Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Read it again Jack, it is not reality. Unless you have tested the statistics
yourself to understand what is meant by **system failure**, don't get to
excited. The products do not have a 99% failure rate. If that was the case,
the public or us would not buy. That means that 99 out of every 100 panels
get thrown away as garbage. C'mon, "a product has a 99% failure rate"? That
is not reality.

"Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5a-dna49WItU-_7enZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Holy Shit! Someone else has discovered reality...
> Well said John.
>
> "J. Sloud" <jsloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:rpd5m118cjl3r9ju5reg4ifcso0d8nl17b@xxxxxxxxxx
> > On 28 Oct 2005 05:00:53 -0700, "Al Colombo"
> > <securitymission@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >If you're concerned about false alarms, I believe one of the biggest
> > >problems on the consumer side is the mentality of "price shopping."
> > >The cheapest alarm system is not necessarily the best, just as the most
> > >expensive may not be the best either.
> > >
> >
> > Let's take a look at the false alarm problem from 20,000 feet.  I'm of
> > the opinion that almost all residential and the majority of burglar
> > alarm systems are a waste of money.  Name another product that has a
> > 99%+ failure rate.  It wouldn't be tolerated.
> >
> > If the average consumer knew the astronomical false alarm percentages,
> > the ridicuously low police apprehension rate, and the general
> > perception of law enforcement about electronic burglar alarms, nobody
> > would be buying this stuff.  This entire industry is based on a false
> > sense of security.
> >
> > It doesn't have to be this way, but until false alarm ordanances and
> > no response policies force change, there will be none.
> >
> > For those who have real security needs, the intelligent video products
> > are starting to show real promise.  Even for basic systems, video
> > verficiation may fix half of the problem.
>
>