Vampires aren't human either. So either way it would qualify.
Eh... I don't seen Human-Vampire sex freaking people out as much as Human-Wolf sex...
I mean, technically you're totally right, but I think that the intent of the wording was to remove a loophole they were using to avoid "bestiality", by making the animal secretly a human. And few people would consider Human-Vampire sex bestiality...
When the disparity is not due to discrimination? Yes.
Undesirable job is undesirable.
It also means that they're typically not going to be making too many choices about who they're hiring, and they're generally hiring everyone who applies.
Highly desirable jobs like being a doctor though should probably more reflect the population at large, and not just the subpopulation of people willing to do the job, because again... desirable job being desirable, the population of people willing to do the job is nearly equal to the population as a whole.
So, to be clear: over-representation of one group over another in shitty jobs is that group being willing to do the shitty job, good for them; over-representation of one group over another in jobs that EVERYONE would be more than happy to do... something is likely fishy.
To point out how this works, the text you were quoting. In Seattle, Hispanics are willing to do the shitty job of being fast food drones. However, in New Mexico, adult Hispanics generally aren't willing to do the shitty job of being fast food drones, because there are plenty of other job opportunities available to them, and generally less social discrimination working against them. But now we're left with a bunch of shitty jobs that need to be filled, oh, wait, teenagers are willing to do shitty jobs for low pay, so they now become over-represented in as fast food drones. It's not that adult Hispanics won't be hired to work as a fast food drone in New Mexico, it's that the job sucks, and they have better options.
In a 2009 study, the data show that women working in construction earn about 92.2% of what men earn, which fits fairly nicely in my guess that "undesirable" jobs will generally hire anyone, and pay them relatively the same. However, 'the four largest gender wage gaps were found in well-paying occupations such as "Physicians and surgeons" (64.2%), "securities, commodities and financial services sales agents" (64.5%), "financial managers" (66.6%), and "other business operations specialists" (66.9%).'
So, this cuts a fair amount against your argument, that the gap is only there because women aren't working in the undesirable but high-paying jobs... no, even when breaking it up into respective fields, women are statistically earning less than male counterparts. In fact, 'the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee reported that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings.'
Of course, the former is a relatively safe indoor job and the latter is an incredibly dangerous one that involves working outdoors amongst traffic and operating dangerous machinery with little in the way of safeguards.
I expect people arguing for the equalization of the pay to downplay the safety concerns, and the people arguing against the equalization of the pay to exaggerate the safety concerns, but then, I'm a cynic...
Basically, look: it sounds nice to come up with a guess as to why the gender pay gap is not as bad as it is, and it's especially tempting as a MRA to suggest that the gap can easily be explained away by things that the statisticians never thought of... except they have thought of these things... they're not idiots.
Actually, estrogen is quite effective at preventing fractures.
Which would be good news if it didn't cause a higher incident of clotting crises... (infarctions, strokes, DVTs, etc)
I've seen some recommendations on estrogen users to stop taking their estrogen at least a whole month before going on a long-distance flight, due to DVT risk...
Why is everyone obsessed at the number of cores? The more processors you ahve, the more complex scheduling your apps needs to perform to actually work faster. It's better to hav ea single core that is twice as fast, than two cores running in parallel.
Pfff... actually, the Tegra 3 has five cores, four of them are high-performance, and one is high-efficiency. The CPU is designed to shutdown the four cores for almost nearly everything, and just use the high-efficiency core in order to save on battery life.
So seriously, most of the time, the number of cores doesn't even matter, because unless you're playing a high-end game, the cores won't even be woken up.
I was hoping to avoid any specific answers, as I've been sent to mod-hell for advancing a feminist agenda here on Slashdot. As such, I've been sticking to more generalized questions. Like, why aren't white people working in-proportion at fast food restaurants in Seattle? (In Seattle, it's almost exclusively Hispanic people working behind the counters, in New Mexico, it's almost exclusively teenagers.)
Or cleaning out sewer systems. Seriously, it's highly unlikely that any of these undesirable jobs would ever turn down someone willing to do the job... meanwhile with desirable jobs, supposedly we should presume that everyone equally wants to be a programmer/doctor/lawyer, so why is there under-representation in their employment?
Forming it as a form of the Socratic Method ensures that I'm not shoving feminist talking points down people's throats, because if the population is distinctly biased towards men, you're far more likely to get Men's Rights Activists, and anti-feminists berating me for suggesting that they have privilege.
Indeed you are correct. However, this person wanted to write the word/Its/ (using X-SAMPA), which is the proper grammatical word to use in this sentence. Instead, he spelled it as "it's" rather than the correct "its", which is an orthographic (spelling) error, and not a grammatical error.
If he had truly intended to write "it is implications", then that would have clearly been a grammatical error. However, misspelling a word for a homophone is an orthographic error, as they pretty likely never intend to use the homophone itself instead of the correct word.
They sent the letter because the court order requires them to, in the second paragraph I quoted.
The court order didn't require the PLAINTIFF to send the letter, it required the DEFENDANT to send the letter. But since the defendants are appealing, and so likely are not going to follow the court order until the appeal fails, the plaintiff decided to send the letter instead.
I should rephrase, when I said "complaints had been addressed", I meant legal complaints... namely, that the drafts had been sent to the plaintiffs. They're claiming in the letter that they don't think that the defense has actually met the conditions of the court order, and so that the 90-days have not actually even started.
I wonder why we see considerably more "we need more women in science/engineering", but we don't hear much (if anything) about more women in mining. Where's the equality police?
Most concern about under-representation is for desirable jobs. I never saw people complaining that white people are underrepresented in fast food restaurant service staff in Seattle. Why? Because it's not a desirable job, and population representation is really only of significant importance with desirable jobs.
When you have 500 applicants lined up for one job, then it's more likely that you will fill job positions statistically consistent with the population, but when you have 50 slots open per single applicant, then your job population will statistically represent those people who apply, and a lack of one particular subpopulation will usually indicate less of a "we don't hire people with trait XY" and more of a "we hire everyone who applies, but people with trait XY don't apply."
This should always raise the question of "why are people with trait XY not applying?" but the answer for undesirable jobs is easy: because the jobs are undesirable. However, for desirable jobs (like software engineer, doctor, engineer, lawyer, etc), the question becomes much harder. Supposedly, these jobs are highly desirable, so why would people with trait XY not be applying?
Moreover, it makes it clear that it's only a 90 day restriction.
90 days after the complaints have all been addressed. As the USA is appealing the decision, this likely has not occurred yet. The court order also says that the defendant (the USA) was supposed to distribute this exact material to scientific journals as well. I suppose the plaintiff, not wishing to wait for the appeal to be heard before the government would move and notify the publishers, decided instead to fulfill that part of the court order on behalf of the defense, rather than suffer potential harm from them publishing the study.
Interesting the link to the to "a threatening letter that lawyers for the mining industry sent to various scientific journals " is not working. Maybe the letters have had effect?
v_v with that and the obvious spelling error confusing "it's" with "its"... isn't there someone who's supposed to be checking this stuff? I think they're called... editors?
He would be facing some pretty minor charges, not a 10 year jail sentence. There was no evidence of any violence or fraud or harrassment by Ravi.
Steal enough candy bars, and you could rack up enough misdemeanor charges to be put in jail for years, even though the individual acts alone would only carry a small amount of time individually.
There are no "special circumstances" - there is only "special groups", "protected groups", and "groups that are better" or something. That's not a circumstance. It's special privileges based on discrimination, and it violates equal protection under the law.
No, it doesn't and this is well established by the courts. If you want to get this tried, then become the victim of a hate crime because you're white/male/christian/whatever, and when they don't push for hate crime charges, THEN you can pull out violations of the the equal protection clause.
Let me give you an example of how "special circumstances" work. You walk into a barn, and there is a guy there, and you pick up a hammer and beat his head in until he's dead. If you brought the hammer, then it's first degree murder, if you just picked it up, then it's second degree murder. If you killed a police officer, knowing it were a police officer, then it's a special circumstances that in many cases is the only way that the prosecution is allowed to seek the death penalty.
There are tons of "special circumstances", and people get all hissy about this hate crime stuff, because "zOMGs, teh minorities are getting special privileges!!!" NO! They're NOT! They're getting recognition that some people are willing to commit crimes upon people just because of racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever, and that such behavior is wrong, and deserves to be called out, and punished, while at the same time, we need to recognize that if we're going to punish the behavior, the behavior has to be a crime in the first place.
