What's up with the 1 pound heatsinks??? You can get nearly the same performance out of a G4 cube with no fan. Or you can get a G4 MP machine and still end up using less power and beat out that 1.4 GHz P4 (complete speculation)...
What will installing a P4 do to one's electric bill anyhow?
Moreover, what's up with the 1 pound heatsink??!?! ONE POUND! Isn't Moore's law supposed to make things SMALLER?
Yes, we should all remember that the easiest way to spot the pioneers is that they're the ones face down on the ground with arrows in their backs...When was the last time that the creator of a given technology or techniqe was the actual one to dominate because of it? I don't know.
Odds are IE6 and/or MSN will incorporate an online bill paying scheme identical to paypals, and since it will be installed on 60+ million PC's within a year, Microsoft will win out again.
Isn't the patent just if you write software that uses their patent, and not if you create content that uses it? I don't know what platform you use, but if you've bought a program that uses the Fraunhofer (is that it? Damn germans...:P ) patent, then you're legally entitled to use it to create mp3's. Or, you can use a "free" codec, because their patent only applies to one specific way of making mp3 files, as opposed to covering the file format in full.
Just some thoughts. So far as free hosting goes... there are plenty of places, freeservers, 8m.com, et al...
And back to where we started, mp3.com is for all intents and purposes of this discussion, a record label, just like any other...
Even then they might not. Windwows will still be the dominant OS. Witness the shelf of Mac applications versus the 20 shelves of Windows apps at any non-mac centric retailer to get the picture.
... that they're selling into. The only shops that really need dedicated print servers are large companies, fortune 1000, et al. Those shops are still predominantly (if not completely) using Windows NT and 95 on the desktops. If Linux was there, then they'ed no doubt support them, but there's *probably* very little actual demand for it, just a lot of curiousity.
And it's not like they snubbed Linux but still offered HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, Irix and FreeBSD support. They just said "we think our market is using Windows on the desktop" and stuck with that...
Nah... This has been my line all along... I hate napster, is all. I don't see how slashdot could like it, personally, being that it actively disregards licenses while slashdot cries foul whenever the GPL appears to be in danger of violation...
By the way, what are those 4 words? There seemed to be a LOT more than 4 on the page you sent me to, but the first 4 that caught me were "WORK MADE FOR HIRE" meaning that that's what the artists did and therefore signed their rights to their respective labels...
Because prior to napster, no one had created a free means of simultaneously distributing many copies of the original. Casettes cost money to but and take time to copy. Ditto for CD-Rs. Because of the inconvienence factor and the plethora of non-infriging and fair use uses, they couldn't attack those anyhow.
Compare cassettes or cd-r's to Napster:
1. Napster takes barely anytime to distribute a file, if people are using broadband connectiosn.
2. The quality doesn't degrade at all from the original (the original is an already degraded mp3, yes, but once it's an mp3, no further degradation occurs).
3. Copies are free to make - there's no cost of materials.
4. Napster lets you distribute your files to the world at large, not just the very small set of people that you might know.
Napster isn't about sharing. Sharing is when you have something and give it to someone else. Napster is about distributing. That's what the labels that have joined the RIAA do, distribute music. Except when they distribute music, they've devised a way to pay royalties to artists. Napsters CEO even claims it's impossible to track downloads, let alone pay the artists their fair share....
Claims of price fixing aside (and if any one really cares to look it up, you'll find that one of the main motivations for the RIAA to enter into marketing deals which kept the cost of CD's high, was that when there weren't any minimum prices, the Walmarts and Targets of the world were eating the Mom and Pop stores for breakfast, hence the RIAA implented a minimum price in order to save the smaller stores) the RIAA really doesn't seem to be as bad as they're portrayed on these pages. If ANYONE could figure out a way to allow everyone involved in the creation, distribution, and promotion of music to the money they deserve, the RIAA, labels, and artists would surely jump at the opportunity...
Hey... how come i can't download all of your songs from your website? Only "some" of them? And why are they only available in Real G2 format and not mp3 (except they're not actually available as.rm files either, but that's besides the point)? And what's up with copyrights and trademarks on your website? Trademarks and copyrights are just forms of IP that need to be abolished, aren't they? Lastly, I can't even find any of your music on Napster, why's that? Napster doesn't seem to be doing that great of a job to promote new artists, are they? Catch my drift?
