Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a8086abc825d39b8f286b3d3fa412098@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jackcsg said:
>
> >So you don't need a factual number to start with, you just need to know
> >math?
> >Sounds like a theory to me.
> >
> >> If you don't believe my numbers are correct, then get out your
calculator
> >> and plug in your own numbers.  You'll prove it to yourself in short
order.
> >> Forgive me for quoting Bass, but "this isn't rocket science."
> >
> >I have the numbers...and you are correct. You don't have to be a rocket
> >scientist...
> >But you do have to know where to go to understand it. You're dictating a
> >perception, and your personal theory here. I haven't seen a factual piece
of
> >anything that says otherwise.
>
> Perhaps you and I are discussing two different points.  I am saying that
> the statistic about 99% of alarms being false is a deceptive, misleading,
> and unfair measure of alarm system performance.  The reasons I make that
> claim are:
>
> 1.  That percentage depends almost entirely on the number of burglary
> attempts at locations with alarms, something totally beyond the alam
> company's control.

It has nothing to do with attempts. It has everything to do with the number
of responses.
There are no examples. Response X Findings = Percentage (It's the only
equation)

>For example, the percentage can be 100% (if there are
> zero burglary attempts at locations with alarms), or it can be 50% (if the
> number of burglaries equals the number of false alarms).  Or it can be any
> number inbetween, even if the number of false alarms remains constant.

Again, you're over-analyzing the information.

> 2.  A drastic reduction in the number of false alarms has an insignificant
> effect on that percentage.

That's incorrect. Less responses as compared to actual crimes will indeed
lower the percentage.
That's the simple arithmetic you keep referring to.

> But increasing the number of burglaries will
> reduce the percentage of false alarms.

That's true, but a completely retarded way to think about reduction.

> 3.  The percentage will always be 100%, until a burglar starts committing
> crimes.  Most people would consider zero burglaries a good thing, but zero
> burglaries means all alarms are false alarms.  That's true whether there
is
> one false alarm or 10,000.

That's fine, but we're not discussing crime. We're discussing a percentage
based on the number of responses. Your digging for a diamond in a sand pile
here....

>
> All of these points are based on simple arithmetic.  They're not a theory.

In order for your "simple arithmetic" slogan to gain ground here, would be
to recognize the starting numbers, and not ones interpretation of a
perception. Your methods, those methods, are purely reactive, but not
unexpected.

> The actual numbers of false alarms and burglary attempts don't affect the
> results.

They don't affect the results? They are the results!

>but if you like, use the numbers from your own city and do the
> math.  There is no interpretation of the results possible, because the
> results of addition and division don't depend on interpretations.
>
> If there is some part of this that isn't making sense to you, tell me what
> part, and I'll try to explain further.  If we're discussing different
> issues, then I don't understand what you're getting at, and you can
explain
> your point to me in greater detail.

I'm not missing anything here. Rather, I'm enjoying a diluted, industry
defensive response.
IMO your response is typical...reactive. I fully understand the portions you
are trying to represent here...none are a proactive approach, IMO.

> - badenov
>