I disagree - I'd put the two screens just above the dash, where some cars are already putting HUDs (come to think of it that U doesn't apply here). That way there is minimal time wasted moving your attention from front display (windshield) to the side displays (people should be checking them far more often than they do). A properly-designed camera system shouldn't require any head turning at all, since the only reason we do that at all is to cover all the blind spots a traditional mirror has (and it's risky since it entirely removes your attention to what is happening in your direction of travel).

Your response to the GP is a total non sequitur. AC is correct in asserting that bricked phones are still quite valuable as parts. And 42% is "a tiny percentage"?

If there is no functional change - meaning the parts are perfectly interchangeable, backwards and forwards compatible - then there's no reason to change the part number, because someone looking for part X is going to get a correctly working part (whether it's the older style or the newer, cheaper design is irrelevant). That doesn't mean they weren't hiding a safety issue in this case, of course.

Yeah, if they're going after anyone, it's Evernote. And I'm thankful as can be about that; maybe it'll get the Evernote folks to actually focus on FUNCTIONALITY rather than just completely re-designing the app's interface once a year (in ever more convoluted ways). I stuck with Evernote through two or three obnoxious interface changes and I still have trouble getting text (particularly lists) to format sensibly.

He wasn't referring to the IRC 2057 (family-owned business) deduction at all. He was very clearly referring to the general $5 million estate tax exclusion which you seem to be ignoring entirely. You are right about the taste of feet.

I should also note that mortgages and debt are deducted from the estate value, as are estate administration/probate costs. Basically, none of what you said is correct. Maybe the rules were very different in the distant past (I don't know) or your lawyer was terrible.

Only if the "regular family" has more than $5 million in assets. Estate taxes only apply to assets over the exclusion amount (ie. beneficiaries are taxes on $1 million of a $6 million inheritance).

The whole point of this app is that it's location-based - it connects you to people in the immediate vicinity. So presumably yes, most of this is happening on school property during school hours. On the other hand, that should make it fairly simple for Yik Yak to use geofencing to disable it on school grounds if a school makes a complaint (from what I gather, this is what they're working on right now).

No, all of those things I listed are things that potentially require investigation (by the school admin or even by the police), not "hurt feelings." The fact that rumors of rapes and assaults (that you yourself acknowledge are often true) were ignored in your school is not something to be proud of. "Grow up."

Phones do have something to do with it - these systems allow for easier and stronger anonymity, and make it possible to spread such rumors faster and wider. They are powerful tools - and like any tool can be used for good or evil. But yes, it does tie into the larger issue of how to deal with rumors, threats, and bullying among children. As I stated earlier there is plenty of room for debate on how to deal with this stuff.

And when the whole school is abuzz about how you supposedly raped someone behind the gym last Friday, or fucked Mrs. Fingerwood, or like to use your phone to surreptitiously record other dudes in the locker room, or that someone is planning on stabbing you during the lunch period, or whatever... ignoring the app does what for you, exactly? There's plenty of room for debate about how to deal with the issue, but what happens in the app doesn't stay confined to the app so your specific argument is bogus, +5 insightful or not.

There can't possibly be this many people on Slashdot who are incapable of understanding a very clear and obvious joke. I hope there's some meta-joke here I'm not getting.

I can't even parse this sentence. How did YOU get modded up? If you're trying to say "it should be obvious that the device belonged to the dead lady because it's the dead lady's account that is attached to the device," that doesn't follow at all because the family has yet to prove the account belongs to the dead lady either! That's the entire issue here - Apple just wants proof from the probate court that both the device and the account belonged to the lady.

What is all this garbage? It was locked with the owner's consent. The owner unfortunately did not think to leave the keys with her bequest.

It's not Apple's property that is being protected by this dead lady's password - it's the dead lady's device, data, and property. The whole issue wouldn't exist if she'd thought to pass along the keys with her property; unfortunately she didn't. The manufacturer can give the family a new set of keys, but requires evidence of ownership from a court of law before handing them over. Do you really want companies to hand over the keys to YOUR data and devices to someone else WITHOUT a court order?

I was the best mathematician in my university math classes. Who knew?