I do see that you've got some songs available from mp3.com, but for all intents and purposes, mp3.com is a label, just like all the others. Except they don't provide cash advances, and they give larger percentages of royalties as a result. In the end, Napsters the leech... which is why the labels have mostly turned their sites towards them...
Then use WordPad... It's free. It's functional. And it has none of the annoyances of word, unless you're one of those 1%'ers... Which most everyone is, really. As much as you don't want to be, if you use Word, odds are that there's some esoteric feature that you use that other people don't quite consider part of a "normal" word processor.
Zone Alarm should stop it then... you have to explicity tell it what programs are allowed to access the internet. and from what i've found, it goes by teh program making the request, not the DLL, so two programs can use IE's dll's and only one will be able to get to the internet, if you're so inclined...
Star Office currently bites. On PC's it attempts to take over/supplement the entire OS. One start menu might be annoying, but two are just absurd. Plus the fact that it becomes your default web browser, and I haven't found a way to circumvent that as of yet... Even on Solaris, the thing is slow as molasses... and no, it's not the "slowaris" effect. I tried running it on a dual cpu 400 MHz machine with no load, and it still took ages to even launch. everything else, even netscape, was much more responsive than Star Office could even hope to be...
Why is it that everyone drops the word "infinite" in to just about every comment on this topic? Haven't we learned that nothing, except for maybe distance and time (and those two are still subject to debate), are infinite? There are limits to everything, even, especially even if we don't yet have the means to measure them. If we can't measure something does that mean it is either infinite or just plain doesn't exist? no... it just that we as a species haven't refined our ability to measure things that are either that large or that small...
I guess that qualifies as "effectively" infinite. But at this stage in the game to call anything "effectively infinite" just doesn't seem appropriate. How about "a very very very very large"?:)
They withdrew it, Connectix hailed victory, and then Sony refiled a new suit the next day, actually...
From MacInStart.com: Sony Sues Connectix (Sony Link) Sony has sued Connectix on 2 different sets of claims; 9 copyright and trademark claims and 11 patent claims about the popular Sony PlayStation Emulator, Virtual Game Station, which won MacWorld Expo San Francisco 1999's Best of Show award. 7 of the 9 copyright and trademark claims were dismissed by the court and 2 will be reviewed for dismissal possible in early September. Connectix filed a petition to dismiss all of the 11 on the grounds that there were technical complications in Sony's filing, and in Connectix's opinion Sony has not established that they have ownership to the patents.
The day before the hearing on the motion to withdraw the claims, Sony voluntarily withdrew all 11 patent accounts, then the next day Sony brought back 6 of the 11 accounts. Where does that leave Connectix and Sony now? 2 of the original 9 are before the court, and 6 of the original 11 claims are before the court. 12 out of the way and 8 to go. Now the court reviews it and sees if it proceeds in court. I asked the CEO of Connectix, Roy McDonald, if this is keeping him up at night worrying about these lawsuits. Roy observes, "It is a small part of out business. Our main retail is Virtual PC, and the largest amount of development and future growth relates to the application of our emulators to business applications. So the company is growing both in mac emulation retail space and enterprise space, although the console space is the profitable area; and although we love the product we produce there, it represents a small fraction of our business."
So... if you think any precedent has been set, or even that Connectix is actually out of the woods yet, wrong. The Register had a good article on the story as well, if you want to look there for more references...
No... if they only rot13'ed it, anyone could stand up and say that they didn't take reasonable precautions to prevent the decoding of whatever it was that was encoded. or at least, that's my guess as to what the outcome would be...
Well, what, would you rather them release a 1.0 product that crashes and sizzles all the time and destroys your files, or take the time to actually get it right? Writing a newish OS is an undertaking on it's own, not to mention the fact that they want to make the transition as easy as possible for developers and users alike...
Although i wish they'ed just give status reports rather than continually post poning the release dates... However, to call them a rotten apple filled with worms is a bit overkill... Apple really still is one of leaders of the personal computing world. Which is why they're being so cautious about when the OS will be ready. One major misstep could lead to a renewed round of "beleagured Apple Computer" reports in the news...
Even earlier than that, AOL was founded in 1985. I don't know when they had their first Mac client, but I'm fairly certain that it was before 1992. And since they've been driven by databases of one sort or another for quite some time, they could surely stand to be prior art, would you think? GUI application causes client computer to dial up to server to request information from it. Sounds about right... Then again any BBS system would do, but AOL seems most fitting to use as "prior art"...
