Best Mac Browser?
Red
Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
TaliesinSoft
(in article <hgbp0l$reb$1...@news.albasani.net>):
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
As far as I'm concerned the best browser is Safari.
--
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- talies...@me.com
David Empson
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
The one which you like best and which works for the web sites you use.
Personally, I use Safari, with Firefox as a backup for some web sites
that don't like Safari. I haven't needed anything else yet.
As you are already using Firefox, you might prefer to stick with that.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Richard Maine
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
I use Firefox, just like I do when I happen to browse from Windows
(which I don't usually, but happens on occasion). Mostly I use it
because of AdBlockPlus (and flashBlock), which make a world of
difference; all other feature issues pale in comparison.
But really, the real "smart money" says it is a question of personal
choice instead of any one browser being the best thing for everyone.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
dorayme
wrote:
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
They are all good enough for most purposes. The smart thing to do is to
use the browser God gave... I mean Apple supplies (Safari) and see if
there is anything you don't like..., but have FF latest as backup.
Depends what you do. One guy here basically loves to hate ads and so he
gets a lot more satisfaction from FF which has better ad blocking
facilities. Depends what you do. I use all browsers all the time and do
little browsing, but for mere browsing nothing much beats Safari for
speed and sheer good looks. FF is great for a truly fabulous range of
extensions that can be added if you need them.
--
dorayme
Jochem Huhmann
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
Safari is fine. But Firefox is also very nice (not much different from
Safari) with one of the themes from http://takebacktheweb.org/ and
the Fission extension: http://mozilla.zeniko.ch/fission.html
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
salgud
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
I'd pick FF over Safari any day. You have a lot more addons that can do
everything but make popcorn, and, I think, a better interface. Like side
panels for favorites instead of having to switch to the main window, then
switch back. And the reload button is where it belongs, not in the center
where the latest release of Safari puts it.
The only advantage to Safari is that it's more stable, in my experience,
which is why I'm using it on my iMac for now. I've had a problem for a long
time that FF and every other browser I've tried won't do certain things
that browsers are supposed to do, like post messages in blogs. Something
wrong with my iMac (2 of them, actually). If I ever get the problem solved,
I'll be back with FF in a flash.
Jolly Roger
Dylan Winslow <dyl...@xmission.dot.com> wrote:
> In article <1jatp1d.zsuca71q2hcqmN%nos...@see.signature>,
> nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> > I use Firefox, just like I do when I happen to browse from Windows
> > (which I don't usually, but happens on occasion). Mostly I use it
> > because of AdBlockPlus (and flashBlock), which make a world of
> > difference; all other feature issues pale in comparison.
>
> For those who may not know, ad blocking for Safari can be had with
> Safari AdBlocker <http://sweetpproductions.com/safariadblocker/> and
> SafariBlock <http://code.google.com/p/safariblock/>, and Flash abatement
> with ClicktoFlash <http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/>.
Note that Safari AdBlocker is 64-bit, but I believe SafariBlock is not.
I believe both are based on the venerable "AdBlock Plus" extension.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Erik Richard Sørensen
Red wrote:
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
Firefox 3,5.6 http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/10208569
and with the 'partner' of Thunderbird 3.0 as the mail (and news) part
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/10207484.
Cheers, Erik Richard
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Davoud
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
What other have said -- the one that suits you best. Since they're
mostly free, you can pretty much take your choice.
Me? Safari first, Firefox second. A familiar pattern among Mac users, I
think.
Welcome to Macintosh.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Jean Smith
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
Opera
--
http://northalabamahealthcareforall.org http://healthcareforamericanow.org/
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Israeli-Settlers-Protest-
Freeze-on-West-Bank-Construction-78927547.html http://tinyurl.com/yhqf3w4
dorayme
<gotermite-387D8...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Jean Smith <gote...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <hgbp0l$reb$1...@news.albasani.net>, Red <r...@neckspam.com> wrote:
>
> > Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> >
> > Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
>
> Opera
Opera is like ... is like ... is like ... a 1957 Citroen DS ... Nice but
odd!
--
dorayme
Richard Wakeford
> Like side
> panels for favorites instead of having to switch to the main window, then
> switch back.
You don't even need that with Safari. You can assign your top nine
favourite sites with "CTRL" + "NUMBER" and you're a click away from any of
them.
Warren Oates
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
The browser that comes with your Mac is Safari, and it's pretty good,
loads real fast, is somewhat Apple-annoying. Firefox is like a comfy ol;
pair of slippers, and I always wind up back with it. Opera seems to be
stupidly designed for stupid design's sake. Chrome is interesting, and I
find myself playing around in it a lot, but it's still in its yout'.
Camino is pointless. There are some other minor browsers, hardly worth
looking at:
http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/os_x_browser_battle
(I keep all the major ones around for web design stuff. They're all
pretty compliant these days, but you never know ...)
