Slashdot Mirror

So if I see a desk lamp in an antique store with bulbous "on" switch, and another antique lamp in a different store with a leopard pattern, and I combine the ideas to make and sell a leopard pattern lamp with a bulbous switch, I'd be infringing on another (non-antique) lamp that happened to do the same? Just about every fricken product in existence is a combination of at least 2 existing design ideas.

Now, I have seen examples where Samsung copied other ideas like the edge bevel style, black background (wallpaper), bottom grayish tray, etc. I will agree that if the quantity of elements copied reaches around 5 or so, then they've probably gone too far. The quantity and strength of similarities matter.

No offense intended, but you do realize you look like an idiot when you're still pushing the "Russians haxored the 2016 election to make Trump win" thing at this point, right?

Yes, like most Americans, I believe Russia intervened on Trump's behalf in the 2016 election.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/...

and the raw data...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2...

You're 35. You don't know what a Nazi march looks like.

I can help with that.

https://www.google.com/search?...:

http://markmaynard.com/wp-cont...

https://fsmedia.imgix.net/b9/d...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money...

The problem is most of these "inventions" are only small part of an actual invention and specified so vaguely in the patent that the documented "invention" or useful machine could not be recreated just using said documentation and has no function without being connected in just the right way to other "inventions". The whole point is to preserve, propagate and allow the use of inventions and devices while still allowing the "inventor" to make a reasonable income on said invention. Most of these patents are on the equivalent of bolts and screws for the electronics industry.

Oh, please...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money...

just like my wish granted to me by the hard-of-hearing genie.

Lets not forget that awesome letter he sent back with Bill 1176
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2...

And firearms instructors like me will cringe at the way she has the muzzle covered with her hand and pointed at her face. Don't do that.

I suspect there's a long history of portraits available to you for good "don't" illustrations.

Oh, definitely.

You could probably teach your whole class off of this one (although they were at least all pointed in the general vicinity of the ground).

Actually, they're doing pretty well. All of the guns are pointed in safe directions and they all have their fingers off the triggers. I don't think I'd take a family Christmas photo like that, but it looks like they're all following the safety rules.

And firearms instructors like me will cringe at the way she has the muzzle covered with her hand and pointed at her face. Don't do that.

I suspect there's a long history of portraits available to you for good "don't" illustrations. You could probably teach your whole class off of this one (although they were at least all pointed in the general vicinity of the ground).

The department of defense has a zombie apocalypse plan http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2...

...and a skewing towards males, for cultural reasons, that means there's a pretty big gender gap.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2...

So what is that we don't really have a very good or complete way to measure intelligence. And without that, "gene research" isn't going to be able to tell us anything like one race being more intelligent than another.

And even if we ever did, it means nothing. A genius that happenst to belong to a certain "race" is a genius, regardless if every other member of that race is not.

Love the links - Me share too!

Here's a smart little bundle of joy:

http://www.liberalamerica.org/...

Old Poopypants Patriot is obviously smarter than this little lady in England who just started University at ten years old

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnne...

Then again, maybe not.

It looks like a briefcase:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnne...

Looking more closely, the relative size of the plug gives it away. Fine, a mini briefcase.

I was wrong. White boys bring shit like that to school every day, obviously. Carry on with the social outrage.

Let me google it for you: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/... This photo in particular: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnne...

I'm sick of all this social engineering. I just want to barf.

You mean social engineering like this?

http://www.strengthvillain.com...

https://jonathanturley.files.w...

http://thetoydetectives.com/co...

https://alanabeeblog.files.wor...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnne...

He doesn't seem overweight for me.

While I feel for the family, to say that he is not overweight shows just how much society's perception of being overweight has changed.

Take a look at this picture, for instance.

And take a look at the body fat visual chart for comparison.

With the overhanging belly, he is easily 35-40% at least. While the majority of people today are fat (especially in the US), that is not healthy. If anything, until recently, 20-25% used to be average.

Above 25-30% is the fat territory, and that's when you start increasing your risk for heart attacks, diabetes, and strokes. Mr. Goldberg may have had a lot of things going for him, but he is most certainly more than a little overweight.

