I didn't know axl rose has done such act before the guns!!

Technology.

Up to about a century ago, conflict was essentially decided by who was willing/able to throw the most humans into the grinder to beat the other guy. If people rose up against their masters, the masters had nothing to fight them with.

Nowadays they have drones, tanks, rockets and probably killer satellites or some other shit. Armed peasants really don't present as much of a threat any more.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Charlie Rose: A conversation with Justice Antonin Scalia. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Hey Issie-I replaced the wrong embed on one of yer dead vidoes....
http://videosift.com/video/Charlie-Rose-interviews-Quentin-Tarantino-10102003

Ooops-Here's all parts onna player I made ya...
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXkx5NyqN8e3K6s9tlcBA8a4L0i0DUamC

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Am I the only on that finds Charlie Roses(who i usually dig)question absolutely lame? Questions like that are asked IMO just to get Americans fired up and thus get television ratings. So annoying and wasted opportunity to possibly learn something.

Wha, huh???...Sorry, I'm still playing this game
(http://nigoro.jp/ja/games/rose/) someone showcased in sift talk years ago, along with JFK Reloaded every morning with coffee!

BTW, that last battleaxe is nothing compared to the queen grandmother..

"A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." :- Shakespeare.

0:49 girl has Optimus Prime, Bay style, tattooed in a rose garden across her collar.

here's a comment from the author on her YT page:
CowboyRomanceNovels 1 week ago

Thanks for your interest i have another video coming soon for my latest release called License to Love: Trilogy by Amelia Rose its available to buy at amazon now and has become a Best Seller within 2 weeks.

Someone's chumming for interest in some pulp fiction, let the user respond....maybe 24 hours, if we see hide-nor-hair, ice her.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

When it crashes again, probably quite soon judging by how crazy the Dow is going (within a couple years) it'll be "We're all in this together!" It's retarded, and the activism and anger is right underneath the surface and I don't think it's going to stay put like last time. Occupy rose up and really scared a lot of people, if shit goes down again it's gonna be a greater upheaval and possibly a serious crackdown.

^ All well and good, but it's important not to define and judge people by our momentary interactions with them. I don't think he's saying "THE RAT RACE IS AMAZING AND YOU SHOULD ALWAYS ABIDE BY IT" but rather, when you're in a shitty moment, don't go with your default irrational bitch and moan.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Now you can define yourself and redefine yourself to better eliminate the negative qualities of the status quo, but the fact is, you're going to (metaphorically or not) stand in a line and it's up to you to define that experience.

I'm judged by my extreme nature every day. I sometimes get in peoples faces and challenge them with momentary awareness that they are an interactive object in my environment. It freaks em out, sometimes it makes em smile. Either case, I'm a weird fuckin' dude. The train of perception goes both ways.

Wildflower, don't judge the potted roses just because they judge you. Just challenge them. Add an interactive element. Peaceful, please. hahahahaha

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dr who, tenth doctor, david tennant, tribute, rose, donna' to 'Doctor Who, tenth doctor, david tennant, tribute, rose, donna' - edited by Lilithia

@Jerykk said "gross generalisations based on no evidence and a complete lack of understanding of how society currently works (or, in this case, does not work)."

The mentally ill: I live in Switzerland and, while our politics are far from perfect, you will not see mentally ill homeless people because they are cared for and given work by social institutions. If the mentally ill are homeless, it is society's fault.

The uneducated: almost unequivocally poor as well; it is the responsibility of any self-respecting, "civilised" society to make sure their entire population gets proper education. This doesn't mean everyone should have a PhD; learning a trade is also an education (& no useful job a human can do should be denigrated).
The way you say it, it's as if you're blaming uneducatedness on the uneducated, but would you know anything about how our societies work, you'd know that is completely illogical.

The irresponsible: considering what you follow up with, you basically mean here "the poor/uneducated", and you regurgitate the Fox News cliché of the dumb and reckless poor person wasting money and making all the wrong decisions. Yes, people with limited-to-no education (see above) will be easier to dupe into debt, bad credit/mortgages, etc, and they will also be less likely to know of (or accept the use of, you asshole Christianity) contraceptives, nor be able to afford abortions should they need one.

Second chances and recidivism: there's an interesting quote from an article on recidivism (taken from the Wiki): "Former criminals rose to become some of America's greatest leaders in law, industry, and politics. This possibility seems to be narrowing as criminal records become electronically stored and accessible."
The fact that, the more you treat a person who has committed a crime as a criminal, during and after hir internment, the more that person will have hir choices narrowed to exactly that. Especially when, on leaving detention during which nothing was learned (countries with the lowest recidivism have their inmates work and learn trades), society still brands them as criminal and refuses to let them survive in a legal fashion. Not to mention the ridiculously out-of-proportion rates of incarceration in the US, and for a number of non-crimes as well; what a great way to harden and anti-socialise your youths.

Are there lazy moochers and irreconcilable criminals out there? Definitely, but they are not the norm.