Mr.Quiggles

​Sorry about the delay responding. Unless you got one weird GTX 660 TI and motherboard, a GTX 970 will already be compatible with your current motherboard. All graphics cards use the PCIe standard. Additionally, AMD is doing a graphics card refresh soon, so I'd hold off until that happens. 960TI is probable, but looking more and more unlikely.

A 660TI to 960 probably wouldn't yield an incredible difference in performance, especially given the money you'd have to put into buying one. Personally, I'd buy a GTX 970, funds permitting, or wait for the much anticipated AMD card refresh. However, a 330w Power Supply? Yikes, cards are becoming more power efficient but that is cutting it close. (500w recommended Min.) Additionally, you could look into a second 660TI (SLI), but that would most certainly require a second PSU, and SLI generally isn't recommended over single card configurations.

In any law enforcement career, you need to start somewhere and that's often General Patrol. Ah, general patrol. When you're tending to a raccoon "Obstructing Traffic" one minute, and being mobbed on the next. I can see why so many officers get cynical of the human race so quickly. It takes a lot of bravery, perseverance, and patience to stay in patrol, especially in crime ridden areas, like the inner cities. Especially now a days where there is increasing hatred for the police among certain demographics, not enough pay, reduced overtime, increased amounts of lawyers trying to depict you as a psychopath, it's really absurd in some places. My hat goes off to those boys in blue. To answer the question, after general patrol I'd prefer an administration role depending on the size of the department, Supervisor really lets you work more of your mind out due to the varying situations. Even School Resource or Detective are paid well, less of the SouthLAnd type shit that patrol officers in the inner cities deal with daily, and can put a smart brain to work in relative safety as well.

Very sad, he was there saving a wounded Police Officer during the shootout in the Boston Marathon Incident. Very upsetting to hear this news.

I don't agree with you. The Empire State Building, although old, will always be a magnificent piece of architectural design, as it was built during the height of the recession and truly was a marvel engineering project at its time. Sure it's not Burj Khalifa but it'll always stand out among architectural history, despite it's design (Pillars every 20 feet) being outdated to a more modern, robust core like modern skyrise buildings are today. I believe most people, especially New Yorkers will always know the Empire State Building will be a marvelous addition to their skyline, as it's a building laced with history of the city. A truly classic American photo.

Closest thing I know about is the ped models I created, which can be downloaded here. '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

Yes, but that's not the problem. The instability in society, the rioting, is mainly over questioning use of force in Police Procedure in the wake of Missouri v. Darren Wilson. Yes, you see and post these militarized photos, but given the circumstances, I see them as acceptable, not preferable, but acceptable. What about the drugs on the streets? Mob mentality destruction? Illegal firearm murders? Increase in Police Deaths? Public Support of Law Enforcement and Government in general Dropping? High School Dropouts, incarcerations, I can go on. These are the problems that's leading cops to become more paranoid for their lives. This instability is what makes officers scared, and on edge, and more likely to do something you'd consider to be a "Bad Apple". You see Assault Rifles, you see Ferguson Police Department's Racist Report from the Attorney General, it's easy to name police as the problem, but the reality is it's just not the problem. It's a result of a real problem. It's tough being a police officer in recent years, especially policing certain demographics. I know I'm not a cop, but if I was I would certainly change the way I interact with the general public, especially among certain groups for my own safety within past years. Recently, police officers are seeing fewer employment, and for good reason, the pay is no where near fair for the job. I salute the cops that stay in Ferguson, that takes real honor and courage. Cut them a break, they're doing their best.

For reliability, you can't beat the battle tested work horse fighters like the A-10, F-15, F-16, F-18, ect. I'm glad to see the A-10 coming back into combat missions, you can't beat those fighters. I find it extremely sad that they're all being replaced by the F35 by Lockheed Martin. Today's fighters like the F22 for example have lots of great potential, but are bogged down by the companies's lust for government money. All this competition against China and Russia with the "Air Superiority" and "Stealth Fighters" are such crap IMO. Give the military what it needs, not what it wants. EDIT: F35 is produced by Lockheed Martin, not Boeing.

Undoubtedly one of the best cop dramas out there. I don't like all these detective CSI shows, they're so inaccurate with their one liners and scripted material. Southland has both detective and the beat cops and really showed it how it is.

As long as your motherboard has one of these (Big yellow strip) then you should be good. Most likely that's what your current GPU is plugged into. '> Now, to power something big like a GTX 660, you'll need a powerful PSU, or Power Supply. You'll need to look at the PSU in your case and see how many Watts it is. 450W-500W is what is recommended to power a GTX 660. Next, you'll need to make sure your PSU has one of these cables to plug into the GPU. http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/pcie6-2-jpg.57637/

As long as your motherboard has 1X PCI Express Port, the graphics card will fit. Come to think of it, something you'll want to make sure is your computer has at least a 450-500W Power Supply and a 6 pin PCI-E since the GTX 660, 960, and 760 all use 1X 6 pin PCI-E cable to power the card.

Yes, a graphics card would actually be a better thing to upgrade, however it's possible to be bottlenecked by the CPU. Ideally of course it'd be best to update GPU and CPU/Mobo, but if you can't financially, go with a new graphics card.

Motherboards are quite cheap, much cheaper than a processor generally. The only other way around would be to buy an i5 1st gen, but the performance wouldn't be cost effective, so it wouldn't make very much sense financially for performance. If you want performance for your money, I'd save and buy something newer.

