Isn't the pulse-jet mounted too high?
on
Pulse Jet Go-kart
·
· Score: 2
If the jet is mounted on the top of the rollcage, doesn't that move the center of mass dangerously high? Also, what happens if the roll cage is actually used as a roll cage (that is, the kart flips over)? The destruction of the jet is bad enough, but what about the ruptured gas line?
It would seem to me (and I am not an engineer of any sort, so take this with a grain of salt) that a better idea would be so somehow mount the jet below and behind the driver. Say, you have the basic chassis of a wooden or metal platform on wheels, mount the engine on top of that, and then have another platform mounted above that where the driver sits, being careful not to obstruct airflow for the jet. Alternatively, couldn't this guy do a modified version of the original design, with the engine behind him and to the side, but with some sort of partition between the driver and the pipe? Either option should eliminate the risk of getting burned by the pipe, and would move the center of mass lower, as well as reducing the likelihood of the cart rolling onto the engine (assuming it still has the rollcage.
I was also wondering, is a turboshaft engine really the best way to go to improve acceleration? This guy mentioned that acceleration improved markedly at 10 MPH, so why bother with the added mass and hassle, and failure risk of a turboshaft? Why not just add a small conventional go-kart engine to get the kart up to ten mph or whatever? Then just turn on the jet and shut down the IC engine. The ICE could also be used in a racing situation if the jet failed, or the slope was too great for it.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
As I recall, in that article, the potential pornographic uses of improved flesh rendering were emphasized. Let's face it, the porn industry will be some of the first people to deploy this technology large-scale. They pioneered BetaMax, VHS, GIF, JPEG, internet multimedia as a whole, and this too will be lead by the noble pornographers. God bless them, every one!
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
From the LA Times article: "The idea of a rocket-propelled space bomber has been around in various forms since the 1930s, when Austrian rocket scientist Eugen Sanger urged Adolf Hitler to build an "antipodal bomber" called the Silver Bird that could skip across the outer edge of the atmosphere to strike New York City. Hitler was cool to the plan"
If Adolph Hitler - an SOB who seriously considered using magic, for chrissakes! - thought space-based weapons were too "out there" (pun intended), does this mean the current secretary of defense is crazier than Hitler?
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
And a bomber which attacks from space demands a space-based defense against the bomber, just as conventional bombers are attacked by fighter/interceptors aircraft. And once missiles/satellites/planes are developed that can attack the space bomber, there needs to be some way of escroting and defending the bomber in space. Space based missile. Ground to space weapons. Air to space weapons. Suborbital fighters. And so on ad infinitum. Once we put weapons in space, more weapons will follow, even if they're just suborbital.
That said, the idea of kinetic bombs is sort of cool, just because they give you enormous penetrating power without using a nuke.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
After all, I think we can all agree that the reason this company is calling it's product the "Light Saber" is because Lucas already popularized the term. They're riding the marketing and name-recognition "coattails" of lucasarts' Light Saber in order to promote and increase name recognition for their own product. It may seem petty, but lucasarts does have the right to defend a trademark they have invested millions of dollars in.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
That's why methadone clinics are so controversial. The migration from other drugs to methadone is easy enough, but getting people off the methadone is very very hard. There's no high, but the people are still addicted - they need the drug to feel normal, and addictions to ANY drug screws up your body something fierce.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
As I look over the posts in this thread, I see a lot of people complaining that Big Business is being greedy, that it is trying to take power away from the users with no respect for anything except its own bottom line.
People say that like it's a bad thing. It isn't - in fact, it's the basis of the capitalist system and free competition. TNSTAAFL - There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want these companies (sprint, etc.) to continue running the backbone of the Internet? You want them to maintain it? Fine, but don't expect them to do it for the love of mankind. They do it for money, and if the money isn't coming in, then yah, big business will do whatever to can to make more money. That means controlling supply of services, manipulating prices to manipulate demand, and all sorts of "dirty tricks".
