakley's Armor.

Re:That won't work either. (1)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,27 days | (#44482249)

just make powered armor that runs on biufuel, specifically the blubber of your 300+ lbs. fellow americans. 15kW (20 horsepower!) for 1,000 seconds on a pound of fat!

Re: That won't work either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44481947)

forget hiking long distances. just look at hazmat response. in one of those getups, which are designed to be lightweight, a person can only last 10-15 minutes of moderate exercise before risking heat stroke.

Re:I don't think that's going to work... (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481577)

I would envision something like a space suit, with chain mail over Kevlar to resist bladed weapon puctures and bullets. It would not need to be airtight, but would allow a slight overpressure for nuclear/biological/chemical survival, something like armored firefighter turnout gear with SCBA, with an armored helmet with facemask.

Interesting, so your Fallout character hasn't gotten Power Armor MK2 yet? Back in reality, this seems like something that would really slow you down when you're trying to vacate whichever area it is that's now populated by zombies, mutants, robots, sharknados, etc.

Old TV program (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | 1 year,27 days | (#44480957)

A few years ago they had a TV program where people showed off their inventions. One of the most popular categories was methods to urinate in public. These "habitats" look a lot like those inventions. Could these really be public urinals designed to look like tents?

BFD (1)

Jawnn (445279) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481217)

Somebody thinks they've "invented", the poncho, the parka, and the bivouac bag.

Apocalypse != catastrophic event (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44481293)

Just to get the terms right.

Apocalypse is a biblical term (sure, has been used in other ways and it's ethimology goes further back) and the fact that it is linked to "the end of the world" reinforces this origin. But that's not all, not by far, and it's not the most important part.

Apocalypse in the biblical sense is mainly about the end of the world when Jesus Christ will come again, renew all things and reign for ever. The world will be radically different and it's population will be divided and introduced to this new world or banished forever into hell.

Hollywood's apocalypse, on the other hand, means catastrophic event where millions will be dead or displaced, the world will be radically different due to this catastrophy, it will not be renewed, Jesus Christ will not reign (yet), it will be populated by the survivors and presumably ruled by those with the best bunkers. It makes me sick to see an apocalypse as the one depicted on the movie "2012", where "the world ends" and now we're populated and ruled by a bunch of mostly useless, unscrupled survivors.

Us christians (at least those with a little knowledge of the bible and a minimum of faith to believe in it) do take a different view on the end of the world. We can have many catastrophic events, lots of dead or displaced, but that is not the apocalypse unless Jesus Christ comes again.

Sure, this is slashdot and my argument can seem a little off-topic but if we're using the term apocalypse, let's use it correctly, and that is mainly: apocalypse != catastrophic event but apocalypse = second coming of Jesus Christ (and all the consequences this will have, as states in the book of Revelations, which can include a catastrophic event).

Re:Apocalypse != catastrophic event (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44481735)

So why should we accept your definition of "apocalypse" as the "right" one, given that you are aware that the word predates the Bible? Why do you get a free pass and Hollywood doesn't?

Re:Apocalypse != catastrophic event (1)

losfromla (1294594) | 1 year,27 days | (#44481783)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. It means what it means in the context it is used in.

Re:Apocalypse != catastrophic event (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44481993)

It means what it means in the context it is used in.

Exactly. In the context you're complaining about, it's used to mean the end of civilization as we currently know it. So what are you complaining about? Or are you trying to tell me that disaster movies are the bible and therefore the context is the same? If so, that's just silly. I don't think any sane person thinks that a "sci-fi" movie or book is to be taken as a religious text. Well, there's Scientology, so I guess the people who fall for that scam are batshit crazy.

People use different words to mean different things. Get over it. "Organic" doesn't mean the same thing in to chemist as it does at the grocery store. "Green" doesn't mean the same thing to an artist as it does to a hippie environmentalist. "Sci-Fi" doesn't mean the same thing to a nerd as it does to a soccer mom.

more art student crap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44482043)

Serious /. stop with the art student fashion crap..This is SLASHDOT not motherfucking Cosmo or some crap.

5000 year old technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44482087)

Long cloaks have been effective traveling sleeping quarters for millennia. A modern polar fleece, full circle cloak can easily shelter someone who uses it cautiously at below freezing temperatures, and a couple with such cloaks made of the best modern materials can lie out in sub 0 Faherenheit weather and watch the stars, snuggled up, protected from the ground, and sharing body warmth. I've done during meteor showers with my wife, and later with my wife and daughter, on nights so cold my moustache was freezing solid when I poked my head out of the warmth.

Ours were Polar Fleece from over a decade ago, and still work very well in the worst weather: I'm not sure our cloakmaker carries them anymore, but this looks pretty similar.

                    http://www.cloakmaker.com/searchResults.php?type=cloaks&id=2618

What is wrong with a backpack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44482091)

Was putting tent-poles into a jacket really such a brilliant idea?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>