roamingidiot — December 4, 2007 @ 11:37 am

NSFW some of those rocks look like penises

Error401 — December 4, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

Penis rock knows no shame.

Jet — December 4, 2007 @ 3:12 pm

this would be impossible in west texas… way to windy… i dont think the wind ever stops blowing here…

Gaexion — December 4, 2007 @ 4:37 pm

Texas?!

Phyreblade — December 4, 2007 @ 6:51 pm

Hey, that’s pretty cool… Kinda like balancing a stack of eggs…

Snow — December 10, 2007 @ 9:01 am

i would love to throw something at them destroying the work of another then laugh at their unhappiness

reboot — December 3, 2007 @ 7:41 pm

There are a lot more places in the US where cannabis is “Decriminalized” or “Illegal, but often unenforced”. For instance, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution that marijuana laws should be law enforcement’s lowest priority. In August, there is Hemp Festival where thousands of people are openly distributing and smoking.

Musashi1584 — December 3, 2007 @ 8:56 pm

this is just a general world census map

tiki god — December 3, 2007 @ 9:18 pm

@reboot

Federal laws current trump all state and local laws, thus it is 100% illegal to own, use, or sell cannabis in the US. We’ll need to see how the supreme court cases work out the problems.

mAgnUS BUTTfoorson — December 3, 2007 @ 9:56 pm

It’s not decriminalized in Ontario either. It was…for a couple months.

I know people who’ve been nailed for it.

Bottom line is there is more money to be made in over taxing people to justify the war on drugs than taxing weed could ever produce.

reboot — December 3, 2007 @ 10:09 pm

@tiki god
In theory, you are correct. In practice, both penalty and enforcement vary greatly from state to state. For instance, in CA and NV, possession of less the 28 grams is not an arrestable offense. I said, Hemp Festival is openly advertised and they’re literally throwing joints into a crowd.
Local and state law enforcement and judges have A LOT of influence on how those laws are enforced. If the police don’t investigate marijuana cases and the DA office doesn’t prosecute cases and the judges hand out slap-on-wrist punishments, then weed is effectively legal. DEA has its hands too full to bust you for a grow-room.
Check this out for state-by-state laws

neekbunny — December 3, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

Weed hasn’t been decriminalized in most of Australia. I believe that in Canberra [our nations capitol] you may own up to 2 plants, and an ounce of dried weed but Canberra is the most boring place in Australia so I guess they gotta keep the kids busy somehow. Weed has been hard to get here as we are in the grips of drought and water restrictions apply. They monitor our water usage and can see when a large spike in water/power use happens, bing bam boom another hydroponic setup busted.

Phyreblade — December 4, 2007 @ 3:42 am

LOL Africa Rules…
All I know is, don’t get between me and my weed, or, or, or, I’ll trip and fall dawn. Dangerously close to you…

Xp — December 4, 2007 @ 4:39 am

@neekbunny

Just a heads up on the laws for the ACT. An ounce is will over a simple offence, as is 2 plants.

Taken from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti48.pdf

Australian Capital
Territory
Drugs of Dependence Act
1989

Possession, self-administration, cultivation:
simple offences providing defined small
quantities involved, and expiable at the
discretion of the apprehending police officer.

Penalty of $100 for each simple offence under either the
Simple Cannabis Offence Notice (SCON) scheme or courts
system.

knogoodidleft — December 4, 2007 @ 4:53 am

so if your arrested for possession of drugs, wouldn’t you be considered a P.O.W. ? Ronald Reagan declared a war on drugs.

I never understood this, some drugs are illegal, some are not. Somebody can drink a beer and be fine, or drink a keg and get drunk and maybe do something dangerous, same somebody can smoke a joint and be fine, or wake n’ bake and … eat cheetos.

Carbon Copy — December 4, 2007 @ 7:35 am

I question the accuracy of this map. My part of the world, New Zealand, is generally a lot softer on marijuana convictions than our Australian neigbours, yet the map indicates the opposite. And as for spain being ‘legal or essentially legal’, apart from that the distincion between the two postions is far less than arbitrary, the Spaniards would definitely fall on the less lenient side of the fence. The only explicitly legal state is the Netherlands and even there, only minor posession, ie. not stockpiliing or cultivation, is legal, in other parts the law is very ambiguous. The US’s depicted lenience is idiotic, seeing as drugs charges can be taken at a federal level, and posession of pot can carry up to a 10 year sentence.

AliceH — December 4, 2007 @ 1:30 pm

Another thing to note, ‘decriminalized’ doesn’t mean it’s legal. Here in Colorado, possession of small amounts of marijuana has been decriminalized, but you can still be fined for it.

yumeo — December 6, 2007 @ 7:05 am

Here, in Spain, Cannabis is illegal. Map is wrong.
Private consumption is legal but in public (street…) is illegal and the sale is prohibited.

AlecDalek — December 6, 2007 @ 10:55 am

You’re in Ontario too mAgnUS? So it’s true, we internet tough guys all come from here.

And you’re right, it was only for a couple months and only for less than 30 grams if I remember correctly.

But this is Ontario. The cops mainly go after gangs and grow ops, because they’re a public nuisance (like me). If you’ve got a handful of joints or 3 plants in a closet, you’ll just get a lecture.

pro hitter — March 3, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

that is so not true,i have a friend who went to jail for three months for half a joint.

but it would be so awesome if they completely leagalized it, i live in this part of canada where maybe over 75% ppl smoke it.
on a good day a dealer can make $5ooo in just half a day, and theres lots of dealers.

MrPsychic — December 1, 2007 @ 12:13 am

It’s….different. I don’t know if I like it or not, to me KITT will always be a black early 80’s Trans AM.

Hepathos — December 1, 2007 @ 12:36 am

Well, not THAT horrible. Also it will transform into other things.

Mayy — December 1, 2007 @ 3:19 am

Is Mr. Feeny still going to be the voice?

unknown — December 1, 2007 @ 4:55 am

American car industry destroys a pop culture icon.

That muscular, bulging piece of retro car is not KITT. KITT is sleek, aerodynamic and futuristic. The only thing they have in common is that they corner like a corn dog.

tormato — December 1, 2007 @ 7:33 am

Pop culture destroys another pop culture icon.

Namelis1 — December 1, 2007 @ 9:20 am

Wasn’t the knight rider movie (still in production?) using a Koniggseg CCX?

AlecDalek — December 1, 2007 @ 12:41 pm

Gay.

Phyreblade — December 2, 2007 @ 5:51 am

I think the rumor mill had it that they were gonna use the koenigsegg ccx, but i guess they opted to go for a ’stang instead. A darn shame. Even the new Camaro or better yet the challenger would have been a better fit for this role…

Actually, I think the Lamborghini Reventon would have made the perfect uber-KITT… LOL But I don’t think they could have afforded the number of crash horses and replicas they would have needed. LOL

It’s probably why they went with the ‘Stang. It’s comparatively dirt cheap…

EvilDon — December 3, 2007 @ 11:11 am

I loved the original Knight Rider.

A practical arguement for a different car.

The Trans Am or “Black T-Top” (as it was referred to in the show) used in the original was a car that was designed to run up to 300 MPH (not the engine, but the shape of the body). Who would want to drive that Ford over 120 MPH? Even a sleek Mercedes shakes a little at 120. FORGET ABOUT SUPER PURSUIT MODE! How could this be close to a beliveable supercar? I suppose if the new K.I.T.T. obeys the traffic signs and laws, then, it will have no problem. But then, why bother having a supercar if you are going to stick to the traffic laws? This is what the new Knight Rider will be like…

Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Michael: Why, no Officer.

Officer: Well, it was your illegal use of your “turbo boost” on the road.

Michael: I was chasing a bad guy. I needed to jump over some cars that were in my way.

Officer: You are not a Policeman, Mr. Knight! You should have called the police. I will let you off with a warning this time, but no more pressing those “Turbo Boost, Super Pursuit mode, or any other fancy buttons on your dash.

Michael: Ok. Thank you, Sir.

See? The new Knight Rider series is doomed. Ford loving buttmunches are ruining my childhood.

schulzbrianr — December 3, 2007 @ 11:26 am

Nice Don. I too think it should be a sleek car, but due to the cost of using several for wrecks etc, they have to go with something cheap, which ruins the whole thing. I for one did not watch the original, so I have no particular attachment to any, but this giant hunk of metal does not inspire the want for high speed pursuit, unless it’s in a straight line.

Phyreblade — December 3, 2007 @ 3:16 pm

@EvilDon
LOL! I feel your pain…

Just FYI, I’ve run a mustang up to about 150 without any shakes. And it was one of the 99-04s. The 05+ models have stiffer bodies and are even more stable. I actually know people who have run theirs up to 175, but they were heavily modded. The steering gets a little light, but that’s about it.

But that being said, it still looks like a brick with wheels. The thing is though, that there are precious few vehicles that are aerodynamically designed to do 200mph, much less 300mph. The Bugatti Veyron tops out at a little over 253mph, but isn’t the most aerodynamic looking car of the 200+ club.

But a sleeker car would definitely be a much more credible choice. In fact a ‘vette might have been a good compromise between cost and looks. The ’stang is just too far down on the Cheapometer..

EvilDon — December 4, 2007 @ 12:03 pm

@Phyreblade

Interesting… I know some cops (hypos) that could not stand their Mustangs because they felt like they were ‘coming off the ground’ when over 120 MPH. But they were driving an older model (mid 90s).

It would seem, on a road with curves and traffic, you need a sleek front and a low to the ground body to stay grounded and in good control. Because, a Mercedes, Porsche or even a regular truck will do 120 MPH in a straight line without shaking or any problems (yes, I do know from experience). It is when you start maneuvering that you may, have no problems, vibrate, shake, or roll. Most of my fast driving experience comes from the German Autobahn, and a little from the American highways. Which is why I can not understand driving so fast in a aerodynamically challenged vehicle. In Germany I see few wrecks and some sleek cars passing me at about 320 KPH (I don’t like driving more then 240 KPH). In America I see upsidedown SUVs in the median, which never went over 90 MPH… hmmm I may be prejudiced… Meh, enough of my silly babbling.

Yeah, for sure the cost was the factor in going with the Mustang. Not to mention that this could be a MAJOR boon for ford. In the time of the Hoff, people used to mod their cars to look like K.I.T.T. If the show takes off, I expect nothing less today. I’m sure Ford offered a VERY good deal for the use of the Mustang.

We are all agreed then. K.I.T.T. must be a sleek car. **sends NBC a link to this page as proof of a needed change to K.I.T.T.**

Phyreblade — December 4, 2007 @ 5:22 pm

LOL,
No, I wouldn’t recommend doing 120 in one of the old fox bodied stangs unless it was *highly* modified. I had one of those and it had serious shakes at anything over 100. The newer ones are much, much better.

And indeed, I’m sure Ford is banking on making a killing with K.I.T.T. exposure. But a lot of folks I know, even from mustang clubs I am a member of, don’t think it was a particularly good choice for the role…

Gaexion — November 28, 2007 @ 1:16 am

perfect star rating,could it be we all agree on something?

GlowMonkay — November 26, 2007 @ 6:31 am

beautiful. very nice. =)

Adrominik — November 26, 2007 @ 9:28 am

If this was real I would rape it like an 11 year old.

Error401 — November 26, 2007 @ 9:38 am

Musta Krakish?

Musashi1584 — November 26, 2007 @ 10:58 am

this is a real photograph done by a pro i cant remember who did it tho ill and try find that out.

Musashi1584 — November 26, 2007 @ 11:17 am

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4920356

there you go my fellow MCSers thats where it came from.

Musashi1584 — November 26, 2007 @ 11:19 am

http://www.lonelywolf.pl/

and that’s Maciek Duczynski’s personal site.

maxcw — November 26, 2007 @ 1:44 pm

I believe I would kill you all just to sit on that ledge.

I guess I could pay for the plane ticket but killing is fun for everyone!

phyreblade — November 26, 2007 @ 6:29 pm

Man, that is so beautiful. Tranquility in life and art…