Security

Whether or not armed security guards should be in schools has been a debate for years but has really been brought into the limelight since the most recent tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. The supporters of having armed security in our school districts believe that it is a needed layer of security and helps to diminish response time if necessary while keeping children, parents and teachers feeling safer to be in school. The ones against having guns in the schools believe that we have had armed guards in schools and it did nothing to stop it.

They also believe that the cost is too high while also worrying about their children’s psyche from being around loaded weapons every day. No matter which side you are on, there are great arguments for both sides that are logical as well as emotional and it is everyone’s job to listen to all of the information that is available and make their decision based on what they feel is the best choice. That choice could be one of the most important decisions that they ever make because it could mean the difference between life and death.

Sandy Hook Elementary School, Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and the University of Texas at Austin were some of the most televised and the deadliest school shootings that have ever occurred in the United States. Since 1992, there have been over 387 school shootings which are way too many for the United States which poses the question, why did these tragedies happen in the first place? If we had armed security guards or a military/police presence at our institutions of development and higher learning would these tragedies have been prevented or could there have been less loss of life?

The answer is that having an armed guard would not have prevented these attacks from individuals whose entire intention was to commit murder. Look at Columbine and Virginia Tech, both of these facilities had armed guards on their campus and it did nothing to stop the attack. The attackers observed the guards behaviors and learned their routines for patrolling and made their moves when they could get past the guards without detection.

This also raises the question is if the school is liable for the deaths of these students since they had trained professionals on site and they did nothing to stop the attack could the school be charged with negligence? So with the evidence of having two of the most brutal school shootings of all time happen while armed security was present, what makes you think that they could stop an incident somewhere else? Deciding whether or not armed security would actually stop an attack is important but so is figuring out how to pay such high costs to have these armed personnel on site to protect our children.

Most schools are struggling as it is to keep viable programs such as the arts running while also trying to keep their schools staffed with teachers and other personnel. How could they even fathom paying more money for security when they cannot even keep an art class going? The average salary for armed security guards across the country is around $55,000 per year then you have to factor in training, equipment, uniforms, and benefits so, on average a school would have to pay $100,000 per year for one security guard for their school.

Now some school districts only have a few schools but others have a lot more and they would have a hard time paying for that. Of course, a lot of people would argue that you should not put a price tag on our children’s safety but in many cases the price of their educations would diminish because less money would be spent there to be able to pay for security. Could a school district along with the parents choose to take education away from the students in order to add armed guards in the chance that something goes wrong?

Education is a key component in raising a smart, self-sufficient adult. The other factor that becomes a part of cost is having the money to pay for the lawyers and incidentals in the chance that the security guard acted inappropriately. What if there is an accidental shooting or a guard becomes over zealous in what they feel that their responsibilities are? These factors could lead to major lawsuits that the school would be responsible for by either having to represent that officer or in paying settlement and court costs for a lawsuit.

These are added costs that the majority of the schools across the United States cannot afford to take on. The safety of schools have been tested more in the recent years with news coverage of the most recent incident in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where twenty children and six staff members lost their lives. With the recent rise of school shootings it is no wonder parents are concerned for their children’s safety in schools.

Where drugs and peer pressure were once major concerns, in today’s society, we worry about our children dying in the hands of armed shooters. While there is much controversy over how to protect the future of America’s children, lawmakers are supporting a bill to allow armed guards to stand and protect our children in the school systems by creating laws to allow armed security in the schools. “The Indiana amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Jim Lucas (R), said he believes mass shootings like the one in Newtown could be prevented by more firearms. ” (Resmovits, 2013).

In support of armed guards, the National Rifle Association has paid for research and found among the study’s central conclusions is that ‘‘the presence of armed security personnel adds a layer of security and diminishes response time’’ in a shooting, (Asa) Hutchinson said. (Asa Hutchinson) cited a 1997 Mississippi incident in which an assistant principal ran to his truck to retrieve a . 45-caliber semiautomatic pistol and subdued a gunman who had already shot two students (Stolberg). ” New legislation would allow armed teachers, staff members, or on-duty patrols to respond if a situation were to occur.”

