Pretty much all metal music (regardless of subgenre) makes extensive use of the tritone. While other genres like blues and rock use the tritone interval as a passing tone, metal emphasizes it greatly. This is true of all real metal music (i.e. not the slick, glam-obsessed that happened to be marketed as "metal" in the 80s) from Black Sabbath to today's bands. Exhibit A: Cannibal Corpse - From Skin To Liquid, an instrumental Death Metal song. Alex Webster, the bassist of the band, hit the nail on the head when asked why Death Metal was not a mainstream genre of music:

The gory lyrics are probably not, as much as people say that’s what would keep us from being mainstream, like “death metal would never go into the mainstream because the lyrics are too gory”, I think it’s really the music, because violent entertainment is totally mainstream. Violent video games sell more than any death metal band ever will. Violent movies, like “Saw” and “Hostel” for example, those movies sell more than any death metal band probably ever will.

(source) There's a particular aesthetic to metal that some people, like myself, absolutely love and the tritone and dissonance are huge parts of that.

A fit 6'2 17 year old who fist fought for sport could credibly get an out of shape heavier man afraid for his life.

The autopsy showed that Martin was 5'11" and weighed 158 pounds at the time of his death. When Zimmerman was arrested, he was recorded as being 5'8" and weighing 185 pounds. The has been a lot of misinformation about the height and weight of both Martin and Zimmerman, with Martin's defenders claiming that Zimmerman weighed over 200 pounds (which had previously, but lost weight later) and Zimmerman's defenders vastly exaggerating Martin's height.

Both of these lists are solid gold. Thank you so much!

I think this is a very good approach. Thanks for the suggestion!

Hey everyone,

First of all, thank you so much for all of the responses! I've seen some really good ideas and I appreciate all the input. It seems that I unfortunately wasn't quite clear enough in my initial post. The other developer and I have been trying to get the management to spring for an online service like Github or Kiln. To answer a few frequently asked questions:

Q: Why don't you just run git/svn/hg on your local machine? A: I am running hg on my local machine currently for version control. While this is much better than no version control at all, it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of collaborating with the other dev and managing deployment.

Q: Why not run your own server? A: The other dev and I have talked about this, but there are a few problems. First and foremost, it takes time to setup and maintain such a server and the cost of many online services like Github are pretty modest. The other problem is that we're not really in control of the servers and equipment. That's handled by a separate IT group, so we would have to get them involved to make this happen. Then there's the fact that the IT guys at our work mostly deal with Windows servers while we're mostly *nix fans. Neither one of us has setup a Windows box as a VC server before, so I'm really not sure how well-supported that is. What is really boils down to is the fact we could get a month of hosting at Github that would suit our needs for about the cost of an hour of work from on person. Therefore we kinda figured that it might just be easiest/cheapest to go with a service like Github.

Anyway, thanks again for all the responses!

Very effectively, as a matter of fact.

Typically you have to be able to read and write to go to college, so no, they didn't "teach reading" :p

Back to the point of the discussion, Windows is generally accepted to have a market share of around 80-90% and Mac OS X is generally accepted to have a market share of 5-10%. If you were utterly clueless about computers, would you buy a computer that runs an operating system used by most of your friends, colleagues, relatives, etc and is generally cheaper or would you buy a computer that you knew most of your friends, colleagues, etc wouldn't be able to help you with and was generally more expensive? My guess is that you would go for the former (Windows) even if money was no object. This is why my father (who isn't a "computer guy" at all) sticks to Windows.

This also is why I resent the notion that Mac users are "clueless", even when prefaced by wavering modifiers like "most". You've probably guessed by now that I am a Mac user (well at home anyway). My main hobby is recording music and my decision to buy a Mac was greatly informed by positive experiences I had recording music on my brother's Mac, which was much more stable and adept at detecting and using my recording interface and midi controllers than my computer at the time, which ran Windows. I also really liked the fact that underneath it all, Mac OS X is Unix. So I saved up some money and when the time was right, I bought a Macbook Pro. That was four years ago and my computer is still running perfectly fine and doing all the things I want it to.

The thing about my story is that it's not terribly unique. I can honestly say that *everyone* I know who switched to using a Mac from Windows did so after researching their options and doing a cost-benefit analysis. Compare this to the majority of Windows users I know, who use Windows because "it's what everyone else uses".

