RANDOM IMAGES #34

 

ARE THERE ANY SECURE BROWSERS?

In a word, NO, not really! They are all gathering your data to some extent.

But firstly there is probably not even much point worrying about browser security if you are using Windows 10, and even more so, Windows 11, or Google, or Apple, because they are all full blown spyware. And around 98% of people are! 

Even just focusing on desktop users and leaving out the much bigger mobile market, around 95% of people are using a spyware operating system of some sort on their PC or laptop. Windows 7 which I am still using everyday, is spyware too, just not quite as full on as Win 10. 

https://sift666.blogspot.com/2023/12/i-use-windows-7.html

Because I'm swapping between Windows 7 and Linux Mint, and using three different browsers on each operating system, I've become a bit obsessed with browsers lately.

https://sift666.blogspot.com/2024/06/why-i-use-the-waterfox-browser.html

WHY SO MANY? – On Linux Mint Firefox is my default everyday browser, Vervaldi is for my first level alt accounts and any sites that work better on a Chromium based browser, and Floorp (a Japanese Firefox fork designed for privacy) is for my second level alt accounts and for when I'm attempting to be a bit more anon online.

I find it quicker to keep logged in to my different accounts on different browsers because it's much faster to open a browser than to log out and then back in to another account. 

My strange habit of using multiple alt accounts mostly dates back to when I was posting on multiple blockchain and social media platforms, and wanted to be able to jump back and forth between my alt accounts really quickly - to the point on occasion of appearing to have an argument with myself :) - These days I have given up using most of them and am mainly just using one account on Facebook of all places!

Almost all popular browsers are based on Chromium except for Firefox, and the Firefox forks like Waterfox, Floorp, & Librefox. I don't really like Chromium based browsers on the whole, and regard them all as spyware. 

Chrome is the worst for spying by a country mile, but of course it's also the most popular. My pick of the Chromium browsers is Vivaldi and it's the only one I actually like. I use Vivaldi as my default on my Android tablet. It has a lot of good features and if I used Windows 10 I'd probably also use it there as my default browser.

Out of the Firefox based browsers, Firefox itself is the slowest and the least secure, but it is the default browser on Linux Mint, where it works perfectly, and it's security can be improved by changing some of the settings.

Waterfox is probably the least secure of the popular Firefox forks, because it's now owned by an advertising agency, but it's the only browser I've found that runs well on both Windows 7 and Linux. Neither Librefox or Floorp will install on Windows 7, so that is why I use Waterfox as my default on Win 7. Waterfox still works on Windows 7 while Firefox itself seems to be getting gradually worse.

https://sift666.blogspot.com/2024/06/why-i-use-the-waterfox-browser.html

FINGERPRINTING – This is more insidious than cookies, which can be turned off. 

Tracking has moved toward browser fingerprinting while we are still being distracted by cookies. The idea behind fingerprinting is to collect information about the browser and its environment for the purpose of identification. This includes the browser type and version, operating system, language, time zone, active plugins, installed fonts, screen resolution, CPU class, device memory and various other settings. The attributes become the users fingerprint.

These fingerprints are unique in the majority of cases. You can see your own fingerprint at amiunique.org. If a browser fingerprint happens to be non-unique, it can be made unique by combining it with the device’s IP address. In other words, browser fingerprints are capable of identifying users even when cookies are turned off.

Fingerprinting is actually remarkably easy to do - here is mine:

 

DOLLYWOOD

Country music icon Dolly Parton made headlines in November and December 2020 when a vaccine she helped fund, developed by pharmaceutical company Moderna, became one of the first to prove promising in the fight against the devastating COVID-19 pandemic.

The headlines kicked up discussion that appears periodically online about Parton's personal life, namely the singer-songwriter's marriage to a husband who prefers to stay out of the spotlight. Parton said in a November 2020 interview with Entertainment Tonight that a lot of people have asked her over the years whether her husband, Carl Dean, is even real.

THE MOST GHASTLY MUSIC VIDEO EVER MADE

 Now I don't make this claim lightly - there are thousands of really bad music videos - but this one is not "bad" it is so horrendous it is actually good, a masterpiece of being terrible.