“The (National Rifle Association’s) model legislation would lift restrictions on guns in schools and require specific training for school employees who choose to carry guns. ” (Resmovits, 2013). In this time of uncertainty, President Barack Obama, is trying to pass stricter gun laws. “As President Obama tries to persuade a reluctant Congress to pass new gun laws, the poll found that a majority of Americans -54 percent- think gun control laws should be tightened, up markedly from a CBS News poll last April that found that only 39 percent backed stricter laws.” (Cooper and Sussman, 2013).

There is much speculation this increase could be as a result of the Newtown shooting. Meaning people are seeking security, parents are worried for their children, and there is widespread fear of a situation like Newtown ever happening again. Which brings us back to our controversial view, why is having an armed guard important? Having an armed guard might also dissuade any possible shooters from attempting to attack the school, avoiding the situation altogether. The armed guard would be a figure of authority and possible intimidation of any gunmen.

As the saying goes ‘you can’t bring a knife to a gun fight’ therefore it would be hasty to think schools can stop armed intruders with anything other than a gun itself. Usually these gunmen are suicidal and seeking attention, where they understand their outcome is death, therefore restraining is not enough. A gunman at this level would not hesitate to shoot first, regardless of who is in their way, which is why having someone on site ready to respond and taken the gunman down is an ideal solution. As a parent there is nothing more important than keeping your kids safe and the same goes for a teacher and their students.

Many parents feel that whatever a school needs to do to keep their children safe they are more than willing to agree with. Teachers feel more relaxed that they have someone there to help them in an emergency situation that can help protect the children and children feel safer knowing that they have someone to turn to when their parents are not around to protect them. Some people might argue that having a loaded gun in the school might mess with a child’s mental state because it makes them feel that guns are the only form of protection so they would prefer them not to be there.

The reality of the situation is that we live in a world that can be tragic and devastating at times and a lot of kids are forced to see things that are way beyond their years and they are circumstances that no child should have to deal with. But, the great thing about kids is that they are resilient and very smart and with the proper education could be taught about right and wrong and why they need to have armed security guards at school. It is just like explaining to your kids how to dial 911 or where in the house the smoke detectors and fire extinguishers are.

You also make your kids wear seatbelts and bike helmets to protect them so that they do not get hurt in case of an accident. Parents do these things not to scare their kids but to prepare them in case of emergencies. Children are not equipped to handle an active shooter in school nor should they ever be expected to just like you would not teach a child how to fight a fire but teaching them that this person(s) on campus are there to protect them in that small chance that someone comes into their classroom wishing to do them harm.

Parents and teachers would love nothing more than to let their children believe that the world is filled with rainbows and teddy bears but the reality is that it is not and no matter how much people try to protect children from evil you are doing them a disservice by not telling them the truth. It would be morally wrong to lie to children and to make them feel safe when there is a potential for danger. Ethically it is the responsibility as parents and teachers to teach children that there may be evil in the world but there is also a lot of good and that there are always people here to protect us.

Making a child feel safe and secure while also making the parents and teachers that are responsible for these kids is clearly more important than what it might cost or the possibility that having proper security might possibly fail. There have been too many shooting incidents in the United States but who knows the number of shootings that were prevented because a school chose to have security on campus. Proper knowledge and training is key to making sure that these security guards can do there jobs to protect the innocent.

Another option for a school that may not have the financial resources is to hire off-duty police officers to work details on there days off because this would cost a lot less and you are guaranteed to have highly trained and dedicated people willing to put their life on the line for your children. As a society why are we more willing to pay for name brand clothes for our kids then add security that can save their lives?

During a situation as horrific as an active shooter in a school is a serious issue that unfortunately is our reality today and we have to prepare that it could happen and having armed and trained security personnel on site could mean the matter between life and death and is this something we really want to chance because of money or the possibility that it is for nothing? We do not get into car accidents every day but we always make sure that are children are buckled up so why should adding security measures to schools be any different?

Compare & Contrast All guns serve different purposes. Guns have been a part of American history for many years. Many different kinds of guns have been used for many different types of jobs. Just as police use guns for law enforcement, hunters use guns to harvest game and they have different guns for different game. The two most commonly used firearms of hunters, are the rifle and the shotgun. One of the great things about having a well-made shotgun is that they are not very expensive and will usually last you a long time. They are very easy to take care of and you can put many rounds threw them before they need to be cleaned.

When you do need to clean them, it is very simple because a shotgun does not have a lot of working parts. So, it is very easy to get a cleaning tool in all parts. A couple of down falls to a shotgun is that your range is minimized to how far you can actually shoot accurately and kill game, (you can shoot slugs threw them around 100 yards, but there are not always accurate and when harvesting game you always want a clean kill). So the typical ammo is bird shot or steel shot, shooting birds from ten yards all the way up to forty yards. A rifle is an amazing weapon.

There are tons of things you can do with a rifle and so many different kinds of calibers that you can shoot. Anything from a . 22 caliber bullet all the way up to a . 50 caliber bullet, this will shoot well over a mile. Rifles are used far more by hunters than any other gun out there. The rifle can take all kinds of game and is also very accurate with really long distances. With the rifle, you have a better chance at a good, clean kill because of its accuracy. When learning how to shoot rifles, it takes a lot of practice and patience when shooting because the slightest twitch will send your bullet off target.

Another important thing to remember is if you use a scope, you will always have to be very cautious to not to bump your gun into anything or drop it because it is very easy to knock your scope out of alignment and once you do that you will not be able to harvest a game. Rifle and shotguns are both awesome guns, and there are many different ways they are used for depending of the person, for example hunting, competition shooting, and they are used for law enforcement. Personally, shooting and guns in general are some of my passions along with hunting. I use this time to get out in the woods, relax and have a good time with friends.

Final Post 9/11 Intelligence Reform Impact and the Way Ahead Daniel Ratner INTL 444 Professor Mead October 8, 2012 Introduction After 9/11, an event so shocking, and humiliating to both the American people, and the U. S. Government, vast reforms were identified to ensure that an attack of this magnitude never happened again. From the ashes of this despicable act came two major pieces of Intelligence reform. These documents were the 9/11 Commission Report and The Intelligence Reform Act and Terrorist Prevent Act of 2004 (IRTPA).

Both documents worked to reform the Intelligence Community (IC), and streamline current processes to improve the sharing of intelligence information, and products. With the sweeping changes mainly through the ITPRA the Intelligence Community is well on its way to being the major muscle group we need it to be acting as a single unit as opposed to separate and individual muscles all trying to lift the same heavy weight.

With the findings of the 9/11 commission, the implementations of the IRTPA have taken long strides, but what can be done better? We will look at the two pieces of legislation, and then compare and contrast the sweeping changes, and if the are going in the correct direction. The 9/11 Commission Report In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, a group of politicians both Republican and Democrats came together to identify shortfalls and introduce a call for reform. According the report, “Our aim has not been to assign individual blame.

Our aim has been to provide the fullest account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned. ” When we as Americans have a major event in the United States, we always look for a scapegoat, the ideas behind the 9/11 commission was built as a bi-partisan group for just this reason. The report takes the events of 9/11 and attempts to paint a picture of a major lack of understanding of the threat we face from radical Islam, as well as other disenchanted with is around the world.

The 9/11 report goes deep into the history of the events surrounding 9/11, but really only spends about 25 pages of the 450 pages report identifying the shortcomings, and way ahead. Now while this is a macro view of the reforms needed, it does leave much to the imagination. Post 9/11 Reform As we look at the reforms recommended we see that the commission broke the recommendations into major groups, they divided them into ways to give Overall Government Reform.

This is subdivided into five categories, a new Unity of Effort between Foreign and Domestic operations in an attempt to mandate primacy in different types of operations to ensure the proper agency is doing the correct job, A Unity of Effort for the Intelligence Community, Unity of Effort in Sharing Information, Unity of Effort of in the Congress, and finally how to better organizing Homeland defenses. While these are all important, the major issue was the lack of ownership and sharing of intelligence between governmental agencies.

As the 9/11 commission pushed for counterterrorism reform, it also pointed to a need for intelligence reform. the IC reform was aimed at the way we collect process and disseminate intelligence. The 9/11 commission struck to identify, “whether the government is organized adequately to direct resources and build the intelligence capabilities it will need not just for countering terrorism, but for the broader range of national security challenges in the decades ahead. This viewpoint looks at the National Intelligence Agencies and strive to focus their power to be both effective, and balanced. Coupled with these factors the 9/11 commission identified six major problems, the structural barriers to performing joint intelligence work, lack of common standards and practices across the foreign-domestic divide. Divided management of national intelligence capabilities, weak capacity to set priorities and move resources, too many jobs, and too complex and secret. Structural Barriers To Performing Joint Intelligence Work

Along with the issues of trying to keep ahead of our enemies, we must also be able to share our information with other intelligence agencies, and our allies. As the 9/11 report shows: “National intelligence is still organized around the collection disciplines of the home agencies, not the joint mission. The importance of integrated, all-source analysis cannot be overstated. Without it, it is not possible to “connect the dots. ” No one component holds all the relevant information. ” While all agencies collect information, only through joint integration can we truly paint an accurate assessment of the facts.

As a reference, the report cites the Goldwater Nichols legislation of 1986, in which Operations as a whole were better envisioned though joint co-operative training. It shows the strengths of these types of events and why we must incorporate more joint intelligence to be successful. Lack Of Common Standards and Practices Across the Foreign-Domestic Divide This portion of the report goes on to show the issues we have in the cases of both database management and dissemination of information. In cases of information gathered both home and abroad, there are issues with integration and synchronization of this workflow.

Many have cited and shown how across the IC there are multiple databases, of which there is no conduit to share information, multiple programs collecting the same data, but are not cross-matched, and in many cases redundant entries are made, and then not managed creating an abundance of information unable to be processed due to a lack of manpower. Divided Management of National Intelligence Capabilities As the IC swelled in the post World War 2 and Cold War eras, we saw the abilities of many agencies in collections dwindle and collapse.

The report shoes the degradation of the CIA’s ability to collect IMINT, and SIGINT. As the NSA, NRO NGIA, and other have been created, the HUMINT, OSINT and other intelligence collected by the CIA has had issues being validated due to the inability to task other agencies assets. Some of these issues were solved through their acquisition of their own satellites and some reform, but again we see information that is collected by a sole agency, which is not easily shared or validated by an outside source. Weak Capacity to Set Priorities and Move Resources

The task organization of the IC and the way in which it is managed fell on the Director of Central Intelligence, giving the CIA free reign in many cases, and also in many cases too much ability to mismanage or squander resources. As they struggle to manage these resources, and ensure all members of the IC are covered for what they need, there was little oversight in the ability to prioritize collection efforts. Moreover, there was little though given to how to best manage , “what they collect or the way they collect it. ” Too Many Jobs As of the time of the 9/11 report the DCI had three jobs.

Running of the CIA, manage the other members of the IC, and head analyst for the President of the United States. Any one of these positions is a capstone to a successful career; in the days of 9/11 it fell on one person. As the report goes on to show, is the fact that, “No recent DCI has been able to do all three effectively. Usually what loses out is management of the intelligence community…” This overtasking of an individual is not only reckless, but in many cases gave too much power to the CIA. The report finds that the DCI has three major shortcomings.

They find that the DCI lacks the ability to control the funds allocated to the IC, the ability to remove or replace agency heads, and the ability to set the quality control and standardization of collection efforts. Too Complex and Secret As if all the previous five findings were not enough, we also see the issue of a cumbersome and hidden group of organizations. At the time of the 9/11 report, the IC was comprised of 15 agencies, mainly managed by a single entity. This coupled with no clear roadmap to how the groups interact, whom they report to, and how they fund operations.

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) Out of the ashes of the events of 9/11 and the reforms brought forth by the 9/11 Commission report, came the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). This legislation known as S. 2845 was introduced by Senator Susan Collins of Maine. The bill was enacted after being signed by the President on December 17, 2004. This legislation strove to take the 9/11 Commissions findings and implement them into law. As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, we mentioned six major problems the IC faced.

Being that the IC was managed mainly based on the National Security Act of 1947, the IRTPA brought changes to the IC by taking the bad and refining the good of each item. The major change seen in the IRTPA was the creation of the Director of National Intelligence. As we had seen in the 9/11 report, the DCI was way too overtasked, and the need for an Intelligence Community to have a director. The Structural Barriers to Performing Joint Intelligence Work In the wake of 9/11 the Joint Intelligence Community Council.

This council Chaired by the Director of National Intelligence, is comprised of all major Presidential advisors. It is chartered to “…assist the Director of National Intelligence in developing and implementing a joint, unified national intelligence effort to protect national security…” This council also in the matter of advising the Legislative branch, may make recommendations to improve the IC. Lack of Common Standards and Practices Across the Foreign-Domestic Divide With the creation of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) came the call for a “performance of common services. This charge stands to ensure that services previously not shared, managed, or understood are standardized. It also stands to provide a set of “standards” for the agencies to follow, and hence stay regulated. Divided Management Of National Intelligence Capabilities Under the National Security Act of 1947, the DCI was the head of the IC, but under the IRTPA, a new position was enabled. The new position Director of National Intelligence, appointed by the President of the United States. This change gave the DCI more oversight of the CIA, and gave the President a subject matter expert, one who had a single focus job.

This also gives the DNI the ability to manage the tasking of national collection assets, a job not really performed before. Weak Capacity to Set Priorities and Move Resources In the case of the ability to set priorities, once again the charge goes to the DNI. He is charged to “establish objectives, priorities, and guidance for the intelligence community to ensure timely and effective collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination…” This charge gives the DNI the ability manage resources, requirements, conflict resolution between agencies to include the use of assets, and collection platforms.

The only person the DNI must concede to the President. Too Many Jobs While we had an issue of the DCI having too many jobs before, some might say that the DNO now has too many jobs. This is a misconception, since the DNI has no intelligence agency to manage, rather he has department heads to manage that job. He instead focuses on the seamless and integrated manager of the whole gambit of intelligence. Too Complex and Secret The final goal of the IRTPA served to take the mystery and lack of oversight out of the IC. The establishment of an Inspector General to the DNI was enacted under the IRTPA.

This office serves to manage ethical matters, settle complaints of favoritism, and ensure civil liberties are upheld through the actions of the IC and concurrence with National and International Laws. Other Changes Driven by the IRTPA The four findings recommended by the legislation are the following: (1) Long-term success in the war on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power, including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense. 2) To win the war on terrorism, the United States must assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that is assigned to military capabilities. (3) The legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully accomplish the goals of the United States. (4) The investments referred to in paragraph (3) will require increased funding to United States foreign affairs programs in general, and to priority areas as described in this title in particular.

By breaking these findings out, we can better see how the IC can transform and flex the major muscle it has the ability to do. While there were pages and pages of changes, and background these four findings standout as the major players in policy reforms. Long-term Success in the War on Terrorism To be successful in the war on terror, we must utilize all possible assets and allies assets to our advantage. To do this we need to focus our efforts by sharing information, and ensuring that agencies are receiving timely and relevant updates to collected intelligence to ensure overall success.

This sharing is critical to both foreign and domestic interests. Balance of Diplomatic, Economic and Military Influences The even balance of lethal, non-lethal and Humanitarian actions must be monitored and controlled. Too much use of any of these can degrade the ability of the United States and it’s ally’s effects in foreign actions. It is also important to remember that even in an attempt to show ourselves as a “hard target” we must show compassion and understanding to those less fortunate than us.

This is a necessity if only because we must show the rest of the world that we are not so devoid of emotion that we can relate with their plights and ways of life. Overall Governmental Commitment to Success The war of terror is a marathon not a race. Only though the applied funding, legislative drive to ensure resources, and the executive branch push to allow success of the IC can we succeed in the war on terror. We cannot allow political infighting, election cycles, opinion polls, or other media-like reports to stop our drive for the end-state.

While not always pretty, cost-effective, and popular, the needs of the IC to gather raw data must be protected. Added distractors such as political infighting in cases such as the passing, or re-authorization of the Patriot Act are great examples of the dangers the IC faces in achieving its goals. Commitment to Success and its Costs As stated above, this marathon is not always going to be cost-effective. Emerging technologies, payouts to sources, replacing of equipment, and other costs, not always made privy to the general public must be supported.

Failure to the fund the IC can be detrimental to their success. While oversight is needed to ensure embezzlement is not a factor, the budget increases the IC requests should not be delayed or jeopardized by political adversaries, nor used as a talking point. This is currently seen in the $500 Billion defense cuts enacted by supercommittee legislations as face now. Conclusion As we see the changes made in the past 8 years since it’s inception, the IRTPA has helped the IC, but has not fixed it yet.

