I guess the "internet theories on the brace position" boil down to a theory that it kills you faster?
Anybody know any references to evidence that the brace position is the safest to be in? Or references to others reasonable claims for better positions?
(don't bother with responses about parachutes, taking the pilot's seat, going to the first class bar and drinking yourself horizontal, etc...)
Let's take two people, and hit them both on the head with a block of concrete at 12mph. One is wearing a cycle helmet, and one is not. Which person do you think will take more damage?
I'd welcome links to documents on comparative head damage to cyclists wearing and not wearing helments, but if I am going to fall off a bike and hit my head on the road while travelling at a reasonable cycling pace (12 mph) I think I'll go for hitting that road with my helmet rather than my head directly. I'll take a less-than-scientific guess a helmet might help reduce damage.
I'd be interested to see some links for both sides of the argument, that would be great. Many thanks in advance...
I found a couple of good firm swings of my trusty garden mattock using the pick side gets old hard drives into non-recoverable mode before throwing the remains into the trash can. Plus it's very satisfying!:- ) I am sure if you're an international spy then the CIA could probably retrieve the data, but if you're just trying to destroy your hard drive to the point of stopping a local teenager fishing it out of your trash can and retrieving your amazon transactions and credit card data, I reckon this probably does the job...
The article notes that these are books challenged and requested removal in public or school libraries. So I think you're going to see a bias towards books for teenagers which adults feel are inappropriate for their dear children: more emphasis on requests for censorship because of rude words, sex scenes and unconventional ideas than because of religious thought.
I can see conservative parents getting upset about a whole range of exciting contemporary teenage literature while I would imagine only the most radically conservative are going to get upset about school libraries stock religious works, they'll more likely accept the concept of teaching comparative religion.
My guess is all the world's religious works have some pretty horrific sections, you might be upset about the Qur'an but everybody here at slashdot loves the way the Lego Bible picks out the extreme sections of the Christian holy books... I'd guess the Christians can give the Muslims a good run for their money in terms of tough edicts on people who don't follow the holy words... (stonings, killings, etc). Within a school or library context I don't think people blink when they see a shelf with the different world religions holy books next to each other (probably they yawn).
Sorry, non USA person here. The reports talk about "white shirt police" and "blue shirt police" as if they are different groups (the "white shirt police" seem to come in for criticism for tougher policing) - are they two different organisations / branches / other division in the police forces? Local police and national police? Civil and military? (etc?)
Don't get me wrong, we're truly grateful you stepped in 70 years ago to help save us being conquered by the nazis (even if you did take 2 years to finish your breakfast before getting your spurs on) , but jings, we do seem to have a procession of Prime Ministers whose real dream seems to be made a governor of a USA state...
Interesting point though I'd not be too worried about the global dissemination: I think the important point is that teenagers are inspired to try something that pushes them, and they achieve some goals as a result. I can remember as a kid seeing science experiments on tv and trying them at home and being so proud when they worked, showing my dad. It didn't matter that this wasn't novel science, what mattered was that I'd had the drive to replicate what I'd seen and learn something on the way (not always what I'd expected either). I think this is the important goal we should try and enable children/teenagers to reach. It doesn't matter that they've been inspired by somebody doing the same on the internet, or they've found a kit advertised in a magazine and sold to millions of others, it's that they've pushed their own knowledge a little bit further. This might give them confidence to go further, insights into real innovation, or even just a lesson that things aren't always easy to do and require plain hard work.
So I am completely in agreement with you - I'd hate a future where kids don't do something because they've seen it on the internet. On the contrary, I think seeing an example will inspire them to try it themselves. I'd take a guess this kid has seen balloons for a couple of hundred dollars and his perceived innovation is that he's made it a bit cheaper by using trash bags. It doesn't matter that a thousand other folk might have done this. He's learnt how to do it. He'll carry the sense of achievement with him. He says he wants to take up aeronautical engineering, well I reckon he's showing future university professors that he's keen and he's learnt some lessons. Better than a student who has all top grades but hasn't got his hands dirty. I have to say as well he's written it up reasonably, documentation is always a killer after the event so credit to him, heck there are open source projects by adults written up more poorly than this;-)
I think we should be optimistic while teenagers want to go out and do things, I think there will hopefully always be kids wanting to buy the 20 dollar kits and try and tweak them a bit, or at least build them themselves. As you say, your dad and granddad probably smiled benevolently when they saw you struggling over your kits, knowing they'd done something similar - but they knew that all the learning that came along with the actual building would be really good for you. Here's to DIY!:-)
Slashdot posts an article on some kid flying a balloon and gps and camera for 50 dollars, he's worked out to do it with a couple of people and a bit of research. Slashdot posters moan about how crap the balloon is. You are guys are the reason the USA is screwed in the long term - loads of people moaning when a 17 year old or so kid pushes himself and gets something like this happening? A better place would have praised the kid, I think it's great teenagers are trying to come up with technological hacks that are new to them and dreaming great goals.
A better audience, had it had any reservations, would offer kind and politely worded guidance to help him keeping creating but in a better and informed way. Instead - bitchy comments from a good number of people who are too scared to use a slashdot identity.
If you're a representative sample of how Americans respond to teenagers trying to push their technical knowledge, I reckon the USA is screwed... stamping on 17 year olds trying to be innovative and push themselves is no way to encourage your future generations. So he didn't achieve a PhD level of novel research? he didn't do something worthy of a Nobel prize? Who cares?! this might be the spark that gets him to those heights ten years down the line. He pushed himself, he wrote it up nicely, he was brave enough to publish to the world and allow comments. What were you doing when you were 17? he deserves encouragement, not scorn. Shame on you.
It's not the threat model, it's the business model that drives it. Parents are nervous people: the most precious thing in the world is their child. People generally overrate the threat of serious crime/ abduction. So if you can announce that your kindergarten not only has lots of lovely high trained staff *but also* shiny technology to protect the precious children, then you might get more parents sending their children to your kindergarten rather than the one down the road.
For the kindergarten it is a cost-benefit analysis and they've decided spending some money on tech will bring in more kids which will make more money.
Not sure where you're writing from but I am pretty sure when I started my PhD in the UK the documents said the university owned the copyright on all the work I produced. Go back to the university's regulations that you signed up to and check what they say.
As another poster has noted, I don't think they'd chase you if you wrote up journal papers or books out of your thesis, and they are unlikely to mind your work being posted on your website, distributed across academic channels (usual repositories etc). I think their perspective is : we give you a grant / living expenses and access to our facilities and our professors for 4 years, we give you a globally recognised and highly respected qualification if you do what we ask of you, in return we own copyright your produce while working for us in this role.
My work isn't in a very patentable area so it wasn't a big issue for me as much as some others: I guess it's worth examining the university regulations and before you hand it in decide how to play it.
(disclaimer: not a UK teacher, but a UK university educational researcher who has worked on projects in schools)
You make a fair summary about the kind of things that teachers don't want children using their phones for in class. They are in class to participate in the lesson, not for texting friends or playing games. But it's not feasible for teachers to track each student's phone type and functionality, much too time consuming. I don't know where you are writing from but in the UK the school time table doesn't have spare five minutes at the beginning of every lesson (children, particularly those over 11, rotate between teachers for different lessons) to check all the students' phones. Far easier (and more efficient in terms of time spent on teaching) to put a blanket ban on phones being switched on or carried. Harder as well to police older children who have more independence from their parents than younger children. 17 year olds are unlikely to accept "Disney phones" yet are school children.
Of course there is an interesting pedagogical line of thought developing that we should accept mobile phones are becoming ever present devices and we should work out how to incorporate them into teaching and learning processes, but this is a different debate (and fiercely contested, as you can imagine).
I am interested that you represent the men who wrote the first constitution / laws of your country with a capital F, suggesting a degree of worship as great, if not more than the reverence given to the queen / Queen in the UK. In the UK some people really worship the queen, other people don't like her at all and think that the structure of monarchy should be pulled down. Are there people in the USA who think the worship of the "Founders" should be pulled down?
Your capitalising of the term 'founders' suggests you treat them as legendary heroes rather than normal, fallible men? Closer to a Soviet/Chineses model of history with heroic past figures that are greater than people can be today?
Maybe the big stuff isn't killing so many people so other stuff is catching folk, and as you say we're becoming more sensitive to more subtle things? Not to say that there aren't more crazy folk out there, but given that the average lifespan for a working class person in the nineteenth century was about 40, and now you'd expect to live to 70 no problem, maybe we're more aware of less lethal issues?
