cp702

The Michigan State Police want a word with you: You don't actually need to light a car up like a Christmas tree to be seen.

This also confuses me. As small as the annoyance of not having LSPDFR while waiting for 0.1 was, this annoyance is even smaller. I mean, I get that 0.1e was unpolished, but it works fine.

You copy entire archive files over; you don't create folders with the same name as folders within the archive. For instance, for patchday5ng, you'd copy /update/x64/dlcpacks/patchday5ng/dlc.rpf to /mods/update/x64/dlcpacks/patchday5ng/dlc.rpf, and would then make all your changes in the dlc.rpf in the mods folder. You don't need to copy vehicles.rpf separately; it's part of dlc.rpf, which you must copy as a whole unit.

You're right on the technical details; the *reason* is that it's bad to make a giant vehicle-wrapping texture (taking up a lot of memory) when you don't intend on anyone modifying the texture. It is just as impossible to put the Interceptor livery on the other LSPD cars, because they are mapped for a logo on the front door with text beneath it.

500x192 is more than the 500x150 limit, so it won't work anyway.

Where are you adding the texture to?

The uniform is a big reason for me. Plus, the terrain itself works better: Bikes are a lot less cool in urban pursuit than on open roads. Combined with the V handling improvements, and the fact that SNT means I can avoid falling off my bike every six seconds (I'm kind of a terrible video game driver, although I can often handle my bike pretty well), much, much nicer. Actually, that's another thing: I'm a bad driver in games, but the bike makes it way easier to not crash into stuff. I find it takes less care with a bike than a car.

Not to mention the really fun stuff: Giving press conferences and setting budgets (I know, hard to believe the excitement!) Police ranks (and army ranks, and really just about any rank system) aren't a matter of "you're good, so we're going to give you a higher rank and keep you on the same job." Paygrades can work like that, but not ranks. Increasing rank means you're turning into more and more of a supervisor, and less and less of a front-line worker. At the high end, a police chief's job in a big department is more similar to the job of the director of the city parks department than it is to the job of a patrolman. A police chief (and those a couple levels down from the very top of the hierarchy) is a bureaucrat, whose main connection to policing is that he was a cop and he supervises cops, and that he still considers cops to be his colleagues. It's kind of like the difference between a four-star general and an infantryman, except the general still wears a uniform.

> Pistols and SMGs have the least amount of recoil while Rifles and LMGs have the most I'm pretty sure rifles should have less recoil than pistols. I just checked with c13, who has fired both the gun the GTA Pistol is based on and the gun the Carbine Rifle is based on, and confirms that the pistol has more recoil (because there's less support).

I think this just establishes that your aesthetic opinions aren't worth listening to, if you think the Explorer is ugly.

Why would you want that? Vehicles are generally required to pull over for emergency lights, even with no siren.

That's not what he's asking, guys. That enables the regular police car to spawn without its lightbar. But police4 has substantially more interior lights than the regular police car; he's asking if police4 (with its lots of interior lights) can be spawned with an LSPD livery.

As for two other things: First, I don't find it implausible in the least that someone wouldn't recognize an ISIS flag. Not everyone follows the news overmuch, and ISIS hasn't actually done much in the way of attacks against the US (the ISIS-US thing is US citizens joining ISIS, but not US cities being attacked). Second, the general sense I have about public opinion on the matter is this: The Confederate flag has always been considered by a good-sized chunk of people to have a strong undercurrent of racism. (this is, incidentally, my view, on the matter) However, the conventional wisdom was "this is something to just deal with, there's no way to change it." People who thought it was problematic didn't necessarily speak out (many didn't care that much, honestly), but there were people speaking out about it. It's just that attacking it was often considered pointless, because it was unlikely to result in any sort of change. The shooting in Charleston made the Confederate flag a major talking point, because the shooter acted under a white supremacist ideology and prominently displayed the Confederate flag on some pictures. Once it became a talking point, many of the people to speak up were those who were always opposed to it. There's been something of a hidden cultural shift, where the flag was ripe for massive criticism (fewer and fewer people were willing to strongly defend it, where "strongly defending it" means being willing to defend it on principle -- basically, the point of view Pavelow and DivineHustle have been taking on this site). So, once it became seriously controversial, lots of people were speaking out against it and virtually no one was in favor of it. Public opinion has thus turned fast and hard against the flag. While this is going on, governments are publicly disavowing it and private companies are deciding it's either no longer necessary to support it, or not worth trying to support it. There may well be a backlash, with the flag becoming more popular as a response. But this has looked to me more like a gradual shift in public opinion that (when people started focusing on something that hadn't received much focus in a while) resulted in an apparent massive swing. I'm not a sociologist, but that's the impression I get. @everyone: Cool the personal attacks.

Wiki is wrong or you're misreading it. The first Confederate national flag had nothing to do with the commonly flown flag (which was the battle flag). The second national flag was a white flag with the battle flag in the canton. The third national flag was a white flag with a red right border and the battle flag in the canton (because the second flag, when it folded wrong, looked like a flag of surrender). US laws do not criminalize use of the symbols of a terrorist organization. And US laws do not prohibit waving the Confederate flag. The right to display symbols of your choice does not necessarily translate into the right to force a private company to produce goods with those symbols for you to buy. Wal-Mart is not the government, and is not obligated to sell a cake with the Confederate flag if they don't want to. This is exactly the issue with the people who have refused to bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages. However, in that case, they sometimes run afoul of laws banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; no such laws exist banning discrimination on the grounds of what symbols you like to use. It's questionable if laws like that would be constitutional, but they don't exist so it doesn't matter.