While the DNI creation was a good thing, we do still see cases of the DNI have too much responsibility, and too much work. In some cases the added changes have brought more costs in bureaucratic startup, oversight, and staffing. While the need to separate the DCI from the rest of the agencies was important, the IRTPA has limited the CIA’s abilities an a variety of ways. Other advantages have been the information sharing of intelligence. The sharing has instituted policies and procedures as well as shared technology serves to better share information in a common platform.

All things being combined, the IRTPA has been a game changer for the IC, only through reform, and through lessons learned will we strengthen and improve our practices, keeping our country safer. Bibliography 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Report, Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office, 2004. Andrew, Christopher. For President’s Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush. New York: Harper Press. Beckner, Christian.

Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations: An Analysis. http://www. hlswatch. com/sitedocs/Implementing%20the%20911%20Commission%20Recs. pdf (accessed October 03, 2012). Congress, 108th. INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004. December 17, 2004. http://www. nctc. gov/docs/pl108_458. pdf (accessed October 03, 2012). GovTrack. us. H. R. 1 (110th): Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. August 3, 2003. http://www. govtrack. us/congress/bills/110/hr1 (accessed October 3, 2012). S. 2845 (108th): Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

December 17, 2004. http://www. govtrack. us/congress/bills/108/s2845 (accessed October 03, 2012). Jr, Richard A. Best. Intelligence Reform After Five Years: The Role of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). June 22, 2010. http://www. fas. org/sgp/crs/intel/R41295. pdf (accessed October 03, 2012). Rosenbach, Eric. Organization of the Intelligence Community. July 2009. http://belfercenter. ksg. harvard. edu/publication/19145/organization_of_the_intelligence_community. html (accessed October 03, 2012). ——————————————– [ 1 ]. 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Report, Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office, 2004. , p xvi. [ 2 ]. iBid. , p. 407 [ 3 ]. iBid. , pp. 407-410 [ 4 ]. iBid. , p. 408 [ 5 ]. iBid. , p. 409 [ 6 ]. iBid. , P. 409. [ 7 ]. GovTrack. , S. 2845 (108th): Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. , Website. , Washington D. C. accessed October 3, 2012 [ 8 ]. iBid. , Sec. 1031 [ 9 ]. iBid. , Sec. 1001 (r) [ 10 ]. iBid. , Sec. 1001 (i) [ 11 ]. iBid. , Sec. 7101

NET framework offers developers with an object oriented environment; it guarantees safe execution of the applications by performing required runtime validations. .NET framework combines unprecedented developer productivity with reliability in performance and powerful deployment. .NET is a rapid application development and a comprehensive tool that is used effectively and widely for creating distributed applications, and as well as designing and developing web based and windows based applications.

Interoperability in .Net:

One of the prominent features of .Net framework is its support for language interoperability. The program should be developed using set of rules defined in Cross Language Specifications (CLS), such program can be used by other languages. But .Net does not support every program written in a language can be used by another language, it only supports for those program whose rules are defined in Cross Language Specifications. For instance we can develop a class in C# from class already developed in VB.Net. Moreover, .NET Common Language Runtime allows VB.Net program to handle an exception that is raised by a program written in C#.

NET and COM interoperability feature provides a bridge between the .NET and COM and vice versa. .NET framework enables developers to save additional migration cost by describing how .NET components can communicate with existing COM components. There is no need to modify developed COM components into .NET components. NET Framework and the .NET Common Language Runtime enables the powerful communication with the old technologies and allow the integration of legacy code with new .NET components.

Security in .Net:

The enhanced security components in .NET frame makes our applications more secure and robust. Moreover, it can help the developers by minimizing the amount of code they need to write. Security implementation is a complicated task, and Microsoft has provided new security features to make the applications more secure and protected. Apart from the encapsulation and security functionality provided by the core of Windows operating system, .NET framework provides numerous additional and improved types such as public key cryptography, ASP.NET, Code Access Security Certificates and Certificate stores Public Key Cryptography Standard. .Net framework also provides object centric security; it allows the developers to control access to different types of objects. For example a developer can control the file system and the registry of systems that implement object centric security.

