Originally posted by Digi
Again, if you want to look for silver linings, his insurance premiums are about to skyrocket for the rest of his life. But, beyond that, it's all the more reason not to waste our time. His lack of empathy and moronic choices will catch up with him; we don't need to piss into the wind on a message board trying to make him see reason. I'm guilty of ignoring that advice quite often, but there are points of clarity. This is one of those times.
Shut up.
"Risk of death turns people on."
My insurance will not go up "for the rest of my life" btw.
Lol, I'm on my way to becoming quite well off financially. I think you rule-abiding white-stiffs are jealous.
Originally posted by SanctySoftware developers, employed for the industry now and in the near-future, are all quite well-off.
How?
That's if I don't earn the $1,000,000 prize for the beal conjecture on my way to earning my bachelor's. Contrary to what most people know about the banks, you can live off of $1 million because you can get an 8% annual interest rate with $1,000,000 with a high enough dollar account. That's an $80,000 annual income for free - which is about the same as a green software developer.
Although the industry is unlikely to hire anyone over 25 with a 4.0 bachelors in this area, it is just as likely that they will hire anyone over 25 with a 4.0 bachelors who has a year of work-experience despite the competition. Which I'd need to help pay for the stupendous fee of tuition (even after an academic scholarship) for two years at even a state university. If my associates is earned by the time I'm 23, I work a high-rate software-maintenance account that terminates by the time I'm 24 - go back and earn the bachelors by the time I'm 26.
I have enough connections in that field to get almost twenty local applications and, with that kind of a resume, interviews. That, really, is the most important part of finding work. There's a scarcity of jobs in this market due to the parasitic economic saboteurs and their political influence (which is stronger here than in most states), it shouldn't be this asinine to find good income.
Originally posted by Oneness
Software developers, employed for the industry now and in the near-future, are all quite well-off.
No they are not. Software devs don't get paid very much. The highly paid devs are software development project manager. They are looking at 80k-120k a year.
http://www1.salary.com/Programmer-I-Salary.html
Most programmers I know make 25k-45k a year. The median income in the US is $56k. That's with a few years of experience, certifications. and/or a degree. You can make that in 2-3 years at an IT Service Desk with just a couple of certifications.
Set more realistic goals. I am not killing your dreams, you're just not being realistic.
Originally posted by Oneness
That's if I don't earn the $1,000,000 prize for the beal conjecture on my way to earning my bachelor's. Contrary to what most people know about the banks, you can live off of $1 million because you can get an 8% annual interest rate with $1,000,000 with a high enough dollar account. That's an $80,000 annual income for free - which is about the same as a green software developer.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No they are not. Software devs don't get paid very much. The highly paid devs are software development project manager. They are looking at 80k-120k a year.
What the fsuck are you smoking!?
Most programmers I know make 25k-45k a year.With an associates:
"may vary depending on a number of factors including industry, company size, location, years of experience and level of education." As well as how many projects/accounts you're willing to take on.
http://www1.salary.com/Programmer-I-Salary.html
I'm not going to settle for that kind of position earning only what those people who're on your team earn. That's bullshit, and unlikely.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes it is, because you can put that kind of money into an account that gives back 8% interest annually.
Now if it were $86,000 or something, you might have to settle for 3-5% interest.
Withdrawing any amount; i.e. all your interest every year (to live off of) is entirely allowed.
Originally posted by AstnerAt least in this part of America, they'll rush to give you 8% interest for that much of a deposit. The thing is that they make more money from the more you put in.
Speaking as shareholder and investor, I don't think any bank would give you an 8% annual interest, not even if it was a savings account—with which you have a very limited withdrawals—on a million dollars.Because at the end of the day, the bank has to make money off of your money.
Either way, you're probably correct about how it's unlikely they'll let one go ahead and withdraw that much annually, which is why it is more important that I utilize the withdrawals to further my education.
I've long sought a drug that would make me as much as 100 times more studious. That's what I need just to solve the conjecture. Psychologically, I have aptitude up the wazoo; this is demonstrated by the simple fact that I've inherited the OCD of a savant without the drawbacks.
Yet, you wouldn't believe how obstinate and adverse my level of emotional instability makes you when culminated with OCD. I'm like a ticking time-bomb when you put me in the classroom. I've left the classroom and compounded the bruise on my knuckles for going on a decade now because of how unstudious I am.
It's like trying to force a dom to be your sub 24/7. When you're OCD, bi-polar and ADHD, and you have to sit down for hours on end without breaking your concentration or letting your mind do what it does better than most (wander) you actually produce so much cortisol that damage is done to your immune system, and to your brain. You can't be shown how to do something because then you're attention is going to always die within seconds. The obsession only comes when you're day-dreaming. You can't present academic material without showing how to do it, and you can't wonder how to do it when the method is being directly shown to you. There's no level of abstract thought occurring. The way most people learn is by putting a method into one's short-term memory, and it being rehearsed mentally long enough for it to become a long-term memory. A savant has access to every long-term memory, especially if it's an episodic memory (which contain multiple semantic and schematic memories [it's like effortlessly peeling layers of stored information]). The problem comes in the rehearsal, semantic information is never going to be rehearsed through auditory or visual stimuli - only through conceptual regions of the brain.
Einstein and Newton a academic flunkies, that's why.
What society intends to produce from their curriculum are people with non-adaptable skills, that can be applied like a person applies similarly unchanging motions in an assembly line.
The reason for this is a scheme to replace the work-force with self-repairing/modifying automation similar to a T800 (in that it has so many operations that it can overcome obstacles like running out of resources in its vicinity or overpopulating an area [prompting it to or relocate or expand its machinery]), so that everyone in the work force can be butchered like cattle, and so that the upper-class needn't work nor govern.
Originally posted by ScribbleYou're probably nothing but a grotesque moron.
Still, you are one stupid bastard.
Originally posted by OnenessI'm half-right, the purpose of an education is more employment than skill.
I've long sought a drug that would make me as much as 100 times more studious. That's what I need just to solve the conjecture.
Best off doing a few hundred thousand algebraic proofs a year, then directly transitioning to "If A^x + B^y = C^z, where A, B, C, x, y and z are positive integers and x, y and z are all greater than 2, then A, B and C must have a common prime factor | True or False?".
I'm just curious as to what would constitute conclusiveness in this proofing? Is it insoluble to a conclusive degree with an automated computational algorithmic device (even one as sophisticated as a supercomputer) because a novel formulaic method is needed in order for the proofing to be all-encompassing (for all possible integers that could be entered the proof)??
From what I've gathered the best interest rates you could get off of one million dollars are around 1.8 - 2%, yielding $19,000 - $20,000 annually before tax and $14,500 - $16,000 after tax with a savings account, in the States.
Other than that you're more likely to win the grand prize of any lottery than constructing anything resembling a mathematical proof of any conjecture. It's not that your brain is slow or anything like that, it's that you don't have a proper understanding of modern number theory; and even if you studied it for decades learning it, you'd still be looking at years of work that may well be wasted efforts.
Originally posted by Astner
From what I've gathered the best interest rates you could get off of one million dollars are around 1.8 - 2%, yielding $19,000 - $20,000 annually before tax and $14,500 - $16,000 after tax with a savings account, in the States.
Hmm, a precious metals Roth IRA may result to dectupling my investment of $1 million many times over due to the upcoming increase in silver-price. My $1,000,000 may be worth many many times more (in just 4 years from when I buy it) as pre-bought silver coins once paper dies.
Other than that you're more likely to win the grand prize of any lottery than constructing anything resembling a mathematical proof of any conjecture. It's not that your brain is slow or anything like that, it's that you don't have a proper understanding of modern number theory; and even if you studied it for decades learning it, you'd still be looking at years of work that may well be wasted efforts.
Throwing away the million dollar prize on silver is a gamble. Why not gamble my time?
You have to understand that math theory is a field in which my mind works best. What if I am smarter than Isaac Newton? Like, a lot smarter?
Consider the speed of a savant's conceptual development - it took Jake Barnett one week (less than 100 hours assuming that he slept [which he'd have almost had to of]) to learn what the curriculum assumes would take at least 4,704 hours in order to get into college at a very young age. That's 47 times the rate in which your given neurotypical can learn. Now assume that I've more cognitive faculties to utilize (my 110 vs his 80) than him - perhaps I could reduce that decade of study and work on the conjecture into one year??
My IQ was incredible for someone with ADHD, not to mention ASD. It's how I avoided the diagnosis for so long. Earlier my mom recalls me organizing things like my toy dinosaurs according to their size and being unable to communicate. Those symptoms were eliminated rather early in my infancy, and I slowly became more social - though still in my own world. I actually pulled off average grades in a rounded curriculum, which is very rare. My spelling developed more slowly than my math (which is normal for an ASD) yet I was all around behind throughout. In high school I was ultimately behind my grade level in the math department of all things.
This is because my skills there were compromised in developing my English (first and last time I've demonstrated my island intelligence) in 7th grade. I mean, my English jumped so many grade levels so spontaneously that the only explanation is island intelligence. It is island intelligence (albeit to a greater level) that allowed Jake Barnett to complete H/S math in a week, or Isaac Newton to develop a whole new branch of applied mathematics at a comparably unnatural rate.
More is unusual about me given that I have ASD; I'm not a virgin, I have developed better-than-average social skills and work ethic, I started driving earlier than most people with ASD will in their lives; I'm aware when others are uncomfortable, and good at coming across as empathetic and demonstrating verbal wit (key virtues in forming friendships). I'm not organized about my room or school supplies, but I am picky about my fashion, my hygiene, and as a result I am very well groomed. The thing is, my aptitude has developed in areas that are more difficult for it to develop in - I've pushed myself in more pertinent areas, and any hope of doing what Jake Barnett did was compromised in the process. Yet the mind doesn't fully develop until one is 25 years old, although for ASDs it develops more slowly.
If I do develop my understanding of mathematics to the excess as Isaac Newton (who I deem to be beyond Jake Barnett's level on account of his almost preternatural invention of calculus) then that says I will have found the drive to be studious. I will have developed my understanding of Number Theory as I have in multiple linguistic and social areas (because they were, from an observational standpoint, more valuable to me in my infancy), expediently compromising my time spent on these habitual routines (posting here, joy driving, experimenting with drugs, spending too much time on leisure in general) for more a fruitful endeavor (like solving the beal conjecture), I think that I can be a modern Isaac Newton. A one in one billion product of this neurological disorder.