In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.

Q: Atlanta (CNN) -- It was somewhere in the middle of Six Flags' Goliath roller coaster that my eye started to short-circuit, nearly going black. The towering roller coaster pressed my fellow riders and me deep into our seats as we rounded a set of sharp curves. Many find the ride thrilling; for me it was unnerving. I spent much of my time in line for the next ride of the day, the Batman roller coaster, reading about the potential for roller coaster deaths and accidents. This was Friday in Georgia, the same day a woman died after falling from her seat on a Six Flags coaster in Texas. Pecking through roller coaster news on my phone that day, before the death in Texas had been reported, I learned, among other things, that it was reported that a 45-year-old died after passing out and having an apparent heart attack on Goliath, the ride that made my eye briefly malfunction. I get that this seems paranoid, and I knew reading this information while waiting in line for a roller coaster was an unnecessary form of self-torture. But I couldn't help it. There's something about a roller coaster death that is uniquely terrifying in a screenplay kind of way. It's summer fun gone horribly wrong. I think this is partly why so many are shocked and saddened by the death of Rosy Esparza, who fell, according to a witness who spoke with CNN affiliate WFAA, from the Texas Giant roller coaster at Six Flags in Arlington, Texas. The exact cause remains unknown, but authorities say there was no sign of "foul play or criminality." Six Flags said in a statement that safety is paramount. "Since the safety of our guests and employees is our number one priority, the ride has been closed pending further investigation," the park said. A park spokeswoman did not immediately respond to requests for comment on its safety inspection policies and the calls for federal oversight. Still, it's a reluctant thrill seeker's greatest fear. It's almost impossible to imagine how terrifying the experience would be -- and how family members and fellow riders could process such an accident. After Esparza's death, Sen. Ed Markey, the Democrat from Massachusetts who recently took the seat vacated by John Kerry, has reportedly renewed his call for federal oversight of roller coaster inspection. "No federal agency has legal authority to enforce safety standards," NBC wrote in a post about the safety issues. "And Texas is one of at least 17 states that have no agency responsible for inspecting amusement park rides, according to NBC News' survey of state codes in all 50 states." Markey wants a federal agency to oversee safety enforcement. The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates mobile amusement park rides, like those found at fairs, but does not have jurisdiction over "fixed" rides like those at Six Flags, said Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the federal agency. The difference makes little sense, and Markey isn't alone in his call for more oversight. Tracy Mehan, from the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said that relatively little is known about the prevalence of roller coaster injuries and deaths because the federal government doesn't enforce safety inspections and investigations. A patchwork of state laws govern the process, she said. Would-be roller coaster regulators have been criticized as needlessly scaring people about the dangers of roller coasters. And it's true that the statistics aren't quite as terrifying as the rides. As the National Review put it this year, "Americans are 5,000 times more likely to be legally executed by their own government than to die on a roller coaster." The writer, Charles C.W. Cooke, puts the odds of roller coaster death at 1 in 1.5 billion in a given year, compared with a 1 in 10 million chance of being killed "because the aircraft he is traveling on falls apart." But that framing is misleading, given how little is known about national roller coaster injuries. One of the best sources of information comes from a Center for Injury and Policy Research study of child injuries in the United States. After looking at injuries that were treated in hospitals from 1990 to 2010, the group found that a child is hospitalized from an injury related to an amusement park, carnival, fair or arcade-type ride once every three days in the summer, Mehan said. These are serious injuries: fractures, neck injuries and traumatic brain injuries. Including less serious injuries like bruises and sprains, about 4,440 child injuries are reported to hospitals each year on the rides, including those at fairs and other attractions, she said. The rate is 20 injuries per day during the summer months. "We would really like to see a national database or a national system put in place so we can get a picture of what's happening," she said. The group was unable to compile info on deaths, for example. Regardless of the stats, however, it's the joy-gone-wrong factor that makes roller coaster deaths particularly horrifying. Are those fears slightly irrational and disproportionate? Maybe. But safety seems far from assured these days. Improvements, of course, must be weighed against deadlier public safety concerns. More should be done, for instance, to prevent road-traffic deaths, which kill about 1.3 million people globally each year. Many of those deaths could be prevented with simple changes to traffic laws and other rules, according to a fascinating report from Bloomberg Philanthropies (PDF); and self-driving cars could lead to greater reductions, still. But the existence of more-pressing and deadlier threats does not justify lax oversight of amusement park rides that are meant to entertain. Roller coaster fans should support a review of safety requirements. Otherwise, at the very least, they risk having a joyous experience soured by fear. The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of John D. Sutter.

