posted
Hey guys! I haven' been around in awhile, no money! But I am back and I am in @ .014. Looks like a great opp. here to make some money. I have taken my beating in the past but I have also learned alot, especially from the Dog a while back. GLTA!
Posts: 333 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like this is going to move up slowly before the next breakout. It has formed it's base and with all the awesome news lately, this is ready to jump up again. <IMHO>
Posts: 333 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This one we just need to sit tight, with all the good news and promising future it will be back to it's 52 week high.
Posts: 2362 | From: BEENEVERYWHERE | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This should be great news for this stock....
May 8, 2005 U.S. to Spend Billions More to Alter Security Systems By ERIC LIPTON WASHINGTON, May 7 - After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the antiterrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate.
Many of the monitoring tools - intended to detect guns, explosives, and nuclear and biological weapons - were bought during the blitz in security spending after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In its effort to create a virtual shield around America, the Department of Homeland Security now plans to spend billions of dollars more. Although some changes are being made because of technology that has emerged in the last couple of years, many of them are planned because devices currently in use have done little to improve the nation's security, according to a review of agency documents and interviews with federal officials and outside experts.
"Everyone was standing in line with their silver bullets to make us more secure after Sept. 11," said Randall J. Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and former government adviser on scientific issues. "We bought a lot of stuff off the shelf that wasn't effective."
Among the problems:
¶Radiation monitors at ports and borders that cannot differentiate between radiation emitted by a nuclear bomb and naturally occurring radiation from everyday material like cat litter or ceramic tile.
¶Air-monitoring equipment in major cities that is only marginally effective because not enough detectors were deployed and were sometimes not properly calibrated or installed. They also do not produce results for up to 36 hours - long after a biological attack would potentially infect thousands of people.
¶Passenger-screening equipment at airports that auditors have found is no more likely than before federal screeners took over to detect whether someone is trying to carry a weapon or a bomb aboard a plane.
¶Postal Service machines that test only a small percentage of mail and look for anthrax but no other biological agents.
Federal officials say they bought the best available equipment. They acknowledge that it might not have been cutting-edge technology but said that to speed installation they only bought devices that were readily available instead of trying to buy promising technology that was not yet in production.
The department says it has created a layered defense that would not be compromised by the failure of a single device. Even if the monitoring is less than ideal, officials say, it is still a deterrent.
"The nation is more secure in the deployment and use of these technologies versus having no technologies in place at all," said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
Every piece of equipment provides some level of additional security, said Christopher Y. Milowic, a customs official whose office oversees screening at ports and borders. "It is not the ultimate capacity," he said. "But it reduces risk."
Some critics say that even though federal agencies were pressed to move quickly by Congress and the administration, they made some poor choices. In some cases, agencies did not seek competitive bids or consider cheaper, better alternatives. And not all the devices were tested to see how well they worked in the environments where they would be used.
"After 9/11, we had to show how committed we were by spending hugely greater amounts of money than ever before, as rapidly as possible," said Representative Christopher Cox, a California Republican who is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. "That brought us what we might expect, which is some expensive mistakes. This has been the difficult learning curve of the new discipline known as homeland security."
Radiation at Seaports
One after another, trucks stuffed with cargo like olives from Spain, birdseed from Ethiopia, olive oil from France and carpets from India line up at the Port Newark Container Terminal, approaching what looks like an E-ZPass toll gate.
In minutes, they will fan out across the nation. But first, they pass through the gate, called a radiation portal monitor, which sounds an alarm if it detects a nuclear weapon or radioactive material that could be used to make a "dirty bomb," a crude nuclear device that causes damage by widely spreading low levels of radiation.
Heralded as "highly sophisticated" when they were introduced, the devices have proven to be hardly that.
The portal-monitor technology has been used for decades by the scrap metal industry. Customs officials at Newark have nicknamed the devices "dumb sensors," because they cannot discern the source of the radiation. That means benign items that naturally emit radioactivity - including cat litter, ceramic tile, granite, porcelain toilets, even bananas - can set off the monitors.
