Hmm. I woud argue on the XBOX that you're correct, and I too would not be afraid of admitting that I did whatever I wanted with the hardware. While I might not want to sell my modifications, since then maybe I could be blamed for helping others do dishonest things with the box, I would not feel any qualms about modifying my own (if I had one; I don't care for consoles, so I don't have any of them).
On the music... for personal use I can't see any restrictions, really. I convert music from format to format all the time for various uses (CD to MP3, burn those MP3s for my Alpine CDA-9855 to play in the car, things like that). But I can't resell that music. However, what I was trying to get at with my comments earlier is that technically you are not allowed to, if there is copy protection on the disk, bypass that, because the copy protection is protecting the part you don't own. You are correct in that the right of first sale protects used-CD shops (we have a few good ones in my area even) and books (a family friend of ours runs a used-book shop at the end of my street, and it's all legal). But the CD shop can't sell copies, nor can the bookstore. That is the restriction -- you can't do absolutely anything with the CDs/movies/books, because you don't own every aspect of them. You can resell, you can stomp on, shred, whatever, but you are not allowed to copy and sell those copies -- and that is why I argue that you are in fact not free to do whatever yo uwant with everything you own.
As for the iTMS, I doubt you'd get in any trouble for bypassing the DRM -- heck I've done it, for said car-stereo CDs for my own use -- but technically you can't do it:
Copyrights. All copyrights in and to the Service, including but not limited to, the iTunes Music Store (including the compilation of content, postings, links to other Internet resources, and descriptions of those resources), and software, are owned by Apple and/or its licensors.
This specifically requires you to admit that the content isn't yours and that you have to follow the copyright rules, and the letter of the law says that you can't do what you're saying you do. The spirit of the law says that if you keep it to yourself, you won't get in trouble, though, and in practice, you won't.
Perhaps this is where we disagree - because that which is contained on the disk is not their property.
But the law says it is. Read the license agreements in software, read the fine print on DVD cases. That information states that you are just licensing the content. You bought the media but not the content that is on it. Again, I don't agree with that and I think it's despicable -- but that's what the situation is right now.
This is not a philosophy or an opinion - this is a fact. The DMCA (in addition to other laws, I'm sure) blocks people from the right to do with what they own, unquestionably.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the DMCA is a bad law. I am however pointing out the flaw in your argument -- that while you can do whatever you want with the media itself, you are not allowed to do whatever you want with the content, and one of the restrictions is that you do not own the copyright on it and therefore are forbidden from copying it.
The situation that you and I both want is not going to come around unless the content in question is actually sold to you along with the media or is under a license that does grant to you the copyright.
That is not a philosophy or an opinion. It is a fact.
So you're going to bitch over everything I say, huh? You stated that human space missions are unnecessary. They most certainly are. And you're getting hostile at me over being corrected.
I live on the same planet as you do, and apparently you aren't considering the fact that while there are SOME situations where robots can do the job, they can't do ALL of them.
The only steaming pile of bullshit I see here is your uncalled-for hostile attitude.
And if you're going to whine about "affordability", here's something for you to bitch about:
NASA does everything it does, manned and unmanned, on just 1-2% of the budget. Far more is spent on unnecessary wars that do nothing but KILL PEOPLE. That's a whole lot more fucking expensive, so if you're going to start throwing stones, throw them at something that wastes a lot more and actually causes far more worthy things to be cut, like space exploration -- which not only does require humans sometimes, and robots other times -- but also gives something to dream about.
Or is having dreams too fucking expensive these days? I'd hate to have the boring, bitter life that you apparently lead where dreaming about something literally above our petty problems and dreaming about maybe being able to go out there is apparently too expensive. What a pathetic existence that must be.
I'm not aware that explaining the facts of the matter at hand constitutes anything beyond attempting to be informative. Not everything involves an argument just because it's on an internet message forum.
Yes, the design was fairly good -- but it had known flaws that were pointed out and argued against while it was in development. Such as having a manned flyback booster. Such as having liquid-fuelled boosters. Such as having monolithic solid boosters. Such as being top-mounted instead of parallel-stack. All of these issues were addressed in designs -- that were thrown out due to being too expensive. And the monolithic booster were thrown out and a design made by the entrant that came in last in the booster-design evaluation -- twice!
Yes, the current design was good -- I admire it -- but it should have been much better.
First, I'm not new here, and I don't appreciate your attempt to belittle me or assume I am stupid or ignorant because I do not agree with you.
Second -- your examples point to a truth that I think is rather asinine personally but for now is still a truth:
You own the media, but not the content contained on that media. So yes, the property owner is exercising their right to control what is done with their property
You must be new here if you've missed the billions of posts pointing this out.
While there are a lot of things that robots can do, there are a hell of a lot of things they can't. For instance, having a robot on Mars doing geology investigations is great, but all the stuff the rovers take a day to do could be done by a human in just a few minutes. Robots can't react to new situations the way humans do, either; present one with something outside of its programming and it'll just sit there. And do you really trust the robot to not screw up? There are reasons why humans still drive trucks, fly planes, and operate trains.
There always will be situations like that, too. You use the right tool for the right job. And the choice of a human over a robot can sometimes be just another case where you choose the right method for the right situation.
That's because it depends on how well the next flight goes before it officially goes on the manifest. The NASA Director has shown that he seems to want to fly it, however, so I'm hopeful.
I must point out here that (1) the CEV can go to low orbit, yes, but it is also designed to go farther, to the Moon and Mars; and that (2) while I, too, am disappointed by the cancellations, many of the missions will hopefully just be delayed, not totally cancelled.
That's exactly where the money is going: to develop the CEV. Which happens to be the manned replacement for the Shuttle. There is also the big booster built from Shuttle-system components that will be used for heavy lifting big cargo.
You're advocating what's already being done!
The shuttle program can't just stop now, however; it's needed for a few more tasks. Like, oh, that obligation toward finishing the space station and getting it usable (at least, the parts that aren't just being trashed and left to rot, even though they were built to fly). Like, oh, repairing the Hubble Space Telescope and installing already-built parts.
We have long been hoping that someday people would go back to the moon for more than just the Apollo-style touch-and-go missions, and now that looks like a reality more than it ever has since the end of the Apollo program.
And yet, it is the worst of times, too, for those who have been working very, very hard on programs that have nothing to do with the lunar program which have been very productive. I can only hope that this will pass, and that once the new vehicles have been developed and are flying we will be able to resume other science programs -- and face it, despite the setbacks like the Polar Lander and the Climate Observer, there have been a great many successes in the NASA robotic programs. The HST, the MER program, Cassini, the Great Observatories, Landsat, the list just goes on and on.
The Shuttle was and is a great idea, but the execution was flawed due to too much pennypinching during the design phase. It is an amazing idea and I hope that a safer reincarnation of the same thing returns, from either a government or from a private company. Do it right (manned flyback booster, a hardier orbiter, and so on) and put a better escape system on it.
But until things get smoothed out again, all I can do is wait, and hope that it all works out in the end. I've been a space buff for years, and I probably will be forever, and I know that the new expendables will probably be more inexpensive to operate plus the processing flow will hopefully be smoother.
Until then, though, it is the season of light and the season of darkness.
The first group: you're making the mistake of lumping all of them in with a subgroup that you don't like. This is neither justified nor fair. Most of them are probably pretty normal people and not any different from anyone else and just have a passing interest, or just happen to like animals (no, not in THAT way), and live pretty normal lives just like "Joe Sixpack" or "John Q. Public" and you wouldn't know about that part of their personalities unless they told you. Why? Because of your kind of reaction: assumption that all of them do things you find distasteful. And so they hide it, so that they aren't subjected to prejudiced, unfounded bad treatment.
