Sorry, that's pretty culturally-ignorant thinking right there.

Japanese people are not "meek" or "inhibited" any more so than Americans are. There are different cultural rules about self-expression but there are most certainly loud, aggressive, and flamboyant people here. They just express themselves in different ways than your typically loud, aggressive, and flamboyant American would.

You might think socioeconomic factors were a reason for the lack of crime, but you'd be wrong there too. Japan has a higher poverty rate and lower median income than the U.S.

The low crime rates here can much better be attributed to cultural factors. Every Japanese person is raised with the belief that it is shameful cause problems to the people around them, whether that be family, schoolmates, or co-workers. Getting arrested is about the most shameful thing you could do here. Just being suspected of a crime will likely get you fired from your job, before you are even tried.

And let's not forget the role the justice system here plays. If you get arrested you are almost 100% going to get convicted because the odds are massively stacked against you in the court system. You are basically guilty until proven innocent. Read this for more info about it.

And people here know this. They also know that Japanese prison is hellish. You won't be raped or assaulted there like in the U.S. but you will know exactly what is like to have all of your freedom stripped completely away.

You add to all of this the low unemployment rate of Japan, the high regulation of all weapons (including knives), a robust social system for helping the unemployed (although unfortunately lately a lot of people seem to be falling through the cracks), a nationalized health insurance plan (I pay a $1 co-pay to take my daughter to the doctor and all prescribed medicines are free), a strong social stigma against drug use, and the ability as an island nation to strictly police the borders to prevent the influx of illegal goods (i.e. drugs/guns) and you get the low crime rates in Japan.

tl;dr

There is little incentive to commit crime in Japan because the both social and legal repercussions are extremely severe, and there is little need to resort to crime to survive (plentiful jobs and robust social security). Likewise the opportunity to commit crime is lessened because of the strict regulation of weapons, drugs, and borders.

EDIT: I will say that on more than one occasion I've thought that a career criminal in the U.S. who suddenly found himself in Japan would feel like a kid in a candy store. Because of the lack of crime, people here don't take precautions against it--some people leave doors and windows unlocked when leaving the house, you'll see laptops or iPads left in cars in plain view, and people carry ridiculous amounts of cash on them (I'm talking like on the order of $1000 or more in some cases). On the one hand it can be reassuring but on the other hand I seriously worry about these people when they travel overseas.

Because phreatic eruptions can be initiated accidentally by drilling or failure of a casing in a geothermal well (Bixley and Browne, 1988), these events must be considered potential hazards during the drilling and production processes.

Volcanology and Geothermal Energy

Kenneth Wohletz
Grant Heiken

It's not a guaranteed problem. But if proper precautions are not taken, then it could happen.

I see we're doing the whole unfamiliar planet & zero safety precautions thing again. Ehhhh, I'm sure it'll all turn out fine.

Since I quite enjoyed the talk I'm willing to overlook that fact He did also have some good examples of actual cold welding.

NASA has an interesting lessons learned article about the Galileo high gain antenna failure, which also seems to be more nuanced than "it was cold welding" - http://llis.nasa.gov/lesson/492

p.s. I got curious about the reference to Gemini, and I'm not 100% sure but I think it might come from a 1991 paper "On-Orbit Coldwelding Fact or Friction?" by Dursch, H. & Spear, S. (Bibliographic Code: 1991NASCP3134.1565D) or else it's from the paper it references as ref 5 (I. Stambler "Surface Effects in Space", Space/Aeronautics, Vol 45 No. 2, 1966 pp. 63-67).

That paper gives the opposite impression to the start of Derek's talk, rather than cold welding being discovered around the time of Gemini, it was often thought to be a problem around that time but as he says later was subsequently found to be quite rare (Dursch and Spear found no actual cases of cold welding causing spacecraft issues, they were usually friction issues due to fretting or galling caused by loss of lubricants, but still recommended taking precautions to avoid coldwelding).