Alarms occurred so frequently when the monitors were first installed that customs officials turned down their sensitivity. But that increased the risk that a real threat, like the highly enriched uranium used in nuclear bombs, could go undetected because it emits only a small amount of radiation or perhaps none if it is intentionally shielded.
"It was certainly a compromise in terms of absolute capacity to detect threats," said Mr. Milowic, the customs official.
The port's follow-up system, handheld devices that are supposed to determine what set off an alarm, is also seriously flawed. Tests conducted in 2003 by Los Alamos National Laboratory found that the handheld machines, designed to be used in labs, produced a false positive or a false negative more than half the time. The machines were the least reliable in identifying the most dangerous materials, the tests showed.
The weaknesses of the devices were apparent in Newark one recent morning. A truck, whose records said it was carrying brakes from Germany, triggered the portal alarm, but the backup device could not identify the radiation source. Without being inspected, but after customs officials looked at the manifest that listed what was inside the container, the truck was deemed not a threat and sent on its way to Ohio.
"We agree it is not perfect," said Rich O'Brien, a customs supervisor in Newark. But he said his agency needed to move urgently to improve security after the 2001 attacks. "The politics stare you in the face, and you got to put something out there."
At airports, similar shortcomings in technology have caused problems.
The Transportation Security Administration bought 1,344 machines costing more than $1 million each to search for explosives in checked bags by examining the density of objects inside. But innocuous items as varied as Yorkshire pudding and shampoo bottles, which happen to have a density similar to certain explosives, can set off the machines, causing false alarms for 15 percent to 30 percent of all luggage, an agency official said. The frequent alarms require airports across the country to have extra screeners to examine these bags.
Quick Action After 9/11
Because the machines were installed under tight timetables imposed by Congress, they were squeezed into airport lobbies instead of integrated into baggage conveyor systems. That slowed the screening process - the machines could handle far fewer bags per hour - and pushed up labor costs by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. At busy times, bags are sometimes loaded onto planes without being properly examined, according to several current and former screeners.
"It is very discouraging," said a screener who worked at Portland International Airport in Oregon until last year, but who asked not to be named because he still is a federal employee. "People are just taking your bags and putting them on the airplane."
Equipment to screen passengers and carry-on baggage - including nearly 5,000 new metal detectors, X-ray machines and devices that can detect traces of explosives - can be unreliable. A handgun might slip through because screeners rely on two-dimensional X-ray machines, rather than newer, three-dimensional models, for example. The National Academy of Sciences recently described the trace detection devices as having "limited effectiveness and significant vulnerabilities."
As a result, the likelihood of detecting a hidden weapon or bomb has not significantly changed since the government took over airport screening operations in 2002, according to the inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security. Transportation security officials acknowledge that they cannot improve performance without new technology, but they dispute suggestions that no progress has been made.
"We have created a much more formidable deterrent," said Mark O. Hatfield Jr., a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration. "Do we have an absolute barrier? No."
Counting machinery and personnel, aviation screening has cost more than $15 billion since 2001, a price that Representative John L. Mica, Republican of Florida, says has hardly been worthwhile.
"Congress is the one that mandated this," Mr. Mica said. "But we should have done more research and development on the technology and put this in gradually."
Concerns Despite Reliability
Some screening equipment has performed reliably. Machines that test mail at the United States Postal Service's major processing centers have not had a single false alarm after more than a year, officials said. But the monitors detect only anthrax, which sickened postal workers in 2001. And only about 20 percent of the nation's mail is tested - mostly letters dropped into blue post boxes, because they are considered the most likely route for a biological attack.
In about 30 major cities, equipment used to test air is also very precise: there have been more than 1.5 million tests without a single false positive. But only about 10 monitors were placed in most cities, and they were often miles apart, according to the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency. Detecting a biological attack, particularly one aimed at a specific building or area, would require perhaps thousands of monitors in a big city.
