Slashdot Mirror


60 Minutes Dubbed Engines Noise Over Tesla Model S

cartechboy (2660665) writes "Did you watch the Tesla 60 Minutes segment the other night? If you did, you might have ended up on the floor rolling around laughing like I did. Since when does the Tesla Model S electric car make audible engine noises? Or downshift? Turns out, 60 Minutes dubbed engine noises and a downshift over the Model S running footage. The show claims it was an editing error. Call it what you want, it was absolutely hilarious. A little note to TV producers assigned to cover Tesla Motors in the future: Electric cars don't upshift or downshift." At least they didn't fraudulently blow it up!

544 comments

  1. Top Gear was worse. by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least they didn't fraudulently claim the battery went flat during a test run.

    1. Re:Top Gear was worse. by NotDrWho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that the report was a complete Elon Musk worshiping puff piece, I doubt Tesla will complain too much. I half expected it to end with Steve Kroft asking for a towel to clean the spooge off his face.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Virtucon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I've heard this before, there was nothing wrong with what Top Gear said in the program.

      Tesla complained about a passage of Clarkson's commentary in which he said: "Although Tesla say it will do 200 miles, we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles and if it does run out, it is not a quick job to charge it up again." Clarkson and others are then shown pushing the Roadster into the Top Gear hangar and recharging it.

      The British courts have agreed with Top Gear and to be fair to other cars but on the track where they're going full tilt, mileage on gas powered cars isn't the same either so pushing the Tesla resulted in Top Gear making the statement and we know range would be reduced.

      For comparison look at their one gallon supercar race.

      YMMV... Sorry Tesla Nutswingers!

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Jhon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or fraudulently claim certain documents had been authenticated.

    4. Re:Top Gear was worse. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least they didn't fraudulently claim the battery went flat during a test run.

      Can you link to the clip/transcript of the scene where this alleged fraudulent claim occurred? Because I remember watching that episode, and aside from (what I perceived as) the playful "if the battery dies, you'll be doing this" pushing scene toward the end, I don't recall them saying or doing anything that would qualify as fraudulent. The fact that Tesla's lawsuit against the show was settled in a way that still allows the BBC to rebroadcast the episode seems to indicate a lack of fraudulent claims.

      Also, in fairness, there's no denying that a "fuse issue" caused the brakes to fail during the Stig's test run - Even Tesla admits that one.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Top Gear was worse. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you been in one? Man, they are beautiful, fun as hell to drive, great acceleration.
      I wish I could afford one.
      I didn't see the 60 minutes piece, but I can't think of anything practical to complain about.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they didn't factually claim the battery went flat during a test run.

      Held up in a court of law.

    7. Re:Top Gear was worse. by davewoods · · Score: 1

      Woo! Audi R8 has 5 mpg when racing!
      I actually find it pretty funny that the worst car had slightly over 1 mpg. I wonder what the cars would get if they were trying to make that gallon last.

    8. Re:Top Gear was worse. by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you see the episode? It was, another, excuse to bash on all things American*. The presented t as if it ran out of charge. They really tried to hide the fact that they were not driving the car under normal road conditions.
      Clarkson also has a long history of attacking electric cars, and when he is presented with argument, he responds with non sequitors.
      I like how the article you linked only links to itself and not to any actual reference to the court case.

      *sometime justifiable, but all too often I've seen them do things to American car they don't do to non American cars.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Top Gear was worse. by glasshole · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Having driven one extensively, it is kinda fun, but not in the sense that a Porsche Cayman is fun. It goes very fast off the line, but it is hard to hide its rather ample weight. Same deal with the Tesla Roadster too, having owned the chassis mate Lotus Exige for several years, the experiences weren't comparable.

    10. Re:Top Gear was worse. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Troll

      the overly large and gawdy lcd 'laptop screen' in the console.

      deal-breaker for me.

      can't get beyond it. hate hate HATE the whole idea of it.

      other than that, car is fine. way too many of them in the bay area, though, so it totally lost its exclusive appeal (locally, at least).

      it seems that a lot of rich guys bought them (I'm guessing) mostly for ego/show status and also for the commuter lane sticker. the rich guys just CANNOT stand to be in the non-diamond lanes like the rest of us and so they pay extra for a car that can get the diamond lane sticker and zoom by us on the way to work. buying your way into a carpool lay seems quite WRONG to me, but its how its done, now. the rich aren't like us; they really hate to wait....

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Richard Hammond has Mustang I believe. Perhaps you'd like to rethink your "anti-American" bias statement.

    12. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Cyberax · · Score: 0

      Go and buy yourself a Chevy Volt - it can use carpool lanes. Ditto for plugin Priuses and Fords. They are only about $8k more than similar pure-gas cars.

    13. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as if that proves anything...

    14. Re:Top Gear was worse. by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Price?

      Cross country trip?

      Heck, A trip from LA to SF?

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    15. Re:Top Gear was worse. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the cars would get if they were trying to make that gallon last.

      That's easy, the world record is, I think, somewhere in the vicinity of 10000 miles per gallon (US).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Guspaz · · Score: 0

      Price? It's priced competitively with other cars in its class (most people don't buy luxury sedans).

      Cross-country trip? What about it? The supercharger network reaches coast to coast, and by the end of the year there will be a few more cross-country routes possible.

      LA to SF? This was literally the first place they built superchargers.

    17. Re:Top Gear was worse. by CaptainLard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah I hate seeing stories of massive success, in progress. If there is anything we don't need right now with all the economic uncertainty and political strife, its a positive story showing that greatness* can still be achieved /snark. Despite conventional wisdom, a story can be complementary and objective at the same time.

      *Yes, turning two "crazy" ideas into $billion companies in 10 years with most of the population doubting, if not openly thwarting you, is a great achievement.

    18. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen 10,000MPG and I've been watching SAE supermileage competitions for quite some time. Highest I saw was in the range of 3,000+ MPG.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    19. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Radak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      buying your way into a carpool lay seems quite WRONG to me, but its how its done, now. the rich aren't like us; they really hate to wait....

      The object of the carpool lane is to reduce greenhouse gas emission per capita. Carpools accomplish this. So do electric cars. (This could potentially be argued due to manufacturing- and charging-related emissions, but the electric car generally still comes out "cleaner".) I don't see a problem with allowing cars with lower per capita emissions to use the special lanes, no matter what the source of the reduction in emissions.

      Things that do bug me about carpool lanes: Seeing two people riding in a Hummer in the carpool lane while a single guy in a non-plugin hybrid can't be there, and places that actually sell stickers allowing single drivers of otherwise ineligible vehicles to drive in the carpool lane (yes, this does happen some places).

    20. Re:Top Gear was worse. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      The Tesla S isn't a luxury sedan, please don't compare it to a Mercedes S-class, which is about the same price when both are nicely equipped.

      The supercharger network doesn't make up for the fact that you can refuel that S-class in 5 minutes and drive it 500 miles on that 5 minute "charge".

    21. Re:Top Gear was worse. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    22. Re:Top Gear was worse. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Waiting is a thing I hate with the force of a thousand suns, and I'm far from rich!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re:Top Gear was worse. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Jeremy Clarkson is like Eric Cartman. He's a horrible person, but very entertaining to watch.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    24. Re:Top Gear was worse. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Richard Hammond has many American cars. But Jeremy Clarkson hates them almost as much as EVs and the reality of climate change.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    25. Re:Top Gear was worse. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything practical to complain about.

      The price...

    26. Re:Top Gear was worse. by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Don't you know. It's the democratic way. Can't have those peons adding to the carbon footprint. Of course we nobility are exempted.

    27. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      true and clarkson had a GT40 for a while. They do complain about some american cans not being able to go around corners safely because of the "barn door engineering", they love the power of the V8s but not the handling due to real old school technology suspension etc.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    28. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "They lied about their crash rating" - link ?

      "They are breaking the law with their dealer ships" - oh fuck off, they don't have dealerships

      "They are defrauding investors buy lying on their financial reports" - link ?



      Well, that was a useless troll AC

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    29. Re:Top Gear was worse. by nickittynickname · · Score: 1

      That episode, and the the episode where they were trying to buy a car for like $500 in Florida are the episodes that made me stop watching. After watching those two I couldn't trust anything they said anymore and ruined ruined the experience. It was like Bear Grylls getting caught in a hotel on a shoot.

    30. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I think the only complaint to make is the presenter/editors who put the sound track on didn't realise electric cars don;t have ICE sounds

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    31. Re:Top Gear was worse. by David_Hart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you see the episode? It was, another, excuse to bash on all things American*. The presented t as if it ran out of charge. They really tried to hide the fact that they were not driving the car under normal road conditions.
      Clarkson also has a long history of attacking electric cars, and when he is presented with argument, he responds with non sequitors.
      I like how the article you linked only links to itself and not to any actual reference to the court case.

      *sometime justifiable, but all too often I've seen them do things to American car they don't do to non American cars.

      Here ya go... http://www.theguardian.com/med...

      Top Gear is Cartainment... In my opinion, it isn't a serious car show. Though, it is popular... Those who watch it understand that the hosts have their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks and that they drive cars hard, not like normal people in day-to-day traffic. Saying that a show is disingenuous because it doesn't represent daily driving habits is a specious argument simply because it isn't that type of show.

      The point is that Top Gear isn't a show for people to find information on daily driving. That's what Motor Week and Consumer Reports are for....

    32. Re:Top Gear was worse. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Was that the one where there were some supposed "red-necks" chasing them down the highway?

    33. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I think this depends on the reason for the HOV lane -- in some places, it is to reduce traffic congestion, not GHG emissions. This is especially the case in places were buses and taxis share the HOV lane.

    34. Re:Top Gear was worse. by CurryCamel · · Score: 1

      Top Gear is perhaps not the show where one would expect cars to be tested under "normal" conditions.
      Ford Fiesta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e7R3y-qwZ0
      CitroÃn 2CV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0
      Toyota Hilux https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk
      Renault Twingo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwAasSkZ7pA

      As Elon Musk puts it

      Clarkson's show is much more about entertainment than truth. I think most people realize that, but not everyone.

      (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTqzFa8Nybc)

    35. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Clarkson also has a long history of attacking electric cars, and when he is presented with argument, he responds with non sequitors.

      At least he can spell it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    36. Re:Top Gear was worse. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      LOL. Yeah, the Model S is superior to the MB S-class W222 4-door that still costs more. The base on the S-class is 95K. The upper end of the Model S is 100K. And the base of W222 is very spartan and more like a GM or a VW. The Model S is faster, holds more ppl and cargo, has cheap re-fuels, and if you are in a real hurry to fill up, you will, within a year, be able to swap the battery out for one that holds enough power to run you 450+ MPC.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    37. Re:Top Gear was worse. by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      Price? It's priced competitively with other cars in its class (most people don't buy luxury sedans).

      Cross-country trip? What about it? The supercharger network reaches coast to coast, and by the end of the year there will be a few more cross-country routes possible.

      LA to SF? This was literally the first place they built superchargers.

      while technically true, it's only on very specific routes currently. Tesla claims this will be fixed by (effectively) 2016.

      Source: http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

    38. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Luthair · · Score: 1

      The one I don't understand - why are taxis allowed in the lanes in many places. Seems like they' worse both for emissions as well as cars on the road (have someone randomly driving around unnecessarily)

    39. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They lied about their crash rating" - link ?

      The claimed they got a higher than 5 star safety rating when they really only got 5.
        http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/11/21/1959244/nhtsa-tells-tesla-to-stop-exaggerating-model-s-safety-rating

      "They are defrauding investors buy lying on their financial reports" - link ?

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/07/tesla_non_gaap_accounting_profit_or_not.html

    40. Re:Top Gear was worse. by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      https://web.archive.org/web/20...

      I'd like to know how they came up with MPG with hydrogen. Did they just use an equivalent volume of Hydrogen?

    41. Re:Top Gear was worse. by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      I'm not rich and I really hate to wait ... I do it because I can't afford the alternative but I still hate it ... rich people are different because they have money ... that's all.

    42. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's wrong. It's prostitution.

    43. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Cross-country trip? What about it? The supercharger network reaches coast to coast, and by the end of the year there will be a few more cross-country routes possible.

      Yes you can get from LA to Miami if you don't mind going through South Dakota. Also I don't spend 30 minutes filling up my car at the gas station and with the Tesla I can only go an additional 170 miles after a 30 minute charge. So if you seriously believe that you can actually go coast-to-coast in a Tesla S then be prepare to go many more extra miles and spend some extra downtime getting there.

      Tesla S is still a good car for commuting within a metropolitan area. If I didn't have to commute across my state, I would buy one myself.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    44. Re:Top Gear was worse. by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Eh, I've driven a Tesla S, the interior is broadly comparable to a BMW 5 series, and your get much more oomph on the pedal. The handling wasn't as good as a 528 or a Porsche Panamera, IMHO, and of course the range is a joke -- you're paying a price for the nice acceleration. The people Tesla was going for with the S was the people who were looking at BMW 5s and Mercedes E-class sedans, not the old farts buying 750s and S550s.

      Have you actually driven a Mercedes S-class? It's not just about the interior...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    45. Re:Top Gear was worse. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > but I can't think of anything practical to complain about.

      - Price
      - Distance on one tank. (500 miles is the "magic" number before consumers will "buy" into it.)

    46. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Macdude · · Score: 1

      At least they didn't fraudulently claim the battery went flat during a test run.

      60 Minutes --> Newsmagazine Program
      Top Gear --> Entertainment Program

      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    47. Re:Top Gear was worse. by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      Wait - Audi created e-sound for their e-tron electric cars.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Although that Top Gear episode was funny. Until this year I don't think they gave electric cars any serious consideration. Now that Porsche has an electric car to make the Hamster happy - I'd expect we'll see more of them. He can drive that until his GT3 is re-delivered.

    48. Re:Top Gear was worse. by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Isn't it? What keeps it from being one?

    49. Re:Top Gear was worse. by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Superchargers provide half a charge in as little as 20 minutes and are strategically placed to allow owners to drive from station to station with minimal stops.

      and forget going to say... most of the midwest.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    50. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      buying your way into a carpool lay seems quite WRONG to me, but its how its done, now. the rich aren't like us; they really hate to wait....

      Maybe it is wrong, maybe it isn't. But the idea that this is somehow new is bogus. For example, motorcycles. They have been permitted on carpool lanes since long before electric vehicles.

    51. Re:Top Gear was worse. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You can say thay achievement got a little greater recently. I was listening to glenn beck and he was raving about yhe tesla and how it would likely be his next car.

      Most of the conservatives see the EV cars as inferior but i guess the tesla fits in another catagory now.

    52. Re:Top Gear was worse. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I think that all the energy sources are converted to some sort of gasoline energy equivalent in Shell's competitions.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    53. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla also seats 7, why not compare it with one of it's ... I don't know, what do you call them? Competitors?

    54. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Who would have thought that Jeremy Clarkson posts on Slashdot.

    55. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The supercharger network doesn't make up for the fact that you can refuel that S-class in 5 minutes and drive it 500 miles on that 5 minute "charge".

      Just like how the vast network of roads doesn't make up for the fact that I cannot take that S-class into the vast Alaskan wilderness. But that doesn't mean your S-class sucks. It just means that different people have different needs. The only thing Guspaz's post was doing was illustrating that certain needs are already accounted for. Others, that is up to each individual to decide for themselves.

    56. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about the 500 mile mark. Most combustion engine cars now won't go 500 miles on a single tank. If I could get 300 on a charge I think that would be totally acceptable provided I'm not going across country.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    57. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    58. Re:Top Gear was worse. by glasshole · · Score: 1

      Can't argue with the final row of 2 seats, but without that option an M5 is a competitor, similarly priced, and certainly as fun to drive. Especially the previous V10 generation.

    59. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was a complete puff piece, but I did really like one voiceover quote:

      "In the history of space exploration, four entities have sent a capsule into orbit and successfully recovered it. Russia, the United States, China and Elon Musk."

      If I was Elon, I'd have that on a continuous loop somewhere.

    60. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      The point about the dealerships is that several states have protectionist laws that prohibit direct sales from an auto manufacturer. They require a separately owned dealership.

      Tesla does not sell through separate dealers. They only do direct sales.

    61. Re:Top Gear was worse. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      A bunch of things... Not everything that Lexus and Mercedees sell is really "luxury" either...

      Ownership experience, build and finish quality, technology and features, dealership experience, etc.

      Some of it is just nameplate, to be sure, but some of it has to do with understand what the premium customer wants.

      My Mom drives a Lexus RX330. Why? Because when it needs an oil change, the Lexus dealer sends someone out with another Lexus RX, drops it off, takes hers to the shop, gets it serviced, washed, and returned a few hours later and trades back.

      My Mom hasn't been to the dealership in years, and the price for this service? $50 Yea, more than your local lube shop, but not THAT much more...

      I currently drive a GMC Yukon XL Denali, I have been debating moving to a Cadillac Escalade ESV for one reason... service... anytime you need a loaner, that loaner is another Escalade.

      Maybe that isn't important to you, that's fine, but it is one of the ownership experiences you don't get with the mass market cars.

      The Tesla doesn't have a dealer network. Maybe you think that is a good thing, but it does make service harder, at least until they get a network of something built out (then hey, a dealer network!).

      The big screen is nice, but it is just a screen. There is a whole list of features not in the Tesla S that I consider required in any luxury car.

      Let me know when it gets air conditioned seats, rear DVD, 360 degree camera surround support, automatic parking, adaptive cruise control, automatic crash braking, etc. and I'll consider it.

    62. Re:Top Gear was worse. by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I can't drive one to my parents house (1000 miles) in a day. In fact, not in several days. My Volkswagon does it without any problems.

    63. Re:Top Gear was worse. by badpool · · Score: 1

      Come on now, the three of them fucking love Ford and don't hide it. Jezza also clearly had a blast driving the Tesla Roadster. On the other hand, they bash electric cars at every opportunity so this was all about the Tesla being electric. Which is stupid, yes, but not anti-American in the slightest.

    64. Re:Top Gear was worse. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Here in Seattle they just get in the carpool lane and pay the ticket when they're caught.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    65. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Tesla lost in court.

    66. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Yes I saw the episode and Clarkson does poke fun at all things American. We on the other hand can point out that he's an obnoxious clown who wouldn't be much good at anything else other than what he does. In any event, the Tesla did have problems and Tesla didn't like the review, they sued and the courts sided with Top Gear. Case over.

      James May's review of the Fisker Karma was very positive and it was Top Gear's 2012 car of the year so I'd also say that they hate hybrids / electrics is an evolving thing especially with this season's review of the McLaren P1 and Porsche Spyder 918. Also in the last series Clarkson reviewed the AMG SLS Electric in which the car didn't break down and he was much more intrigued with it and very positive. So yeah Tesla had a bad day at the Top Gear track, musky boy didn't like it. If car manufacturers don't want to be made fun of then they shouldn't submit their product for testing to Top Gear.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    67. Re:Top Gear was worse. by cusco · · Score: 1

      I don't get the whole "distance" foolishness. In the last 30 years I have worked with perhaps half a dozen people who commuted more than 100 miles in a day, and with all the driving that I have done over the years I would guess that at least 98 percent of it was on trips of less than 250 miles round-trip.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    68. Re:Top Gear was worse. by davewoods · · Score: 1

      I meant specifically THOSE cars. What would an Audi R8 get if someone were to hypermile with it? Is that a verb? Can you make hypermile a verb? I have no idea. You get what I mean.

    69. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] having owned the chassis mate Lotus Exige for several years

      Can I be your friend? An Elise/Exige is what I lust for. I'd have one now, but it would result in a divorce.

    70. Re:Top Gear was worse. by hab136 · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. Teslas don't need oil changes. You know what's better than a great dealer experience for required maintenance? Not needing maintenance in the first place!

      2. Tesla doesn't have a dealer network, but they do have a service center network: http://www.teslamotors.com/ser...

      3. You want a loaner? You'll get a loaner. From http://www.teslamotors.com/ser...:

      Tesla Valet Service
      Tesla is putting in place a valet service, so that your car is seamlessly picked up and replaced with a loaner and then returned as soon as we are done. There is no additional charge for this.

      Tesla Rangers Come to You
      Tesla Rangers are service technicians who make house calls. For an additional fee, they can come to your home or office to perform most maintenance and warranty repairs.

      4. "air conditioned seats, rear DVD, 360 degree camera surround support, automatic parking, adaptive cruise control, automatic crash braking". Ok, Teslas don't have any of that.

    71. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I think it would be reasonable to complain even if it was an ICE and they had used the sounds from a different car. Is it news, or fiction? If it is factual they shouldn't need any lies at all, even ones that are kind-of close.