Per 49 CFR 1520.9, "covered persons" (including everyone who legally receives Sensitive Security Information) has a duty to protect it and only share it with people with the need to know; violation is grounds for a civil penalty. You are also grossly overestimating the sensitivity of the identities of FAMs, and grossly underestimating the degree to which non-governmental employees are allowed to access classified information. The identity of FAMs is not classified. Their operational procedures (at least, those that flight crew need to be aware of) are not classified. Whether FAMs are on a flight is not classified. It is sensitive, but is unclassified material. No security clearance is needed for it (and thus, you don't need to be a US citizen to receive it, nor do you need a background check); disclosure is not a criminal offense (disclosure of classified material is also not normally criminal, but SSI disclosure is considered much less serious). FAMs are not intelligence agents. Disclosure of their identities does not appreciably damage national security. In short, SSI is really not that serious, and the need to know far outweighs the sensitivity for airline crew. On the flipside, private companies and their employees receive access to classified information (not just SSI) all the time. The US government makes extensive use of contractors; contractors routinely receive clearances up to and including TS/SCI (for agencies following the DoD model) or Q (for the Department of Energy, gives access to nuclear weapon design information). People whose jobs involve working with national security information receive clearances on the same basis as federal employees; I think contractor background investigations are done by contractors instead of by federal employees, but the actual clearance is issued on the same basis. So, no, SSI is not classified and is not really that big a deal to tell airline personnel, and non-federal employees routinely receive access to classified information (the US government has no issue trusting non-employees who pass a background check).

1. Depends on the organization. The answer may be "none," depending on circumstances. 2. Depends on the organization. The answer may be "none," depending on circumstances. 3. Depends on the state. In New York, the Supreme Court is the lowest level of the state courts, and has court officers. In general, though, appellate courts have much less of a need for bailiffs. They have security guards at the door, but the general environment is not one in which you necessarily need an armed courtroom officer. SCOTUS has a Marshal who attends the courtroom, but that's not actually a job open to you (the current one has served for 14 years). 4. No. Many courts require courtroom officers to be sworn, trained law enforcement officers, meeting the same requirements a patrolling cop does. In some places, it's handled by deputy sheriffs (who need to fully qualify as deputies). For federal courts (which do have contractors employed solely to do court security), you need to have graduated from a certified law enforcement academy and have three years of law enforcement experience to be a contract court security officer (to be a deputy marshal, you don't technically need the experience but federal LE positions are incredibly competitive). The difficulty depends on the court, but it's certainly not just "you can basically get a job anywhere with the degree."

For state and local LE, only on official business (unless you mean "unloaded and in a locked case in checked baggage", which *anyone* can do). The regulations are quite clear on this point: only allowed if they are performing law enforcement duties on the plane or in between getting off and retrieving checked bags. For non-FAM LEOs, yes, it's required under 49 CFR 1544.219(a)(4)(v). 1544.219(a) in general doesn't apply to FAMs, and there doesn't seem to be public official policies about this for FAMs, but ASRS (NASA's anonymous reporting system for aviation safety incidents) has several entries along the lines of "flight and/or cabin crew were not notified," implying that the normal policy (which flight and cabin crew are told about) is that they are notified.

The dollar amount depends on the state; in CA, it's $950 for grand theft (this is a recent change made through the initiative process, that also reclassed shoplifting from always a felony to normally a misdemeanor).

The only time state and local LE can bring a firearm into the passenger cabin is if they need it for their job (meaning prisoner transport, protection detail, official travel where they'll be working on the other end, or engaged in surveillance), where they are doing law enforcement on the actual plane or immediately afterwards (if they will do it right after, say, leaving the airport, it doesn't count -- they must check the gun unless they're doing LE tasks on board or in between landing and reclaiming bags). They must have direct approval from their department for each and every flight they take. Obviously, they can also put unloaded firearms in checked baggage like anyone else. Federal LEOs have much broader ability to fly armed: a federal LE agency can authorize its agents to always fly armed, even on personal travel (this is not an option for a state or local agency). In that case, I think the captain is still always notified; a captain has virtually total authority over their aircraft, and I'm pretty sure they can order LEOs to disarm or get off the aircraft. I know they can order things like uncuffing people in custody (because that's a safety issue, and the pilot in command is the final authority over anything having to do with the operation of the aircraft). FAMs are a bit different since federal law requires airlines to carry them (the PIC can probably remove them for a good reason, like drunkenness), but I strongly suspect PICs are notified because, again, they are the final authority over the aircraft and have a good reason to know someone is armed on board (likewise, cabin crew have a good reason to know who's a FAM, so they know who to tell if there's an issue). Most of the details aren't available from any official source; the TSA has an obsessive policy of "classifying" just about anything that anything to do with airplane security.

People might call 911 for them, but they aren't something police respond to as an emergency call. Particularly for taking reports, it's simply not an emergency (nor even an urgent situation; the theft already happened, the guy is gone, no one is in danger, so it's not the kind of thing you rush to with lights and sirens). Shoplifting with a detained suspect isn't an emergency. Petty theft that already happened isn't an emergency.