In addition, as contractors hurried to install the devices before the start of the war with Iraq - the Bush administration feared that Saddam Hussein might use biological weapons on American cities - they were often placed too low or too high to collect satisfactory samples, the inspector general noted. The monitors use filters that must be collected manually every day before they can be analyzed hours later at a lab.
"It was an expedient attempt to solve a problem," said Philip J. Wyatt, a physicist and expert on biological weapons monitoring equipment. "What they got is ineffective, wasteful and expensive to maintain."
Homeland security officials say that they have already moved to address some of the initial problems, and that they are convinced the monitoring is valuable because it could allow them to recognize an attack about a day sooner than if they learned about it by victims' falling ill.
At the Nevada Test Site, an outdoor laboratory that is larger than the state of Rhode Island, the next generation of monitoring devices is being tested.
In preparing to spend billions of dollars more on equipment, the Department of Homeland Security is moving carefully. In Nevada, contractors are being paid to build prototypes of radiation detection devices that are more sensitive and selective. Only those getting passing grades will move on to a second competition in the New York port.
Similar competitions are under way elsewhere to evaluate new air-monitoring equipment and airport screening devices. That approach contrasts with how the federal government typically went about trying to shore up the nation's defenses after the 2001 attacks. Government agencies often turned to their most familiar contractors, including Northrop Grumman, Boeing and SAIC, a technology giant based in San Diego. The agencies bought devices from those companies, at times without competitive bidding or comprehensive testing.
Documents prepared by customs officials in an effort to purchase container-inspection equipment show that they were so intent on buying anSAIC product, even though a competitor had introduced a virtually identical version that was less expensive, that they placed the manufacturer's brand name in the requests. The agency has bought more than 100 of the machines at $1 million each. But the machines often cannot identify the contents of ship containers, because many everyday items, including frozen foods, are too dense for the gamma ray technology to penetrate.
'Continually Upgrading'
The federal government will probably need to spend as much as $7 billion more on screening equipment in coming years, according to government estimates.
"One department charged with coordinating efforts and setting standards will result in far better and more efficient technologies to secure the homeland," said Mr. Roehrkasse, the Department of Homeland Security spokesman.
Some experts believe that this high-priced push for improvements is necessary, saying the war against terrorism may require the same sort of spending on new weapons and defenses as the cold war did.
"You are in a game where you are continually upgrading and you will be forever," said Thomas S. Hartwick, a physicist who evaluates aviation screening equipment.
But given the inevitable imperfection of technology and the vast expanse the government is trying to secure, some warn of putting too much confidence in machines.
"Technology does not substitute for strategy," said James Jay Carafano, senior fellow for homeland security at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group. "It's always easier for terrorists to change tactics than it is for us to throw up defenses to counter them. The best strategy to deal with terrorists is to find them and get them."
Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting for this article.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
HISC looks to be on the move this morning. Already over half the vol of Friday traded. Also it has traded over it's 20 day average. Looking good!
Posts: 333 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
twice today ask is dropped to .0145 after buys & no sells. just did it again after 10 buys at .015 & zero sells
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Appears to be some manipulation occurring....
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A 500 share sell just went through....$7.25
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm wondering if this manipulation is because of the retiring of 45% of the shares. since insiders owned 65% & i'm sure they want to keep the %'s about the same a lot of shares need to come out of the market. unless they issue a prefered share to insiders & dry up their common.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
May 8, 2005 - Source: New York Times - Nytimes.com
U.S. to Spend Billions More to Alter Security Systems By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, May 7 - After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the antiterrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate.
