Quote:
Originally Posted by Farhad
Fingerprints are the result of action of our eccrine glands which leave sweat marks, mostly water and salt, on any screen types. To deny that is infantile.
And yes, I have used Sony readers, I just don't like them (or Sony, for that matter, a freedom hating company which actually installed rootkits and backdoors on computers until they got caught).
But hey, if you don't see fingerstains on your Sony, that's great. To each its own. Just don't tell me about a) physics-defying miracles b) what kind of readers I have or have not tried, ok?
|
Another thing. Your forensic analysis of fingerprints not withstanding, you are missing a very important (in fact, COMPLETLY defining) point. The VISIBILITY of fingerprints is the issue here, not the fingerprints themselves, and, while your definition of "fingerprints" is impressive, to say that they would be equally visible on, say, a mirror, as they would be on, say, concrete, is infantile and asinine. The coating that Sony uses is EXTREMELY resistant to fingerprints (the visibility of them). That is the issue here, and, given your above average intelligence (as you so proudly displayed when you defined the word "Fingerprints" for us), I'm utterly shocked that you missed it.