Assuming he's ~6 feet, I would argue that he is probably ~30-40+ lbs overweight. That is not at all healthy. I'm not arguing everyone should have abs, but there's a happy medium here. Mr. Goldberg is very clearly on the unfortunate side of the medium.

I'm 6'3. I can easily be 50 pounds overweight and not look like that guy. If he is that tall, he's got to be closer to 70-80 pounds overweight. Granted, if you look at BMI charts they think I should weigh about 20 pounds less than I do when I think I look fit and trim.

He doesn't seem overweight for me.

While I feel for the family, to say that he is not overweight shows just how much society's perception of being overweight has changed.

Take a look at this picture, for instance.

And take a look at the body fat visual chart for comparison.

With the overhanging belly, he is easily 35-40% at least. While the majority of people today are fat (especially in the US), that is not healthy. If anything, until recently, 20-25% used to be average.

Above 25-30% is the fat territory, and that's when you start increasing your risk for heart attacks, diabetes, and strokes. Mr. Goldberg may have had a lot of things going for him, but he is most certainly more than a little overweight.

Assuming he's ~6 feet, I would argue that he is probably ~30-40+ lbs overweight. That is not at all healthy. I'm not arguing everyone should have abs, but there's a happy medium here. Mr. Goldberg is very clearly on the unfortunate side of the medium.

Only the vessel for him carried by Leonard Nimoy has passed on, but as long as he's remembered he's not truly dead.

On the other hand, if you aren't royalty and your picture appears on money, you are likely truly dead...

Let me see... Looney, Tooney, Spooney? Nah... ;^)

This type of analysis would be better for taking pictures rather than analyzing existing ones, and even more so for outdoor photography (landscapes, natural events, etc.).

The best landscape/storm photos are about timing, you have to be there when the awesomeness happens and snap the shot.
Think the Grand Canyon full of clouds:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/d...

Imagine a scenario where you setup a camera at a great view/vista (somehow securely) and leave it there for a while, letting a system decide when to take photos. Program it to capture sunset/sunrise (depending on the camera's orientation) every day, and stormy conditions (it sees lightning and then starts taking shots).

Let it take batches of photos that match some predefined conditions, and then go get the camera to look for the shot(s) that are awesome.

> DNA synthesis has become cheaper

Does this mean that, in addition to the Zombie threat, we should be worried about Chimeras, dragons, giants and satyrs too?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/dr/hl...

...which sets forth new regulations for the proper appearance of new brides.

Just wait until the ICF hits (internal combustion flu). Tesla will be laughing all the way to the bank.

I think it's the other way around... Tesla cars, Boeing jets, and laptops before them have been catching the Lithium Flu. You'll know it when you see it, because it comes with *quite* the high fever...

Here's one Model S getting some medical attention.

Added: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money... Chart.

You can't attribute the drop in violent crime over 20 years so a single cherrypicked variable. Why do I call it cherrypicked? Because if you thought the probability of a household or individual owning a gun deterred you from robbing it then crime should have gone up since the number of households with guns has decreased. (I'd like the numbers on how many people are concealed carrying but I couldn't find them). How to explain the soaring sales? Existing owners buying multiple guns. They also suggest that more guns have led to fewer suicides when there's very good evidence to suggest the opposite.

Note I'm not sure I'd claim the drop in crime is correlated to the dropping gun ownership rates since I think the data is simply too messes. I'm also not sure that state level gun control has much impact on gun crime since the criminals that commit the bulk of crimes can easily bring in guns from out of state. But I think there's strong evidence that guns decrease safety.

What then is left? Well... we have the emperical fact of the healthcare premiums going up. That's a fact.

Premiums always go up, it's called inflation. But the rate of increase is near all time lows.

We have 70 percent of doctors in many areas boycotting the ACA. That is a fact.

No, it's not a fact. It's a straight up lie. You're just gullible.

We have people with serious illnesses that were covered under the old system losing their healthcare and having new healthcare policies offered that are twice as expensive. That is a fact.

