Are you saying free speech shouldn't apply to people disagreeing with you? Only to bigoted racists?
Oh you're allowed. You just look like a drooling idiot, because it's not true.
For the record, an off-duty police officer had been hired to handle security at the event. He was one of the first to get killed. You may call that level of security naive, but frankly I don't see what even 10 policemen could have done against this guy. Norwegian police is as a rule unarmed and private security most definitely is. I have a hard time imagining how they would stop a guy armed to the teeth without weapons.
Should police and security be armed in this country? In retrospect and for this particular event, obviously, but to go from there to saying any political gathering of a 100+ people in Norway should require armed security is not something I'm willing to agree to. Frankly the thought of living in a society with that level of fear and paranoia scares me more than what said security would be there to protect us from.
Also, those killed at Utøya were mostly kids. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to try to jump a mad-man shooting at them with an automatic rifle. Hell, I probably wouldn't be able to find the courage and I'm certainly no youth anymore.
From my understanding his release will be evaluated by a judge and some experts close to the release date and they will evaluate whether he still poses a threat to society. Whether he is likely to commit more crimes basically. For a person as clearly psychopathic as him they're very likely to conclude he still poses a threat.
At that point the judge may sentence him to 5 more years of confinement after which a new evaluation will be taken. There is no limit on the amount of times this can happen, so effectively, he can be kept for the rest of his life.
Again, the system has provisions for keeping him indefinitely if he cannot be rehabilitated, which seems likely at this point. He'll probably never be released, no matter what the sentence is.
According to his "manifesto", it's all part of his plan. He sees the trial as a way of getting his message out, so being captured alive was important to him. That's why he surrendered immediately. Hopefully the judge will order a closed hearing to keep the worst of the media attention away, but I don't think his "message" will have the effect he desires either way.
Ah, okay, that's fair enough. The reason I reacted to it is that I've seen that phrase used by a lot of media reporting on this, and I feel it kind of ignores his real motivation. It kind of brushes if off as "just another religious nutjob" when that's not at all what his motivation was.
To him they weren't civilians. They were members of the ruling party's youth movement so he viewed them as the enemy's next generation. He referred to these kids as "Stoltenberg-jungend" (in reference to Hitler-jungend, Stoltenberg is our prime minister), which tells you all you need to know about how he viewed his victims.
Thank you. It's very much appreciated (that goes for everyone expressing their condolences here).
I think it's important not to run the "christian fundamentalist" angle too hard. That wasn't really his main motivation at all. The only way he really used Christianity in this was to separate himself and his own values from "the others"; basically immigrants, particularly Muslims, and people advocating multiculturalism. Christianity was just a handy label to use when thinking "us vs them".
This is fairly typical for Norway. A lot of people here would probably describe themselves as Christian if you asked, but very few actually follow the religion other than maybe going to church for Christmas. That doesn't mean religious thought-patterns don't manifest themselves in other ways though, as this man is evidence of.
You have to understand that stuff like this just does not happen here. This is not a threat anyone could predict. Had you told me armed security should keep guard at a place like Utøya two days ago, I'd call you a lunatic. This was always one of the most innocent, feel-good gatherings I knew of.
It's a zoomed in still from a video, yes. It was filmed inadvertently from a helicopter by an NRK photographer. They didn't discover that they caught him on tape until they got back to the editing room. Hence the low quality.
No, that's him. The kids were probably wearing white t-shirts or something.
Because he surrendered immediately when the police arrived. He posed no threat to them. Personally, I'm glad. Suicide by cop would mean he wouldn't have to answer for what he did. Too easy.
What you're after is not justice, it's vengeance. Nothing good ever comes of that. You just end up breeding more hatred and violence.
Basically he can be held indefinitely if he's still considered a threat to society. He'll most likely spend the rest of his life in prison.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that the maximum sentence for severe crimes and terrorism like in this case is 30 years, not 21.
If he can't be rehabilitated he won't be released either. Why don't you try to read up on how our system works before you dig yourself even deeper down that stupid hole you're digging.
Thankfully we don't have to listen to people like you either.
Don't you have some wars that need attending? Perhaps a few more freedoms to give up in the name of security? Some evil 'terrists to lock up in an unconstitutional off-shore concentration camp? Or maybe a few more million petty criminals you can lock up for decades, under inhuman conditions?
You bet. Because we're better than him. We don't let pieces of shit like him scare us into abandoning our values.
Apparently 80+ dead at Utøya. All kids around 15-20. This is so ****ed up I don't know what to think any more. This guy just calmly walked around slaughtering these kids. He wore a uniform to trick them into thinking he was a cop. The kids came out of hiding, and then he shot them...
EDIT: For the non-norwegians: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259356
EDIT: For the non-norwegians: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259356
Last edited by wien, .
**** off you little shit. You don't get to use this incident to confirm your own ****ed up views when you have no evidence what so ever.
Thanks for the update guys. Very much appreciated. 
I've been sitting here for probably 10 minutes trying to think of a good way to reply to that slice of awesome, but you know what?
Actually, that case is also fine as long as you forward-declare A and B instead of circularly including their headers. You'll need to define the functions in a translation unit where a complete definition of both classes is visible though. Usually you'd just #include both classA.h and classB.h in classA.cpp and classB.cpp, and then define createA and createB in those translation units respectively.
Anyway, if your complaint was more of a general one against the C++ compilation model you will get no argument from me. My paragraph above provides ample evidence that it is unwieldy. I just got caught up in the specifics of your examples.
It does make some sort of perverse sense once you wrap your head around it though, so there's that.
It's not a short-coming. It's a logical error. You have to deal with it. What you're trying to do does not make sense. You cannot construct a type that (effectively) contains itself. It can refer to itself through a pointer or a reference, but it cannot contain itself.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG