“We encourage developers to build on top of the Twitter service, as Twitpic has done for years, and we made it clear that they could operate using the Twitpic name. Of course, we also have to protect our brand, and that includes trademarks tied to the brand.”
It seems Twitter only wanted them to drop the application and not the name entirely.
Why do I feel like the entire business model of Twitpic was to sell out after receiving the valuable trademark? He didn't claim to get a cease and desist, barring him from using the clearly derived name for the derived service. Twitter seemed to be happy until Twitpic tried to get a legal stake in their name and asked for oppositional comment. Twitter drew a fairly generous line in the sand for a service that leaches off of theirs.
Protip: Don't become a legal threat to the only real value a company has (such as brand-it's not like the ability to post 140 characters at a time is an amazing feat) especially if your business is entirely dependent on them letting you play on their lawn.
I have a couple RPis and they are fun for out-of-the-box projects like RetroPi, but it's a BBB that I trust to run my 3.25hp router around my CNC table at 200in/min. Though, recently with the work going into MachineKit that's pretty much an out-of-the-box project too.
RPi had quite a bit of energy in the community to begin with and that momentum still persists and give a bit of an advantage to them in project development, but that will only go on so long with the arrogance displayed in that thread. Don't venture into the OSS space and start complaining about derivatives of your work. Especially when the project is mainly sponsored and developed by employees of the company that is selling the bloody chips that are nowhere near open or documented while all the function of your system is dependent on an OS you did not develop or pay for.
For 2 days earlier this week water in Toledo, Ohio was undrinkable
In fact, much of it is. There are many many laws on the books that already cover digital currencies. Just ask the people who have been arrested for transacting too much without a licence. Financial regulations and consumer protection laws still apply.
The ecosystem is also self-regulated in many ways. I don't mean in the whole sense of that loaded phrase, but simple things like the rules to create and maintain the money supply and rate of that creation or the fact that you can transact without the need for a bank that needs the oversight. Bitcoin, done right, doesn't have someone else in a position to abuse trust of leaving you money in their hands.
I'm sure there are things that need tweaked, but the "Wild West" notion attributed to Bitcoin has more to do with a lack of understanding of how it works by users than a lack of rules to govern it's use.