    72. Re:Top Gear was worse. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Jeremy Clarkson is like Eric Cartman. He's a horrible person, but very entertaining to watch.

      Top Gear is an entertainment program, not a news program or documentary.

      Watching Top Gear for motoring advice is like watching porn for relationship advice. You may pick up one or two tips but chances are you'll get nothing informative and are only watching it because it excites you.

      Top Gear is essentially car porn.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    73. Re:Top Gear was worse. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Top Gear is Cartainment... In my opinion, it isn't a serious car show.

      I agree with this. Top Gear is pretty much car porn.

      However I also don't class 60 minutes as being a news show. Sometimes they are blatantly advertising for an entire hour. The sad thing is, people do think they are "informed" if hey watch 60 minutes.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    74. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      5mpg is not that crazy. If you have an instantaneous mpg on your vehicle, you can see it fluctuate a lot. A vehicle with a 22mpg average can easily drop to 6-7 on hard acceleration so if you're really pushing it non-stop, you're going to see the average down around there.

    75. Re:Top Gear was worse. by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Apparently it was due to Fox News-style "we don't actually have to portray reality" type of ruling.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    76. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At least they didn't fraudulently claim the battery went flat during a test run."

      Top Gear didn't actually claim that. I suggest you read the transcript or watch that segment yourself. There is a reason that Tesla lost their lawsuit against Top Gear (http://green.autoblog.com/2013/03/10/uk-appeals-court-dismissed-teslas-bbc-top-gear-lawsuit/). Tesla sure did get lots of free press out of it though.

    77. Re:Top Gear was worse. by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Seeing two people riding in a Hummer in the carpool lane while a single guy in a non-plugin hybrid can't be there

      That still reduces congestion. Even if Hummer takes 4 times the road area when parked, relative to the smaller car, actual area occupied when the car is moving depends on the speed. A car "occupies" the area in front of it, in which area no one would feel safe to be.

      I wouldn't like to be anywhere within 80 feet in front of a car doing 40 mph, in whichever enclosure I am cocooned. So even if Hummer is 40 feet long and the small car is 10 feet long, Hummer at 40 mph takes 120 feet space serving 2 people, and small car takes 90 feet serving 1 person. Hummer comes out way ahead per person.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    78. Re:Top Gear was worse. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      1. Fair enough, that is a reasonable point... My GMC needs an oil change every 10,000 miles, or about once a year...

      2. True, but they don't have much of one yet. That may change with time, get the price down, get the service network up, and I'll be more interested. They claim they have a service center within 100 miles of 90% of Americans. 100 miles is NOT close. :)

      3. Good to know, I was not aware they were considering that. It doesn't look like it is ready yet, but that is one of the "luxury car brand" staples.

      4. Yea, and those are more or less standard among $70K+ "luxury cars", or at least most of them are.

      Don't get me wrong, clearly the Tesla S is a nice car, clearly it is selling and people like it... but it will take time to build out a network and make it a really luxury experience. I see them on the road here in Dallas, probably about once a week.

    79. Re:Top Gear was worse. by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Clarkson also has a long history of attacking electric cars, and when he is presented with argument, he responds with non sequitors

      Ok, maybe it is unfair. But people who love cars, typically love to drive long-long distances without filling-up-the-tank interruptions. If the guy is a car reviewer, he is likely such a car lover, and is surrounded by mostly car lovers. EVs have left a bad taste in such people's mouths, and it is understandable.

      Folly of a car geek, not dissimilar to the folly of many slashdotters regarding computers.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    80. Re:Top Gear was worse. by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Tesla is hardly a rich man's car. Maybe the original Roadster was, but the newer models are priced lower than typical luxury cars from other manufacturers. In fact, it runs about 10 grand cheaper than the Lexus LX, which is sort of the generic of luxury cars (not that it isn't a good car mind you.)

      Also, I'm pretty sure that the stated purpose of the carpool lane is to reduce emissions. This is why most states, for example, allow motorcycles in it, because they're quite a bit more efficient in that regard. Seeing as an electric car has zero emissions, it kind of makes sense (I don't know about California, but the Phoenix area is powered entirely by nuclear and hydro, so its "fuel" is near zero emissions.)

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    81. Re:Top Gear was worse. by bentcd · · Score: 1

      The fact that Tesla's lawsuit against the show was settled in a way that still allows the BBC to rebroadcast the episode seems to indicate a lack of fraudulent claims.

      The lawsuit ended in Tesla's disfavour because Top Gear isn't a car review show, it's a sitcom with cars in it. And in a sitcom you can say almost anything no matter how outrageous and easily get away with it.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    82. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Top Gear is Cartainment... In my opinion, it isn't a serious car show.

      At one time (heap big many hot-colds past) it was, though.

      There was generally a review of something a normalish person might buy, a fun bit with a supercar and IIRC some consumer advice or general car related news in the middle.

      Different crew then. There was Tiff Needel, Vicky BMW and some guy who looked like a spiv (and indeed was).

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    83. Re:Top Gear was worse. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Did you see the episode? It was, another, excuse to bash on all things American*. The presented t as if it ran out of charge. They really tried to hide the fact that they were not driving the car under normal road conditions.

      Umm they were banging around their track at full pelt. And Clarkson is not known for efficient driving.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    84. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over 450 metres per charge? Electric motors have come a long way!

    85. Re:Top Gear was worse. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The fact that Tesla's lawsuit against the show was settled in a way that still allows the BBC to rebroadcast the episode seems to indicate a lack of fraudulent claims.

      The lawsuit ended in Tesla's disfavour because Top Gear isn't a car review show, it's a sitcom with cars in it. And in a sitcom you can say almost anything no matter how outrageous and easily get away with it.

      Well, that and the fact that Tesla was suing on the basis that the shows "review" harmed sales by the specific amount of $171,000 (which would be impossible to quantify), and that the judge felt that a "reasonable viewer" would not confuse the shorter range shown in the episode with the actual range claimed by Tesla, since on the show they made it abundantly clear that they were running the shit out of the car (hence, the lessened range).

      Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that no one at Tesla has ever watched the show (which is the only way I can think of that a person would mistake a sketch comedy show for a serious documentary series).

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    86. Re:Top Gear was worse. by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Yes you can, you put jerrycans of gas in the trunk/back seat.

      practical? meh.

      But do that with batteries and the Tesla.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    87. Re:Top Gear was worse. by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Because these lanes have not just one purpose, but several. Taxis are a part of public transport. They make it more possible for people to use trains, planes and busses for the major part of their journey, and then a taxi to fill in the missing last part of the journey. And they reduce the pressure on car parks and road side parking spaces that would otherwise be there if people drove their own car. That's why they are encouraged.

    88. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The object of the carpool lane is to reduce greenhouse gas emission per capita.

      Odd, Carpool lanes have been around for quite a while. At one time we were told they were created to encourage car pooling. HOV lanes in fact.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    89. Re:Top Gear was worse. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Very few people would want to. And it's not safe.

      In fact in the EU, maximum legal drive time is 9 hours. Which if driven exclusively at 70mph would only get you 610 miles.

      Even in the US, maximum daily drive time is 13 hours. Which again, even at the theoretical maximum 70mph would leave you short by 90 miles.

      Most people would fly, or depending on the country, take a train.

    90. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Isn't it? What keeps it from being one?

      Tesla hate

      Get off my lawn'ism

      did I mention Tesla hate?

      As we roll towards the inevitable, and people woun't be able to fraudulently test these things, and declare them awful, eventually we're hearing stuff like this bogus "not a luxury car" nonsense.

      My guess is that in a few years, the haters will be reduced to " The Fucking color of th esteering wheel if just the reason why EV's will never be accepted not practical. We alread had one lugnut declaring that the instrument panel makes the car a non-starter for him.

      When I hear laughable stuff like that, it's telling me the Tesla is winning.

      All they have to do is stay off people's lawns.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    91. Re:Top Gear was worse. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If car manufacturers don't want to be made fun of then they shouldn't submit their product for testing to Top Gear.

      And indeed I think that's exactly what Elon Musk is doing now. No Model S test so far, and I don't expect one in the future.

    92. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is more meant to enjoy the world of motoring. They are down on econo hybrids and pure battery cars because Econo hybrids are dreary to drive, and are down on pure battery cars because nobody wants to cut their track day short to recharge the batteries. Jeremy loved driving the Electric AMG black model, but had the same problems he had with the Tesla, which is range.

      The Mclaren P1 and the LaFerrari he adored (except the Ferrari's name, which translated from Italian sounds stupid). And he doesn't rag on american cars if they are good. He ragged on the Mustang's plastics, but loved how it was cheapest way to get lots of power in the world, as well as channeling his inner 9 year old. He loves the Focus and Fiesta ST. He thought the Corvette's build quality was rubbish but for pure entertainment quality he loved it.

      A range extender model S will probably make him very happy indeed.

    93. Re:Top Gear was worse. by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Even in the US, maximum daily drive time is 13 hours. Which again, even at the theoretical maximum 70mph would leave you short by 90 miles.

      I like to drive, I do it in about 13 hours, (a lot of the drive is 75 limit, practical is a bit more) and no, it's not illegal for me to drive more than 13 hours.

    94. Re:Top Gear was worse. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No, I was quoting the time limits for commercial drivers. It's not illegal for you to do more. Just not safe.

      And by the way, the maths I did didn't even allow for a single rest stop.

    95. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You can say thay achievement got a little greater recently. I was listening to glenn beck and he was raving about yhe tesla and how it would likely be his next car.

      Most of the conservatives see the EV cars as inferior but i guess the tesla fits in another catagory now.

      That is a little odd. Most modern day Crypto Conservatives I know look at gasoline consumption as the more you use, thte more patriotic you are. I think that was part of the old Chevy "Heartbeat of Amirica" thing.

      One guy I knew wasn't gonna let those fancy Schmancy Leeburuls tell him what to do, so he went out and bought a dually 4WD extended cab fifth wheel in the bed with a V12 jacked up Pickup with the required 4X4 decal on the bed (how inaccurate).

      It would have been okay if he needed that but he never went off-road, and he had no trailer to use with the fifth wheel. Seems almost apocryphal but it is a true story.

      Anyhow, you'll never convince guys like that that anythig about an EV or hybrid has any worth at all.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    96. Re:Top Gear was worse. by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      No, I was quoting the time limits for commercial drivers. It's not illegal for you to do more. Just not safe.

      And by the way, the maths I did didn't even allow for a single rest stop.

      Commercial drivers drive about the the limit every working day, and I can see where that would be tiring after a while. For a normal healthy person to spend a day driving isn't the same thing, and it's no big deal for me. The car is nice, the road is nice, the music is nice, and it's just a nice change from the norm, and it can't be done in a Tesla.

    97. Re:Top Gear was worse. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      You under estimate the psychology of the fear of being "stranded."

      Electric fuel stations aren't (yet) ubiquitous.

    98. Re:Top Gear was worse. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I did 9 hours once. And I don't think it was safe.

    99. Re:Top Gear was worse. by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on the person, the road, how rested they are to start and so on. However in the spirit of being on-topic, I will just point out that a Tesla can't even do 5 hours at 70 mph.

    100. Re:Top Gear was worse. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand why its patriotic. It has nothing to do with oil or gas but being told to do something verses being free to do what you want. Its the reason your buddy got the truck you say he doesn't need. Because he can and when people say he can't, he went and showed them this is still a free country.

      Now...... i'm not apposed to small cars, alternative powered vehicles or anything of the sorts when it makes sense and is my decision. But i'm a lot like your buddy. If someone tells me i can't, i will. If you think this is a free country still, then do whatever you want also. Even if that is not what i want. Just don't expect everyone else to do the same because you or someone else says so.

    101. Re:Top Gear was worse. by nickittynickname · · Score: 1

      Yes. The same one, and at the end they said they got threatened to be sued for using the wrong year in a classified ad. It was like they were trying to hit every american stereotype.

    102. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand why its patriotic. It has nothing to do with oil or gas but being told to do something verses being free to do what you want. Its the reason your buddy got the truck you say he doesn't need. Because he can and when people say he can't, he went and showed them this is still a free country.

      Then that person is highly manipulable and can easily be talked into doing things that are counterproductive to his well being.

      Also, the amazingly shallow idea that one is patriotic because one does the opposite of one's "enemies" as this dude and apparently you believe. It speaks to an inability to make up one's own mind.

      So if buying an impractical truck indicates service to freedom, it can only follow that everyone who does not have an impractical truck is opposed to freedom, right? Some presumptive hater of freedom is telling us we can't own one right?

      Now...... i'm not apposed to small cars, alternative powered vehicles or anything of the sorts when it makes sense and is my decision. But i'm a lot like your buddy. If someone tells me i can't, i will.

      Welcome to the manipulability club. Who exactly is telling you you cannot own an International CXT or any other vehicle? I'm telling you right now, you cannot own an Elephant. Now go get it. But I digress. Back to the CXT.

      Here's one in case you need to show your liberty and patriotism: http://www.truckpaper.com/list...

      Perfectly legal, who's telling you you can't own it? 99K and it's yours. I've seen a few of these. One time in a McDonald's parking lot where the single CXT SUV took up most of the front parking spaces. Almost ridiculously impractical however. Pissed half the people off there because now they couldn't park near the building since he took up 6+ spots. The other half laughed at the guy because he looked like a midget getting out of a circus car. Made no sense at all. Some times people mistake things that others might believe make sense for "marching orders" maybe? Just because a liberal owns a Prius doesn't mean you can't. And no doubt some socialist commie is driving a big truck with duallies somewhere.

      Sorry, but I don't buy the gist of your argument. It's some sort of Fox News "Attack on Christmas" logic. This guy could show his freedom and his patriotism in a number of ways that don't involve the edifice of an offroad truck that never goes off road, of a fifth wheel in the bed that won't ever be attached to a trailer, and as such just makes the bed unusable. No one is telling him he can't own the truck, no one is telling you that you can't own a monster truck and try to use it as a daily driver.

      But that expression of your "Fightin' the man" who is trying to oppress you, wait - did you have to go to Mexico to buy that truck? Maybe meet someone in a dark alley late at night because that truck was illegal to own? Evil liberty hating liberals have made those big SUV things illegal and punishible by months in a reeducation facility? Or what?

      It's like the Dentist who goes into the Harley dealership, plunks down 12 G for the bike, and another 5 G for the branded Harley Davidson clothing for him and his sorority sister wife, then drives of thinking he's a badass biker. He isn't. She might be, depending on temperament and definition.

      And Impractical Truck Guy isn't a patriot because of that truck. And he's definitely not buying forbidden fruit, because there is a completely practical use for that truck. That's why they make them. And they are happy to sell a pickup for 70 G even to a guy that's making a little over half that because he thinks it shows his manhood. Profit margin on those trucks is pretty sweet, and I can't blame them for selling as many as the market will bear.

      He's just a dude that didn't quite think what he did the whole way through, and now has trouble finding parki

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    103. Re:Top Gear was worse. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Tl;dr

      As apposed to someone that does exactly as they are told because of reasons someone else says is important.

      You may not like the fact that others are free and capable of doing something contrary to you, but when you end up being told what to do and don't like it, you will enjoy the fact that you are free too. That is unless you gave up that freedom which i suspect you may have done.

      I say live free or die. And i know i'm not alone

    104. Re:Top Gear was worse. by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Tesla service will come out to your house to do the service. First of all, just because Tesla doesn't have dealerships doesn't mean they don't have service centers. They have service centers all over the world now. If one isn't convenient enough for you they will come to your location for an additional $100. Unlike the Lexus, no oil changes are needed. The only routine service that is required is tire rotation. There is a once a year/12.5K mile service that is recommended. My car always comes back washed and vacuumed as well.

      When I had my service done they loaned me a top of the line model S when they had them available. If not, they pick up the tab for an Enterprise rental. My last rental, paid on their dime, was a Cadallac. At one point the service wouldn't take very long so they dropped me off at work and delivered my car to where I work several hours later. Tesla's biggest problem right now is that you have the option of keeping the loaner car and paying the difference. They're having a big problem keeping the loaners available for people.

      As for the features you're asking for, many of them are coming. Hell, they're working on a self-driving version. Their first focus was getting a good car out and making sure everything worked. They have been steadily adding new features as they progress such as now offering parking sensors. Software updates also regularly add new features. They're clearly thinking about the camera support since they would love to do away with teh rear-view mirrors and replace them with cameras. This is basically an entirely new car from the ground up manufactured in their first factory. There is little in common with the Roadster.

      As for build and finish quality, I have no complaints. The car is built like a tank and is extremely solid. Panels fit together quite well and the seats are comfortable.

      As for the Caddy I rented, it is no way a comparison with my Tesla Model S. My model S is in a completely different league. The Caddy can't match the smoothness or acceleration and handling or how quiet my model S is, nor can it match the room and cargo capacity. The touch screen user interface is definitely better than the Caddy's.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    105. Re:Top Gear was worse. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info, all good to know...

      Now they just need a local place where you can go test drive one...

      Oh yea, and fix the price. :) Cause frankly, I wasn't buying a S-class either. :)

      That isn't to say that I couldn't afford it, I can... I just prefer to drive my truck, it is a far more useful vehicle for the money.

    106. Re:Top Gear was worse. by AaronW · · Score: 1

      A lot of people are asking for a truck and Elon has hinted that it's in the works after the Model E. Given the available torque an electric truck makes a lot of sense. I imagine Tesla would make it all wheel drive like their Model X and have storage under the hood as well. Hopefully they can get their gigafactory up and running for the model E.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    107. Re:Top Gear was worse. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Ahh, you heard "truck" and thought pickup truck... I meant SUV. :)

      I drive a GMC Yukon XL, give me an electric version for not too much more than the gas version and I'd be interested.

      The Model X is nice, but isn't a replacement for a really useful SUV, it is just a tall station wagon (crossover really), and while it will serve a purple, it isn't going to serve my needs.

    108. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I drive a GMC Yukon XL

      Oh really? You haven't mentioned that before.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    109. Re:Top Gear was worse. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The person I replied to simply thought I meant a pickup truck.

      In any case, I still can't figure out why so many people buy cars, then try and cram families into them, then try and carry stuff around with them...

      While not everyone needs such a large vehicle, they are so useful to have I just shake my head when I see people in small cars stuff with people.

      You don't have to buy a fancy truck, they make cheaper models if money is an issue.

    110. Re:Top Gear was worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porsche Cayman? Are you seriously comparing the two?

      ffs grow up.

  2. Lies by nwaack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no way that was an editing error. Someone had to purposefully add those noises to the footage. Please.

    1. Re:Lies by seinman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Every professional editor in the world would add engine noise to a shot of an operating automobile. It's one of those things that you do without even thinking about, because generally you will receive footage (especially if it's b-roll) that has poor audio quality. The editor probably dropped it in like he/she would always do, without stopping to think "hey, that's an electric car, so that silence i'm hearing in the footage SHOULD be there." I would most certainly consider that an editing error.

    2. Re:Lies by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Errors are sometimes purposeful. In this case, probably the editing team were used to dubbing appropriate background noise on footage of cars, because the sound of a distant vehicle would tend to be inaudible.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Lies by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Maybe the editor accidentally slipped and hit the "Add Car Engine and Transmission Noises" button by mistake. It could happen!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Lies by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This.

      Definitely one of those "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" situations.

      Editor see car, cars make noise, thus, editor add car noise. No conspiracy necessary.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Lies by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Huh, you can't hear the car in this car clip. That's going to be awkward... I'll just add some stock noises in so it sounds normal."

      -Some lowly editor

      It's easy enough to be an honest mistake by an uninformed individual. Most non-Slashdotters don't know or care about the idiosyncrasies of electric cars.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they most likely didn't even know it was for an electric car. They edit footage like an assembly line - receive assets with little to no context, and deliver the output in 5 minutes for someone else to combine the audio with a color graded footage.

    7. Re:Lies by seinman · · Score: 1

      This is true. And even if they did know it was electric, they may not know what an electric car sounds like. Until my wife bought a Prius, I had no idea myself; I had never been near enough to a running electric vehicle to hear their sounds.

    8. Re:Lies by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      It's called "mainstream media." Like stock footage they roll when they're too lazy to go out and film an incident live.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:Lies by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This.

      Definitely one of those "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" situations.

      Editor see car, cars make noise, thus, editor add car noise. No conspiracy necessary.

      I would hope that an editor for a NEWS SERVICE would have more sense than that. Altering levels, filtering noises, tweaking, balancing yes, but going to a library of sound effects and overlaying foreign audio and sound effects? I would hope they would only do that under orders from above.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:Lies by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

      I see no difference between this and a laugh track in a sitcom.

