OK, let's keep it simple. You said it here:
Are you sticking to that line that PCs 'started' to be shipped in the 1990s?
Eh, I didn't - as has already been pointed out to you.
As regards adoption of PC's, see this timeline of PC sales. They started to be shipped in the 1990's.
I was responding to something you brought up. You seem to have some obsession with this - despite me pointing out "I have no idea where you're going with this or what the relevance is."OK, let's keep it simple. You said it here:
Are you sticking to that line that PCs 'started' to be shipped in the 1990s?
I was responding to something you brought up.
They explicitly state that "criminals are early adopters of technology". You can take that up with them if you wish. As regards what you've expanded on here, you have not proven a counter argument. ...and I could go out and come back with the views of more professionals in the law enforcement/tech space along the same lines if there was a need to.No, you first raised to point that criminals are early adopters of technology in post #375. I've challenged that and your links to date have only served to prove my argument that criminals generally only adopt technology once it becomes mainstream.
They explicitly state that "criminals are early adopters of technology".
Have you considered a career in stand up? You've got some great material.They do, but they don't post here.
Not dancing to your tune...All I was asking you to do...
Assertion underpinned by the views of people far better placed than you - people who work at the intersection of cybercrime and tech. Now you can dissect where they're wrong as you wish - but you've done no such thing. You took issue with the FT as to their classification of early adopters but when asked this -> where did the FT say that mid 90s users were early adopters? - you can't answer it.is back up your assertion
Not dancing to your tune...
I've asked you to park this up but you seem determined to drive a perfectly good discussion off a cliff.
You can mis-characterise my views on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency all you want. All that does is reflect on you and the mindset you approach this discussion with. Claims were backed up - it's you that can't back up jack in this instance.That's the trouble with a lot of Bitcoin debate. Many of the evangelists can't back up their claims, and when pushed they just deflect.
Indeed - and when that discussion is had and there's no new information being brought by either party, what's helpful is to park it up - not waste peoples time. You were invited to do that umpteen times but you won't.This is a forum discussion, you should expect to be challenged on the points you make.
My point of view is underpinned by the opinion of people with authority on the subject. You take issue with their opinions but when challenged ( where did the FT say that mid 90s users were early adopters? ), you come up empty.when that happens posters look to back their claims up with whatever evidence they can.
where did the FT say that mid 90s users were early adopters?
They started to be shipped in the 1990's.
Well, we must be getting to the heart of the issue. Your 'assumptions'. You're reaching. They clearly state that "criminals are early adopters of technology." My point isn't made on assumption - it's based on unambiguous statements from people better qualified to speak to the matter than you.You posted that article to back up your assertion that criminals are early adopters of technology. The subject of the article speaks about computer crime, the only timeframe he references is the mid '90s. My assumption is that he mistakenly believed the mid-'90s were early.
Ah, I 'doubled down' on your assumption, did I? If I recall, I asked you repeatedly what that had to do with the discussion. Let me tell you quite clearly what I'm doubling and tripling down on -> I've cited statements to the effect of "criminals are early adopters of technology" - from multiple sources. Those sources by and large come from people who work law enforcement related to technology. Your 'assumption' has done nothing to convince me otherwise.You doubled down on that by stating:
If you want to disprove multiple authoritative sources have at it. That doesn't involve me running around fetching things based on your assumptions.Do you still claim this to be true? Have you found any actual reports on real criminal early adopters of PCs? Drones? AI?
I posted multiple links to articles which explicitly stated that "criminals are early adopters of technology". By and large, they're statements from experts in law enforcement from a technology perspective. That's what I posted. You're more than welcome to disprove them - but we're still waiting on that.On the second article you posted...if everyone but me thinks there is plenty of evidence to support your case that criminals are early adopters of technology, why did you choose to link an article that didn't contain a single example of past early-adoption, but instead focused on how criminals might use certain mass-market technologies in the future?
They clearly state that "criminals are early adopters of technology."
You've got this the wrong way round. I've presented multiple statements from authoritative sources. YOU are the one that's free to deconstruct that. I don't have to go running around as per your agenda. If I have commentary on what you come back with, you can rest assured I'll post accordingly. As it stands right now, you have not come back with anything that dismantles the viewpoint of people who work in law enforcement relative to cyber crime and technology.So they state it, just like you did before you posted those links. Now, where do they provide evidence to back that up? Can you provide any evidence to back up how you formed your view?
I've presented multiple statements from authoritative sources.
There is a great opportunity for you here though. If you can actually prove the point that you're trying to make (that criminals are not early adopters of tech), then it seems you could get this published.
Multiple statements from authoritative sources based on their professional experience have to be respected. That's not to say that they can't be disproven - have at it. There's nothing in what you've come out with that changes things as far as I'm concerned. But please hold whatever belief you feel comfortable with. Others can come to their own conclusions. That's where this sidebar should have been parked up many posts ago. Or we can keep going. As you wish.Multiple statements with zero facts does not make a truth.
Multiple statements from authoritative sources based on their professional experience have to be respected.
There's nothing in what you've come out with that changes things as far as I'm concerned.
I've provided nine citations from people far better placed than yourself to gauge it - people who work at the periphery between tech and law enforcement. A couple of those include books or comprehensive specialist reports that encompass the subject. Within that, examples have been given of tech that has been used in the past at early adopter stage. And before you ask - no, I'm not playing any further games here. Go and review the articles - the information is there. I'm not running around fetching things for you beyond what I've already done.So you still can't source a single example of a reported criminal early adopter?
Well, you seem to be at war with the world on this one. As before, believe what you want Leo. Others can make up their own minds. And for the record, given the way you approach stuff, I wouldn't have any trust in directions from you - let alone anything else.It's clear you base your beliefs on something other than facts.
I've provided nine citations from people far better placed than yourself to gauge it
See my previous post.So why can't you quote just one real-world example?
See my previous post.
That's untrue - but everyone can make their own minds up. Notwithstanding that, I refer you back to my previous post. I won't be going round fetching stuff for your review.I've read them all, I'm still waiting for just a single example.