cp702

Stop what? Stop talking about GTA V coming to PC on a forum based around a modification for GTA IV on PC? Yeah, that's not gonna happen. If you don't want to see it, don't click on the thread, but this sort of thing is *exactly* what you should expect lots of threads about on a site devoted to the PC version of the previous game in the series.

TomballPD: Custo is creating a direct LCPD-related parallel to the video title. How is that *possibly* off-topic?

He was talking about ELS 7. I don't think you can do it with ELS 6 alone, but I think there's a script in Downloads that does exactly what you want. Try this one: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

Posting random stuff in Random is actually probably how it should work. Technically, I think this topic better fits the section's name than any of, say, the pinned topics. Also, new members get to post and make threads just like old members get to post and make threads.

Until Rockstar explicitly says something through an official PR outlet (official Twitter, website, press release, etc.), I'm not believing a thing.

No, the issue is that your GTA directory is set as read-only. More details: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

ELS cars tend to be less stable. All of the cars you posted are pretty high-poly; for low-poly, look to modded vanilla GTA cars.

That thread seems to be about saved cars (and I know it's not an ELS 7 issue, b/c this issue happened long before ELS 7 came out).

To be precise, the display of the current street name is a subfeature of ELS. ELS is much bigger and more complex (it is actually a new emergency lighting system; this feature is just one part). Basically, it makes emergency lights look much more like LED-style lights on certain modded cars (you MUST install modded cars for it to do anything). I'm not aware of a way to get JUST the street name to display.

Even if it's a similar issue, we'd rather you make a new thread. 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.

Since the OP got what he wanted, and since it then turned into a flamefest, I'm locking this thread. 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. 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.

SNT is kinda a special case as far as trainers go; its functionality is incredibly advanced, to the point where it's more of a utility than anything else.

1) Read the ELS guide. 2) Make your own thread for your own questions. Don't use someone else's.

I'll start by saying I don't have any idea what happened, and that I'm relatively certain both Zimmerman and Martin made bad decisions (but "bad decision" != "criminal"). I looked at Florida laws, and there are provisions that say that you can't normally claim self-defense if you start a fight, but if you are in fear for your life AND make every attempt to retreat, then you *are* allowed to claim it. The fact that this wasn't in the jury instructions implies that either the prosecution utterly failed to claim that Zimmerman initiated force or threat of force, or that they utterly failed to claim that Zimmerman didn't retreat or wasn't in fear for his life. Given that, the relevant question is: Did the prosecution prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense when he shot Martin? The prosecution can't just try to poke holes in the defense and introduce doubt - they have to conclusively disprove that it was self-defense. I was actually confused on this point, and thought self-defense was an affirmative defense that shifts burden to the defendant; I was wrong. Self-defense, in every state but Ohio, just requires the defense to make a reasonable claim (which they did here), and then the prosecution has to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a very very high bar for the prosecution, and one that a jury of 6 who heard the entire case unanimously found that they failed to meet. Even if Zimmerman was guilty, he still should not go to prison unless the state can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Period, end of story. Why? Because the state having the power to punish people on anything less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is far more dangerous than any harm caused by letting a guilty person go free. Public opinion that someone is guilty doesn't replace the obligation to prove it with actual evidence.

High memory can help, but it doesn't necessarily help (the blanket in a rainstorm isn't a good analogy. A better one would be "using a net as cover from a rainstorm"). That's the single biggest advantage of low-poly: yes, you still need a traffic fix, but the game is far more stable Personally, I use Traffic Flow (the first of TUNES's links).

MODERATOR NOTICE Moved to Other Gaming. MODERATOR NOTICE Moved to Other Gaming. Valve has said that the Half Life 2 episodes ARE Half Life 3. Literally, I believe they phrased it as "we should have called it Half Life 3 Episode 1 and 2, not HL2: E1,2".