    11. Re:Lies by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Not only that but, its not like they add realistic sounds anyway. If you have an exterior shot of a car driving quickly down a road lines with trees, why is the dubbed in "engine sound" more natural there? It isn't what you would hear with the car driving by, it isn't what you would hear if you were magically floating in the air following the car like the camera is.... where is the wind noise? The bumps in the road? Wheels going over sticks? Leaves russling in the wind? Wind noise at the speeds in many of those shots should be loud enough to cause hearing damage over time....nobody faults them for not including that.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:Lies by webbiedave · · Score: 1

      I'm also not ascribing malicious intent but a professional producer should catch it well before air and direct the editor to fix it.

    13. Re:Lies by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GP said "editor" but it's likely to be a generic sound guy who works on numerous projects. Never worked in the industry, but based upon simple observation I think they pretty much work from a library of standard sounds that they add to everything by default.

      It's the (computer) mice clicks that always get me. Anyone actually have a mouse that loudly clunks in the way shown on virtually every television show, news show, etc? Even better when the visuals show they're using a laptop's touchpad...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Lies by slapout · · Score: 2

      But after the editor did that, shouldn't the reporter who's going to be presenting the final story have watched it to make sure everything was okay?

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    15. Re:Lies by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would hope that an editor for a NEWS SERVICE would have more sense than that.

      You would hope, but you would be disappointed. Ever seen a news report where something blows up? Have you ever, even once, seen that clip shown on TV where the sound comes after the visible explosion?

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    16. Re:Lies by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      "incompetence" is a strong word for this. "Ignorance" is much more appropriate. As the other poster said, if you've been editing for 30 years and are used to having crappy audio sources, this is just the thing you do. And generally speaking, that footage would come with little or no documentation other than "clean this up".

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    17. Re:Lies by prefect42 · · Score: 2

      Quite, so film in front of a live audience. Red Dwarf is a good example where they switched away from a live audience, and you really notice the damage.

      --

      jh

    18. Re:Lies by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      You need to come work in the industry, then. Happens all the time. The scary part is: You will never know unless they do something as obviously wrong as this. Now, try to watch any show/news/movie and realize that the vast majority of sound is "fake". Your favorite action movie? That fast paced car scene? They are almost *always* shot MOS (without sound). Think about that.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    19. Re:Lies by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Erm, news segments tend to be a little different, but I consider those 20/20 and 60 minute shows as produced more like cinema than a newscaster standing in front of a hurricane.. :)

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    20. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The answer should be "no more lies".
       
      Ok, so you want a virgin audio track with any film you see? Because that's what it's going to take for you "no more lies" garbage to become a reality. And the sound quality you're going to get out of it is going to make 1940s films look like they were recorded in the latest audio technology in comparison.
       
      I'm simply floored that something like this post got modded up. When you call audio editing on a TV show a "lie" and a "fraud" it makes me wonder how you haven't gone completely hostile over things like the NSA and the Patriot Act. You're petty and unreasonable by normal standards.
       
      Oh, and if you want a real mind bender? Those people who get shot in movies? Yeah, they're not really dead... or even shot... heck, that blood isn't even really their blood and the gun isn't firing real bullets.
       
      Oh, the humanity!

    21. Re:Lies by Rinikusu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, good luck with that. Go shoot a movie and edit it. See how your sound stacks up. You'll find that frequently, it sucks. This is why we have foley, ADR, etc.

      Now, granted, in a so-called news piece, it's much more egregious.

      Guess what? CG is also a fraud on the viewer. Those Channel 5 graphics don't really exist outside of a computer. Your favorite newscaster is wearing makeup. Etc.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    22. Re:Lies by xorsyst · · Score: 1

      Which is also wrong. Live audience all the way, baby :)

      --
      Get free bitcoins: http://freebitco.in
    23. Re:Lies by korbulon · · Score: 2

      There is no way that was an editing error. Someone had to purposefully add those noises to the footage. Please.

      Reminds me of something from The Last Boyscout: "It was an accident, right? You tripped, slipped on the floor and accidentally stuck your dick in my wife."

    24. Re:Lies by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is just scratching the surface on the kind of deception that frequently passes for "journalism" in the modern age. With a bit of clever editing, you can make anyone "say" virtually anything you want.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    25. Re:Lies by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the news agencies have not show that sort of competency for about 20 years.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    26. Re:Lies by Talderas · · Score: 1

      It's not fraud. Stop using hyperbole.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    27. Re:Lies by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      60 minutes? News?

      What's next? Russia Today? Fox News?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    28. Re:Lies by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well technically almost all editing are some sort of lies.
      Often gives the impression that something is faster, points to a particular clue that you wouldn't normally notice, The person is more or less attractive...

      The main thing, is that real life is rather boring, and uninteresting. You watch any particular person, you will get board. But if you edit out the boring bits you get to the point faster.

      Lets say you watch your Congress in action. Now Fox News will edit it so the Republicans will look like strong articulate leaders, and the Democrats will be stumbling on their own words. MSNBC may do it the other way around. If you have it fully unedited you will be watching hours of boring jabbering

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    29. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hope that an editor for a NEWS SERVICE would have more sense than that

      When everyone is done laughing you can stop and think why it is wrong.

      Unfortunately pretty much anything you see on TV is edited. *everything* let that sink in for moment. This means every piece of information you get from news/tv/entertainment is edited. It is a property of the medium as most of it is to entertain or propaganda, usually not to inform. It means people can change the way things are viewed. You can be manipulated either by accident (probably in this case) or by malice (as in another case with GM trucks). You will not be able to tell the difference.

    30. Re:Lies by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Fair enough.

      In the future, I'll try to remember that the poor bastard responsible is more than likely some bottom-of-the-ladder peon, taking orders from above.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    31. Re:Lies by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I would hope that an editor for a NEWS SERVICE would have more sense than that.

      Uh... are you new here?

      The mainstream news media is generally clueless about most things and frankly you should take everything you read with a huge grain of salt.

      Being a professional pilot, I am never disappointed in how poorly the news media writes about aviation.

      If they can't get that right, when experts are EVERYWHERE to vet their work, why would they get anything else right?

    32. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live audience is no better. There are signs prompting an audience reaction. When the signs are off the audience is expected to be quiet.

    33. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you would think that while editing the segment together the editor might have picked up that the car was electric from the audio they were listening to. You know, the talking heads commentary that they had to put the engine sounds under.

    34. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, good luck with that. Go shoot a movie and edit it. See how your sound stacks up. You'll find that frequently, it sucks.

      Thank fucking god we're talking about the news and not a movie, then.

    35. Re:Lies by drkoemans · · Score: 1

      The process of dubbing in audio, which we know happens frequently, is the problem. It's always a lie.

      Audio/Video editor speaking here. Lies, I believe, have to be conscious. Tweaks often happen in post production because there is an issue with the original footage such that the original audio track has to be recreated. This is frequently done in film and is called "looping." On set you record pre and post roll audio to capture the room noise just so you can match this looped audio with the original environment. This is just one example.

      I can easily see the editor in his booth working with the assets he was given thinking that the audio from live shot lacked engine noise for whatever reason. Unfamiliar with the Tesla, he didn't realize an electric only makes road noise. Just ask yourself this, what is the advantage of adding engine noise? I know the editor thought it would make the footage more dynamic and LIKELY thought there was a problem with the sound track. There is no great conspiracy here.

    36. Re:Lies by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      This. If you are not in a studio, getting a good shot is hard. If you are not in a studio, getting a good sound clip is hard. Getting both right at the same time is 1000X as hard. So it is normal to not bother. In movies. In documentaries. In television shows. The editors are constantly "re-creating" the right sound based on the uneven quality sound clips they get handed, and pulling from sound clip libraries whatever else they need.

    37. Re:Lies by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the summary has editing errors, too. What kind of a ridiculous summary is that? What the fuck is Slashdot becoming?

    38. Re:Lies by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are over a couple of hundred feet away from the explosion there will be a difference that you can perceive. You know that sound and light travel at different speeds, right?

      If you want a fun demonstration of this get a day on an EOD range, you see the explosion, then hear the explosion, then feel the blast wave, then feel the ground rumble all with different time lag from the actual explosion. Really cool.

    39. Re:Lies by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      Me neither, and I hate laugh tracks in sitcoms. I'm smart enough to know when to laugh and when not to laugh thank you. I don't need an audience (live or otherwise) prompting me.

    40. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and never forget that sufficiently advanced incompete is indistinguishable from malice

    41. Re:Lies by axlash · · Score: 1

      So what if there was sound? Who cares? Do people who like the Tesla like it because it is relatively quiet, or do they like it for other reasons (because it looks great, runs on electricity, smooth acceleration, etc.)?

      I don't see why the original post thinks that we should all see the addition of engine noise as funny. Mildly perplexing, yes, but that's about it.

      --
      Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
    42. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not be surprised that electric cars will have to emit some kind of noise to avoid running over visually impaired... I'd like it if it makes the Jetson's sound, myself.

    43. Re:Lies by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Every professional editor in the world would add engine noise to a shot of an operating automobile. It's one of those things that you do without even thinking about, because generally you will receive footage (especially if it's b-roll) that has poor audio quality.

      I am a motion picture sound designer, my credits include Zero Dark Thirty, The Hurt Locker and Men in Black 3.

      I would not add fucking internal combustion engine noise to footage of a Tesla S. I might add something-- an electric motor, or recording of a prius, something designed special; I'd definitely add tire skids and suspension sounds over bumps. But I'd be laughed off the dubbing stage if I added V-8 revs to and electric car.

      Sound design is one of the few aspects of television news where reporters and editors are allowed to straight-up lie, because they have a mentality that all they're required to do is (1) not modify the image, and (2) not say anything false. All other manipulations are considered merely style.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    44. Re:Lies by tepples · · Score: 2

      It's the (computer) mice clicks that always get me. Anyone actually have a mouse that loudly clunks in the way shown on virtually every television show, news show, etc?

      Any full-size optical mouse based on microswitches will be fairly loud because the empty space inside the mouse's chassis acts as a resonator. This is true of the HP MODGUO mouse on my work computer, and it's true of the Acer mouse that I use at home to play Cookie Clicker.

    45. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think what he was saying is that on TV it is far too often visuals and audio of the blast at the same time, and never staggered as it sometimes should be based on distance.

    46. Re:Lies by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Some of this "fraud" is simply compensating for the distortions imposed by the TV (or whatever medium) in the first place. For example, it is very hard to understand speech recorded with a normal level of background noise. Why? I'm not sure, maybe because the viewer then has background noise in the TV sound, PLUS real background noise wherever they are sitting. Or maybe our brains just can't tune out sounds if we can't look over at the source to confirm they're irrelevant and non-threatening.

      Lighting is the same. If you just haphazardly shoot video or photos with natural light it looks awful - you can't make out nearly the detail (especially in shadows) that you would have if you'd been standing there. Maybe because the cameras and TVs have less dynamic range than your eyes. So, artificial lighting (or careful use of natural lighting) looks more natural.

    47. Re:Lies by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      If I'm watching the news, I want accuracy (i.e. the program not doing something that basically amounts to lying to me) more than sexy car sounds.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    48. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do work for video editors and production (these guys use AVID). When in production, there's an on-site video shoot and then it goes to post-production with a director that oversees its final form. Not only was this audio added in, it was no doubt chosen from an artistic/creative POV. In fact, there might have been an internal meeting on this very subject balancing ratings over raw video/sound footage.

    49. Re:Lies by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      We're talking about the news. Not TV! There's a big difference. The news is not supposed to be fiction.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    50. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, good luck with that. Go shoot a movie and edit it. See how your sound stacks up. You'll find that frequently, it sucks. This is why we have foley, ADR, etc.

      In the context of this discussion, we've been talking about the news, not fiction.

      Now, granted, in a so-called news piece, it's much more egregious.

      Guess what? CG is also a fraud on the viewer. Those Channel 5 graphics don't really exist outside of a computer. Your favorite newscaster is wearing makeup. Etc.

      If the news story in question was about the Channel 5 newsroom, or about how beautiful the newscaster is, then I'd expect them to present those with neutrality as well.

    51. Re:Lies by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      This is 60 minutes we're talking about here... don't get too demanding!

      --
      Get a web developer
    52. Re:Lies by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I have never been in an audience for a sitcom, but how do they do the audio for the audience for multiple takes? Presumably they would laugh more on the first take, but if they have to retake it several times, I think it would suck the funny out of the gag. Do they take the best "audience take" and add that in?

      Also, if your show is not funny enough to make a live audience laugh, and you need a laugh track or an "applause sign", perhaps the show is not funny enough to go on air. :)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    53. Re:Lies by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Nobody watching a movie expects it to be real. (Ok, no intelligent person...) People watching the news expect them to not make stuff up.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    54. Re:Lies by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Though if the news report mentions it is a dramatization or "sound added", I don't see a problem with it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    55. Re:Lies by Rinikusu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, even with shotgun mics, there is a bit of noise cancellation due to the design. This is why when you see mics on booms, they're typically pointed *down* at the ground as they have a cardoid pick-up pattern. The ground typically doesn't have a lot of sound coming from it, but the truck behind what you're recording does. Now, with ENG style recording, the microphones are typically pointed directly at the reporter, which also has the unfortunate effect of picking up everything behind the subject, too. In real world under ideal circumstances, there's a mixer who can blend/adjust the output of the lav/handheld mic and the camera mic to produce the "best" sound, but for small productions this isn't always possible.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    56. Re:Lies by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      In the context of this discussion, 60 minutes is produced more like a slick TV show and not a news piece. Due to being a more highly polished work, techniques used in other mediums (documentary and narrative) are integrated, including sound design/mixing. We may have our differences in opinion about how much should be used, but the facts are it's used and 99.99999% of the time you don't even notice (which is just how good these guys are). I agree in that adding motor sounds where there should be none is not an optimal outcome, but instead of calling the editor a "fucking moron", it could just be ignorance. I can absolutely see some guy being handed some footage to work on and him saying "who recorded the audio? I don't hear anything.. shit.. Well, gotta fix this..." But at the same time, someone also had to vet that footage, watch the whole piece and should've caught that. So it's not just a failure of the sound editor, someone had to watch the whole piece and someone had to say "yeah, that's good, it's ready..."

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    57. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better question would be: Why the hell do they assume that we need to hear a perfect car engine noise? Why not be honest and play the audio that was recorded with the video, or just drop it off entirely and add voiceover/music during that scene? I think its disengenous (in this case at least). They were evaluating a car...the *actual* sound of the motor in this case is very germaine.

    58. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly...its more egregious here because they were supposed to be demonstrating a car, not entertaining me with a thrilling car chase.

      Some people value the sound a car makes as an important feature. If you were contemplating buying a tesla because you thought they were quiet, the video would have mislead you.

      I'd liken it to what a few networks have done when a semi-auto gun bans come up in congress...in the segment, they cut to stock footage of someone firing a full-auto M-16!

    59. Re:Lies by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Adding noise from some random car to footage of ANY car is just unacceptable. People like to know how a car sounds. If you show a Ferrari with the sound of a Beetle, people will complain. How can anyone find this a normal thing to do?

      Why not just substitute images of other cars as well? Make an article about a Tesla but actually show video footage of a Mercedes, why not? (In fact this is done all the time with airplanes).

    60. Re:Lies by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      They definitely need a kind of "soft horn" to warn people in a polite way. People may just stand in your way in a parking lot without knowing you're ready to drive off. Something like Knight Rider's "wuw-wuw" sound would be nice...

      But please don't make them make sound all the time, now that we can finally have quiet cars!

    61. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60 Minutes is about as much as a news program as sports casting is about fitness.
       
      And you're STILL missing the point about sound and video production.
       
      I wonder if people like you do that just to show us how much of a moron you can be.

    62. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are over a couple of hundred feet away from the explosion there will be a difference that you can perceive. You know that sound and light travel at different speeds, right?

      If you want a fun demonstration of this get a day on an EOD range, you see the explosion, then hear the explosion, then feel the blast wave, then feel the ground rumble all with different time lag from the actual explosion. Really cool.

      That's his point. News reels sync up the sound to the visual, even when they shouldn't.

    63. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another "fake, but accurate" report from See B.S. News.

    64. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not wearing any apnts. Film at 11."

    65. Re:Lies by Xenna · · Score: 3, Funny

      Never attribute to incompetence what can be adequately explained by competitivenes:

      The noise you hear is from the Mercedes S-Class driving behind it trying to keep up.

    66. Re:Lies by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I like this comment. I'm reminded of a recent interview that Neil Degrasse-Tyson did with the director of several big blockbusters. Neil called him out on a shot where there was a big lightning storm on the horizon and the sound of the thunder was coincident with the lightning in the distance. The director laughed and said he originally cut it with the real sound and the long delay was off-putting, despite being accurate. Apparently the accurate sound pulled you right out of the movie (because the delay was like 7-8 seconds).

      Interesting that "real" sometimes doesn't help tell the story, and it can even hinder it.

    67. Re:Lies by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Ha, good one!

      +1 Zing.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    68. Re:Lies by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly the point he was making...

    69. Re:Lies by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      What point am I supposedly missing? Me calling your point bullshit does not constitute me missing the point. Your very own argument that the news and entertainment TV are different things *is what I'm saying.*

      And yes, I would rather have a "virgin" audio track. Run it through a filter for background noise if you want, but DON'T add anything that wasn't already there.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    70. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in a so-called news piece, it's much more egregious.

      60 minutes is produced more like a slick TV show and not a news piece

      Which standard of quality are you holding them to - entertainment or news? If you've already decided that 60 minutes is crap news, then why are you defending them?

    71. Re:Lies by GoCrazy · · Score: 1

      The medium matters; news is T.V. Remember George Zimmerman supposedly saying "coon"?

      --
      No beer and no TV make Homer something something
    72. Re:Lies by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I phrased that a bit badly. s/TV/entertainment TV/g

      Remember George Zimmerman supposedly saying "coon"?

      Actually no, but that's because I don't watch the news. Anything that doesn't wind up on Slashdot or somebody tells me about, I could care less :)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    73. Re:Lies by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Every professional editor in the world would add engine noise to a shot of an operating automobile. It's one of those things that you do without even thinking about

      Kind of like the way the halfwits always seem to insist on adding the tire screech of locked-up wheels to footage of cars with ABS? Fuck those morons.

    74. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately news is rarely that. In this case it was a fluff piece meant to make tesla look good. However, most of the time this sort of things is meant to sell you outrage. Even this article is trying to sell you that. Look no further than the count on this. Most of the articles on sd hit 300+ when the headline is leading and has some sort of pre-canned rage built in.

    75. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not add fucking internal combustion engine noise to footage of a Tesla S.

      Not to try to discredit your opinion, but I bet you would if you were rushed and didn't know or realize it was a Tesla.

    76. Re:Lies by luckymutt · · Score: 1

      Editing for sound quality is one of the things that separates amateur video from a professional piece. Like color grading. It would be a stretch to call it lying. In this case it seems just a dumb mistake.

    77. Re:Lies by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Excellent post, I'm embarrassed to admit that this never occurred to me, despite being easily demonstrable in everyday life; someone down the road shutting their car door produces the same effect.

      I started noticing overdubbed sound effects after playing Return to Castle Wolfenstein. The sound effect that plays when holstering/unholstering a weapon is incredibly common, especially in TV cop shows. Similarly, the "door opens with slight-creak" noise effect is similarly overused *everywhere* and it eventually dawned on me that the only natural noises one could expect from a production are the actors voices (and only because they were typically miked with a giant boom just off-camera.) Every other noise heard seems to be added later.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    78. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nissan Leaf has this. It emits a low "white noise" kind of sound when moving forward at very low (parking lot) speeds, and a ringing sound while in reverse.

      Thankfully mine has an override button to turn this off, which I automatically hit as part of turning the car on. I prefer to watch out for pedestrians and have a quiet car (no different than any current hybrid in a parking lot). Unfortunately they got rid of that button starting in 2012, so newer Leafs always make noise.

    79. Re:Lies by tomhath · · Score: 1

      I would hope that an editor for a NEWS SERVICE would have more sense than that.

      An editor for a NEWS SERVICE would have more sense than that. But this is 60 Minutes, not news.

    80. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually thought he was making the opposite point: every explosion I've ever seen on TV has light and sound synchronised, when really they shouldn't be. Editors are synchronising it to make it feel more 'right' to most viewers, even if technically it is wrong.

      Side point: If you've ever watched a video of a lightning storm, it feels wrong if the thunder and lightning are not together, even though just about everyone has experienced first hand and even counted the seconds between the two.

    81. Re:Lies by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Anyone actually have a mouse that loudly clunks in the way shown on virtually every television show, news show, etc?

      Ask me how I know you don't have kids who incessantly and addictively play Minecraft all day! :D

    82. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop using your keyboard....