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer
DvC
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Funny comparison. But, still, a good choice for those (like me) who use
a dial up connection. Their "Turbo" thing works not to bad.
--
DC
Jamie Kahn Genet
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
IMO it's FF for the addons, or Camino for just straight browsing, speed
and the most Mac-like experience. I use FF because I can't live without
certain addons, but it gets rather slow once you've a few dozen tabs
open - as I tend to do.
Safari is ok, but I dislike the way it auto-completes sites in the
address bar, rather than using a menu below (forcing one to delete the
auto-completed bit if you don't want it). Plus it won't automatically
open the last session's windows and tabs - you have to do it manually
ending up with the windows out of place. Also if you forget to restore
tabs during a session you have to restore Safari's prefs using Time
Machine or another backup utility to get them back. What a hassle.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:03:47 -0600, Red wrote
> (in article <hgbp0l$reb$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>
> > Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> >
> > Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
>
> As far as I'm concerned the best browser is Safari.
Funny - I'd call it the worst. It keeps forcing me to add extra steps to
everything - delete the auto-complete in the address bar when I don't
want it, restore windows and tabs manually and move the windows back
into place, etc.
Warren Oates
DvC <nos...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
> Funny comparison. But, still, a good choice for those (like me) who use
> a dial up connection. Their "Turbo" thing works not to bad.
There are some annoying issues with Turbo in Opera. It invokes the ol'
"Click to Activate" crap from Flash, for one.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091006/eolas-sues-internet/
salgud
Which works great, if you only have 9 favorites, and you like memorizing
the number associated with each of them. I have hundreds. Having 9 favs
with memorized keystrokes to access them is eighties technology. Last time
I checked, the eighties were long gone. Except on the Apple world, where
memorizing keystrokes is still de rigeur.
Red
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
Thanks for all the suggestions!
TaliesinSoft
(in article <1jawfvg.199w2eh1nvxv7kN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>):
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:03:47 -0600, Red wrote
>> (in article <hgbp0l$reb$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>>
>>> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>>>
>>> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned the best browser is Safari.
>
> Funny - I'd call it the worst. It keeps forcing me to add extra steps to
> everything - delete the auto-complete in the address bar when I don't
> want it, restore windows and tabs manually and move the windows back
> into place, etc.
>
I guess there are times when it is "different strokes"! I find the auto
complete most useful and it is trivial to enter a backspace to remove it if
not needed. I'm not following the commenta on restoring windows and tabs and
moving windows back into place. Perhaps an elaboration would help.
Richard Wakeford
> Which works great, if you only have 9 favorites, and you like memorizing
> the number associated with each of them. I have hundreds. Having 9 favs
> with memorized keystrokes to access them is eighties technology.
I obviously can live with the eighties technology as having hundreds of
favourites would take away cycling time, spending time with friends and
enjoying life. Nine suits me just fine but I can understand how needing
more can be necessary for some people as we all have different needs.
Jim Gibson
<spamb...@comcast.net> wrote:
I am not sure what Richard is talking about, because it is "COMMAND" +
number that takes you to one of the first nine URLs in your Bookmarks
Bar. CTRL + number activates Spaces.
I certainly don't know what you are complaining about because:
1. They are called "Bookmarks", not "Favorites" in Safari,
2. You don't have to memorize anything, as the URLs with keystroke
shortcuts are sitting there in your always-visible Bookmarks Bar, and
are also available from the Bookmarks > Bookmarks Bar menu (with
shortcut keys noted), and
3. While you are limited to nine keystroke URLs, there is no limit to
the number of bookmarks you can have.
--
Jim Gibson
Richard Wakeford
> I am not sure what Richard is talking about, because it is "COMMAND" +
> number
That's what I wrote and meant, but badly!
dorayme
The idea is that it is a very good and interesting browser, the world is
a better place for it existing, but that it is rather unique in its
ways. It is made with intelligence and some nice design. In the web
developing world, it is common to see such expressions as "but not in
Opera" or "only in Opera"
--
dorayme
erilar
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
I like and use both Firefox and Safari. I'd use Firefox more but I
have a gremlin somewhere that makes it act up on certain sites.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
BreadW...@fractious.net
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
I don't know from "Smart Money" but there are many of them, most of
which are free, and everyone has his or her own preferences.
Safari, of course, comes with the OS and uses Web-Kit
OmniWeb also uses Web-kit
There's FireFox, of course (which I use 99% of the time)
and Camino (Now up to 2.0.1 and which I am using right now to
see how it holds up - and which is built on the same engine as
FireFox and which has some mac-specific features, such as the
use of the Keychain)
There's Opera, too. And now Google's Chrome browser, too.
