Just recently I've had to implement camera preview on Android. This common task has required some knowledge of how transform matrices work. For me personally maths has been indispensable during my career.
What do you mean by "instead"? It seems to me they support both languages as equals (the Android documentation contains examples in both languages) and have no plans of ditching Java.
I pretty much stopped freelancing once oDesk and Elance merged into Upwork, but back then I could probably earn between 10k and 20k USD annually before taxes. Admittedly, I'm a lazy programmer. Good luck with your project!
I personally quite liked Java: The Complete Reference by Herbert Schildt – as the name suggests, it covers most of the topics relevant to Java developers, including some outdated ones.
Head First Java by Kathy Sierra is also a decent introduction to the language, though much more limited and outdated.
Oracle also has on-line Java tutorial which I regularly visit during development. However the content is more scattered than in a book.
I do value profit and you should too. That's what motivates entrepreneurs to create new products and make economies thrive.
Speaking of profits/money/greed, would you also despise a person who cancels their Spotify subscription? Because it's the same situation in reverse – someone stops paying for somebody else's services. Would you blame such person for being greedy? Would you moralise them that there is much more to life than the money they'll save?
That's why many countries have welfare programs and labour laws helping disadvantaged (for instance, disabled) members of society find employment. Shouldn't you instead blame government for not passing even stricter laws?
I agree that full time jobs provide more security than contracts, but only to the extent the law requires. For instance, depending on the country you must be given a few weeks notice before being fired and a severance package. You agree to these terms upon being hired and shouldn't feel entitled to anything more.
I believe it would be more cruel to the rest of us if an employer was required to keep unnecessary employees just so that they can benefit from sense of security and community. It would be terribly inefficient and hurt the economy.
And it's unfair to discredit the success of employer only because employees did the majority of the jobs. The key here is that managers do the most important jobs and take more risks.
I don't see what the company did wrong here. I don't get the obsession with jobs: if you get fired, just find another one. I like to think of employees as service providers (think restaurants) and employers as their clients. Client has no obligation to buy services from only one provider. You wouldn't consider a person choosing to go to a cheaper restaurant "evil", would you?