Many of the monitoring tools - intended to detect guns, explosives, and nuclear and biological weapons - were bought during the blitz in security spending after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In its effort to create a virtual shield around America, the Department of Homeland Security now plans to spend billions of dollars more. Although some changes are being made because of technology that has emerged in the last couple of years, many of them are planned because devices currently in use have done little to improve the nation's security, according to a review of agency documents and interviews with federal officials and outside experts. "Everyone was standing in line with their silver bullets to make us more secure after Sept. 11," said Randall J. Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and former government adviser on scientific issues. "We bought a lot of stuff off the shelf that wasn't effective." Among the problems: Radiation monitors at ports and borders that cannot differentiate between radiation emitted by a nuclear bomb and naturally occurring radiation from everyday material like cat litter or ceramic tile. Air-monitoring equipment in major cities that is only marginally effective because not enough detectors were deployed and were sometimes not properly calibrated or installed. They also do not produce results for up to 36 hours - long after a biological attack would potentially infect thousands of people. Passenger-screening equipment at airports that auditors have found is no more likely than before federal screeners took over to detect whether someone is trying to carry a weapon or a bomb aboard a plane. Postal Service machines that test only a small percentage of mail and look for anthrax but no other biological agents. Federal officials say they bought the best available equipment. They acknowledge that it might not have been cutting-edge technology but said that to speed installation they bought only devices that were readily available instead of trying to buy promising technology that was not yet in production. The department says it has created a layered defense that would not be compromised by the failure of a single device. Even if the monitoring is less than ideal, officials say, it is still a deterrent. "The nation is more secure in the deployment and use of these technologies versus having no technologies in place at all," said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. Every piece of equipment provides some level of additional security, said Christopher Y. Milowic, a customs official whose office oversees screening at ports and borders. "It is not the ultimate capacity," he said. "But it reduces risk." Some critics say that even though federal agencies were pressed to move quickly by Congress and the administration, they made some poor choices. In some cases, agencies did not seek competitive bids or consider cheaper, better alternatives. And not all the devices were tested to see how well they worked in the environments where they would be used. "After 9/11, we had to show how committed we were by spending hugely greater amounts of money than ever before, as rapidly as possible," said Representative Christopher Cox, a California Republican who is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. "That brought us what we might expect, which is some expensive mistakes. This has been the difficult learning curve of the new discipline known as homeland security." Radiation at Seaports One after another, trucks stuffed with cargo like olives from Spain, birdseed from Ethiopia, olive oil from France and carpets from India line up at the Port Newark Container Terminal, approaching what looks like an E-ZPass toll gate. In minutes, they will fan out across the nation. But first, they pass through the gate, called a radiation portal monitor, which sounds an alarm if it detects a nuclear weapon or radioactive material that could be used to make a "dirty bomb," a crude nuclear device that causes damage by widely spreading low levels of radiation. Heralded as "highly sophisticated" when they were introduced, the devices have proven to be hardly that. The portal-monitor technology has been used for decades by the scrap metal industry. Customs officials at Newark have nicknamed the devices "dumb sensors," because they cannot discern the source of the radiation. That means benign items that naturally emit radioactivity - including cat litter, ceramic tile, granite, porcelain toilets, even bananas - can set off the monitors. Alarms occurred so frequently when the monitors were first installed that customs officials turned down their sensitivity. But that increased the risk that a real threat, like the highly enriched uranium used in nuclear bombs, could go undetected because it emits only a small amount of radiation or perhaps none if it is intentionally shielded. "It was certainly a compromise in terms of absolute capacity to detect threats," said Mr. Milowic, the customs official. The port's follow-up system, handheld devices that are supposed to determine what set off an alarm, is also seriously flawed. Tests conducted in 2003 by Los Alamos National Laboratory found that the handheld machines, designed to be used in labs, produced a false positive or a false negative more than half the time. The machines were the least reliable in identifying the most dangerous materials, the tests showed. The weaknesses of the devices were apparent in Newark one recent morning. A truck, whose records said it was carrying brakes from Germany, triggered the portal alarm, but the backup device could not identify the radiation source. Without being inspected, the truck was sent on its way to Ohio. "We agree it is not perfect," said Rich O'Brien, a customs supervisor in Newark. But he said his agency needed to move urgently to improve security after the 2001 attacks. "The politics stare you in the face, and you got to put something out there." At airports, similar shortcomings in technology have caused problems. The Transportation Security Administration bought 1,344 machines costing more than $1 million each to search for explosives in checked bags by examining the density of objects inside. But innocuous items as varied as Yorkshire pudding and shampoo bottles, which happen to have a density similar to certain explosives, can set off the machines, causing false alarms for 15 percent to 30 percent of all luggage, an agency official said. The frequent alarms require airports across the country to have extra screeners to examine these bags. Quick Action After 9/11 Because the machines were installed under tight timetables imposed by Congress, they were squeezed into airport lobbies instead of integrated into