Cool story bro! Never mind that no less than four of my CS professors used Macs! Clearly they too are clueless about technology, unlike an enlightened, discerning consumer who buys a Windows laptop because "it's what I have at work, so I'm used to it."

Mac OS X meets the requirements specified in the Single Unix Specification, so I would argue that it's as much as any of the other flavors of Unix.

I think we do and we should continue to espouse sound eating principals and practices.

Why would you say that? The information is freely available. Your logic would seem to suggest that actively encouraging people to be healthier would also somehow circumvent natural selection, because we would be rewarding the people who were too lazy to figure it out for themselves. Of course, this is all a moot point since your understanding of natural selection (or at least the way you are trying to apply natural selection to this issue) is deeply flawed.

However, the article is talking about the govt. actually banning the USE of a food (in this case a beverage) that isn't really healthy for you.

No, it's about banning sodas larger than 16 fl. oz in restaurants. If you want to drink 32 fl. oz of soda (the size of a large at McDonald's), you still can do it, it'll probably just cost you a little bit more (if you buy two) or take a bit more time (if you get a refill). It is a very mild way to nudge people into drinking less soda by making them think a bit more about how much they're drinking.

It's pretty clear that you lack even a high school level understanding of natural selection and didn't read the article at all. How your comment relating the concept you don't understand to the article you didn't read was modded "+5 Insightful" is frankly beyond me.

Exactly! Soda is almost PERFECTLY engineered to exploit this mentality. It's cheap as hell to produce, it's carbonated (so you can't really save it for later without it becoming flat and gross), and (at least in the US) it's generally served over ice, so if you let it sit for too long, it will become diluted, warm and *really* gross. Every time you buy soda at a restaurant, vending machine, gas station, etc, you have to ask yourself "How much soda do I want to drink right now?" The price per ounces is basically irrelevant; you're never getting a "good deal".

So back in 1993 when the largest soda was say, 20 floz (I can't remember the exact numbers), did you go and buy two of them? Of course not! That would have seemed weird. But now, nobody bats an eye and someone getting a 40 floz soda, especially when it's the default size for a value meal. The fact is, serving sizes are normative. I don't think it's a coincidence that they correlate strongly with the rise on obesity in the US.

Here's a quick anecdote: my care is a '96 model. The cup holders can't fit any size bigger than a small from most fast food restaurants these days. Imagine the psychological impact of having all cup holders be this size. It would tend to stop and make you think, "Man, I'm drinking a *lot* of soda!".

why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?

Because the government has a vested interest in keeping the population (at least somewhat) healthy. Try being an economic or military superpower when a significant percentage of your population are obese and suffering from diseases like type 2 diabetes. You won't get very far.

Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?

How on earth would they take themselves out of the gene pool? As long as they survive long enough to reproduce, they are still in the gene pool and they will have "won" the evolutionary contest. Eating junk food and drinking tons of soda will not kill you before you are old enough to reproduce, but it will make you unhealthy, unhappy and a burden on the heath care system.

I've honestly started to wonder, with all the problems we're seeing in modern kids, autism on the rise...so many of them with food allergies (I never heard of anyone almost dying from PB&J sandwiches at school when I grew up, and we ALL ate them)...etc.

People fail to understand that in biology, "fitness" has a very specific meaning, namely that you are fit enough (with respect to your environment) to survive long enough to reproduce. As long has you meet those criteria, you are, evolutionarily speaking, "fit". Thus the requirements for being "fit" in human society have essentially remained unchanged since you were a kid, barring perhaps a few vaccines.

As for the alleged rise in autism and food allergies, I think that's simply a case of parents have a greater awareness of these phenomena now. In earlier generations, children with allergies might simply be seen as not liking certain foods and children with autism would just be considered a bit "odd".

Saying that we shouldn't encourage people to eat healthier foods because they will "take themselves out of the gene pool" is almost as bad as saying that we should ban eye glasses. <sarcasm>After all, the people with poor vision will tend to get into fewer accidents! And if we're lucky, these accidents will kill them in childhood! Why, in a few generations we might cure all eye diseases! </sarcasm>

It seems like in a lot of national security matters, citizens would not have access to the same information that members of Congress would due to some or all of it being classified. However, this lack of access would not stop some citizens from forming a strong opinion. A perfect example of this is the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There were people who were vehemently for and against it, but neither group had access to the same information that the members of Congress had. How would you weigh popular support against your own assessment of information that you *knew* your constituents did not have access to?