In crimes of passion almost any weapon will do. A gun being present generally only changes the cause of death. This is evidenced by the fact that in Britain and Australia gun bans have had no effect on either suicide or homicide rates when isolated against already prevailing national crime rates and trends. You are also incorrect about the nature of homicide in the US. 70-85% of those murdered the US every year have a criminal record. Most major cities track close to 80% of there homicides resulting from gang violence.
I should be clear, I am not a "gun rights" advocate, but from an economics perspective it is rather obvious that murder is price inelastic. The vast majority of murders are infact crime related. The remander are largely crimes of passion for which any serviceable weapon can and will do (suicide falls under this as well).

Increasing supply does not necessarily increase demand. It depends whether the good has a fixed demand (is price inelastic). Murder is mostly price inelastic just like gasoline. When gasoline gets more expensive only a small amount less is used.

A genius from a century and a quarter ago just spoke to you and you are complaining that it is hard to understand?

Or a large corporation for which 1600$ is trivial.

It sounds like you where just talking to a very bad functional programmer. You also have the order completely backwards. ANSI Common Lisp was the first standardized OO language. But more importantly most "OO" concepts come from functional languages to start with.

Design patterns for the most part are actually adaptations of pre-existing functional concepts. For example Chain of Responsibility is really just a slightly simplified monad (input must equal output). The first Iterator pattern was (map fn list). Flyweight is a simplified form of Memoization.

Packages and namespaces also first appeared in many functional languages first. Encapsulation vai lexical closures has been around since Scheme was invented in the 70's. Lambda functions? Those little gems, making there way into every OOP language where invented with lisp.

You have missed the entire point though if you think OOP is about organizing you programs or something. OOP is largely about encapsulating moving parts into logical pieces. Functional code is largely about minimizing or removing "state" (aka moving parts) from your code. E.g. an input to a function should always give the same output. These concepts are not incompatible at all.

While cool and all 125million tweets with geo tagging is at most: 1250000000*142bytes = 165 GB. That is not what "big data" considers a large data set. Indeed most "big data" queries are IO limited. For around 16k USD you can fit that entire working set in memory. You are not really in the "big data" realm into you have datasets in the 10's of TB's compressed (100's of TB's uncompressed).
For these kinds of datasets, and where more compute is necessary there is MARs.

Echoing what the AC said below first (I hate to mod them up), I suspect that is a very common experience for immigrants of all backgrounds. Interesting, though his acts are un-excusable, and such feelings in no way justify them.

From the HP Site: "The HP Moonshot 1500 Chassis has 45 hot-pluggable servers installed and fits into 4.3U. The density comes in part from the low-energy, efficient processors. The innovative chassis design supports 45 servers, 2 network switches, and supporting components."

Each pluggable unit support 1x 2GHZ intel atom S1200 series cpus (2x core, 4x thread), up to 1 dimm @ 8gb, and one SFF sata drive. That gives you 90 cores/180 threads, 360GB's in 4.3u.

For comparison a 6RU cisco UCS chasis can put down up to 160 Cores / 320 threads, 4TB of memory. Those are high performance Xeon cores. Not sure on the $$$ per compute/memory between the two.

The really big question is are there enough use cases for that many "thin" servers. At 2 cores and 8GB of ram you are very thing by modern standards and there is 0 opportunity for vertical growth.

That is really a rather small isn't it? ;)

Gaming companies as whole have dated client side and server side architectures. The software they write is still stuck in the early 2000's for the most part. Things like distributed, highly available systems are still far beyond there grasp. They have a hatred towards modern languages (C++ EVERYWHERE YO) and tend to have a poor understanding of where, when, and what to optimize. I am sure there are some game companies out there that do push the edge and "get it", but for the most part game studio are some of the most bassackwards part of the industry.

And chances are the 1/1000 who lied is who you want to catch. You can train someone to dodge them, or if they are born a natural psycho/sociopath lying will cause no stress response.

They offer much better vertical space than the current 16x9 monitors, and tons of it. They are also effectively wide enough to offer room for two side by side browser windows etc. I run 2x for coding at work, and it is simply heaven. Expensive though, no denying that.

You have apparently never heard of SELinux, to quote wikipedia: "SELinux enforces mandatory access-control policies that confine user programs and system servers to the minimum amount of privilege they require to do their jobs." SELinux basically turns linux into a capabilities based operating system. And its enabled on all major distributions of Linux.

God I hate accidental mod misclicks, blowing away points. The above should have been up.

The reason you spend so much time placing requirements on a house is because a physical thing is hard to change, modify or move. A program is not a physical thing, a new one is a compile or less away. It is also significantly more complex. Using architecture as an example of how we should build programs is terrible because they are completely different things. This also ignores the fact that he is suggesting fixing cost overruns and quality issues of one industry by following the practices of an industry that is infamous for cost overruns and and quality issues.