That's an anecdote. I could dig up dozens of counter examples, but why waste my time? You're just performing a Gish Gallop.

All I see is a bunch of telecom fiefdoms expanding their influence.

That's certainly one way to view this...I completely understand. However I think we can look at this as a challenge and not an inevitability.

*We run our government* to the degree to which we claim that power. We can demand the FCC end this nonsense! We should all email the FCC and tell them any discrimination in traffic, even if contextualized as a "speed boost" or "preferred delivery" is just marketing language for ending Net Neutrality. Tell them "No"

That's a starting point.

Techies have to get out there and make our voices heard on this. We need to explain why any tiered service is a method to get us to this.

The Net Neutrality blackout day worked...it got the conversation going in the right direction.

I honestly believe that this FCC chairman may be just an airhead. They hire these guys to "create jobs" and "foster innovation" so they are business types usually with a law background. They aren't hired for their technical knowledge.

I can envision a scenario where the FCC chairman said this because he heard some damn TED talk or some kind of one-sided presentation from Verizon.

We need to give the advisors of the FCC chairman and Obama the intellectual meat to use as bait for their bosses when they explain what's happening on a policy like Net Neutrality.

It's not surprising that a little over half of congress supports the NSA spying, since that's approximately the percentage of voters that support it too.

Actually, that would be surprising! Look at what they think about, say, marijuana laws or tax rates, and compare that to what polls say voters want.

There's a reason why Congress currently has a 10% approval rating and an 87% disapproval rating.

There's also the common sense fact that if Zimmerman had intended to kill Martin in cold blood, calling the police just prior to the murder would have been illogical, as would allowing himself to get close enough to Martin to allow Martin to defend himself and reach for Zimmerman's gun. According to Zimmerman, Martin did indeed go for Zimmerman's gun, which is what finally forced Zimmerman to shoot Martin.

No one is arguing that he originally intended to kill Martin that night. You're attempting to stretch that logic in to saying that it would then also be illogical to let Martin get close to him though, and that is incorrect. Zimmerman had no reason to be afraid of Mr Martin up until they confronted each other, at which point they were both already within close range of each other. It is confirmed by Dee Dee that they exchanged words. After that there is no information on how the fight started, all we know is that after the fight started Zimmerman ended up on the floor on his back with Martin on top of him. At some point, Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin several times.

The eyewitness Jonathon Good testified “It seemed like a tussle,” adding that at first he thought he was witnessing a dog attack. He then said that he saw “downward movement,” but couldn’t confirm that he saw punches being thrown. He added that the person on top was “straddling” the person on bottom. Additionally, this photo of Zimmerman's face after the altercation does not reflect a man who's face has been pummeled. He has no bruises at all, yet his nose is broken? Additionally, this photo here shows two lacerations on the back of his head. Did Martin smash his head into the ground repeatedly? Sure doesn't look like it. It looks like he was tackled and got injured during the fall.

So let me reiterate:
1. Martin is walking to a friends house through the rain wearing his hoody after having went to a convenience store to get skittles.
2. Zimmerman sees Martin walking, and follows him because he believes he is suspicious.
3. Martin runs away from someone we can only assume he believes is suspicious as well.
4. Zimmerman leaves his truck to follow Martin, after having reportedly lost him, he does to check the street address on the opposite side of the street?
5. Martin returns to confront his follower.
6. Words are exchanged, and a fight starts.
7. During the fight, Martin tackles Zimmerman, Zimmerman receives several injuries.
8. The eye witness enters at this point and confirms Martin is on top of Zimmerman, but cannot see much more than that.
9. Zimmerman shoots Martin several times, Martin dies.

So now there are some holes in Zimmerman's claims. The eye witness could hardly see what was going on, but was able to confirm that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. No one knows what words were exchanged before the fight, or who threw the first punch. Lack of injuries on Martin does not mean he started the fight, just that he wasn't hit. It is incredibly important who started the fight, and as Zimmerman is the instigator of the entire situation, I am more prone to believe that he instigated things along further.

