You, and everyone ever born. The most meaningless description of them all.

Perhaps an honest mistake, the link is broken. Second, evidence has shown SATA are more reliable than commercial/enterprise grade drive. Only buy those if you don't like your money, or there is some clear advantage. That supposed advantage is not reliability, unless there is there is some sort of rapid replacement mechanism coming with the drive. Although replacement isn't reliability in my book.

http://lwn.net/Articles/237924/

Actually if you dig a little deeper, you'll find some information coming from the 13-year-olds mother which is quite interesting, and brings into question even more of the level of police work done eg leading questions, badgering, etc.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-george-zimmerman-killing-trayvon-martin-grainy-proves-lawyer-article-1.1052713

He shot a handicap? Or did you mean unarmed?

Bullshit. It was designed that way. And I can prove it, unlike your assertion.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc15

If you continue reading the article, you'll come across this quote:

"Motive is particularly important in prosecutions for homicide. First, murder is so drastic a crime that most people recoil from the thought of being able to do it; proof of motive explains why the accused did so desperate an act."

Additionally, if you review studies which compare conviction rates and sentencing vs motive, you'll see that motive plays a rather large impact in both. So to be clear, I'm not disputing the claim that something like "Motivation is irrelevant to criminal cases" is taught at major prestigious law schools across the US. What I am disputing is the veracity of that claim. I also dispute the morality of such a position although that's a different discussion.

Thanks for the caring attitude, but I do understand the difference between motive and intent. I encourage you to expand yours. Here's some info for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=921111

Bias Intimidation laws are laws designed to escalate punishments based upon motive. Escalating punishments based upon motive is already how the justice system works and has been almost since it's inception. See http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2730083&cid=39381299 for more details.

So now under your definition things like premeditation constitute thought crime, but that isn't how thought crime is typically defined is it?. These laws can *only* escalate if a traditional law has been violated, and you can and should be punished more for why you did it. Otherwise we have no need for charged like murder vs manslaughter. Circumstance and motivation must be taken into account and your proposal leaves no room for such considerations. Only the simple minded could think such a system results in fairest possible outcome.

Excuse me, but where did I defend the length of the sentence? That's right I didn't, and if you could be bothered to read some of my comments on the topic you'd have known that. Had you done so you'd also see that in general I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws, but I can see their purpose to some extent.

Another thing I'm not a big of is ignoramuses who equate "hate-crime" laws as being equal to "hate-speech" laws. There is a very grave difference between the two and I encourage you to know the difference. Hate crime laws are not about censorship, a dangerous territory indeed. Hate speech laws are which is why I very much despise them.

Learn the definition of thought crime. The defendant wasn't convicted on what he thought. He was convicted for what he did. He's free to hold whatever opinion he wishes on homosexuals, but he's not free to break the law on behalf of them.