You can't predict credit risk based on phone usage. There are far too many system inputs to even begin to separate this kind of data. You might as well argue that you can predict credit risk based on television viewing habits or toothbrush selection.
So, are you saying it's impossible to predict credit risk based on phone usage, or just that we're not yet capable of computing the number of "system inputs" necessary to make meaningful predictions? And, what do you mean by "system" input rather than just saying "input." I'd be curious to see examples of what you mean. You seem so confident and I don't know how because it seems possible to me without question, so if you care to elaborate I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
As the reasonable and competent man sitting on the other side of the table I understand the difference between "loyalty" in perhaps the Platonic sense and "business loyalty." In business, “loyalty” is almost always a two-way street, and virtues don’t have intrinsic value—often times reduced to a monetary value unfortunately. So, if I were in your shoes my reasoning/decision process would probably try to give my current employer a "handicap" so to speak—meaning I might take the beneficial proximity of the new company’s location to my home out of the equation as a token of my "loyalty" to my current employer—be sure to convert this benefit to monetary terms (fuel, wear and tear on vehicle, missed hourly earning potential during commute time, etc.) for your own knowledge and for your employer’s, so that he/she can see in more tangible terms exactly what you might sacrifice on their behalf. Apart from that however, you can bet I would expect a pay raise pretty damn close to the new company’s offer. Just be honest with yourself and employer in the decision process so that everyone knows exactly WHY you’re making the decision you’re making, and be sure to clearly communicate how your own loyalty to the company is playing a role in your decision making process—this will likely prevent regrets on your part regardless of how it all turns out, and hard feelings on theirs.
All assuming a reasonable and competent other-side-of-the-table of course!
Speare,
I think your trivializing what makes this interesting to the average Slashdot reader. The head of one of the most powerful institutions in the world is facing complete ruin in a case where the best circumstantial evidence is a simple computer log of "open" or "closed" ("0" or "1"). The computer is speaking with perfect clarity a language with which human witnesses still seem to struggle. What our glorious powers of inductive reasoning interpret from this witness is where the communication starts to break down. Whatever it ends up being, I'll always have more trust in the "electronic sensor" -- despite its limitations. I do appreciate your comment though; the question needed to be asked. Take care.
Elrous0 -- I think you're asking a legitimate question here, which seems to boil down to whether or not there is any inherent value in knowing the truth, i.e., knowing the truth simply for the sake of knowing the truth without regard for the consequences (potential or actual) of knowing a given truth. So, it could be that knowing the truth about civilization's ugly history makes for a better present one, or not. This seems like an empirical question, but lets assume it is and that we found it is actually better to lie to ourselves and rewrite history. The question then becomes as to whether your proposal is even possible, to which I would have to say no, but hell, I'm a short-order cook at a Dairy Queen -- what do I know?
I'm going to ask you to look up the word censorship again. While they may choose to sell what they want. They can in fact censor things from their channel. Just because its not a government doing it does not make its not censorship.
MrLint, I think the point your making just goes to show that there is nothing inherently wrong with "censorship". The question is whether or not it is appropriate in a given venue. Most would agree censorship in language, visual stimulation, and a number of other categories is appropriate in a child-care center, so it isn't "censorship" itself that is the problem. Private companies should have the right to censor whatever they want -- it is someone's institution to run how he/she pleases. If I have a bookstore, and I don't want to sell The Bible, that's my right. If it were the government telling me I couldn't sell The Bible, well then, we have a whole other issue. And, dreamchaser is right when he says it opens up an opportunity in the free market for another to make a dime or two -- consider it a luck break from what can be an ugly face in Capitalism when a company like Amazon censors. Companies like Amazon will indeed control way too much for anyone's comfort someday -- some diminishing shred of moral decency is the only thing that has kept it from happening already.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't predict credit risk based on phone usage. There are far too many system inputs to even begin to separate this kind of data. You might as well argue that you can predict credit risk based on television viewing habits or toothbrush selection.
So, are you saying it's impossible to predict credit risk based on phone usage, or just that we're not yet capable of computing the number of "system inputs" necessary to make meaningful predictions? And, what do you mean by "system" input rather than just saying "input." I'd be curious to see examples of what you mean. You seem so confident and I don't know how because it seems possible to me without question, so if you care to elaborate I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
As the reasonable and competent man sitting on the other side of the table I understand the difference between "loyalty" in perhaps the Platonic sense and "business loyalty." In business, “loyalty” is almost always a two-way street, and virtues don’t have intrinsic value—often times reduced to a monetary value unfortunately. So, if I were in your shoes my reasoning/decision process would probably try to give my current employer a "handicap" so to speak—meaning I might take the beneficial proximity of the new company’s location to my home out of the equation as a token of my "loyalty" to my current employer—be sure to convert this benefit to monetary terms (fuel, wear and tear on vehicle, missed hourly earning potential during commute time, etc.) for your own knowledge and for your employer’s, so that he/she can see in more tangible terms exactly what you might sacrifice on their behalf. Apart from that however, you can bet I would expect a pay raise pretty damn close to the new company’s offer. Just be honest with yourself and employer in the decision process so that everyone knows exactly WHY you’re making the decision you’re making, and be sure to clearly communicate how your own loyalty to the company is playing a role in your decision making process—this will likely prevent regrets on your part regardless of how it all turns out, and hard feelings on theirs. All assuming a reasonable and competent other-side-of-the-table of course!
Speare, I think your trivializing what makes this interesting to the average Slashdot reader. The head of one of the most powerful institutions in the world is facing complete ruin in a case where the best circumstantial evidence is a simple computer log of "open" or "closed" ("0" or "1"). The computer is speaking with perfect clarity a language with which human witnesses still seem to struggle. What our glorious powers of inductive reasoning interpret from this witness is where the communication starts to break down. Whatever it ends up being, I'll always have more trust in the "electronic sensor" -- despite its limitations. I do appreciate your comment though; the question needed to be asked. Take care.
Elrous0 -- I think you're asking a legitimate question here, which seems to boil down to whether or not there is any inherent value in knowing the truth, i.e., knowing the truth simply for the sake of knowing the truth without regard for the consequences (potential or actual) of knowing a given truth. So, it could be that knowing the truth about civilization's ugly history makes for a better present one, or not. This seems like an empirical question, but lets assume it is and that we found it is actually better to lie to ourselves and rewrite history. The question then becomes as to whether your proposal is even possible, to which I would have to say no, but hell, I'm a short-order cook at a Dairy Queen -- what do I know?
I'm going to ask you to look up the word censorship again. While they may choose to sell what they want. They can in fact censor things from their channel. Just because its not a government doing it does not make its not censorship.
MrLint, I think the point your making just goes to show that there is nothing inherently wrong with "censorship". The question is whether or not it is appropriate in a given venue. Most would agree censorship in language, visual stimulation, and a number of other categories is appropriate in a child-care center, so it isn't "censorship" itself that is the problem. Private companies should have the right to censor whatever they want -- it is someone's institution to run how he/she pleases. If I have a bookstore, and I don't want to sell The Bible, that's my right. If it were the government telling me I couldn't sell The Bible, well then, we have a whole other issue. And, dreamchaser is right when he says it opens up an opportunity in the free market for another to make a dime or two -- consider it a luck break from what can be an ugly face in Capitalism when a company like Amazon censors. Companies like Amazon will indeed control way too much for anyone's comfort someday -- some diminishing shred of moral decency is the only thing that has kept it from happening already.