    83. Re:Lies by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Not to try to discredit your opinion, but I bet you would if you were rushed and didn't know or realize it was a Tesla.

      Well exactly. A lot of us here write software. There is not one of us who would look at a bug when pointed out to us and say, "yeah, I'd do it just like that!"

    84. Re:Lies by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It's not fraud. Stop using hyperbole.

      It is plain and obviously fraud. Some have defended it by saying it is too small a fraud to worry about, others claim that everybody else does it too. Others still claim it is okay because you shouldn't expect better.

      But saying it is not a fraud at all, that is just a lie.

    85. Re:Lies by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      There is a significant literal difference between editing for sound quality, and editing for sound content.

      This is NOT a mistake where they enhanced a sound in the wrong way. It is a case where they knowingly introduced a sound from a totally different source.

      If you believe that is ok, that is fine. But it is still a lie. Some people believe news should be free of any and all knowing lies, other people only care about "big" lies, or certain types of lie.

      I suspect a lot of people are deciding they think it is OK in this case, and then going back and finding a way to explain-away the lie. This results from cognitive dissonance; you know lying is bad, and you already decided this action is OK, so this action must not be lying.

      But thinking "white lies" are OK is not the same as thinking they are true, or honest.

    86. Re:Lies by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If they have a culture where it is OK for the sound to be fake unless it is fake-enough for an editor to notice, then these kinds of mistakes should be expected to happen some percent of the time.

      Personally, I believe that having a "news" culture where it is OK to use fake sounds if they're not noticeable is already malicious intent.

    87. Re:Lies by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If I'm watching the news, I want accuracy

      Reading the other comments, it is no surprise that the only way to watch accurate news is to read it.

    88. Re:Lies by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Well, if the name of the project was "PRESENTING THE NEW TESLA!"...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    89. Re:Lies by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That must be a terrific job. I'm sure you're very good at it. That said:

      I'd definitely add tire skids and suspension sounds over bumps...

      As someone who watches movies and television, please stop it. It's downright embarrassing seeing a car gently pull up to a stop, accompanied by a sudden jarring screeching of tyres. It sticks out nearly as much as the Wilhelm scream.

      Thanks.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    90. Re:Lies by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      I suspect Geoffrey Landis knows that sound and light travel at different speeds. :)

      Mind you, not just because of his background, but because that was the emphasis of his post - that it is almost ubiquitous in the TV and film industries to edit the sound feed to "properly" match the visible scene, to the point where even "documentary" and "news" media (e.g. "60 Minutes") do it as a matter of course.

      Take this prank involving an "UltraHD" screen for example, where both the visible scene and the accompanying audio are faked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Assuming the screen really is that good, how many random people do you think you'd have to test that prank on before you found even a single person who would go, "hey that's miles away, I shouldn't be hearing the sounds at the same time as the visible effects"?

      How much of our willingness to believe in simultaneity is natural instinct/experience and how much is because TV and film have trained us to expect it?

    91. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just watch this video - Pepcon Explosion Watch the shockwave expand outward, and then a few seconds later you hear the blast itself. You also get the camera shake when the tremors hit.

    92. Re:Lies by Quila · · Score: 1

      Like in Pulp Fiction when Mr. Wolf drives away in the Lotus in the end. They didn't record the Lotus, they added sound later. Problem is that sound was of constant straight-line acceleration while the video had the car accelerating, slowing, turning a corner, and re-accelerating.

    93. Re:Lies by Phisbut · · Score: 1

      It's the (computer) mice clicks that always get me. Anyone actually have a mouse that loudly clunks in the way shown on virtually every television show, news show, etc? Even better when the visuals show they're using a laptop's touchpad...

      Didn't Windows at some point actually have a clicking sound come out of the speakers when you clicked to select something? Such a sound would still play with a touchpad. Now that was a real annoyance.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    94. Re:Lies by Quila · · Score: 1

      ahem, Acura.

    95. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the name of the project was "60 MINUTES MAR-30-14" or something?

    96. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just what do you think editors do? Your "someone" was no doubt an editor, thus it is an editing error. This is rated insightful?

    97. Re:Lies by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I was in the audience for a sitcom episode where the actors just couldn't get their lines straight. Watching them mess up horribly for multiple takes wasn't as bad as it sounded. The actors made fun of themselves/each other, made other jokes, and generally just made it all amusing. When they finally got it, it was somehow quite funny.

      Of course, they could always move laughs around with a little editing.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    98. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, love your work.

      Second, I suspect overworked newsroom audio editor doesn't have the same attention to detail that you find in a film. I'd blame simple that over malice.

    99. Re:Lies by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I do watch everything I work on before I start adding stuff. I'm not some monkey playing see-a-car, cut-a-car; I really just can't imagine the level of desultory idiocy on display here.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    100. Re:Lies by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I bet you're one of those people that doesn't like how computers constantly beep in movies too :) I personally created all the computer beeps for 2012 and White House Down. This is just an issue of convention, tires squeal in proportion to the hurry the characters are in.

      It sticks out nearly as much as the Wilhelm scream.

      I'm known as an anti-Wilhelm person, the guys from Lucasfilm love it, they still think it's an inside joke or something -- Lucasfilm maintains its sterling reputation for being 1986's state-of-the-art in all things. I think it's obnoxious, however I'm presently working on 22 Jump Street and the director's themselves personally requested I use it in one scene. Yuck.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    101. Re:Lies by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      That is a good point. Blooper reels for shows are often hysterical. (Though I have only seem them for shows/movies that were not comedies.) I suppose if the bloopers were funnier than the correct lines... well... see my original post. :)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    102. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you fact check on many things within the mainstream media news corporations, you will soon realize how often these 'errors' happen and how these 'errors' have such pathetic excuses when they are exposed.

    103. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever, even once, seen that clip shown on TV where the sound comes after the visible explosion?

      This is just my take on this, but I find that to be more visceral and "real" than Hollywood explosions e.g. where the the alien spaceship about 1,000 yards away gets hit by a laser (that made a "pew-pew" sound) and when it blows up, the explosion event is directly in sync with the "boom" it makes.

    104. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Critique of posts, from a foaming @ the mouth loony like you? Please: Witiness the SHEER INTELLIGENCE (lol - NOT) of "sardaukar86" ( a profane raving lunatic foaming @ the mouth ) http://news.slashdot.org/comme... and http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

  3. Dubbing car noise over the original footage? by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess you could say they gave it some axle foley.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Dubbing car noise over the original footage? by gaudior · · Score: 2

      Like this:
      http://youtu.be/1OXjB3-MUcs /earworm //you're welcome.

    2. Re:Dubbing car noise over the original footage? by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you to Score:6, clever/funny/awesome

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    3. Re:Dubbing car noise over the original footage? by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

      Truly amazing. Thank you.

      --
      --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    4. Re:Dubbing car noise over the original footage? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      At least have some geek class in the choice of your Axel F, please. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Dubbing car noise over the original footage? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      groaaaaaaan

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Dubbing car noise over the original footage? by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      They had to, because there was a banana in the tailpipe.

    7. Re:Dubbing car noise over the original footage? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      -2: Derp

  4. I assumed sound was from the camera vehicle by Kevoco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I too noticed it and thought it was odd but rationalized it as being the sound of the vehicle carrying the video camera.

    1. Re:I assumed sound was from the camera vehicle by hitchhacker · · Score: 1

      Noticed it also though I thought maybe Tesla had added engine noises to the vehicle.

  5. This is one thing I love about it by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Smooth, instant acceleration no matter what your current speed. It's mind blowing when you first experience it.

    I don't get how people can "miss" the sound of a regular engine, and having to shift. A good computer analogy would be "missing" having to manually input bootstrap code to get your machine going. Sure, it can be a nice bit of nostalgia, but it's a requirement of antiquated technology that no longer applies in the case of the Model S.

    I so wish I could afford that car. I hope they can get the price of its successor down into the 30s; I will jump on that SO quick.

    1. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are EVs out there for 30k today. Put your money where your mouth is.

    2. Re:This is one thing I love about it by m.ducharme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love having to manually shift, and the engine revving and all that. It's a lot of fun. I'm sure gonna miss it when I finally can afford my new Tesla. It won't stop me buying one though.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    3. Re:This is one thing I love about it by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Shifting is fun, and it give a sense of control.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      It's more fun for my 1 year old son when we pretend to be driving a race car and I make engine noises while shifting gears.

      If I didn't make the sounds, he'd just stare at me with a look like "what the hell are you doing with my arm?"

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    5. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get how people can "miss" the sound of a regular engine, and having to shift.

      Because it's beautiful.

    6. Re:This is one thing I love about it by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      There's no reason they couldn't offer a cosmetic stick as an add-on, with a soundtrack to match. It's not like petrol driven cars are above piping sound in via the speakers to improve the experience.

      --

      jh

    7. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from the fact they're all electric powered, there is simply no comparison to be made. It's the difference between a kitten and a cheetah.

    8. Re:This is one thing I love about it by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A friend of mine just bought a Tesla. As far as I know it maybe the only one in the St. Louis area. I recently bought a Chevy Volt. We were at an event and the topic came up. One of the people there asked me why I went with the volt. And the answer was fairly simple:

      My wife's commute is 15 miles round trip a day. Maybe 20 if she does some afterwork shopping. So the vast majority of the time it's running on electric. But my Dad lives ~ 70 mile round trip from us. He's older and I'm usually out there once a week to check up on him or help him clean out gutters or whatever needs to be done around his house. I have farms that are 300 mile round trip that need seen after. That is certainly a problem with a Tesla.

      Also my budget for a new car was between $25,000 - $30,000. With lower base price for 2014, tax credits, and GM card earnings the Volt fit in the price range and was a little bit smaller of a car than the Malibu Eco, which meant it fit in the garage better. (I really wish we had a 3 car garage, but...)

      Finally, there are a dozen Chevy and GM dealers around the city. I'm not even sure there is somewhere here that can do work on a Tesla.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    9. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, a better fitting computer analogy would probably be missing the sound of the turbine of a fighter jet taking, which was the usual noise with some older cooling fans, along with missing the constant reboots...

      Hmm... so a Tesla is like switching to passive cooling and kicking Windows off the machine in favor of Linux?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who gets reminded of the Jericho Trumpets on the Ju87s? At least that's how it often feels when one of those apparently sound driven cars goes by...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:This is one thing I love about it by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      You can get a similar experience with a large displacement triple or twin cylinder motorcycle. You get gobs of torque without having to shift all the time. You can get a 10 year old bike that outperforms any supercar for less than $3K used.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    12. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Sandor+at+the+Zoo · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, my Nissan Leaf has smooth, instant acceleration, at any speed under about 65 mph. The acceleration was a pleasant surprise. When you tromp on the accelerator (not the "gas pedal") the Leaf jumps. It's pretty awesome, even though the car doesn't look nearly as nice as a Tesla. But it is in the 30s, and leases are crazy cheap.

    13. Re:This is one thing I love about it by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      You can get a bike that will outperform any supercar _or_ a big v-twin. Not both.

      Arial Atoms are hyabusa fast. Faster around corners.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you play FPS games with the sound off? Can't imagine why a sound track or gunfire sounds appeal to you...

    15. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he was moving the goalposts. He said he would buy 'that car' meaning a Tesla at sub 30k, you then suggested he buy other cars that are not Teslas. It's not moving the goalposts to say he wants what he originally specified not something else.

    16. Re:This is one thing I love about it by choseph · · Score: 1

      AND driver profile configurable. Right now my wife and I have different seat positions and mirror positions (yawn), but also different creep settings, steering responsiveness, regen braking aggressiveness, etc. They could add engine noise and shift kickback as an over the air update that is profile configurable (unless you want an external speaker too for some odd reason). Eventually your profile might roam so when you get that rental fresh off a flight, it just runs the way you want it to out of the gate. No more getting used to the extreme break/gas/steering sensitivity differences between cars, set it how you like it and any car is 'your' car.

    17. Re:This is one thing I love about it by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who really killed the EV? It was the "consumer" who was beating down the manufacturer's door for an EV but never put down their cash when the manufacturer delivered on that demand.

      Tesla is, in fact, a highly profitable company. They paid off their $465 million Department of Energy loan nine years early. So the rest of your rant is irrelevant. Tesla is profitably making electric vehicles that actual customers are buying. And they already have designs coming up that will be considerably less expensive than the Model S, and will almost certainly see much higher sales figures as a result.

    18. Re:This is one thing I love about it by almitydave · · Score: 1

      I don't get how people can "miss" the sound of a regular engine, and having to shift.

      Because it's beautiful.

      One of my favorite sounding cars is the BMW M1 Procar.

      And a manual can be obnoxious in traffic (or parallel parking on ice), but in many other instances is more fun. Especially racing. There's a practical reason for a manual in racing, too, in that you get precise control of the engine speed, which is necessary to maximize traction.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    19. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its definitely not the only Tesla in the St. Louis area. There are enough around for them to have a service center there (http://www.teslamotors.com/service/stlouis), which is where you would get work done :)

    20. Re:This is one thing I love about it by tygt · · Score: 1

      I prefer manuals, but my wife has had a CVT automobile for 9 years now and absolutely loves it - even when driving she dislikes the variance in acceleration due to gear shifting (and definitely hates it as a passenger!).

      Given that the Tesla is out of our price range, when she was recently car shopping to replace her aging car, she decided he needed another CVT car - and the only one she could find that she liked was the same she had, and luckily found one with only 30k miles on it

    21. Re:This is one thing I love about it by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      how many range miles will be sacrificed to electrically amplify the sound of revving and shifting?

      --
      Have a Day!
    22. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that need to be seen after

    23. Re:This is one thing I love about it by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      missing the sound of the turbine of a fighter jet taking, which was the usual noise with some older cooling fans, along with missing the constant reboots...

      If you have to keep constantly rebooting your fighter jet in midair, somebody should be fired.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    24. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err.. In other words you couldn't afford one.

    25. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that Datsun in the beginning picking off 911 after 911. Then that M1 back firing after the long straights. :-D

    26. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except for the fact that they all suck in comparison to a Tesla.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    27. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2

      Shifting is a lot of fun, even in a little economy car. Even more so in a nice sports car.

      Having driven a Tesla Roadster.... the "instant-on" acceleration of the Tesla is even more fun. It makes you giggle like a little kid. The acceleration is so instantaneous that it is startling the first time.

      To go with it there is also a weird bit of instant-off deceleration to contend with as well, at least in the Roadster. Simply lifting your foot results in a fairly hard braking force from the electric engine. You adjust pretty quickly to leaving your foot on the accelerator to maintain speed or coast, but that first ride really emphasizes the massively different level of torque and power that you get from an electric like the Tesla Roadster.

    28. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of my "rant" didn't even deal with what you quoted. So your link certainly doesn't make the rest of it irrelevant. "Disproving"* one part of a "rant" doesn't mean the rest of it falls apart on close inspection. I know that's the way that most Slashtards do their thinking but it doesn't work like that in the rational world.
       
      And while they may have paid off a loan I wouldn't go as far as to call them profitable. Or are you suggesting that the paid off 465 million by pure company profits with all overhead paid in full? They don't have that many cars on the road. Tesla Model S is only expecting to sell 35000 units in 2014. That more than doubles how many that they've sold in total in 2012-13. The Roadster sold 2450 in its total run... Again, are you suggesting that they paid off a 465 million in loans from pure profits when they have produced less than 80,000 units total yet? That loan by itself represents 6000 dollars per unit with no other costs considered. Most of the 2014 units haven't even shipped let alone sold and that represents half their total production ever. Get real.
       
      Oh, that's right! Tesla is a publicly traded company. Amazon was publicly traded for years before they ever turned a profit. Twitter never has. But don't let those little facts bother you.
       
      * You've clearly missed the point of my asking who really killed the EV. You've made nothing irrelevant. Your "rant" has proven nothing.

    29. Re:This is one thing I love about it by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      The Model S has a 300 mile range so not sure why a ~70 mile round trip would be a problem, or even your quoted 300 mile max trip.

      As far as someone who can do work - you need to remember that because it has no gas engine at all, there is little to no matience needed on a Model S. There is no oil to change, nothing to inspect since it monitors itself. You don't need yearly checkups to maintain warranty. And if anything DOES go wrong, and there is no local service, they send a Tesla Ranger TO YOU, not the other way around.

    30. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      So I'm in the market for a new car and I've been thinking of getting a volt... I have a couple of questions...
      1. How did the battery do this winter?
      2. Did you buy the optional 220v charger?

      Overall likes/dislikes?
      I suspect if I buy one, I'll end up getting one with all the bells and whistles, etc.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    31. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get how people can "miss" the sound of a regular engine, and having to shift.

      Because you are clearly not a "car person", hence why you don't understand. It's like how some people don't get why others don't want children or why some people would want a Mac rather than a PC, and so on...

    32. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to see you have a mod account too. What a flipping fanboy shill.

    33. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      >Tesla is profitably making electric vehicles
      You might want to check that; Tesla has had one profitable quarter, making $16 million. (even that math was even somewhat questionable, how they accounted for leased vehicle revenue, and selling emission credits to other automakers....) All of the money paid back was purely from investors, the hype has made their stock sky high. Not (yet) from selling cars. Nothing wrong with that, and the reason for the hype is because many people much smarter than me believe they will be highly profitable (I don't see it, but that doesn't matter.)

    34. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked the part where you used flawed logic and snap judgments to condemn other people's flawed logic and snap judgments.

    35. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I know you're just trolling, but the next time you're going to write out a screed ("I hate it when people on Slashdot move goalposts in discussions!") and search for a post to hang it on, pick a better example post.

    36. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big part of why Tesla is profitable is the massive questionable payments from California's government.

    37. Re:This is one thing I love about it by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind dropping one of those electric motors in my Camaro so I could do things like this.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    38. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are factually incorrect. Go read Tesla's 10-K.

    39. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      how many range miles will be sacrificed to electrically amplify the sound of revving and shifting?

      Twenty-seven inches

    40. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the OP was a total moron to claim that electric cars don't up/downshift. Some electric cars DO come with multi-gear transmissions. Almost all electric cars use a tranny of sorts. Direct drive isn't the norm. Using a 2-speed or more transmission gives more potential for faster takeoffs and higher top ends. Tesla only ships one-speed transmissions at the moment, but originally they used a 2-speed tranny, with the gear locked in 2nd.

    41. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You jokers expected GM to hang on to the market when they barely had a thousand units in private hands after 2 years"

      Ok, first off, get your facts straight. There is NO AMOUNT OF MONEY that could BUY you an EV-1. They were NEVER put out for sale. You could only lease one. THAT is why most folks backed out - they actually wanted to BUY the car, but GM would not sell.

    42. Re:This is one thing I love about it by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      Battery held up fine over the winter, even on the cold days she wasn't burning any gas. I think we've filled up twice since the first of the year.

      We did have the 220v charger installed.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    43. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I see quite a few Chevy Volt(Opel Ampera mostly here) driving around, add to that the Prius and you got quite a few electric cars going. I also see charging points pop up everywhere, and electrician's are already advertising that skillset on their company cars.

    44. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Geeks and fighter pilots are the same anyway. Both break out in cold sweat when they get the message "NO CARRIER".

      (ok, that joke was more funny a decade or two ago)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:This is one thing I love about it by AaronW · · Score: 1

      My model S is configured that way. I love the one pedal driving where only heavy braking or coming to a complete stop requires the brake pedal. The response is instantaneous for acceleration. There is virtually zero lag and the acceleration is still there at high speeds as well. The torque is insane. Going up steep grades is effortless. I grew up with a stick shift but I'd put the Tesla up there as just as fun. In one of my economy cars I only used the clutch to get in and out of first gear or reverse. I'd rev match to upshift and downshift.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    46. Re:This is one thing I love about it by AaronW · · Score: 1

      I own a model S with the 85 KWh battery pack. Going 300 miles on a charge is a bit unrealistic. It's only possible if the ground is completely level and you're going 55MPh with the cruise control.

      However, all you need is a 50A 240v outlet. If you're there for a few hours you'll get plenty of charge to get back home. With my 100A dedicated charger I add around 55 miles of range per hour of charging.

      As more high-speed chargers show up trips like this will become easier. I think it's just a matter of time. The standard public charging stations are actually pretty slow, often adding no more than 18 miles of range per hour of charging.

