Now that I can code for both Windows8 and WindowPhone, I am more interested in coding for Windows.
However, I am unsure which language is best to use. I've heard from many people that C# is the best language to develop for Windows; however C++ seems to be the "native" language. I've read that if you're planning on creating games, then C++ is the way to go.

Does anyone have advice?

I just got my NJ license last week and no one told me not to smile. I guess it's not enforced consistently.

But the bigger issue is why hasn't renewing process gone digital? why do I need to wait hours to renew my license? What they should do is allow renewal of licenses to be done over the internet. You can submit your own photo if you follow certain guidelines: i.e. blank background, well lit, no hats/scarves, even no smile, etc. Then the NJ employee can approve your license if you followed all the directions and your photo looks like you are 4 years older than the previous photo that they have on record. If your renewal license is not renewed for what ever reason then you will need to come in person to renew your license.

It adds a bit of complexity, but I bet it would speed things up.

Giving users the choice to install flash on their mobile devices is good thing. It should be the people not installing flash player that should dictate that flash dies on the platform, not pressure from tech elitists.

Before it was removed from Google Play, the flash player was one of the top 5 things installed from the marketplace. That tells me that people wanted flash player. Adobe shouldn't have caved. They should have waited until people didn't want to install the flash player anymore. They should have waited until HTML5 was more popular than flash. They should have waited until HTML5 could do everything that flash could do.

But alas, I imagine the tech elitists here will say that choice is not a good thing, which I think is a shame.

Every situation is different. Some situations can safely be accessed over email, while others cannot. I had a situation where I had to pay out of pocket instead of relying of health insurance. In that situation, the doctor embraced email. So I don't think it is a legal restriction. I think it is because doctors don't see us patients as the customer but they see our health insurance plans are the customers. In the case, when I was the customer and there was no middleman like health insurance, the doctor catered to my needs.

Perhaps people (who can afford it), should forgo health insurance plans for non-severe ailments and pay from health spending accounts.

This is a follow-up visit, not an initial visit. For example, I just saw a doctor and told him everything that I could have told him by email or a question-assisted form. He didn't touch me and didn't ask me any questions. Plus, he had the benefit of seeing a report from a physical therapist so he could see a 3rd party's assessment of my situation. During these kind of follow-up visits, there is no reason that he could do one of 3 things if I had simply emailed him: 1) told me to stay the course and refill my script, 2) told me to come in for a procedure, or 3) ask that I come in because it was hard to access the situation.

Obviously different situations require different reactions. In my particular case, an email followup would have made sense. In other people's cases, the health issue may be too severe that a physical followup would be warranted no matter what.

In another personal experience, I had gone to a doctor where he didn't accept any insurance and only accepted out of pocket. In this example, the doctor was very accessible by email. I didn't need to meet with the doctor sooner than when I was scheduled for the revisit.

Healthcare is broken and unfortunately, I'm not sure it will be fixed until the doctors see us patients as the customers instead of the health insurance companies or governmental health programs.

I can't wait until we live in a world where we can electronically contact a virtual doctor (i.e. IBM's Wilson) and describe our problem, take pictures, webchat, etc, and the virtual doctor could triage and determine if we needed to see an actual doctor, or if it was a simple problem that a super computer could recommend some treatment. Obviously, even if the super computer thought we had something serious (i.e. cancer), then the super computer would recommend we see a real doctor and the super computer could send the report your doctor.

(I'm sure the super computer would have to send the report via fax, because the real doctors probably wouldn't have email -even in fantasy future world.)

I'd like to know why the medical profession isn't embracing technology. They still use antiquated 20th century tech: i.e. fax machine. It would be nice if you could email your doctor and save yourself time and money with a followup visit. The doctors could determine from the email if patients needed to physically come in or the doctors could determine that the patients didn't have to come in and they knew enough to prescribe the next step. If it is about wanting you to come in for a follow-up visit so they can charge your insurance money, then why don't then do what lawyers do and charge you when they respond to emails. We could save money at not having to pay the copays, the doctors would still be able to charge our insurance companies, and doctors' offices would be crowded less with people who didn't have to be there. It would also be nice if everyone in the medical field would adopt electronic patient records that patients can be in charge of: i.e. Microsoft Health Vault. That way a patient's medical records would centrally stay with the patient instead of many different doctors.

This is an odd coincidence that this Slashdot article came out when my hard drive died. I looked around and decided to try to replace the circuit board after I watched this youTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoVBHG4kajA

I got the replacement PCB from this online store: http://www.onepcbsolution.com/

I'll report back here if I am able to repair my hard drive.

I always thought that copyright law should be changed so it expires after a small number of years - like it did originally when our country was young: i.e. 14 years. However, copyright holders should be able to renew their copyright for an indefinite number of times at an exponentially increasing renewal fee.

So the 1st time that a copyright has to be renewed, the fee is pretty small: i.e. $1000. But after each time the copyright needs to get renewed, the fee is exponentially increased. (Maybe it increases by 20X) So at some point, it is too expensive for an individual/company to renew the copyright and the copyright goes into public domain. But while the copyright is being renewed, the US government is making money which helps to reduce how much tax needs to be collected from the rest of us.

Any existing copyright (i.e. Mickey Mouse) would have a renewal fee based on the year it was originally created, so the fee would start out larger than the 1st renewal fee.

As the original submitter suggested, there should be a transition period so copyright holders can transition to this new system.

This may be what RIM needs to get people to adopt the Playbook and for developers to code for the Playbook.

Before Christmas, my little (and might I say addicting) BOGGGLE app "Word ZigZag" ( http://goo.gl/5ga0j ) was only downloaded a few times a day on Blackberry Playbook's App World Store. But on and after Christmas, my app was downloaded about 3-4X as much.

Perhaps a lot more people have the Blackberry Playbook because of the previous $200 Playbook "fire sales". And perhaps people will continue to buy them at the new $300 price.

I know as a developer, I'm starting to look at developing for RIM's App World as much as I would for iTunes. http://goo.gl/5ga0j

This may be what RIM needs to get people to adopt the Playbook and for developers to code for the Playbook.

Before Christmas, my little (and might I say addicting) BOGGGLE app "Word ZigZag" ( http://goo.gl/5ga0j ) was only downloaded a few times a day on Blackberry Playbook's App World Store. But on and after Christmas, my app was downloaded about 3-4X as much.

Perhaps a lot more people have the Blackberry Playbook because of the $200 Playbook "fire sales". And perhaps people will continue to buy them at the new $300 price.

I know as a developer, I'm starting to look at developing for RIM's App World as much as I would for iTunes. http://goo.gl/5ga0j

Totally agree!!!!

I wish all app stores allowed developers to create "try before buy" apps where users can try a limited version of the app and choose to upgrade to full version w/o having to download the "pro" version. I think the windows phone marketplace allows for those kinds of apps. I created an addicting boggle app called "word zigzag": ( http://goo.gl/HwHh8 ) On the android marketplace, the free version canabalizes the sales of the paid version. If there was a "try before buy" feature built into the app marketplaces, then I think I would get more sales of my paid version.

Before the release of the Kindle Fire, my boggle app "Word ZigZag" (http://goo.gl/OFT0o) had been up on Amazon's appstore and sold hardly anything. But as soon as the Amazon Kindle Fire was released, I sold a whole bunch.

So I agree that app developers are probably now considering the Amazon Appstore.

Although not on the 10cent list, I like the boggle app called "Word ZigZag". Check it out. It's REALLY addicting! http://goo.gl/VLc1N