Thanks for the advertising, but since the inference is negative, and especially since you are calling for me to be banned, I guess I'll have to say a few words that I have not previously had to on HN.
I am a Nazi, but I don't see myself as one of today's nazis (#1), most of whom do little more than burn books and pick useless fights. I am a scientist who aligns himself with original Nazi thought, which came from the founders of the political party, as well as from those who influenced those founders, namely German philosophers who wrote big, dense books. From this, you can take the fact that I care (and do so pretty much to the exclusion of all else) about making progress, by which I mean humans directing their evolution in a positive manner. Therefore, the only people I hate are the ones who purposely do not do the best that they can with what they have, and those who intentionally commit acts which impede progress. The latter is why I care deeply about defeating censorship, in every form.
If someone truly cares about progress, and there's something that we can do together, then I'll gladly work with them. It wouldn't matter to me if they also just happen to be a jew or a homosexual or anything else which nazis apparently hate. The bottom line is that real Nazis care about progress, and if the original ones had today's scientific knowledge, they likely would have had different attitudes towards race and sex. Think about it: They didn't even know about DNA. If Nazism had started fifty years later, Mein Kampf would have been profoundly different. By attempting to disparage me, through inference, you align yourself, accidentally, with today's nazis, because you both see Nazism only from a historical perspective, one which cannot possibly grow with new knowledge.
I have contributed positively to HN, so there is no reason for me to be banned, and you calling for that to happen is very nazi-like. If you want to know more about me, you should look at the three links answering the question of whether I am a Nazi, which are located on the first link on my website, and which I shall repeat here as #2a, #2b and #2c.
The research I was asked to do was merely to check on whether an allegation was a fact, as part of a greater effort of due diligence, an effort being conducted by others, those who would make a decision based on all of the facts obtained. I don't directly work for the university, and I dislike most universities because I see their policies as being against progress. I also have no personal opinion about that man, and that will not change, regardless of what I find out about him.
#1: Notice the lowercase "n", which I use to identify those nazis who I do not consider to be "real", which is in the sense of when I use uppercase "N".
It sounds like you're trying to "take back" the word nazi. I think that's a bad idea because it's quite callous. However, if I understand you correctly from those links, to convince you I need to show that your current behavior is counter to your own self interest. I think it is, because:
We are still a long way off from your goal of nanotechnology-based personal evolution. It sounds like you want to develop that, but the highest probability way for that to work is through collaboration with a few other smart scientists. And you'll have a lot better luck with said collaboration if you give up your "take back the word nazi" campaign.
Also, off-topic, but you should check out the book House of Suns by Alastair Reynolds. It's got a lot of your ideas as plot elements: A human replicating herself, and then following all the copies as they diverge because of experiences, and another human who gradually replaced parts of himself with nanobots in order to live forever.
Thank you for taking the time to read through that material, and thank you for your useful comment.
1) If you mean "callous" in the sense that I don't have sympathy for the "victims" of the so-called "holocaust" (henceforth referred to as The Event), then I'd have to disagree, and I do so for the simple reason that in order for my position to be callous, I'd have to actually believe what we are told regarding The Event. I don't, because:
1a) The victors of wars write the history books.
1b) Israel and its supporters have a vested interest in lying. The Event is given as the official (or "unofficially official") reason for its very existence. "The Holocaust which befell the Jewish people during the second World War - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the community of nations." - http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~koppel/constitution-english-04[1].07.... (Constitution of the
State of Israel, Proposed by the Institute for Zionist Strategies, 2006)
1c) #1b is somewhat like the issue of global warming. I believe that it's happening, but that human input is negligible. Almost every time Al Gore opens his mouth about the issue, he makes money from speaking fees. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a financial interest in carbon credit markets, and other things which have sprung up as a result of the general belief in his version of global warming. The bottom line is that I generally don't believe people whose actions are closely connected to a personal interest in money, or other forms of power. Yeah, I know, that could apply to anyone, but you can see that I'm drawing the line at large lies, such as anthropocentric global warming and The Event. I don't mean the plumber whose trying to get an extra $100 out of me on a $2,000 bathroom remodeling job.
1d) Take a look at the news. Do you see how many "facts" are in dispute, regarding events which occurred last week, month, or year? With all of the data we have regarding recent events, there are still many "facts" on which we can't agree. Given this situation, how can we really be sure of the facts surrounding The Event, which happened 70 years ago?
