asqui's New Writeupshttp://everything2.com/?node=New%20Writeups%20Atom%20Feed&foruser=asqui2004-05-19T23:29:51ZBlindsight (idea)http://m.everything2.com/user/asqui/writeups/Blindsightasquihttp://m.everything2.com/user/asqui2004-05-19T23:29:51Z2004-05-19T23:29:51Z<p>Blindsight was discovered <a href="/title/Larry+Weiskrantz">Larry Weiskrantz</a> and <a href="/title/Alan+Cowey">Alan Cowey</a> at <a href="/title/Oxford+University">Oxford</a> while examining a patient suffering from <a href="/title/cortical+blindness">cortical blindness</a> in the left <a href="/title/visual+field">visual field</a>.
</p>
<p>
For details on blindsight please read the other writeups in <a href="/title/Blindsight">this node</a>.
</p>
<p>
The explanation for blindsight remains <a href="/title/controversial">controversial</a>. The main reason is that one of the popular explanations for blindsight, involving connections to the <a href="/title/superior+colliculus">superior colliculus</a> (as explained in the above writeup), leads to the reasonable conclusion that most people with <a href="/title/visual+cortex">visual cortex</a> damage will exhibit blindsight -- it so happens that many patients do not show any signs of blindsight, and many of those who do have blindsight only have it for part of their visual field. (<a href="/title/Scharli">Scharli</a>, <a href="/title/Harman">Harman</a>, & <a href="/title/Hogben">Hogben</a>, 1999; <a href="/title/Wessinger">Wessinger</a>, <a href="/title/Fendrich">Fendrich</a>, & <a href="/title/Gazzaniga">Gazzaniga</a>, 1997).
</p>
<p>
One of the other explanations is that within the damaged area of the visual cortex there may be small areas of undamaged tissue, not large enough<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…Cortical blindness (idea)http://m.everything2.com/user/asqui/writeups/Cortical+blindnessasquihttp://m.everything2.com/user/asqui2004-05-16T00:02:27Z2004-05-16T00:02:27Z<p>
The <a href="/title/primary+visual+cortex">primary visual cortex</a> is located at the back of the <a href="/title/occipital+lobe">occipital lobe</a>, in the <a href="/title/cerebral+cortex">cerebral cortex</a>. If any part of it is destroyed, this will cause <em>cortical blindness</em> in the <a href="/title/cross-lateral">cross-lateral</a> <a href="/title/visual+field">visual field</a>. For example, destruction of the visual cortex of the right <a href="/title/hemisphere">hemisphere</a> causes blindness in the left visual field.
</p>
<p>A person with cortical blindness may have perfectly normal eyes, which can move, have <a href="/title/pupil">pupil</a>s which respond to changing light conditions, and exhibit other <a href="/title/normal+reflex">normal reflex</a>es. They will, however, be completely unable to see anything in the affected visual field. Furthermore, they will not be able to remember this visual field in their memories, nor experience any other <a href="/title/visual+imagery">visual imagery</a> in the affected field. For example, a person with damage to the visual cortex in the right hemisphere will not be able to recall the left side of any memories, and will be unable to imagine, or dream, anything in their left visual field.
</p>
<p>Contrast this with a person who is<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…Indirect Tax (thing)http://m.everything2.com/user/asqui/writeups/Indirect+Taxasquihttp://m.everything2.com/user/asqui2003-09-10T00:04:52Z2003-09-10T00:04:52Z<p>An <strong>indirect tax</strong> is one which is levied on <a href="/title/goods+and+services">goods and services</a> rather than directly on the <a href="/title/taxpayer">taxpayer</a>.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="/title/sales+tax">sales tax</a>, <a href="/title/value+added+tax">value added tax</a>, <a href="/title/excise">excise</a>, <a href="/title/business+tax">business tax</a> and <a href="/title/tariff">tariff</a>s are indirect taxes.</p>
<p>Indirect taxes are ultimately paid by the <a href="/title/consumer">consumer</a> in the form of higher prices.</p>
<p>The opposite being a <a href="/title/Direct+Tax">Direct Tax</a>.</p>Direct Tax (thing)http://m.everything2.com/user/asqui/writeups/Direct+Taxasquihttp://m.everything2.com/user/asqui2003-09-09T23:53:35Z2003-09-09T23:53:35Z<p>A <strong>direct tax</strong> is one which is levied directly on the <a href="/title/taxpayer">taxpayer</a>.</p>
<p>Direct taxes cannot be passed on to others whilst <a href="/title/Indirect+Tax">Indirect Tax</a>es can.</p>
<p><a href="/title/Income+tax">Income tax</a>, <a href="/title/property+tax">property tax</a>, and <a href="/title/inheritance+tax">inheritance tax</a> are all examples of direct taxes.</p>P60 (thing)http://m.everything2.com/user/asqui/writeups/P60asquihttp://m.everything2.com/user/asqui2003-09-09T23:18:36Z2003-09-09T23:18:36Z<p><strong>P60 Certificate of Pay, <a href="/title/Income+Tax">Income Tax</a> and National Insurance Contributions</strong></p>
<p>In the <a href="/title/United+Kingdom">United Kingdom</a> a P60 is issued to you by your employer at the end of the <a href="/title/financial+year">financial year</a>. This document is essentially a sheet of paper, printed with <a href="/title/fixed-width+font">fixed-width font</a>, detailing your earnings, <a href="/title/tax+deduction">tax deduction</a>s, and <a href="/title/National+Insurance">National Insurance</a> contributions for the year.</p>
<p>There is a warning at the top, telling you not to destroy it. At the bottom it tells you that a duplicate cannot be issued. I don't quite see the point in this, because I wouldn't think one could tell an original from a photocopy. Not to mention that I could easily produce an identical P60 in <a href="/title/Notepad">Notepad</a> (or any text editor) featuring arbitary figures.</p>
<p>It sounds like they are placing trust in you only having one P60, for whatever reason, by restricting the issue of duplicates. Unless it is printed on special paper, or printed with magnetic ink, or uses some other clever methods, I can't see why it should be<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…NxM chocolate bar solution (idea)http://m.everything2.com/user/asqui/writeups/NxM+chocolate+bar+solutionasquihttp://m.everything2.com/user/asqui2003-09-06T12:41:05Z2003-09-06T12:41:05Z<p>Here is one way to show that <tt>(nm - 1)</tt> breaks are sufficient. (It does not, however, demonstrate that <tt>(nm - 1)</tt> breaks are <em>necessary</em>.)</p>
<p>The <a href="/title/block+of+chocolate">block of chocolate</a> has <tt>(n-1)</tt> and <tt>(m-1)</tt> 'score lines' on each side, along which it can be <a href="/title/broken">broken</a>. By making <tt>(n-1)</tt> breaks we can produce <tt>n</tt> long and thin pieces, of size <tt>1 x m</tt>. We then need to make <tt>(m-1)</tt> breaks on each of these long and thin pieces to get them down to <tt>1 x 1</tt> size. ie, <tt>n(m-1)</tt> more breaks.
</p>
<p>This gives us a total of <tt>(n-1) + n(m-1)</tt> <a href="/title/breaks">breaks</a>.</p>
<p>
<tt>(n-1) + n(m-1)</tt><br />
<tt>= n - 1 + nm - n</tt><br />
<tt>= -1 + nm</tt><br />
<tt>= nm - 1</tt><br />
<a href="/title/QED">QED</a>
</p>