cp702

Er, not quite. We *think* it's 255, 256, or 254 (not sure which way the off-by-one goes from 255, if indeed there is one). But that's just based on the code selecting a livery for the vehicle; it's possible other texture management routines impose a smaller limit (we certainly didn't test to 255 liveries, unless I wasn't told about something). For instance, it's conceivable (literally no idea if this is true or not) that IV might impose a cap on textures loaded in a .wtd, or of a particular texture store in memory (in that case it's probably more likely that the game would just crash or give trippy results, but it's possible that R* foresaw a possible issue and coded to catch it). Also, keep in mind that textures take a lot of memory; it's compressed, but still big. If you actually tried 256 liveries, my bet is the game would just fail to load them all, leading to massive visual glitches (actually: anyone game for an experiment?) Reading the OP again: If the issue is it not spawning, it may be that sticking in too many liveries is making it large enough that IV is never picking it to spawn. It's possible that it's so big that it can't fit in the amount of memory allocated for spawning vehicle types (or something along those lines), in which case it's pretty much a reverse taxi bug.

Easy: He *doesn't* pull them over. Moving violations do not require an officer who observes them to take action based on them. For that matter, police *don't* have to chase someone over a moving violation; it's often department policy not to, because chases are extremely dangerous to police, suspect, and anyone else on the road -- if someone's pulled over for speeding and takes off, the cop is reasonably likely to call it in but not chase, because risking lives over a speeding ticket is often not the best option (there are a fair number of departments that forbid chases for anything short of a violent felony). Police officers off-duty are generally not required to be acting as cops. In a marked car, they have to only in situations where a police car can't very well just drive past (i.e. emergencies and when a member of the public needs a cop). They would likely be expected to chase someone who they see shooting at a group of people and speeding off. They would not even be expected to pull over someone merely committing a moving violation.

Montgomery County has the same take-home policy, with the added conditions that officers with marked take-homes can't take them outside the county and have to be able to be flagged down. This also seems to imply the added constraint that marked cruisers have to be driven by a police officer (taking family is fine, but the cop has to be there too in case he's flagged down, and family might have to wait by the side of the road if that happens). There was a driver's ed instructor I had who was actually kinda late one day because he was driving his take-home and rolled past an accident scene, where he had to pull over and help (my driver's ed classes were taught by current and retired police officers). I wouldn't be surprised if handling situations you happen to roll up to was a requirement most places -- departments don't want to look like their officers are ignoring pleas for help, and someone on the street would have no idea that a marked cruiser has an off-duty officer inside. The main point to it is to massively increase apparent police presence, because it basically turns a cop's trip to the store into free semi-patrols for the police department (semi-patrols in that they don't get dispatched to calls or have to react to something minor, but do have to help if something major happens or they get flagged down).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always learned that the Queen actually has very little power - lots of authority, but little power (the distinction is that authority is what you can technically do, power is what you can really do -- dictators are often a good example, because they often don't take the highest office and/or officially most authority is vested in a deliberative body, but the one person really has all the power). Technically, the Queen can veto any law, dissolve Parliament whenever, and so on; in practice, could the Queen actually get away with using her powers to overrule a democratically elected government?

Nope, Taser's actually discontinued their shotgun round (not that it's actually something that'd be useful to someone who's not police or military; it had a fairly specific niche which required substantial training, and Taser actually didn't even sell them to non-military non-police buyers, and it was *really* expensive, as in >$100 per round, which is why it ended up being discontinued in the first place).

Why would the military respond? Protection of the President isn't their job, it's the job of civilian law enforcement.

No, it's actually entirely reasonable to make the comparison (even though stories that the Titanic was claimed to be unsinkable are apocryphal). The Titanic is irrelevant to ineseri's point. His point was about the nature of certainty - that is, you don't actually find it in the real world, and things that people generally think can't happen because ingenious people have guaranteed that they won't have an unfortunate tendency to happen regardless. Remember that in 1910, 1911 was the future. In 2117, 2014 will be as far in the past as 1911 is now. The fact that that was the past and this is now is relevant to a few things, but affects a lot less than people tend to imagine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the independence movement didn't have the people on their side. They literally asked basically all the people over 16 years old living in Scotland, 85%-odd bothered to respond, and 55% of those said "no". I'm curious how you can seriously claim the people are on the side of independence when that appears to be demonstrably false.

I think LMS looked at it without any real success (there's no simple way to do it by editing files, it would require scripting). Looks like it's not really possible.

...And it's pretty much definitely No, with like a 10-point margin (and really high turnout). Update: Looks like No's clinched it - it is mathematically impossible for Yes to win. It's official: the UK is staying together.

Congrats! Good luck!

To be fair, it's often hard to make interesting arguments for the status quo. If the referendum fails, does it mean they're done with independence talk for the forseeable future, or does it mean they'll just try again in like 10 years?

Students have some rights in public schools by virtue of the fact that public schools are government bodies; schools don't have unlimited regulatory abilities. Students also, as I've mentioned a few times, have certain rights via federal law - educational bodies refusing to enforce them forfeit all federal funding (in practice, this makes them binding on just about all schools, including private colleges, while still being within the federal government's powers).

And according to actual proper linguistics (i.e. not what is learned in high school), that's true basically by definition -- seriously, a good working definition of the syntax of a language is what feels right to native speakers, and a mistake is only a mistake if native speakers view it as one (which roughly means they think it sounds wrong). If you go with what sounds right to you as a native speaker, and don't see anything wrong with a sentence, then that sentence is perfectly correct within your personal dialect of English; if the sentence sounds right to all speakers of a particular dialect, it is correct within that dialect.

You see that basically everywhere. In public schools like the one I went to, teachers are restricted to enforcing school rules, but school rules tend towards the ridiculous side (e.g. during my first year at my high school, all students had to wear IDs around our necks at all times; precisely one teacher I'm aware of enforced the rule, a few administrators enforced it when they felt like it, and no one else cared at all [in shop class, you were *prohibited* from wearing your ID, because it's actually dangerous to do so around power tools]). After my sophomore year, they said all students had to stay in the cafeteria area or outside during lunch; we couldn't wander the school, and could only go to a classroom if we had a pass from a teacher, and we weren't supposed to ever eat in classrooms. Some teachers cared, most didn't (so for the ones who cared, it was actually weird that they did).

They actually pretty much do just that. If you're under a certain age (varies by jurisdiction, I think it's generally at least 16, it's never over 18), you are legally required to go to school. If you're skipping school without a valid excuse, it's an offense; truancy laws are enforced by the police, and can result in fines or potentially jail time for the parents; students can literally be forcibly returned to school by police if they're skipping. And teachers still get paid, because even if kids are only in school because they're forced to be there, teachers are still working and still entitled to payment for work. Children generally have no right to refuse education. The rights given to minors in a public school are actually sort of limited; they aren't entitled to the full range of rights an adult has, for instance (in a private school, rights against various forms of government action obviously don't apply anyway). Children have the right to an education and to the protection of the laws; federal law gives additional rights, such as equal opportunity for disabled children (which is one reason a kid might have a right to preferential seating, in which case they can't be forced to sit in the back). But the claim that a teacher's job depends on the approval of the kids, like they're customers or something, is flat-out wrong -- even if a teacher's job is eliminated because kids are sent to private school, that's the parent's decision to make, not the kid's (unless the kid is over 18).

It can be, in certain cases. Federal disability law gives students with disabilities the right to an education which is equivalent to the one received by a non-disabled student. In some cases, this results in the right to preferential sitting (generally, the right to sit in the front of the room).

It's almost like the people who live there care what's going on in their neighborhood or something.

Some professors are like this, some aren't. Mostly, it depends on the size of the class -- in a 200-person intro course, the class may not really be able to stop whenever there's a question, and you'll be asked to take it to office hours. This is generally a bad trait for a class to have, though, and I've been in big classes where you can absolutely ask a question; if you have a question, there's a fair chance others also have it. In seminars, you're expected to participate, and if you tune out in class, the professor will notice and be annoyed (participation is often part of your grade in seminars). As for work: In many classes, no, there's no immediate consequence to not having completed work (you just put it on the table, no one really notices if you don't have it). In smaller classes, people start to notice if you don't turn stuff in. With things like seminars, the professor often *will* notice not turning in work, and (if they're nice) ask you what's going on. For some professors, they'll have checkpoints for students (e.g. draft must be in by XXX time, present your basic idea to the class, etc.) For others, there'll be weekly psets, feedback delayed while TAs get to it (or not; in my math course last year, second semester, much homework just went ungraded), and no one telling you "you haven't been turning stuff in" until you get your final grade. What *is* fairly universally true is that you have to be self-motivated to a fair degree. Good professors are more than willing to help you if you're having trouble, but they normally won't come to you and say "hey, we need to talk". The rule is that you are responsible for ensuring your work is done on time, for keeping up with class, for studying, and for recognizing if you have problems and getting help (e.g. my school has extensive tutoring services for students, all free to the student, in addition to the help that professors and TAs are willing to provide during office hours; however, under most circumstances, you have to decide yourself that yes, you need them, and go use them). On powerpoints: Really depends, here. My view is a bit biased by almost all of my courses being presented at a chalkboard/whiteboard, so there simply is no slide set to post online. If you miss something, you need to read the book, ask a friend, or go to office hours. @Willpv: My school has even more general requirements: by graduation complete 2 science, 2 social science, and 2 humanities courses, and by end of junior year complete 2 writing, 2 quantitative reasoning, and 1-3 (depending on a placement test) foreign language requirements. Again, pretty general; you don't have to particularly front-load them (there are progressively increasing requirements for each year), though lots of people do end up finishing them early (it's really not hard to do it without even trying; I'm done except for language and 2 humanities/1 writing OR 1 humanities/2 writing).

"College" basically refers to undergrad (i.e. working towards associate's or bachelor's degree); people don't normally say they're "going to university" like I think they do in the UK. For institution names, "college" generally means "undergraduate and teaching-focused", while a "university" has grad students and a strong research focus as well (not that universities don't care about teaching, but it's not the only priority there). As a rule, universities tend to be more prestigious, but that is by no means always the case -- Reed College is one of the most respected schools in the country and doesn't offer Ph.Ds, while the University of Phoenix is...not very respected (it's a for-profit online school, and those types of schools have a reputation of trying to sucker in as many people as they can to get sweet federal student loan money). There is literally nothing that is mandatory at every college (in fact, there's an [ivy League!] college [brown] which is famous for having no requirements to graduate besides "pass 30 classes" and "complete a major", though it looks like they did add a writing requirement a few years ago). Schools have lots of variation in their non-major requirements, but I can't imagine very many schools requiring geography in particular - it's more common (I think) to see broader requirements like "2 courses in the sciences" and the like than to see more specific "biology" or "geography/geology" or "poli sci" requirements. Schools all differ, but I think more are like the former.

For that matter, things you learn about sentence structure in high school English class are often actually wrong, as you'll learn if you take a linguistics course in college.

Wow. Even when I was in high school, I only had 8 classes a semester, and that was one more than most people at my school (I had an extra period at the end of the day). I'm honestly not sure how you could ever keep 9 courses going simultaneously.

As a matter of fact, Rockstar Games is wholly owned by Take-Two Interactive. Take-Two is a publicly traded company, which means that they are legally required to work to maximize shareholder value - if they decide to do something because they think its right and damn what gives the best returns to shareholders, they are breaching a duty owed to shareholders and can be sued for it.

They probably didn't. DARE cars tend to be vehicles seized from people convicted of drug crimes; the cops got it for free.

That's a different measure: educational attainment (i.e. on tests) in primary and secondary school, on reading and math tests. These ranks are based on percent completing postsecondary education, and the US has a high rate of postsecondary education.