You don't like what Big Business is doing to the internet? Well, I don't like all of it either, neccessarily, but it's not illegal, or even unethical. Business is just doing the same thing it's always done - trying to find a way to make money from new technology. They did it with radio and TV and cars, and they'll do it again. The appropriate response is not to complain that your rights are being violated or some such nonsense - they aren't. You have the right to freedom of speech. You do not have the right to demand someone else pay to publish your speeched, or for you to see someone else's free speech. If you don't like what's being done to the internet, either write the companies, don't use the internet, build your own internet and convince people to use it, or just accept that economics isn't fair. I know none of those options are pleasant - and that building a new internet is probably hard to the point of impossibility - but those are the only options you have.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
It's much more likely that we'll have commercially viable genetically engineered flying pigs by 2008. In fact, I'd say that the flying pigs would be essential for any effective democratic revolution in China. They could be shot down and eaten by anyone, providing food for the masses after the flying pigs are released in the wild. Since pigs are much smarter than any other flying animal, it is concievable they could be trained to carry written messages, or even be used as suicide bombers. Train a flying pig to crash into stuff, strap on some C-4, and let it fly. In essence, they could be self-manufactoring smart bombs.
I propose we begin development of flying pigs immediately if we want to see a free China by 2008.
I see your point. Problem is, it's sometimes rather hard to get that information, as well as occasionally dangerous for the people getting around the censorship, I should imagine.
This is an internet news site. Read the top of the page: "News for Nerds". I don't think anyone here claims closing internet cafes is as important as mass executions, but this particular site's theme makes it more appropriate to debate the cafes than the executions. That said, I do agree that worrying so much about free internet use when there are so many other human rights issues in these countries does seem a little odd.
"Like any freedom, once given it is VERY hard to take the taste and feel away from people once it has been felt."
You're assuming the Chinese government is unwilling to kill its citizens to take away their freedoms. As we learned in Tianament Square (yes, I know I keep harping on it, and I will keep doing so), they are quite willing to kill to prevent free speech. I like the taste of free Internet communication, but the taste of air is so much sweeter. To continue enjoying the latter, I would certainly give up the former. And that is how China can take away any freedom it wants: by not being constrained by morality.
To put it very simply: If the Chinese government shoots only one out of 100 unauthorized internet users or any sort, very few people will choose to be unauthorized users.
Remember, if people don't make a lot of noise over every human rights violation, the world at large might not become aware of them. It's repetitive, sure, but it's also essential to the fight for human rights. We cannot fight what we cannot see.
What you have to remember is that the International Olympic Committee is amazingly corrupt. Really mind-bogglingly crooked. 60 Minutes did a special on this a while ago, as I recall. In addition, the IOC does not neccessarily support more deomcratic governments as a whole. Its president, after all, was a Spanish Fascist during the Spanish Civil War.
So, I doubt the IOC even seriously considered the human rights angle, but just made noises about human rights so watchdog groups would be happy. The real reason probably has more to do with gifts and cash changing hands, and perhaps a little bit with genuinely excellent athletic facilities.
My guess would be that people will only be allowed to send pre-written "e-postcards" to friends a family, with government approved "having a great time, wish you were here" messages and a picture or two. Browsing will probably be limited to approved sites only.
China's been cracking down on peaceful, free communication for so long, it would be damn strange if they didn't crack down on Internet Cafes. We all remember Tianamen Square - how much more plainly does China have to state that they consider free communication a mere criminal offense at best, and a capital crime at worst?
Oh yah, I loved that novella. Parellels:
In "The Running Man", the world is horribly polluted, and air pollution is killing people, but the government simply pretends there is no problem. Sound familiar?
In "The Running Man", thousands of people line up for the chance to degrade themselves on a variety of game shows for the amusement of a sadistic audience. So it is today.
In "The Running Man", a huge corporation is at least as powerful as the government. In the real world, large corporations and special interest groups wield enormous power over elected officials, with campaign contributions, etc.
How many TV viewers and internet users, honestly, have the wit to realize CBS is being hypocritical. Of those, how many actually care? And of those, do any of them have the clout to do anything about it? Most likely not. Who do most people trust more, some guy on the street, or Morely Saffer (I know I misspelled his name, sorry)?