baggage conveyor systems. That slowed the screening process - the machines could handle far fewer bags per hour - and pushed up labor costs by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. At busy times, bags are sometimes loaded onto planes without being properly examined, according to several current and former screeners. "It is very discouraging," said a screener who worked at Portland International Airport until last year, but who asked not to be named because he still is a federal employee. "People are just taking your bags and putting them on the airplane." Equipment to screen passengers and carry-on baggage - including nearly 5,000 new metal detectors, X-ray machines and devices that can detect traces of explosives - can be unreliable. A handgun might slip through because screeners rely on two-dimensional X-ray machines, rather than newer, three-dimensional models, for example. The National Academy of Sciences recently described the trace detection devices as having "limited effectiveness and significant vulnerabilities." As a result, the likelihood of detecting a hidden weapon or bomb has not significantly changed since the government took over airport screening operations in 2002, according to the inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security. Transportation security officials acknowledge that they cannot improve performance without new technology, but they dispute suggestions that no progress has been made. "We have created a much more formidable deterrent," said Mark O. Hatfield Jr., a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration. "Do we have an absolute barrier? No." Counting machinery and personnel, aviation screening has cost more than $15 billion since 2001, a price that Representative John L. Mica, Republican of Florida, says has hardly been worthwhile. "Congress is the one that mandated this," Mr. Mica said. "But we should have done more research and development on the technology and put this in gradually." Concerns Despite Reliability Some screening equipment has performed reliably. Machines that test mail at the United States Postal Service's major processing centers have not had a single false alarm after more than a year, officials said. But the monitors detect only anthrax, which sickened postal workers in 2001. And only about 20 percent of mail is tested - mostly letters dropped into blue post boxes, because they are considered the most likely route for a biological attack. In about 30 major cities, equipment used to test air is also very precise: there have been more than 1.5 million tests without a single false positive. But only about 10 monitors were placed in most cities, and they were often miles apart, according to the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency. Detecting a biological attack, particularly one aimed at a specific building or area, would require perhaps thousands of monitors in a big city. In addition, as contractors hurried to install the devices before the start of the war with Iraq - the Bush administration feared that Saddam Hussein might use biological weapons on American cities - they were often placed too low or too high to collect satisfactory samples, the inspector general noted. The monitors use filters that must be collected manually every day before they can be analyzed hours later at a lab. "It was an expedient attempt to solve a problem," said Philip J. Wyatt, a physicist and expert on biological weapons monitoring equipment. "What they got is ineffective, wasteful and expensive to maintain." Homeland security officials say that they have already moved to address some of the initial problems, and that they are convinced that the monitoring is valuable because it could allow them to recognize an attack about a day sooner than if they learned about it through victims' falling ill. At the Nevada Test Site, an outdoor laboratory that is larger than Rhode Island, the next generation of monitoring devices is being tested. In preparing to spend billions of dollars more on equipment, the Department of Homeland Security is moving carefully. In Nevada, contractors are being paid to build prototypes of radiation detection devices that are more sensitive and selective. Only those getting passing grades will move on to a second competition in the New York port. Similar competitions are under way elsewhere to evaluate new air-monitoring equipment and airport screening devices. That approach contrasts with how the federal government typically went about trying to shore up the nation's defenses after the 2001 attacks. Government agencies often turned to their most familiar contractors, including Northrop Grumman, Boeing and SAIC, a technology giant based in San Diego. The agencies bought devices from those companies, at times without competitive bidding or comprehensive testing. Documents prepared by customs officials in an effort to purchase container inspection equipment show that they were so intent on buying an SAIC product, even though a competitor had introduced a virtually identical version that was less expensive, that they placed the manufacturer's brand name in the requests. The agency has bought more than 100 of the machines at $1 million each. But the machines often cannot identify the contents of ship containers, because many everyday items, including frozen foods, are too dense for the gamma ray technology to penetrate. 'Continually Upgrading' The federal government will likely need to spend as much as $7 billion more on screening equipment in coming years, according to government estimates. "One department charged with coordinating efforts and setting standards will result in far better and more efficient technologies to secure the homeland," said Mr. Roehrkasse, the Department of Homeland Security spokesman. Some experts believe that this high-priced push for improvements is necessary, saying the war against terrorism may require the same sort of spending on new weapons and defenses as the cold war did. "You are in a game where you are continually upgrading and you will be forever," said Thomas S. Hartwick, a physicist who evaluates aviation-screening equipment. But given the inevitable imperfection of technology and the vast expanse the government is trying to secure, some warn of putting too much confidence in machines. "Technology does not substitute for strategy," said James Jay Carafano, senior fellow for homeland security at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "It's always easier for terrorists to change tactics than it is for us to throw up defenses to counter them. The best strategy to deal with terrorists is to find them and get them." Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting for this article.
