Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the testing-if-a-movie-stinks dept.

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft:

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have now developed a method that can objectively evaluate the age at which children and adolescents can safely watch a movie. They measured the composition of air in cinemas as well as levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during 135 screenings of eleven different movies. Over 13,000 audience members were involved. For a variety of film genres and age groups, the researchers found that isoprene levels reliably correlate with the age rating of a film. "Isoprene appears to be a good indicator of emotional tension within a group," says Jonathan Williams, group leader at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "Our approach could therefore provide an objective criterion for deciding how movies should be classified."

They couldn't already objectively measure fear by the amount of urine-soaked seat cushions?

C. Stönner, A. Edtbauer, B. Derstroff, E. Bourtsoukidis, T. Klüpfel, J. Wicker, J. Williams. Proof of concept study: Testing human volatile organic compounds as tools for age classification of films. PLOS ONE, 2018; 13 (10): e0203044 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203044


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:35PM (30 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:35PM (#753182) Journal

    There's a subset of people that will always prefer an objective stupid solution over a subjective reasonable one.

    This is not limited to movies.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:37PM (29 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:37PM (#753185)

    By definition, something that is subjective is not something that is reasonable; you cannot reason about it, but rather only accept it as an axiom.

    • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:00PM (17 children)

      by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:00PM (#753196) Journal

      Not wholly true. Something 'subjective' is based on an individual reaction, but that does not always mean it can't also be derivable via logic, but it also can be based totally on emotion and thus be exactly as you described.

      --
      For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:09PM (16 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:09PM (#753203)

        So, there you have it.

        Use your subjective ideas to help you find objective truths; if you can't find an objective truth, then at least have the courtesy not to force your subjective ideas on other people.

        That's how you build Civilized Society.

        • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:17PM (15 children)

          by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:17PM (#753209) Journal

          I don't see how expressing an OPINION is forcing ideas on anyone. If you don't like it or disagree, either express your alternative idea or opinion or just plain ignore it. Hate speech is more than just something you 'hate' to hear, and free speech often comes with disagreeable effects. I don't support the KKK in the least but short of calling for violence they have just as much right to congregate and speak their minds, no matter how sad and ignorant it is.

          --
          For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:24PM (14 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:24PM (#753214)

            For example, to argue in favor of increasing taxation is not the same as to argue in favor of reducing taxation.

            One side wants to point guns at people and take their resources by force; the other side wants to leave people alone.

            The debate is not symmetric; it's not simply a matter of agreeing to disagree—while both might bring a gun to the debate, one side is using that gun for offense, while the other side is using it for defense.

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:35PM (13 children)

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:35PM (#753247) Journal

              One side wants to point guns at people and take their resources by force; the other side wants to leave people alone.

              That's an interesting framing. It's not the only possible one, and in fact, it's not mine:

              I see the anti-taxation side as not wanting to help provide medical care for those in need; not wanting to see to it that our roads and other infrastructure are maintained and expanded; not wanting to see to it that our older folks have enough resources to live reasonable well; not wanting to see to it that young persons (and older persons!) are well educated; not wanting to see to it that our prisons are foci of rehabilitation instead of revenge and slavery and rape and violence; not wanting to see to it that pollution levels are kept low and food is provisioned in a safe and sane manner.

              I will certainly grant you that many tax takings are misused horribly, to repress people's personal and consensual choices, to make war on people for the sin of living where some superstitious psychopaths live (or just lived in the next country over, such as Saudi Arabia); I will also grant you that people with a lot of power and money are given tax breaks they should not get, thus shifting the load to the lower-level wage earners.

              The tax system is far from perfect, but there are some (many!) things we can only do if we do it with everyone helping to push the stone up the hill. It's better to have it, than not have it. IMHO.
               

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:37PM (9 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:37PM (#753249)

                Why would these people want to live in squalor and disrepair? That's what you're saying they want.

                To me, it sounds like your interpretation is bogus.

                • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:51PM (8 children)

                  by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:51PM (#753261) Journal

                  Why would these people want to live in squalor and disrepair? That's what you're saying they want.

                  I have no idea what you mean by that. Further, I'm not at all sure you know what you mean by that. Nothing I said, absolutely nothing, implies what you're saying for people taking any side of that issue.

                  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:27PM (7 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:27PM (#753287)

                    OK, let's be more concrete.

                    • You can't say "someone who is anti-taxation does not want to help provide medical care for those in need."

                    • You can't say "someone who is anti-taxation does not want to see to it that our roads and other infrastructure are maintained and expanded."

                    • You can't say "someone who is anti-taxation does not want to see to it that our older folks have enough resources to live reasonable well."

                    • You can't say "someone who is anti-taxation does not want to see to it that young persons (and older persons!) are well educated."