Basically there are two types of security in .NET: Role Based Security, Code Access Security. Common Language Runtime security allows the developer to use Code Access Security. Code Access Security enforces security policies that prevent unauthorized access to protected resources and process. Moreover Code Access Security allows the developer to do the following: Restrict what your code can do, Restrict which code can call your code, and Identify code. For instance: By using Code Access Security defined in the Common  Language Runtime,  if a developer creates security policy that user cannot save the file on the hard disk. If user try to save any information on the hard disk, that security policy enforces the user and user cannot save the information.

Stability and Maintenance in .Net:

Usullay IT Project Managers faces budget over runs and missed deadlines,most of the time  risk management of the projects and completion of the projects under acceptable conditions is almost impossible. The main reason is due to lack of  stable  technologies and tools available in the market and used by different teams. The right answer to all of these issues is Microsoft .NET framework, because it is based on internet standards like XML and Web services and also due to the .NET framework ease of integration on the Windows operating system.

As .Net framework is stable and projects typically finish ahead of schedule and under budget constraint. That gives it an edge over others, most of the risk managers depends on rapid and robust .Net tool to manage the financial impact of missed deadlines. For instance if two teams are developing same project on two different tools, first on VB.Net and second on Java and both are developing project for Windows platform. First team will complete project earlier than the second team, one of the main reason is .Net applications are more stable with Windows platform.

One of the distinguishing features of .Net framework is that it is easy to deploy and maintain. Usually projects developed in .Net framework are easy to install on client machines and due to the supporting nature of .Net framework, projects are maintained by the programmers with no difficulty. For example code generation techniques using technologies such as XSLT are playing a significant role in software projects by providing the support to a rapidly maintainable code base.

Works Cited

Hallogram Publishing: from the World Wide Web: http://www.hallogram.com/webinputnet/webinputnet.html

MSDN Home: The Microsoft Journal for Developers: http://msdn.microsoft.com

Stirrup-a loop, ring, or other contrivance of metal, wood, leather, etc. , suspended from the saddle of a horse to support the rider’s foot. Her foot was stuck in the stirrup. Musket-a heavy, large-caliber smoothbore gun for infantry soldiers, introduced in the 16th century. He shot the musket. Hospitable-receiving or treating guests or strangers warmly and generously. That was a vary hospitable family. Siege-the act or process of surrounding and attacking a fortified place in such a way as to isolate it from help and supplies, for the purpose of lessening the resistance of the defenders and thereby making capture possible.

Sherman’s March was a siege. Archives-documents or records relating to the activities, business dealings, etc. , of a person, family, corporation, association, community, or nation. That drawer is felled with archives Mortars-a receptacle of hard material, having a bowl-shaped cavity in which substances are reduced to powder with a pestle. Minie ball-a conical bullet with a hollow base that expanded when fired, used in the 19th century. when he shot the gun a minie ball fired. Cretin-a stupid, obtuse, or mentally defective person. He is cretin.

Mellow-soft and rich, as sound, tones, color, or light. That color is mellow Percussion-a sharp blow for detonating a percussion cap or the fuze of an artillery shell. The percussion of all the gun fire hurt my ears. Conflict- Alexander dose not want to go to his dads girlfriends house in NC. And dose not want his dad to remarry his mom left him. He has to help richeson find out what happened to his family. s Climax-When Alexander goes throw the window of time and Richeson asks for his help. Resolution-Alexander helps Richeson’s and come to terms with his own past.

Gomez Expository Essay Security is an Important Part of My Life In today’s society, crime rates have sky rocketed compared to years past. The recession has much to do with laws being broken. People are out of work and getting desperate to ensure their survival. Houses are getting broken in to; people are getting cars stolen more than they have in the past. In an attempt to thwart would-be burglars and theft, I make sure the personal security of my family is covered.

Security has been used in conjunction with finances, business ventures and materials. I view security as a greater and deeper meaning, one that requires me to be prepared to protect my family. I will not rely on local law enforcement as the sole protectors of my wife and children or our belongings. Police are understaffed in nearly all departments across the state, and are not able to be in every neighborhood at once. Therefore, the responsibility to provide security for my home falls on me. Protection from crime begins with simple steps.

