I live about 7 km north of the university, in an unincorporated area bordering Redwood City. There I rent a detached house with a garden. Directions for finding it are here. The best way to reach me is by email: rvg@cs.stanford.edu.
Perhaps the most important group of opinions I hold are my political ones. These can be conveniently summarized by declaring myself a libertarian, or more precisely an anarcho-capitalist. As there is an extensive amount of excellent literature on libertarianism, I do not have to do the trouble of explaining this here. A good starting point is the website http://www.libertarian.org/. A book expressing and explaining opinions particularly close to my own is The machinery of freedom by David Friedman. Other writings of this excellent thinker can be found here. Those of you reading Dutch can read on this web what I think of democracy.
In case you are an (U.S. of) American who voted for the establishment (democratic or republican parties) throughout the nineties, I believe that you share the responsibility for the many crimes committed by your government. In particular, I hold you responsible, in part, for the extermination of the Branch Davidians in Waco. This doesn't mean we can't be friends, or even lovers; it doesn't help anyone for me to hold a grudge against people of your ilk, and consequently I don't. However, if the Branch Davidians would come back from heaven to get even with you, you shouldn't expect me to stop them.
I hold that man's highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness, while respecting the live and property of others. I wouldn't sacrifice myself for others; and neither would I sacrifice others for me. Thus, I agree with the objectivist ethics as formulated by Ayn Rand (cf. The virtue of selfishness); however, I don't accept Rand's logic behind the derivation of this ethics, nor do I accept all her corollaries. I particularly like her attitude on issues like black-and-white thinking and compromises. I do not engage in charity (although helping someone in need for whom I have sympathy is my book a selfish and entirely acceptable act).
I do not believe; in particularly not in Gods, in astrology, or in paranormal phenomena. A good source of information on the latter is the Sceptical Inquirer, published by CSICOP. My view on the world is strictly rational. There is no significant scientific evidence for the phenomena listed above. I have no religion. In addition I reject most of the moral tenants of the religions I know of.
I utterly reject the moral paradigms, ingrained in our western culture pattern, that directly or indirectly deal with sex. These paradigms include the idea that it is wrong to run around naked in public, or to engage in sexual relations with multiple partners in the same period. They are responsible for people feeling embarrassed when they are caught watching porn, or when a thought reader would publish their sexual fantasies. I advocate disregarding these paradigms as much as practically possible. My opinions about matrimony can be found here; this is required reading for everybody who wants to marry me.
I actively enjoy nude recreation in a variety of ways. I support the naturist movement, and don't believe that nudity in itself is sexual or gives rise to sex more easily. However, eventually I favor a society in which sex in public is equally acceptable as eating in public.
At social gatherings I'm often fairly quiet, especially when I don't know my company all that well. This is not out of shyness in its simplest form, but rather because I have insufficient evidence that others would be interested in what I have to say. If there is a discussion in which I have a new experience or point of view to contribute, I often speak up - at least if I can do so without interrupting anybody else. If I think I can explain an existing point of view better, I do so too. But if my experience or point of view more or less coincides with that of somebody else, I typically don't see a reason to repeat it once more, nor to do a me-too statement. For the people present have shown interest in the subject of the discussion, but not necessarily in my personal opinion on it.
Like most people I love to talk about myself, and about my opinions and attitudes. However, I can do so only if I get sufficient feedback, and I know that the people I talk to are genuinely interested in what I have to say. I love to talk about myself in answer to questions, or even interrogations. If somebody just asks me "now tell us something about yourself", I typically don't find anything interesting to say. On the other hand, if somebody has just related a personal story, and then asks "now, Rob, I wonder how you would handle such a situation", and I happen to have experience with that situation, or a strong opinion regardless, I may have a lot to tell.
I'm not very good in starting a new subject when a moment of silence occurs. In such a case I'm considering whether a new subject I would like to raise would be sufficiently interesting. If I'm not sure I avoid starting a long-winded story that might bore my company. Instead I would raise it with a short sentence that gives my company the opportunity to either bite, and request details, or to dismiss it in a natural way. Most of the time, a moment of silence doesn't last long enough for this mental process to lead to anything, and hence I rarely raise a new topic. In particular I find it extremely hard to raise a new topic by telling other people spontaneously something about myself. For I find it extremely presumptuous to assume that others want to know, even when there are indications that some of the people present actually care. This is one of the reasons that several of my friends do not know my sexual orientation or other intimate details of my personality, even when it is not my policy to keep these things hidden from them. Another reason is that I don't want to make people uncomfortable by telling them things in a realm they may not want to open with me. When my friends do not tell me intimacies about themselves, I tend to assume that they might not be eager to hear them about me. Sometimes I would like to be more open though, but this is very hard for me.
I dislike the traditional notion of matrimony, and favour a polyamorous lifestyle, i.e. one in which having an emotional and/or sexual relation with someone is not considered an obstacle for engaging in a similar relation with somebody else. It is my policy to explicitly not make any agreements with partners restricting my freedom in any way, including the freedom to engage in additional relations without prior notification. I would see any such agreement as a surrender of my own sovereignty to become partly somebody else's property. Consequently, I also reject any hierarchical order between my (potential) partners; although some partners may have a greater impact on my life than others, I would not formally classify them as primary, secondary, etc., implying a different set of "spousal rights". Check the links above for more details.