>> Are you seriously arguing a fingerprint is an aesthetic symbolic pointer in the way a name is? > Absolutely

My point is a user name is something everyone knows i.e. not a secret.

Biometrics are not a secret as they are, in the case of fingerprints - easily picked from your Starbucks coffee cup, the door you just opened etc.

Your face is permanently on display.

Etc.

Your assertion that biometrics are not user-name equivalent is embarrassingly ignorant and you've already shown your inability to read or show much comprehension.

I shall therefore assume that you're unused to rational discussion and leave it there.

> Yet again, there are three basic classes of common authentication factors: something you know, something you have, and something you are. Biometrics belong to the "something you are" class.

It's so odd to me that we consider fingerprints "something you are". Fingerprints surely are "something I have" in that I can lose them by disfigurement or maiming. "Something I am" is more like my DNA which can't be taken from me to the point of loss, unlike someone cutting off my fingers which would deny me access to whatever system it's used for.

pedantic.

Not pedantic, it's exactly the issue. Single word dismissals are intellectually dishonest and particularly inappropriate for HN.

reference your comments then please because your opinions are not the mainstream thus the burden of proof is on you