cp702

Legal by state and local, and generally has been accepted under federal law. You can't just push something to the Supreme Court, as they don't have to hear any appeals they don't want to. Everyone appeals to them, but they only take cases they think are important. You're dead wrong about the "stuff changes" thing. We're not talking about people disagreeing with the old policies in the abstract. We're dealing with a specific case. You cannot run a justice system where public disgust at one individual means they get more severe penalties. That isn't a justice system at all. The state legislature has become *less* supportive over time at bills creating a death penalty; in 2007, they tried to pass one but it was shot down 46-110. I was wrong about how the penalty was originally eliminated; it was originally a court decision striking it down under the state constitution. However, since then, attempts to pass another law trying to create it again have all failed in the state legislature. If the people of Massachusetts think some crimes deserve death, the way to express that is to pass a law re-activating the death penalty. However, there's another hitch - even if they re-create capital punishment, it would *still* be illegal under state law to use it in this case (you can't increase penalties for a crime after the fact, in part to prevent people from deciding that *this one person* deserves more severe penalties). At the time the crime was committed, the people of Massachusetts, through their legislature, had expressed a desire for no capital punishment. This would be binding in a state trial, no matter *what* happens after the crime. I think the federal government should also accept the restrictions, for the reasons I've stated (local citizens decide on punishments for crimes). It's moot, though, because surveys seem to say most Boston residents favor life in prison, not death.

Because Google makes damn good products. Also, Google has more to lose than anyone else if people use the Internet less. Of all the companies in the world, they have the biggest interest in keeping the Internet widely used. They're not trying to destroy the Internet, they're trying to make it serve their needs better. That's exactly what *every* company does; the officers of publicly traded companies have a legal duty to seek maximum return on shareholder value.

This isn't considered treason. Not even close. "Waging war" is taken very literally; in the absence of actual rebellion or fighting for an enemy *military*, it's pretty much not treason. There have been under 40 people ever even prosecuted for treason since the Constitution was adopted; the last conviction was in 1952, for someone who fought for Japan in WWII, and there has been a grand total of one indictment since then (for someone who is an actual member and spokesman for al-Qaeda, and who has used the fact that he was born an American for propaganda purposes (saying "I saw the light, you should too"). The US government does not deploy treason charges lightly, and if Tsarnaev was charged with treason, he could likely get acquitted (random homegrown act of terror != military campaign of any sort). Those who advocate doing things extra-brutally should note that whatever the government does to Tsarnaev, it can do to you too. The US government can't extradite an American citizen accused of a crime in the US to another country to be tortured. If they could, everyone who pisses off the government could be susceptible to said torture. Have you heard about civil asset forfeiture, where the police can seize your property even if you haven't been charged with a crime, and only has to establish that the preponderance of the evidence suggests it was illegally acquired (meaning you get no benefit of the doubt; both you and the government are considered to start out with equal claims on the property, and you have to prove you used no illegally-obtained money to get it). It's a somewhat common form of police abuse of power in some areas; it's also legal. You know why it's legal? Because the first people the government went after were drug dealers. Everyone hated them, and they couldn't afford good lawyers (part of the point of the system is to keep you from hiring a good lawyer; in theory, the idea is that you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself with dirty money, but if you committed no crime, you're still at risk), so the system got established. Now, it allows police to seize anyone's property if the person can't prove they got it legally, and American courts give police an insane amount of deference in terms of credibility. That's why I don't think his sentence should be death if most Massachusetts residents would sentence him in particular to death. The people of the state already decided nothing is worth a death sentence; debates in the abstract are much more reasonable a representation of the public will than a specific case where you can overload the media with reasons why this guy deserves worse treatment.

The page is broken right now. If you reinstall LCPDFR, does it give you the option to provide username and password?

Architects get paid to design *buildings*. It's hard to get more touchable than that. If you want a good example, check out the actual price of 3ds max. IIRC, it's around $1,500. That's a pretty standard price range for software designed for specialized professional use. @NB: Don't bring back 9C1 as a name of a car. It isn't. It's Chevy's police package code; the Impala and Caprice *both* come in 9C1 models.

You are correct, the federal government has the option of putting him to death. Even if a state doesn't have a death penalty, the federal government can apply its own penalties. However, I'm of the view that if a crime is essentially against the people of one area, the federal government should respect the democratically expressed views of the people of Massachusetts that a death sentence is not justified for any crime, no matter how heinous. The US government is NOT allowed to try him outside Massachusetts unless Tsarnaev requests it. It's unconstitutional for a federal criminal trial to be held outside the state in which the crime occurred unless the *defendant* moves to shift the trial to another district or state (typically because the local population is biased against them; it might actually be a good idea for Tsarnaev to move to be tried outside Massachusetts, because he does *not* want to face a Boston jury). The US can legally impose a death sentence for federal crimes, even if the trial is in Massachusetts. I just think they shouldn't when the local area has abolished the death penalty, deciding democratically that no crime justifies a death sentence.

This probably wouldn't help with that particular issue, but if you want to avoid one common cause of near-heart-attacks, use version control religiously if you don't already. Trust me when I say that if you don't, you will eventually find yourself screwed over and wishing you had.

Really? The state he committed his crimes in decided long ago that *no* crimes deserve death (Massachusetts has no death penalty). Personally, I'm of the view that he committed a crime mostly against the people of Massachusetts, and should be subject to their penalty.