Does anyone still use iCab?
A few are dead now, such as Internet Explorer.
I don't think anyone's continuting work on Shiira, either.
Sunrise looks promising, too. (Also web-kit)
FWIW, the biggest draw for me to Firefox is Adblock+ and
Flashblock.
There are times when a certain page won't behave in it,
though, and in almost every case, Safari made it work.
Similarly, there are pages I've hit in Safari which
failed and only worked in FireFox. So you might as well
have both at the ready.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
BreadW...@fractious.net
> not needed. I'm not following the commenta on restoring windows and tabs and
> moving windows back into place. Perhaps an elaboration would help.
Firefox and Camino (and OmniWeb) have the ability to remember
your window/tab set when you quit (or when the browser blows up).
When you restart the browser, it "remembers where you were" in
the sense that it'll try to reopen all those windows and tabs
as they were when you last were there.
I find it very helpful.
Tom Stiller
BreadW...@fractious.net wrote:
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> writes:
>
> > not needed. I'm not following the commenta on restoring windows and tabs
> > and
> > moving windows back into place. Perhaps an elaboration would help.
>
> Firefox and Camino (and OmniWeb) have the ability to remember
> your window/tab set when you quit (or when the browser blows up).
> When you restart the browser, it "remembers where you were" in
> the sense that it'll try to reopen all those windows and tabs
> as they were when you last were there.
>
> I find it very helpful.
Safari has a History item to Reopen All Windows from Last Session. it's
just not automatic.
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Nico Bartels
<r...@neckspam.com> wrote:
>Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
If you are used to Firefox, why not use in on your Mac also?
I use Firefox on three computers, one Windows XP, one iMac (OsX), one
Linux (Ubuntu).
Nico
--
Disclaimer: the above is the author's personal opinion and is not
the opinion or policy of his employer or of the little green men
that have been following him all day.
dorayme
BreadW...@fractious.net wrote:
> Does anyone still use iCab?
I do.
--
dorayme
erilar
Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Safari has a History item to Reopen All Windows from Last Session. it's
> just not automatic.
And you can run down it and just pick out the spot you want, which is
nice.
queries0
> In article <tom_stiller-E4C131.18224017122...@news.individual.net>,
> Tom Stiller <tom_stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Safari has a History item to Reopen All Windows from Last Session. it's
> > just not automatic.
>
> And you can run down it and just pick out the spot you want, which is
> nice.
>
> --
> Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
>
> http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
I alternate between Opera, Camino, and Conkeror. Camino is, by far,
the most reliable, though for my purposes both Opera and Conkeror have
advantages
Wes Groleau
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:52:44 -0600, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
>> everything - delete the auto-complete in the address bar when I don't
>> want it, restore windows and tabs manually and move the windows back
>> into place, etc.
>
> I guess there are times when it is "different strokes"! I find the auto
> complete most useful and it is trivial to enter a backspace to remove it if
Isn't it also trivial to turn off auto-completion ?
I could check, but as a FireFox user, too lazy.
--
Wes Groleau
Words of the Wild Wes
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW
Clive Sinclair
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
The best browser for you is the one you like the best. Install them all,
try them and stick with the one YOU like the best.
I love Safari. Technically it might not be the best and Tom, Dick and
Harry might hate it, but it's the best for ME.
I've tried Firefox, Camino, Omniweb, Safari, Opera, Chrome, but stick
with Safari. I keep Firefox as a backup because one site I use once a
month does not like Safari.
My least favourites (imo) Opera and Omniweb - too complicated simply for
browsing
--
Clive
We don't die, we just stop paying taxes.
Howard Brazee
>I love Safari. Technically it might not be the best and Tom, Dick and
>Harry might hate it, but it's the best for ME.
It doesn't work the way I do, but that's a style thing. However
some differences apply to all:
One advantage I find with Firefox (with X-marks), and with Opera is
that I can keep my bookmarks automatically synchronized between my Mac
at home and my Windows machine at work.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Jamie Kahn Genet
> TaliesinSoft wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:52:44 -0600, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
> >> Funny - I'd call it the worst. [Safari] keeps forcing me to add extra
> >> steps to everything - delete the auto-complete in the address bar when
> >> I don't want it, restore windows and tabs manually and move the windows
> >> back into place, etc.
> >
> > I guess there are times when it is "different strokes"! I find the auto
> > complete most useful and it is trivial to enter a backspace to remove it if
>
> Isn't it also trivial to turn off auto-completion ?
>
> I could check, but as a FireFox user, too lazy.
I don't want it off in Safari, just out of the way in a dropdown menu as
with every other browser I use.