But/. wasn't around prior to 1992, and hence doesn't serve as prior art, as the professor is looking for...
And the point still stands, that just because this person may be the enemy of your enemy doesn't neccessarily mean htat she's your friend, right? I think it's right in asking that if she's going to ask/.'s aid, she should be more forthcoming about her intentions, and even disclose the details of the patent she wants to debunk. Of course, we don't know her situation, but if she'd masqueraded behind a freebie webmail address in the Czech Republic, she wouldn't have needed to worry about such things....
no... some are actually quite ingeniuous. Problem is is that the patent office seams to dole out patents to anyone who takes the time and spend the money for a patent application, which makes whole system look bad. But it's not. True inventiveness should be protected as patents were designed to do. It's just that the mechanism behind them is becoming more and more flawed as time goes on.
Keep the patents, overhaul the system that awards them, i say.
One thing is, is that when Intel discovers a problem, be it with the P60, i820, or now P3-1.13, they always go out of their way to fix the it... step forward, recall systems, replace defective items, etc...
What happened when it was found that a certain AMD chip (was it the k6-3-350?) had problems booting Win98? All other AMD chips had no problems, just this one chip would have to be reset a number of times before it would successfully boot? Did customers get no chips? No. They had to wait until Microsoft released a patch to Win98 that solved AMD's problem...
It really seems that Intel, for all their faults, are a lot more on the ball about addressing said faults. Not that that sways me at all... I'm dying to put together my Duron system...:) This was just a point/counter-point excersize.
Apple hasn't been competition to Microsoft for years, we apple fans just thought that was the case. But the reality is that that Mac's are too far removed from PC's to be considered real competition. In order for a Windows user to become a Mac user, they need to go buy a whole new computer at a cost of $800 on up. In order for a Windows user to become a Linux user, they just need to install Linux at a cost of free to $50.
That's the reason that MSFT has no issues developing a compeletly seperate strain of Outlook, Internet Explorer, and even Office for the Mac, because with the Mac running on it's own hardware platform, it doesn't challenge redmond at all.
Lots of companies won't buy anything unless it's available from multiple sources. x86 computers are. Mac's aren't.
But if you read your contract at all, or even the verbage on their website, you'd learn that you weren't buying it from them. You can't buy something frm someone that you need to return to them in 2 years. They're loaning it to you for a specified period. And they're not even loaning you a domain name. They're selling to you the service of telling people who type in "www.anydomain.com" that the name server that knows more about that domain is located at the IP address of 192.168.0.12, or if that fails try 10.0.0.15.
I don't think it's an NSI problem specifically. No registrar ever claims to be selling domain names. They're just selling the service of putting your name somewhere that gets looked at by the reoot servers for a year or two...
Here, we'll put it in GPL terms for you... the GPL prohibits you from GPL'ing software that you don't have the legal right to GPL, such as (until next month) products containing RSA encryption.
That said, no matter what the contract says, if the contract is illegal, it's unenforcable. I could agree to you to sell my next 10 children for $10 a kid, but if the courts ever found out, no matter how concrete sounding and binding the contract was worded, you wouldn't get my kids. Though, i probably wouldn't get to keep them either! But NSI's not actively solicting in that sense, and we're not talking about anything but domain names.
Short answer, a contract is only as enforceable as it is legal. If the contract is found to be illegal, it is null and void.
No, anyone can register.com's,.net's, and.orgs, but since they're all ultimately adminsitered by NSI, a US corporation, and they need to abide by the laws of the land, if they find that you registered a name that US courts decided for one reason or another yuo couldn't have, they'ed have to take it back from you. If you don't want to deal with US laws, don't get US administered domains, it's a simple compromise...
And before you could do anything else to complain, you'd first for have to try to internationalize.com in the first place which is highly unlikely.
And.com's are nice, but look at this, it's a.org! and i do most of my shoping at.co.uk's... I am a US citizen, with a dot com of my own, by the way....
And anyways, unless your name is also harrison ford, why in the world would you want that name in the first place, unless just to capitalize from his fame and fortunes?
Slashdot Mirror
What's up with the 1 pound heatsinks??? You can get nearly the same performance out of a G4 cube with no fan. Or you can get a G4 MP machine and still end up using less power and beat out that 1.4 GHz P4 (complete speculation)...
