" if you don't want to hit a person in the street, that will cost $3,000 extra" says Volvo's "spokesperson" ?

[RH00D]

volvo's spokesperson 

 

http://happyplace.someecards.com/cars/selfdriving-volvo-drives-self-into-onlookers-since-it-lacked-the-pedestrian-detection/

 

Apparently you need a lesson in reading comprehension.

 

The only thing Volvo says are: “[Pedestrian detection functionality] is sold as a separate package." "The pedestrian detection would likely have been inactivated due to the driver inactivating it by intentionally and actively accelerating. Hence, the auto braking function is overrided by the driver and deactivated." “It seems they are trying to demonstrate pedestrian detection and auto-braking,” “Unfortunately, there were some issues in the way the test was conducted.” “Pedestrian detection functionality,” “The Volvo XC60 comes with City Safety as a standard feature however this does not include the Pedestrian detection functionality,” “It appears as if the car in this video is not equipped with Pedestrian detection,” “This is sold as a separate package.” “Hence, the auto braking function is overrided by the driver and deactivated.” “Volvo Cars strongly recommends to never perform tests towards real humans.”

 

I even found some more of those quotes from this article http://fusion.net/story/139703/self-parking-car-accident-no-pedestrian-detection/but nowhere in the article you linked or the fusion.net article does Volvo say what's in the title of this topic. That was the author of the article you linked. Jesus.

[dalekphalm]

So people are using the "Software costs money!!" defense.

 

So does GameWorks.

Indeed. GamesWorks does cost money. NVIDIA, however, decides to give it away free to Developers, in the hopes of selling even more NVIDIA graphics cards.

 

Volvo chose not to do this. Why do you see that as a problem?

 

Software does cost money. That money is either coming directly out of sales of said software, or out of the margins of another product that the developer makes.

 

In NVIDIA's case, the cost of the software is subsidized by Hardware sales. With Volvo, however, the cost of the software is direct.

[RH00D]

You know, I think its kinda scary when "Volvo charging extra for a pedestrian detection on a self driving car" is in the realm of believability to some people.

I mean that just sounds like (or should sound like) a parody article from The Onion or something.

 

Oh my dear god. IT IS NOT A SELF DRIVING CAR.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Apparently you need a lesson in reading comprehension.

 

The only thing Volvo says are: “[Pedestrian detection functionality] is sold as a separate package." "The pedestrian detection would likely have been inactivated due to the driver inactivating it by intentionally and actively accelerating. Hence, the auto braking function is overrided by the driver and deactivated." “It seems they are trying to demonstrate pedestrian detection and auto-braking,” “Unfortunately, there were some issues in the way the test was conducted.” “Pedestrian detection functionality,” “The Volvo XC60 comes with City Safety as a standard feature however this does not include the Pedestrian detection functionality,” “It appears as if the car in this video is not equipped with Pedestrian detection,” “This is sold as a separate package.” “Hence, the auto braking function is overrided by the driver and deactivated.” “Volvo Cars strongly recommends to never perform tests towards real humans.”

 

I even found some more of those quotes from this article http://fusion.net/story/139703/self-parking-car-accident-no-pedestrian-detection/but nowhere in the article you linked or the fusion.net article does Volvo say what's in the title of this topic. That was the author of the article you linked. Jesus.

yeah, my point was never that they said it, my point was that it exist, and was based on the fact i thought it was a self driving not parking, hence safety shouldn't be marked especially around self driving and such. my intention was never to hate volvo , but was in concern this is actually happening and not encourage it as i said in another comment earlier. 

[MageTank]

yeah, my point was never that they said it, my point was that it exist, and was based on the fact i thought it was a self driving not parking, hence safety shouldn't be marked especially around self driving and such. my intention was never to hate volvo , but was in concern this is actually happening and not encourage it as i said in another comment earlier. 

So you are saying your point in using a fake statement as a title, is because you did not understand what the topic was about? How does this make any sense in the slightest? How does this prevent you from changing the title to something factual? Like: "Idiot slams car into pedestrian" or something along those lines.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

So you are saying your point in using a fake statement as a title, is because you did not understand what the topic was about? How does this make any sense in the slightest? How does this prevent you from changing the title to something factual? Like: "Idiot slams car into pedestrian" or something along those lines.

so you are saying volvo is not asking you for an extra 3000$ for that feature that stops when people come in front of the car? what are you even arguing about ? 

[MageTank]

so you are saying volvo is not asking you for an extra 3000$ for that feature that stops when people come in front of the car? what are you even arguing about ? 

 

I am saying their spokesperson never said that. How about I use your words against you this time? Where do you see Volvo saying it costs $3000? Show me exactly where you see this, from Volvo or a spokesperson of Volvo. Do not link me to a random journalist, link me to a specific representative saying it. Again, your inability to read has crippled your defense in this topic. I am arguing that your title is wrong. The Volvo spokesperson did not say "If you don't want to hit a person in the street, it will cost you $3000 extra". Your title is misleading, it is deceptive. It is flat out wrong. Change it.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

I am saying their spokesperson never said that. How about I use your words against you this time? Where do you see Volvo saying it costs $3000? Show me exactly where you see this, from Volvo or a spokesperson of Volvo. Do not link me to a random journalist, link me to a specific representative saying it. Again, your inability to read has crippled your defense in this topic. I am arguing that your title is wrong. The Volvo spokesperson did not say "If you don't want to hit a person in the street, it will cost you $3000 extra". Your title is misleading, it is deceptive. It is flat out wrong. Change it.

because that was never my intention, read the thread, i didn't care that volvo said it or it's spokesperson said,  not even the part where he says  “It appears as if the car in this video is not equipped with Pedestrian detection,This is sold as a separate package.” which costs 3000$ extra for the same car, my concerns were different than what you are arguing over here. 

 

[pablopg69]

ITT OP learns that he can't make stuff up for the sake of getting attention.

[Guest Kloaked]

Indeed. GamesWorks does cost money. NVIDIA, however, decides to give it away free to Developers, in the hopes of selling even more NVIDIA graphics cards.

 

Volvo chose not to do this. Why do you see that as a problem?

 

Software does cost money. That money is either coming directly out of sales of said software, or out of the margins of another product that the developer makes.

 

In NVIDIA's case, the cost of the software is subsidized by Hardware sales. With Volvo, however, the cost of the software is direct.

 

u rite

 

ITT OP learns that he can't make stuff up for the sake of getting attention.

 

Pretty sure he gets it.

[DeScruff]

Oh my dear god. IT IS NOT A SELF DRIVING CAR.

I didn't say it was! Read my quote again, I'm saying its scary people had that train of thought!

[MageTank]

because that was never my intention, read the thread, i didn't care that volvo said it or it's spokesperson said,  not even the part where he says  “It appears as if the car in this video is not equipped with Pedestrian detection,This is sold as a separate package.” which costs 3000$ extra for the same car, my concerns were different than what you are arguing over here. 

 

 

You dont care what Volvo said? You do not care that the title you used for this "news article" is a lie? Are you kidding me? You are acknowledging that you are wrong, but because your intention was clearly about something completely unrelated to this article, its okay? Your intention is "Safety features should be free" but your title does not reflect that. Your title is using a false statement against a company that is historically known for giving away safety features to every automotive company for free. Part of me wants to believe you are trolling me, but history dictates that people truly can be this ignorant. 

[colonel_mortis]

This thread isn't really working, is it? I'm locking it now, before the thread goes into full flame war mode. It's really close right now.