posted
lets hope HISC capitolizes on this news with a pr in the morning. with ex military running the company it should have good connections
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually....that news came out 2 days ago....I was hoping for a PR referencing it today...but no such luck so far
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has broken it's 20 day avg vol. and price today with increased activity going into the close. My guess is this is setting up for a nice little rally tomorrow. Although today hasn't been bad at all...17% is a good day! <IMHO>
-------------------- My future so bright...I gotta wear shades!
quote:Originally posted by bill1352: lets hope HISC capitolizes on this news with a pr in the morning. with ex military running the company it should have good connections
Great!!! The ex COLONEL listen to you, the company has used your idea and it will be featured for the next two weeks in Investors Business Daily.. !!!
Posts: 2362 | From: BEENEVERYWHERE | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Homeland Integrated Security Systems Completes Phase II of the Savannah Port Project Tuesday May 10, 8:30 am ET Company To Be Featured in Investor's Business Daily
ASHEVILLE, N.C., May 10, 2005 (PRIMEZONE) -- Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (Other OTC:HISC.PK - News) announced today that it has completed Phase II of the Savannah Port Project and that it will be delivering the results to over 350 major ocean ports and more than 175 major commercial river ports as well as major airports and other secured facilities this summer. ADVERTISEMENT
Homeland Integrated Security Systems owns proprietary technology and has the rights to use patents to some of the most innovative and sophisticated security products. The project at the Savannah Port is being conducted in conjunction with Georgia Tech and the Maritime Logistics Innovation Center (MLIC). Phase III will consist of GIS mapping and software finalizations. It will incorporate tracking devices deployed both on the port and in the immediate area surrounding the port. Phase II has exceeded all expectations.
According to the New York Times, the U.S. spent more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the antiterrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate. The federal government will likely need to spend as much as $7 billion more on screening equipment in coming years, according to government estimates.
Homeland Integrated Security Inc. will be featured in today's Investor's Business Daily, and will be featured on http://www.investors.com for two weeks.
About Investor's Business Daily
Investor's Business Daily (IBD) was launched in 1984 and is now read by nearly a million investors. It is considered more of a research tool than a traditional newspaper. Known for its innovative stock tables, Investor's Business Daily provides critical information previously available only to institutional investors (pension and mutual funds, banks, insurance companies and government organizations).
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homeland Integrated Security Systems Completes Phase II of the Savannah Port Project Company To Be Featured in Investor's Business Daily 5/10/2005 8:30:34 AM
ASHEVILLE, N.C., May 10, 2005 (PRIMEZONE via COMTEX) -- Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (Pink Sheets:HISC) announced today that it has completed Phase II of the Savannah Port Project and that it will be delivering the results to over 350 major ocean ports and more than 175 major commercial river ports as well as major airports and other secured facilities this summer.