      As for maintenance, the yearly maintenance consisted of a wheel alignment, rotating the tires, inspection, replacing the cabin air filter, wiper blades, washing and vacuuming the car and topping off the washer fluid and applying some fixes to the early versions of the car to address wind noise and rattles (which I already had). I don't know if they flushed the coolant or not since it does have an extensive coolant loop to keep the inverter, chargers, motor and battery cool. A person at the factory said the motor is lubricated for 12 years. Even the brakes should last far longer since most braking is regenerative braking. There's no transmission, spark plugs, belts, fuel or oil filters or anything else in the drive train that needs periodic service.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    47. Re:This is one thing I love about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a full service Tesla Motors facility in St. Louis:

      http://www.teslamotors.com/stlouis

      http://www.teslamotors.com/service/stlouis

      I have seen several Model S vehicles with MO plates in and around the St. Louis area.

  6. Because Hollywood. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The editors who put in car-related audio on all manner of film media are morons, plain and simple.

    I mean, these are the same guys that pipe in 'tires screeching on pavement' sounds every time the Duke boys take off, even when they're on gravel or dirt.

    Frankly, I'd be far more surprised if they didn't add a bunch of fake engine noises.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Because Hollywood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The forgot to edit-in tail-pipe smoke and someone checking dip-stick oil.

    2. Re:Because Hollywood. by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 2

      They've been adding fake noise for over 50 years. I was just watching the 1958 movie "Touch of Evil" and noticed when they added tire-squealing noise to a car turning on desert sand/dirt.

    3. Re:Because Hollywood. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The editors who put in car-related audio on all manner of film media are morons, plain and simple.

      I mean, these are the same guys that pipe in 'tires screeching on pavement' sounds every time the Duke boys take off, even when they're on gravel or dirt.

      Frankly, I'd be far more surprised if they didn't add a bunch of fake engine noises.

      I can see that for fiction shows, but 60 Minutes is a documentary. I would hope that an agency of that calibre (a) wouldn't add sound effects to video and (b) wouldn't hire morons.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Because Hollywood. by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Funny

      What surprises some people is that 60 minutes has the same dedication to facts and accurate reporting as the Dukes of Hazzard. I've stopped being surprised by that.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:Because Hollywood. by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I just figured out Hollywood was doing this maybe a few years ago. I was watching a scene of a guy modestly speeding out of a parking garage and was jarred by the inappropriate tire squealing. Since then, I always look (and find) impossible "hyper" audio cues in movies.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    6. Re:Because Hollywood. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The editors who put in car-related audio on all manner of film media are morons, plain and simple.

      I mean, these are the same guys that pipe in 'tires screeching on pavement' sounds every time the Duke boys take off, even when they're on gravel or dirt.

      Frankly, I'd be far more surprised if they didn't add a bunch of fake engine noises.

      I can see that for fiction shows, but 60 Minutes is a documentary. I would hope that an agency of that calibre (a) wouldn't add sound effects to video and (b) wouldn't hire morons.

      As my dad would say, hope in one hand and shit in the other...

      It probably has less to do with the "calibre" of the film group, and more to do with the established editing process - My guess is, post-production editors probably don't get a lot of back story on the videos they're told to edit.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Because Hollywood. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      They put in what they assume the audience expects to hear. Ever notice that when there's a shooting, witnesses often tell a reporter "I didn't think it was a gunshot...it didn't sound like one"? What they mean is, it didn't sound like a movie gunshot.

    8. Re:Because Hollywood. by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      Speaking of "Airplane!"...

    9. Re:Because Hollywood. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      It seems ***every*** piece of footage whether it be fiction, reality show, news cast, whatever of any kind of car stuff there is ***always*** some kind of dubbing. Even footage from helicopters that capture a crash, they add sound to it (I know the copter camera does not have a microphone pointed at the ground, and the sound does not travel at speed of light). Another common practice is dubbing 16mm combat war footage (all footage has been dubbed). Those cameras had no soundtrack including footage from Vietnam War with exception of a news crew that included a soundman lugging a audio tape recorder alongside cameraman.

      Obviously the "General Lee" always has tires screeching on pavement sounds when accelerating, it's tradition like the ST Enterprise whoosh sound as it travels superluminal speeds.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    10. Re:Because Hollywood. by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Well, invent a way to mic a car to accurately record that without sounding like shit? And, seriously, as I mentioned before, that footage of the duke boys taking off? Most likely shot with no sound *at all*. Everything you hear, the burnout, the engine revs, THE CAR DOOR SLAMMING (well, not in the duke boys, they jump through the window), the road sound, the goddamned birds chirping, the idle conversation going on behind the main action, all of that is foley and serves to produce an illusion of reality (or a particular reality).

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    11. Re:Because Hollywood. by burningcpu · · Score: 1

      Yes. What really gets me is that cars in movies are constantly accelerating and shifting gears like there are 500 of them to get through.

    12. Re:Because Hollywood. by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hi. I'm an audio engineer. I've done several short films, nominated for a few awards. You just called me a moron, because you don't understand what I do.

      Frankly, my dear, nobody gives a damn about what a particular car sounds like in a particular situation except for us nerds. Unless the media piece is explicitly focused on how something sounds, having realistic audio is actually distracting to the audience. There are thousands of little noises that our brains filter out because we don't care about them. Someone walks down an alley in a city at night, and their ears will pick up rustling clothes, a jingling zipper pull, creaking pipes, whistling wind, noisy cars, buzzing fans, someone shouting a block away, et cetera. Of course they'll hear their own footsteps, but that's the only thing they'll notice. A good audio engineer will strip out the soundtrack completely, add a noise floor to match the rest of the production, and dub in footsteps. Leaving in the raw audio will also leave in those background noises, but because the audience hasn't been exposed to them, the background noises stand out more, distracting the viewer from the film's actual subject.

      Having tires squeal on gravel is similar. Rather than background noise, the distracting element is that the sound just isn't what's expected. In an action shot, there usually isn't time to properly establish the scenery.

      Consider a scene where the Dukes are waiting by the side of the road, and leave in a hurry. They hop in their car, step on the gas, and rush off from a standstill. Sure, visually you can see it's a soft shoulder, but audibly, your brain hasn't bothered to think about dirt or gravel noises. The first sound most audiences associate with a fast departure like that is a squealing tire. That's what they expect, so having the more realistic grinding noise will raise a different cue in the audience's mind. They'll wonder briefly why the engine is grinding, and worry whether something bad happened to the General Lee.

      In another scene, the boys have pulled head-in to a parking space. After the iconic hood-slide, they have to back out on the gravel before they can take off. That's a chance for the audio engineer to put in a slow gravel noise, hinting to the audience that they should expect to hear gravel. By the time the car accelerates, the audio scene has been established in the listeners' minds. A fast gravel grind may be acceptable, but the squeal is still less likely to distract.

      The professional audio technique, and similar techniques on the visual medium, are a major reason behind the perceived quality difference between professional films and home movies. Subtle echoes, timing, and the selection of noises all contribute to keeping the audience focused in the direction the director wants. Blame him if something bothers you.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    13. Re:Because Hollywood. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Indeed; Elenore's apparent 18-speed gearbox is why I can't watch the Gone in 60 Seconds reboot anymore.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Because Hollywood. by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      I will also comment that this (editors are morons!) is quite frankly, insulting. I'm currently a film student and the difference in a good film and a really shitty film many times comes down to the AUDIO. The things you and I take for granted dont' quite work that well in film. Capturing different levels of background noise. An errant door slam down the street creeps into the audio, right where you're trying to do a vantage cut now gets cut off, or some constant hum of a refrigerator that's on and now the compressor is off when shooting from a different angle, you now have to compensate (and curse the asshole who didn't unplug the fridge for the shoot, and call the sound mixer and say "Dude, you couldn't hear that goddamned fridge?" or the constant 60hz hum from lighting fixtures and the like. Things *we* don't notice because it's all background noise, come through loud and clear on a recording, especially when cutting back and forth.

      It would be like an editor calling all software devs morons because "why can't they just put encryption on everything" or, better, a PHB telling you that everything is now going to be written in the latest because he read it in a magazine on the airplane. In this case, YOU are the PHB.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    15. Re:Because Hollywood. by istartedi · · Score: 1

      LOL, Now if CBS had dubbed the pocka-pocka-pocka sound of a Model T over the Tesla, that would have been "Airplane!".

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    16. Re:Because Hollywood. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Hi. I'm an audio engineer. I've done several short films, nominated for a few awards. You just called me a moron, because you don't understand what I do.

      Yea, sorry about that - after some thought I realized that it's probably not the fault of the editor himself, but rather some clueless network/show executive who saw the clip and bitched about "why the fuck doesn't that car sound like a car?!?!" Plus, the industry has been doing this sort of thing since forever, and I know old habits can be hard to break.

      Personally, I'd love to get into audio engineering myself, albeit my interests are geared more towards the musical than theatrical.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:Because Hollywood. by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

      That's true for audio-only recording work as well. The musical performance that sounds wonderful when heard live will turn out to have all sorts of background noise (noisy HVAC, people moving about, things being dropped, audience whispers, and so on, not to mention cell phones).

      --
      Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
    18. Re:Because Hollywood. by uberdilligaff · · Score: 1

      And you, sir, have hit the nail precisely on the head. 60 Minutes never has been a news show -- it has always been an entertainment show featuring somewhat sensationalized "investigative journalism". You should never be surprised that shock entertainment, "gotcha" editing, and enhanced video clips win out over actual facts and integrity as presentation values at CBS.

      --
      Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
    19. Re:Because Hollywood. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Well, Stay tuned. If the editors are outsourced to China, you may start being surprised!

    20. Re:Because Hollywood. by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a security engineer (who used to be a dev, and still codes sometimes), software devs that don't encrypt (and authenticate) sensitive data *are* morons. I really don't care if it was the PHB's orders or not; I would be ashamed to be responsible for such schlock.

      Returning to the subject at hand, boo-fucking-hoo your job is hard. Too bad. SUCK IT UP AND DO IT RIGHT! Complaining about the people who left the fridge plugged in? Sure. Editing out the noise of an errant car door? Ok, fine. Editing *in* noise that doesn't belong there at all anybody with an IQ above room temperature could tell you that? What are you *doing*, you flaming idiot? If you're going to go adding sounds that your mic didn't pick up, at least display the minimum level of competence, integrity, and pride in your work required to ensure they are the *right* sounds!

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    21. Re:Because Hollywood. by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      Much like 24FPS shooting (and no, HFR doesn't look like a "home movie" to me, it looks like it was done with technology from this century rather than people being too cheap to replace cameras from the 50s), the time for that kind of bullshit has passed. It is passé, it insults the intelligence of the viewers, and if you tell us we're supposed to like it we will cheerfully *and accurately* insult your intelligence too!

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    22. Re:Because Hollywood. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      ... it's tradition like the ST Enterprise whoosh sound as it travels superluminal speeds.

      That's different. Variations in the warp field induce currents in the audio circuitry of the camera - producing the "sound". Everybody knows sound itself doesn't travel in a vacuum. You're hearing a side effect, like phantom pain in an amputated limb.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    23. Re:Because Hollywood. by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      They totally get the bird calls wrong; they have no concept of birdsong that is local to the actual location. The classic eagle scream that you hear all the time is a red-tailed hawk. The Australian Kookaburra is heard in all the jungle movies. The ugly, urban House Sparror is dubbed onto rural scenes to make them seem natural. One of few movies to get it right was Ann of Green Gables.

    24. Re:Because Hollywood. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Asking for quality sound on Dukes of Hazard is like asking for clean flies on a pile of poop. Some people are anal about the wrong things (no pun intended).

    25. Re:Because Hollywood. by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      You're not supposed to like it, and you're not supposed to dislike it. You're supposed to not even notice it at all, because the product should perfectly match your expectations. That your expectations are in the minority does not make such efforts "bullshit", and your easily-insulted intelligence does not have any bearing on my own.

      Most folks watch a movie to see an entertaining movie, not to get the perfect auditory experience of a 1967 Chevy rolling over limestone gravel on a clear summer day in Illinois. If that perfect sound gets in the way of the movie, then it's wrong, regardless of your desire for accuracy.

      Similarly, high frame rates are jarring to most audience members who have grown up watching 24FPS. It's not as jarring as unedited audio, but it's still not what people are expecting. On the other hand, more frames gives the visual guys more room to work, so directors may elect to sacrifice expectations for stunning visual effects. As that higher frame rate becomes more common, more people's expectations will match yours, and higher frame rates will be more common. Likewise, if there's an actual trend toward audio verisimilitude, rather than just a self-righteous commenter on the Internet who swears he hears every little mistake, directors will have a reason to include realistic audio. Until then, to be quite blunt, it's your problem.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    26. Re:Because Hollywood. by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      Most people have never taken a ride inside let alone drive a manual transmission so to them the constant shifting of a car makes it sound exotic and sporty I suppose.

      But if you think what Hollywood has done to cars is atrocious believe me when I say how Hollywood portrays guns should be a crime; my particular favorite is when the sound editor adds in the sound of a gun's hammer being pulled but the gun they're using is striker fired or when the sound editors make a gun sound like its full of paperclips and loose change instead of a well built precision machine.

    27. Re:Because Hollywood. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I thought semis actually have like 18 gears? Sure, semi vs. car, though.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    28. Re:Because Hollywood. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a security engineer (who used to be a dev, and still codes sometimes), software devs that don't encrypt (and authenticate) sensitive data *are* morons. I really don't care if it was the PHB's orders or not; I would be ashamed to be responsible for such schlock.

      My day job a while ago was as a software developer working on sensitive medical data. It's actually really difficult to do productive work when all of your materials are encrypted. Apart from some very specific computations that can be run on encrypted data, everything has to be decrypted for processing. That means the system doing the processing is inside the security boundary for unencrypted medical data, requiring a HIPAA-compliant secure facility. Once you've established that level of security, it's a small expense to move storage inside the boundary as well, reducing the development and overhead cost to handle the encryption and decryption cycles.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    29. Re:Because Hollywood. by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I can see that for fiction shows, but 60 Minutes is a documentary. I would hope that an agency of that calibre (a) wouldn't add sound effects to video and (b) wouldn't hire morons.

      Pretty much everything has the audio track redone. It's prohibitively expensive to put microphones everywhere as you're shooting, and directional mic technology still isn't enough to reduce background noise as much as you'd like in many cases. So you dub in sound. I recall an interview about some B&W movie from the 1940s or 1950s which was lauded for its sound editing. One particular scene had a couple talking while riding a horse-driven carriage outdoors on a dirt road. The original soundtrack had too much background noise so they re-dubbed the entire conversation in the studio. The director then reviewed it and felt something was wrong but couldn't quite put his finger on it. The next day he figured it out. The audio was now too perfect - it was missing the little variations in the voices which you'd expect if their seats were bouncing up and down. So they got back in the sound studio, set up a wood plank sitting between two rails, had the actor and actress sit on the plank while a stage hand bounced it like the carriage they were riding in, and they dubbed the whole conversation again.

      Documentaries are actually some of the worst offenders. All those nature documentaries with a telephoto shot of lions snarling at each other while eating an antelope? Or an overhead helicopter shot of a wolf chasing down a rabbit which opens its mouth and bleats when it's caught? Or a shark thrashing the water as it tears off a chunk of the cow shoulder they're using as bait? Completely fake sound. Unlike fictional movies which can be shot in a quiet studio, nature documentaries have to be shot in the wild, meaning the original soundtrack is frequently unusable (you didn't really think they had some stealth helicopter they used for those overhead shots, did you?).

      Do you know what else can't be shot in a studio? That's right, cars in motion.

    30. Re:Because Hollywood. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      One of the first shorts I did had a pair of talking heads, with the camera cutting between them. We recorded in the same room, with the same audio setup. We recorded one actor's lines first, then just panned and moved the mic to record the other actor. Even just changing the mic's angle changed the background noise level significantly.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    31. Re:Because Hollywood. by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Right, especially if you're using the incamera mic. It's pointed "forward" and anything behind the source you're recording also gets picked up, which is why we boom from the top, typically, pointing down as less noise bounces. It's not fool proof. We did a small shoot and the damned industrial HVAC units on top of a building a few football field's length kept a constant drone in the background and even with booms it'd do the same thing you're describing.

      And this is just sound, lighting is also a bitch, especially as a shoot goes on. The angle of the sun, for example, changes over a long shoot and across different angles. Astute viewers can pick out inconsistencies in the time of day, for example. I believe it was American Graffiti that took weeks to shoot the race scene because they only had an hour in the morning and at night during the "golden hour" to shoot.. if you watch carefully you can see the difference in morning and evening time, etc.

      I've got 3 videos to shoot in the next few months, and Im anxious to get back in the mix. I don't plan to record sound, though (they're all music videos), and am planning quite a bit of foley work afterwards if I can't get a boom for a couple scenes.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    32. Re:Because Hollywood. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      For some reason, that sentence invokes some seriously racist mental imagery, the kind that shouldn't be repeated even in unpleasant company. Think "Eric Cartman meets Glenn Beck"

      Funny as hell inside my head, though.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    33. Re:Because Hollywood. by FlynnMP3 · · Score: 2

      Related to this topic, although I have no desire to question your experience or how you are doing your job, is the question "have you noticed movie audiences get smarter over the years in regards to the movie watching experience, specifically in regards to sound?"

      The easiest visual example of movie audiences getting smarter is wanting better and better special effects. For those times humans are the VFX, the uncanny valley is a known problem - that still today VFX houses have problems overcoming.

      With sound, like most technical people, I appreciate accuracy. One of my favorite movies for sound design/editing is "Speed" yet I know from watching various extras on that film there are quite a few liberties taken by the sound designer to give the audience participant a more visceral impact/feeling during some of the more intense action sequences. Disregarding Foley effects, since by their very nature are audio cues that are supposed to trick the mind.

      I don't watch TV today, so I don't know, but does the squealing tires on pavement still happen quite a bit? I would expect Dukes of Hazard to have it since it was an old show, but surely audiences have advanced over the years? The Wilhelm scream, as you know, has become sort of an tongue-in-cheek joke when it is heard in a movie today. Again, I would hope that is a good example of audiences becoming smarter over the years. And for my biggest pet peeve, the sheathing/unsheathing sound of swords with leather scabbards. Watching the extras on LoTR, this was used because that is what most audiences expect, even if it is incorrect. That sound is still used almost without fail. The argument possibly being that these movies are fantasy and basis in reality has little use.

      The core question stands, have TV/Movie audiences gotten smarter over the years such that some additional accuracy is warranted and appreciated? Or is the predominant audience still watching the Kardashians and don't care at all?

    34. Re:Because Hollywood. by FlynnMP3 · · Score: 1

      *sigh* squealing tires on gravel...I meant to say. Multiple edits and I still didn't catch it.

    35. Re:Because Hollywood. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      They hop in their car, step on the gas, and rush off from a standstill. Sure, visually you can see it's a soft shoulder, but audibly, your brain hasn't bothered to think about dirt or gravel noises. The first sound most audiences associate with a fast departure like that is a squealing tire.

      Yes, but why do people think that? Could it be because they've seen it on TV? Having driven cars pretty hard in my youth, they just don't do some of the things you guys make them do. You're filling in the sounds people expect to hear, but we only expect to hear them because someone else put them there before, causing us to hear them.

      Fights are another example. Nobody sounds like that when they get hit.

    36. Re:Because Hollywood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to completely miss the point. The point was editing in fake sounds to what most people would consider a serious "news" show in a way that conflicted with reality to a point that discredited the entire show and made you look like an idiot for doing it.

      You are a moron - because you just admitted that you lie professionally and you do it so well that nobody understands your genius.

      So you never have any idea on what you're dubbing in for? At all?

      Seems to me that this might be a problem. Especially if you're "preparing" things for a TV show, an actual honest to god trial, or an episode of the news.

      Some personal ethics that show that you're not a sociopath and just in it for the money might well be appreciated here by the rest of us. Have some professional pride and care about what you're working on.

    37. Re:Because Hollywood. by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Consider a scene where the Dukes are waiting by the side of the road, and leave in a hurry. They hop in their car, step on the gas, and rush off from a standstill. Sure, visually you can see it's a soft shoulder, but audibly, your brain hasn't bothered to think about dirt or gravel noises. The first sound most audiences associate with a fast departure like that is a squealing tire.

      This has actually been pointed out by everyone I know, including my kids. You're the only ones who think that we don't all notice and think it's totally wrong. Hence, you are a moron.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    38. Re:Because Hollywood. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      As that higher frame rate becomes more common, more people's expectations will match yours...

      As accurate Foley sounds become more common, more people's expectations will match yours...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    39. Re:Because Hollywood. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      That was just a random example.

      Change the sentence to, "...every time the [insert chosen car-based character] take off" it it makes more sense that way.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    40. Re:Because Hollywood. by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Sure, visually you can see it's a soft shoulder, but audibly, your brain hasn't bothered to think about dirt or gravel noises. The first sound most audiences associate with a fast departure like that is a squealing tire. That's what they expect

      No, actually that only what audio engineers expect. The rest of us in the audience are sitting there thinking, "Why the hell are the tires squealing on gravel? The audio engineer must be a moron."