Jamie Kahn Genet
If I forget to close or have already opened windows tabs I wish to keep,
and then open windows and tabs from the previous session (as I have to
do manually in Safari), then the restored windows are not opened in the
exact same places, but instead are offset from the current window. Plus
I'm faced with having to integrate new windows and tabs into the
restored set (or deal with a mess).
Either way it creates extra steps, even if it's only the closing of the
new window upon starting Safari and the restoring of windows and tabs.
That's a minimum of two extra steps I don't have to take in other
browsers.
Plus it's a damn hassle to have to restore
~/Library/Safari/LastSession.plist from my backups every time I open
Safari and forget to restore the last session before closing it.
Now I grant you all that and having to forward delete often unwanted
auto-completion are small potatoes, but it adds up and in the end it's
just easier to use a browser like Camino (if I don't care about
Firefox's wealth of addons) which is extremely Mac-like and works in a
more logical manner, IMO. i.e. auto-completion in a dropdown menu,
automatic saving and restoration of the last session (or not if you so
desire) with window positions unchanged.
As it happens I use Firefox instead for it's addons and the same logical
behaviour as Camino (and I think almost every other popular browser),
but wish I were using Camino because it's more Mac-like and streamlined.
Wes Groleau
> Plus it's a damn hassle to have to restore
> ~/Library/Safari/LastSession.plist from my backups every time I open
> Safari and forget to restore the last session before closing it.
I had a problem with Dock not liking NFS-mounted home directories.
Fixed by saving a master copy of the Dock's plist, and having a
cron job copy it in every twenty minutes.
--
Wes Groleau
Change is inevitable.
Liberals need to learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "good."
Conservatives should learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "bad."
-- WWG
boneless
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>>
>> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
It depends on what you want. I use FireFox primarily on my Mac. If
it weren't for the Xmarks plug-in I would switch to Opera.
TaliesinSoft
[from the opening posting in this thread]
>> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>>
>> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
To me this is like saying "I just got my driver's license. Which car should I
buy?" The "which browser" question is repeatedly asked in these discussions
and repeatedly there are variant statements of choice. What it all, at least
in my opinion, boils down to is to give the different browsers each a look
and then make your choice based upon your own reactions.
David Blangstrup
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in
filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
- David
--
L�s min blog
http://blangstrup.info
Warren Oates
David Blangstrup <david.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in
> filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
> - David
Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm
assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the
free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them
twice.
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer
salgud
> In article <4b30b0f0$0$282$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> David Blangstrup <david.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in
>> filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
>> - David
>
> Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm
> assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the
> free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them
> twice.
More clues: Doesn't like Germans or woody beets
Jamie Kahn Genet
However Firefox is probably safe advice in any circumstances. You really
can't go wrong with it. Sure browsers like Camino are more streamlined
and Mac-like than FF, but even using FF without any addons and taking no
advantage of it's functionality, it's still a very decent browser.
Anyway - my perfect browser would be FF with Camino's Mac-ishness and
Safari's speed. Till then I'll live with FF's clunkiness.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <4b30b0f0$0$282$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> David Blangstrup <david.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in
> > filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
> > - David
>
> Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm
> assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the
> free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them
> twice.
I actually paid for iCab, but you get the same features regardless. What
paying _does_ do is make available beta versions and a warm glow inside
you, knowing you've supported a hardworking developer instead of being a
jackass who wants everything for nothing. No wonder the German's have
better healthcare.
Nick Naym
spamb...@comcast.net wrote on 12/22/09 10:44 AM:
...
...
>
> More clues: Doesn't like Germans or woody beets
"Doesn't like woody beets" is a prime candidate for a chiasmus. ;)
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
Nick Naym
Genet at jam...@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
>... No wonder the German's have
> better healthcare.
Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
Robert Haar
> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
> Genet at jam...@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
>
>> ... No wonder the German's have
>> better healthcare.
>
> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
world.
TaliesinSoft
<C75680EA.481FEC%bob...@me.com>):
> On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
[responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this
thread]
>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
>
> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
> world.
What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the
world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is
obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would
think that the overall position of health care in the United States would
likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better
care of themselves.
Kurt Ullman
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
You also have an impact on infant mortality from the US's
world-leading incidence of premature birth from the US's world-leading
incidence of teenage pregnancies. You also have the fact that there is a
much greater impact on life expectancy from the 16 y/o shot during a
drive by than keeping an old geezer alive for a couple extra years.
If I ever win the lottery one of the first things I am going is to
give a grant to some school of Public Health to get some information on
how we look on major indicators of healthcare after controlling for
societally-induced things that are outside the purview of medicine.
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
Paul Sture
salgud <spamb...@comcast.net> wrote:
Living where I do, I get spam in German. The latest batch of diet pill
spams have subject lines claiming that "Germans are fat"*, which I find
rather amusing as they are aimed at the wrong country. That translates
as them sending Brits the message that Americans are fat.
