?

Log in

sykotoaster
10 January 2017 @ 10:15 am
My last post was almost a year ago.

I'd like to get back into writing. I'd like to get back into a lot of things...

And stay the hell out of a lot others.

I guess my first order of business is to try to finish my sculpture and then try to write a book.

What to write about?

What do I know a lot about?

I know about a lot of random shit. I guess I know something about addiction. I guess.

I need to get out more. I feel like maybe I don't have the breadth of experience I should have.

Like, nothing that serious has ever happened, so little things totally bog me down and upset me.

Time to go to to the danger zone, I guess. I GUESS.

What a word. How timid.

It's like saying "I have no fucking clue, so if I guess, then I can't be blamed for being right or wrong."

Saying "I guess" shows such a lack of conviction and understanding.

Time to stop guessing and just do something real.

I don't guess I have talent. I do have talent.
 
 
sykotoaster
08 May 2016 @ 10:39 am
For a while, I wasn't sure what I should say.

I still bite my tongue.

Hesitant?

Anxious?

Unfaithful, even?

All these feelings are unnecessary.

The truth is, and as tough as it is to hear, read, or dictate, is that there is no faith in anxiety, nor "second thoughts", nor hesitation.

Rather, faith is confidence.

I will write because I know I can write. If I grab a pen and impact a tabula rasa, there will be an articulation of expression that is unique to my penmanship.

What if the pen has no ink?

Get another pen, or grab a stone and write your thoughts in etchings.

Or, even better, inflict your ideas on others by saying what it is you intend to communicate.

For instance, say I want to draw a butterfly, and the pen I have is out of ink. How should I communicate "butterfly", in my own way?

Let's experiment. Grab a pen, or a pencil, of any color, and follow these directions:

1) Draw a small oval on a sheet of paper.
2) Draw a small circle at the top of that oval (if this were a map, the northern most part of the oval you drew in step 1).
3) From the circle in step 2, draw two lines extending from the top (northern) side of the circle, the first being slightly off to the left, and the second being slightly off to the right, extending at length roughly matching the diameter of the circle from step 2.
4) Extending from the upper most part of the oval, on the right side, draw a giant "D" that ends at the bottom (southern) end of the oval. The back bone of the "D" should be the curved portion of the oval, so only the curve of the letter is necessary to draw.
5) Mirror this instruction on the left side of the oval.
6)
 
 
sykotoaster
26 September 2013 @ 10:04 am

Just for fun, I'm going to go a whole month without looking in the mirror. I wonder what, if any, changes I might notice in my behavior.

Tags:
 
 
 
 
sykotoaster
17 September 2009 @ 10:58 pm
as a pop star at the end, you hear rumors of producers waiting to pounce at the realease of your "end" documentary and decide to take matters into your own hands and rise up and fulfill the publics wishes with hopes of your revival and yet you die.
 
 
sykotoaster
08 September 2009 @ 11:15 am
We are in a theater and before us hangs an enormous, pristine white screen. When the house lights dim, we are shown several shots: a shark fin moving from screen left to screen right, a girl treading water quickly turns her head, then a cut to red, murky water.
We conclude that a shark attack has taken place, but why? The fin could have been anywhere, the girl wasn't necessarily swimming with the shark, and the red water may as well have been cherry Kool-Aid.
However, the human brain tries to make sense of the images shown together; we try to come to some conclusion about what the information, layered "on top" of one another, means. Separately, the images mean nothing.
A shark swimming...so what? A girl treading water. Who cares? Red liquid of some kind. Maybe an interesting visual but beyond that it may as well be blue liquid.
Together, however, and almost in any order, the images mean something. This is the basic principle behind Eisenstein's theory of montage. The theory, that ideas are derived from images that are layered on top of one another (and by "on top of one another" I do not mean that the images are super imposed on one another, rather that images/shots are pieced together, one image following the other on a cinematic timeline, for the purpose of forcing the audience to derive a specific meaning) seems so obvious that it need not even be discussed. It is logical to assume that when two or more images are shown within the context of a single film, purposely edited together, some specific meaning should be derived from the whole.
Today, there is an exciting genre of films that rely almost entirely on montage. The music video seeks to use montage to create specific ideas about the music artists who star in them, or to illustrate the point of the lyrics in a song.
In 1979, the first video to air in North America was "Video Killed the Radio Star", by a group called the Buggles. It aired on a channel that (at one point) was completely dedicated to music, Music Television or MTV. The channel opened up a world of marketing possibilities for record companies that were desperate to push their artists even more into the public's eye then had been possible before. It made it possible for people to see their favorite musicians without buying concert tickets. Thus, Eisenstein's theory of montage would witness a revival within a new type of film.
The music group the Buggles created a video for their popular 1979 song, "Video Killed the Radio Star" in which the point if is to illustrate the end of an era and the usherance of new technology. This is done by juxtaposing shots of radios exploding and shots of the musicians in what is meant to be some sort of high-tech studio. There are also shots of televisions emerging from piles of old radios. Again, separately the shots mean nothing, and even layered on top of one another the point is not necessarily obvious. It is the non-diegetic sound, the music, that completes the montage. This is an interesting phenomenon; where the non-diegetic sound completes the montage and actually becomes diegetic because the musicians are clipped together as if the song is actually being played and sung within the same time and space as the shots.
The same type of phenomenon occurs in Eisenstein’s film Battleship Potemkin, in the scene on the ship when the crew must face the squadron and the ship is being prepared for battle. The montage is meant to illustrate the mounting intesity and this effect is achieved in several ways: 1) by using shots that are shorter and shorter in length, 2) by cutting the various actions necessary to prepare the ship for battle together, giving the illusion that all of these preparations are taking place at the same time, and 3) by using symphonic music in such a way that specific sounds in the music might nearly be mistaken as diegetic.
The difference between Battleship Potempkin and the
Now, with the sound to complete the puzzle we can derive a story about someone who's career has ended with the usherance of a new technology.
 
 
 
sykotoaster
07 September 2009 @ 07:39 pm
We are in a theater and before us hangs an enormous, prestine white screen. When the house lights dim, we are shown several shots: a shark fin moving from screen left to screen right, a girl treading water quickly turns her head, then a cut to red, murky water.
We conclude that a shark attack has taken place, but why? The fin could have been anywhere, the girl wasn't necessarily swimming with the shark, and the red water may as well have been cherry Kool-Aid.
However, the human brain tries to make sense of the images shown together; we try to come to some conclusion about what the information, layered "on top" of one another, means. Separately, the images mean nothing.
A shark swimming...so what?
A girl treading water. Who cares?
Red liquid of some kind. Maybe an interesting visual but beyond that it may as well be blue liquid.
Together, however, and almost in any order, the images mean something. This is the basic principle behind Eisenstein's theory of montage. The theory, that ideas are derived from images that are layered on top of one another (and by "on top of one another" I do not mean that the images are super imposed on one another, rather that images/shots are pieced together, one image following the other on a cinematic timeline, for the purpose of forcing the audience to derive a specific meaning) seems so obvious that it need not even be discussed. It is logical to assume that when two or more images are shown within the context of a single film, purposely edited together, some specific meaning should be derived from the whole.
Today, there is an exciting genre of films that rely almost entirely on montage. The music video seeks to use montage to create specific ideas about the music artists who star in them, or to illustrate the point of the lyrics in a song.
In 1979, the first video to air in North America was "Video Killed the Radio Star", by a group called the Buggles. It aired on a channel that (at one point) was completely dedicated to music, Music Television or MTV. The channel opened up a world of marketing possibilities for record companies that were deperate to push their artists even more into the public's eye. It made it possible for people to see their favorite musicians without buying concert tickets. Thus, Eisenstein's theory of montage would witness a revival within a new type of film.
The music group the Buggles created a video for their popular 1979 song, "Video Killed the Radio Star" in which the point if is to illustrate the end of an era and the usherance of new technology. This is done by editing together shots of radios exploding and shots of the musicians in what is meant to be some sort of high-tech studio. There are also shots of televisions emerging from piles of old radios. Separately the shots mean nothing, and in even layered on top of one another, the point is not necesserily obvious. It is the non-diegetic sound, the music, that completes the montage. This is an interesting phenomenon; where the non-diegetic sound completes the montage and actually becomes diegetic because the musicians are clipped together as if the song is actually being played and sung within the same time and space as the clips.
Now, with the sound to complete the puzzle we can derive a story about someone who's career has ended with the usherance of a new technology.
 
 
sykotoaster
05 September 2009 @ 11:31 am
We are in a theater and before us hangs an enormous, prestine white screen. When the house lights dim, we are shown several shots: a shark fin moving from screen left to screen right, a girl treading water quickly turns her head, then a cut to red, murky water.
We conclude that a shark attack has taken place, but why? The fin could have been anywhere, the girl wasn't necessarily swimming with the shark, and the red water may as well have been cherry Kool-Aid.
However, the human brain tries to make sense of the images shown together; we try to come to some conclusion about what the information, layered "on top" of one another, means. Separately, the images mean nothing.
A shark swimming...so what?
A girl treading water. Who cares?
Red liquid of some kind. Maybe an interesting visual but beyond that it may as well be blue liquid.
Together, however, and almost in any order, the images mean something. This is the basic principle behind Eisenstein's theory of montage.
 
 
sykotoaster
13 July 2009 @ 11:28 pm
So its been crazy. Matt is in Vegas for work and I've made him angry with me for not calling him when he asked me to. I understand that, so I apologized of course but now he's worried about me cause I've been going out a lot this week. Fair is fair and I have been going out almost every night but put yourself in my shoes for a minute. I'm always alone.
 
 
Current Mood: lonelylonely
 
 
sykotoaster
11 May 2009 @ 09:35 pm
Tom Wade
Eng 4180
Syllogism Essay
May 11, 2009







1. All creators of patents are people or corporations that have a right to earn money by selling the inventions those patents produce.
2. Creators of patents will create lawful competition if they license or share their patents with other people or corporations.
3. General Electric Co. is a creator of patents that chose to share its patents through a license with Westinghouse, Inc.

Conclusion: General Electric Co. created lawful competition with Westinghouse, Inc.





Under the exhaustion doctrine the first unrestricted sale of a patented item exhausts the patentee's control over that particular item. By sharing the item and allowing another company to make money from the patent, it does not follow logically that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that GE had an implied right to control Westinghouse’s sales of a patented item licensed to them for the sole purpose of selling the item.




























Request for Appeal

May 11, 2009

Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Tom Wade, Esq.
300 E. 17th Ave. #1318
Denver, Colorado 80203

Decision of 1926 case United States v. General Electric Co., (271 U.S. at 481). Appeal requested.

It is generally agreed, under the exhaustion doctrine pertaining to intellectual property laws and the rights of patentees, that the sale of an item there by exhausts the patent owners control over that particular singular unit/object/item.
General Electric Co. (GE) developed a license agreement among Westinghouse, Inc., where Westinghouse would manufacture and sell the GE tungsten filament incandescent light bulb. Westinghouse would be allowed to use the patent licensed to them under the condition that GE would have sole control over the pricing of sales to the consumer.
Although the exhaustion doctrine pertains to the sale of an item and not the license of an item it still applies because the license specifically required the sale of the items through Westinghouse as not only a manufacturer but also as a retailer, meaning that the sale of those patented items would then fall under the scope of the exhaustion doctrine.
GE lost its right to control their patent during the course of the license with Westinghouse because the exhaustion doctrine applies.
The U.S. Supreme court decision to uphold GE’s request to control the sale and price of a patent licensed to Westinghouse is based on a fallacious inferred argument and not on existing expressed facts. The U.S. Supreme court ruled that an implied statute exists by the very existence of the license agreement. The inferred statute that the U.S. is upholding is as follows:

“Licensee may make and sell articles under GE’s patent, but not so as to destroy the profit that GE wishes to obtain by making them and selling them pro se.”

It would seem illogical for GE to license a valuable patent to a competitor unless it was going to return a guaranteed profit. Indeed, this is valid reason for why GE would license out such a patent. The GE tungsten filament incandescent light bulb is a consumer necessity.
Imagine that I have a product that everyone wants, and I sell that product to a demanding market. Eventually, I know it won’t be long before competitors develop similar products to which I will then have to compete with. To buy myself time to stay ahead, I am going to offer you an opportunity to sell my product in your store. Wanting the revenue, and having not developed a similar product yet, you agree on the terms that I get to tell you how much to sell the product for in your store. Now, I force you to sell this product at twice the amount I do. You are losing customers, and my consumers are more than happy to leave your store to come get what they need at a better price at mine.
This situation is why such patent-licensing agreements should not be allowed in the U.S. market. It is unfair to other businesses. GE entered into such an agreement with Westinghouse and under the rules of our federal fair-competition act Westinghouse should either have full rights to use exercise the use of that license or GE should retract the agreement.
It is on these grounds 1.) GE, or any other enterprising entity in the U.S., should not enter into an agreement with any other party where the license of a patent includes conditions that allow the licensing party to control pricing during the retail of those patented items, 2.) The ability of one party to abuse its power over another enterprising entity is too great, and 3.) Agreements issuing the licenses of patents between parties must adhere to U.S. codes including but not limited to the first-sale doctrine (exhaustion doctrine), that I request on behalf of my client, Westinghouse, Inc., that the decision be reconsidered and our testimony recorded before the U.S. Supreme Court.


Tom Wade, Esq.



(This is of course a fictitious appeal. I thought that for my purpose the best audience and format would be an appeal to overturn an existing decision, using a syllogism as the backbone of my argument. The case in which I am requesting an appeal for is real however and occurred in 1926. It has since been cited in countless patent-licensing agreement cases. The U.S. Department of Justice has tried numerously to overturn the decision of this case.)
 
 
sykotoaster
26 April 2009 @ 05:17 pm
All inventors are people who make a living selling their ideas.
Selling ideas for a living is only possible if those ideas are patented.
Inventors must patent their ideas.

Major term: to make a living by selling ideas.
Minor term: only possible if those ideas are patented.