That was completely unnecessary. OK, people. First, please PLEASE stop saying "Agreed". We have an upvote button, you don't need to make a whole post to say "agreed". It's cluttering the thread. Second, please use actual capitalization and punctuation. Please use paragraphs. It makes things easier to read. Seriously, long posts without paragraph breaks are actually painful to read. Presumably you want people to read what you say, so take the bit of extra effort (it isn't hard) to write in proper English, with spacing, complete sentences, capitalization, etc. Third, cut the personal attacks. In general, stay on-topic. A reply to a post should be about the ideas expresses, not the person expressing them. From this point on, instigating and personal attacks will be met with warnings. Fourth, do not reply to this post. Stay on topic; this thread is not about proper posting etiquette, even though this post is.

Why, yes, murder is a case for government concern. Always. This isn't controversial. Now, you may mean "federal government". Federal government != government, and if you don't realize that Florida also has a government, you really don't have a place commenting on any legal issues. Government doesn't mean federal. In possibly racially motivated cases, history has proven that states can't always be trusted. So the federal government can also step in. If it wasn't for that history, you might have a point that the federal government shouldn't be involved, but that's a really really hard position to maintain.

I'm going to have to say this is EXACTLY where the government's nose belongs. Someone killed someone else? Yeah, that sounds like the sort of thing the government should look into. In fact, if there was only a single crime in the world, this would pretty much be it. It may be justified, but that's what investigations are for. As for the federal charge - This sort of thing is exactly why these laws exist. You see, in the past, people who attacked and killed blacks in the South didn't face actual punishment from state police and courts, so the federal government had to step in to protect people (why, yes, if the state is failing it's duty to protect its citizens from crime, that IS the sort of thing the federal government should step in and handle). So federal charges make a lot of sense to look into - even if it WAS self-defense, that is something for a court to decide. Based on history, state courts can't necessarily be trusted to be fair in evaluating this. So the federal government can look as well.

Really? You'd have a REALLY hard time justifying holding someone down for that. Citizen's arrest is not something you should do. You are exposing yourself to immense civil and criminal liability, with zero training on arrests. If the guy gets hurt, you don't have the immunity a police officer has from lawsuits (police departments can sometimes be sued for injuries during an arrest, but the officers personally normally can't be). Nor are you given nearly the same leeway in use of force as a trained police officer making an arrest. Even if they were committing a crime, they can sue you for any injury caused, and they'll probably win - since you don't actually have training in making arrests, you have a very hard time in court. Call 911. Don't try to get involved. It is likely to end very, very badly for you.

Really? Because that's a terrible idea. Not only are you putting your own life in danger, but you are also possibly exposing yourself to charges of assault and false imprisonment. Citizen's arrest is almost always a bad idea - you aren't trained to arrest, you have no idea what sort of force is legal (generally not very much), you can only arrest for a misdemeanor if you personally saw them commit it, and you can only arrest for a felony if a felony was actually committed. Note the difference between that and what a cop does - If a cop thinks a felony was committed and makes an arrest, but no felony happened, the cop isn't liable. If you arrest someone and no felony happened, you go to jail. Even if you had a good reason to believe something was a felony (say, you saw vandalism and thought that it went over the threshold to make it a felony), if it wasn't (say, the damage was under the threshold), you're going to prison.

Zimmerman didn't claim Stand Your Ground. He claimed self-defense. There's a big difference - self-defense is a fundamental right, present in every legal jurisdiction, not a specific law like Stand Your Ground. Personally, my view is this: A murder charge is clearly incorrect, as it requires intent that was almost certainly missing here. Manslaughter (which he was also charged with), however, was a much more reasonable charge. I don't know if he in fact committed manslaughter (in addition to not being a lawyer, I haven't seen all of the evidence), but one of the charges was much more reasonable. Also, MODERATOR NOTICE Cut the personal attacks. This thread is about Zimmerman and Martin, not cursing, maturity, or anything else like that. Keep things civil.

MODERATOR NOTICE Quit the name-calling.

No, he's not kicked off the thread. He needs to stop swearing, but that's not "kicked off the thread". You created the thread, but he has just as much right to comment in it - threads are public, and aren't owned by their creators (incidentally, this is one reason you can't lock your own thread). ast - It is certainly more entertaining. Now back on topic, please.