I love this guy, but worry about showing it to my 12 year old son, who is really into electronics... I'd have to preface it with, "don't try this stuff, he's taking serious precautions that may not be seen, plus he knows a lot of what he's doing. When you reach his age and become the electrical engineer you want to be, then do these things... but not the eyebrow thing."

Clearcoating this stuff would remove its blacker-than-black properties. It would then start to reflect light. At which point, why would you favor this expensive shit over regular paint? I haven't seen details on how the sprayable Vantablack is applied, but if it were mixed into a liquid for application, it would have the same problem, unless, somehow, the surface of the hardened material were burnt away, evaporated off, or chemically reduced so that the carbon material could protrude from the substrate, that may allow the light absorption properties to persist. But I don't know how they accomplish that, other than they say it's a complex process that requires a specialist. I still wouldn't try brushing up against it, just like I wouldn't try sitting there inhaling paint fumes after painting a car. There's a reason precautions are taken in that process as well. I just know that something small and damaging enough to burst cell membranes sounds like something I wouldn't want in a product I'm handling with direct contact with my skin, or with any remote possibility of it rubbing off and getting into the air.

Yes, my teenage years were irresponsible, and a main reason I often chime in to suggest at least having serious knowledge about what you're doing and safety precautions before going this route.

Yes, because it is different for different people, and even different for the same person dependent on their mindset when they take it, it's impossible to be totally 'safe' when taking it, even with full knowledge. You can't know for sure how it will react with you, or how you'll react to it until it's too late.

Making your own, if you're a decent chemist, at least gives you a good idea of WHAT you're taking, but without spectral analysis, you can't know the strength of the psychoactives for certain. Also, that probably leaves you open to more legal trouble for manufacturing a schedule 1 narcotic...more reason to not go in public and take it and get caught.

The fear is that, when someone is having a bad trip, they aren't likely to think straight enough to take something to counter act the effects...even if they're smart enough to have that handy. Unfortunately, a clinical setting is probably also not conducive to a great experience, so 'under a doctor's supervision' isn't really totally helpful or practical.

The quantum mechanics part can be understood, he seemed to have just miss-stated/miss-understood what the experiment was about in his wish to find some science that explains his experience, which may not be understandable.

We're part of the problem because we believe that people should take precautions and avoid unnecessary risks? Make no mistake, it's awful that someone stole her pictures and distributed them on the web. She's definitely the victim here. Nobody is arguing otherwise. However, making angry videos chastising the people who perpetrated these crimes is a waste of time. They knew exactly what they were doing and most certainly don't feel any remorse. Explaining the psychological impact of leaked nude pictures isn't going to convert those people into saints.

There are a lot of assholes in the world who don't care about your feelings or your rights. You should take that into account with every choice you make, such as taking nude pictures of yourself and sharing them with others on the internet. People take precautions all the time. You lock your doors, you look both ways before crossing the street, you don't carry too much cash at any given time, you stay out of dark alleys, you wear warm clothing in cold weather, you cover the seats of public toilets before using them, you wash your hands after using toilets, you get flu shots, etc. Using the internet should be treated no differently. Teaching people that sobering fact is going to be way more productive than trying to turn assholes into good people.

Who said people don't have a right to privacy? In an ideal world people would respect that right. But we don't live in an ideal world do we? So it makes sense to assess the risks and take precautions.

Look at it from another perspective. If I constantly leave my house unlocked with all the ground floor windows open when I go out, do I deserve to be robbed? No. But through my actions have I made it exponentially more likely that I'm going to be robbed? Yes. Does that mean the robber should get a lighter sentence if caught? No. Could I have easily prevented the crime from happening by taking basic precautions? Yes. Does that mean the crime is my fault? No. But was I naive to think that no one would ever rob my house? Absolutely, unless I happen to live alone on a deserted island!

