cp702

Stop cursing. It's unconstructive. Cursing can be effective in small quantities, but cursing to curse isn't needed. Thanks. Also, claiming that you "didn't swear" is pretty stupid when there you did, in fact, swear. Claiming it was justified is one thing, but claiming that you didn't swear just makes it look like you aren't even thinking about what you wrote.

What would the alternative be to porting? I guarantee you that rewriting the whole game for PC would be worse. It would take YEARS to do if you do it from scratch (not to mention doubling the price tag for development, which runs into hundreds of millions of dollars), and, realistically, they wouldn't spend nearly as much effort. All a port is is turning code for one platform into code for another platform. That happens with every big-budget multi-platform game.

Actually, the burden of proof is on Zimmerman to prove that it was self-defense. In court, a self-defense claim involves admitting that you killed someone, and then claiming that additional facts exist that mean that the killing was not a crime. Because the defense is putting out facts, they are responsible for proving them. It's not the same standard (generally, affirmative defenses [like self-defense] are based on "clear and convincing evidence" or "preponderance of the evidence" [the latter is just "more likely than not"], not "beyond reasonable doubt"), but the prosecution does not have the burden of proof when Zimmerman admits to the killing and claims it was justified.

Whether or not Zimmerman is guilty should have little to do with how a judge acts. The judge doesn't get to declare someone guilty; only the jury can. The entire *point* of a judge is to decide points of law and administer a trial impartially, in accordance with the law. Even if everyone knows the person is guilty, they still have the presumption of innocence, and the judge doesn't get to run the trial differently. If the judge doesn't do this, it actually provides a basis for getting the verdict overturned on appeal [well, sorta: they can then be retried, as no jury found them innocent; a verdict being overturned is an exception to double jeopardy rules]. Yes, even if someone's guilty, they still have all the same protections during a trial, and an appeals court can vacate the result if they don't get them. (The judge *can* acquit the person before or after sending it to the jury [and can even vacate a guilty verdict from the jury], but that's only if the prosecution's case is so weak that, even if the defense didn't even show up, a rational person could not possibly find the person guilty. Say, if the prosecution's entire case was "He has red hair, so did the murderer, so he's guilty". Needless to say, this is rare, and certainly wouldn't happen here.)

You're calling race "simple"?

Highly doubt that, as his signature talks about a Manassas Park. Post: No one, period, calls the DC police "MP". Sometimes it's called the MPD, but not just MP. hlsavior and people responding to him: Right, back to topic, please. Thanks.

Youtube-quality != release quality. Just like demo-quality != release quality. Scripting in particular takes very much time and debugging. I can say that the devs are in fact actively working on LCPDFR; no public version doesn't mean there aren't testing versions. Sadly, testing versions aren't necessarily release-quality (hence the testing).

Love the new Explorer (I think it's my favorite car design, *period*); Taurus is also nice. Tahoes are pretty good, and I liked them most before I saw the Explorer. CVPI is classic, but actually looks really boring, and I never really liked the Caprice.

*facepalm* I should really learn to read.

No, that's not why they can't copyright. They can't copyright because it's not original - someone else (car companies) already own the copyrights, and modders are infringing on their copyrights.

Might wanna edit your own earlier post - you said "possible" when I think you meant "impossible".

Copyright has nothing to do with it - very, very few GTA modders have copyright on their models, and almost all are violating copyright that's held by car companies. You really can't reliably protect a GTA model with copyright. @bonehead: Actually, in the US, it is legally meaningless who gets to a patent office first. Seriously. The criteria for who gets a patent is "first to invent", not "first to file". Once you have an idea, as long as you diligently work to put it in concrete form (e.g. work to get it to the point where you can file a patent application), no one else can get the patent. If someone independently has the idea after you do but puts it into practice first, too bad for them - the patent still goes to you.

You are correct, you may not advertise other websites. 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.

It depends. In some cases, the First Amendment trumps trademark. Rockstar themselves won a big case about this for GTA:SA: One of the strip clubs they parodied [Play Pen, called Pig Pen ingame] sued and lost because of Rockstar's First Amendment rights (especially because GTA was ruled an artistic medium). When it's a government-held copyright or trademark, First Amendment issues get stronger. However, *copyright* is much more protected against First Amendment claims, and the city can legally hold copyright on its logos (depending on when they were made; if they were made too long ago, they needed to be registered; if they're REALLY old, they're public domain by now). OTOH, if you want to be completely safe legally (and have better job prospects), just take the skins down.

Do you have example screenshots? I actually doubt it was EVCS - if it was, it would be clearly non-ELS, while what you describe seems to be ELS lighting (but without ELS actually running, and with the extras manually spawned).

You guys realize that THIS IS NOT THE ACTUAL IMPALA, right? THIS PICTURE IS FAKE.

OK, then. LEGES CIVITATIS LIBERTATIS Quod facere intenduntLaws of the City of Liberty1. Do whatever you want to. I trust this is sufficient.

You can manually spawn extras for still photos, and ELS v7 also has cruise lights. Both methods turn on some lights, but they don't flash, so the doors don't reset. If the lights look like LEDs, then that is what's going on (ELS cars, with the lights not flashing).

Correction: You get them when OTHER people hit the green arrow next to YOUR posts. They allegedly measure reputation in the community. They are, however, a poor guide to actual reputation/helpfulness/whatever. In addition, they are never used for any official purpose (when we look at members from a moderation standpoint, we don't even consider rep). The one exception is rep abuse - doing things like creating alt accounts to upvote yourself is very much against the rules. Other than "rep abuse = bad", rep is effectively an irrelevant number on the internet.

No.

The thing is, this isn't the first time he "started to change". What you're missing is that this isn't about giving him a second chance. He's had a second chance. And a third. And a fourth. And more. Just because people say they'll get better, doesn't mean they will. Sometimes, they genuinely try, but just can't manage it. Other times, they aren't telling the truth (yes, people can LIE on the internets! I know, it's shocking!) Regardless, there is a very good reason to view his attempt to improve with some amount of suspicion.

Also, given that much of Sony's point was that they didn't have the DRM, Microsoft has now blunted that whole thrust.

The NYPD has, in fact, pursued trademark claims against businesses using their logo (there was one case of a pizza shop run by ex-NYPD cops who got a cease-and-desist for use of the NYPD logo). Also, it isn't questionable whether they have the right to have a file removed. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement whether or not it's for profit. Police departments don't want people making Youtube videos of them playing GTA with that department's cars and shooting up civilians. Thus, they sometimes send letters demanding content be taken down. That is their right, because they have the copyright and trademark on the design.