However bad you might feel for Martin and his family, that's not how a fair justice system works.

I don't believe I ever said the justice system should convict him. No one can confirm what really happened there, so it would be wrong to convict him, but as I said originally, karma will see it's way in the end. If Zimmerman was really justified then that statement wouldn't mean anything. It is definitely his fault that Martin is dead though. That much is clear, he could have walked away with a few scrapes and bruises, and reported Martin to the police for assault, instead, he chose to shoot him, and accidentally killed him.

There's also the common sense fact that if Zimmerman had intended to kill Martin in cold blood, calling the police just prior to the murder would have been illogical, as would allowing himself to get close enough to Martin to allow Martin to defend himself and reach for Zimmerman's gun. According to Zimmerman, Martin did indeed go for Zimmerman's gun, which is what finally forced Zimmerman to shoot Martin.

No one is arguing that he originally intended to kill Martin that night. You're attempting to stretch that logic in to saying that it would then also be illogical to let Martin get close to him though, and that is incorrect. Zimmerman had no reason to be afraid of Mr Martin up until they confronted each other, at which point they were both already within close range of each other. It is confirmed by Dee Dee that they exchanged words. After that there is no information on how the fight started, all we know is that after the fight started Zimmerman ended up on the floor on his back with Martin on top of him. At some point, Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin several times.

The eyewitness Jonathon Good testified “It seemed like a tussle,” adding that at first he thought he was witnessing a dog attack. He then said that he saw “downward movement,” but couldn’t confirm that he saw punches being thrown. He added that the person on top was “straddling” the person on bottom. Additionally, this photo of Zimmerman's face after the altercation does not reflect a man who's face has been pummeled. He has no bruises at all, yet his nose is broken? Additionally, this photo here shows two lacerations on the back of his head. Did Martin smash his head into the ground repeatedly? Sure doesn't look like it. It looks like he was tackled and got injured during the fall.

So let me reiterate:
1. Martin is walking to a friends house through the rain wearing his hoody after having went to a convenience store to get skittles.
2. Zimmerman sees Martin walking, and follows him because he believes he is suspicious.
3. Martin runs away from someone we can only assume he believes is suspicious as well.
4. Zimmerman leaves his truck to follow Martin, after having reportedly lost him, he does to check the street address on the opposite side of the street?
5. Martin returns to confront his follower.
6. Words are exchanged, and a fight starts.
7. During the fight, Martin tackles Zimmerman, Zimmerman receives several injuries.
8. The eye witness enters at this point and confirms Martin is on top of Zimmerman, but cannot see much more than that.
9. Zimmerman shoots Martin several times, Martin dies.

So now there are some holes in Zimmerman's claims. The eye witness could hardly see what was going on, but was able to confirm that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. No one knows what words were exchanged before the fight, or who threw the first punch. Lack of injuries on Martin does not mean he started the fight, just that he wasn't hit. It is incredibly important who started the fight, and as Zimmerman is the instigator of the entire situation, I am more prone to believe that he instigated things along further.

However bad you might feel for Martin and his family, that's not how a fair justice system works.

I don't believe I ever said the justice system should convict him. No one can confirm what really happened there, so it would be wrong to convict him, but as I said originally, karma will see it's way in the end. If Zimmerman was really justified then that statement wouldn't mean anything. It is definitely his fault that Martin is dead though. That much is clear, he could have walked away with a few scrapes and bruises, and reported Martin to the police for assault, instead, he chose to shoot him, and accidentally killed him.

Pictures show the aircraft sat on the ground with the tail missing and the forward roof burnt out but it certainly did NOT cartwheel or bits would be scattered down the runway.

There are actually bits of debris on the runway starting almost with the rocks separating the runway from the bay. The integrity of the fuselage says it did not cartwheel (objects this big don't move in one piece like the movies - they'll disintegrate with just moderate lateral forces). But the debris trail and missing tail suggest it came down at a high angle of attack hitting tail-first possibly from a stall (in a regular landing you hit landing gear-first), then hit the ground hard enough to collapse its landing gear and skid off the runway. The jagged yellow partial dome you see at the tail end of the fuselage is the plane's aft pressure bulkhead - the end of the pressurized section of the fuselage. So nobody was in the tail portion which broke off.