A friend of mine just got diagnosed as having to go gluten-free, docs thought he had cancer, luckily an internal examination and sample showed it wasn't that but on the way found some gut damage that can be managed by him being gluten free for the rest of his life. Maybe 100 years ago they'd not have picked it up and then ten years down the line would have got cancer and died (or something like that which the continued eating of gluten would have caused, I think it can set off conditions) and the records would have had him down as death from cancer. Instead he's down as having a life condition rather than a death condition because we're better and analysing bodies. I'd never heard of this before but he says it's pretty common these days.
Plus of course might be stuff in our diets and lifestyles that have changed in the last 100 years but hey if you read histories of food production and hygiene discussing the nineteenth century you'll realise most of the world is a whole lot better off than it used to be...
Given the amount of disputed territory claimed by Israel, is this a political hot potato for Google? Will the Google-cars be driving round streets that the local authorities then help with identifying? I can imagine situations where the Google image makers come back with maps and a local authority says "yes, this is called so-and-so Street, this is called this-and-that Street" and six months later when the images are published there's a big outcry because these streets have been known locally by Palestinian names, or the Google-vans have been driving round new settlement areas and map them as being Israeli land while other communities claim that this has been illegally acquired land.
Given the outcry when Google has innocently and accidently attributed a border feature / street to the wrong country in other places, I can imagine this is a very hot potato to be dealing with...
Lots of people in the UK know what you're talking about when you say a flick knife. It's a colloquial expression. Maybe its not used correctly (if you're in Ye Olde Guilde of Knifey Makers or something like that) but people here would understand it to be a sharp easily concealed knife that folds into the handle and springs and locks into place, or perhaps is flicked into the locked position by a flick of the wrists.
We've got quite a lot of pedants here already in the UK so probably we should be grateful you don't live here;-)
I think this argument that something is worth taking because it is 'natural' is a weak position, not well though out. There are a lot of things out there that occur naturally but are downright poisonous and will kill you. There are many synthetic products that are really helpful. I'd like to see a more rigorous discussion of the difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural/synthetic'. I have this suspicion that there are many borderline products and preferring 'natural' is just a psychological position that comforts people rather has medical benefits. Interested to hear further evidence....
A measured response, sir. However my scepticism arises as you invoke both the Daily Mail Law and the Star Trek Law:
- be suspicious if somebody quotes the Daily Mail as a reliable source of evidence - be really worried if somebody argues their position is correct *because something similar happened in Star Trek*;-)
I'd definitely agree we need to work out how much of what is happening is due to underlying discontent that's just bubbling up (rumours persist of some police being less than professional in dealing with youths), and how much is opportunistic crime (smashing stuff and nicking tellies and trainers because you can get free stuff while the rioting is kicking off, also just having a riot because its a chance to chuck a brick at a copper or have a laugh).
My guess is a bit of each and like the 80s we've got to sort out what's going wrong before it goes *really wrong*. There is the potential for things to go really wrong in the next few years (rising unemployment, soft social services like youth clubs being closed down, police budgets tightening, etc). It's undeniable that there are a good number of chancers out there, equally, my own personal experience is that the police can pull you over randomly and be rude and swing their weight around if they feel like it. After my (black, Barbadian) mate got pulled over in his car half a dozen times and let off every time I told him to get his driving licence updated with his proper prefix so at least he might get half an apology when they realised they should call him Dr....
RTFA: people flying in and then transferring directly in the transfers area to an internal flight to another part of the UK where there are less security checks on people coming in to the country. We have a number of smaller, regional airports.
Lots of paranoia in the UK about 'illegal immigrants'. Quite ironic seeing as the people who make the most noise about this are likely to be descended from illegal immigrants themselves;-) Our whole country is basically immigrants if you look far enough back...
How does your argument stand up when looking at Japan, which has had bullet trains for 47 years and no fatalities? (state run for the first 23 years and no accidents then)
"It's a sad reminder that, at least for now, human spaceflight is at the mercy of the schizophrenia that is the American political process"
I think human spaceflight will continue whatever happens in America, I don't think human spaceflight is directly at the mercy of the American political process. The Russians and Chinese have human rated space vehicles, other countries are likely to strive towards them. they will carry on regardless of what happens in America. They might be affected to a degree, but not completely influenced.
I think you just confused 'humanity' with 'America'?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the "internet theories on the brace position" boil down to a theory that it kills you faster?
Anybody know any references to evidence that the brace position is the safest to be in? Or references to others reasonable claims for better positions?