As for the neonazis: I didn't say I agreed with them. I don't. However, the fact is that you are perfectly free to disagree with them, as am I, and are free to write about how you feel about their ideas... it is crossing the line if anyone tries to physically harm them or actively interfere with them by vandalizing their possessions or committing other crimes against them. Live and let live. If you want to show that you feel you're better, set an example -- using positive means, not negative ones. Donate to charities working to promote equality, for example. There are lots of ways to show your support.
The point I'm trying to make is that not agreeing with someone does not mean it is okay to be a jerk toward them.
Ok, let me clarify my last statement a little... yeah, it was confusing. You made the point I was trying to make, which is legally true. I was trying to indicate that I can see why users would complain more if email was working. Or something like that. I think. Hey, I wrote that right before I went to bed, I was bleary!
As for the first part -- yes, but it still came from the ISP's network, and how can the admin know that more isn't coming? It's a defensive move, and I really can't blame them if they get aggressive scanning coming out of a network and have no idea if something worse is about to hit. So yes, I can see that kind of reaction happening.
And that's just the problem: everyone has to feel superior to someone else. Fine, one can feel superior to someone else. It's when this is done by actually making others feel bad by going out of your way to be mean, or actively interfering with them that it's crossing the line. Others have rights to follow whatever cause they want, and they respect you by not messing with you. Show them a little respect. Don't have to agree with their cause, whatever it may be, but that does not mean they deserve the vicious attacks that I know both groups have suffered.
And I suspect that they do care, but they aren't so petty as to resort to the same rude tactics that their critics do. Both groups have the occasional nutcase, but most of them are perfectly ordinary people who just want to live their lives, even if society as a whole thinks they're weird.
Laugh all you want. The fact is that it is legal to control access to your own private property. In fact, all of the things you listed are about that in one way or another, except the EFF. And they are all legal. They may suck, but they're legal.
How, exactly, would you be at fault for truthfully reporting the source of the hack attempt? Or are you trying to say that it would be OK to sue someone for failing to have psychic powers which can be used to detect additional circumstances that otherwise would have to be pulled out of one's ass?
If anything it would be the ISP that should have to accept any positive or negative consequences of installing blocks. They're the ones who act on the complaints.
It happened the moment you decided to offer access to the public at large.
Irrelevant unless the poster you responded to is a common carrier or a government entity. Otherwise it's private property and there is no obligation to restrict or maintain access. I can put up a site and run it for a week and shut it down and I cannot be sued for it because the site is my own property, whether or not the server is (paid hosting, etc). I am within my rights to remove the files if I so wish.
Can shopping malls expel random people for no reason whatsoever?
Yes, actually. All they have to do is say "I'm asking you to leave now." And if you do not, they can call the police and have the police remove you, and if you resist, you will be charged with a crime and taken to jail. Do you really want that on your record?
Blocking an entire ISP because of a single user of that ISP portscanning you is a shotgun approach. It causes financial damage to that ISP. Now, assuming that the ISP notices and cares, then yeah, they could probably sue you for it and they might even win.
For what? Slamming the door shut in their face when they decided to rattle the lock? Again, private property, what the property owner says goes. If they didn't want to be banned, maybe they shouldn't have gone stirring up trouble, huh?
Blocking access to a single website or a single network isn't exactly the same thing as blocking users' email since the users have no control over the block, but the users DO have control over what websites they visit. Users have an expectation that email will always work, but they have no expectation that all web sites will always work.
Uh, if it's your property you can do whatever you want with it. So the lawsuit would get thrown out of court -- and you might even get countersued to recover the cost of defending your baseless lawsuit -- and the cost of filing the cost-recovery lawsuit.
I'm a member of a subculture that's gotten a lot of flak but I don't let it bother me because I really don't care, and because I know how uninformed the idiots are, and how they have to make fun of someone to make their pathetic lives feel superior somehow, but I personally rarely make fun of anyone because I consider it rude; but that's just me. Too bad society as a whole is getting ruder and ruder these days. It shouldn't be accepted, period.
That doesn't stop me from calling others on it when I think they're out of line, though.
And you will lose. The owner of private property can do whatever they want with that property, subject to certain restrictions depending on what it is used for (housing discrimination laws, for instance). If the property owner wishes to use this paint, you have no recourse other than to leave. How hard is it to notice that you aren't getting a signal and try going back outside to get one again, if you are waiting for a call? It's not like the signal strength readouts are exactly inconspicuous.
And the building owner will possibly countersue you to extract attorney's fees from you to cover the cost of defending your frivolous, whiny, "I'm entitled to whatever I want even though I don't own the building!" lawsuit.
If you have a relative in the hospital who is that ill, you shouldn't be in the theater, because you know you might get that call.
There are roadside services like AAA and those that are available with (ironically) cell phone plans. If you run off the road and do not have access to an emergency help service, you have no real expectation of anyone who is not such a service to come and help you. If you run off the road, call the service, call a tow truck, flag down a passing tow truck, police car, or other qualified person. Your friends should take care of themselves. Furthermore, if they are hurt, and a member of your (or their) family calls you to tell you what happened, they will leave a voicemail.
You can't justify creating a disturbance, every single time you answer the phone, just on the miniscule chance that you MIGHT have wanted to know earlier. If you're expecting an important call, what are you doing in a place where talking on the phone is frowned on?
Actually, I don't think that's the case, though it's an interesting thing to bring up.
There are lots of instances in the press (print, film, television, radio etc) where sci-fi fans are portrayed as "geeks" or "nerds" and often with a negative attitude toward them (sneering, being blatantly made fun of, being potrayed as losers who don't have social lives, etc). So no, I don't think that Trek fans are seen in the same light as sports fans, who don't get the same "Get a life, losers!" treatment on Saturday Night Live, or whatever that was (I don't watch late-night TV, or much outside of documentaries).
Your profession doesn't give you the right to to impose annoying behavior on others. Your job may require you to be "on call", but that is not a free pass to, in the process of doing those duties, piss off other people. You are expected to be "on call" in such a way so as to be considerate of others. In this case, either leave the theater before taking the call (or at least picking it up, saying "I'm in a movie, hold on while I walk outside", and then go into the hallway to take the call), or... DON'T GO TO THE MOVIES. You're perfectly free to find something else to do instead of being a rude asshole that will rightfully get people angry with you.
OK, that was hilarious. Someone needs to write a "Shatnerification" script for the web so I can read Slashdot in Shatnerspeak and see how long it takes for my brain to melt.
Slashdot Mirror
On the music
As for the iTMS, I doubt you'd get in any trouble for bypassing the DRM -- heck I've done it, for said car-stereo CDs for my own use -- but technically you can't do it:This specifically requires you to admit that the content isn't yours and that you have to follow the copyright rules, and the letter of the law says that you can't do what you're saying you do. The spirit of the law says that if you keep it to yourself, you won't get in trouble, though, and in practice, you won't.
Perhaps this is where we disagree - because that which is contained on the disk is not their property.
But the law says it is. Read the license agreements in software, read the fine print on DVD cases. That information states that you are just licensing the content. You bought the media but not the content that is on it. Again, I don't agree with that and I think it's despicable -- but that's what the situation is right now.
This is not a philosophy or an opinion - this is a fact. The DMCA (in addition to other laws, I'm sure) blocks people from the right to do with what they own, unquestionably.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the DMCA is a bad law. I am however pointing out the flaw in your argument -- that while you can do whatever you want with the media itself, you are not allowed to do whatever you want with the content, and one of the restrictions is that you do not own the copyright on it and therefore are forbidden from copying it.
The situation that you and I both want is not going to come around unless the content in question is actually sold to you along with the media or is under a license that does grant to you the copyright.
That is not a philosophy or an opinion. It is a fact.
So you're going to bitch over everything I say, huh? You stated that human space missions are unnecessary. They most certainly are. And you're getting hostile at me over being corrected.
