Now there will be no excuse not to require cyclists to get a license, registration, and payment of that registration yearly to pay for the roads they want. As a highly-taxed driver (gas and registration), I'm getting rather tired of cyclists requesting more and more road upgrades despite them not paying even a small share of the costs for those upgrades.
Obviously bicycles do far less damage to the roads, and the requirements are much lower. So we can forgo trying to replace the gas taxes, and just stick to registration costs.
Oh, you don't like that? Quit being a leech, TYVM.
Interesting points. I'd say allow electric bikes as well (within reasonable specs).
They did it because that's how the company that makes the cables describes their test environment. They claim "clear unmistakeable" improvements in the audio quality in the setup Ars used, but only if you plug the cable in in the correct direction (denoted by an arrow on the connectors). In fact the company claims that they determine which way to face the arrow by plugging the cable in and listening in both directions and choosing the best.
The direction of the cable? Are you shitting me?
And testing the digital portion is very easy.
Yep, you just need a superwhamadyne gozinta gozouta comparator.
It's the post-bean-counter phase of design. Engineers find a site which will work, bean counters fuck it all up, just like I said.
Was it bean counters, or design engineers, or environmental engineers, or geologists, that underestimated the tsunami potential?
Someone said the lower elevation was safe. In the end, it came down to mischaracterization of the tsunami threat. Either way, the plant should have never been sited where it was.
In this case, it probably would have done the job; emergency power would have been available to keep things running.
Like I said, you don't depend on 'probably'. And you don't know if the pylons would have held up to a tsunami if you didn't postulate it to begin with. If you did postulate it, you simply don't put the pant there.
You know the site was actually lowered substantially to make construction cheaper, right?
Which is part of the siting and site analysis process that failed to keep a plant that was not designed to be hit by a tsunami out of the path of a tsunami.
Putting generators on pylons is a tremendous oversimplification of what would be needed to design to withstand a tsunami. Generators are useless when all the distribution and control systems are also deluged. Placing large heavy generators on pylons makes them more susceptible to earthquakes. How high do you go?
Plants are designed for floods up to a certain level. It is up to the siting analysis to determine where you can place the plant and auxiliaries, and you don't place it where it can be deluged by a tsunami, because it is not designed for a tsunami to begin with. While placing a few auxiliaries higher up may possibly have had some benefit in the aftermath, you can't depend on maybes. You avoid the maybes by not placing the plant there to start with.