Knitta has been doing this since 2005, and now suddenly these guys get all the fame and glory? Screw that, credit those who deserve it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knitta_Please

Indeed, they're missing about 150 episodes in that clip.

Unfortunately the picture is forever tainted by the presence of Justin Biber.

That is not valuing human life, that is valuing a segment of human life. Saying some people have more rights than others to live.

In a way it's like saying that you're pro life but focusing only on trying to save fetuses from abortion instead of actually helping people who are near death for many other reasons.

"He was able, in the supposed non-savage much-more-humane-than-the-USA Utopia that is Norway, to amass enough firepower to kill 77 people in the space of a few hours."

Which you can do in the states in a matter of hours, or in other countries even faster than that. Breivik spent three years planning and amassing his arsenal. I think that speaks a million. If a person is dedicated enough to spend three years on a cause then it doesn't really matter if you live in the US, Norway or anywhere else. I don't think I even have to go in comparing level of violence, or level of lone gunman shootings, between the US and Norway.

Putting an animal to sleep being humane is because the animal does not have a voice of it's own. It cannot tell you that it wants to live or wants to die, likely it does not even understand that concept. Therefore we, as humans, have to take responsibility in such a situation. I see a big difference between that and the government killing a criminal which does have a say whether he wants to live or die. Once the government starts executing people we are all effectively murderers. Even though Breivik killed 77 people I still do not want his blood on my hands, just as I didn't want the blood of the person who caused my father's death on my hands.

I have one thing to say about your so called "justice": An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

ted, simply put, Norwegians are not savages. Let's say we open up the can of worms that is the death penalty and actually execute Breivik. Tomorrow we find that why shouldn't we also execute other murderers, then pedophiles, their crimes are also extraordinarily heinous. Oh, and why not people who commit grand larceny, and so forth.

Do all the people in the world deserve to live? I don't even think so. Should it be up to a government, or when it comes down to it, a few people trained in the letter of the law, to decide who lives and dies? I don't think so either.

It's further more been proven that the death penalty is not working as a deterrent against crime in the United States, so why should making an example of Breivik serve any purpose other than just snuffing out his life? Some might argue that he deserves it, maybe the families of the victims more than anyone, but it still would not serve a purpose. The circle of death has to stop somewhere, but by enforcing a death penalty you are simply feeding into it instead.

As for the other sensationalistic prisons mentioned early in the neatorama-post. You can laugh when realizing that Norway has some of the most well behaved inmates in the world, with one of the most successful rehabilitation rates and reintegration rates in the world. Why not give them prisons where they can show their worth, where they can actually grow as human beings and realize that there is a world outside crime? If they screw up, throw them back into regular prisons. Nah, instead throw them into privately run prisons which act more like factories with financial gain on the agenda. Throw them into small cells and keep the inmates isolated instead, often even from the rest of the inmate population. That's a sure fire way of making sure they will be well adjusted people and will function well once released into society again, right?

Oh noes! A country has differing judicial system than we do! Quick, let's make fun of them! It's too much work to actually try to understand the circumstances and benefits from another way of thinking!

One would think it would be drowning and not the more sensationalistic interpretation: sharks.

Burnt chocolate, that sounds like an awesome idea.

So I make a comment that was rational, pointing out errors in your logic and suggesting new uses for the camera and you remove my comment for it?

The childish behavior never ceases to amaze me. If you don't agree with what I say then comment about it, don't censor rational thought, especially so when it is done without insults or starchy language?

Alex, no, it's like saying that being shot caused you to go into shock and subsequently the shock killed you. Shock is a very real (and dangerous) medical condition that can be caused by a number of factors, most often sudden and painful.

Though to be fair it was likely not the ball squeezing that killed him but rather the shock associated from the ball squeezing. Laying him on his back, as in the photo, may well have been a contributing factor to his death.

Indeed, this was taught when I was in primary school, 20 years ago.

I wouldn't go to Fort Boyard, it has tigers. You can run from a zombie, but tigers are another matter.

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/5074/p70101497ci.jpg

It does not turn photos into animated GIFs, it turns small video snippets into animated GIFs, just with some parts remaining static.

I swear, titles on Neatorama are starting to become as misleading as tabloids.