As for the lack of age restrictions on the Big Brother site, I'm sure CBS would claim "Well, only adults are able to get credit cards." Nonsense, but most people don't know better. What we on/. need to remember when we talk about incidents like this is that what may be painfully obvious to us can be completely invisible to the average person - yes, we are that much better well-informed about technology issues (although notr neccessarily by/.:-).
The last dribbles of softdrink never come out of the can because of a couple factors. One, the surface tension of the droplets tends to make it "stick" to the can surface. Two, the inside of the top of the can is not perfectly smooth, and the opening in the can is relatively small. As a result, it's easy for a drop to get "stuck" in a nook or cranny on the can.
Driver's liscence photos always turn out bat because the DMV cares not a whit about how you look, so they don't bother with the higher-end cameras or even decent lighting that professional photographers use. Also, the photo is generally taken shortly after the driving exam, which tends to stress a person, effecting their appearence. Finally, few people bother to wear a nice shirt or whatever to make themselves look nicer in the photo.
People generally sound like dorks on answering machines because the sound quality on playback is usually poor, and strips most enotional nuances from speech. Thus, the recording sounds flat and "dorky". In addition, people are generally not used to giving monologues. When I talk, someone next to me usually gives a response, even if it's just "Shut up, Ethan". It's disconcerting to be prepared to speak with a person, and suddenly have to give all the information you intended to provide without any of the feedback you would have in a normal conversation. If you're calling to discuss, say, dinner plans, the other person you're calling can't ask for any clarifications (where are we eating? Which road should I take? Is it a formal dinner?) You need to provide all that information at once, and the added strain and performance anxiety leads to the normal verbal respones to stress. These include stammering, "null data" sounds such as "uh", "um", and mumbling. All of these sound "dorky". Of course, one could simply say "I'll call back later," but circumstances may not permit that, or you may simply feel pressured to provide the data to the machine then and there.
Of course, it is entirely possible that the reason you in particular sound dorky on answering machines, Nathdot, is that you are in fact a dork. I have not data to support that conclusion one way or the other, but it must be considered. After all, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, as Occam's Razor asserts.
As for your plans to model and study these questions on supercomputers, well, more power to you! One problem, however: since you are studying absolutes (soda dribbles NEVER come out, liscense photos ALWAYS look bad, and you ALWAYS sound like a dork...on answering machines), how will you model each and every existing soda can, DMV camera, and answering machine? It's not enough even to model the different makes of these items, as each can, camera, or answering machine is at least slightly different from every other one, due to quirks in the manufacturing process. Even if you found a factor in one soda can using your supercomputer that contributed to "stuck soda", how would you prove all other soda cans have the same problem?
I think the guy probably did this study on his own time, with equipment that had already been purchased for other work. It didn't cost a dime to do this.
While a scummy shower curtain has no more attraction to your skin than a clean curtain, the stickiness of the scum will increase both the length of and disgustingness of contact between skin and curtain.
First of all, the disease vector has to survive the explosion. Second of all, the problem with this sort of ground attack is that it would either kill the people closest to the impact point, or send them straight to the hospital with injuries sustained in the blast. Thus, your potential "patient zeroes" are either killed or isolated, and unable to spread the disease. Because of this, you need the Cessna crash to release an aerosol of the bioagent which can remain in the air for a good length of time, infecting people far from the crash site. Is it hard to create such as aerosol? Not really, but having it released from a cessna crash is not the best way to do it - there's just too much risk of you bioagent container not being penetrated, or the bioagent being destroyed in the crash. Also, if any trace of the bioagent container is found that looks suspicious, or if the inital outbreak is concentrated within close proximity to the crash site, it could tip off health-care professionals that an attack has taken place. One of the biggest advantages of bioweapons is their subtlety. An airplane crashing into Times Square is not, by any strech of the imagination, subtle.
...especially when you consider that the LD50 of caffeine is 10 grams. In other words, ten grams of the stuff will kill 50% of the people who ingest it. That does not mean 25% of the people who drink a sky rocket will die (it's not a straight slope) but it can't be good for you.
Using Music Sparingly?
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 2
"one of the great things about Kubrick's films was the economy with which he used music"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't 2001 pretty much constantly have wonderful classical, romantic, and some baroque music?