(don't bother with responses about parachutes, taking the pilot's seat, going to the first class bar and drinking yourself horizontal, etc...)
cheers!
Looking forward to a link to a decent scientific reference on this...
Let's take two people, and hit them both on the head with a block of concrete at 12mph. One is wearing a cycle helmet, and one is not. Which person do you think will take more damage?
I'd welcome links to documents on comparative head damage to cyclists wearing and not wearing helments, but if I am going to fall off a bike and hit my head on the road while travelling at a reasonable cycling pace (12 mph) I think I'll go for hitting that road with my helmet rather than my head directly. I'll take a less-than-scientific guess a helmet might help reduce damage.
I'd be interested to see some links for both sides of the argument, that would be great. Many thanks in advance...
I found a couple of good firm swings of my trusty garden mattock using the pick side gets old hard drives into non-recoverable mode before throwing the remains into the trash can. Plus it's very satisfying! :- ) I am sure if you're an international spy then the CIA could probably retrieve the data, but if you're just trying to destroy your hard drive to the point of stopping a local teenager fishing it out of your trash can and retrieving your amazon transactions and credit card data, I reckon this probably does the job...
The article notes that these are books challenged and requested removal in public or school libraries. So I think you're going to see a bias towards books for teenagers which adults feel are inappropriate for their dear children: more emphasis on requests for censorship because of rude words, sex scenes and unconventional ideas than because of religious thought.
I can see conservative parents getting upset about a whole range of exciting contemporary teenage literature while I would imagine only the most radically conservative are going to get upset about school libraries stock religious works, they'll more likely accept the concept of teaching comparative religion.
My guess is all the world's religious works have some pretty horrific sections, you might be upset about the Qur'an but everybody here at slashdot loves the way the Lego Bible picks out the extreme sections of the Christian holy books... I'd guess the Christians can give the Muslims a good run for their money in terms of tough edicts on people who don't follow the holy words... (stonings, killings, etc). Within a school or library context I don't think people blink when they see a shelf with the different world religions holy books next to each other (probably they yawn).
Sorry, non USA person here. The reports talk about "white shirt police" and "blue shirt police" as if they are different groups (the "white shirt police" seem to come in for criticism for tougher policing) - are they two different organisations / branches / other division in the police forces? Local police and national police? Civil and military? (etc?)
cheers, thanks for info.
Something we suspected for a long time...
Don't get me wrong, we're truly grateful you stepped in 70 years ago to help save us being conquered by the nazis (even if you did take 2 years to finish your breakfast before getting your spurs on) , but jings, we do seem to have a procession of Prime Ministers whose real dream seems to be made a governor of a USA state...
Interesting point though I'd not be too worried about the global dissemination: I think the important point is that teenagers are inspired to try something that pushes them, and they achieve some goals as a result. I can remember as a kid seeing science experiments on tv and trying them at home and being so proud when they worked, showing my dad. It didn't matter that this wasn't novel science, what mattered was that I'd had the drive to replicate what I'd seen and learn something on the way (not always what I'd expected either). I think this is the important goal we should try and enable children/teenagers to reach. It doesn't matter that they've been inspired by somebody doing the same on the internet, or they've found a kit advertised in a magazine and sold to millions of others, it's that they've pushed their own knowledge a little bit further. This might give them confidence to go further, insights into real innovation, or even just a lesson that things aren't always easy to do and require plain hard work.
So I am completely in agreement with you - I'd hate a future where kids don't do something because they've seen it on the internet. On the contrary, I think seeing an example will inspire them to try it themselves. I'd take a guess this kid has seen balloons for a couple of hundred dollars and his perceived innovation is that he's made it a bit cheaper by using trash bags. It doesn't matter that a thousand other folk might have done this. He's learnt how to do it. He'll carry the sense of achievement with him. He says he wants to take up aeronautical engineering, well I reckon he's showing future university professors that he's keen and he's learnt some lessons. Better than a student who has all top grades but hasn't got his hands dirty. I have to say as well he's written it up reasonably, documentation is always a killer after the event so credit to him, heck there are open source projects by adults written up more poorly than this ;-)
I think we should be optimistic while teenagers want to go out and do things, I think there will hopefully always be kids wanting to buy the 20 dollar kits and try and tweak them a bit, or at least build them themselves. As you say, your dad and granddad probably smiled benevolently when they saw you struggling over your kits, knowing they'd done something similar - but they knew that all the learning that came along with the actual building would be really good for you. Here's to DIY! :-)
Slashdot posts an article on some kid flying a balloon and gps and camera for 50 dollars, he's worked out to do it with a couple of people and a bit of research. Slashdot posters moan about how crap the balloon is. You are guys are the reason the USA is screwed in the long term - loads of people moaning when a 17 year old or so kid pushes himself and gets something like this happening? A better place would have praised the kid, I think it's great teenagers are trying to come up with technological hacks that are new to them and dreaming great goals.
A better audience, had it had any reservations, would offer kind and politely worded guidance to help him keeping creating but in a better and informed way. Instead - bitchy comments from a good number of people who are too scared to use a slashdot identity.
If you're a representative sample of how Americans respond to teenagers trying to push their technical knowledge, I reckon the USA is screwed... stamping on 17 year olds trying to be innovative and push themselves is no way to encourage your future generations. So he didn't achieve a PhD level of novel research? he didn't do something worthy of a Nobel prize? Who cares?! this might be the spark that gets him to those heights ten years down the line. He pushed himself, he wrote it up nicely, he was brave enough to publish to the world and allow comments. What were you doing when you were 17? he deserves encouragement, not scorn. Shame on you.
The article offered me a yes/no answerable question and I gave my opinion :-)
It's not the threat model, it's the business model that drives it. Parents are nervous people: the most precious thing in the world is their child. People generally overrate the threat of serious crime/ abduction. So if you can announce that your kindergarten not only has lots of lovely high trained staff *but also* shiny technology to protect the precious children, then you might get more parents sending their children to your kindergarten rather than the one down the road.
For the kindergarten it is a cost-benefit analysis and they've decided spending some money on tech will bring in more kids which will make more money.
Not sure where you're writing from but I am pretty sure when I started my PhD in the UK the documents said the university owned the copyright on all the work I produced. Go back to the university's regulations that you signed up to and check what they say.
As another poster has noted, I don't think they'd chase you if you wrote up journal papers or books out of your thesis, and they are unlikely to mind your work being posted on your website, distributed across academic channels (usual repositories etc). I think their perspective is : we give you a grant / living expenses and access to our facilities and our professors for 4 years, we give you a globally recognised and highly respected qualification if you do what we ask of you, in return we own copyright your produce while working for us in this role.
My work isn't in a very patentable area so it wasn't a big issue for me as much as some others: I guess it's worth examining the university regulations and before you hand it in decide how to play it.
Yes.
(disclaimer: not a UK teacher, but a UK university educational researcher who has worked on projects in schools)
You make a fair summary about the kind of things that teachers don't want children using their phones for in class. They are in class to participate in the lesson, not for texting friends or playing games. But it's not feasible for teachers to track each student's phone type and functionality, much too time consuming. I don't know where you are writing from but in the UK the school time table doesn't have spare five minutes at the beginning of every lesson (children, particularly those over 11, rotate between teachers for different lessons) to check all the students' phones. Far easier (and more efficient in terms of time spent on teaching) to put a blanket ban on phones being switched on or carried. Harder as well to police older children who have more independence from their parents than younger children. 17 year olds are unlikely to accept "Disney phones" yet are school children.
Of course there is an interesting pedagogical line of thought developing that we should accept mobile phones are becoming ever present devices and we should work out how to incorporate them into teaching and learning processes, but this is a different debate (and fiercely contested, as you can imagine).
Saturn V looking rocket with strap on boosters like a Soyuz, with a small capsule on top? The 1960s were so great we're going to go back to them?
I am interested that you represent the men who wrote the first constitution / laws of your country with a capital F, suggesting a degree of worship as great, if not more than the reverence given to the queen / Queen in the UK. In the UK some people really worship the queen, other people don't like her at all and think that the structure of monarchy should be pulled down. Are there people in the USA who think the worship of the "Founders" should be pulled down?
Your capitalising of the term 'founders' suggests you treat them as legendary heroes rather than normal, fallible men? Closer to a Soviet /Chineses model of history with heroic past figures that are greater than people can be today?
Maybe the big stuff isn't killing so many people so other stuff is catching folk, and as you say we're becoming more sensitive to more subtle things? Not to say that there aren't more crazy folk out there, but given that the average lifespan for a working class person in the nineteenth century was about 40, and now you'd expect to live to 70 no problem, maybe we're more aware of less lethal issues?
A friend of mine just got diagnosed as having to go gluten-free, docs thought he had cancer, luckily an internal examination and sample showed it wasn't that but on the way found some gut damage that can be managed by him being gluten free for the rest of his life. Maybe 100 years ago they'd not have picked it up and then ten years down the line would have got cancer and died (or something like that which the continued eating of gluten would have caused, I think it can set off conditions) and the records would have had him down as death from cancer. Instead he's down as having a life condition rather than a death condition because we're better and analysing bodies. I'd never heard of this before but he says it's pretty common these days.
Plus of course might be stuff in our diets and lifestyles that have changed in the last 100 years but hey if you read histories of food production and hygiene discussing the nineteenth century you'll realise most of the world is a whole lot better off than it used to be...
"almost literally" - that would be "not really" then?
Given the amount of disputed territory claimed by Israel, is this a political hot potato for Google? Will the Google-cars be driving round streets that the local authorities then help with identifying? I can imagine situations where the Google image makers come back with maps and a local authority says "yes, this is called so-and-so Street, this is called this-and-that Street" and six months later when the images are published there's a big outcry because these streets have been known locally by Palestinian names, or the Google-vans have been driving round new settlement areas and map them as being Israeli land while other communities claim that this has been illegally acquired land.
Given the outcry when Google has innocently and accidently attributed a border feature / street to the wrong country in other places, I can imagine this is a very hot potato to be dealing with...
Lots of people in the UK know what you're talking about when you say a flick knife. It's a colloquial expression. Maybe its not used correctly (if you're in Ye Olde Guilde of Knifey Makers or something like that) but people here would understand it to be a sharp easily concealed knife that folds into the handle and springs and locks into place, or perhaps is flicked into the locked position by a flick of the wrists. ;-)
We've got quite a lot of pedants here already in the UK so probably we should be grateful you don't live here
I think this argument that something is worth taking because it is 'natural' is a weak position, not well though out. There are a lot of things out there that occur naturally but are downright poisonous and will kill you. There are many synthetic products that are really helpful. I'd like to see a more rigorous discussion of the difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural/synthetic'. I have this suspicion that there are many borderline products and preferring 'natural' is just a psychological position that comforts people rather has medical benefits. Interested to hear further evidence....
A measured response, sir. However my scepticism arises as you invoke both the Daily Mail Law and the Star Trek Law:
- be suspicious if somebody quotes the Daily Mail as a reliable source of evidence ;-)
- be really worried if somebody argues their position is correct *because something similar happened in Star Trek*
I'd definitely agree we need to work out how much of what is happening is due to underlying discontent that's just bubbling up (rumours persist of some police being less than professional in dealing with youths), and how much is opportunistic crime (smashing stuff and nicking tellies and trainers because you can get free stuff while the rioting is kicking off, also just having a riot because its a chance to chuck a brick at a copper or have a laugh).
My guess is a bit of each and like the 80s we've got to sort out what's going wrong before it goes *really wrong*. There is the potential for things to go really wrong in the next few years (rising unemployment, soft social services like youth clubs being closed down, police budgets tightening, etc). It's undeniable that there are a good number of chancers out there, equally, my own personal experience is that the police can pull you over randomly and be rude and swing their weight around if they feel like it. After my (black, Barbadian) mate got pulled over in his car half a dozen times and let off every time I told him to get his driving licence updated with his proper prefix so at least he might get half an apology when they realised they should call him Dr. ...
RTFA: people flying in and then transferring directly in the transfers area to an internal flight to another part of the UK where there are less security checks on people coming in to the country. We have a number of smaller, regional airports.
Lots of paranoia in the UK about 'illegal immigrants'. Quite ironic seeing as the people who make the most noise about this are likely to be descended from illegal immigrants themselves ;-) Our whole country is basically immigrants if you look far enough back...
How does your argument stand up when looking at Japan, which has had bullet trains for 47 years and no fatalities? (state run for the first 23 years and no accidents then)
"It's a sad reminder that, at least for now, human spaceflight is at the mercy of the schizophrenia that is the American political process"
I think human spaceflight will continue whatever happens in America, I don't think human spaceflight is directly at the mercy of the American political process. The Russians and Chinese have human rated space vehicles, other countries are likely to strive towards them. they will carry on regardless of what happens in America. They might be affected to a degree, but not completely influenced.
I think you just confused 'humanity' with 'America'?