Oh I didn't realize this is what I commented on earlier. Honestly, I'd recommend buying a newer CPU and along with that, a motherboard since the sockets change. The jump from i3 to i5 is good, but if it remains in the same family (1st gen), it's probably not very cost effective. With Skylake (5th gen) Intel i3/i5/i7 series coming out sometime soon, it might be worth grabbing an Ivy Bridge (3rd Gen, my current CPU is an i5 3570K) or Haswell (4th Gen) at reduced price or buying a brand new Skylake i5. i5 is generally recommended for gaming, so you're smart with going with an i5 series CPU.

Well that depends on your motherboard, unless you plan on getting a new motherboard as well. What's your current CPU and motherboard? If you're unsure, download, install, and run Speccy.

RAM is such a small part of the equation to make a run game the way it runs as well. Your overall graphics card would need a rehaul to a more modern, powerful card to run GTAV. I'd recommend something with 4GB GDDR5 RAM. (My personal suggestion would be the GTX 960).

An Nvidia GTX 660 would be a great graphics card, but do be aware there is a GTX 760 and GTX 960 out now as well, newer is generally better but you might pay a bit more. As for processor, the i5-650 is a very old processor, while it might work, there's a few questions to ask. What CPU/Motherboard do you have now? (To see whether an i5 650 is both worth it and compatible) What are you upgrading your PC parts for? And what storage drives do you have? If you're unsure of your parts list, Speccy is a great free program than can tell you all that.

I think the GTX 970 is definitely one of the best cards on the price/performance spectrum. I have one, mine is made from Nvidia, but I heard the one made by ASUS (STRIX) has excellent reviews. EVGA had some launch problems, but they probably sorted it out by now. For the 970, I believe it'll recommend something like a 450W PSU, but I'd recommend a 650W PSU. I have a Corsair HX750, but you can see all the PSUs and series they make here: http://www.corsair.com/en-us/power-supply-unitsCorsair is well known for their PSUs.

Opposite of LCPDFR? A mod that would never, ever crash under any circumstance? Not aware of any.

I approve highly of this build. My only suggestion would be the Hyper 212 CPU Cooler is dirt cheap and about 50% off the price of the CPU cooler you have listed. I've personally used it for a while, it worked very well.

And that's where the politics comes in. Depending on your political and economic beliefs, and sometimes on a case by case basis (For example I have a different opinion on government regulation in Net Neutrality versus let's say, the Food Industry) people may think Government influence or Capitalism is the better solution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since your opinion would be that the FCC stepping in a good thing, and you can't see how anyway else would be preferably, I for the sake of Devil's advocacy will argue the other side. The other side would consist of the free market deciding on their own practices, prices, and interactions with one another in competition. Government regulation can both improve or hurt businesses in order to improve the quality of the product for the consumer. Often times, I support government regulation in things that ought to be regulated, especially dealing with public health and personal finances. But in the case of Internet, a private business that nobody has a real right to, I think that in order to keep the internet free and open, government regulation isn't the best decision for the future of the internet. Granted, the FCC is apparently, and I use the word apparently because the new regulations have not been made public, only supposed to have control over the uses of finances between the ISPs, and how that affects the customer. The FCC is not supposed to filter content with the new regulations it passed like how it presently and historically more so done in Radio and TV. When the people of the country pass something they aren't fully educated about, especially a set of regulations not made public, it can lead to controversy, like what we saw earlier in this thread with Obama being a Communist and Muslim (If you didn't see it, good).

I was aware of the internet architecture, in the sense that data, in order to get to it's destination the faster way possible, will use Non-ISP routes and may instead use the routes of others, most notably Comcast, Verizon, Cogent, and Level 3. This article did a very good job at explaining a majority of this, perhaps in simpler terms in which I may have missed some details. (http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/) What I wasn't aware of and didn't realize is that Comcast isn't Netflix's ISP, but rather Cogent. Makes sense, Comcast isn't into the high tech business/industrial grade ISPs. I was under the initial impression that Netflix of course was paying Comcast as it's own ISP, and Comcast demanded more money from Netflix (and of course throttled their speeds when they declined) when Netflix failed to pay for their increasing usage. If Comcast was Netflix's ISP, Comcast wouldn't be complaining as they are being paid directly by Netflix. However, Level 3 may be upset that Comcast is directing so much Netflix traffic through their networks to Level 3's Customers (Isn't the best analogy because I believe that Level 3 is primarily a Business/Industrial ISP, whereas Comcast is a Residential/Business ISP). It is now clear to me that Comcast was upset that Netflix wasn't paying them with what Comcast saw as a rightful charge, as so much of Comcast's infrastructure was strained by a 3rd party, not paying into the system. With that all said, the validity of the debate still holds true. It is of my opinion, and obviously the ISPs as well, that businesses should have to pay ISPs for usage of their network on a case by case basis. However, I shouldn't have to pay Cogent on top of Comcast (My home ISP) for using such unmeasurable amounts of bandwidth to connect here to the LCPDFR forums. Only in the case of major usage should deals be struck for compensation. I wouldn't say the theory is fundamentally flawed, because this is an exception that has the potential to break the internet in the sense that customers aren't getting content they are paying for. Since this is a private business, I believe that the businesses should sort this out, but it is apparent the internet disagrees with that logic. EDIT: I just discovered that extremely tiny here link which leads to one of my favorite tech sites, Ars. I will be sure to read that, thanks.