Heisenberg

Right Next Door To Hell, Dead Horse and Bad Obsession in the set.

I miss Bumblefoot. Axl should kept him in the band, Slash and Bumblefoot would be perfect combo for old and not so old tracks.

I was at firs show after Bucharest, what a special year for GnR.
4:03 one of the highlights of the whole tour for me, band sounded amazing, they had good chemistry. Even Frank drumming fitted.

He sang This I Love with ease.
 

Axl was so into it, look at those moves, interaction with Ashba and Bumble, he was at his best!
 

4 minutes ago, scooby845 said:

why is the stage so small?

I expected proper stadium stage. This looks like 2010 stage from South America tour.

Same guy who said there is no new album because people don't buy them anymore.

24 minutes ago, emybdc said:

Yeah, I know! He really looks happy and just in a good place. It's awesome to see that. 

 

If Axl wasn't in a good place, there's no contract in the world that would make him do what he didn't wanna do.

There is. 

Ahhh shitty weather.

Rio 2001

9 minutes ago, sanity_lost said:

 

Oh god. The UYI drum solos were the worst idea ever invented. I am sorry if there are any drummers in the house who I am offending, but I always, always skip the long ass drum solo when watching UYI videos

Depends, can be fun can be boring, just like guitar solos. Short and effective is the key imo.

4 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

5 hours ago, mikebones said:

Think about Steven or Matt playin' CD songs... would they suck as Ferrer do with AFD and Illusions songs? I don't think so...

Axl doesn't like Matts style of playing, he has said it before

"He is here to show you why he is in this band" Sounds like someone who really likes his drumming.
 

Matt would play CD songs the way they were recorded and honestly I can't imagine Steven on CD, too complicated for him.

From few clips I saw from Troubadour Frank played wrong tempo on hi-hat and ride in Jungle and Brownstone, fucked up intro and ending in Paradise city. He doesn't fit at all, guy is new Paul Tobias.

If you want classic GnR sound again, bring back Matt or Steven or that guy from Slash's band.

11 hours ago, bumblecool said:

You play drums and you think Matt is better than Brain? 

Don't want to judge who is more technical, they are different style, Matt play simpler etc. but from what they done as Rock drummers so far Matt is far superior, Matt drumming in GnR is far better than Brain's, both live and on the record.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDsGWl_C8v_/?taken-by=ali_shayesteh_management

Two minutes to midnight.

Now I can dream about Guns & Alice Europe tour.

Great album, I am glad to hear that there is future for this band.
 

15 minutes ago, GNR_uruguay said:

Thanks! No plan for a roof but maybe we can add another ring of grandstand in the future. The capacity would be increased and we have a stadium fo 60 K. Perhaps for the World Cup in 2030 (so FIFA pays for it )

That would be cool, 100 years after first World Cup in Uruguay. Seems possible and I think Uruguay and Argentina will get the host.

Is there a plan for a roof? Nice stadium btw.

By big three, I'm meaning AxL, Slash, and Duff (anyone have a better nickname for that trio?)

I agree with most of it, but GMO is not like what we have encountered so far. There is justified fear how some genes can affect our descendants and what consequences can cause, and not only among ordinary people but also among experts. Until then, for me GMO is not safe.

The great majority of experts, me included, are in agreement that genetical engineering per se isn't a harmful technique, and that there is no reason to assume a priori that GM foods is any more dangerous that non-enginereed foods or that is requires any more testing than what it is subjected to today already.

But as I said, it really depends on what kind of modifications you do to the plant. You could very easily create a harmful food through genetic engineering. Just as you can with selective breeding and cultivation. I find it slight paradoxical that farmers are allowed to make any kinds of changes to their cattle or plants through old-school breeding without any consumer concerns over the safety of their food, while making the same changes through a more cost-effiicient method like recombinant genetics, suddenly makes it scary. Again, it is not HOW you make the changes that is important, but WHAT those changes are.

For example, at my university my professor of genetics is a supporter of GMO. Others, most of them senior professors who don't have much to do with genetics are great opponents. But they all agree that in our case GMO is unnecessary and dangerous to domestic agriculture and institutes.

I am not aware of any kind of changes in old-school breeding that are the same as those in GM? But I agree, for ordinary people GMO name is the scariest part.

I am a student of the Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field and Vegetable Crops. What are you by profession?

I still don't agree with that guy who claims that 'anti GMO beliefs' are fifth most harmful in the world. He really looks like some guy from Monsanto. And there is no place of 'belief' here, it is about scientific evidence, which does not exist, not counting unconvincing Monsanto researches.

- If they "don't have much to do with genetics", then they aren't necessarily more informed on the subject than any random person, and I certainly wouldn't call them experts. Among experts, the consensus is clear: genetic modification isn't in itself dangerous, it is what kind of modifications that are done that can potentially be dangerous.

