Even better, he violated Creative Commons and didn't attribute the header image to me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/timdorr/3726252344/

It's Tim!

True. Here's the original:

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/magazine/17-09/ff_...

They do reference the Wired article. I really don't see anything wrong with it. It's a design blog, so it's understandable. If I were interested in design, that part of the article would be the most relevant to my interests, and so there'd be no need to go through the 3+ pages on Wired to get to it if someone has done the work for me (which seems to be appropriately cited).

They lift every part from the magazine, add nothing, and crop down from the original. There was no point to its reposting.

I was speaking more to the relevancy of the original Wired article and this post to an audience of designers, and idsgn readers more specifically, not to us here. But yes, this is a reposting to us, so it's not needed.

You can write a design blog without plagiarizing. This was a clear-cut case. I'm not certain what defense you're trying to offer up.