Re: News : ARM Trying to Buy AmperComputing

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/01/2025 14:12, D wrote:

 
 
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 

On 1/28/25 3:28 PM, Rich wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 01:22:57 -0500, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>

   Maybe even more, and intentionally, suppressed
    was "Monster" because it was Too True. Haven't heard that on
the air
    SINCE the 60s.

>
There aren't many stations left that would play a nine minute cut of
anything.

>
Yeah, doing so would cut into their desperate need to do one or both of:
>
1) run commercial breaks every 3.75 minutes when they actually play any
    music;
>
2) have the dj run his mouth for 20 minutes on something none of us
    cares one iota about.

>
 That's kind of the case of US commercial radio
 these days. Of course it was kind of like that
 for a long time music/ads/music/ads timed I think
 by the length of a 45 record. FM radio used to
 run longer stuff, but that's RARE now.
>
 However I did hit on an FM station that ran the
 entire "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" not too long ago.
 The DJ must have had the runs or something and
 needed to spend 17 minutes on the can  :-)

 
What about AM? Maybe that's where the good stuff lives?

 
AM is of such crap quality it is unlistenable. 30-3kHz bandwidth and
40dB signal to noise? You have top be freakin' kidding me!
FM is way better,
Digital radio is even better than that..
 
But all sorts of good stuff exists on the 'net.

There's a reason why US AM broadcast is almost entirely "talk radio"
now.  The 3khz bandwidth and 40db s/n is /ok/ for 'talk'.  But for
music, yes, it is utter crap.