- Consider changes to size. This is rather easily achieved through classic breeding/cultivation because it doesn't have to involve more than changes in expression of one single gene. We have done this with most animals and plants we use as food. They have become supersized. This genetic manipulation through breeding and cultivation doesn't happen quickly, though, it usually takes numerous generations before significant changes in size is acheived, and many of teh foodstuffs we eat has growth to their present size through centuries and millenia of incremental size increases. But it has routinely been done. It can be done much quicker with modern genetic manipulation that results in the exact same genetic changes.

- I have a PhD in bacterial genetics but have taught biotechnology and molecular genetics at university level, including topics on GMO.

- The assumption that GM food is dangerous is an assumption that exists despite having no scientific support, and hence I believe it is correct to call it a "belief". All the scientific evidence we have, which includes genetic understanding of the biochemical and physioogical changes that happen as a result of specific genetic modifications, and safety testing of specific GM foods on animals and humans, as well as GM foods having been consumed for decades now, point to all approved GM foods being perfectly safe to eat, at least as safe as their non-engineered counterparts.

I am not talking much about technique of genetical engineering, which I do not know enough but I know that is not harmful per si, but more of what we have on the ground. When I said experts I meant experts around the world, not necessary from my university. There must be a reason why GMO is totally banned or strictly controlled in many countries. They have enough experts to conclude whether GMO in general would have benefits or not or whether is good or not, so there is not much room for belief.

There are many ways that can increase yield, the proper use of agricultural technology, irrigation, crop rotation etc. without using any GMO. We can take as example organic food as synonymous of healthy and safe food where GMO is prohibited.

Monsanto works on the slaveholder principle, once you start to use their seeds, entire production is based and conditioned by their products. As I said that would completely destroy domestic agriculture and economy that is based on agriculture, not only in my country but in other countries in the region, even if is safe as their non-engineered counterparts. Also it may cause significant changes in biodiversity, the disappearance of native species. Taking all into account, my anti GMO opinion is not harmful, I would say it's useful.

I agree with most of it, but GMO is not like what we have encountered so far. There is justified fear how some genes can affect our descendants and what consequences can cause, and not only among ordinary people but also among experts. Until then, for me GMO is not safe.

The great majority of experts, me included, are in agreement that genetical engineering per se isn't a harmful technique, and that there is no reason to assume a priori that GM foods is any more dangerous that non-enginereed foods or that is requires any more testing than what it is subjected to today already.

But as I said, it really depends on what kind of modifications you do to the plant. You could very easily create a harmful food through genetic engineering. Just as you can with selective breeding and cultivation. I find it slight paradoxical that farmers are allowed to make any kinds of changes to their cattle or plants through old-school breeding without any consumer concerns over the safety of their food, while making the same changes through a more cost-effiicient method like recombinant genetics, suddenly makes it scary. Again, it is not HOW you make the changes that is important, but WHAT those changes are.

For example, at my university my professor of genetics is a supporter of GMO. Others, most of them senior professors who don't have much to do with genetics are great opponents. But they all agree that in our case GMO is unnecessary and dangerous to domestic agriculture and institutes.

I am not aware of any kind of changes in old-school breeding that are the same as those in GM? But I agree, for ordinary people GMO name is the scariest part.

I am a student of the Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field and Vegetable Crops. What are you by profession?

I still don't agree with that guy who claims that 'anti GMO beliefs' are fifth most harmful in the world. He really looks like some guy from Monsanto. And there is no place of 'belief' here, it is about scientific evidence, which does not exist, not counting unconvincing Monsanto researches.

I agree with most of it, but GMO is not like what we have encountered so far. There is justified fear how some genes can affect our descendants and what consequences can cause, and not only among ordinary people but also among experts. Until then, for me GMO is not safe. In my country GMO is totally unnecessary, in fact it would destroy domestic institutes and domestic seed production. We are fine with our domestic varieties and hybrids.

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

Something much more harmful than all of these things combined, are opinions without nuance. Like this one.

And it's just incredibly ironic for someone from Monsanto to call anything at all "harmful". Bunch of slimebags...

Is he really from Monsanto? My previous post was reaction to his let's say GMO propaganda, funny how he manage to slip it on the list.

This Bob Carroll has't anything to do with Monsanto as far as I can tell: http://skepdic.com/refuge/bio.html

You don't need to work for Monsanto to realize the GMO food is safe and a necessity to feed an ever growing population.

No one has proved that GMO food is safe. It takes decades to determine how genetically modified organisms affect humans and animals.

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

Something much more harmful than all of these things combined, are opinions without nuance. Like this one.

And it's just incredibly ironic for someone from Monsanto to call anything at all "harmful". Bunch of slimebags...

Is he really from Monsanto? My previous post was reaction to his let's say GMO propaganda, funny how he manage to slip it on the list.

Bob Carroll from Monsanto.

Wonder how harmonica in Bad Obsession will sound on Chris Pittman's keys.