    41. Re:Because Hollywood. by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's amusing to listen for sound errors. Until recently, bird sound tended to be very generic. Recently, some shows seem to make an effort to have birds likely to be in the area and even appropriate seasonal calls.

    42. Re:Because Hollywood. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      We had a top boom, but there was a stairwell next to one actor with an exhaust fan upstairs. The plan was to keep the boom closer to center between the actors and change the angle, so the amount of noise from the mic's side would be somewhat constant. In sound checks it was better than having more movement of a vertical mic, but in editing the changes were pretty obvious.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    43. Re:Because Hollywood. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      In short, no. The predominant audience for mass media are the same masses that care about the Kardashians.

      That said, there are aspects of sound design that are being noticed. I've often half-joked that if I do my job right, nobody knows I'm there (noting that I mostly do live sound reinforcement, where there are fewer expectations to meet). It's getting harder to pull off the perfect unnoticeable audio edit... but on the other hand, the trend is now to have nearly-constant background music, so many of my mistakes can be covered.

      What people notice more today are the cuts. Most audience members still won't notice that a particular bird call won't be heard near a particular tree, but they will be more likely to notice if an actor's voice changes between scenes. The old practice of having a professional singer dubbed over an actor is more difficult to pull off now, mostly because the audience is aware that such things are done. They hear the opening notes of the song, and it's become a game to hear the voice change.

      I think the Wilhelm scream is also a great example. I simply refuse to use it. Especially with the influence of the Internet, the common effects are becoming a sort of secret society. Learning the clips and catching them in media is a moment of exclusivity. For just a moment you, the astute viewer, are immune to the effects of manipulative editors like me. Good for you. You've proven to yourself that you can still override your suspension of disbelief. All of those other silly folks in the theater are engrossed in the latest multi-million-dollar effects orgy, but you are better than they are, because you can see that the movie is just smoke and mirrors.

      Yes, the squealing on gravel is still present, but gravel in general has fallen out of use, apart from period pieces (which wouldn't usually have cars, anyway). Most of the shows I've noticed lately have urban settings, or at least try to stay out of the dirt. It's hell on equipment, and gravel roads are rare enough today that it no longer breaks suspension of disbelief to see a country town with pavement.

      In not-so-short, audiences are becoming more knowledgeable about the tools editors use, but I don't see them getting "smarter" about being able to notice equalization, mic placement, or most other things besides the obvious overused clips.

      As I view audio as an art form, I also disagree with the very use of the term "smart" as you've used it. Appreciation of an art form, imperfections and all, is just as intellectual a pursuit as identifying regional bird calls. Should we call Michelangelo a moron, because David's hands are too big?

      My comments are also getting to be far too big today...

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    44. Re:Because Hollywood. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      If you didn't notice an edit that matched your inaccurate expectations, you wouldn't ever know it worked. All you know are the few times you caught the edit. Good job. You and everyone you know, including your children, are apparently pedants.

      The other 99% of what you heard while you were entertained? It was all fake too, but your confirmation bias doesn't care about that.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    45. Re:Because Hollywood. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I can see that for fiction shows, but 60 Minutes is a documentary.

      60 Minutes is trash. It used to be a fantastic show with real standards, but in the past few decades it frittered away its reputation. Now it's simply known for the embarrassing mistakes it makes.

    46. Re:Because Hollywood. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I get that you're being defensive and if I were in your position I might too, but the point he was making is that LOTS of people notice those generic sounds added in to inappropriate situations. And, get this, those sounds were not what they were expecting. See the summary heading for an example.

      You can only go dismissing people who point out problems with your work as pedants for so long before you must start noticing there actually is a problem.

      This goes double for any show purporting to be somehow connected to reality (60 minutes for example).

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    47. Re:Because Hollywood. by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      So... if we *do* notice you're there (because your edits add things that are obviously unnatural to anybody who doesn't go through life half-asleep) does that mean you're doing your job wrong? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

      Nobody objects to removing incidental sounds that are distracting (although a complete lack of background sounds, such as some older movies have in a number of shots that obviously shouldn't be so silent, is quite bad itself and "makes me see the stage" if you will, breaking immersion). We object to gratuitously *fake* editing (that being, after all, the topic of this whole discussion). And yes, it's gratuitous. Nobody is going to unhappy because the tires grind on gravel instead of screeching on pavement unless there is, in fact, pavement under said tires. The reverse (demonstrably) is not true.

      Besides, there's still a lot you can do by adjusting what sounds are focused on (even if the mic barely caught them the first time). For example, a patter of falling gravel following the departure is the audible equivalent of a cloud of dust: it's what we expect from a fast departure on gravel (as opposed to a leisurely/polite one) because it's what actually happens.

      Note that I never watched Dukes, so maybe there's some reason you couldn't establish (even after the fact) that they were on gravel, but I find it very hard to believe that the gravel was *so* incidental to the setting that squealing tires on pavement is *less* likely to break suspension of disbelief.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    48. Re:Because Hollywood. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I was going to comment on "giving people what they expect" being at the forefront of the problem with movies and TV today but thought better of it so I'll just add this:

      A couple more benefits of HFR:
      The ability to have action occur while the camera is panning/tilting, since the viewer will be able to track what is happening rather than seeing a blurry mess.
      Better sense of actual motion and reality, a positive for many cinema goers. The introduction of sound and colour also incrementally contributed to this.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    49. Re:Because Hollywood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would expect the metallic sound of sheathing and unsheathing a sword in a leather scabbard to be due to the metallic rim that is usually placed at the entrance to the scabbard. This would act as a guard which keeps the blade from slicing through and damaging the scabbard upon withdrawal or reinsertion. I doubt it ever had to do with the main leather body of the scabbard.

    50. Re:Because Hollywood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not any different than the whooshing and engine noises of spaceships from the outside...

    51. Re:Because Hollywood. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Dismissing obvious bias is valid. PRMan's bias is obvious, shown by the use of absolutes.

      As for 60 Minutes' dubbing being obvious, Google can show us just how many people noticed or cared. Looking at the first several results, the only "LOTS of people" were Tesla enthusiasts already.

      The point I'm making is that the claim that inaccurate sound is widely noticed is primarily the result of heavy confirmation bias. Incidents where a rough cut or particularly awkward clip were used are remembered because they align with the observer's preconceived notion. Incidents where the sound was mixed well are not remembered, because the audio quality was not notable.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    52. Re:Because Hollywood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AC said: "why can't they just put encryption on everything".

      You replied with: "software devs that don't encrypt (and authenticate) sensitive data *are* morons"

      He said one thing and you jumped all over him with a reply about a different thing. Or do you not understand what the word "on everything" means and how that relates to the previous text?

    53. Re:Because Hollywood. by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      "The first sound most audiences associate with a fast departure like that is a squealing tire."

      Something you should think about: as a child, the first sound I associated with a fast departure was a squealing tire because I first saw a fast departure on TV. Ironically, it might even have been the Dukes of Hazard.

      Seriously, I grew up in a place where the most exciting real thing to happen on anything approaching a regular basis was the weekend ice cream van (which certainly was not "fast"). Car chases, explosions, gunfire, etcetera - I only ever saw those on TV.

      How much of your audience expects these sound effects your profession puts in because your profession was the primary or only source they had?

    54. Re:Because Hollywood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro.

    55. Re:Because Hollywood. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You're talking about the Dukes of Hazzard (an action/fiction show).
      The article is talking about 60 Minutes which is supposedly a factual news programme, the two have different requirements. In a factual programme it shouldn't be necessary to dub in engine noise.

    56. Re:Because Hollywood. by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Having tires squeal on gravel is similar. Rather than background noise, the distracting element is that the sound just isn't what's expected. In an action shot, there usually isn't time to properly establish the scenery.

      Which is interesting from a European background. We've definitely noticed for a long time, and our cars don't squeal nearly as much in the movies as US ones do. It was something I grew up with, learning that american cars apparently squealed their tires on ever turn. I even remember news pieces talking about the difference in tire technology between the US the Europe and how american cars actually squealed more IRL than ours... Wasn't so, it turned out.

      So, given that we've gotten rid of bullets going an annoying "pew pew" in was movies, is there any chance of US cars not squealing their way around every single corner?

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  7. The noise problem is not just a TV one. by netsavior · · Score: 2

    This, combined with something I saw in a parking lot yesterday make me think again about electric cars.
    I saw a guy text-walking in a parking lot, he nearly hit by a prius which was in low speed electric mode. (yeah that is a user problem, but the guy wouldn't have walked in front of a glass-packed V8 mustang.)

    People expect cars to make noise. Television is a decent example since it just happened, but in real life, cars make noise, which warns peds, motorcycles, bicyclists, and other cars that there is 2 tons of metal, plastic, and rubber about to hit them.



    Nearly silent, high performance cars remove one of the basest instinct protections we have against current squids driving fast cars (they are loud, so you know they are doing something stupid even before you see them). I imagine some detroit dinosaur who owns a few dozen politicians could latch on to this and require electrics to make some kind of noise.. which will be pretty funny once the hacker/teenager crowd starts modding them.

    Mine will probably play Yakkety Sax until I get a DMCA takedown notice,

    1. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      Please not Yakkety Sax. "Officer, I was totally justified--he was disturbing the peace!"

    2. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by zdzichu · · Score: 2
      --
      :wq
    3. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's actually something that's happening. Apparently it's quite an interesting design challenge: you don't have to make it sound exactly like an automobile, so there's room to produce a "better" sound. One that provides more directional cues, maybe, or carries more consistent information on vehicle speed, or which is subtly distinguishable for each car so that you can better understand a busy street.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Even gas cars are pretty quiet. I drive up behind parking lot idiots quite often and they don't hear my Camry till I am within several feet.

      Its a problem for pedestrians and cyclists. We could just let natural selection solve it for us.

    6. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      text-walking is an evolutionary dead end

    7. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Even gas cars are pretty quiet. I drive up behind parking lot idiots quite often and they don't hear my Camry till I am within several feet.

      I think that's more a pedestrian-with-their-head-up-their-ass issue, as I've had the same thing happen to me while driving my large, 4x4 pickup.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Squids driving fast cars isn't such a great idea either.

    9. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Or pedestrians with hearing problems. We exist too.

    10. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I would call this instinct just a conditioned response. Maybe we just need more quiet cars to finally realize that having your attention on texting isn't always the smarted way to walk.

    11. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by operagost · · Score: 2

      Or just sound like KITT, which would be totally boss.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Bomarc · · Score: 1

      Not to long ago, I watched as someone was texting -- walked into an intersection (crosswalk) against the (pedestrian) light. The on-coming traffic (with a normal engine) had to stop as to not hit her. As she approached me -- I told her "you just walked against the light and forced that car to stop" ... to which she replied "I'm sorry" and continued what she was doing. (Hey, I'm not the one that is going to get plowed into by not paying attention). Darwin candidate?

      The point being: If someone is not paying attention - and walks into the street, engine noise (or lack of it) is not going to make a lot of difference, only an excuse for lawyers after the fact. (He knew his car was quite -- he should have watched out for that pedestrian!)

    13. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just put air horns on you Tesla. Then sneak-up behind the text-walker and see how far they can broadjump.

    14. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess I was a bit insensitive to some. However, I would guess the hearing impaired are less likely to "not be paying attention".

    15. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      WHAT?

      Ha, j/k, yo.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    16. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly different perspective here, I was walking in a parking lot and nearly hit by a prius as well. The only major difference is that I am legally blind. Someone could make a serious reasonable argument for mandating some sort of noise coming from an electric car for just such a situation. If we can have audible crosswalks for the blind then why would we not use artificial noise for electrics? Not hating here, just a very different perspective on a safety issue.

    17. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No it's fine now that cars are loaded with a thousand pounds of airbags, electro-nannies and tank-like structural reinforcement.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      Hey Navy pukes can drive fast cars just as will as the rest of the public.

    19. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      That is a situation in which I would feel completely justified in leaning on the horn (assuming it wasn't late at night or in a residential neighborhood) until the idiot got out of the way. Not because they need the audio cue (although it might help them realize what a dick they were being) but because car horns are (intentionally) rather grating on the nerves, and some negative reinforcement would do that moron good.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    20. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Why not? With all those arms, they really can drive, talk on a cellphone, eat a McBarf burger, and do their makeup.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    21. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Mine will be the sound of a person saying "Vroom! Vroom!" every time I press the gas pedal down and "Screeeeetch!" every time I press the breaks.

      Obviously the car would be soundproofed so I do not hear these.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    22. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Earlier I posted that I would want an ironic sound; but no, this is much much better!

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    23. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by sjbe · · Score: 2

      I saw a guy text-walking in a parking lot, he nearly hit by a prius which was in low speed electric mode.

      And that's the fault of the Prius? Sounds like a guy trying for a Darwin award to me.

      People expect cars to make noise.

      Then they should learn to adjust their expectations instead of demanding noise pollution. (yeah I know they won't) Cars should make less noise, not more.

      Mine will probably play Yakkety Sax until I get a DMCA takedown notice,

      Even though I don't really like the idea of artificial noise, I would fall down laughing the first time I saw that.

    24. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Or pedestrians with hearing problems. We exist too.

      Which is exactly why we should not be relying on sound or alarms or flashing lights to warn pedestrians. As a driver you are responsible. You must assume the other person is not aware of you at all unless they are looking directly at your car. And if the pedestrian is a child, you should just assume they are going to run out in front of you at any moment.

      I drive a surprisingly quiet gas powered sports car, it goes from quiet to rather loud quite quickly, which can be rather fun. I have also failed to notice the car was already started when it was sitting idle with the radio on. :)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    25. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, mine would sound like the bell (or music) from the ice cream truck. Everybody knows when he is coming, from two streets away.

    26. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      What does a marine invertebrate have to do with operating a land vehicle?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    27. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Hmm...probably should have replied to OP after further consideration. Sorry.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    28. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      This is in the same category as people who can't seem to manage reading from notes/a script at the same time as maintaining occasional eye contact with their audience.

      In other news, I can walk and chew gum at the same time, too.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    29. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I want the flubber powered car sound.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
      The original, not that horrible remake.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    30. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Collective+0-0009 · · Score: 1

      I imagine some detroit dinosaur who owns a few dozen politicians could latch on to this and require electrics to make some kind of noise.. which will be pretty funny once the hacker/teenager crowd starts modding them. Mine will probably play Yakkety Sax until I get a DMCA takedown notice,

      Mine is going to sound just like my gas powered car... WOO WOO.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
    31. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I would like to have car tones. Choose from warp engine, George Jetson's bubble car, Fred Flintstone's feet, horse, coconuts, model T, etc.

    32. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Or you could like we've done since time immemorial and stick a baseball card in the wheel.

      Or just hire some bros to follow you around with a boombox playing your theme music.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    33. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by Twinbee · · Score: 2

      Thanks but no thanks. The one chance we have to remove noise pollution from our roads, and then we have threats it'll come back. The *invisible* damage to all our minds caused by noise pollution in busy towns and streets is worth FAR more in cost than the cost of a few accidents and even lives. People will adapt - they will learn to look where they're going instead of just blindly texting and paying no attention to the road.

      Also remember that with towns much quieter (due to no ICE noises), we can hear tire noise a LOT more easily. Rather than making quiet vehicles louder, it's much better we make loud vehicles quieter.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    34. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by swillden · · Score: 1

      I saw a guy text-walking in a parking lot, he nearly hit by a prius which was in low speed electric mode. (yeah that is a user problem, but the guy wouldn't have walked in front of a glass-packed V8 mustang.)

      This is why my Nissan LEAF has a speaker in the driver's side wheel well, which makes noise whenever the car is moving at less than 20 mph. The noise isn't engine noise, it's a better noise that sweeps a broader spectrum of the audible range to help ensure that even people whose hearing misses certain frequencies can hear it. It also sounds space-agey, which tends to get peoples' attention even better than engine noises.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    35. Re:The noise problem is not just a TV one. by raluxs · · Score: 1

      And you didn't take a video and post it in youtube? talk about missed oportunities

  8. Not only for Tesla or videos by BlackPignouf · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not only for Tesla, and not just on videos either.
    Engines are getting more efficient and quieter every year, and cars are better insulated as well. Customers are disappointed when they spend big bucks on a car only to find out it doesn't sound like a big old sport car.
    The solution? Manufacturers actually add speakers next to the engine, exhaust and inside the car.
    You sometimes get V8 sound out of a V6 car :)

    http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...

    1. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could all play "the hamster dance" song as they go down the street? Or maybe loop something from "what the fox says".

      "Da ding ding dinga ding" -- "oh, here comes another Tesla!"

    2. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Even the current generation of F1 cars don't have the noise they used to. People are complaining...

    3. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Obviously the only reasonable solution is to legally mandate that electric car manufacturers put proximity sensors on all their vehicles, that triggers when a pedestrian is within X feet, and plays "Dixie" on the car horn at about 165 db.

      The mental image of a sleek, shiny new Tesla blasting that cheesy tune as it rolls up to a crosswalk... priceless.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ...
      The solution? Manufacturers actually add speakers next to the engine, exhaust and inside the car. .../p>

      Well, I hope they add speakers inside the car, makes listening to music easier. As for putting speakers next to the engine and exhaust, why would they do that? Does the engine & exhaust need to hear the music also?

      I think think they would put a microphone next to the engine and exhaust and hook that to the speakers inside the car, or maybe give it special speakers. But I don't know, maybe your on to something....

      --
      Be seeing you...
    5. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.carscoops.com/2013/03/sounds-like-gt-r-spirit-why-new-renault.html

    6. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Funny

      They should just play Yakety Sax. That makes *everything* speed up!

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    7. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by DavidMZ · · Score: 2

      Or a V6 sound out of a 3 cylinders 0.9 liter engine in the case of a renault clio

    8. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      The external speakers aren't for the engine or the driver, it's to let the hot chicks know how much you paid for your car.
      From the above article :
      "Volkswagen previously used a resonator tube similar to the Mustang’s in its GTI but has switched to what it calls a “Soundaktor.” This system is like the M5’s, in that an audio file is stored on the car’s computer and then played during certain throttle applications. Unlike the more selective M5 setup, VW’s broadcasts all the noise from under the hood through a dedicated speaker located near the engine’s throttle body. Soundaktor speakers are currently making noise in the GTI, GLI, and Beetle Turbo."

    9. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      The solution? Manufacturers actually add speakers next to the engine, exhaust and inside the car. You sometimes get V8 sound out of a V6 car :)

      I want a BMW X6 M. 550 HP V-8 w/500 ft-lb of torque in a mid-size. Yet, despite this ridiculous amount of power, BMW felt the need to pipe in engine noise through the stereo system. Do they think we're all that dumb?

    10. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The image of yet another pedestrian walking with their head under their arm, walking straight into the traffic... priceless

      Why are you angry at people buying a different car than you? be angry at idiots in traffic no matter which car (or in the case of pedestrians not paying attention and causing dangerous issues for everyone around them)

      We do not force bicycles to make sounds either, they have bells, cars have horns, pedestrians have eyes. all of them have responsibility to use it.

      The noice or lack of it is not a huge issue, and with time there will be even less traffic sounds, so the walking and bicycling will have to be on their toes when crossing the road (which is there primarilly for cars)

      It is a social issue, people should not walk, bike, drive or fly around not paying attention - doing so might get you killed. (and being legally in the right is not much use when you are dead)

    11. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we as society could accept that less noise in our daily lives is a good thing. and people who walk around not paying attention is acceptable colateral damage. with time we will all learn that we need to look where we walk - or die trýing.

    12. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether it's a quieter engine, better insulation, or both, but I can tell a big difference between my 2014 Nissan Altima, and any of the cars I had before it. Much quieter. I would think a hybrid or pure electric would be even quieter.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    13. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      How about Thus Spake Zarathustra? :D Or maybe the theme from Jaws.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    14. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution? Manufacturers actually add speakers next to the engine, exhaust and inside the car.

      I've got a better solution - let Darwin work his magic and thin the herd.

    15. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could all play "the hamster dance" song

      But only if you have a Kia wagon...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    16. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1


      The solution? Manufacturers actually add speakers next to the engine, exhaust and inside the car.

      Interesting, because more and more in-vehicle entertainment systems are touting Active Noise Cancellation to reduce engine and road noise inside the vehicle.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    17. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      The speaker idea is fine, but it should never be enforced. If people want silence in their car (to listen to the radio, hold a conversation, or just not be irritated by a constant whining/growling drone sound), then that option should be available.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    18. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      Still wouldn't excuse it on cars that replace displacement/cylinders with air.

