That response from the EFF was very educational and worth reading among all the other links in this article. I learned that companies don't really have to go around and actively defend their trademark in court or risk losing it. And I also confirmed my suspicion that no company needs to be ensuring that every time somebody uses their name ("mark") that they have permission.
Here's the link again in case you can't tell which one I'm referring to.
I think it's cool and I still care, even if everybody else wants to ignore it. It may never get anywhere, but I like to know that it's going on and hear the status twice a year or so. Same for GNU Hurd, although I don't think I've heard much about them in at least five years.
Also, while I'm sure Android is challenging Windows' dominance overall, it doesn't seem to be doing so on desktop machines in my office, so it's still a reality for me. I doubt ReactOS will be done in time to change that during my career, but it's nice to know it's out there.
If the warnings are incorrect, how does Twitter justify this libel?
Probably the same way you justify your hyperbole: with the basic fact that people are entitled to their own opinions, even if others disagree. Using big dramatic legal sounding words to try to bludgeon others over their opinions is actually harmful to society, in my opinion.
Artificial Intelligence now exceeds human capability.
And it's wrong to enforce wrong laws.
If it is not wrong, then try to get the law changed
Snort! Thank you for making me spew coffee all over my monitor!
Since it is "contraband", it is by definition wrong to sell it.
No, right and wrong aren't determined by legislators or voting or kings or any of those other silly games.
"Just the facts, Ma'am" -- Joe Friday