"Come To Daddy" by Aphex Twin combines some of the most horrible "music" ever recorded with a video so creepy it makes all other attempts at doing creepy, dark, or even satanic music videos look like Disney movies, they are all just a bunch of try hard satanic references hiding under a facade of being children's cartoons.

This video on the other hand is NASTY, to the extent that I find it really quite hard to watch for more than a minute or two, and even with the sound off it's still quite disturbing. But it's a really good example of whatever it is - in fact I'm pretty sure it's the best example of this sort of thing. The first 1:20 with no sound is morbidly fascinating but then the "music" kicks in and things get increasingly deranged from that point on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ827lkktYs

There are only two channels on the AI mind programming YouTube platform that I have any interest in - Ozzy Man who is pretty funny sometimes, and Trash Theory who does some really interesting music documentaries.

This is the Trash Theory doco about Aphex Twin that lead to me revisiting the horrible "Come To Daddy" video again - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOUvcVc14L4

LEARNING TO LOVE FACEBOOK

I used to get really pissed off with Facebook but then I thought, OK it's a controlled platform, but it works better than any other social media platform, what can I do on it? - So I learned how to spell like a retared and take more care about what images I posted, and I've been having a good time on it this year. It's the only social media I'm still using now which saves time too!

  

 

 

MY LOVE HATE RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNOLOGY

This year I have cut right back on sending emails because we all seem to be in a constant state of information overload, and also my email systems took a real pounding last year, so I ending up ditching all my old accounts and shifted to only using Proton Mail. 

It's all a bit primitive compared to the email set up I used to have, but my new account is fairly anon with no real history, so I'm not getting 600 spam emails a day. Yes, my combined inbox really did get that much spam last year! Thankfully I'm getting pretty much no spam any more.

When I gave up using cell phones 22 years ago it was no big deal, but back in 2002 they weren't considered all that essential. These days refusing to use a cell phone is seen as pretty odd, but I think they are ghastly things. I actually do have one, and although I don't generally look at it, I do rack up about two minutes a month on it.

This year has been a year of letting go of things, especially computer stuff. As well as moving over to Proton Mail, at the end of last year I stopped using my WordPress blog www.frot.co.nz

It's still there as an archive but I have now switched to a new smaller blog www.sift.co.nz

Here is a post about that swap over: The end of an era

And I also quit using all social media except Facebook where I still have several accounts to circumvent any censorship:



Who on earth is Greg Anderson and why is he still on Facebook? - As recently as 2023 I was regularly using five social media platforms, but like any addiction, I wasn’t exactly happy about it, so I finally gave up the lot, and went cold turkey for a month. At the end of the month I was only too pleased to have seen the arse end of four of them, but surprisingly, (and yes, I know it’s deep state), the only one I missed was Facebook.

I am a real person, but I update my online identities more often than Firefox changes versions, so I have to use a spreadsheet to remember them all. What I’m looking for on FB is interesting content from like minded people. If you have also come to the conclusion that nearly everything we have been programmed to believe is a lie, then we may be on the same page.

I live in Wellington, New Zealand, which I suspect is one of the most libtard cities in the entire world, and have offended more people online over the past two decades than I can shake a stick at. If you are a sensitive petal we are probably not on the same page. But I don’t take all this stuff super seriously on FB, and am more likely to briefly mock earnest woketards than engage in long winded disagreements with them.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100054208008403 

Fluoridation is not about children’s teeth

Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth,” it is about industry getting rid of its hazardous waste at a profit, instead of having to pay a fortune to dispose of it.

Only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water; however, that type of fluoride has never been used for fluoridation. Instead what is used over 90 percent of the time are silicofluorides, which are 85 times more toxic than calcium fluoride.They are non-biodegradable, hazardous waste products that come straight from the pollution scrubbers of big industries. 

If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2

The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3

On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4

The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5

Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5

The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6
From the day the Public Health Service completed their original 10-year Newburgh and Kingston fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly claimed that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by as much as 60 to 70 percent.

Adding fluoride to the water has never prevented tooth decay, it merely delays it, by provoking a genetic malfunction that causes teeth to erupt later than normal. This delay makes it possible to read the statistics incorrectly without lying. Proponents count teeth that have not yet erupted as “no decay.” Therefore, they claimed that the fluoridated Newburgh children age 6 had 100 percent less tooth decay; by age 7, 100 percent less; by age 8, 67 percent less; age 9, 50 percent less; and by age 10, 40 percent less.

Obviously, the only reduction that really counted was the 40 percent by age 10, but the Public Health Service totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70 percent.”

Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30, 20, 0, and eventually the children drinking fluoridated water had more cavities–not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. In other words, this “65 percent less dental decay” is just a statistical illusion. It never happened!7

EPA scientists recently concluded, after studying all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylatically useless. . . substance.” They felt there should be “an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.” Unfortunately, the management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue.8

There is less tooth decay in the nation as a whole today than there used to be, but decay rates have also dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States and in Europe where fluoridation of water is rare. The Pasteur Institute and the Nobel Institute have already caused fluoride to be banned in their countries (France and Sweden). In fact, most developed countries have banned, stopped or rejected fluoridation.9

Several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher rather than lower rates of caries. There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be “simply not warranted by available evidence.”10In fact, dentists make 17 percent more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.11 There are no savings.

Meanwhile, the incidence of dental fluorosis has skyrocketed. It is not just a “cosmetic effect.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary says: “Fluorosis is poisoning by fluorides.” Today, in North America, there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15 percent to 65 percent in fluoridated areas and 5 percent to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas.12 African-American children experience twice the rate of dental fluorosis as white children and it tends to be more severe.13 The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities) is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population.
 

A 1995 American Dental Association (ADA) chart shows that a certain fluoride drug should not be given to children under six months of age. It also shows that if fluoride is put into water, all children under six years of age will be getting an overdose.14

The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Who has the right to put a prescription drug in the water supply where there can be no control of dosage? People who drink a lot of water, like diabetics and athletes, will be overdosed, and studies have proven that 1 percent of the people are allergic to fluoridated water. Today, an unusual number of children in non-fluoridated areas are developing dental fluorosis!

Even if fluoride were good for teeth, shouldn’t the water be as safe as possible for everyone? Why should those who are against it be forced to drink it? What has happened to “Freedom of Choice?” We all know that fluoride is not “just one of forty chemicals used to treat water,” it is the only chemical added to treat the people! It is compulsory medication, which is unconstitutional. There are other alternatives that do not infringe on the rights of all consumers to choose their own form of medication.16

When the people have been given a chance to vote on this issue, more often than not, they have voted “no.” In the majority of cases, nationwide, it is the local city council that has forced it on the people. Fluoride promoters find it much easier to convince a few city council members than the general public. Here in America, we shouldn’t have to fight to keep a hazardous waste out of our water supply!

Bottom line: There are no benefits to fluoridation. We actually pay the phosphate fertilizer industries for their crude hazardous waste. Fluoridation contributes to many health problems and hither dental bills, and causes more (not less) suffering. Only big business wins with fluoridation–not our children (or us).

On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not–look at how many years millions of people were fooled by the tobacco industries!

References

    George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22, 1991.
    R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) EPA/NSF Standard 60.
    San Diego Union Tribune, May 25, 2000, “EPA proposes stricter rules for arsenic levels in water supplies,” and Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2001, “EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water,” by H. Josef Hebert.
    Letter of July 2, 1997, from J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. to Jeff Green. The union (now NTEU, Chapter 280) consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C.
    “New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989. “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,” Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Elmer L. Green, D.D.S., M.P.H., Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998.
    San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
    Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
    J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
    Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
    “The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
    The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
    K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
    National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
    Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
    Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
    Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.

https://www.westonaprice.org/.../fluoridation-the.../...

RANDOM IMAGES #33

 

SIFT PLAYLIST

 I have collected up some of my favourite music videos, mostly from the golden age of rock music, 1967-1997 - Perfect for playing on random while reading all the awesome posts here on this blog. Included in the bookmarks menu at the right.

SIFT YOUTUBE MUSIC PLAYLIST