      If the engine can't do it, faking it with air or noise won't help.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    19. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by antdude · · Score: 1

      What about motorcycles? They're still loud. Ugh.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    20. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      get a big enough amp to make a sound like one of these F1s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    21. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's not only for Tesla, and not just on videos either.
      Engines are getting more efficient and quieter every year, and cars are better insulated as well. Customers are disappointed when they spend big bucks on a car only to find out it doesn't sound like a big old sport car.

      A lot of customers now want a quieter car (not me of course, I love hearing my K20 rev to 8000). However engines and exhausts have been getting quieter for ages now, I owned a 98 Honda Civic in 2010, it was damn quiet for a 12 year old car because when the EK Civic was designed in the mid 90's it was designed to be quiet.

      I think you'll find a lot more people, especially in places like Asia and Europe are upset that their expensive car sounds like a tractor (to be fair, it's often their fault for buying a diesel).

      However putting speakers on is not a good way to create a decent engine note, you do that by putting a different exhaust on. Some European cars will actually inject a small drop of petrol into the exhaust to produce a crackling sound (Jag F-type and some Audi's off the top of my head).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    22. Re:Not only for Tesla or videos by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Hey, man, the hospital called - they said your sense of humor's condition has become terminal.

      Better start making final arrangements, and sorry about your loss.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  9. Continuously variable transmission by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 2

    Cars with CVT don't shift either.

    1. Re:Continuously variable transmission by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Is there a transmission in the Tesla S? I thought it was just a virtue of electric motors that they have high torque at all speeds.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    2. Re:Continuously variable transmission by sidevans · · Score: 1

      How does the "Continuously variable transmission" work if it doesn't shift gears?

      --
      I'm not signing anything
    3. Re:Continuously variable transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magic.

      Or it uses a pair of cylindrical pyramids that move around.

      like this

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GearBoxRotRotVar.gif

    4. Re:Continuously variable transmission by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      CVT doesn't have gears. Instead, it smoothly "shifts" by making its pulleys wider or narrower. The angled gap that the belt rides on thus gets bigger or smaller, which takes the place of having separate gears.

    5. Re:Continuously variable transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cars with CVT don't shift either.

      Not true. Subaru's CVT has a manual mode that restricts the transmission to fixed ratios.

      http://www.subaruofkeene.com/subaru-cvt-transmission.htm

    6. Re:Continuously variable transmission by stjobe · · Score: 2

      "A continuously variable transmission (CVT) is a transmission that can change seamlessly through an infinite number of effective gear ratios between maximum and minimum values. This contrasts with other mechanical transmissions that offer a fixed number of gear ratios. The flexibility of a CVT allows the input shaft to maintain a constant angular velocity."
        - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission

      My 2012 Toyota iQ 1.33 has one, and it's the smoothest ride you could ask for. A passenger once commented "You never hear it changing gears", to which I answered "that's because it never does" :)

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    7. Re:Continuously variable transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A CVT still has gears. It can't do reverse without them.

    8. Re:Continuously variable transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think those are called cones.

    9. Re:Continuously variable transmission by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 2

      1-speed fixed gear (9.73:1)

    10. Re:Continuously variable transmission by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 1

      So does the Tesla.

    11. Re:Continuously variable transmission by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Or it uses a pair of cylindrical pyramids

      Known in scientific circles as "cones."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    12. Re:Continuously variable transmission by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's still not a "gear change," it just feels like one. The fixed ratios are still going through the CVT mechanism, it just moves the cones in big steps.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:Continuously variable transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about a "gear" change?

      The claim was that CVT's don't "shift". I showed this was false.

    14. Re:Continuously variable transmission by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily true. For example, the Prius has no reverse gear. They reverse on electric only (the same motors used for regenerative breaking, I think); the gasoline engine *cannot* be connected in reverse. At least, this is the design on the (some years old now) Prius my neighbor has.

      I don't know if the Prius has a reversing gear or not, but I would guess they simply reverse the electric motor instead. That's easy to do, and doesn't require additional moving parts or weight.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    15. Re:Continuously variable transmission by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone was saying CVTs have a single fixed ratio.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:Continuously variable transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone was saying CVTs have a single fixed ratio.

      Which as no relevance to the statement CVT don't shift.

    17. Re:Continuously variable transmission by mizatt · · Score: 1

      It's very evident from the context that we're talking about shifting gears, not shifting between different ratios

    18. Re:Continuously variable transmission by Guppy · · Score: 1

      Cars with CVT don't shift either.

      That actually brings up an interesting point -- some CVT cars now have electronically-controlled fake "gearshift" transitions, to mimic what Joe Customer expects to feel.

    19. Re:Continuously variable transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a major reading comprention failure.

      You can shift CVTs.

      No where does shifting imply gears.

      That's why transmissions are listed in "speeds" NOT "gears".

      So the statement that CVTs don't shift is 100% false.

  10. Maybe, maybe not by TonyJohn · · Score: 1

    Electric trains can make noises which sound a lot like a gear change as they change speed. In reality it is changes to the electric control regime. It's still not reasonable to assume that a Tesla will sound the same though.

    --
    Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
  11. Kind of states the problem with electric. No noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think many people find electrics a issue because of the lack of engine noise. So much so, some hybrids pump engine noise through speakers to appease the driver. For me this is the least of the problems I have with all electric vehicles. I personally find their range, inconvenience of long charge times and their unproven longevity down the road. Just does not impress me in the least. Unless we can invent some better ways to store more energy. I think electrics are simply a stop gap niche that will eventually be replaced by a more accepted energy source.
    What is proof of this inability to accept electrics, is the fact that even 60 minutes felt the need to edit in engine noises just so as to not make the Tesla boring. My question is, how come Tesla was not upset by this?

  12. I need ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the sound track of a floppy boot for my laptop.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:I need ... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought I missed the sound of a 28.8k modem establishing a connection, until I set it as my ringtone.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:I need ... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ... the sound track of a floppy boot for my laptop.

      https://www.google.com/#q=yout...

      Lots of choices.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  13. All cars should be required to make a Vrrumm sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is 38.6% more likely that puppies will wander into the street in front of a quiet car.

    If it is a Tesla car they could get wedged under the car where they will burst into flames from leaky batteries.

    It is obvious that 60mins was playing this car noise to warn the puppies to get off the road while they were filming for the report.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet it is the same editor who adds engine sounds to spaceships flying in empty space!

  16. Re:All cars should be required to make a Vrrumm so by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just add a beep ... beep... sound like a commercial vehicle makes when reversing.?..

  17. Two can play that game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Time for Tesla to run some footage of Morely Safer with a few sound effects added. Is that an audio editing error I smell?

  18. Journalistic Integrity by rjmarvin · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this wasn't just one low-level sound editor's fault...but that guy will be working at McDonalds by the end of the week.

  19. Re:Kind of states the problem with electric. No no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's not a problem, it's a massive advantage. If some imbeciles want their cars causing noise pollution, I want them to go fuck themselves with a cactus!

  20. Watch 60 Minutes? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    This is Slashdot - do you mean you pirated the torrent or something?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  21. 60 minutes is not longer of value by cfulton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have lost all credibility in the last year. They are no longer a news outlet but the paid shills of their network an their sponsors.

    --
    No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    1. Re:60 minutes is not longer of value by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      What else has gone in in the last year that makes you say this?

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:60 minutes is not longer of value by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the last year? They've been known to change questions but keep answers to make people look like weasels for 30+ years.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:60 minutes is not longer of value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence? Reference?

    4. Re:60 minutes is not longer of value by bmajik · · Score: 1

      60 minutes has had credibility problems for a long time.

      They _destroyed_ Audi in the 1980s. They fabricated the "tests" and the results. They modified the cars and rigged them to fail in the way 60 minutes wanted them to.

      Nothing 60 minutes says about cars should be considered accurate.

      If there was any justice in the world, the show and the people behind it would have been in prison 30 years ago.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    5. Re:60 minutes is not longer of value by bughunter · · Score: 1

      This.

      I switched to recording America's Funniest Videos on Sundays after the sloppy wet one they gave Amazon last year. They were on probation after the propaganda microphone they gave to the NSA last year, and the string of soggy panty pieces Lara Logan has been giving for their coverage of the US military abroad.

      There's more truth in 60 seconds of AFV than there is in an entire episode of 60 Minutes.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    6. Re:60 minutes is not longer of value by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      Dan Rather, dimwit.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    7. Re:60 minutes is not longer of value by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Nothing 60 minutes says should be considered accurate.

      Fixed your sentence. :)

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    8. Re:60 minutes is not longer of value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost every story is a paid advertisement of some form. Often towards the end of a story you'll find out that one of the main interviewees has just written and released a book on the subject. Or maybe a documentary, or even a blockbuster movie tie-in. Other times it'll just be a puff piece like this one about a big name in some industry. They recently had a story about Tabasco - nothing but an advertisement.

      Sometimes they are good at disguising an advertisement as a legitimate news story - they start out reporting on a recent event or issue, and you only learn at the end that they are advertising a book about it. But it seems like very few stories these days are straight news without any advertisement angle.

      Even so, I enjoy the stories for what they are.

  22. Are these the same editors who.. by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

    ..added the propeller noises to the jet in "Airplane!" ?

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    1. Re:Are these the same editors who.. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      the propeller noises to the jet in "Airplane!" ?

      I am quite sure that was done on purpose. You know, that was the joke...
      Perhaps they should have just used a whooshing sound instead.
      (For the humour impaired, the whooshing sound is the sound of the joke passing right over someones head.) :)

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    2. Re:Are these the same editors who.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For the humour impaired, the whooshing sound is the sound of the joke passing right over someones head.

      Real jokes don't make any sound passing over someone's head. That sound is added for TV and movies to make it seem more "real".

    3. Re:Are these the same editors who.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They added propeller noises? Surely you can't be serious!

  23. Ahhh, "an error was made..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta love the way those crusading journalists, champions of the truth, arbiters of reality and honesty cover their butts when they get caught willfully misleading people. It's like the politician/bureaucrat who says "mistakes were made" (as though the error created itself) rather than "I screwed up"... The TV news version of this is "it was an editing error" (as though there was no reporter and no editor and no producer... the equipment in the editing bay just switched itself on and edited the program and dubbed-out important facts, or dubbed-in completely fake audio, etc)

    Remember when NBC edited the 9-11 tape in the Trayvon Martin case? They edited-out the dispatcher asking George Zimmerman to identify the race of the person he thought was acting suspiciously so that it sounded like Zimmerman was fixated on race (this fit nicely with the theme the corporation was championing on its MSNBC network - pure coincidence I'm sure). When caught, the network said it was an editing error.

    It's standard group-think on left-wing web sites to obey DNC talking points and always refer to Fox News as "Faux News" and pretend that Fox is the one network that cannot be trusted, but while this tactic may be politically useful to Democrats trying to marginalize the only network that's not in-the-tank for Obama and the DNC, the truth is that examples like these illustrate that ALL news outlets need to be scrutinized and every one of them needs to be ridiculed when it is caught intentionally manipulating the news. When a channel is caught with an intentional fabrication like this and it does not come clean and admit the details, then it needs to be publicly criticized. This was NOT some news reader getting tounge-tied and mis-pronouncing a name (THAT is a "mistake") or ad-libbing and mis-identifying a location depicted in a live video feed (THAT is a "mistake"). This was a deliberate act to add a sound that was not present on the raw footage... and the way it was handled tells you that doctoring video in this way is apparently not noteworthy in that facility.

    1. Re:Ahhh, "an error was made..." by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Ted Koppel is a robot.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  24. Re:Kind of states the problem with electric. No no by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

    some hybrids pump engine noise through speakers to appease the driver

    They do that for safety too, not just to appease the driver. Domino's Pizza in the Netherlands made a marketing coup with this a few years ago when they switched to electric delivery scooters. They added audio of a guy going "VROOoooooommmmmm! Lecker-lecker-lecker... Vrrrooooommmm!" (Apparently, "lecker" means "yummy" in Dutch.)

    invent some better ways to store more energy

    There have been MANY teams working on this, for several years, with lots of VC/R&D, and several new products are going to hit the market it the next couple of years: liquid metal batteries, sodium ion batteries, compressed air storage, sodium air batteries, artificial leaf, another artificial leaf, flywheels, super-capacitors, etc... Most of these are intended for grid-level storage, but a few are quite suitable for transportation as well. In particular, sodium-air batteries have the advantage of light weight, since one of their reactants (air) is available on the fly. And the two "artificial leaf" technologies can be used to create fuel from sunlight.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  25. Electric cars and downshifting by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually there are valid reasons for an electric vehicle to shift gears - just because many electric vehicles only have one gear doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for having multiple gear ratios.

    Although in the case of EVs, shifting tends to be more speed-dependent than load-dependent. While EV motors are typically constant-power, there ARE torque limits at low speeds due to current limits. Although this usually means that an EV that has more than one gear ratio needs far fewer than an internal combustion vehicle. (as in, even two gear ratios is usually enough in the rare cases where only one gear ratio wasn't.)

    See Charles Guan's burnoutchibi project as one example.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  26. Found the footage: by spankey51 · · Score: 2
    --
    -ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
  27. Re:All cars should be required to make a Vrrumm so by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    People will think time's running backwards.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  28. Why do we even bother teaching grammar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Because Hollywood."

    I agree, and incidentally, this sentence no verb either.

    1. Re:Why do we even bother teaching grammar? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Sometimes a sentence so clear it requires no verb.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  29. Error? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    The error was in getting caught, despite it being obvious.

    I suspect that if you dig in, CBS will eventually claim that this is all intended to further engage the audience, give a familiar context, and generally improve the viewing experience. apparently reality is a challenging environment for CBS, but this is not news to me. 60 Minutes in particular has long been challenged by reality, and doesn't show any signs of abating.

    All of which above goes for most of the mainstream media. It's entertainment. We love it. Pretending to be informative is alright, so long as we know when the role changes.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  30. This is how video production works by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Unless the camera is pointed at somebody's face or the segment is live, very little "live" sound is ever used on TV or in the movies. Even from nice microphones, the audio from a "field" rig is rarely good enough to use in a broadcast when you don't have to. (Many movies make extensive of "Additional Dialog Recording", where the actors essentially dub their own dialog so it can use dialog from a sound studio instead of the set.)

    It would not surprise me if the editor, when needing some "car moving" footage didn't even have the audio turned on in his editing console... and just had his library of stock sound effects ready to splice in.

  31. Traffic congestion by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The object of the carpool lane is to reduce greenhouse gas emission per capita.

    The object of a carpool lane is to reduce traffic congestion. Reducing tailpipe emissions is a second order benefit.

    1. Re:Traffic congestion by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The object of a carpool lane is to reduce traffic congestion.

      The object of a carpool lane is to make more effective use of tax dollars. By encouraging people to carpool, we need to spend less on road construction. But if rich people pay an additional tax to use the car pool lane, then they are paying their share of the cost of that lane. It is no worse than rich people using their money to buy anything else.

    2. Re:Traffic congestion by Knee+Patch · · Score: 2

      The object of a carpool lane is to make more effective use of tax dollars.

      The object of a carpool lane is the object of a carpool lane. There can be no other.

    3. Re:Traffic congestion by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Once EV and Hybrids become the new normal, don't be surprised when carpool lanes become strictly for actually carpooling.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    4. Re:Traffic congestion by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Other reasons to keep it around can emerge after it's implemented, thus becoming new objects of the lane; i.e. yes, there *can* be others.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    5. Re:Traffic congestion by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      a single rich guy in the left lane with a sticker on his car helps exactly HOW, again, in terms of road congestion?

      we really don't care about carbon footprint. we are doing essentially nothing to make a serious dent in the world's pollution levels. the carpool lane was really about making better use of the roads in terms of reducing the # of cars on it. a free pass to the left lane for electric vehicles does nothing to reduce the car count on the highways.

      they should just get rid of it. I know of no one who truly carpools. there were a few times, as kids, that we'd have our parents carpool us to and from school but for those who drive to work, I've never heard of a carpool being more an a curiosity, at best. people at work have their own schedules and it does not happen in any real sense that people share rides to/from work.

      the carpool lane is a waste. then again, cops can sit there and watch the lane and 'make money' if they catch single occupant, non-sticker cars there. that's probably the only real reason they are still around, to be honest. the social experiment of carpooling has failed and does not justify wasting a whole lane when you may only have 3, total, on some highways.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Traffic congestion by lgw · · Score: 1

      a single rich guy in the left lane with a sticker on his car helps exactly HOW, again, in terms of road congestion?

      The roads are much less congested for him. So at least someone benefits. I'm all for "Lexus lanes." If the extra few minutes is sufficiently important to you that you'll pay a couple bucks in voluntary taxes, everybody wins.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Traffic congestion by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is California you're talking about; smog is a big problem there. HOV lanes aren't just for congestion, they're to reduce smog. Driving electric and hybrid vehicles achieves that goal. (Also, last I heard, regular hybrids no longer got HOV privileges, because there were so many of them these days.)

      Finally, yes, people actually do carpool. I used to live in Phoenix, which also has HOV lanes, and I saw people carpooling on the 101 all the time. And if the cops can make a bunch of money giving $500 tickets to assholes who ride in the HOV lane alone, I don't have a problem with that. It's a lot better than speeding tickets. Over in the DC area, they even have "stump lines" IIRC correctly, so it seems it works quite well there too.

    8. Re:Traffic congestion by sjbe · · Score: 1

      a single rich guy in the left lane with a sticker on his car helps exactly HOW, again, in terms of road congestion?

      By moving him from an over-utilized lane to an underutilized one and helps fund the road maintenance in the process. Basically it's taking advantage of Mr. Rich Guy to help fund the problem. Unfortunately it also points out that carpool lanes are a pretty questionable solution based on the fact that there is enough capacity to allow Mr. Rich Guy to buy a pass.

      we really don't care about carbon footprint.

      Sad but probably true. I think it will take a catastrophe to make a sufficient number of people genuinely care.

      I know of no one who truly carpools.

      I have a carpool lot right at the nearest interstate near my house and it usually has about 20 or so cars there. I know people who do it but I don't think they do it in sufficient numbers to really make much of a difference.

    9. Re:Traffic congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people think the object of a carpool lane is to win votes, and that is why children aged one day and up can count for the extra person/people required to qualify for the carpool lane. To the representatives who cause the lanes to to built, it's hard to say the winning of these votes is anything but a first-order benefit...

    10. Re:Traffic congestion by OneAhead · · Score: 2

      If a philosophical joke whooshed clean over everyone's head, is it still a joke?

    11. Re:Traffic congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But congestion is caused by slow cars, not by fast Teslas.

    12. Re:Traffic congestion by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Allowing EVs or LEVs (low emissions vehicles - e.g. a Prius) into the carpool lane solo becomes more problematic when the freeways have more lanes, like in California.

      Most places I've driven which have HOV lanes (as they're called outside of California) have 1 HOV lane to 2 or 3 regular lanes. That means as long as fewer than 33% or 25% of the cars on the road have 2+ occupants, there is an advantage to using the HOV lane. Once you exceed those thresholds, there are as many cars using the HOV lanes as the regular lanes, and your incentive for people to carpool vanishes.

      The typical Los Angeles freeway has 4 lanes and a carpool lane. That means this threshold level has dropped to 20%. A few sections even have 5 lanes + carpool, which drops the threshold to 16.7%. I've already noticed myself frequently avoiding the carpool lane because it's more congested and slower than the regular lanes. To maintain an incentive as large as in other areas of the country, you'd need to assign 2 carpool lanes + 4-5 regular lanes, which moves the threshold back up to 33%-29%. That seems to be too high for California's tastes, as I'm seeing instead single carpool lanes requiring 3+ occupants instead of 2+.

      Allowing EVs and LEVs into the carpool lane just exacerbates this problem. This threshold level is no longer the percentage of cars with 2+ occupants. It's the percentage of cars with 2+ occupants AND people solo in EVs and LEVs. (It also reduces or eliminates one of the benefits of an EV or hybrid - zero emissions when the car is idle in traffic. Does it really make sense to allow cars with zero idle emissions to zip past traffic, while the cars which emit while idle are stuck in traffic?)