                    • You can't say "someone who is anti-taxation does not want to see to it that our prisons are foci of rehabilitation instead of revenge and slavery and rape and violence."

                    • You can't say "someone who is anti-taxation does not want to see to it that pollution levels are kept low and food is provisioned in a safe and sane manner."

                    Ergo, your interpretation appears to be bogus; your interpretation seems likely to be a straw man.

                    Even Bastiat covered your point of view in 1850 [bastiat.org]:

                    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

                    We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

                    What a genius.

                    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:02AM (6 children)

                      by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:02AM (#753389) Journal

                      You can't say [etc.]

                      Sure I can. And I did. And so far, it looks like I was right.

                      As your position is that taxes are theft "at gunpoint", you're against the services they fund "at gunpoint." Pretty easy to understand. So, if you're going to make the case that these services would be supplied (by who? from whom?) if taxes were non-existent, or optional... by all means actually give that a go. However:

                      To anticipate the most common counter: Every claim that these needs would best be addressed by private means has proven dubious in the extreme. Even with the considerable government tax-supported funding to do these things at present, we see that the remaining needs are not met by the private sector. Not even close. To claim that this would improve when tax support is no longer available, or severely reduced... that requires some pretty heavy duty justification.

                      I encourage you to provide it, if you can. If you do, I'll change my position. I'm not wedded to it, only to the objective facts of the matter, which, presently, are not in your favor. But perhaps I don't have all of them.

                      Without a credible explanation of how these things would be funded outside of a taxation regime, it is only reasonable to conclude that as the current tax support does not suffice, and the private sector isn't picking up the slack, even though it's much smaller than the total load, and then some of the current support disappears when taxes are optional or simply non-existent under your idea of how things ought to be, then all these issues will be more poorly supported. If they are even supported at all.

                      This leads straight back to you are against these things being supported in the first place, as well as to the proposition that taxes need to be imposed by force. Otherwise, these things won't get done, or will be done not anywhere near as effectively.

                      So far as I can see to this point, your argument is either they will get done because (fill in the blank... no explanation has been forthcoming, still waiting, and still willing to pay attention) or that they don't need to be done, because it's more important that you are not forced to pay taxes, or... what? I'm truly curious how you think an optional or non-existent taxation system would support the various infrastructure and social issues I outlined (as well as the many others I didn't go into) if indeed that's your position. If your position is "fuck those guys, I got mine and I want to keep all of it", well, just say so. :)

                      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:38AM

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:38AM (#753416) Journal

                        He DID just say so, it's just that he did it in a way that shows he thinks we're all fucking idiots and he's the smartest guy in the room, pulling the wool over our eyes. How much you wanna bet he drivess on public roads, drinks municipal tap water, and ate something today that passed FDA inspection?

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @01:27AM (4 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @01:27AM (#753449)

                        You can't support an institution that commandeers resources by force then also ask with a straight face "Where are you going to get the resources to do something???"

                        You're like that bully who grabs the smaller kids wrist, and uses it to slap the kid's face with his own hand. "Why are you hitting yourself? Hey. HEY! Answer me. Why are you hitting yourself?!"

                        Let's take things one step at a time, man.

                        This whole "Government disappears over night" scenario is your straw man; nobody is calling for that. However, for the love of Civilization, at least have the courage to admit that it would be a good thing if we could figure out how to fund societal organization without having to resort to a system as arbitrary and capricious as taxation. And, then, maybe we can pick one small thing somewhere and try to do de-tax it, and learn from the experience.

                        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 25 2018, @01:48PM (3 children)

                          by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday October 25 2018, @01:48PM (#753647) Journal

                          You can't support an institution that commandeers resources by force then also ask with a straight face "Where are you going to get the resources to do something???"

                          Again, yes, I can, and I do.

                          And why? Because there's no better alternative in sight. Put one on the table and we can talk about it. Short of that, you have no case.

                          This whole "Government disappears over night" scenario is your straw man; nobody is calling for that.

                          Every time someone bitches about taxes being non-optional and force being used to collect them or punish non-compliance if someone attempts to refuse to participate, the very legitimate question comes up as to what the alternative is. I note that no one here (or anywhere else) has yet to put such an alternative on the table. Until/unless they can and do, it's just pointless bitching.

                          To tax avoiders and cheats, both individual and corporate, I say (wo)man up and carry your part of the load. If you think the tax system is inequitable (and I certainly agree), then by all means work to try for an honestly more equitable distribution of load. I suggest the first step there is to stop ever voting Republican until/unless they start making the wealthy carry a fair share and stop trying to erode the system by rote. They're terrible about those things. Of course any legislation that provides tax breaks / shelters for X is fair game, from either party. Right now, the Republicans do more of that, by far, and also work to erode government services in a way that is much harder on the lower end of the economic spectrum. The Republicans are currently the voter's manifestation of "I got mine, you can just fuck off and die." Personally, I can't go there.