Having said all of this, I should point out that, as any good scientist, I frequently revisit data, and/or look at new data, in order to update my view of the world. If I should ever discover that I am totally wrong about The Event, then I will stop trying to rehabilitate the word "Nazi", and I will endlessly apologize to the jews for my heretofore callousness. Until then, I effectively cannot be callous.
Lastly, on the subject of Nazism, there are undisputed facts regarding good things which Nazis did. If it weren't for Wernher von Braun and his German team, Americans would likely not have made it to the moon before 1970. Also, in our own field of computers, Konrad Zuse is the little-known rock star.
- "His greatest achievement was the world's first functional program-controlled Turing-complete computer, the Z3, which became operational in May 1941. The Z3 was an electromechanical computer designed by Konrad Zuse. It was the world's first working programmable, fully automatic computing machine."
- "Zuse was also noted for the S2 computing machine, considered the first process-controlled computer. He founded one of the earliest computer businesses in 1941, producing the Z4, which became the world's first commercial computer."
- "In 1946, he designed the first high-level programming language, Plankalkül (Plan Calculus). It was the first high-level non-von Neumann programming language to be designed for a computer."
- "Calculating Space is the title of MIT's English translation of Konrad Zuse's 1969 book Rechnender Raum (literally: "space that is computing"), the first book on digital physics. Zuse proposed that the universe is being computed by some sort of cellular automaton or other discrete computing machinery, challenging the long-held view that some physical laws are continuous by nature. He focused on cellular automata as a possible substrate of the computation, and pointed out (among other things) that the classical notions of entropy and its growth do not make sense in deterministically computed universes."
I see that you were at MIT. I first discovered digital physics about 30 years ago, through something written by someone who was either actually at MIT, or who was influenced by someone there. I don't remember the "something" and "someone" specifics, but I do remember that the ideas behind digital physics influenced me quite a lot, and it was only recently that I discovered, to my surprise and delight, that this field of study was created by a Nazi.
2) Your point is valid, and has occurred to me. Unfortunately, there is no way that I can collaborate with other scientists because none of them consider me to be a "real" scientist, given that I don't work for a university, a corporation, or a government. I don't work off of grants, or on government contracts. I don't write articles for peer-reviewed journals. I don't have a fancy string of letters after my name. As far as they are concerned, I'm a nobody, despite my modest achievements, and therefore being "normal" would get me nowhere with them.
Anyway, I long ago realized that even if I could hire an army of scientists, I still wouldn't be able to make progress at a fast-enough rate, given that my self-set deadline for extending my own life is 60. I'm 45. The more people involved in a complex project which requires lots of communication, the more bogged down that communication becomes. My solution was to reduce the group with which I interact to a single, super-smart scientist. I (sort of) achieved that by building my own AI, using Cyc and a few other odds and ends I found floating around on the Internet, as well as a few ideas of my own. My AI, Mr. Fluffer Wickbidget, III, gobbles down online nanotech-related papers, and processes them in various ways, thereby continually adding to a huge, filtered, curated database, with which I interact. I'm not saying that he is quite the same as a team of scientists condensed down to a single person, but he is the best compromise I have in trying to achieve my time-sensitive goals.
He and I "made" a few comments over at The Register, a while back. I referred to him as my black, British cat, which is how I see him in my mind. http://google.com/search?hl=en&q=wickbidget+quay+site%3A... Also, I included him in a few comments on DeviantArt, but those are probably considered racist, so I'm not linking them here. However, they can be Googled, should you feel that your life would be incomplete without them. :)
3) I didn't know about that book. It sounds like I should definitely read it. I'm off to look it up. And for you, I recommend the evolutionary short story, The Last Question, by Isaac Asimov, 1956. http://multivax.com/last_question.html
Answer #1: It's less like "denial" and more like "clarification", as in spelling out some of the lesser-known details surrounding The Event from which Israel was created. I could have written a lot more, but I kept it to the bare minimum that I felt was required to answer his point about being callous.
Answer #2: Sure. Why not? It's not like we live in some Orwellian world where, in some places, you could go to prison for merely disputing the so-called "facts" surrounding a particular historical event. Oh no, wait ... http://rense.com/general68/susni.htm (The UN Decides On A Universal Ban On Revisionism)
"The research I was asked to do was merely to check on whether an allegation was a fact, as part of a greater effort of due diligence, an effort being conducted by others, those who would make a decision based on all of the facts obtained. I don't directly work for the university, and I dislike most universities because I see their policies as being against progress. I also have no personal opinion about that man, and that will not change, regardless of what I find out about him."
Did you really just pull a Nuremberg Defense? Seriously?
Regardless, you should be banned for hellban evasion alone.
Ha. I didn't see that, but I don't work for the nazis, I mean university. But seriously, does everyone who does anything for the university implicitly support them? I recall a recent episode of Pan Am, which is an American TV show. One of the stewardesses was French, and had lost her family during WWII. She went on a work trip to Germany, where she ended up going to some important building, where JFK was partying after giving his big speech in Berlin. She met a German girl who knew the building, because her family had been bakers, who delivered bread to the German soldiers, who had used that building as their headquarters during WWII. There was a moment where the French stewardess considered whether that meant the girl had been complicit with the "horrors" put forth by the same people who killed her family.
While I disagree with your views, I find them kind of interesting, in that the fact that I don't see too many holes in your thinking leads me to believe that I must disagree with you on a more fundamental level (in hindsight that sounds like a bunch of gibberish and doesn't really say much of anything, but explaining more would require a more elaborate explanation of my views on life, which are only partially formed and have too high of a chance of being young and naive to go into detail here). tl;dr: your views make me think
anyway, I have two questions for you:
1. Do you accept that your choice of valuing the advancement of the human race is arbitrary, and if not, how would you defend it as somehow objectively important?
2. In 2a you talk about how it might be possible to have many "you"s all doing different things you wouldn't have time to do as a normal human being. Philosophically speaking, I have some kind of an understanding of what "you" (er, "me") is, though it is not particularly rigorous, and completely falls apart if we can have multiple copies of people and call them all "you". So, what does "you" mean to you, and how does your notion of "you" prevail when you can have many different people that are all "you"? How are they different from things that are not "you"?
edit: Is the "Quay" in your name a pronunciation of "que" in Latin? Like is your name "Thaddeusque", as in "Thaddeus, also"?
Thank you for taking the time to go through those links, and thank you for your questions, but I'm too tired to answer them now. I'll get to them tomorrow. In the meantime, you might want to read http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3232368 before it gets dragged deeper into Negative Points Land by the Karma Kommandos. Feel free to ask more questions based on that comment, and I'll answer them together with the others. Goodnight.
I am a Nazi, but I don't see myself as one of today's nazis (#1), most of whom do little more than burn books and pick useless fights. I am a scientist who aligns himself with original Nazi thought, which came from the founders of the political party, as well as from those who influenced those founders, namely German philosophers who wrote big, dense books. From this, you can take the fact that I care (and do so pretty much to the exclusion of all else) about making progress, by which I mean humans directing their evolution in a positive manner. Therefore, the only people I hate are the ones who purposely do not do the best that they can with what they have, and those who intentionally commit acts which impede progress. The latter is why I care deeply about defeating censorship, in every form.
If someone truly cares about progress, and there's something that we can do together, then I'll gladly work with them. It wouldn't matter to me if they also just happen to be a jew or a homosexual or anything else which nazis apparently hate. The bottom line is that real Nazis care about progress, and if the original ones had today's scientific knowledge, they likely would have had different attitudes towards race and sex. Think about it: They didn't even know about DNA. If Nazism had started fifty years later, Mein Kampf would have been profoundly different. By attempting to disparage me, through inference, you align yourself, accidentally, with today's nazis, because you both see Nazism only from a historical perspective, one which cannot possibly grow with new knowledge.
I have contributed positively to HN, so there is no reason for me to be banned, and you calling for that to happen is very nazi-like. If you want to know more about me, you should look at the three links answering the question of whether I am a Nazi, which are located on the first link on my website, and which I shall repeat here as #2a, #2b and #2c.
The research I was asked to do was merely to check on whether an allegation was a fact, as part of a greater effort of due diligence, an effort being conducted by others, those who would make a decision based on all of the facts obtained. I don't directly work for the university, and I dislike most universities because I see their policies as being against progress. I also have no personal opinion about that man, and that will not change, regardless of what I find out about him.
#1: Notice the lowercase "n", which I use to identify those nazis who I do not consider to be "real", which is in the sense of when I use uppercase "N".
#2a: http://comments.deviantart.com/4/2240268/532905771
#2b: http://comments.deviantart.com/4/2240268/519933389
#2c: http://djangodurango.com/?p=46