cp702

It's quite possible that the next version will be for V, though. If it is, there may well be more bugs than in the version for IV, but that's just because it'd be on a new game that we don't have as much experience with.

However: The only vehicles that can have working lights and sirens are police, police2, police3, police4, policeb, nstockade, pstockade, noose, polpatriot, fbi, firetruk, and ambulance. It is not possible to add to this list. All of these are by default already in BOGT, so no added cars can have working sirens in BOGT; in IV, the only added cars that can have working sirens are police3, police4, policeb. ELS works on any car slot present by default in IV or EFLC (both TLAD and BOGT), so adding cars with the same name as an EFLC slot to IV lets ELS work (although it cannot make AI cars pull over). ELS also works on emerg1 through emerg7. It does not work on any other car slots (e.g. if you add police5, ELS will not work with that slot).

That sounds like it'd be only for MP games (obviously, adding something to the text wall doesn't get AI to do anything). I've actually brought that up with LMS as a possible MP enhancement (it's kind of a natural thing to do, given that half the point of MP seems to be actual humans backing you up in fights and that relying on AI spawns makes a lot less sense when there are other players), but MP isn't really a focus for LCPDFR development at the moment.

Nothing to see here! This thread has been closed by LCPDFR.com staff, because it has been created in an incorrect forum. We require that LCPDFR support requests are created in the LCPDFR Support Requests forum, so that users are presented with the troubleshooter. Please use that forum and follow the clearly presented instructions. If you feel that this topic has been closed in error, please report this post.

I think it's unlikely, barring Sam changing his idea of the core purpose of the mod.

I actually *do* know how to make scripts for IV, so: This would mostly be possible. Ranks on sleeves would be difficult to pull off in a sensible way, and you really can't keep someone from changing their model with the trainer or from getting weapons with the trainer, or from picking guns up off dead bodies (or buying them at the gun stores). Restricting backup, restricting vehicle choice through LCPDFR's selection screen, restricting callouts, etc. would be easy in principle, because that's something that LCPDFR already directly triggers, and you could add a rank check before triggering something. You could not really stop someone from spawning a new car through the SHDN console (hit `, type 'spawn vehiclename', it spawns the car). Visible armor would also be pretty annoying to make work right. The thing is, actually debugging this stuff would be a lot of annoying work, and it would be trivial to bypass some restrictions in career mode (through, say, a trainer). It really doesn't get you much you couldn't already get yourself, because the only new thing in career mode is a counter of what you've done. That counter is legitimately new, but other than that you could easily just restrict yourself by setting personal rules. A rank system would necessarily be the same for everyone, would be annoying to balance, and would not fit the theme of LCPDFR (arcade-y, massively unrealistic, *preventing* you from having all the tools to RP a cop). The biggest issue is really the it not fitting, not technical hurdles. Because it doesn't fit the mod, there are better things for the devs to work on.

I can say that this does not fit the purpose of LCPDFR as Sam has expressed it. I think it used to be described as "simulating a regular patrolman," but more recently he's described it as a base-level modification; the idea is that it gives you the tools to play as a police officer in whatever way you see fit. The callout API builds on that. The idea, as far as I know, is not and has never been an arcade-style thing like career mode would be; that was PPM's thing, but LCPDFR is more about giving you the tools to act as a cop, and also tries to be more realistic than any fun rank system would be. That said, if someone wanted to do something like this and needed API features, they could post in the LCPDFR Development section with what API features they needed, and the devs could see about adding them. This would be great for an API mod.

Rockstar hasn't made any versions of GTA moddable since SA. They will not make V moddable. However, that doesn't mean modders won't mod it. IV wasn't modded because Rockstar said "Here, you can mod this game," it was modded because modders replaced various files to make the game do things very differently from what it was designed to do. Credit for modding GTA IV goes entirely to modders; Rockstar gets negative credit (for adding features to try to prevent modding), with the one good thing they've done related to modding being not suing modders.

Two things: First, money has *always* been something based on government regulations, just like weights and measures are traditionally regulated, and for the same reason: it is a massive waste of effort to have to directly verify amounts of everything, and standardization is a natural task for a government. Nowadays, it's starting to become possible for standardization to happen without a government, which is why Bitcoin can work. Second, Money has value because people will give you stuff for it. There are no exceptions to this rule. Attempts to peg money to a particular physical item means that inflation is determined by the exchange rate between two goods; that's not ideal, because that means the value of people's investments is defined by how much people want such-and-such commodity. As it turns out, that is about as good an idea as price controls (i.e. a terrible one for economic efficiency). China will suffer from it, but not because they lack inventiveness. The thing about China is that the US is their second-largest trading partner (behind the EU, which is a common market but not actually a country), and the relationship is hugely beneficial to both. The US collapsing would cause major issues in the world economy, but there really isn't a reason to think the US is particularly close to having a serious debt problem (again, the US can borrow money extremely cheaply, and that's what defines a serious debt problem -- people are less willing to lend you *more*).

Medicare and Social Security (both welfare programs) are the two largest spending categories in the federal budget. Defense is third. However, the first two don't have to be renewed every year, unlike defense spending. SIR_Sergeant, you might want to note that every country uses fiat currency, because the alternative is (to use a technical term) "stupid." Fiat currency is printed to achieve inflation and economic goals; the government *could* print money to pay debts, but it results in hyperinflation (that's what happened to the German mark in the early 1920s). To make that harder, the Treasury was removed from the process, and actual economists who have a measure of independence set US monetary policy. Sovereign debt is not like household debt. It doesn't have to be entirely repaid; a country can sustainably run a balance of debt. It's not an issue at all to have high levels of debt unless interest rates are going up or interest payments are a problem. High principal isn't a problem because a country does not get dissolved if it can't pay its debt -- it can print money (which is not good, but will clear the debt) or can default, and it cannot be forced to pay anything (a private party can have its stuff confiscated, a country cannot). The effects of debt are to increase outlays every year to pay interest, and (if investors are worried it won't be paid back) to increase interest rates, making it more expensive to borrow money in the future. The US can borrow money at one of the lowest interest rates of any entity in the world, because Treasury bonds get paid back on time, period. So, it's actually not really a problem for US debt to be at the level it's at. Countries often run a debt, and they aren't expected to ultimately pay everything off. As to how the US got in debt - The United States had no debt for around a year in 1835 and 1836. It has continuously been in debt since then, and was in debt before then. For comparison, the UK has been in debt since 1700 with no interruptions. Debt isn't a problem. Debt that investors think can't be repaid, making it more expensive to borrow money in the future, is a problem.

Microsoft is an American company, which makes crimes committed against them an FBI problem. Sony Computer Entertainment is not; I'm not sure why the US government would be responsible for investigating crimes against them. It's not like the Sony Pictures attack, because a) Sony Pictures is an American company, b) that attack actually crippled them for a week, and c) there was reason to believe it was an attack by a foreign government against an American company (and the US government's job includes protecting Americans from attacks by foreign governments).

Unfortunately, claiming this doesn't make it so. A thread saying "here's my crowdfunding campaign" is still an attempt to make money off of LCPDFR.com outside of approved channels, which is not allowed. Feel free to start a thread about how cool it'd be to meet Taylor Swift, but don't try to use this site to get people to contribute to your crowdfunding campaign. Nothing to see here! This topic has been closed by LCPDFR.com staff. If you feel that this topic has been closed in error, please report this post.

Normal extension cords don't do anything to help against lightning. Surge protectors do, but extension cords are sometimes iffy for high-powered things (you're not supposed to use them permanently, because of the risk of overload).

That actually doesn't help. It says Vancouver was lead on the whole game, but not if the port was done by someone else or if so, who.

I know Rockstar Toronto did the IV port. Who did the MP3 port?

That's not actually evidence. That's a post from a Facebook group run by a couple deputies, which is not in any way official. They didn't recently seize the weapon pictured; this is fairly certain, because that exact picture appeared on a New York TV station a couple years ago. There's no source that's ever been attached, except mentions of it happening in Indianapolis, but the Indianapolis police have said that the picture didn't start with their department (the Snopes people think it was probably an email circulating among cops, not a "here's something we actually saw" but a "look at this". Read the Snopes article linked in the OP.

The US is not like that right now -- a felony normally stays on your record for life (there are occasional exceptions, mostly involving being under 18 when you committed it), and it's generally legal for companies to require you to disclose past felony convictions and to automatically deny felons for being felons. In a few states, laws have been passed to require most employers to not ask about felony convictions until they've looked at the rest of your application (the idea is to give you a chance to show why you should be hired, as opposed to having them filtering out felons' applications without even looking at the rest of the application), but they're in the minority, and even there I think it's legal to officially not hire someone because they have a felony conviction (you don't need to make up another excuse). This petition seems to be about changing that. Personally, the (highly legitimate, IMO) idea of a second chance aside, I'm really not sure how making it nearly impossible for a felon to find legitimate employment is supposed to discourage them from committing more crimes.

The point of a grand jury is that whoever's accusing someone of a crime must show some good reason to make them go through the ordeal of a trial and force them to defend their life, liberty, or property. The origin is actually from well before modern police and prosecutors existed; historically, a grand jury was an actual powerful investigative body, before which citizens would bring complaints. The grand jury could gather evidence and decide if a crime merited the person being placed in jeopardy of a criminal conviction (before the indictment, they have not been placed in jeopardy). The issue is that this does not translate to the modern system, in which the state provides essentially all the investigation and also provides the prosecutors for every case, and in which no one except the state is seeking a criminal indictment. Nowadays, people who might be tried generally know they might be tried, and frivolous charges are extremely rare (charges may not be supported by probable cause, but they aren't normally totally made up either), so the argument that this saves the defendant having to defend himself on a simple accusation doesn't really apply. Grand juries now are effectively going straight to the trial; at the federal level (where they're required) they will indict just about every single person they're asked to, and serve as a combination of a rubber stamp and an institution that prosecutors can claim they're doing things on behalf of. Originally, the accused didn't get to challenge witnesses because the idea was to see if there was enough evidence to make them answer in court. At the federal level (the only level at which grand juries are required, as no states mandate their use and this is one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights not applied to the states), there were 11 cases where a grand jury did not indict in 2010. This is out of well over 150,000 federal prosecutions. The go-to adage about grand juries is that any mildly competent prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The problem with grand juries is that they're effectively a tool of the prosecution. If the prosecution wants an indictment, they generally give an indictment. If the prosecution doesn't want an indictment, they won't give an indictment. However, even though they act as a tool of the prosecution, they're treated like a legitimate independent judicial body; a grand jury wields significant power that in practice they just give to the district attorney (a district attorney cannot compel testimony, issue subpoenas, or things of that nature; a grand jury can, and so the DA can do it "on behalf of the grand jury" when the grand jury is being a rubber stamp). It's not that grand juries themselves are so awful (besides the secrecy in cases like this), it's that the legal system pretends they have an independent function when they really pretty much don't. The main alternative to a grand jury is not cases proceeding directly to trial. Instead, the case has a preliminary hearing, where the DA goes before a judge (not a jury) and presents evidence supporting probable cause against the accused. Unlike a grand jury, a preliminary hearing is in the public record. Unlike a grand jury, the accused has the right to know about it, to defend themselves, and to have legal counsel to defend themselves. A preliminary hearing isn't actually a trial; if the accused loses, then the case goes to trial. It's a way to save the accused some of the burden of preparing for a trial if they were falsely accused, and as it's adversarial, it doesn't basically serve as an arm of the DA's office. Preliminary hearings are the norm in every state, I think; it's only at the federal level that grand juries are required.

There is no Fifth Amendment right at the state level. It only applies to federal charges, and actually probably produces less protection of the accused: a grand jury is a secret proceeding which (at the federal level) indicts essentially instinctively, without even thinking about the evidence. Without a grand jury, states generally make prosecutors prove probable cause before a judge in which the accused actually has the right to know what's going on and even (gasp) challenge the prosecution. On the other hand, grand juries love to not indict police officers, and there is no transparency on that decision (no, releasing some evidence by one side is not transparency, it's propaganda). Frankly, it's probably a bad thing the US uses grand juries in any situation; in police killings, it's even worse because there should be absolutely no protection of privacy for a police officer's official actions, unless critically needed for reasons like "we're investigating and gathering evidence, and if they know we're gathering it they can destroy it" or "this is an undercover cop".