If the legislature wanted to pass a "special circumstance" about committing a crime while being an asshole, or something like that, then it would be fine. And recall, hate crime legislation allows for PERCEIVED fitting of a class of people, it does not require that the person actually be part of that class of people, because again: hate crime legislation is not about the victim, it's about the intent of the criminal.
I don't care if the law is one that simply increases the sentence. You're literally taking an isolated case of what is at worst a low level crime and turning it into a major felony. That has always been complete bull. It isn't like another 90 days or a year or something, it is *doubling the sentence*. If anything, you're taking someone who is probably a very good candidate for rehabilitation and putting him in with people doing hard time. Hell, with a 10 year sentence, he probably won't even be eligible for a minimum security prison.
In most states a misdemeanor cannot exceed one year, prior to any sentencing extensions. The possible 10 year sentence is a compounding from additional charges.
Think about it: even if we take you at your word that his is a doubling of the sentence, then the guy is already facing 5 years even if this were not a hate crime. 5 years? Hell, I've heard of plea agreements for manslaughter that grant 5 years. Should we be upset that someone facing 5 separate misdemeanor charges is possibly going to face up to 5 years in prison?
This is only true if you equal "invasion of privacy" with "assault", and if you can show clearly that the intent of the spying was to effect violence, or fear of violence on the gay person. From the article in New Yorker I can't see either. All I see is a bigot taping a gay guy for the lulz. It is irresponsible, bigoted and stupid, but it is very far from a hate crime.
I'm only working with New Mexico law, because that's the only one I'm familiar with, and I don't know the specific jurisdiction under which this case is being tried.
However, that being said, in New Mexico "hate crime" does not have to be a violent crime, it just has to be a crime.
"hate crime" meme is all about an attempt to off-limit certain types of speech
IN THE UNITED STATES HATE SPEECH CANNOT BE MADE ILLEGAL. Hate crime legislation requires specific acts to be performed, that are ALREADY CRIMINAL ACTS IN AND OF THEMSELVES.
This whole anti-"hate crime" meme is an attempt to treat crimes committed with a discriminatory intent the same as all regular crimes.
Be very clear here: Ravi would be facing these charges even without hate crime legislation, because what he did was a crime completely apart from the discriminatory intent behind it. Giving a higher sentence to crimes due to various circumstances of the crime was already very common prior to Hate Crime laws.
It should be illegal to spy on someone. I agree with this. But it should be a misdemeanor and he should get slapped with probation and a fine, as well as a public apology. WTF is this shit with 10 years and felony hate crime statute usage? It's like this is the same as stringing up someone black in a lynching or beating the shit out of someone who is gay? It's no wonder people oppose hate crimes legislation it's clear this shit can be used for *anything*.
Look, this guy is a grade A douchebag, and should probably have some real penalty for invasion of privacy, but really? What they're trying to do is turn this suicide into a murder case.
In the state of New Mexico, the Hate Crimes Act is a sentencing act, and does not actually construct a criminal statute that is violated separately. That means, that you have to convict the person of the crime first, and then prove after the conviction that it was a hate crime, which will then carry a steeper penalty.
This person is clearly NOT being tried for "hate crimes", he's being charged for specific non-hate-crime acts, which have the extenuating circumstances of being motivated by hate. He's being tried for already existing crimes, that are carrying extra penalties because you and everyone else will readily admit, those crimes were only committed because the victim was suspected of being gay. This is the exact criteria needed to prove a Hate Crime.
So, to be clear that you and others get this through your thick skull: the guy is being charged with FELONIES TO BEGIN WITH, that is, even without it being a "hate crime" moniker, he is already being charged with felonies.
Slashdot Mirror
Vampires aren't human either. So either way it would qualify.
Eh... I don't seen Human-Vampire sex freaking people out as much as Human-Wolf sex...
I mean, technically you're totally right, but I think that the intent of the wording was to remove a loophole they were using to avoid "bestiality", by making the animal secretly a human. And few people would consider Human-Vampire sex bestiality...
Is it fair to cherry-pick?
When the disparity is not due to discrimination? Yes.
Undesirable job is undesirable.
It also means that they're typically not going to be making too many choices about who they're hiring, and they're generally hiring everyone who applies.
Highly desirable jobs like being a doctor though should probably more reflect the population at large, and not just the subpopulation of people willing to do the job, because again... desirable job being desirable, the population of people willing to do the job is nearly equal to the population as a whole.
So, to be clear: over-representation of one group over another in shitty jobs is that group being willing to do the shitty job, good for them; over-representation of one group over another in jobs that EVERYONE would be more than happy to do... something is likely fishy.
To point out how this works, the text you were quoting. In Seattle, Hispanics are willing to do the shitty job of being fast food drones. However, in New Mexico, adult Hispanics generally aren't willing to do the shitty job of being fast food drones, because there are plenty of other job opportunities available to them, and generally less social discrimination working against them. But now we're left with a bunch of shitty jobs that need to be filled, oh, wait, teenagers are willing to do shitty jobs for low pay, so they now become over-represented in as fast food drones. It's not that adult Hispanics won't be hired to work as a fast food drone in New Mexico, it's that the job sucks, and they have better options.
Likewise, fantasy novels in which human characters transform into non-humans are affected if those characters have sex.
Please?
If ever there were a good time to actually care about Pants picking Edward over Jacob... I got with Team WhichEverIsTheWerewolfSoWeCanGetItBanned.
While your argument is meaningful on an aggregate level, when you break things down, the data seem to support my position.
In a 2009 study, the data show that women working in construction earn about 92.2% of what men earn, which fits fairly nicely in my guess that "undesirable" jobs will generally hire anyone, and pay them relatively the same. However, 'the four largest gender wage gaps were found in well-paying occupations such as "Physicians and surgeons" (64.2%), "securities, commodities and financial services sales agents" (64.5%), "financial managers" (66.6%), and "other business operations specialists" (66.9%).'
So, this cuts a fair amount against your argument, that the gap is only there because women aren't working in the undesirable but high-paying jobs... no, even when breaking it up into respective fields, women are statistically earning less than male counterparts. In fact, 'the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee reported that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings.'
Of course, the former is a relatively safe indoor job and the latter is an incredibly dangerous one that involves working outdoors amongst traffic and operating dangerous machinery with little in the way of safeguards.
I expect people arguing for the equalization of the pay to downplay the safety concerns, and the people arguing against the equalization of the pay to exaggerate the safety concerns, but then, I'm a cynic...
Basically, look: it sounds nice to come up with a guess as to why the gender pay gap is not as bad as it is, and it's especially tempting as a MRA to suggest that the gap can easily be explained away by things that the statisticians never thought of... except they have thought of these things... they're not idiots.
Actually, estrogen is quite effective at preventing fractures.
Which would be good news if it didn't cause a higher incident of clotting crises... (infarctions, strokes, DVTs, etc)
I've seen some recommendations on estrogen users to stop taking their estrogen at least a whole month before going on a long-distance flight, due to DVT risk...
so, it has come to this.
I'm more interested in video/image editing than games. Those extra cores help a lot with tasks like that.
Ah yes, indeed.
*cough* AGW *cough*
Dude, you might want to get that cough looked at... it sounds like you might have cancer caused by diesel exhaust...
Why is everyone obsessed at the number of cores? The more processors you ahve, the more complex scheduling your apps needs to perform to actually work faster. It's better to hav ea single core that is twice as fast, than two cores running in parallel.
Pfff... actually, the Tegra 3 has five cores, four of them are high-performance, and one is high-efficiency. The CPU is designed to shutdown the four cores for almost nearly everything, and just use the high-efficiency core in order to save on battery life.
So seriously, most of the time, the number of cores doesn't even matter, because unless you're playing a high-end game, the cores won't even be woken up.
I was hoping to avoid any specific answers, as I've been sent to mod-hell for advancing a feminist agenda here on Slashdot. As such, I've been sticking to more generalized questions. Like, why aren't white people working in-proportion at fast food restaurants in Seattle? (In Seattle, it's almost exclusively Hispanic people working behind the counters, in New Mexico, it's almost exclusively teenagers.)
Or cleaning out sewer systems. Seriously, it's highly unlikely that any of these undesirable jobs would ever turn down someone willing to do the job... meanwhile with desirable jobs, supposedly we should presume that everyone equally wants to be a programmer/doctor/lawyer, so why is there under-representation in their employment?
Forming it as a form of the Socratic Method ensures that I'm not shoving feminist talking points down people's throats, because if the population is distinctly biased towards men, you're far more likely to get Men's Rights Activists, and anti-feminists berating me for suggesting that they have privilege.
... Ritalin (methylphenidate hydrochloride) and Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride) ...
The French don't meth up their children.
They give them fine wine.
Châteaux Silence l'Enfant
TFTFY
Spelling != Grammar
Indeed you are correct. However, this person wanted to write the word /Its/ (using X-SAMPA), which is the proper grammatical word to use in this sentence. Instead, he spelled it as "it's" rather than the correct "its", which is an orthographic (spelling) error, and not a grammatical error.
If he had truly intended to write "it is implications", then that would have clearly been a grammatical error. However, misspelling a word for a homophone is an orthographic error, as they pretty likely never intend to use the homophone itself instead of the correct word.
They sent the letter because the court order requires them to, in the second paragraph I quoted.
The court order didn't require the PLAINTIFF to send the letter, it required the DEFENDANT to send the letter. But since the defendants are appealing, and so likely are not going to follow the court order until the appeal fails, the plaintiff decided to send the letter instead.
I should rephrase, when I said "complaints had been addressed", I meant legal complaints... namely, that the drafts had been sent to the plaintiffs. They're claiming in the letter that they don't think that the defense has actually met the conditions of the court order, and so that the 90-days have not actually even started.
Of course, that's just what they're claiming.
There's all sorts of reasons someone might not spell well. So who cares?
Because presumably, this stuff goes through an editorial process....
I wonder why we see considerably more "we need more women in science/engineering", but we don't hear much (if anything) about more women in mining.
Where's the equality police?
Most concern about under-representation is for desirable jobs. I never saw people complaining that white people are underrepresented in fast food restaurant service staff in Seattle. Why? Because it's not a desirable job, and population representation is really only of significant importance with desirable jobs.
When you have 500 applicants lined up for one job, then it's more likely that you will fill job positions statistically consistent with the population, but when you have 50 slots open per single applicant, then your job population will statistically represent those people who apply, and a lack of one particular subpopulation will usually indicate less of a "we don't hire people with trait XY" and more of a "we hire everyone who applies, but people with trait XY don't apply."
This should always raise the question of "why are people with trait XY not applying?" but the answer for undesirable jobs is easy: because the jobs are undesirable. However, for desirable jobs (like software engineer, doctor, engineer, lawyer, etc), the question becomes much harder. Supposedly, these jobs are highly desirable, so why would people with trait XY not be applying?
People who speak English.
Honestly, I think there are plenty of people who speak English, yet are incapable of giving a fuck about spelling errors. Speaking != literate.
Moreover, it makes it clear that it's only a 90 day restriction.
90 days after the complaints have all been addressed. As the USA is appealing the decision, this likely has not occurred yet. The court order also says that the defendant (the USA) was supposed to distribute this exact material to scientific journals as well. I suppose the plaintiff, not wishing to wait for the appeal to be heard before the government would move and notify the publishers, decided instead to fulfill that part of the court order on behalf of the defense, rather than suffer potential harm from them publishing the study.
Interesting the link to the to "a threatening letter that lawyers for the mining industry sent to various scientific journals " is not working. Maybe the letters have had effect?
v_v with that and the obvious spelling error confusing "it's" with "its"... isn't there someone who's supposed to be checking this stuff? I think they're called... editors?
Nah, this is slashdot! I must be new here. :(
” To understand that, you have to grasp that “the Internet” isn’t just a network of wires and switches"
Well of course not, as every (ex-) politician knows, it's a series of tubes, full of cats.
TFTFY
He would be facing some pretty minor charges, not a 10 year jail sentence. There was no evidence of any violence or fraud or harrassment by Ravi.
Steal enough candy bars, and you could rack up enough misdemeanor charges to be put in jail for years, even though the individual acts alone would only carry a small amount of time individually.
There are no "special circumstances" - there is only "special groups", "protected groups", and "groups that are better" or something. That's not a circumstance. It's special privileges based on discrimination, and it violates equal protection under the law.
No, it doesn't and this is well established by the courts. If you want to get this tried, then become the victim of a hate crime because you're white/male/christian/whatever, and when they don't push for hate crime charges, THEN you can pull out violations of the the equal protection clause.
Let me give you an example of how "special circumstances" work. You walk into a barn, and there is a guy there, and you pick up a hammer and beat his head in until he's dead. If you brought the hammer, then it's first degree murder, if you just picked it up, then it's second degree murder. If you killed a police officer, knowing it were a police officer, then it's a special circumstances that in many cases is the only way that the prosecution is allowed to seek the death penalty.
There are tons of "special circumstances", and people get all hissy about this hate crime stuff, because "zOMGs, teh minorities are getting special privileges!!!" NO! They're NOT! They're getting recognition that some people are willing to commit crimes upon people just because of racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever, and that such behavior is wrong, and deserves to be called out, and punished, while at the same time, we need to recognize that if we're going to punish the behavior, the behavior has to be a crime in the first place.
If the legislature wanted to pass a "special circumstance" about committing a crime while being an asshole, or something like that, then it would be fine. And recall, hate crime legislation allows for PERCEIVED fitting of a class of people, it does not require that the person actually be part of that class of people, because again: hate crime legislation is not about the victim, it's about the intent of the criminal.
I don't care if the law is one that simply increases the sentence. You're literally taking an isolated case of what is at worst a low level crime and turning it into a major felony. That has always been complete bull. It isn't like another 90 days or a year or something, it is *doubling the sentence*. If anything, you're taking someone who is probably a very good candidate for rehabilitation and putting him in with people doing hard time. Hell, with a 10 year sentence, he probably won't even be eligible for a minimum security prison.
In most states a misdemeanor cannot exceed one year, prior to any sentencing extensions. The possible 10 year sentence is a compounding from additional charges.
Think about it: even if we take you at your word that his is a doubling of the sentence, then the guy is already facing 5 years even if this were not a hate crime. 5 years? Hell, I've heard of plea agreements for manslaughter that grant 5 years. Should we be upset that someone facing 5 separate misdemeanor charges is possibly going to face up to 5 years in prison?
This is only true if you equal "invasion of privacy" with "assault", and if you can show clearly that the intent of the spying was to effect violence, or fear of violence on the gay person. From the article in New Yorker I can't see either. All I see is a bigot taping a gay guy for the lulz. It is irresponsible, bigoted and stupid, but it is very far from a hate crime.
I'm only working with New Mexico law, because that's the only one I'm familiar with, and I don't know the specific jurisdiction under which this case is being tried.
However, that being said, in New Mexico "hate crime" does not have to be a violent crime, it just has to be a crime.
"hate crime" meme is all about an attempt to off-limit certain types of speech
IN THE UNITED STATES HATE SPEECH CANNOT BE MADE ILLEGAL. Hate crime legislation requires specific acts to be performed, that are ALREADY CRIMINAL ACTS IN AND OF THEMSELVES.
This whole anti-"hate crime" meme is an attempt to treat crimes committed with a discriminatory intent the same as all regular crimes.
Be very clear here: Ravi would be facing these charges even without hate crime legislation, because what he did was a crime completely apart from the discriminatory intent behind it. Giving a higher sentence to crimes due to various circumstances of the crime was already very common prior to Hate Crime laws.
It should be illegal to spy on someone. I agree with this. But it should be a misdemeanor and he should get slapped with probation and a fine, as well as a public apology. WTF is this shit with 10 years and felony hate crime statute usage? It's like this is the same as stringing up someone black in a lynching or beating the shit out of someone who is gay? It's no wonder people oppose hate crimes legislation it's clear this shit can be used for *anything*.
Look, this guy is a grade A douchebag, and should probably have some real penalty for invasion of privacy, but really? What they're trying to do is turn this suicide into a murder case.
In the state of New Mexico, the Hate Crimes Act is a sentencing act, and does not actually construct a criminal statute that is violated separately. That means, that you have to convict the person of the crime first, and then prove after the conviction that it was a hate crime, which will then carry a steeper penalty.
This person is clearly NOT being tried for "hate crimes", he's being charged for specific non-hate-crime acts, which have the extenuating circumstances of being motivated by hate. He's being tried for already existing crimes, that are carrying extra penalties because you and everyone else will readily admit, those crimes were only committed because the victim was suspected of being gay. This is the exact criteria needed to prove a Hate Crime.
So, to be clear that you and others get this through your thick skull: the guy is being charged with FELONIES TO BEGIN WITH, that is, even without it being a "hate crime" moniker, he is already being charged with felonies.