Well, I'll agree his font isn't probably very useful, I'm sure he's just doing it for the heck of it, or for some ridiculously constrained circumstances, but, apart from making a recognisable B in a 3x3 space, seems distinguishing B and E is pretty easy.
@
@@@
@ @
@@@
@@@
@@@
@@
@
@@
@@
@ @
@@
@@@
@@
@@@
I guess I should say, didn't even feel like a...
Anyway. Sandy was definitely spread over a large area, which helped diffuse it further.
You can talk about total energy, but if the storm is spread over the entire continent, it isn't very interesting.
Most places make clear the storm surge was the worst damage, and that would certainly have been helped by having been spread out, while, the results inland would have been significantly less.
The need for storm surge protection for New York City had been known for years prior.
A rough approximation of shapes, as near as I can make out from landmarks.
Sandy is larger, but, doesn't seem to be that much larger to me.
And, as noted in comment to AC, my experience of Sandy in maryland was *very* different from that of people in NJ and NY (as in, barely felt like a tropical storm in the impact on our counties in terms of power loss and damage).
So I measured the two pics in google maps for an approximate estimate of what to my eyeball looked like two pretty big storms, only Irene with a more definite central eye.
From the bottom of Sandy to the top (where, admittedly there's clearly a bit of weak storm cropped, but Irene is clearly a lot wider and more of a spiral, so would win on width)
versus
From the bottom of Irene to the top of the pic.
Both were (very approximately) ~915 miles from top to bottom in those pics.
From the far left of the storm sweep of Sandy to the eye (which is out on its lonesome in the ocean), measured horizontally.
~740
The width of Irene in the shot is massive, and hard to work out due to the coastline being obscured, and similar to the case of Sandy, goes off frame to the right.
But I got, approximately:
~845
Soo. On those pics, again very approximately, ~900x~750 for Sandy and ~900x~850 for Irene. I think they are comparable.
I can tell you that in our part of Maryland, Sandy was mostly a dud. The derecho did more damage to the house and trees - the winds didn't really feel like much at all. I don't think we got any gusts that came close to tropical storm strength.
Not to minimise what happened to New York and New Jersey, just because Sandy clearly covers all of Maryland, to mention that it didn't really feel like much of a storm to us experiencing it in eastern Maryland. The power went out for maybe... 5 minutes. I checked the outtage map along the shore from BGE. There were a number of outtages, but again, not as bad as the derecho.
Erm. Right. Point of pic, really, was that as hurricanes fall apart into tropical storms, they are almost always huge things that cover like most of the east coast.
Compared to pics of hurricanes falling apart into a tropical storm as they track up the coast that I recall and could find of the past, Sandy seems pretty typical.
The dramatic part was the high tide and pushing that storm surge up against New York City which was woefully unprepared despite warnings in the past (shades of Katrina).
As I recall Sandy was a tropical storm when it hit.
Found a pic of Sandy
http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/10/Hurricane-Sandy-on-October-29-2012.jpg
Compared to...
The size doesn't seem that dramatic.
So. Not sure what the monster part was. Apart from, ofc, the fact that it hit at an unusually high tide.
I believe most of the damage was storm surge, not due to land covered, or rain fall.
The entire US is overdue for a Category 3, not just New York.
A quick google search...
http://images.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&q=category+3+landfall+USA
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bJhUmJyxrQs/ULy7NL1QbAI/AAAAAAAACQw/RlSJLqrsz5Y/s1600/hurrdrou0613.jpg
looks promising.
Anyway. Pretty obv been awfully lucky recently.
Eh. Anon, your sarcasm seems misfounded.
You'll notice maybe that article has chart of chrome vs firefox for cache latency, w/ Firefox cache behaviour levelling off at 30ms navigation latency while Chrome's keeps climbing - 90+ms latency after 30 days and no apparent limit.
Soo, sounds like maybe he has a legit complaint, not that I use Chrome enough to know if this behaviour still exists.
Your mention of caching reminded me of this:
http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php?topic=113754.0
"In a majority of web browsers, the size of the browser history and document cache is capped in one way or another: for example, if you have not visited facebook.com for a couple of weeks, any record of this will eventually disappear down the memory hole.
This is not the case for Chrome: the browser keeps all the cached information indefinitely; perhaps this is driven by some hypothetical assumptions about browsing performance, and perhaps it simply is driven by the desire to collect more information to provide you with more relevant ads. Whatever the reason, the outcome is simple: over time, cache lookups get progressively more expensive; some of this is unavoidable, and some may be made worse by a faulty hash map implementation in infinite_cache.cc."
That sounds Chrome specific to me.
Certainly I haven't noticed any cache oddities in Firefox, which I tend to leave running for weeks at a time.
Firefox and Chrome use ANGLE, yes.
http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/
You can use native opengl though.
In Firefox, about:config and search for webgl.
Set:
webgl.prefer-native-gl;true
In past I've needed to do this on some windows machines to get some WebGL to work. Shader issue or somesuch.
There's also:
webgl.force-enabled;true
While you're in that section, btw, if you feel you know your card/driver combo better than their blacklist does.
Oh, and:
gfx.direct2d.force-enabled;true
or even
gfx.direct2d.disabled;true
If you're on a blacklist for that, or just want to investigate some direct2d rendering issue.
Hate to repeat this, AC, but IMEI changing is easy.
Even if it wasn't, the phone still has value off-network.
Since you bring up Europe...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1749215.stm
==
A spokeswoman said: "IMEI barring does not solve the problem and is a red herring."
The method only stops calls being made on the network that barred it, the spokeswoman went on, and the handset itself is completely usable if a Sim card is put in from another network.
New IMEIs can be programmed into stolen handsets and 10% of IMEIs are not unique.
The firm has not adopted IMEI technology because it is "unreliable", a spokeswoman said, and could lead to innocent phone users being disconnected.
"Duplicate numbers are coming out of the factories now and you can have two or three handsets with the same number," she said.
"You might be blocking several other people who have done nothing wrong.
"In any case, there is software you can download from the internet to change IMEI numbers when a handset is stolen."
==
I'm surprised you compared it to a MAC, since altering MAC is trivial under any OS.
Indeed. To this I'd like to add that gov't asking a carrier to disconnect an IMEI is a LOT different from gov't turning phone into a brick.
So, I think this system has potential for abuse, both by governments and by some random hacker/disgruntled employee killing off phones.
But, the IMEI thing is not really a fix.
1) The phone can still be used as an ipod or tablet.
2) IMEI can be changed.
In addition, IMEI record keeping is rather poor.
And, well, multiprocess has its own problems too, it seems. This was making the rounds a few months ago.
http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php?topic=113754.0
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League
