Hystery

You prove my point yourself there. Yes they fought. Then, they talked. Diplomacy turned a continent from a bloody mess of warmongering into a pacified union. Diplomacy. The bombing of military objectives was a possibility, yet the US decided to bomb civilian cities, that's why you can't really say that the civilians 'had it coming'. It's as if right now North Korea dropped a nuke on Los Angeles and I said 'muricans had it coming'. It's both disrespectful to the people who died and disrespectful to the people as a whole, they shouldn't be judged for the decisions of their government.

You can't really say it's their fault to the thousands of civilians the two nukes killed. It was civilian targets, just like the Syrian regime supposedly did actually. Also, it's besides the point. Back at the time, it was a world war, there was no diplomacy involved whatsoever, hence my point of no diplomacy being used back at the time, only warmongering, again. But... It -is- diplomacy. Yes, Europe fought for centuries. Until they learned the lesson, got their shit together, and prefered to TALK to each other rather than to BOMB each other. Diplomacy. Solving problems through discusion rather than conflict. It's the prime example of diplomacy actually, of what diplomacy can achieve, turning a continent torn apart by centuries of wars into a cooperating union. Going from bloodthirsty to friendly.

I doubt 2 nukes for Japan is the definition of diplomacy. Nor is requisitioning NATO to send troops into a foreigner country like Afghanistan. And diplomacy worked perfectly well in Syria with that little coalition we had going on between the US, the EU and Russia to take care of ISIS in this region until the US decided to drop some missiles to show they can bark loud. Diplomacy isn't a thing of the past, simply because it rarely has been used in the past. However, warmongering -IS- something from the past, and has proven to be only destructive for everyone over centuries. Look at a good display of diplomacy: Europe going from a theater of perpetual war in the 20th century and prior, to a completely peaceful continent now, safe from the Ukraine situation a while ago (and still, no one bombed anything). Achieved only through diplomacy and discussion through states. What I'm looking at when I see this Syrian thing and the US getting actively involved against its regime is a complete repetition of what happened in Irak in 2003. "Omg look we have serious suspicious the Iraqi regime has weapons of mass destruction. Let's get involved." -> "Omg look the Syrian regime has chemical weapons that killed civilians (even though technically they killed many more Syrian civilians in the past few years with regular weapons and so did we with our drone strikes but hey I'm not looking at such details). Let's get involved." Just no. Especially when Syria's strongest ally is Russia. I don't know if you study the Cold War in history class in the US, I know I did, and I don't want to go through that again just because mister Trump or mister Obama or any other idiot with hands on the most powerful army in the world wants to show they've the balls to do whatever they want no matter the opinion of the rest of the world.

For me personally, I consider it's a stupid move, be it Obama, Trump or whoever else does it. You don't solve situations by bombing in the 21st century, it doesn't work like that anymore. You solve problems by discussing, using diplomacy. Not by dropping your pants to show that you've bigger balls than your neighbor. Especially when you have no proof whatsoever of who did what (the UN experts certified the Syrian regime had destroyed all its chemical weapons a couple years ago). The way I see it, it's yet again another case of the US thinking they are some kind of world's police and acting without asking anyone's opinion on the matter. For so long I've seen americans saying that the US government should stop taking care of things that don't concern them. And yet now that the US yet again get involved into an area thousands of miles away, people applaud. It doesn't make sense. The inconsistency is just crazy. Either you want to get involved into foreign conflicts, and in this case you don't pick your fights and just take the things at hand as a whole, or you decide to mind your own business, in which case you don't change your mind half-way through. As for this : C'mon, quit the fanboying, it's too obvious there. Dude has been in the office for what 3 months? Too early to call anyone 'greatest president this nation has ever had'. Especially considering the iconic presidents you had in the past (like Trump would be greater than, say, Lincoln. Makes me scream LOL internally).

How do you know this bombing was from the Syrian regime though? Do you actually have an evidence of that? And why do you feel like the US need to get involved personally once again, without asking the opinion of anyone else in the world? Nothing from NATO? From the UN? From my point of view, this decision was taken an emotional response. Something a president shouldn't do. When you're president, you need to be tactful. Diplomat. Intelligent. Things aren't always as they seem. One wrong reaction can have disastrous consequences. I don't know about you, but I don't want a world-wide conflict between you, the US, and the Russian and its allies. I want peace. And more bombing and more wars and more conflicts won't bring peace.

Some of you may know, some of you may not, but it's kind of a big deal, the things that happened the last few days and hours could have a dramatic outcome depending on how international governments react to these events. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947 What is known: airplanes were seen dropping bombs above the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Syria approximately 80 people died from the use of a chemical agent in this bombing What is unknown: who's responsible for the attack (some (i.e. western governments) accuse the Syrian government of dropping those bombs with chemical agents in them, some others (i.e. Russia and allies) say the chemical agents were already on scene, hidden in a djihadist cache and were released in the air from the explosion of the bombs) President Trump, after being opposed to military intervention according to his speeches in the past, turned around and authorized the US army to bomb a Syrian airport (59 Tomahawk missiles were shot). ISIS took the opportunity of this US attack on the airport to assault it and try to take it back. EU Council President Tusk said he was ready to work with the US to end brutality in Syria. UK agreed with Trump on his decision and supports the US. Russia claimed it was an unnecessary attack against Syria's state sovereignty. What do the 'muricans think about Trump's decision? Other people? Personally I think everyone is reacting to this way too quickly, out of emotion, irrationally (I've a feeling of deja-vu from the supposed mass destruction weapons in Irak). It's unknown yet who's responsible for this, and attacking a Syrian airport like Trump did could lead to an international armed conflict, especially with every country taking position on the matter. Once again Trump showed he's not fit for presidency, overreacting and in total contradiction with his previous decisions and speeches.