* Spam merchants don't just write lousy English. They write lousy German
too.
:-)
--
Paul Sture
dorayme
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <4b30b0f0$0$282$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> David Blangstrup <david.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in
> > filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
> > - David
>
> Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm
> assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the
> free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them
> twice.
To be fair, it is a very nice shareware browser, it costs $20! The face
alone (with attendant reports on the HTML and CSS) is worth this! One
click and you get valuable info. As for the limitations, as far as I
know, just the annoying logo pop up that needs to be clicked away...? It
is Macishly Mac. There is a lot of stuff built in that other browsers
have to mess about to get...
To be unfair, a little something I know and tell to selected people only:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/jokes/franfurtAirport.html>
--
dorayme
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
> Genet at jam...@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
>
> >... No wonder the German's have
> > better healthcare.
>
> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
What about sheep?
--
dorayme
Ed H.
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
And as I recall, iCab had a cutting edge feature set since its infancy
and was fast with a very small foot print. For several years it lagged
behind, mostly in CSS support , I think, and it tended to hang on many
web sites, so I had stopped using it. But with version 4, it seems to
again be a first-class browser.
I use primarily Firefox, sometimes Safari, but also keep iCab, Camino,
Chrome and Shirra around and use them occasionally. Bottom line, there
is a plethora of browsers available for Mac users today and all of them
are pretty nice browsers.
Ed H.
--
Ed H.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
> Genet at jam...@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
>
> >... No wonder the German's have
> > better healthcare.
>
> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
LOL - true. Hell, even here in NZ we do a better job - and our system is
far from perfect. Certainly not as good as some European countries.
dorayme
"Ed H." <fa...@notreal.net> wrote:
You speak the truth Ed!
--
dorayme
Su-Z-Q
> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would
> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would
> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better
> care of themselves.
First we have a plethora of restaurants and all-you-can-eat buffets, sporting
very tempting, highly-fattening, vitamin-deficient food.
Next, we have a sedentary populace that sits at the computer or TV, while hiring
out their yardwork and other physical tasks, and we even removed physical
activity from the schools.
Then we decriminalized being overweight and categorized it as normal, genetic,
or hormonal.
Obesity has exceeded smoking as a cause of death. It's killing us and all people
think about is how to pay for their medical care and medications....medications
usually designed to treat problems associated with obesity--such as cholesterol,
blood pressure, impotency, heart disease, cancer and blood sugar.
We are simply NOT facing the problem head-on.
The REAL question to answer on a daily basis is this:
---> Do I want to live, or do I want to die? <---
If we truly WANT to live, then we CAN do what is needed.
A reasonable diet and regular exercise is just not as much FUN, is it?
It's time to grow up and act like adults.
--
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain
Howard Brazee
>First we have a plethora of restaurants and all-you-can-eat buffets, sporting
>very tempting, highly-fattening, vitamin-deficient food.
The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right
- an issue that has a large nurture aspect, but evidence shows to be
primarily genetic, and one that they feel a Righteous need to "cure".
Warren Oates
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> I actually paid for iCab, but you get the same features regardless. What
> paying _does_ do is make available beta versions and a warm glow inside
> you, knowing you've supported a hardworking developer instead of being a
> jackass who wants everything for nothing. No wonder the German's have
> better healthcare.
Better than where?
And I get a warm glow from spending my money on good Scotch instead of a
2nd rate browser. Nice warm glow.
TaliesinSoft
<8i44j55cj89200laf...@4ax.com>):
> The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right -
> an issue that has a large nurture aspect, but evidence shows to be
> primarily genetic, and one that they feel a Righteous need to "cure".
Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the
massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) that
has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that people
tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally
completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of children,
their parents or guardians.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > I actually paid for iCab, but you get the same features regardless. What
> > paying _does_ do is make available beta versions and a warm glow inside
> > you, knowing you've supported a hardworking developer instead of being a
> > jackass who wants everything for nothing. No wonder the German's have
> > better healthcare.
>
> Better than where?
Do you remember your post?
> And I get a warm glow from spending my money on good Scotch instead of a
> 2nd rate browser. Nice warm glow.
I guess drinking helps you forget being a jerk. You don't like iCab,
don't use it. Clearly you knew nothing about the app you were putting
down, which makes your comments even sillier.
Jamie Kahn Genet
Indeed - the genetic element is (massive simplification here) we've
evolved so our bodies work best with certain foods and exercise, and to
pile on the fat in good times in preperation for the bad times.
Thus we do badly when we eat too much crap and do bugger all exercise.
Hardly surprising, but that's humans for ya.
Howard Brazee
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>>... No wonder the German's have
>> better healthcare.