    13. Re:Traffic congestion by Ozeroc · · Score: 1

      "Slug Lines" or the practice of slugging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      --
      ...
    14. Re:Traffic congestion by Hussman32 · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the object of the carpool lane is to reduce traffic, but the reality of the carpool lane is that it increases traffic. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I see it all the time when the lane enforcement starts at 3 pm, the 4 lane road that can handle 20,000 cars per hour is reduced to three lanes handling 18,000 cars per hour and 2,000 cars in the under used carpool lane. Those three lanes get congested, mean distance between cars decreases, accidents increase, and the CHP has the chance to give more tickets to those who see if they can make it in the carpool lane for just a few miles. In theory everything works in practice, in government regulations it doesn't.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    15. Re:Traffic congestion by OneAhead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it would be Europe, they would explain it as "reducing greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time recovering some of the taxpayer's money that went into road construction". But since this is the USA, we can't slap taxes onto undesirable things because that's "socialism". Don't ask me why. It always puzzled me that they banned a lot of popular incandescent light bulbs, rather than slapping a tax onto them and investing the income in renewable energy. The bulbs would die out effectively, but you'd get to keep the infrastructure improvements. Slightly more on-topic, there are the plans to ban vehicles that don't meat certain fuel-efficiency standards. Why not leave people the Freedom (Which Is More Important Than Anything Else In Life) to buy them but simply tax them? Or much fairer and easier to implement, tax the fuel itself, or at least stop sponsoring it through tax breaks for the oil companies. Assuming the price increases are not too unreasonable and are ramped up gradually enough, The Market (In Which We Trust) will find its own way towards more fuel-efficient vehicles, with built-in exemptions for The Rich (Whose Privileges Shall Not Be Touched) who can afford to pay more in tax. But no, I live in confusion and ignorance. Freedom, especially for The Rich, and faith in The Market are all marks of The Devil, and its name is Socialism.

      But I sorely digress. This thread being about the USA, yeah, your "make more effective use of tax dollars" sounds about right.

    16. Re:Traffic congestion by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's the word I was looking for.

    17. Re:Traffic congestion by sharknado · · Score: 3, Funny

      If a philosophical joke whooshed clean over everyone's head, is it still a joke?

      If a Tesla hits a mime in a carpool lane, does anyone care?

    18. Re:Traffic congestion by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      If the objective is to reduce traffic congestion, then the incentive disappears when it is effective. If traffic is not congested, there is no benefit to be in the carpool lane.

      It is a conundrum that has always entertained me.

      Tax gas/miles/vehicles heavily and people will drive less and the roads will be congested less. Or, build more lanes to reduce congestion. Carpool lanes are great for the eco-snob set to be able to stroke their own egos, but are not really that effective at reducing emissions or congestion (and may hurt overall, IMO).

    19. Re:Traffic congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religious nutjobs who see the devil in everything are not welcome here.

    20. Re:Traffic congestion by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      But the rich people get tax rebates when they buy their electric car and don't pay petrol tax either.
      The cars are also heavier, leading to more road damage.

    21. Re:Traffic congestion by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      And here I though I laid it on thick enough to cover Mt. Everest and be well clear of Poe's Law...

    22. Re:Traffic congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The object of a carpool lane is to make more effective use of tax dollars. By encouraging people to carpool, we need to spend less on road construction.

      Since it costs between $2.5 Million and $7 million per mile to construct a lane of freeway, yet only a small fraction of drivers can use a carpool lane, in what way does a carpool lane make more effective use of tax dollars?

      And why in the hell are a parent and child allowed to use a carpool lane? No extra vehicle has been taken off the road.

    23. Re:Traffic congestion by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      Impossible. Who would bother dragging the mime's invisible box into the carpool lane in the first place?

    24. Re:Traffic congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congestion is caused by all cars because of the space they occupy on the road (even more so if you allow a safe following distance).

    25. Re:Traffic congestion by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Once EV and Hybrids become the new normal, don't be surprised when carpool lanes become strictly for actually carpooling.

      The CA electric car carpool stickers work until 2019. IIRC, other non-carpool stickers become invalid earier.

    26. Re:Traffic congestion by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      The object of a carpool lane is to reduce traffic congestion.

      The object of a carpool lane is to make more effective use of tax dollars. By encouraging people to carpool, we need to spend less on road construction.

      The object of a carpool lane is to increase the average occupancy per vehicle on the roads. In a large city it is physically impossible to build enough roads for everyone to drive with 1 person in the car, regardless of how much money you spend. The only solution is buses, trains and car pooling, hence why these things exist.

    27. Re:Traffic congestion by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Why do you object to a carpool lane?
      What? Oh, in that case never mind.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    28. Re:Traffic congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the DC area they now use the HOV lanes as toll lanes as well. You still get to ride free if you're 3+ people The rate charged is directly influenced by how many people are utilizing the lane and is updated around every 15min. During a rush hour traffic jam it might be $1+ per mile to use the lane, on off hours it might be $0.20 per mile.

    29. Re:Traffic congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you actually expect the enforcing authority to keep their word?

  32. 3 Companies by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Yes, turning two "crazy" ideas into $billion companies in 10 years with most of the population doubting, if not openly thwarting you, is a great achievement.

    Three actually. Paypal, Tesla and SpaceX. If there is any entrepreneur with a better success record than that, I've never heard of him.

    1. Re:3 Companies by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      "He made a load of money from a scam and used his ill-gotten gains to fund toy projects." FTFY

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:3 Companies by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      "He made a load of money from a scam and used his ill-gotten gains to fund toy projects." FTFY

      [Citation needed]

    3. Re:3 Companies by PRMan · · Score: 1

      PayPal was good in the early days. Don't forget he sold it to eBay in 2002! That's when the problems started.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:3 Companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y u jelly bro?

    5. Re:3 Companies by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I remember discussing significant problems already in 2001. I think it was in 2000 when my x.com account died on account of being bought out by paypal. It was a big disappointment, because x.com had a great service, and everybody already knew that paypal's service had various problems.

  33. Re:Kind of states the problem with electric. No no by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    Except that it's a huge issue for the vision impaired, which is the primary justification for adding louder engine noises to cars like the Prius. Don't get yourself on the wrong side of the ADA or you will find yourself in a world of hurt

  34. The editor being dumb. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I would have dubbed a harley without a muffler over it.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  35. Re:Kind of states the problem with electric. No no by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    So the blind are also deaf? electric cars make a LOT of noise on their own. The tires alone are 50% of all car's noise. It is wierd that my 2007 civic is quieter than the neighbors Leaf.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  36. This isn't hollywood by sjbe · · Score: 2

    I'm an audio engineer. I've done several short films, nominated for a few awards

    Nice to meet you and congratulations.

    Frankly, my dear, nobody gives a damn about what a particular car sounds like in a particular situation except for us nerds.

    Probably true which brings up the question why bother going to the trouble of adding the wrong sound? To bring things back on topic, this isn't a fictional movie like star wars where the fact that there is no sound in space isn't important. This is a news piece or at least purports to be one. Accuracy matters in non-fiction. If you can't record what it does accurately then don't record the audio.

    Unless the media piece is explicitly focused on how something sounds, having realistic audio is actually distracting to the audience,

    Have you actually heard a Telsa in action? It barely makes any noise. Exactly how is no noise going to be distracting? If the noise doesn't matter and the vehicle doesn't make any worth recording then strip it out altogether and talk. As you pointed out, nobody cares exactly what sound it makes but that doesn't mean the audio engineer needs to insert sounds that are plainly wrong to anyone with operating brain cells. Sure, some people might not notice but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

    1. Re:This isn't hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the media piece is explicitly focused on how something sounds, having realistic audio is actually distracting to the audience,

      Have you actually heard a Telsa in action? It barely makes any noise. Exactly how is no noise going to be distracting?

      Actually, having *no* noise, when one *expects* noise is one of the more distracting bits of audio that editors have to deal with all the time.

      Think about it. Why, in movies, can we hear starships flying around and shooting in space (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.)? Because going with the (accurate) silence is distracting to the audience who is subconsciously *expecting* to hear something.

      Even when silence would be the *correct* audio track, the lack of sound tends to pull viewers out of the experience because they *expect* to hear something.

    2. Re:This isn't hollywood by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Think about it. Why, in movies, can we hear starships flying around and shooting in space (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.)? Because going with the (accurate) silence is distracting to the audience who is subconsciously *expecting* to hear something.

      Even when silence would be the *correct* audio track, the lack of sound tends to pull viewers out of the experience because they *expect* to hear something.

      This is a horrible argument. You're actually in favor of perpetuating a fallacious assumption *just because* it's the assumption? If movies stopped doing it, audiences would stop expecting it. "Problem" solved.

      Plus, y'know, when TV *doesn't* do that, they usually get commended for accuracy (e.g. Firefly).

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:This isn't hollywood by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Firefly is sci-fi, and it has a different intended audience than 60 minutes. That means it will have a significantly different directing approach, and scientific accuracy will be preferred more than the usual mass-market demographics.

      As I've heard, 2001: A Space Odyssey was made with silent ships specifically because it would be unexpected. The jarring silence helps to establish the feeling of helpless solitude.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:This isn't hollywood by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Firefly is sci-fi, and it has a different intended audience than 60 minutes.

      Argh! This is the point I've been trying to make this entire time but nobody seems to be listening.

      At least you're not arguing 60 Minutes has no reason to be factual. Thanks for that.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    5. Re:This isn't hollywood by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Actually, having *no* noise, when one *expects* noise is one of the more distracting bits of audio that editors have to deal with all the time.

      That is a question of how it is filmed and presented. There are many options available and not all of them involve a screaming internal combustion engine on a car that doesn't have one.

      Why, in movies, can we hear starships flying around and shooting in space (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.)? Because going with the (accurate) silence is distracting to the audience who is subconsciously *expecting* to hear something.

      Are you really that daft? You are comparing a NEWS program with a FICTIONAL MOVIE. News should involve facts. They may as well have had a 4 year old shouting "Vroom vroom" and it would have been just as dumb.

  37. Re:Kind of states the problem with electric. No no by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    If I'm walking through a parking lot and someone starts a Prius right next to me, I hear nothing. When the Prius shifts into reverse, I hear nothing. When the Prius starts to back up, I hear a small tone and the sound of tires on surface after the car has started to roll, the sound of which is variable depending on the quality of the surface and the tires. When there are many things going on, as there are on your average street or parking lot, hearing the small tone of a Prius is a lot more difficult than you think.

  38. Defamation by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but that's gotta be defamation of character.

    They claim accidental error by a worker. OK, maybe that's true. But that person has a manager, and that manager has a boss, and so on. And someone surely "proofed" the segment before it aired — all media organizations, if they have any sense, do that.

  39. Transmissions by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Is there a transmission in the Tesla S?

    Not really, no. The Tesla Roadster had one that they were working on but it was never produced to my knowledge due to insurmountable technical hurdles. It's possible to put a transmission on an electric motor but generally it isn't necessary.

  40. How many gears? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did it have more than 5 or 6 gears, too? I've seen high speed chases in movies where a car shifts through 7+ gears.

  41. But we WANT people to buy into that lane. No? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    buying your way into a carpool lay seems quite WRONG to me

    The problem isn't that they can buy in; it's that single-occupant cars are allowed in carpool lanes, because of some arbitrary exemption (motor/energy storage tech; WTF does that have to do with ride-sharing?). But it's only arbitrary to me; to your constituency it's obviously extremely important (important enough to have LAWS!) that people use certain types of cars (rather than merely sharing cars). It's so important, that you are going around pointing guns in peoples' faces and insisting that things be a certain way.

    Given that urgent priority, are you sure it's bad that people can buy in? The people who buy in, are doing the thing that you want and the people who are spending their money on other things (e.g. rent and food and maintaining their internal combustion cars) and not doing the thing that you want. The rich people are behaving in the desired manner and the poor people are engaging in undesirable behavior. Thus, shouldn't the good guys be rewarded and the bad guys punished?

    Hey, why are you looking at me like I just said the stupidest thing ever? (Though I agree that I just did.) Hey, these are YOUR laws I'm talking about! I'm not advocating the view, I'm merely saying we have adopted it. Keep that in mind before you call me a fuckwit.

    Perhaps this idea of going around pointing guns in peoples' faces to get certain types of behaviors (i.e. using law to manipulate the direction of technological development) is the deeply stupid thing going on here. Just an idea.

  42. Re:Kind of states the problem with electric. No no by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Which is more than what you hear of a modern civic. as those dont emit a "tone" but that is not a quiet car, my father in laws caddilac CTS is so silent you have to look at the gauges to see if it is running.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  43. The Model S definitely is a luxury car by sjbe · · Score: 2

    The Tesla S isn't a luxury sedan, please don't compare it to a Mercedes S-class, which is about the same price when both are nicely equipped.

    Having sat in both (I used to own a Mercedes) I can assure you that the Tesla S most definitely IS a luxury sedan. There is nothing in Mercedes lineup under $100K that I think is more fitting of the definition.

    The supercharger network doesn't make up for the fact that you can refuel that S-class in 5 minutes and drive it 500 miles on that 5 minute "charge".

    And yet I'd trade an S-Class for a Tesla in a heartbeat anyway.

    1. Re:The Model S definitely is a luxury car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I drive round-trip more than 300 miles within a 48-hour period no more than twice per year. This means I must consider that the maximum rate at which an e.g. Mercedes S-class's refuelability could be an advantage over a Model S.

    2. Re:The Model S definitely is a luxury car by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Having sat in both (I used to own a Mercedes) I can assure you that the Tesla S most definitely IS a luxury sedan.

      Did you sit in an S-class, or a C-class? They aren't the same thing.

      In any case, a "luxury car" has little to do with the interior anyway, modern Fords and Chevys are really close in the luxury interior dept.

      Drive quality, ownership experience, dealer experience, fit and finish, and overall feature list are what I'd call out as being a luxury car. Lets face it, a lot of what Lexus sells are dressed up Toyotas, but the dealership and ownership experience are far different.

    3. Re:The Model S definitely is a luxury car by toddestan · · Score: 1

      If it's no more than twice a year, there's always the possibility of renting a gas-powered car do do those trips.

    4. Re:The Model S definitely is a luxury car by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Did you sit in an S-class, or a C-class? They aren't the same thing.

      I owned an S-Class. I've also had several family members own various S-Classes over the years.

      In any case, a "luxury car" has little to do with the interior anyway, modern Fords and Chevys are really close in the luxury interior dept.

      Don't know what Fords and Chevy's you've been sitting in but while they have improved quite a bit, I have yet to sit in one that gives me any illusion I'm in a luxury car. A coworker has a Lincoln which sits not 30 feet from me as I type this that is nice enough but nothing special. Same with another coworker's Cadillac. The interiors of those aren't appreciably better than my current Honda.

      Drive quality, ownership experience, dealer experience, fit and finish, and overall feature list are what I'd call out as being a luxury car.

      All true so let's go down the list for Tesla shall we? Drive quality rated among the best they've ever tested by Consumer Reports. I've know several people who own Teslas and the ownership experience in my small sample has been as good as any they've dealt with. Dealer experience? Tesla treats you pretty well by all accounts - certainly comparable to Mercedes dealers. Fit and Finish? Having sat in a Tesla Model S, the fit and finish are as nice as I've seen in any car available for under six figures. Feature list? Tesla has features you simply cannot get anywhere else. Period.

      Sounds like a luxury car to me.

  44. Re:Kind of states the problem with electric. No no by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    I have not seen a modern combustion engine car that I cannot hear start or cannot hear operating externally, including my mother in law's CTS

  45. Actually, it would probably be funnier if they had by Marrow · · Score: 2

    realized it was electric. What sound effect would they use instead? Starship Enterprise sounds or something? It would probably rise to cult classic status.

    Actually, that would be fun. Slashdot should have a competition to decide what an electric car on television should sound like.

  46. you're preaching to the choir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The point of the post you're replying to is that the news editors shift the audio so it matches the video explosion. They also do the same with rocket launches.

  47. Reminds me of 80's television by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    Where cars have the "peel out" sound in the dirt.

  48. You mean electric cars by fredrated · · Score: 1

    don't go varoom varoom?

  49. Fake news by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    Do we need any other proof that network news is simply another TV show dressed up as informative programming? These news shows are in the entertainment industry, right along side sitcoms and 'reality' shows.

  50. I own one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And I heartily disagree. For how big and heavy the model S is it handles like a car half its size. It goes very fast off the line, at 35 mph, 70 mph, really any time I hit the pedal it launches. Even in a porsche there are certain RPMs that the car "likes". I've never had more fun in a car.

    1. Re:I own one by glasshole · · Score: 1

      I think having to spool the engine up or keep turbo boost is actually kinda fun. Same with rowing my own gears, driving fast should be a involving, I'm not trying to set perfect lap times on the open road :)

  51. Re:CBS is a joke (CNN/ABC/NBS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whereas at Fox News, the ones who make up shit about BHO are elected to Congress.

    Or just candidates for buying the Buffalo Bills.

  52. Sounds familiar: by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    The 'Audi unintended-acceleration' horseshit all over again...

    1. Re:Sounds familiar: by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I thought that was Toyota.

  53. Re:Kind of states the problem with electric. No no by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    When my old MX-3 was new, it was nearly silent. I was in a parking lot and saw some friends of mine. I drove up literally within 2 feet of them before they heard me.

    Internal combustion cars can be darn near silent, too. I'm not aware of any requirement that they make some minimum of noise. Even if there is, cars moving at speed may not be making enough noise for you to hear before they hit you.

  54. Glowing MPG reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of the MPG for plutonium, lol

    --fyngyrz

    anon due to mod points.

  55. Like Saturday Night Live by assertation · · Score: 1

    60 Minutes shined brightly in the 1970s and hasn't even been a shadow of what it once was since.

  56. It's not the first time. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    They have a habit of making the footage tell the story they want it to. Remember how F-150s were supposed explode and catch fire if t-boned? After numerous attempts (and much cost), they were caught with having an incendiary device attached to the fuel tank. There explanation was that they had proof this happened (even though their own attempts couldn't do it), so it was for dramatization for the story. I can't remember if Dan Rather had to do any more than apologize, but the producer of the segment lost their job over it.

  57. How do you "half expect" something? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    weird.

  58. priuses do make noise by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    You know that noise you hear from Priuses that sounds like an electrical buzzing/whirring?

    The car's drivetrain doesn't make that noise. That's artificial noise, designed specifically to warn pedestrians when the engine is inactive. I was surprised the first time I drove a Prius, because you can't hear that noise from inside the car. I'd assumed it would be louder.

    The person text-walking is completely at fault. How stupid can you be to text-walk in a parking lot?

  59. ROFL - some watching 60 mins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who still watches that? Too many proven lies. Now just a commercial acting like news.

  60. Highlights a problem with such vehicles. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Given that the Tesla is just a very large & powerful golfcart by performance, it's not going to make the sounds typically made by cars.

    That's something that will have to be addressed some time down the road when it's possible to get an American-sized (read: something Chrysler-sized) alternative fuel car that costs the same as its conventionally-fueled brethren. Faking it only works if you remove every other option (see Ford and Eco-Boost).

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  61. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I remember, the Tesla / Top Gear lawsuit was settled the was it was because the producers claimed that everyone knows that Top Gear is 100% scripted entertainment and no one expects the stories to be factual and the court agreed.

  62. Love that ASR-33 sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not too surprising, since movies have for decades made the sound of an ASR-33 when text is being printed on a glass display.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33

    Heck, the ASR-33 was obsolete by 1975.

  63. Woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the equivalent of having the Enterprise go "woosh" by the screen in the opening credits.

  64. What next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next I can see them dubbing choo-choo sound effects over clips of ELECTRICALLY-powered high-speed trains.

  65. Re:But we WANT people to buy into that lane. No? by ppanon · · Score: 1

    All laws are about behaviour modification, whether it be deterring/reducing murder, theft, or jaywalking. You just happen to think your preferred behaviour should be exempt from legal limitations. Not a big surprise considering your post seems to peg you into the "Libertarian - the free market solves everything" bucket.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  66. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  67. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  68. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  69. Other sound-effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... It's the (computer) mice clicks that always get me.

    One that gets me is the sound of knives and swords sliding across a metal rail. If it's a proper scabbard, sure. But when it's in his pocket; Nope.

    Another (looking at you Disney), is showing a PC tower then the GUI is Apple OS.

    Another is computer screen 'reflection': That is, one could actually read the computer display from the operator's face.

    Plus, I remember 'Baywatch' where a python had a tail-rattle sound.

  70. Engine noise was from the chase car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the engine noise was from the chase car?

  71. Jetsons car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd mod it to sound like the Jetsons flying car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdWswvLPdE0

  72. Actually, some homemade electric cars do shift... by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

    ...because the electric motors that are available inexpensively for retrofit into a car often have a limited speed range where they have a useful torque to power-usage ratio. It's pretty funny to see someone shifting an old VW with an electric motor, but I have seen it.

  73. Making News instead of Reporting News by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    Making News instead of Reporting News has been the mainstay for the network news for quite some time. It sorta reduces the credibility on whatever they report on, knowing their "Creative Editing" changes the news to mean what ever they desire.