Rotwang

+1

^ Very nice.

Please note: Themes other than the default appear to be broken, and if you change to one of them you might find it difficult to change back. So I suggest people stick with the default theme until this issue is fixed.

What, the image in the OP? No, that's just the artist image from Parvati's site. The cover will look like this (without the red border):

Actually, I think it's this that started the trend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspuCt1FM9M

Nice.

Isn't that the case with most recently-deceased famous people, though? I don't know how much of Apple's success can be attributed to Jobs but I'm pretty sure he deserves his tributes more than e.g. Lady Di or Jade Goody deserved theirs.

I like your remix more than the original. To my admittedly non-expert ears though it sounded more like prog/deep house than psytrance, so this is probably not the best place to get useful feedback.

I don't like Apple either but I still think they've had a positive influence on the market as a whole - e.g. notice how much better MS products got after they started to lose market share to Apple in the Noughties, compared to how shit they were when they had a near-monopoly in the Nineties.

DEY TOOK OUR JOBS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

Perhaps I didn't express myself well, but I think they did. The point is that even if gold has no significant inherent value1, it still makes sense for us to behave as if it does. Suppose I have food, need shoes but don't need medicine and someone else has shoes, needs medicine but doesn't need food. If there exists some form of currency which I can confidently accept in exchange for food with the knowledge that someone else will later accept said currency in exchange for shoes, then that saves me the bother of looking for someone who has shoes and needs food; as long as people broadly agree on how much food, shoes or medicine can be exchanged for a given unit of currency then barring the scenario RTP mentions I can always rely on people giving me what I need in exchange for currency. The point of my earlier post is that the two given properties of gold make it ideal for use as currency. Of course it's arbitrary how much value is assigned to a kilo of gold (within the limits of what's physically practical), but that doesn't matter. 1 Which I would not agree with, as it happens - in fact gold's physical properties make it very well suited to use in jewellery. Of course jewellery isn't as important as food, shoes or medicine but then neither are music, books, alcohol or any number of other things that people are nonetheless willing to pay for. But that's beside the point.

Making the most of the fact that flood control doesn't apply to mods, eh?

Yes, of course. Having something with no intrinsic value that can theoretically be exchanged for something that does have intrinsic value only works when there is enough of the stuff with intrinsic value to go around - for example, the reason people are willing to give you food in exchange for money is because they are confident that someone else will be willing to give them food in exchange for money when they get hungry. If there's a shortage of food then that confidence disappears.

Ah, thanks.

No. The two relevant properties of gold are: 1) it's rare, and 2) it's inert. 1) means that it's possible to assign a value to a certain amount of gold, without worrying that people can cheat the system by getting more gold without first providing something whose perceived value is equal to that of the gold; IOW the most practical way of getting $100 worth of gold is to exchange it for $100 worth of something else. 2) means that it's possible to assign a value to a certain amount of gold, without worrying that any gold you own will stop being gold and therefore lose its value. So these two properties (you can't turn nothing into something, and you can't turn something into nothing) make it ideally suited to acting as a tangible representation of value. I know nothing about economics so the above is just my own guess about why gold is used as a standard currency, but it seems like a pretty self-evident explanation.

I really can't see what people dislike about that artwork. I think it's all right.

What does that mean?

I agree that the US doesn't have it that bad compared to most of the world but I don't know about best - personally I'd rather live in Western Europe.

It's a very good question and personally I have no idea. If anyone knows of any actual research about this I'd love to see it. Why?

Pretty sure they are. e: Yep. What is the URL of the image giving you trouble?

There are Flash players embedded in postunder's posts - do you have Flash enabled, and if so what browser are you using? Anyway, the links are here, here and here.

Crazy as in good? IMO Family Guy has been pretty dreadful from season 7 onwards, but I haven't seen the most recent ones.