>
>Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
Not nearly. Even in the most Liberal measurements, the U.S. is in
the top 20, and that is marking the U.S. down considerably for the
cost of our health care, which really should be measured separately.
Old folk in the U.S. have better care than most advanced countries. We
have more uninsured, worse pre-natal care and much more expensive
paperwork.
The new program won't make the paperwork costs drop, as it is designed
to make sure the medical industry will still get rich.
But we will continue to lead the world in production of important
drugs designed to combat erectile dysfunction.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right -
>> an issue that has a large nurture aspect, but evidence shows to be
>> primarily genetic, and one that they feel a Righteous need to "cure".
>
>Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the
>massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) that
>has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that people
>tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally
>completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of children,
>their parents or guardians.
While I can still point out the twins studies that seem to always show
separated at birth twins to be the same weight, and to expensive
programs designed to get kids trim, but failed - I will use the same
argument that I use with homosexuality, which is "why should we
care?". It doesn't hurt us.
Of course there is a counter argument that it costs us all in medical
care costs. But so does every activity that has an element of
danger. Jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands" is my idea of horror.
Bill who putters
Just Read "Good Calories Bad Calories" and find this video a good
companion to addressing some of the heath issues in the last 30 years.
It is 1.5 hrs long. I saved it.
Bill
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>
--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM deasl with Sugars
dorayme
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right
With the small difference that the one is not so bad for men's health
whereas the other is both corrosive to the people themselves and the
society at large (no pun intended).
--
dorayme
dorayme
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the
> massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) that
> has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that people
> tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally
> completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of children,
> their parents or guardians.
You can't admit that that there is a big genetic factor and in the same
breath talk about how so "completely" something is under the control of
someone.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> While I can still point out the twins studies that seem to always show
> separated at birth twins to be the same weight, and to expensive
> programs designed to get kids trim, but failed - I will use the same
> argument that I use with homosexuality, which is "why should we
> care?". It doesn't hurt us.
Howard, are you serious? Get out more, mate and visit a general
hospital, go visit 50 doctors and ask them about their patients...
--
dorayme
Warren Oates
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> Do you remember your post?
>
> > And I get a warm glow from spending my money on good Scotch instead of a
> > 2nd rate browser. Nice warm glow.
>
> I guess drinking helps you forget being a jerk. You don't like iCab,
> don't use it. Clearly you knew nothing about the app you were putting
> down, which makes your comments even sillier.
Krauts don't have better health care than where I live. I used iCab, and
it sucked. I don't see the point of Camino, either, but it's okay as a
browser, it's just a reworking of FF. Nice warm glow.
John McWilliams
> The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right
> - an issue that has a large nurture aspect, but evidence shows to be
> primarily genetic, and one that they feel a Righteous need to "cure".
There's an epidemic of homosexuality??
Both have a positive aspect in that they tend to limit population
growth, though the obese tend to propagate before they expire.
--
john mcwilliams
D.F. Manno
> Given that whether or not one is
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual
Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because there's a lot of
evidence for the opposite proposition.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would
have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His
existence. (Bertrand Russell)
Wes Groleau
>>> better healthcare.
>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
>
> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
> world.
A recent National Geographic contained a graphic showing many different
countries. On the left was the country's average per capita annual
expense on health care. On the left was life expectancy. To help
the viewer, each country's to points were connected by a straight line.
Two countries' lines where red, the rest were green. I do not know
what that means. One of those was México, the other was USA. Both were
close to the average for life expectancy.
México's per capita expense was the lowest; USA's was the highest.
--
Wes Groleau
Learning to see the forest instead of the trees.
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=75
Wes Groleau
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
>> Given that whether or not one is
>> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual
>
> Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because there's a lot of
> evidence for the opposite proposition.
Much of that evidence is misleading. There are genetic reasons
that account for some obesity, but even in most of those cases
it is possible (though perhaps _very_ uncomfortable) to control
the weight by controlling diet.
Another factor that clouds the issue are the falsehoods about
nutrition that have been pushed on us for decades--even though
the evidence against them was already known to researchers who
for some reason weren't protesting.
--
Wes Groleau
Elevated pronunciation
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=994
Wes Groleau
> [summary] México and USA--both were
> close to the average for life expectancy.
>
> was the lowest; USA's was the highest.
In keeping with other posts in this thread,
let me speculate:
Could it have something to do with the fact
that most Mexicans have to get a lot more exercise
than most Americans just to pay the bills?
Could it have something to do with the fact
that most Mexicans can't afford the amount
of food that is making their northern neighbors
so fat?
Could it have something to do with the fact
that most Mexicans can't afford the _kind_
of food that is harming the health of those
northern neighbors?
--
Wes Groleau
Angry disruption in class
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1455
Linda Hungerford
> In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B0102...@News.Individual.NET>,
>
> TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@me.com> wrote:
><<>>
> Then we decriminalized being overweight <<snipped>>
ok, you will have to educate me as to when it has been a crime to be
obese.
Linda H.
Nick Naym
at talies...@me.com wrote on 12/22/09 2:13 PM:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article
> <C75680EA.481FEC%bob...@me.com>):
>
>> On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this
> thread]
>
>>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
>>
>> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
>> world.
>
> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the
> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would
> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would
> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better
> care of themselves.
That's _health_ -- a different issue than health _care_. The latter is a
service which many -- if not most -- (developed) countries consider an
essential service, akin to police, fire, sanitation, etc. In the US, it's
treated as an unregulated market, driven solely by shareholder profit, not
social need. IMNSHO, if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated --
free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and
regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why don't we
farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector?
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 12/22/09 4:26 PM:
You should be the Aussie poster boy for needed improvements in that
country's mental-health treatment and delivery system.
Nick Naym
Genet at jam...@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 8:10 PM:
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
>> Genet at jam...@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
>>
>>> ... No wonder the German's have
>>> better healthcare.
>>
>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
>
> LOL - true. Hell, even here in NZ we do a better job - and our system is
> far from perfect. Certainly not as good as some European countries.
It's driven by a right-wing, knee-jerk fear reaction to anything with the
word "social" in it (e.g., social democracy, social security, social
services, etc.). Back in the 1950s/1960s, the wingnuts mounted opposition
against local government plans to fluoridate the water supplies. Back then
it wasn't because it was just another example of "creeping socialism"; it
was worse than that: It was a "communist-sponsored plot" to "undermine
public health."
My fellow Americans can be world-class assholes. The right-wing wingnuts
_are_ world-class assholes.
Nick Naym
how...@brazee.net wrote on 12/23/09 12:14 PM:
...
...
>
> The new program won't make the paperwork costs drop, as it is designed
> to make sure the medical industry will still get rich.
>
> But we will continue to lead the world in production of important
> drugs designed to combat erectile dysfunction.
No doubt due, in part, to the fact that most of our politicians are
hard-ons.
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 12/23/09 2:55 PM:
Including your poor sheep?
erilar
> To be unfair, a little something I know and tell to selected people only:
>
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/jokes/franfurtAirport.html>
>
Frankfurt has a k.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the
> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would
> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would
> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better
> care of themselves.
And there are other countries developing obesity problems now, too 8-)
However, despite the extremely good health care available to those who
can afford it here in the US, the enormous number of people who can't
puts us to shame compared to other developed countries.
erilar
Paul Sture <paul....@sture.ch> wrote:
> Living where I do, I get spam in German.
I do, too, but it's not where I live that does it, I suspect, but the
fact that I visit German sites and have German corespondents. My spam
filter catches most of it, but a funny one did get through a while
back--a Nigerian scam in German as bad as the ones in English 8-)
Howard Brazee
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>In keeping with other posts in this thread,
>let me speculate:
>
>Could it have something to do with the fact
>that most Mexicans have to get a lot more exercise
>than most Americans just to pay the bills?
Although it is interesting to speculate about this in conjunction to
claims about USAmericans being obese.
dorayme
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-451...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > To be unfair, a little something I know and tell to selected people only:
> >
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/jokes/franfurtAirport.html>
> >
>
> Frankfurt has a k.
Thank you. The heading was a typo...
--
dorayme
TaliesinSoft
<doraymeRidThis-F02...@news.albasani.net>):
But I stated "although there is a genetic aspect" not "a big genetic factor".
I find difficult to associate the significant increase in obesity, especially
in the United States, with genetic factors and not just poor management of
one's physical self.
--
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- talies...@me.com
Mark Conrad
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated --
> free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and
> regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why
> don't we farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector?
Regulating it presents another huge problem.
We could easily make health care much worse by
picking the wrong people to regulate it.
What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?
Mark-
dorayme
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It
is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and
indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions
of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all
have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really
fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who
don't lack, then it is a big factor...
--
dorayme
Jamie Kahn Genet
I wouldn't give them any ideas, IIWY.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
26
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Why not? There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the
indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but
under the control none the less. The genetic component is also a
TENDENCY toward obesity. What you take in and how much exercise you do
is very much under a person's control. Haven't yet seen any kind of
study indicating otherwise.
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
26
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C756766F...@News.Individual.NET>,
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > Given that whether or not one is
> > obese is something almost completely under control of the individual
>
> Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because there's a lot of
> evidence for the opposite proposition.