Slashdot Mirror
If the jet is mounted on the top of the rollcage, doesn't that move the center of mass dangerously high? Also, what happens if the roll cage is actually used as a roll cage (that is, the kart flips over)? The destruction of the jet is bad enough, but what about the ruptured gas line?
It would seem to me (and I am not an engineer of any sort, so take this with a grain of salt) that a better idea would be so somehow mount the jet below and behind the driver. Say, you have the basic chassis of a wooden or metal platform on wheels, mount the engine on top of that, and then have another platform mounted above that where the driver sits, being careful not to obstruct airflow for the jet. Alternatively, couldn't this guy do a modified version of the original design, with the engine behind him and to the side, but with some sort of partition between the driver and the pipe? Either option should eliminate the risk of getting burned by the pipe, and would move the center of mass lower, as well as reducing the likelihood of the cart rolling onto the engine (assuming it still has the rollcage.
I was also wondering, is a turboshaft engine really the best way to go to improve acceleration? This guy mentioned that acceleration improved markedly at 10 MPH, so why bother with the added mass and hassle, and failure risk of a turboshaft? Why not just add a small conventional go-kart engine to get the kart up to ten mph or whatever? Then just turn on the jet and shut down the IC engine. The ICE could also be used in a racing situation if the jet failed, or the slope was too great for it.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
As I recall, in that article, the potential pornographic uses of improved flesh rendering were emphasized. Let's face it, the porn industry will be some of the first people to deploy this technology large-scale. They pioneered BetaMax, VHS, GIF, JPEG, internet multimedia as a whole, and this too will be lead by the noble pornographers. God bless them, every one!
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
From the LA Times article: "The idea of a rocket-propelled space bomber has been around in various forms since the 1930s, when Austrian rocket scientist Eugen Sanger urged Adolf Hitler to build an "antipodal bomber" called the Silver Bird that could skip across the outer edge of the atmosphere to strike New York City. Hitler was cool to the plan"
If Adolph Hitler - an SOB who seriously considered using magic, for chrissakes! - thought space-based weapons were too "out there" (pun intended), does this mean the current secretary of defense is crazier than Hitler?
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
And a bomber which attacks from space demands a space-based defense against the bomber, just as conventional bombers are attacked by fighter/interceptors aircraft. And once missiles/satellites/planes are developed that can attack the space bomber, there needs to be some way of escroting and defending the bomber in space. Space based missile. Ground to space weapons. Air to space weapons. Suborbital fighters. And so on ad infinitum. Once we put weapons in space, more weapons will follow, even if they're just suborbital.
That said, the idea of kinetic bombs is sort of cool, just because they give you enormous penetrating power without using a nuke.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
After all, I think we can all agree that the reason this company is calling it's product the "Light Saber" is because Lucas already popularized the term. They're riding the marketing and name-recognition "coattails" of lucasarts' Light Saber in order to promote and increase name recognition for their own product. It may seem petty, but lucasarts does have the right to defend a trademark they have invested millions of dollars in.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
That's why methadone clinics are so controversial. The migration from other drugs to methadone is easy enough, but getting people off the methadone is very very hard. There's no high, but the people are still addicted - they need the drug to feel normal, and addictions to ANY drug screws up your body something fierce.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
As I look over the posts in this thread, I see a lot of people complaining that Big Business is being greedy, that it is trying to take power away from the users with no respect for anything except its own bottom line.
People say that like it's a bad thing. It isn't - in fact, it's the basis of the capitalist system and free competition. TNSTAAFL - There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want these companies (sprint, etc.) to continue running the backbone of the Internet? You want them to maintain it? Fine, but don't expect them to do it for the love of mankind. They do it for money, and if the money isn't coming in, then yah, big business will do whatever to can to make more money. That means controlling supply of services, manipulating prices to manipulate demand, and all sorts of "dirty tricks".