What will installing a P4 do to one's electric bill anyhow?
Moreover, what's up with the 1 pound heatsink??!?! ONE POUND! Isn't Moore's law supposed to make things SMALLER?
Yes, we should all remember that the easiest way to spot the pioneers is that they're the ones face down on the ground with arrows in their backs...When was the last time that the creator of a given technology or techniqe was the actual one to dominate because of it? I don't know.
Odds are IE6 and/or MSN will incorporate an online bill paying scheme identical to paypals, and since it will be installed on 60+ million PC's within a year, Microsoft will win out again.
Isn't the patent just if you write software that uses their patent, and not if you create content that uses it? I don't know what platform you use, but if you've bought a program that uses the Fraunhofer (is that it? Damn germans... :P ) patent, then you're legally entitled to use it to create mp3's. Or, you can use a "free" codec, because their patent only applies to one specific way of making mp3 files, as opposed to covering the file format in full.
Just some thoughts. So far as free hosting goes... there are plenty of places, freeservers, 8m.com, et al...
And back to where we started, mp3.com is for all intents and purposes of this discussion, a record label, just like any other...
Even then they might not. Windwows will still be the dominant OS. Witness the shelf of Mac applications versus the 20 shelves of Windows apps at any non-mac centric retailer to get the picture.
... that they're selling into. The only shops that really need dedicated print servers are large companies, fortune 1000, et al. Those shops are still predominantly (if not completely) using Windows NT and 95 on the desktops. If Linux was there, then they'ed no doubt support them, but there's *probably* very little actual demand for it, just a lot of curiousity.
And it's not like they snubbed Linux but still offered HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, Irix and FreeBSD support. They just said "we think our market is using Windows on the desktop" and stuck with that...
Nah... This has been my line all along... I hate napster, is all. I don't see how slashdot could like it, personally, being that it actively disregards licenses while slashdot cries foul whenever the GPL appears to be in danger of violation...
By the way, what are those 4 words? There seemed to be a LOT more than 4 on the page you sent me to, but the first 4 that caught me were "WORK MADE FOR HIRE" meaning that that's what the artists did and therefore signed their rights to their respective labels...
Bummer for them...
Because prior to napster, no one had created a free means of simultaneously distributing many copies of the original. Casettes cost money to but and take time to copy. Ditto for CD-Rs. Because of the inconvienence factor and the plethora of non-infriging and fair use uses, they couldn't attack those anyhow.
Compare cassettes or cd-r's to Napster:
1. Napster takes barely anytime to distribute a file, if people are using broadband connectiosn.
2. The quality doesn't degrade at all from the original (the original is an already degraded mp3, yes, but once it's an mp3, no further degradation occurs).
3. Copies are free to make - there's no cost of materials.
4. Napster lets you distribute your files to the world at large, not just the very small set of people that you might know.
Napster isn't about sharing. Sharing is when you have something and give it to someone else. Napster is about distributing. That's what the labels that have joined the RIAA do, distribute music. Except when they distribute music, they've devised a way to pay royalties to artists. Napsters CEO even claims it's impossible to track downloads, let alone pay the artists their fair share....
Claims of price fixing aside (and if any one really cares to look it up, you'll find that one of the main motivations for the RIAA to enter into marketing deals which kept the cost of CD's high, was that when there weren't any minimum prices, the Walmarts and Targets of the world were eating the Mom and Pop stores for breakfast, hence the RIAA implented a minimum price in order to save the smaller stores) the RIAA really doesn't seem to be as bad as they're portrayed on these pages. If ANYONE could figure out a way to allow everyone involved in the creation, distribution, and promotion of music to the money they deserve, the RIAA, labels, and artists would surely jump at the opportunity...
Sorry about the rant.
Hey... how come i can't download all of your songs from your website? Only "some" of them? And why are they only available in Real G2 format and not mp3 (except they're not actually available as .rm files either, but that's besides the point)? And what's up with copyrights and trademarks on your website? Trademarks and copyrights are just forms of IP that need to be abolished, aren't they? Lastly, I can't even find any of your music on Napster, why's that? Napster doesn't seem to be doing that great of a job to promote new artists, are they? Catch my drift?