                          at least have the courage to admit that it would be a good thing if we could figure out how to fund societal organization without having to resort to a system as arbitrary and capricious as taxation.

                          I have no problem whatsoever admitting that. However, inasmuch as no such thing has ever been presented, regardless of how many times people have bitched about forced tax collection, I class it squarely with "it would be a good thing if everyone was beautiful, no one ever got sick, and we all had everything we want." Sure it would.

                          But all these things, in reality, are imperfect with our social structure and technological level as it is, and the economic part of that is not likely to change until automation goes a whole lot further than it has thus far. Even then, only if we can make that work in an equitable manner, which is by no means a given. So the way to go at present, IMHO, is to incrementally improve what we can (meaning, try to make the tax system more equitable) and otherwise bear up under the load with all the fortitude we can muster.

                          If you can think of a better alternative than a tax system that can actually be tested (and again, we know that depending on the private sector to address the challenges voluntarily does not work, so no point in trying to make a case for it), then by all means, let's hear about that. It's all well and good to say "I don't like it when they take my money" but that's only skin-deep and without a replacement strategy, enormously selfish if you actually want them to stop doing that. If you're just externalizing "gee, wish I had more money", yeah, okay, most people feel the same. But to imagine that legitimately extends to "taxation is theft at gunpoint" as if it were a terrible thing... that's just impossible to take seriously without a replacement strategy.

                          An economy of plenty is still a long way out. I have no doubt it'll get here if civilization doesn't outright crash one way or another (war, climate, comet, whatever), but it really doesn't seem likely to be here soon, and getting from the current economic system to that kind of thing is likely to be a challenge in and of itself. So for now, we really do have to solve our problems with redistribution of wealth, and yes, by force when faced with people who balk.

                          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @04:33PM (2 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @04:33PM (#753715)

                            There are loads of infrastructure and services that are maintained, improved, and grown without taxation. Indeed, most of society is NOT based on taxation: In the U.S., government spending is currently around 36% GDP.

                            Why aren't you denigrating people who are doing their bit to eradicate sickness? "Why do you even bother??? We'll never live in a world free from disease! Moron!"

                            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 25 2018, @07:15PM (1 child)

                              by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday October 25 2018, @07:15PM (#753802) Journal

                              So, you offer nothing but a straw man. Well, I can't say I'm surprised.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @07:50PM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @07:50PM (#753817)

                                I'm also not surprised.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 26 2018, @12:51AM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 26 2018, @12:51AM (#753945) Journal

                I see the anti-taxation side as not wanting to help provide medical care for those in need; not wanting to see to it that our roads and other infrastructure are maintained and expanded; not wanting to see to it that our older folks have enough resources to live reasonable well; not wanting to see to it that young persons (and older persons!) are well educated; not wanting to see to it that our prisons are foci of rehabilitation instead of revenge and slavery and rape and violence; not wanting to see to it that pollution levels are kept low and food is provisioned in a safe and sane manner.

                I have to agree with the criticism of this. What you "see" is not very useful. There are other ways to get these things and the government approach (not just in the US) is notoriously bad for delivering such services.

                I will certainly grant you that many tax takings are misused horribly, to repress people's personal and consensual choices, to make war on people for the sin of living where some superstitious psychopaths live (or just lived in the next country over, such as Saudi Arabia); I will also grant you that people with a lot of power and money are given tax breaks they should not get, thus shifting the load to the lower-level wage earners.

                You probably ought to actually grant that rather than merely saying that you do. Anti-tax sentiment is easy to deal with, just make sure tax revenue is spent well. It's remarkable how disinterested anti-tax critics are about what tax revenue is spent on.

                • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday October 26 2018, @06:22AM (1 child)

                  by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday October 26 2018, @06:22AM (#754015) Journal

                  How tax money is spent is an important subject, but it doesn't really dovetail with the idea that one should, or even could, do away with taxes because they're theft under threat from a (far) superior force, which is the issue at hand as posed by the AC just prior to the point in the thread where I spoke up.

                  FWIW, I maintain a considerable level of criticism of how tax money is spent; both state and local legislatures are populated with idiots, and their work product is often no more than garbage. Many things I think need attention are getting shorted; many things I think need less attention are lavished with ridiculous amounts of money. I have ideas on these matters; I vote in accordance with those ideas when the opportunity arises. I variously vote anti-war, anti-military-buildup, anti-foreign-aid until or unless we get our own streets in order, anti-pork, anti-"homeland"-security, etc. I vote pro-infrastructure, pro-healthcare/insurance, pro-social-safety-net, and so on. There are lots of issues, and yes, you bet, spending is insane.