I have ensured that all of the locks on my home are deadbolts and are operational. The gates to my yard all have locks to slow would-be burglars. The backyard, with the exception of the grill, has no items of value lying around. Valuables out of view are a deterrent to theft. To keep curiosity down, all windows have blinds that keep people from looking into the house to scope out our belongings. The blinds are only opened if I or my wife is home. My vehicles are both in the garage every night, along with the alarms of both cars activated.

One of the more important tools providing security is our home security system. The alarm program allows us to activate the system while we are away, and in the event someone gets inside the house without knowing the code, an audible alarm sounds. The system will also contact law enforcement if the alarms are activated. Deterrents are a big proponent in providing personal security. When deterrents fail, the biggest tool I possess in protecting my family is my firearms and the willingness to use them if necessary.

I have ensured I am comfortable and capable to handle the weapons I possess. I have also made sure my wife is equally capable in handling my guns. I have obtained a concealed carry weapon permit allowing me to carry a concealed gun during the day so I can protect myself and my family from car theft or assaulted. While at home, my weapons are locked in a safe to keep them secure from my kids, and burglars, should they make it that far. Before I go to bed, I secure a hand gun in my night stand in case an intruder breaks in at night.

Through the deterrents and my firearms, security for my family is greater than that of the average family. Security is being prepared and proactive in protecting what is mine. Some may say I have gone to excess or overboard, but security is the responsibility of every person. I will not make it easy for someone to burglarize my home take from me what I have worked hard for, and take what I love. Security in my life is taken seriously, and is not mistaken for financial or business security. Protecting my family and our home is security.

According to “Management, 10th Edition” and Michael Porter’s model, when speaking in terms of competitive forces it should be viewed in five different areas; the first being the threat of new entrants. As for a company such as G4S Secure Solutions, the threat from new companies are pretty much non-existent. It being the top security firm worldwide, its threats comes from its larger competitors that are pretty much on their level and well established. Start-up security companies are challenged by the behemoths that dominate the market which are able to overshadow them by offering one stop shopping for multiple security needs.

Also the smaller companies have often been taken over by the larger companies. According to Security Guard Magazine (www. securitymagazine. com), two in 10 of guarding firms say they purchased another firm in 2002, while 10 percent say they completed the purchase of another firm in the first half of last year. New companies do not appear to pose a threat to G4S Secure Solutions as they are well established and far ahead of its established competitors. The second of the competitive forces having an impact on the company is its competitive rivalries. The biggest rivalry to G4S Secure Solutions is Securitas Security Services.

These two companies offer the same services and both also operate overseas which allows them to compete for business in the same markets. They often end up bidding against each other for contracts vying to provide the exact service for the least amount of dollars. Securitas Security Services entered the U. S. market in 1999 by acquiring Pinkerton and became the largest security firm in the world; they were already the leading protective service company in Europe. They have acquired numerous security firms; in one year alone they had acquired four firms.

With them continuing to grow in assets and size, they continue to prove themselves as the most formidable rivalry in this market. The threat of substitute products also has an affect on the company. The consumers are always looking for a better or less costly product that could provide the same service. Businesses are also looking for the next big thing to revolutionize the market. There are some substitute products that have an impact on the company such as guard dogs, security cameras, rolling shutters, security tags, and added lighting.

Guard dogs and rolling shutters eliminate the need for security officers altogether and they are a more cost efficient way to provide security. Department stores are now using security tags instead of officers; if someone leaves the store without the tag being removed it will activate an alarm at the door. Some people have the belief that just adding extra lighting to an area ensuring that it is well-lit can also deter burglars or criminals. Depending on the level of security needed, all of these products can be used as a substitute product.

As a competitive force, the buyer does not influence what the company sells, but the company has power over the buyer. This is a well established company that is known to provide top notch service; which also happens to be the top security firm. They do not have to continually lower their fees in order to attract customers. Their reputation is outstanding and many times, consumers may be willing to pay the extra dollars because they know they will be getting premium service with this company.

When it comes to G4S Secure Solutions the power is in the hands of the supplier; they have their reputation to go own as they easily have the ability to influence potential buyers. Their resume speaks for itself, the largest security firm, servicing more places worldwide than any other firm, possibly the best trained personnel of security firms, and more trusted by the most prestigious companies than any other security firm. With a background as such, G4S Secure Solutions definitely has the competitive edge when it comes to luring coustomers.