A: Woman dies on roller coaster in Texas on Friday .
John Sutter: Federal regulations for roller coasters should be considered .
Official says the federal government has no authority over rides that aren't mobile .
****
Q: London (CNN) -- Il Rottomatore -- or "the demolition man" -- is how Italy's incoming prime minister has come to be known, thanks in part to his pugnacious approach to politics. Matteo Renzi's nickname hardly bodes well for drumming up support in one of the most fractious governing systems on the planet, one which has speared all but one of its governments since World War II. Then again, the 39-year-old's backers say this football-fan Mayor of Florence is precisely the breath of fresh air needed in Rome's stuffy halls of power. Neither an MP nor an elected premier, Renzi has managed to wrest control of the party's leadership by promising to smash the gridlocked reform process and shift its axis to the center. How he thinks he will manage to garner more support than career politicians, like his predecessor Enrico Letta, is as yet unclear. What's more: Renzi had initially vowed only to seek the top job through the ballot box and not a leadership contest, meaning some are skeptical about what he stands for. ''What Renzi's done is gutsy,'' says Giuseppe Ragusa of the Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome. ''But he is not going to have the public's support; he doesn't have the votes from the electoral poll. So this is going to be a difficulty. Instead Ragusa says Italy is hoping that by virtue of his youth and dynamism Renzi will have the energy ''to do something very quickly." Something, being the optimal word. Italy has been crying out for a plausible, long-term economic agenda for years, leaving the country wholly unprepared for the economic slump of recent years. Often described as his country's answer to Tony Blair, Renzi is good at talking the big picture, which is probably just as well because Italy's problems aren't small. First there's a two trillion-euro debt pile to shrink, record unemployment, crippling and antiquated labor laws not to mention stifling business and payroll taxes. Still, top of the list for Renzi, will be moves to create the kind of political stability where such measures can actually take hold. This means ploughing on with plans to reform the parliamentary system in a move which is likely to cost the country its upper house -- or senate -- in its current form. However, Renzi may be on a collision course with Brussels after suggesting the EU give his nation some leeway to breach its 3% limit on the budget deficit in order to support a recent return to growth. Vincenzo Scarpetta of London-based think tank Open Europe says Renzi will have to prove himself on the international stage. ''He is relatively little known compared to his two predecessors,'' says Scarpetta. ''So he will have to act quickly.'' Yet if anything, Renzi is a long distance player. A marathon runner and keen sportsman, Renzi already has an eye on the distant horizon -- saying he wishes to see this term through until the next election in 2018. Addressing reporters after being asked to form a government by Italy's President -- as protocol dictates -- Renzi said it would likely take a few days to get his key people in place. ''But I assure you,'' he said, ''I will give this commitment all the energy I have.'' Commitment is something this former boy scout is known for and at less than half of the age of Silvio Berlusconi, Renzi certainly has energy. But he'll need more than stamina to succeed. Above all, he must find support. READ MORE: Is Matteo Renzi ready to be Italy's PM? WATCH MORE: The future of Europe's economy .

A: Matteo Renzi is incoming PM of Italy, a country with a fractious governing system .
It's not clear how the 39-year-old will garner more support than his predecessors .
The country has problems including its two trillion euro debt pile and high unemployment .
But Renzi has shown he is a long-distance player -- and has youth and stamina on his side .
