Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


New trains costing $2 billion too wide to fit in tunnels

The Australian government in action! An order of new trains for New South Wales in Australia, costing $2 billion, have been built 20 centimeters too wide to fit in the existing tunnels.

Their solution? A very typical government one:

But Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW), the Government body that manages the state’s rail system, has come up with a cunning plan. It has proposed simply relaxing current safety standards. In addition, 10 tunnels built in the 1900s will be partially modified to allow the new trains to run. [emphasis mine]

Reading the whole article is like entering the world of Bizarro. Here is how the government explains their plan: “This option would allow the New Intercity Fleet to operate on both lines and pass each other, and therefore ensure better longer term operational outcomes, while also minimising heritage impacts through reduced tunnel lining modifications.”

They make no mention of the collisions that might occur.

Readers!
 

My July fund-raising campaign for 2021 has now ended. Thank you all for your donations and subscriptions. While this year’s campaign was not as spectacular as last year’s, it was the second best July campaign since I began this website.


And if you have not yet donated or subscribed, and you think what I write here is worth your support, you can still do so. I depend on this support to remain independent and free to write what I believe, without any pressure from others. Nor do I accept advertisements, or use oppressive social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


If you choose to help, you can contribute via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

8 comments

  • Commodude

    Safety standards are, after all, interpretive rules, so they’re subject to change on the whim of an inspector….

    Sorry, hits a nerve. Just spent a few hours today planning compliance with a new interpretation of a standard which has evidently been being misinterpreted by the entire industrial community for years.

  • Cotour

    And if and when there is a “problem” and someone is killed? How will that be “interpreted”?

    Someone somewhere at a desk or work station was tasked with determining and laying out some criteria for the specifications of said trains. I would think that there would be a fairly thick book produced dedicated to the specific subject. This would include the maximum allowable width for these bright and shinny and very expensive new trains.

    If I was the boss I would be very interested in the name or names of these individuals while we all contorted ourselves in our making the lemonade that fixes this screw up. But in the end, if I was the boss it would all come down on me, it would have been my responsibility to set and check the dimensions. And even so, stuff happens.

    But this is government, no one ultimately has any responsibility more than likely.

  • “And even so, stuff happens.”

    Like many here, I have experience in the difference between shop and as-built plans; but 20 cm?

    It appears from the article the new equipment will eat up half the minimum safety distance; a standard I assume was carefully studied and arrived at. The official line seems to be that the standards are overly restrictive, and can be safely ignored. Or people are taking additional risk. Whatever.

  • Mike Borgelt

    Anyone familiar with Australian defence procurement would not be surprised. We spent a billion dollars on 11 Seasprite helicopters for our Navy and got none because at the last moment someone discovered that the autopilot was a single channel device as specified in the contract but as we had decided on a two crew complement instead of the usual 3 the chopper wouldn’t be able to do its job at night or in instrument weather. I haven’t heard that anyone lost job/pension/went to jail over this.
    BTW the trains are a New South Wales State government screw up, not Australian federal gummint.

  • Garry

    Blair, I’m no expert and don’t know any more about this situation than what appears here, but I think the main factor that determines the safety margin is shaking of the train (in shipboard terms, the rolling component) as it goes through the tunnel. I don’t know how they calculated the maximum expected rolling motion, and I agree witth you; it appears someone determined that the old standard was too strict and therefore reduced it somewhat arbitrarily.

  • Cotour: This story was worth getting elevated to the main page. Thank you.

  • Steve Cooepr

    Sounds like someone was told to take off their engineering hat and put on their management hat.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *