Same people who do it on Earth. Just because you choose space as the place to do something shitty doesn't mean you won't have to answer for it here.

I. Just. Listed. Several.

What does that have to do with video games, TV and movies? Nobody's saying a computer should never be used to facilitate offline activities. What we're saying is that there are things other than video games, TV and movies that can be fun, without giving more and more hard-earned money to companies that screw you at every opportunity.

But, you're right. Since the internet is used to facilitate some of those things, might as well throw up your hands and spend every waking hour basked in the glow of a screen until you die.

You can go for bike rides with your significant other. You can play an instrument. You can play an instrument with other people who also play instruments. You can play cards. You can work out. You can read books. You can safely combine alcohol with some of these things. If you can't figure out how to make life work without staring at a screen constantly, I really don't know what to tell you.

+1 (Common Sense)

The kind of people who say this shit are the same kind of people who tell me "I should take a class so I can do your job."

Antidotal, actually. He's got a terminal illness and he's looking for hope.

BadAnalogyGuy? Is that you?

Don't like the terms? Don't license it. I'd prefer to see the whole permission culture shit go away anyway. But unless you're going to argue that they shouldn't have any say on whether their arms are presented in a game at all, it's a little absurd to argue that they shouldn't get to negotiate how the arms are used in the game as part of the licensing deal.

They fucked up another one in Milwaukee not too long ago that drew dregs into the neighborhood and culminated with an M4 (read: actual, honest-to-god assault rifle, not an "assault weapon") hitting the streets.

Or maybe he has, only to find out it's already been patented. I've run across more than one "how the fuck did they get a patent for that?" moment in my career. "Common business practice X on a computer" sort of shit. It gets downright absurd sometimes.

Alternatively, since they have to follow court rulings, we could try: OBVIOUSNESS TEST FOR SOFTWARE PATENTS SHOULD BE DONE BY SOMEONE WHOSE EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD INVOLVES MORE THAN SENDING E-MAIL IN OUTLOOK. Seriously, where do they find these people? If it's software to do X, it should be examined by someone with expertise in the field of software AND the field of X.

That's how my parents did it. Didn't do much for my morale, but my morals have kept me out of prison!

Transformative works are (theoretically) exempt from such a claim under fair use. In practice, YMMV.

TIL that the Second Amendment is the only one we've watched get chipped away over the years.