You have a funny reading of "wage war" to think it necessarily includes every single person who disagrees with the teachings of a religion. Also, you're saying that Islam is somehow inherently different than Christianity because of something it's doing now, while Christianity did it around 600-700 years ago. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete and utter bullshit in every possible way. During the Crusades, the Bible was read to mean "go to war to take back the Holy Land". During the 1400s, it was read to mean "persecute the Jews". Now, it's not read to mean that -- but the Bible itself hasn't changed one bit. So you might want to be a bit more careful bringing up holy books as a point in your argument -- if you're claiming something about a religion (as opposed to a particular way it's practiced today), Christianity at best ties Islam. You have a funny reading of "wage war" to think it necessarily includes every single person who disagrees with the teachings of a religion. Also, you're saying that Islam is somehow inherently different than Christianity because of something it's doing now, while Christianity did it around 600-700 years ago. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete and utter bullshit in every possible way. During the Crusades, the Bible was read to mean "go to war to take back the Holy Land". During the 1400s, it was read to mean "persecute the Jews". Now, it's not read to mean that -- but the Bible itself hasn't changed one bit. So you might want to be a bit more careful bringing up holy books as a point in your argument -- if you're claiming something about a religion (as opposed to a particular way it's practiced today), Christianity at best ties Islam.

Okay, so it's not actually powering off (powering off turns off the light, and is completely separate from turning off the computer). What motherboard do you have, and what kind of USB ports are the keyboard and mouse plugged into? (i.e. are they plugged straight into the motherboard? into an expansion card?)

Does the monitor actually power off, or does it just stop displaying stuff?

Are the mouse and keyboard wireless or wired?

So...if the CIA is allowed to do anything that's not worse than what the other side is doing, that's cool? I'm sorry, I'm just disgusted by the thought that that idea has a good amount of currency in the US. You can't call yourself a good guy and do bad guy things.

They don't get $174,000 for life. They get their salary while they hold office; pensions depend on how long they served. For 32 years service, they get 80% of their salary as a pension; if they only serve 6 years, it's closer to 10% (i.e. under $20,000/yr). They can't collect the full value of their pension until they're 62 years old. ...So? You know haircuts aren't that expensive or that frequent, right? That's roughly along the lines of giving free coffee to people. Congressional offices are largeish (most furniture is for staff, not for the member themselves), and Congress is far from the only place to come to the shocking conclusion that employees don't have to pay out of their own pocket to set up an office for their subordinates. This is also completely false in almost every possible way. Representatives are capped at 18 permanent staff at a time. One can be described as a personal assistant (the scheduler), and even that tends to be iffy. It is a federal crime to use other employees as personal assistants. Most of an office is legislative staff; other staffers work in constituent service, public affairs (yes, that's a legitimate task for a member of Congress), administrative support (HR, a sysadmin, office manager, etc.), or similar. No staffers get personal assistants, period. Some might have assistants in the workplace, but that's not a personal assistant. The only reason it's legal to use the scheduler for personal purposes is that personal schedule and professional schedule are linked by the limit of 24 hours in a day. Like above, you're confusing professional things with personal things. Nope. Members of Congress and their staff are on Obamacare. Personal protection is not given unless there is solid reason to believe there's a threat against their life; members do not get bodyguards routinely. Nope. Members are working when Congress is not in session; that's when they do things like catch up on what constituents want, and visit things in their home district. The President isn't a high-ranking member of Congress, but: The President pays for his vacations at the rate it would cost to buy a first-class airline ticket. He doesn't pay for continuity-of-government stuff or a protection detail or any of the other parts of his entourage, but they are only part of his entourage because of his job -- it's no cheaper for him than if he were a private citizen. The thing is, members of Congress (and high-level politicians generally) could make several times more money if they were not politicians. To be elected, you need to be generally pretty smart and engaging, you need to seem trustworthy, you need to be good at dealing with people, and you need to be good at convincing people to come over to your point of view. Those skills are largely what determine salary anywhere; the skills needed to be a member of Congress are worth far more in the private sector where compensation isn't set by law.