I do see that you've got some songs available from mp3.com, but for all intents and purposes, mp3.com is a label, just like all the others. Except they don't provide cash advances, and they give larger percentages of royalties as a result. In the end, Napsters the leech... which is why the labels have mostly turned their sites towards them...
Then use WordPad... It's free. It's functional. And it has none of the annoyances of word, unless you're one of those 1%'ers... Which most everyone is, really. As much as you don't want to be, if you use Word, odds are that there's some esoteric feature that you use that other people don't quite consider part of a "normal" word processor.
Zone Alarm should stop it then... you have to explicity tell it what programs are allowed to access the internet. and from what i've found, it goes by teh program making the request, not the DLL, so two programs can use IE's dll's and only one will be able to get to the internet, if you're so inclined...
Star Office currently bites. On PC's it attempts to take over/supplement the entire OS. One start menu might be annoying, but two are just absurd. Plus the fact that it becomes your default web browser, and I haven't found a way to circumvent that as of yet... Even on Solaris, the thing is slow as molasses... and no, it's not the "slowaris" effect. I tried running it on a dual cpu 400 MHz machine with no load, and it still took ages to even launch. everything else, even netscape, was much more responsive than Star Office could even hope to be...
1 - I don't know.
2 - That you've purchased Microsoft Windows, most likely.
3 - It doesn't affect other OS's. Not everything revolves around Linux.
Why is it that everyone drops the word "infinite" in to just about every comment on this topic? Haven't we learned that nothing, except for maybe distance and time (and those two are still subject to debate), are infinite? There are limits to everything, even, especially even if we don't yet have the means to measure them. If we can't measure something does that mean it is either infinite or just plain doesn't exist? no... it just that we as a species haven't refined our ability to measure things that are either that large or that small...
:)
I guess that qualifies as "effectively" infinite. But at this stage in the game to call anything "effectively infinite" just doesn't seem appropriate. How about "a very very very very large"?
They withdrew it, Connectix hailed victory, and then Sony refiled a new suit the next day, actually...
From MacInStart.com:
Sony Sues Connectix (Sony Link)
Sony has sued Connectix on 2 different sets of claims; 9 copyright and trademark claims and 11 patent claims about the popular Sony PlayStation Emulator, Virtual Game Station, which won MacWorld Expo San Francisco 1999's Best of Show award. 7 of the 9 copyright and trademark claims were dismissed by the court and 2 will be reviewed for dismissal possible in early September. Connectix filed a petition to dismiss all of the 11 on the grounds that there were technical complications in Sony's filing, and in Connectix's opinion Sony has not established that they have ownership to the patents.
The day before the hearing on the motion to withdraw the claims, Sony voluntarily withdrew all 11 patent accounts, then the next day Sony brought back 6 of the 11 accounts. Where does that leave Connectix and Sony now? 2 of the original 9 are before the court, and 6 of the original 11 claims are before the court. 12 out of the way and 8 to go. Now the court reviews it and sees if it proceeds in court. I asked the CEO of Connectix, Roy McDonald, if this is keeping him up at night worrying about these lawsuits. Roy observes, "It is a small part of out business. Our main retail is Virtual PC, and the largest amount of development and future growth relates to the application of our emulators to business applications. So the company is growing both in mac emulation retail space and enterprise space, although the console space is the profitable area; and although we love the product we produce there, it represents a small fraction of our business."
So... if you think any precedent has been set, or even that Connectix is actually out of the woods yet, wrong. The Register had a good article on the story as well, if you want to look there for more references...
No... if they only rot13'ed it, anyone could stand up and say that they didn't take reasonable precautions to prevent the decoding of whatever it was that was encoded. or at least, that's my guess as to what the outcome would be...
Well, what, would you rather them release a 1.0 product that crashes and sizzles all the time and destroys your files, or take the time to actually get it right? Writing a newish OS is an undertaking on it's own, not to mention the fact that they want to make the transition as easy as possible for developers and users alike...
Although i wish they'ed just give status reports rather than continually post poning the release dates... However, to call them a rotten apple filled with worms is a bit overkill... Apple really still is one of leaders of the personal computing world. Which is why they're being so cautious about when the OS will be ready. One major misstep could lead to a renewed round of "beleagured Apple Computer" reports in the news...