Homeland Integrated Security Systems owns proprietary technology and has the rights to use patents to some of the most innovative and sophisticated security products. The project at the Savannah Port is being conducted in conjunction with Georgia Tech and the Maritime Logistics Innovation Center (MLIC). Phase III will consist of GIS mapping and software finalizations. It will incorporate tracking devices deployed both on the port and in the immediate area surrounding the port. Phase II has exceeded all expectations.
According to the New York Times, the U.S. spent more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the antiterrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate. The federal government will likely need to spend as much as $7 billion more on screening equipment in coming years, according to government estimates.
Homeland Integrated Security Inc. will be featured in today's Investor's Business Daily, and will be featured on www.investors.com for two weeks.
About Investor's Business Daily
Investor's Business Daily (IBD) was launched in 1984 and is now read by nearly a million investors. It is considered more of a research tool than a traditional newspaper. Known for its innovative stock tables, Investor's Business Daily provides critical information previously available only to institutional investors (pension and mutual funds, banks, insurance companies and government organizations).
SOURCE: Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. Homeland Integrated Security Systems Matt Maguire 866 THE APPL(E) www.hissusa.com .
Posts: 320 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
no news on the govts bill that was decided last night on the $83b for wars and unprotected ports. Saw it on CNN last night and have not seen any mention of it today anywhere. This cant hurt the cause!! GLTA
Posts: 952 | From: OH | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homeland Integrated Security Systems to Provide Security Solutions for U.S. Ports: As Featured in Investor's Business Daily 5/11/2005 8:30:18 AM
ASHEVILLE, N.C., May 11, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (Pink Sheets: HISC.PK) announced today they have completed Phase II of the Savannah Port Project. The company will be delivering the results to over 350 major ocean ports, approximately 175 major commercial river ports, and major airports and other secured facilities. Homeland Integrated Security plans on delivering the results this summer.
According to the New York Times, the U.S. spent more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the anti terrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate. The federal government will likely need to spend as much as $7 billion more on screening equipment in coming years, according to government estimates.
Homeland Integrated Security Systems Inc. will be featured in the Investor's Business Daily in the Newswire Section on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, Friday, May 13, 2005, and Monday, May 16, 2005. The Company will also be featured on www.investors.com for the next two weeks starting Wednesday, May 11, 2005. Investor's Business Daily is read by nearly 1 million readers on a daily basis.
About Investor's Business Daily
Investor's Business Daily (IBD) was launched in 1984 and is now read by nearly a million investors. It is considered more of a research tool than a traditional newspaper. Known for its innovative stock tables, Investor's Business Daily provides critical information previously available only to institutional investors (pension and mutual funds, banks, insurance companies and government organizations).
SOURCE: Homeland Integrated Security Systems Homeland Integrated Security Systems Matt Maguire, 866 THE APPL(E) (866-843-2775) www.hissusa.com .
Posts: 320 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homeland Integrated Security Systems Receives Buy Recommendation 5/13/2005 8:33:43 AM
ASHEVILLE, N.C., May 13, 2005 (PRIMEZONE via COMTEX) -- Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (Pink Sheets:HISC) announced today that they have received an Overall Buy Recommendation from Bar Chart.com.
According to Bar Chart.com, http://www.barchart.com , Homeland Integrated Security Systems received a 60% average Buy Recommendation amongst Short Term Indicators, a 75% average Buy Recommendation amongst Medium Term Indicators, and a 100% Long Term Buy Recommendation amongst their indicators.
Homeland Integrated Security recently completed Phase II of the Savannah Port Project. The company will be delivering the results to over 350 major ocean ports, approximately 175 major commercial river ports, and major airports and other secured facilities. Homeland Integrated Security plans on delivering the results this summer.
About Bar Chart.com
Barchart.com is one of the largest, most innovative investment tools on the Internet. Founded in 1981, Logical Systems, Inc. developed the electronic publishing system for many of the daily and weekly stock and commodity magazines of the era. We employ much of this technology today, producing posters, magazines and Internet content for the leading financial institutions, serving the casual investor to the professional trader.
