I dated a climate model once. Her last name was Kelvin and her IQ was absolute zero, but even she was right about the climate science consensus.

If man were meant to fly he'd have a Faraday Cage exoskeleton with wings.

Fire up a network analyzer, start up Truecaller, and view all the new connections... oh dear, what are they doing? Good bye, Truecaller.

At times when I've been on a device not loaded for bear against ads, trackers, autoplay, and similar crud, I've found that the bottom of Slashdot's page is infested with psychologically harmful click-bait. Watch out for the web police.

And back in the 1960s why didn't all those people laughing at Gilligan, Skipper, and the rest of those poor survivors of the S.S. Minnow try to help save them from that island? How did they all exist there, especially when only just the main characters were ever shown on screen? How did they get all those easily-mirthy folks onto that small boat in the first place? Surely their spirits would have been broken to the point of despair, yet there they were every week howling with laughter at the wacky, zany antics of the main castaways. Beats me.

I know what you're saying, but really the broadcast reception problems affecting the data stream were the core of those decisions regardless of the actual payload of said streams (picture definition, multi-channel digital audio, captioning, 2nd language, etc.). Even if the data was only 480i with DD 2.0 the reception problems would have still needed handling. Thankfully, after several major versions, ATSC was ready. 5.0 was almost there, but 6 was combat-ready. Of course ATSC was also the home team and DVB-T COFDM was not (8VSB having been a Zenith project until LG bought them) so even though Sinclair Broadcasting pushed hard for COFDM there was no way Uncle Sam would have allowed anything but a "made here" solution. Ergo, ATSC.

Getting back to the thread, ANY antenna capable of reliably receiving an ATSC station will feed the receiver correctly with all the 1s and 0s from the transmitter, with forward error correction too.

Oops, I had the sound muted so I missed the canned laughter that was supposed to tell me that humour was being employed.

Correct. Thanks for the reminder of the channel repack.

Woohoo, I get to do a "Korn vs Microsoft" here! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I am one of the fathers of the Gray-Hoverman antenna (I know Mr. Gray, and I read up on the late Mr. Doyt R. Hoverman and his patents extensively). With a cadre of professional and keen hobbyist members, we created one hell of an amazing antenna if I say so myself.

Back in the 1950s Mr. Doyt R. Hoverman simply took a WWI-era radio antenna design called the Chireix-Mesny, turned it 90 degrees for TV signal polarity, and rescaled it to the UHF TV frequency band. In 2006-2008, under Mr. Gray's initiative, we completely modernized and optimized the GH for today's reception requirements. The original Hoverman was an okay UHF TV antenna, but that is all that can really be said about it. OTOH, the Gray-Hoverman's performance and "free as in free" design disrupted the TV antenna business forever.

In all our tests over the years against some of the most highly engineered UHF parabolic TV antennae (ex Wade PB-82-BB, Channel Master 4251, etc.) as well as the best of bowtie and yagi-uda antennae, the results were consistent: the Gray-Hoverman DBGH in its best evolution had equal or better gain and reception. It is far, far easier to build than a parabolic, simpler than a bowtie, and generates better results.

Don't just take my word for it; go and join our community of OTA TV antenna geeks: https://www.digitalhome.ca/for... and you'll see the vast amount of reproduceable data sets proving the superiority of our design and its many variants.

And when watching a tie ball game in the bottom of the ninth you had to shout at everyone in the room to stop breathing so that the picture stayed steady!

There is no such thing as a "standard definition" or "high definition" TV antenna. Picture definition is a property of the signal modulation (the payload) and not the wave propagation relationship between the broadcast and receiving antennae (the Fresnel Zone). A UHF TV antenna from the 1960s can receive "digital" and "high definition" signals just fine when all is in working order.

That kind of "sell the sizzle, not the steak" TV Antenna marketing occurred once again during the digital OTA transition with all sorts of hokey "DIGITAL HD" tv antenna slogans, as though the newer modulation somehow changed all the known laws of electromagnetism and wave propagation. Sigh... there's a seeker born every minute.