Insurance doesn't deter crime, its an after-the-fact remedy. It replaces stolen possesions
Oftentimes it doesn't even do that. An insurance check can't replace your family herilooms at any price.
An alarm won't stop a quick smash-n-grab, but it will limit the amount of time that the criminal can spend in your residence pilfering your stuff. With a proper alarm and TL-30 rated safe, it's very unlikely that someone will walk out with the family jewels before the police arrive.
That said, an alarm and a good safe are not cheap. Whether it's worth it depends on your risk and how many "priceless" items you would protect.
To the OP's point, an alarm will add some degree of safety for your family. It's preferable to having a door or window open quietly in the middle of the night.
My home was burglarized years ago, and while I've never been able to replace what was taken, I am most thankful that none of my family was at home when the break-in occurred.
I can understand why people don't like the elimination for unlimited plans, but I feel like it's for the best. The problem is that an "unlimited" plan is always a lie, always. It's never really unlimited.
It is possible to honestly offer "unlimited" data at N megabits per second, and that is how they market it today.
Google tells me there are, on average, 2629743.83 seconds in a month. If I'm buying "unlimited" 20 megabits per second service from my ISP, I can transfer approximately 321 gigabytes per month if I am constantly downloading at the maximum rate that we have mutually agreed upon.
I see your point, though: the lie is that you cannot really run your connection flat out without running afoul of the fine print. See Comcast's 250GB cap on their "unlimited" service, for example.
Which would you rather have?
A) 20 mbit/second "unlimited" service as described above: use it as often as you like during the month, and don't worry about your bill changing from month to month; the cap is effectively set by the 20 mbit/second data rate.
B) 100 mbit/second with a 321GB monthly cap; when you blow through the cap, you will likely pay through the nose for each extra megabit consumed.
C) Flat rate, metered, pay per megabit transferred. Perhaps with tiered pricing as practiced by some power companies.
...I can simply relate what things I believe and the things I hear from other CTO/CIOs regarding Google Apps and using Google Mail in a corporate environment. Everyone I know is adamantly against the idea. It isn't because there are technical shortcomings, it's simply because of liability and privacy.
This is an important lesson for some of us geeks. We would like to think that the best technology will always win on its own merits, but the reality is that products are often selected for other reasons.
Sorry Ars Technica... you can CLAIM your ads are non-intrusive and "quality", but I just visited your site with adblocking off and was immediately met with one highly annoying animated banner and a second, lower-animated, section
Ars Technica has for years discouraged its users from running ad blockers. They need the revenue; I get that.
However, since Ars was acquired by Conde Nast, the ads have become significantly more intrusive and annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
i throws it
Insurance doesn't deter crime, its an after-the-fact remedy. It replaces stolen possesions
Oftentimes it doesn't even do that. An insurance check can't replace your family herilooms at any price.
An alarm won't stop a quick smash-n-grab, but it will limit the amount of time that the criminal can spend in your residence pilfering your stuff. With a proper alarm and TL-30 rated safe, it's very unlikely that someone will walk out with the family jewels before the police arrive.
That said, an alarm and a good safe are not cheap. Whether it's worth it depends on your risk and how many "priceless" items you would protect.
To the OP's point, an alarm will add some degree of safety for your family. It's preferable to having a door or window open quietly in the middle of the night.
My home was burglarized years ago, and while I've never been able to replace what was taken, I am most thankful that none of my family was at home when the break-in occurred.
I can understand why people don't like the elimination for unlimited plans, but I feel like it's for the best. The problem is that an "unlimited" plan is always a lie, always. It's never really unlimited.
It is possible to honestly offer "unlimited" data at N megabits per second, and that is how they market it today.
Google tells me there are, on average, 2629743.83 seconds in a month. If I'm buying "unlimited" 20 megabits per second service from my ISP, I can transfer approximately 321 gigabytes per month if I am constantly downloading at the maximum rate that we have mutually agreed upon.
I see your point, though: the lie is that you cannot really run your connection flat out without running afoul of the fine print. See Comcast's 250GB cap on their "unlimited" service, for example.
Which would you rather have?
A) 20 mbit/second "unlimited" service as described above: use it as often as you like during the month, and don't worry about your bill changing from month to month; the cap is effectively set by the 20 mbit/second data rate.
B) 100 mbit/second with a 321GB monthly cap; when you blow through the cap, you will likely pay through the nose for each extra megabit consumed.
C) Flat rate, metered, pay per megabit transferred. Perhaps with tiered pricing as practiced by some power companies.
E) Some other option?
All the big boys in it for the $$$ gets to dump all his stock asap, everyone else has to wait until the morning when the NYSE opens.
When the big boys dump their stock after hours, who is taking the other side of the trades?
Nuclear wessels!
not only does every adult in Oklahoma City have a degree, but so do all their children, as do their dogs, cats, and major household appliances.
"My fridge is smarter than your honor student."
...I can simply relate what things I believe and the things I hear from other CTO/CIOs regarding Google Apps and using Google Mail in a corporate environment. Everyone I know is adamantly against the idea. It isn't because there are technical shortcomings, it's simply because of liability and privacy.
This is an important lesson for some of us geeks. We would like to think that the best technology will always win on its own merits, but the reality is that products are often selected for other reasons.
So, how soon until newegg.com has the fake ones in stock?
For the uninitiated: http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6422425
ArsTechnica was acquired by Conde Nast. Conde Nast also owns GQ.
Sorry Ars Technica... you can CLAIM your ads are non-intrusive and "quality", but I just visited your site with adblocking off and was immediately met with one highly annoying animated banner and a second, lower-animated, section
Ars Technica has for years discouraged its users from running ad blockers. They need the revenue; I get that. However, since Ars was acquired by Conde Nast, the ads have become significantly more intrusive and annoying.
screw it, it already knows what I'm going to say.
http://www.v8juice.com/ Gollum :-(