Haven't seen anything yet that says genetics requires one to over eat
and/or not exercise. There is plenty of genetic (and evolutionary for
that matter) evidence that the tendency toward obesity may be related in
that they might process store excess nutrition differently. But nothing
I have seen indicates that there is a genetic imperative to shovel
supersized Happy meals down one's throat instead of fruits and
vegetables.
dorayme
26 <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-F02...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <0001HW.C757878F...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the
> > > massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also)
> > > that
> > > has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that
> > > people
> > > tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally
> > > completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of
> > > children,
> > > their parents or guardians.
> >
> > You can't admit that that there is a big genetic factor and in the same
> > breath talk about how so "completely" something is under the control of
> > someone.
>
> Why not?
Because if you are thinking the genetic factor is significant, this puts
pressure on the folks with it to exercise *more control* than those
without the genetic factor. Food is a big part of normal daily living
and pleasure (it is not really something extra to life). You cannot at
the same time be comfortable about the control while being impressed by
the genetics. It is a logical matter.
> There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the
> indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but
> under the control none the less. The genetic component is also a
> TENDENCY toward obesity. What you take in and how much exercise you do
> is very much under a person's control. Haven't yet seen any kind of
> study indicating otherwise.
It is not the studies you should be concentrating on but the logical
relations here.
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
ae...@mostly.invalid wrote on 12/23/09 11:58 PM:
What??
> What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?
>
Level the freakin' playing field: Require the Industry to abide by the same
rules and regulations that virtually every other industry in this country is
subject to. IOW, remove the "antitrust exemption" that the Industry enjoys.
<sheesh>
Jochem Huhmann
> It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It
> is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and
> indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions
> of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all
> have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really
> fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who
> don't lack, then it is a big factor...
Still, this is all semantics. If there are genetic factors that lead
people to look for happiness and satisfaction in eating (and generally
consuming) and other genetic factors that make them passive and lazy,
does this mean there is a genetic factor for being overweight?
I think a real genetic factor would be if it would lead to people eating
and move around as much as others and still gain much more weight.
I have no doubt that there is a strong tendency for humans to enjoy
eating and to shun labor. This can be neutralized by having learned to
enjoy *doing* things instead of consuming things and also to enjoy
things that involve effort and moving around. Reducing this to "diet"
and "exercising" is not a solution, but part of the problem. Seeking
happiness in consuming and looking for security in comfort is very much
a cultural thing. That the age of the consumer and the age of the
machines is the age of the overweight is not really surprising.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Nick Naym
Genet at jam...@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/24/09 1:21 AM:
The irony of it all is that many police, fire, sanitation, etc. employees
are politically quite conservative (but not, of course, when it comes to the
economics of the markets for the services that _they_ provide).
dorayme
wrote:
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
> > It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It
> > is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and
> > indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions
> > of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all
> > have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really
> > fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who
> > don't lack, then it is a big factor...
>
> Still, this is all semantics. If there are genetic factors that lead
> people to look for happiness and satisfaction in eating (and generally
> consuming) and other genetic factors that make them passive and lazy,
> does this mean there is a genetic factor for being overweight?
>
Semantics are an important part of any argument. Imagine if all the
words we are using now meant different things; the argument would be
quite different. it might be about sheep or something. So that is the
first point.
The second is that, given what we mean by our words, is it the case that
there is tension between admitting a genetic factor that makes it
difficult to control some activity and saying that those with that
genetic factor have less control. The answer seems plain enough to me in
this particular case, it is yes.
The main point is that people with genetic factors to obesity need much
more self control. So telling them to exercise it is to tell them to do
something that is the more difficult, the more the genetic factor is
big. There is a link and a tension here.
> I think a real genetic factor would be if it would lead to people eating
> and move around as much as others and still gain much more weight.
>
That is not the crucial test, it is a simple fact that by and large, if
people of the same weight eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the
same, they will differ not that much. There are probably interesting
differences but they would not be gross.
--
dorayme
Kurt Ullman
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Because if you are thinking the genetic factor is significant, this puts
> pressure on the folks with it to exercise *more control* than those
> without the genetic factor. Food is a big part of normal daily living
> and pleasure (it is not really something extra to life). You cannot at
> the same time be comfortable about the control while being impressed by
> the genetics. It is a logical matter.
I see no problem with the logic. The hardness of the control is
beside the point, it is the that it CAN be done. Heck I have that
problem being a yo-yo dieter. When people ask me how much I have lost,
it is probably 900 or more pounds. But the fact remains that the upward
yo is ALWAYS accompanied by my actions of starting to graze again,
deciding I can't get around to exercising, etc.
>
> > There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the
> > indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but
> > under the control none the less. The genetic component is also a
> > TENDENCY toward obesity. What you take in and how much exercise you do
> > is very much under a person's control. Haven't yet seen any kind of
> > study indicating otherwise.
>
> It is not the studies you should be concentrating on but the logical
> relations here.
The logical relations don't exist, as my own experience shows.