What you want to install isn't a police car, but read that, at least you'll have a basic knowledge of what you're doing.

No difference.

http://www.lcpdfr.com/downloads/gta5mods/vehiclemodels/?sortby=file_updated&page=1&since=all_time

Yes, it broke most mods, hence people need to revert to v1.0.7.0 if they want to use LCPDFR.

GTA IV got updated recently, maybe Spark wasn't updated as well to be compatible. Try using OpenIV instead.

I did watch the video. But I also watched and read many other articles. Including this one: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-terror-attack-claim-sweden-neo-nazis-refugee-centre-florida-rally-a7588516.html Terrorism =/= immigration. The US is a country that was built on immigration. Does it make it a terrorist state? Doubt so. Those matters can be correlated in some exclusive situations, but are otherwise completely unrelated subjects that need to be dealt with accordingly. Saying that immigration creates terrorism is a very narrow-minded point of view that leads to dangerous situations, like that attack on a muslim praying center in Canada not so long ago. That's exactly what I explained above. According to you, there's the mainstream media, that are the ones with the most visibility. Alright, that's your opinion about it. Let's take it for granted. What do we do then? Not believe them and instead believe the conspiracy theories of a couple of fake news websites or random dudes on Youtube that manipulate facts to create "alternative facts" to match their version of reality? Doubt that's a solution. Do we turn towards smaller medias? They also have an editorial line that makes their news being oriented in such a way that it reflects the position of the media on the matters they report on. There's no ideal solution if your typical behavior is to just believe what people say without double checking it, be it "mainstream medias" or smaller ones. The only ideal solution is for people to take what they see on TV or read in newspapers/websites with a grain of salt (or ten) and make their own research on the matter to build their own opinion, independently of the media that reported it. People need to be emancipated from newsfeeds, that's all. And that includes a certain president who cannot for the life of himself make himself being relevant without spreading fake news and "alternative facts". Wrong. See, that's why I heavily dislike when US citizens decide to judge what happens in Europe. They know nothing about it. UK? Right/far-right. Germany? Center-right. France? Center-right (yes they are called socialists, but their politics is center-right, name doesn't mean everything). Greece? Supposedly left, applies center-right reforms from the EU. Hungary? Right-wing. I could keep going for most countries. And that's without talking about the wave of nationalists raising in every country of the EU (the anti-EU, nationalist, xenophobic party in France is now first in the polls with 26+% at 60 days from the elections). Europe is NOT very left-winged. Claiming the contrary is being ignorant on the subject and on the EU politics. There's no hard evidence that "a lot of them are not fit in our western society". Many of them are assimilated just fine. There's no fact denied.

The only fake news I heard that day was Trump saying a terrorist attack happened in Sweden when it did not. Sweden having immigration problems is a whole different subject. Either Trump should know how to organize his speeches so we understand them properly, or he should learn how not to believe every fake news he overhears. Either way, definitely not the "mainstream media" 's fault for him being stupid (once more). What's mainstream media anyway? Medias having a lot of visibility on the newspapers racks/on the internet? What should we do then, believe smaller medias, bloggers? Independent journalists? Their views won't be any less directed towards a specific opinion. They will be even more so due to a lack of editorial line. There's no "mainstream media", there's just the media. Sometimes they overreact, sometimes they don't, that's how it is and that's how it always has been. It's up to the reader to make his own opinion about things.

Wasn't aware I was supposed to report even for just a title. I'll know from now on.

Picture is a bit small to discern the lightbar properly IMO.

In the trainer.ini file, there should be a line like "HotkeyEnabled" or "HotkeyDisabled", something like that (don't remember exactly, I didn't play the solo in ages). Modify the value to 1 (which means yes in binary code) or 0 (which means no in binary code) depending on what line it is, and save.

Honestly what makes me really mad is that, if it was actually an immigrant who barged into a church and started shooting at everyone, it would make the big titles of every newspaper or news show, everyone would "condemn with the utmost firmness this act of barbarity", but now that it is a local dude shooting at innocent muslims, it barely managed to make it to the main page of any news website, and quickly got forgotten. There's just a double standards situation that drives me crazy, and it's partially the fault of some people targeting the muslim community for being "dangerous" and "extemist" that people care less, if not at all. Why can't we be like in most sci-fi movies, one united people across the world? I guess it's too much to ask to simply stop violence.

The only fix for the taxi lights is to modify the taxi texture by darkening it to filter the excessive emissive light, but nothing can be done for the headlights that I know of. It's part of the downsides of having a mod that increases the intensity of the emissive lights.

If you want the car to be in the police2 slot, rename the car files to police2. Or police3 if you want them in the police3 slot. Or sheriff, sheriff2, fbi2, you get the gist.

6 people dead, 8 injured after two men walked in and started shooting at the dozens of people who gathered there for their evening prayer. Justin Trudeau called the shooting a terrorist attack against the canadian muslim community as a whole. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38793071 This is what happens when people target a community for all the wrongs in the world. I'm curious to see if the people who usually condemn terrorist attacks from islamic terrorists will also condemn this shooting against innocent muslims.

It's the same for the Ford Fusion in the NYPD. Those fancy sedans are clearly not made for police work, even in a PPV format.

As Vektro said, start recording a clip in-game, then use the Rockstar Editor to move the camera around freely and take the screenshots at the angle and distance you want (Fraps, Nvidia software, Gyazo, I'm sure you'll be able to look for a screenshot program by yourself on Google if you don't already have one). Example of screenshots I did on the online: