Roger Danish: Um... would you like to try that a little simpler... maybe?
The neuroscience doesn't lie: the region of the language processing center lights up; portions of programming are similar to foreign languages.
Woah, hang on there! "The neuroscience" is NOT some fMRI data figure showing a bit of the brain being more active in one condition than it is in some other condition. Neuroscience is a set of theories, skills, and tools that allow us to ask and answer such questions as: "What conditions do we scan patients under in order to isolate the effect we are interested in?" "What does the strength and location of the BOLD signal we pick up in our fMRI scan actually mean?", and "How can these results be interpreted in a higher-level framework for how these cognitive tasks are performed?"
Trying to pick faults in this study is part of "the neuroscience".
You want to see bits of the brain "lighting up"? You're going to need to get some genetically modified mice. If you want to understand the brain it's not that simple.
This is not facial recognition attached to a database of faces.
And "not soon" either. The performance of face recognition systems with large databases is pretty terrible. I recommend checking out Peter Kovesi's talk on why "Video Surveillance is Useless" for identification.
Still, I am glad a science project got funding.
Unfortunately this is a zero-sum game.
I've got a bad feeling about this.