Crap, typo in my subject line: should be "Avira".

I've used Avira (free-av.com) for years (since Windows XP at least), both on my computers and my friends' and family's, and I've never gotten a virus despite visiting Bit Torrent and other questionable sites.

It's 100% free and it doesn't install malware (though it might optionally install some crapware, I forget). The only downside is that they pop an alert maybe once a day or so with different messages (the point of which is clearly to prod you to purchase the paid version). I strongly recommend getting the paid version to make those alerts go away ... but I'm embarrassed to admit that I haven't actually done as much myself (sorry Avira!).

Damn you socialist bureaucratic hellspawn and your vastly superior tax system!

Seriously though, how many nuclear weapons and/or wildly over-priced military aircraft can your silly little country pay for with that easy to use tax system?

That's what I thought!

"The dishonesty of this is what's killing them."

On Slashdot, but Slashdot users are what, 0.001% of their customers? Then there's the fraction of people who decide their tax preparation software purchases based on Amazon.com reviews. That leaves PLENTY of other customers who might have balked at a price increase, but who will now happily go pay $40 ... and then realize they need an upgrade and pay $40 more. They won't be happy about it, but they're probably not going to switch tax preparation software in the middle of the process. And then they'll use the TurboTax again next year, because it already has their info ...

This whole Amazon low ratings thing is great, but from a cold calculating corporate standpoint TurboTax will still (sadly) make more money going this route than being honest and raising prices.

From the blurb:

"the company continues to make the same mistake over and over. Google's mistake, ..."

"But rest assured – Google knows this. They're not looking for short term profits"

So, it's a mistake ... but they know exactly what they're doing and they're not trying to make short term profits, which means it's not a mistake?

"It will enable us to cryogenically freeze and store various cellular materials, which can then reproduce."

But they don't actually have the technology to do that, right? So isn't this the same thing as humans cryogenicaly freezing themselves now, blindly assuming that future scientists will be able to remove anti-freeze from their veins?

In other words, isn't this giant expensive project entirely predicated on the the development of future technology that can actually use these samples, without any guarantee whatsoever that that technology will materialize?

It's not just "Tech's Gender Gap" that started at Stanford; Silicon Valley itself started at Stanford (see Francis Terman, William Shockley, Fairchild Eight, etc.). So while it's technically accurate to say the gender gap started at Stanford, it's just as accurate to say CD-ROMs or Pets.com or anything else Silicon Valley-related started there. Silicon Valley is the genesis of digital technology, and Stanford is the genesis of Silicon Valley.

I know that people who worked hard for their Engineering degrees will naturally be suspicious of anyone who seems to have done less work than them, but even so I was rather amazed at the amount of ignorance and hatred in the responses here. As a Literature major who now makes six figures programming, please do ignore them.

My advice would be to enroll at Hack Reactor or a similar coding boot camp. We've hired two programmers from them: one was a Biology PhD, the other just had a Chinese Literature undergraduate degree. In both cases we didn't really care what their degree was, we cared about their abilities. Based on what I've seen, the best of the graduates of Hack Reactor are WAY better hires than an average CS graduate (and they're a lot easier to hire; the Googles of the world snatch up the top CS graduates before smaller companies like ours even have a chance).

Of course, I personally didn't take the boot camp approach. I graduated, spent a year unemployed, then managed to get a position as a web designer for a small company. It was a terrible company: they wouldn't even pay for water for employees! But as annoying as their cheapness was, it was that very cheapness that got me hired. Because I was willing to work for $15/hour and could do the work (I'd taught myself web development) I was able to get that crucial first job. You may have to hold your nose in a similar way to get your first job, if you don't take the boot camp approach.

Once I got my foot in the door by working their a year I moved on to a junior programming job, worked my way up to being a team lead, and then moved on to my current company (a start-up). I'd imagine you could do something similar, but going through a boot camp will give you that "foot in the door", which is really the hardest part for someone in your position. After the boot camp gets you your first job, that job will get you all your future jobs.

So, ignore the negativity here. Silicon Valley really is, at least to a large extent, a meritocracy: what matters is being good at your craft, not where you came from.

Yup, which is why they've licensed someone else's tech to power the searches for most of the company's history.

Wait, what? You think Yahoo is going to use Google to power their search engine, without paying them? And you think Google's lawyers (let alone their technical team) would really let that fly?

... because learning skills at a bootcamp makes you incapable of learning skills on your own in the real world? Or because computer science degrees somehow teach you to read blogs and subscribe to RSS feeds?

... and what do any of the things you just mentioned have to do with typical JavaScript programming? Just because someone wouldn't be good at doing your particular job doesn't mean they're bad at other programming jobs: you could just as easily dismiss any Java programmer, no matter what their skill level, for not knowing how to manage memory.

Actually, I have nothing to do with that side of the business; I don't even know what she makes.

I'd say at least 80% (maybe 90+%) of the stuff you listed has no applicability for a front-end JavaScript programmer. Which isn't to say JavaScript programming is easy: there's a whole lot of art and craft to being a good JavaScript programmer, and a boot camp won't teach it all. But as for all the traditional CS bits you listed, almost none of them contribute to being a good JavaScript programmer.

What a good front-end programmer needs is understanding of the JavaScript language, of how the DOM works, of how browsers render pages, etc. And for serious JavaScript programming you need to know object-oriented programming and all that good stuff too ... but you don't need "database theory", "microprocessor systems", or "artificial intelligence".

I'm sure that's based on lots of empirical evidence from your experience working with bootcamp graduates, and not just you spouting your own prejudices, right? Because I would think that someone who's worked with a boot camp graduate for 6+ months and is about to hire another one *might* just know more than someone who's never even met a bootcamp graduate ...

You're completely right: the web is just a fad, JavaScript is going away soon and there will be no more jobs for JavaScript programmers in a few years.

You're assuming such boot camps only produce "monkeys", which is false. These people work twelve hour days, seven days a week, for three months: compare that to your typical CS graduate who's maybe had a month total of relevant programming experience.

In fact, we hired a boot camp graduate about half a year ago, and she's been awesome. WAY more knowledgeable about programming than other candidates we considered, including CS graduates.