****
Q: While President Obama has reignited a national conversation over rising college costs with his new proposals, those suggestions are unlikely to dramatically lower costs soon. And the president has not given many specific suggestions how to cut these costs that have been rising dramatically faster than people's income. Tuition fees are roughly double the share of income then they were in the 1960s. Let me offer five suggestions on how to lower post-secondary educational costs. This list is not comprehensive, but full implementation of even some of them could reduce the burden that colleges impose on students, parents and taxpayers. First, adopt the three-year bachelor's degree as in Europe. Students at prestigious schools like Oxford and Cambridge receive their degrees in three years, and they still get first-class jobs. Diminishing returns sets into collegiate study like anything else, and much of the material in the last two years of college is of marginal importance, with the possible exception of some demanding majors such as engineering and architecture. The feds could simply say undergraduate student eligibility for financial assistance ends after 90 semester hours of study.  This approach should reduce the cost of a B.A. degree by something on the order of 25%. A less cost-saving variant of the three-year plan would keep the degree at its traditional 120 semester hour length, but have students go to school year-round for three years. We really don't need the summer off to plant crops as people did hundreds of years ago. Facilities would get greater utilization, lowering capital costs. College graduates would gain an extra year working full-time. Faculty usually will teach additional courses for far less than the average pay per course taught regularly. Maintenance costs of facilities per student would also fall. Second, make it possible for students to use MOOCs (massively open online courses) and other low-cost, online options, allowing for lower cost "blended" degrees combining perhaps two years of traditional classroom experience with an equal amount of online training. This would cut the cost of quality degrees perhaps 40%. Without any governmental involvement, teachers and  entrepreneurs have brought hundreds of high-quality but free or low-cost courses to the internet --Udacity, Coursera, EdX, StraighterLine, Saylor Foundation, Khan Academy and Twenty Million Minds Foundation are examples of a few providers or facilitators of quality instruction.  Yet students seldom get credit for these courses.  The barriers are not technological, but legal or involve overcoming special interest obstruction. Students need to be examined on the online material, with safeguards assuring the registered student is actually being tested. Obstacles to accrediting these innovative approaches need to be overcome. The federal government, which accredits the accreditation agencies, could tell these agencies they must allow accredited schools to accept as much as 60% of coursework from MOOC or related providers.  The federal government can't deliver the mail or run a national medical care system efficiently, so they should not be the prime mover here. Where is the Gates Foundation or Warren Buffet when we need them? Third, offer a traditional residential degree for 40% less by dramatically reducing labor and capital costs. The typical university employs twice as many "professional non-instructional personnel" (administrators) per 100 students as it did 40 years ago. Why not create new universities with staffing near the 1970 norms -- a university without sustainability and diversity coordinators or an army of public relations specialists, where faculty teach extensively rather than do trivial research that no one reads, and where there are no expensive intercollegiate athletic programs for the amusement of non-students. Specifically, ask the faculty to teach four classes per semester instead of two or three. Build few buildings but utilize them extensively, including on Fridays, weekends and summer months.  Have a least two faculty members for each administrator (the ratio now is often one to one). Prohibit faculty from teaching trivial courses in their specialty. Do we really need courses on "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame" taught to students who are clueless about  Beethoven, Shakespeare and van Gogh?  Limit the pay of all employees to no more than that of the president of the United States or less.  Could existing universities do this? They haven't, so state governments might have to create new institutions from the ground up. Fourth, create a National College Equivalence Test similar to the high school GED. A good national test of basic reading, writing, mathematical and general knowledge about our institutions and society could be administered by, say, the Scholastic Testing Service, or ACT.  High scores on the test would lead to a "college equivalence certificate." Most students want a diploma as a ticket to a good job. Employers could use scores on the equivalency test as an alternative certification device, and individuals could take the test anytime --even home schooled kids with little formal education. Fifth, get the federal government out of the student financial aid business. There is good evidence the 11.7% annual growth in federal student financial aid over the past decade (and similar growth earlier) has encouraged colleges to raise tuition fees and finance a costly academic arms race. Lower income Americans are a smaller proportion of recent college graduates than in 1970, before Pell Grants began. If we implement the first four reforms, the need for student financial assistance will dramatically decline. The current system breeds high dropout rates, rewards poor performance (students lingering in school get more aid than those graduating promptly) and encourages kids to enter college who would be better off entering trade schools or apprentice programs.  Ending these inefficient federal programs would save tens of billions annually. In short, there are lots of thing we can do to make colleges more affordable beyond the president's idea of providing good consumer information by rating colleges.

A:
President Obama is proposing steps to reduce costs of college .
Richard Vedder says more useful steps would include shortening college to three years .
He says the number of administrators has grown too much, other costs could be cut .
Vedder: Year-round schooling and online teaching would do much to reduce tuition .
****