They can have my Buckyballs when they pry them from my cold, dead.... intestines.

Seems like most of the replies here suggest that users don't really want it. Maybe Slashdot users dont want it, but seems to me another reason is that sites don't want it If the purpose of a login was to confirm my identity, more sites would make this easier. The purpose of a login is to shackle you to a site. This is why even if you see a "Login with Twitter" "Login with Facebook" button and try to use it, you're immediately required to "link" your Twitter or FB account to the "app" of that site. They don't give a damn what your identity is, they need more than just a confirmation of that, they need your permission to make you part of their social media reach. Now, there are ways to make this all happen with a good SSO, of course, but that's technically harder to implement, and there will often be some "business requirement" for some crucial piece of valuable personal info that happens to not provided in whatever SSO, and so the managers will push for a custom sign-on. Facebook is getting close though. For better or for worse.

I agree. Also, I hate the color yellow. Why should I be subjected to the color yellow at the edge of the platform? I'd stay away from the edge even if it weren't yellow, thus having any yellow in the station is an unreasonable and unfair imposition on my rights. I am sure there are other people who would avoid the edge of the platform sans a yellow edge, thus validating my point.

I'm off to go shoot pheasants with Hugo Drax. I've a feeling he may be involved.

"SPDY supports unlimited connection streams, can prioritize and even block requests if Google determines the site is a threat to any government it happens to be seducing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a communication channel gets overloaded and supports header compression."

Agreed. I feel the same way about auto-focus.

From the FAQ:

How far can this telescope see?

A: ONE STEP BEYOND!

>> "It's my assertion that the unique features which make a photograph have been almost entirely removed - transformed into an image which could very well be found to be nearly identical to a frame of a TV clip of the same - or even another - speaking engagement the (now) President has given over the last 2 years."

If that's true then it should have been easy for Fairey to find some pubic domain image to use. If I take someone else's code for something I could have written but didn't feel like it, that's potentially bogus. If I then disavow any knowledge of the original coder until pressed,(as Fairey did) that's pretty dishonest. There existed a system where Fairey could have licensed the image if he wanted. He didn't bother. He didn't want to share any credit. If the original photograph contributed nothing at all to the final piece, then it never needed to be used in the first place. It's clear to me that *something* of the original photo remains in the final piece -- and as such the original photographer deserves *something* for it. Be it credit, a fee or whatever.

>>Yes, the photograph is copyright, but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost "factual" information when translated into the poster.

If that's truly the case, then why would Fairey have needed to use the photo at all? If it is generic, why did he use it? Why wouldn't he use his magic artist skillz to create some equally lifelike pose without anyone else's photo? I understand the majority of Slashdot doesn't view photography as a creative art with any intrinsic value. But, if the photo has no value then don't use it. If the original photo adds nothing at all to the "essence" of the final work then Fairey shouldn't have needed it in the first place.