Even earlier than that, AOL was founded in 1985. I don't know when they had their first Mac client, but I'm fairly certain that it was before 1992. And since they've been driven by databases of one sort or another for quite some time, they could surely stand to be prior art, would you think? GUI application causes client computer to dial up to server to request information from it. Sounds about right... Then again any BBS system would do, but AOL seems most fitting to use as "prior art"...
But /. wasn't around prior to 1992, and hence doesn't serve as prior art, as the professor is looking for...
/.'s aid, she should be more forthcoming about her intentions, and even disclose the details of the patent she wants to debunk. Of course, we don't know her situation, but if she'd masqueraded behind a freebie webmail address in the Czech Republic, she wouldn't have needed to worry about such things....
And the point still stands, that just because this person may be the enemy of your enemy doesn't neccessarily mean htat she's your friend, right? I think it's right in asking that if she's going to ask
no... some are actually quite ingeniuous. Problem is is that the patent office seams to dole out patents to anyone who takes the time and spend the money for a patent application, which makes whole system look bad. But it's not. True inventiveness should be protected as patents were designed to do. It's just that the mechanism behind them is becoming more and more flawed as time goes on.
Keep the patents, overhaul the system that awards them, i say.
One thing is, is that when Intel discovers a problem, be it with the P60, i820, or now P3-1.13, they always go out of their way to fix the it... step forward, recall systems, replace defective items, etc...
:) This was just a point/counter-point excersize.
What happened when it was found that a certain AMD chip (was it the k6-3-350?) had problems booting Win98? All other AMD chips had no problems, just this one chip would have to be reset a number of times before it would successfully boot? Did customers get no chips? No. They had to wait until Microsoft released a patch to Win98 that solved AMD's problem...
It really seems that Intel, for all their faults, are a lot more on the ball about addressing said faults. Not that that sways me at all... I'm dying to put together my Duron system...
Apple hasn't been competition to Microsoft for years, we apple fans just thought that was the case. But the reality is that that Mac's are too far removed from PC's to be considered real competition. In order for a Windows user to become a Mac user, they need to go buy a whole new computer at a cost of $800 on up. In order for a Windows user to become a Linux user, they just need to install Linux at a cost of free to $50.
That's the reason that MSFT has no issues developing a compeletly seperate strain of Outlook, Internet Explorer, and even Office for the Mac, because with the Mac running on it's own hardware platform, it doesn't challenge redmond at all.
Lots of companies won't buy anything unless it's available from multiple sources. x86 computers are. Mac's aren't.
But if you read your contract at all, or even the verbage on their website, you'd learn that you weren't buying it from them. You can't buy something frm someone that you need to return to them in 2 years. They're loaning it to you for a specified period. And they're not even loaning you a domain name. They're selling to you the service of telling people who type in "www.anydomain.com" that the name server that knows more about that domain is located at the IP address of 192.168.0.12, or if that fails try 10.0.0.15.
I don't think it's an NSI problem specifically. No registrar ever claims to be selling domain names. They're just selling the service of putting your name somewhere that gets looked at by the reoot servers for a year or two...
Here, we'll put it in GPL terms for you... the GPL prohibits you from GPL'ing software that you don't have the legal right to GPL, such as (until next month) products containing RSA encryption.
That said, no matter what the contract says, if the contract is illegal, it's unenforcable. I could agree to you to sell my next 10 children for $10 a kid, but if the courts ever found out, no matter how concrete sounding and binding the contract was worded, you wouldn't get my kids. Though, i probably wouldn't get to keep them either! But NSI's not actively solicting in that sense, and we're not talking about anything but domain names.
Short answer, a contract is only as enforceable as it is legal. If the contract is found to be illegal, it is null and void.
No, anyone can register .com's, .net's, and .orgs, but since they're all ultimately adminsitered by NSI, a US corporation, and they need to abide by the laws of the land, if they find that you registered a name that US courts decided for one reason or another yuo couldn't have, they'ed have to take it back from you. If you don't want to deal with US laws, don't get US administered domains, it's a simple compromise...
It is true.
.com in the first place which is highly unlikely.
.com's are nice, but look at this, it's a .org! and i do most of my shoping at .co.uk's... I am a US citizen, with a dot com of my own, by the way....
And before you could do anything else to complain, you'd first for have to try to internationalize
And
And anyways, unless your name is also harrison ford, why in the world would you want that name in the first place, unless just to capitalize from his fame and fortunes?