That's an extremely misleading topic title. The United States is seeking a death sentence; Tsarnaev presumably is not looking to be put to death.

While I understand the frustration, please don't tell people what to do. It's valid to wonder about compatibility; the posts in this thread aren't really a "debate" about anything, they're a handful of people wondering about whether this might be incompatible with a commonly-used mod.

MODERATOR NOTICE Moved to correct section

I was going to try to stay out of this topic, but this is too rich: You might want to look up what "projection" actually means. It refers to when a person tries to deny their own "unacceptable" feelings by ascribing them to others. It's not projection to say "This makes me feel insecure, so we should ban it". Projection would be if someone who is trying to repress their insecurities imagines others as weak and insecure in order to suppress their own feelings. I hope you understand why, given your post, you don't want to be bringing up projection. Also: Do I understand you to be saying that *everyone* should carry, and that you're doing something wrong if you choose *not* to? Because if so, that is one of the worst messages you could *possibly* send about firearms carry. Rule number zero of firearm safety: If you don't feel comfortable with a gun for any reason whatsoever, don't use one. Saying that everyone should carry is simply *wrong* - not everyone wishes to have a firearm, for a variety of reasons, and anyone who tells someone that their reason for not wanting a gun is invalid needs to relearn firearms safety from scratch.

It looks like the video is being treated like it's in widescreen at some point in the process when it's actually not in widescreen.

c13: What about hunters out hunting? If you're carrying a rifle, you'd *better* be doing so openly (at least, if you want to have any freedom of movement at all). At what point between street and woods do you tranistion to "open carry is OK"?

Don't be ridiculous. That clip's just part of a delusion a bunch of people have that there was a fourth Indiana Jones movie. Fortunately, they realized how ridiculous that would be, and quickly abandoned work on it before doing something stupid like casting Shia LeBeouf.

Or you could, you know, just *not* troll?

South Alabama gets snow, like, *ever*?

Yeah, US plugs don't generally have fuses. Even if it did, though, I'm not sure it'd help. Are the fuses tailored to the particular device they're hooked to to prevent *damage*, or are they just there to prevent *fire*? Electronics can release their magic smoke at fairly low heat; just because there's smoke, doesn't mean there's a risk of fire.

I'd suspect Steamworks has a way to support copies bought not through Steam; Valve wants to make it as easy as possible for publishers to use Steam, because they get more money that way. @XP...: Xbox Live and GFWL are related, but that doesn't mean they're inseparable. Microsoft's shutting down the GFWL service, but thad doesn't mean they can't still run the Xbox Live service.

Tom: I don't think routers tend to *have* fuses. If you mean the mains breaker, electronics can smoke out well below circuit breaker levels of power. I've seen it happen several times, and, er, maybe definitely accidentally caused it once. All you need is current across a component which exceeds the design limit (in my case, I accidentally shorted the pins of a video cord hooked to a projector across a mains outlet; video equipment isn't designed to handle that level of power across the VGA port). I wouldn't discribe it as a "fire", but it does produce smoke, and does ruin the part.

I'm honestly not sure how any "use" of a dog could possibly be considered "impersonating a police officer". That means you're actually trying to make people think you're a cop; it doesn't mean "you're doing something only a cop is allowed to do". No one, bar no one, sees a dog as a symbol of a cop; that's how it's different from flashing lights on a car. You could impersonate an officer and happen to have your dog with you, but whatever you do would still be impersonation if you didn't have a dog. That said: You might want to be careful with the dog; police dogs tend to be trained to be aggressive against people they think are threats. I'd probably focus on training him to be less aggressive.

iMacs (by the way: "Imac" isn't a thing, the term is "iMac") are from Apple, but can be perfectly decent computers. They tend to have performance around the level of a high-end laptop, and should be fine for GTA IV (GTA IV can certainly run fine on decent laptops; you only need a very powerful computer if you're going to be heavily modding it, e.g. if you use ENB or high-poly car mods). I have a laptop with basically lower specs than the average iMac, *and* which has a graphics card optimized for business and CAD use (and so worse for gaming than a comparable GeForce-series card), and I can run EFLC fine with a couple scripts, vanilla car mods, a ped mod, and no ENB.

He's a citizen of Canada. Restrictions on entry into a country are essentially always reserved for non-citizens; as a Canadian citizen, I'm pretty sure all he has to do to be allowed into Canada is show up with his Canadian passport.

It's *unsupported*, not *incompatible*. We did in fact do a bit of testing and bugfixing in MP, but it doesn't work as well as it should. For example, last time I tested, other human players do not provide visual in pursuits; that means you can't easily have a system where the highway patrol takes over the pursuit, because if the person who started it breaks off and AI doesn't pick up visual, the pursuit ends. Workaround: call air support to keep it going. As far as unsupported vs. incompatible goes, note that 0.95 isn't supported at all, and was never supported in MP. 1..0 is a step forward; we have a mechanism to provide MP support (connecting the copies of LCPDFR the clients run to the one the server runs). What we didn't do was fully write in MP support, because we wanted to focus on single-player for the 1.0 release. Also, if you have MP suggestions, we'd love to hear them in the suggestions forum.

iMacs actually basically use laptop hardware under the hood. They don't have the power limits of a laptop (no battery), but the parts tend to be laptop-grade (hence the 755M; M is "mobile"). However, if you are getting a Mac anyway, your only higher-performance would be a Mac Pro, and that's way, way, way too expensive for any non-professional use.