You don't like what Big Business is doing to the internet? Well, I don't like all of it either, neccessarily, but it's not illegal, or even unethical. Business is just doing the same thing it's always done - trying to find a way to make money from new technology. They did it with radio and TV and cars, and they'll do it again. The appropriate response is not to complain that your rights are being violated or some such nonsense - they aren't. You have the right to freedom of speech. You do not have the right to demand someone else pay to publish your speeched, or for you to see someone else's free speech. If you don't like what's being done to the internet, either write the companies, don't use the internet, build your own internet and convince people to use it, or just accept that economics isn't fair. I know none of those options are pleasant - and that building a new internet is probably hard to the point of impossibility - but those are the only options you have.
USA Intellectual Property Laws: 5 monkeys, 1 hour.
It's much more likely that we'll have commercially viable genetically engineered flying pigs by 2008. In fact, I'd say that the flying pigs would be essential for any effective democratic revolution in China. They could be shot down and eaten by anyone, providing food for the masses after the flying pigs are released in the wild. Since pigs are much smarter than any other flying animal, it is concievable they could be trained to carry written messages, or even be used as suicide bombers. Train a flying pig to crash into stuff, strap on some C-4, and let it fly. In essence, they could be self-manufactoring smart bombs.
I propose we begin development of flying pigs immediately if we want to see a free China by 2008.
I see your point. Problem is, it's sometimes rather hard to get that information, as well as occasionally dangerous for the people getting around the censorship, I should imagine.
This is an internet news site. Read the top of the page: "News for Nerds". I don't think anyone here claims closing internet cafes is as important as mass executions, but this particular site's theme makes it more appropriate to debate the cafes than the executions. That said, I do agree that worrying so much about free internet use when there are so many other human rights issues in these countries does seem a little odd.
"Like any freedom, once given it is VERY hard to take the taste and feel away from people once it has been felt."
You're assuming the Chinese government is unwilling to kill its citizens to take away their freedoms. As we learned in Tianament Square (yes, I know I keep harping on it, and I will keep doing so), they are quite willing to kill to prevent free speech. I like the taste of free Internet communication, but the taste of air is so much sweeter. To continue enjoying the latter, I would certainly give up the former. And that is how China can take away any freedom it wants: by not being constrained by morality.
To put it very simply: If the Chinese government shoots only one out of 100 unauthorized internet users or any sort, very few people will choose to be unauthorized users.
Remember, if people don't make a lot of noise over every human rights violation, the world at large might not become aware of them. It's repetitive, sure, but it's also essential to the fight for human rights. We cannot fight what we cannot see.
What you have to remember is that the International Olympic Committee is amazingly corrupt. Really mind-bogglingly crooked. 60 Minutes did a special on this a while ago, as I recall. In addition, the IOC does not neccessarily support more deomcratic governments as a whole. Its president, after all, was a Spanish Fascist during the Spanish Civil War.
So, I doubt the IOC even seriously considered the human rights angle, but just made noises about human rights so watchdog groups would be happy. The real reason probably has more to do with gifts and cash changing hands, and perhaps a little bit with genuinely excellent athletic facilities.
My guess would be that people will only be allowed to send pre-written "e-postcards" to friends a family, with government approved "having a great time, wish you were here" messages and a picture or two. Browsing will probably be limited to approved sites only.
China's been cracking down on peaceful, free communication for so long, it would be damn strange if they didn't crack down on Internet Cafes. We all remember Tianamen Square - how much more plainly does China have to state that they consider free communication a mere criminal offense at best, and a capital crime at worst?
Oh yah, I loved that novella. Parellels:
In "The Running Man", the world is horribly polluted, and air pollution is killing people, but the government simply pretends there is no problem. Sound familiar?
In "The Running Man", thousands of people line up for the chance to degrade themselves on a variety of game shows for the amusement of a sadistic audience. So it is today.
In "The Running Man", a huge corporation is at least as powerful as the government. In the real world, large corporations and special interest groups wield enormous power over elected officials, with campaign contributions, etc.
How many TV viewers and internet users, honestly, have the wit to realize CBS is being hypocritical. Of those, how many actually care? And of those, do any of them have the clout to do anything about it? Most likely not. Who do most people trust more, some guy on the street, or Morely Saffer (I know I misspelled his name, sorry)?
/. need to remember when we talk about incidents like this is that what may be painfully obvious to us can be completely invisible to the average person - yes, we are that much better well-informed about technology issues (although notr neccessarily by /. :-).