Barchart.com was launched in December 1995 as an Internet web site designed for commodity and index traders. With our value-added content and technically accurate information, Barchart.com quickly became the prominent supplier of commodities charts and data on the Internet. In January of 1999, we upgraded our content to the next level by expanding our market coverage to include the U.S. stock market, and now our market information is being used by millions of investors every month.
SOURCE: Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. Homeland Integrated Security Systems Matt Maguire (866) THE APPL(E) www.hissusa.com .
Posts: 320 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey guys, I know some of you from PLNI and I am looking for another opportunity. I have heard a lot of talk about HISC and I have done a little dd, but not much. I was wondering if anyone here could answer a couple of questions before I make a decision to buy in:
1.) the tests in the ports I am reading about... are they getting paid to test their equipment in these ports, or are they testing their equipment in these ports as demonstrations to the communities of their capabilities?
2.) I see their port security system has a few components including rf id and radiation detection. Who owns the technology and patents (links to patents?) for the radiation detectors, and how old is the technology?
3.) On pinksheets.com on the financial tab they link to their 211 info statement (for the period ending 02/16/2005) which at the top of page 6 when asked question 2 "If the issuer has never conducted operations, is in the development stage, or is currently conducting operations;" HISC answered "The company is currently in its development stage". I have then seen posts where they claim to have had millions in revenue last year. Is this the 2004 revenue of Second Colonial Mining and Engineering Services Inc? What activities generated that revenue and was sales of equipment and facilities part of it?
Thanks in advance for any help I could get Posts: 277 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you might PM Raptor, if you're comfortable with that. I seem to recall he's in HISC, and he's pretty helpful...good guy with good dd. maybe search the thread to make sure he's in, first...hope that helps.
posted
Full audited financials are due any day now as they are moving to they plan on moving to OTCBB or AMEX.
Homeland Integrated Security Systems Board Approves 10 Million Share Buy Back
ASHEVILLE, N.C., Apr 26, 2005 (PRIMEZONE via COMTEX) -- Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (Pink Sheets:HISC) announced today that the Board of Directors has authorized a Buy Back of up to a 10 Million shares of common stock by its board members between now and the end of the month. The board members have agreed to buy the stock directly from the market based upon the various events that have already unfolded and what they believe will be happening in the near future. The board elected to make this announcement because as of this date they are not fully reporting despite retaining GreenTree Financial Group to make applications to the Nasdaq Bulletin Board or AMEX. "The board agreed unanimously that this is an undervalued situation. We are a profitable company in an exploding industry. We should not be trading at these levels," stated Frank A. Moody, II, CEO of Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. Homeland Integrated Security Systems recently released its year end un-audited financials for period ending December 31, 2004. Home Land Integrated Security Systems reported a Net Profit of over $550,000 for the year end. Sales for the year ended December 31, 2004 were $2,061,856 with Gross Profit for year ended December 31, 2004 of $1,585,051 Expenses for the year were less than $1,000,000 and the company reported a Net Operating Profit of $585,666.
Homeland Integrated Security Systems Board Retires 450 Million Shares
ASHEVILLE, N.C., Apr 27, 2005 (PRIMEZONE via COMTEX) -- Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (Pink Sheets:HISC) is pleased to announce that the Board has approved the retirement of 450 Million shares which will dramatically reduce the outstanding share total by more than 45%. The board believes the decision to retire the shares will result in a positive restructuring of the company's stock without a reverse split. Currently there are approximately 950,000,000 shares outstanding, after the retirement there will only be 500,000,000. Management believes that the retirement coupled with positive earnings should result in much higher stock prices. "We have no intention of doing a reverse split. The board believes the retirement of shares will suffice and should result in a better reflection of our earnings per share once we are approved for the Nasdaq Bulletin Board or AMEX," stated Frank A Moody, II, CEO of Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
they will move to OTC not AMEX...you need to hold a $3 pps for a few months to move to AMEX. maybe at some point in a yr or 2 they might qualify as it does seem a solid company with a bright future in a very strong sector. add to it the fact its run by ex-military for good connections.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