The high AOA suggests the pilot was pulling up trying to gain altitude (or at least decrease the rate he was losing it). Possible reasons are an engine problem (with inadequate thrust, pilot was trying desperately to glide a little further to make the runway) or some failure of the flaps (if they retract, they increase the plane's stall speed possibly causing the plane to drop out of the air). Or wind shear (sudden tailwind deprives the plane of lift and pilot pulls up to try to maintain altitude - unlikely given the weather). Or pilot error (was coming in too high and tried to bleed altitude too quickly, instead of declaring a missed approach and trying again), though the tail striking short of the runway makes this unlikely unless the pilot accidentally put the plane into a stall.

Martin's autopsy is publicly available (PDF). Now tell me: in the autopsy report, how many wounds did Martin have at the time of death? What was the cause of the wound(s)? Does this support or refute the assertion that Zimmerman attacked Martin first?

There are also publicly available photos of Zimmerman immediately after the encounter. Given the location of Zimmerman's wounds, does this support or refute the position of the prosecution or the defense? Further, are you aware that strikes to the back of the head are illegal in sport fighting because they carry a risk of serious injury or death?

People became more productive due to technology. Now you are able to produce enough for you and your family in 40 hours / week. Before this technology advancement, you needed to work 60-80 hours / week in order to produce enough.

That's what you'd think isn't it?
The reality is somewhat different:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130305161550-chart-productivity-hourly-compensation.gif

I'll leave it to the educated reader to deduce what happened to *40 years worth of difference between productivity and wages.
*It's not labeled, but the lines diverge in 1973

They do have warnings on the boxes. And on the instructions. And on the packaging. I've bought several packages of Buckyball brand magnets when they were on sale.

Here is a CNN Article with an image that shows the warning I'm referring to.

Apparently, that site is jacked with all kinds of javascript... here's a link directly to the image.

As you can see, the warning is clearly printed on the packaging and clearly printed on the container. They are not showing the insert that also contains the warning, but I assure you it is there.

Some citations..

• Campaign Rally Numbers: Google them yourselves. Last night Biden drew 1000. Obama's Jay-Z PA event was half empty. Romney's events have had more people. I retract the 90%... but clearly the the thrill isn't what it was in 08.
• 40 papers have switched from an Obama endorsement to Romney. http://www.gop.com/news/research/what-they-are-saying-7/
• Citation needed for broken promises? You're insane. Gitmo. $2500 reduction in healthcare costs. He'd be bi-partisan. Large deficits are "unpatriotic" and he'd cut the deficit in half. But I don't know many middle of the road democrats who are "fired up" like 08. The liberals, union workers, and welfare crowd will vote for him.. but the average hard working middle class American may not be as happy with Obama as you think. Some polls are showing 11% black vote going to Romney (which again, may just be an indicator of how wrong the polls can be.)
• People lie to pollsters all the time. Almost everyone says they will vote, but we know that only 2/3's of the people actually do. Using 2008 as a metric to judge whether someone is a "likely" voter will skew the results--as 2008, Republican's were fed up after Bush, didn't like McCain, and Democrats were voting because they were really sick of Bush.
• Independents: This CNN poll says Independents are in favor of Romney by 22 points. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/11/04/top16.pdf Independents often decide the election.
• PA is in play. It might be a long shot with the Philly shenanigans (removing Republican poll watchers? Classy.), but its a statistical tie. Last time PA voted R in the presidential race was 1988, 24 years ago.
• AC: Re: Astroturfing. Look around--there are millions of people on both sides who follow politics fanatically like its a sporting event. 30,000 people don't brave the cold weather of OH to watch a dozen people speak about a candidate they don't care about. I encourage you to check up on all of it rather than blindly throw out the BS and idiotic thought that Carl Rove is paying me $5.00 to post crap.

The 47% figure is rather misleading because it only refers to the percentage of people paying federal income tax. It turns out there are multiple federal taxes on income, only one of which is called the federal income tax. Most of those 47% pay the payroll tax which is a regressive income tax. For detailed numbers see this chart which Google image search found on this CNN Money video. For those that don't want to click the link, the breakdown according to CNN is 53.6% pay income tax and the rest not paying income tax are split up as 28.6% pay payroll tax, 10.3% elderly with no income tax, 6.9% non-elderly with income under $20,000, and 1% other.

Once you eliminate people paying income/payroll tax and the retired elderly, that leaves at most 8% not retired but not making enough money to owe federal taxes. Some of those are unable to work. Some of those are unable to find a job. Some small proportion might really be lazy and leeching off the system like you are worried about... but that is almost certainly much less than 8% of the population and definitely a lot less than 47% of the population.

On top of that, remember this entire discussion is only about federal taxes. There are also state taxes, which are pretty universally regressive. Particularly, most states have a sales tax which hits the poor much harder as anyone earning so little they aren't paying income tax is probably buying necessities with all the money they do earn and therefore immediately paying sales tax on a large proportion of their income.

This article that I came across while searching for those figures tells a similar story with more exposition and citations.

I have yet to see a samsung phone that looked anything like my iPhone 3G or 4. Sure they had black phones, and rectangular phones. They had phones with a single button, and phones with rounded corners. But I can say without a doubt there is not a single samsung phone that anyone but a patent lawyer would call a rip off of the iphone.

Did they tailor their designs to consumer taste? Yes. Did consumers start to like sleek looks in phones without a ton of buttons? Yes. Did consumers start to like touch displays and a candybar form factor? Yes. But there is direct rip off. The closest I could get was this http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/120802021415-samsung-omnia-large-gallery-horizontal.jpg and only a fool would think that was a iPhone. In fact, using the same logic, all TV's must be ripping off each other's design. My 55 inch samsung is black and looks almost identical to my friends 55 inch LG. They even both watch the same TV service!

I've been a long time apple user. I've had 4 apple phones, 6 apple computers, and I have converted dozens of people to apple products. My contract is up with AT&T and I'm buying a Galaxy S3. I'm done with them, not just for the patent stuff, but for the general direction of the company.

No. We are in more peril than ever. Did you look at the photo of this so-called psychologist? You're not foolling anyone, General Zod! We know you've come back to conqueor earth! http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120523013536-zimbardo-nikita-story-body.jpg

Oh okay there, Chung Chi Ming! ...and then later on have fun getting stopped for a DWI!

CNN's Image For the Story (120113122630-ces-mercedes-augmented-reality-driving-story-top.jpg)

The pictures seem to be in tune with the younger set and would not be out of place at your local college campus; especially when there is a rave going on somewhere. Kids wearing face paint and outrageous hair styles are not going to be noticed other than with the usual disapproving glances from the geezers they pass along the way...

What - like long hair, floppy hats and beards worked?

I don't think you quite understand the full picture

Now, they might not be breaking the law, but they are certainly twisting it, bending it over, and raping it.

Apparently twisting, bending over, and raping something may actually be illegal.

Well, he has a signed contract.

But contracts don't get invalidated even if they were totally electronic. It's like this: some people use pen/paper or typewriters to write works of fiction. And others to write business correspondence. The latter isn't invalidated because of the former.

Similarly, just because some people use email to shoot the breeze does not mean e-mail correspondence is invalid before the courts. That's the law since 2000 (ESIGN Act).

If you make an offer to someone (create a logo for me for $500), and he accepts, and creates the logo, you are obligated to pay $500. You made an offer, there was a back-and-forth (on email), and there was an agreement to exchange value (consideration). That's a contract.

The email doesn't matter directly. The primary evidence is the contract which Zuckerberg signed. Look on page 11 and 12 of this document. The emails only serve to bolster the fact that the contract isn't a forgery. At least, that's my not-a-lawyer understanding of the situation. If the contract isn't forged, then Zuckerberg is screwed.

Except that by default, when a law is unconstitutional it is struck down in its entirety, to prevent such unintended consequences.

If Congress doesn't want this to happen, they can include a severability clause that says 'hey, we don't mind if this part stands on its own.' But Congress didn't do that. If mandatory insurance falls, so does the entire bill.

Actually, if you read the ruling, you'll see that he addressed the issue of severability and decided not to throw out the entire law, only the mandate part.

I'm not going to quote the relevant parts of the opinion here, but the "it's a tax" argument was thrown out on very reasoned and clear grounds.

Read it for yourself right here.

FFS.

If you spent 5 seconds with Google you'd find dozens of examples. I don't see why I have to do it for you.

Here: It took me literally seconds to find *dozens* of examples:
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-delegates-vote-to-repudiate-racist-elements-within-the-tea-pary/ (6 or 7 pictures at this one)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/art.obama.protest.sign.cnn.jpg
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2008/10/custom_1223838327176_racistbf5.png
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20090916TeaParty01.jpg

Man, here's an idea, just go to images.google.com and type in tea party and look through the signs. There's quite a few examples of blatant racism. Now my question to you is, where are the tea party leaders condemning this? If you can't find that, then that seems pretty much like de-facto proof that it is tolerated.

I know a little pop psych too. It's called "projection". How many of these alleged psychological problems are really with the tea party people and how many are your own flaws which you attempt to "project" onto a group you don't like?

There was nothing even vaguely resembling pop psychology what I posted.

And seriously, I realize this is an internet-argument and therefore blah blah blah, but seriously, could you get any less classy?

The contract is included in the lawsuit, available here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/07/13/technology/facebook_lawsuit/facebook_filing.pdf

What kind of awful font is that filing made with? It looks close to, but not quite, Comic Sans (the t's are wrong, for one). It's hard to tell based on a rough scan just how crude it looks.

Also shows you how absolutely useless the "due diligence" is that VCs perform. Zuckerberg probably never disclosed this old contract from the early days to any of his investors or they would have forced a settlement with this guy before things got this far. I've gotta think they are squirming just a bit right now.

Or maybe there was nothing to disclose, because Zuckerberg's only contract with Ceglia was for $1,000 to work on Streetfax, with no mention of facebook at any time. Would you want to give $10 to $20 million to any person who came up with a supposed contract with Zuckerberg? If facebook just started handing out money like this, you'd get more people coming out of the woodwork claiming similar contracts, when all they did is create a similar contract using the signature from the supposed contract currently available at http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/07/13/technology/facebook_lawsuit/facebook_filing.pdf?

The contract is included in the lawsuit, available here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/07/13/technology/facebook_lawsuit/facebook_filing.pdf

Here you go. Courtesy CNN.

The contract starts on page 11.

Ok, the apologists are just getting ridiculous now

.

I heard somebody above write it's not illegal to carry an AK-47 or RPG in Iraq. I can't verify that, perhaps somebody else can.

.

Let's just say, for arguments sake that by some weird stretch, these people weren't AIF insurgents, but were say, I don't know, normal mums and dads walking their kids to work.

Sure, I can believe Iraq might be a pretty lawless place. I haven't been there myself recently. But in what universe is it considered smartto carry a frickin RPG or assault-rifle and walk down the street? What, you're going to protect yourself against armed insurgents with those? *sigh*. Brilliant, just brilliant, there's a bunch of terrorists running around killing people, and the US military is running a land-battle against them to wipe them out, and you come up with the brilliant idea of protecting yourself by carrying the same weapons the terrorists are carrying.

And I see all these people hold up the van as a smoking gun. Guys, you drive a frigging van into an area that just got strafed by a gunship, with combatants still on the ground. Hell, if there was a firefight and the van got hit by small-arms fire from the insurgent's side, I can bet you Wikileaks and the liberal apologists wouldn't' exactly be in arms over it. Sure, I can believe that the van was unrelated to the AIF, and it tragic and terrible what happened, but in my books what they did falls under the "possibly well-intentioned but very, very stupid" category.

I just people read this http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/06/6--2nd.brigade.combat.team.15-6.investigation.pdf

Cheers, Victor