I live on the same planet as you do, and apparently you aren't considering the fact that while there are SOME situations where robots can do the job, they can't do ALL of them.
The only steaming pile of bullshit I see here is your uncalled-for hostile attitude.
And if you're going to whine about "affordability", here's something for you to bitch about:
NASA does everything it does, manned and unmanned, on just 1-2% of the budget. Far more is spent on unnecessary wars that do nothing but KILL PEOPLE. That's a whole lot more fucking expensive, so if you're going to start throwing stones, throw them at something that wastes a lot more and actually causes far more worthy things to be cut, like space exploration -- which not only does require humans sometimes, and robots other times -- but also gives something to dream about.
Or is having dreams too fucking expensive these days? I'd hate to have the boring, bitter life that you apparently lead where dreaming about something literally above our petty problems and dreaming about maybe being able to go out there is apparently too expensive. What a pathetic existence that must be.
I'm not aware that explaining the facts of the matter at hand constitutes anything beyond attempting to be informative. Not everything involves an argument just because it's on an internet message forum.
What? Go read the info yourself.
Yes, the design was fairly good -- but it had known flaws that were pointed out and argued against while it was in development. Such as having a manned flyback booster. Such as having liquid-fuelled boosters. Such as having monolithic solid boosters. Such as being top-mounted instead of parallel-stack. All of these issues were addressed in designs -- that were thrown out due to being too expensive. And the monolithic booster were thrown out and a design made by the entrant that came in last in the booster-design evaluation -- twice!
Yes, the current design was good -- I admire it -- but it should have been much better.
First, I'm not new here, and I don't appreciate your attempt to belittle me or assume I am stupid or ignorant because I do not agree with you.
Second -- your examples point to a truth that I think is rather asinine personally but for now is still a truth:
You own the media, but not the content contained on that media. So yes, the property owner is exercising their right to control what is done with their property
You must be new here if you've missed the billions of posts pointing this out.
OK, let's get this misconception out of the way.
While there are a lot of things that robots can do, there are a hell of a lot of things they can't. For instance, having a robot on Mars doing geology investigations is great, but all the stuff the rovers take a day to do could be done by a human in just a few minutes. Robots can't react to new situations the way humans do, either; present one with something outside of its programming and it'll just sit there. And do you really trust the robot to not screw up? There are reasons why humans still drive trucks, fly planes, and operate trains.
There always will be situations like that, too. You use the right tool for the right job. And the choice of a human over a robot can sometimes be just another case where you choose the right method for the right situation.
That's because it depends on how well the next flight goes before it officially goes on the manifest. The NASA Director has shown that he seems to want to fly it, however, so I'm hopeful.
More:
Griffin Vows To Send Shuttle Mission To Hubble
I must point out here that (1) the CEV can go to low orbit, yes, but it is also designed to go farther, to the Moon and Mars; and that (2) while I, too, am disappointed by the cancellations, many of the missions will hopefully just be delayed, not totally cancelled.
Er...
That's exactly where the money is going: to develop the CEV. Which happens to be the manned replacement for the Shuttle. There is also the big booster built from Shuttle-system components that will be used for heavy lifting big cargo.
You're advocating what's already being done!
The shuttle program can't just stop now, however; it's needed for a few more tasks. Like, oh, that obligation toward finishing the space station and getting it usable (at least, the parts that aren't just being trashed and left to rot, even though they were built to fly). Like, oh, repairing the Hubble Space Telescope and installing already-built parts.
And so Dickens was right.
We have long been hoping that someday people would go back to the moon for more than just the Apollo-style touch-and-go missions, and now that looks like a reality more than it ever has since the end of the Apollo program.
And yet, it is the worst of times, too, for those who have been working very, very hard on programs that have nothing to do with the lunar program which have been very productive. I can only hope that this will pass, and that once the new vehicles have been developed and are flying we will be able to resume other science programs -- and face it, despite the setbacks like the Polar Lander and the Climate Observer, there have been a great many successes in the NASA robotic programs. The HST, the MER program, Cassini, the Great Observatories, Landsat, the list just goes on and on.
The Shuttle was and is a great idea, but the execution was flawed due to too much pennypinching during the design phase. It is an amazing idea and I hope that a safer reincarnation of the same thing returns, from either a government or from a private company. Do it right (manned flyback booster, a hardier orbiter, and so on) and put a better escape system on it.
But until things get smoothed out again, all I can do is wait, and hope that it all works out in the end. I've been a space buff for years, and I probably will be forever, and I know that the new expendables will probably be more inexpensive to operate plus the processing flow will hopefully be smoother.
Until then, though, it is the season of light and the season of darkness.
The first group: you're making the mistake of lumping all of them in with a subgroup that you don't like. This is neither justified nor fair. Most of them are probably pretty normal people and not any different from anyone else and just have a passing interest, or just happen to like animals (no, not in THAT way), and live pretty normal lives just like "Joe Sixpack" or "John Q. Public" and you wouldn't know about that part of their personalities unless they told you. Why? Because of your kind of reaction: assumption that all of them do things you find distasteful. And so they hide it, so that they aren't subjected to prejudiced, unfounded bad treatment.
... it is crossing the line if anyone tries to physically harm them or actively interfere with them by vandalizing their possessions or committing other crimes against them. Live and let live. If you want to show that you feel you're better, set an example -- using positive means, not negative ones. Donate to charities working to promote equality, for example. There are lots of ways to show your support.
As for the neonazis: I didn't say I agreed with them. I don't. However, the fact is that you are perfectly free to disagree with them, as am I, and are free to write about how you feel about their ideas
The point I'm trying to make is that not agreeing with someone does not mean it is okay to be a jerk toward them.
Ok, let me clarify my last statement a little... yeah, it was confusing. You made the point I was trying to make, which is legally true. I was trying to indicate that I can see why users would complain more if email was working. Or something like that. I think. Hey, I wrote that right before I went to bed, I was bleary!
As for the first part -- yes, but it still came from the ISP's network, and how can the admin know that more isn't coming? It's a defensive move, and I really can't blame them if they get aggressive scanning coming out of a network and have no idea if something worse is about to hit. So yes, I can see that kind of reaction happening.
And that's just the problem: everyone has to feel superior to someone else. Fine, one can feel superior to someone else. It's when this is done by actually making others feel bad by going out of your way to be mean, or actively interfering with them that it's crossing the line. Others have rights to follow whatever cause they want, and they respect you by not messing with you. Show them a little respect. Don't have to agree with their cause, whatever it may be, but that does not mean they deserve the vicious attacks that I know both groups have suffered.
And I suspect that they do care, but they aren't so petty as to resort to the same rude tactics that their critics do. Both groups have the occasional nutcase, but most of them are perfectly ordinary people who just want to live their lives, even if society as a whole thinks they're weird.
Laugh all you want. The fact is that it is legal to control access to your own private property. In fact, all of the things you listed are about that in one way or another, except the EFF. And they are all legal. They may suck, but they're legal.
How do those toes taste?
How, exactly, would you be at fault for truthfully reporting the source of the hack attempt? Or are you trying to say that it would be OK to sue someone for failing to have psychic powers which can be used to detect additional circumstances that otherwise would have to be pulled out of one's ass?
If anything it would be the ISP that should have to accept any positive or negative consequences of installing blocks. They're the ones who act on the complaints.
It happened the moment you decided to offer access to the public at large.
Irrelevant unless the poster you responded to is a common carrier or a government entity. Otherwise it's private property and there is no obligation to restrict or maintain access. I can put up a site and run it for a week and shut it down and I cannot be sued for it because the site is my own property, whether or not the server is (paid hosting, etc). I am within my rights to remove the files if I so wish.
Can shopping malls expel random people for no reason whatsoever?
Yes, actually. All they have to do is say "I'm asking you to leave now." And if you do not, they can call the police and have the police remove you, and if you resist, you will be charged with a crime and taken to jail. Do you really want that on your record?
Blocking an entire ISP because of a single user of that ISP portscanning you is a shotgun approach. It causes financial damage to that ISP. Now, assuming that the ISP notices and cares, then yeah, they could probably sue you for it and they might even win.
For what? Slamming the door shut in their face when they decided to rattle the lock? Again, private property, what the property owner says goes. If they didn't want to be banned, maybe they shouldn't have gone stirring up trouble, huh?
Blocking access to a single website or a single network isn't exactly the same thing as blocking users' email since the users have no control over the block, but the users DO have control over what websites they visit. Users have an expectation that email will always work, but they have no expectation that all web sites will always work.
Uh, if it's your property you can do whatever you want with it. So the lawsuit would get thrown out of court -- and you might even get countersued to recover the cost of defending your baseless lawsuit -- and the cost of filing the cost-recovery lawsuit.
I'm a member of a subculture that's gotten a lot of flak but I don't let it bother me because I really don't care, and because I know how uninformed the idiots are, and how they have to make fun of someone to make their pathetic lives feel superior somehow, but I personally rarely make fun of anyone because I consider it rude; but that's just me. Too bad society as a whole is getting ruder and ruder these days. It shouldn't be accepted, period.
That doesn't stop me from calling others on it when I think they're out of line, though.
And you will lose. The owner of private property can do whatever they want with that property, subject to certain restrictions depending on what it is used for (housing discrimination laws, for instance). If the property owner wishes to use this paint, you have no recourse other than to leave. How hard is it to notice that you aren't getting a signal and try going back outside to get one again, if you are waiting for a call? It's not like the signal strength readouts are exactly inconspicuous. And the building owner will possibly countersue you to extract attorney's fees from you to cover the cost of defending your frivolous, whiny, "I'm entitled to whatever I want even though I don't own the building!" lawsuit.
If you have a relative in the hospital who is that ill, you shouldn't be in the theater, because you know you might get that call. There are roadside services like AAA and those that are available with (ironically) cell phone plans. If you run off the road and do not have access to an emergency help service, you have no real expectation of anyone who is not such a service to come and help you. If you run off the road, call the service, call a tow truck, flag down a passing tow truck, police car, or other qualified person. Your friends should take care of themselves. Furthermore, if they are hurt, and a member of your (or their) family calls you to tell you what happened, they will leave a voicemail. You can't justify creating a disturbance, every single time you answer the phone, just on the miniscule chance that you MIGHT have wanted to know earlier. If you're expecting an important call, what are you doing in a place where talking on the phone is frowned on?
Actually, I don't think that's the case, though it's an interesting thing to bring up. There are lots of instances in the press (print, film, television, radio etc) where sci-fi fans are portrayed as "geeks" or "nerds" and often with a negative attitude toward them (sneering, being blatantly made fun of, being potrayed as losers who don't have social lives, etc). So no, I don't think that Trek fans are seen in the same light as sports fans, who don't get the same "Get a life, losers!" treatment on Saturday Night Live, or whatever that was (I don't watch late-night TV, or much outside of documentaries).
Your profession doesn't give you the right to to impose annoying behavior on others. Your job may require you to be "on call", but that is not a free pass to, in the process of doing those duties, piss off other people. You are expected to be "on call" in such a way so as to be considerate of others. In this case, either leave the theater before taking the call (or at least picking it up, saying "I'm in a movie, hold on while I walk outside", and then go into the hallway to take the call), or ... DON'T GO TO THE MOVIES. You're perfectly free to find something else to do instead of being a rude asshole that will rightfully get people angry with you.
OK, that was hilarious. Someone needs to write a "Shatnerification" script for the web so I can read Slashdot in Shatnerspeak and see how long it takes for my brain to melt.