As for the lack of age restrictions on the Big Brother site, I'm sure CBS would claim "Well, only adults are able to get credit cards." Nonsense, but most people don't know better. What we on
It's b.
Hey, every little bit helps, right?
The last dribbles of softdrink never come out of the can because of a couple factors. One, the surface tension of the droplets tends to make it "stick" to the can surface. Two, the inside of the top of the can is not perfectly smooth, and the opening in the can is relatively small. As a result, it's easy for a drop to get "stuck" in a nook or cranny on the can.
Driver's liscence photos always turn out bat because the DMV cares not a whit about how you look, so they don't bother with the higher-end cameras or even decent lighting that professional photographers use. Also, the photo is generally taken shortly after the driving exam, which tends to stress a person, effecting their appearence. Finally, few people bother to wear a nice shirt or whatever to make themselves look nicer in the photo.
People generally sound like dorks on answering machines because the sound quality on playback is usually poor, and strips most enotional nuances from speech. Thus, the recording sounds flat and "dorky". In addition, people are generally not used to giving monologues. When I talk, someone next to me usually gives a response, even if it's just "Shut up, Ethan". It's disconcerting to be prepared to speak with a person, and suddenly have to give all the information you intended to provide without any of the feedback you would have in a normal conversation. If you're calling to discuss, say, dinner plans, the other person you're calling can't ask for any clarifications (where are we eating? Which road should I take? Is it a formal dinner?) You need to provide all that information at once, and the added strain and performance anxiety leads to the normal verbal respones to stress. These include stammering, "null data" sounds such as "uh", "um", and mumbling. All of these sound "dorky". Of course, one could simply say "I'll call back later," but circumstances may not permit that, or you may simply feel pressured to provide the data to the machine then and there.
Of course, it is entirely possible that the reason you in particular sound dorky on answering machines, Nathdot, is that you are in fact a dork. I have not data to support that conclusion one way or the other, but it must be considered. After all, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, as Occam's Razor asserts.
As for your plans to model and study these questions on supercomputers, well, more power to you! One problem, however: since you are studying absolutes (soda dribbles NEVER come out, liscense photos ALWAYS look bad, and you ALWAYS sound like a dork...on answering machines), how will you model each and every existing soda can, DMV camera, and answering machine? It's not enough even to model the different makes of these items, as each can, camera, or answering machine is at least slightly different from every other one, due to quirks in the manufacturing process. Even if you found a factor in one soda can using your supercomputer that contributed to "stuck soda", how would you prove all other soda cans have the same problem?
I think the guy probably did this study on his own time, with equipment that had already been purchased for other work. It didn't cost a dime to do this.
While a scummy shower curtain has no more attraction to your skin than a clean curtain, the stickiness of the scum will increase both the length of and disgustingness of contact between skin and curtain.
First of all, the disease vector has to survive the explosion. Second of all, the problem with this sort of ground attack is that it would either kill the people closest to the impact point, or send them straight to the hospital with injuries sustained in the blast. Thus, your potential "patient zeroes" are either killed or isolated, and unable to spread the disease. Because of this, you need the Cessna crash to release an aerosol of the bioagent which can remain in the air for a good length of time, infecting people far from the crash site. Is it hard to create such as aerosol? Not really, but having it released from a cessna crash is not the best way to do it - there's just too much risk of you bioagent container not being penetrated, or the bioagent being destroyed in the crash. Also, if any trace of the bioagent container is found that looks suspicious, or if the inital outbreak is concentrated within close proximity to the crash site, it could tip off health-care professionals that an attack has taken place. One of the biggest advantages of bioweapons is their subtlety. An airplane crashing into Times Square is not, by any strech of the imagination, subtle.
...especially when you consider that the LD50 of caffeine is 10 grams. In other words, ten grams of the stuff will kill 50% of the people who ingest it. That does not mean 25% of the people who drink a sky rocket will die (it's not a straight slope) but it can't be good for you.
"one of the great things about Kubrick's films was the economy with which he used music"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't 2001 pretty much constantly have wonderful classical, romantic, and some baroque music?