It sucks what happened to her. It's not her fault. She deserves justice and I hope they catch the person who did it. The point of my previous post was that anybody taking naked pics of themselves these days--particularly digital ones--is exponentially increasing their risk of a humiliating exposure. That's the reality, whether you think it is "stupid" or not. If a person is not comfortable with that level of risk, they shouldn't engage in the behavior. This in no way implies that a person who has taken naked pics of themselves doesn't deserve justice if they are victimized. But it does imply that they are a bit naive (or haven't been paying attention to current events) if they thought there was little risk in taking naked pics of themselves and posting them online (as this person apparently did on her Facebook page) given the current security situation on the Internet.

Did you watch to the end? He closed his store, lives in seclusion, and surrounds himself with weapons fearing gang reprisals. I'm not sure I'd call that a "win."

Plus, five people dead. Granted, not exactly upstanding members of society, and two clearly intended to kill him (the ones who were walking out the front door then turned around to open fire--sounded like it was an attempted revenge killing), but still it seems difficult to call five people dead a win.

I feel bad for the guy. I don't deny he was within his legal rights to shoot in every situation, but this video basically convinced me that owning a gun as a storekeeper is probably not a great security plan (as he himself notes in the end). This guy trained, he took precautions--I'd say obsessively so--and yet in the end the only reason he is alive today?

Dumb luck.

Attempted robbers still got past his security precautions and into his store, and they still shot him--multiple times. It's only luck that none of those times he got shot they didn't hit him in the spine, heart, major artery, etc. No amount of training is going to stop a bullet.

It's also dumb luck that none of his missed shots hit anyone out in the street (you can see in the stills from the crime scene photos that several bullets pierced the store windows and therefore went sailing out into the public).

Basically, I can't really see this video being used for NRA promotional purposes.

I like that 'lots of loud nasty sex' part, but I've head that it can lead to kids, unless appropriate precautions are taken.

If that is the context then the person on whom the cops were called could simply let the cops in, verify that no one is in danger, and then request the cops investigate the asshole who is calling the cops on false pretenses. It is after all a criminal offense to make a false call. However, when you refuse entry in what could be an emergency because you want to stand on principle, you are asking the cops to act in a fashion of utmost precaution and kick your door down to make sure that there is not a women locked in your basement that you and your wife are keeping hostage. The cops had probable cause and no judge in the country would argue that seeing this video. The officers where very clear as to why they were demanding entry.

And just as a precaution, another *backup=[...snipped...]

That one is the "official" version.. or so the page claims...

Saying Marie Curie "took no precautions" is somewhat disingenuous. It's because of her and her husband that we now know we have to take precautions...

1. Lower taxation, these things cost money (initial outlay and ongoing costs) to keep an eye on a populace that, by and large, aren't doing anything wrong. Most of us don't want em, don't need em and don't want to pay for them.

2. Changing rules aka slippery slope. The people who agree to big brother on the first day might become victims of it later down the track. Once you establish a state where the citizens are constantly under surveillance and have accepted that onus, you can implement worse measures. Look at post 911 USA... Land of the free? As long as you don't mind the government setting up camp in your rectum 24/7.

3. There is no such thing as "safe". CCTV doesn't deter crime, it just catches the idiots too stupid to take it in to account (ie. people who cut down poles sans facial coverings for example...). Much like any other precaution, criminals find ways around CCTV. That is not an argument for more surveillance, it's an argument about the futility of it in the first place.

4. Sometimes the rules should be broken. How many things were illegal 100 years ago that are perfectly legal now? Worse, think of the things that were legal 100 years ago that are outlawed now (*hint: most of them are self harm crimes such as drug use etc) How often have nanny states tried to decree what you can and can't do only to find that people do not want to live under that rule? The camera is the start, if they can see what you are doing constantly, they can stop you. Why do you think organisations like Anonymous exist? To quote a memorable cutscene from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri, "We must dissent...".

Send 10 bucks to the charity of your choice.