                  So if you want to have that discussion, we definitely can at some point. But this isn't that discussion. This is the discussion of "should taxes be taken under threat of force." And the answer, at least so far, is yes, they should. Because there's no other working alternative on the table, and without taxation, things get worse. And considering as circumstances suck so bad now for many, we really should be trying to avoid it getting any worse.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 26 2018, @01:36PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 26 2018, @01:36PM (#754069) Journal

                    How tax money is spent is an important subject, but it doesn't really dovetail with the idea that one should, or even could, do away with taxes because they're theft under threat from a (far) superior force, which is the issue at hand as posed by the AC just prior to the point in the thread where I spoke up.

                    And I disagree on that. There are, for example, schools of ethics that justify theft as moral in certain situations (such as stealing bread to keep oneself from starving). So in that light, even if taxation were theft, it could be justified as moral on the basis of what it's being spent for.

                    Second, views like this have traction because there are relevant injustices or inefficiencies in the world. This particular poster might hold that view no matter what, but it's possible that they would find other things to believe in, if governments were a lot more efficient and parsimonious in their usage of tax revenue.

                    FWIW, I maintain a considerable level of criticism of how tax money is spent; both state and local legislatures are populated with idiots, and their work product is often no more than garbage. Many things I think need attention are getting shorted; many things I think need less attention are lavished with ridiculous amounts of money. I have ideas on these matters; I vote in accordance with those ideas when the opportunity arises. I variously vote anti-war, anti-military-buildup, anti-foreign-aid until or unless we get our own streets in order, anti-pork, anti-"homeland"-security, etc. I vote pro-infrastructure, pro-healthcare/insurance, pro-social-safety-net, and so on. There are lots of issues, and yes, you bet, spending is insane.

                    Notice the highlighted part. You just described, for example, a major portion of every developed world government's deficits. These things typically cost a lot of money, are rather poorly implemented, and aren't desired by the beneficiaries (else they'd have long ago used their own money for them). I consider those sorts of things bribes for voters to go along with all the more troublesome and corrupt spending that occurs.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:08PM (10 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:08PM (#753202) Journal

      And here's Murphy's dumbass.

      No, that is not part of the definition of the word subjective. That's not close to the definition of subjective. It's not even in the same star system as the definition of the word subjective. In fact, axiomatic reasoning is philosophically objective, and can be processed purely algorithimically.

      This person, this person right here, is why you get shit like being rated on number of lines of code written as your sole metric for success in a software company. It can't be changed, no one could possibly disagree with the accuracy of the measure, and it's numeric, there's definitely no other flaws with this plan!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:21PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:21PM (#753212)
        • An axiom is an article of faith.

          Mathematics is a game, where you try out different axioms for the fun of it; the derivations are objective, given the axioms.

          Physics is mathematics, except the goal is to find the axioms that seem to define this Universe, which is important, because we exist in this Universe.

        • You are arguing that "lines of code" is objectively not a good measure of productivity. Already, we can see that the attempt to find objective truth has improved our discussion of how to achieve some objective, namely acceptable productivity; it has made the discussion much more reasonable than before it was part of the discussion.

        • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:29PM (8 children)

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:29PM (#753217) Journal

          Man, I've gotta say, this is some distilled top-shelf dumb-person who thinks they're a genius material.

          You've got a weird psychosis where you see the word "objective" and think "god's own undeniable truth" rather than "verifiable information not dependent on context and interpretation".

          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:31PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:31PM (#753220)

            Maybe you are the one with the psychosis.

            • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:33PM (6 children)

              by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:33PM (#753221) Journal

              I mean, we were using subjective reasoning derived from our own perspectives to try to arrive at a mutual understanding of what might be trueish and you deemed that "objective" which is fucking nutso.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:38PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:38PM (#753224)

                If there's a disagreement, then one of 2 things is possible:

                • Someone has made an objective mistake in reasoning. This can be pointed out.

                • One side's axioms are not the same as the other side's axioms.

                • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:43PM (4 children)

                  by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:43PM (#753225) Journal

                  Uh, given the rather extreme assumption that all positions of each participants are deduced through first order logic from complete information.

                  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:46PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:46PM (#753227)

                    In order for something to be reasonable, it must be expressed precisely in objective terms.

                    Your denigration of the attempt to add objective terms to the discussion is what's stupid.

                    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:42PM (2 children)

                      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:42PM (#753256) Journal

                      I don't denigrate the objective. I denigrate the obsession with objectivity that misses forests for trees.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:29PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:29PM (#753290)

                        Sure, maybe I'm the guy who institutes lines of code.

                        Well, you're the guy who institutes human sacrifice.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:40AM

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:40AM (#753417) Journal

                          Ooooh, epistemology, my favorite! Can I play too?

                          Define "knowledge." How do you know anything? How do you know THAT you know a thing?

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...