If a proposal like this is to succeed -- and I hope so hard that it does -- we need a central repository to store code and meaningfully link it to the papers that use it.

This repository should have the same amount of peer review and, therefore, authority that scientific journals have now. Maybe that can happen by existing journals adding the ability to link code to a paper (and enforce that any code used to generate results is included), maybe a new organization has to rise up to the challenge (I would love to see a code.arxiv.org).

Already I can hear the outcry of scientists claiming that their code is "sloppy" and "not ready to be released," but those concerns are simply irrelevant: all that matters is that the code produces the output cited in the paper given the input cited in the paper. That's it. If another researcher finds your result interesting, then let it be up to them to parse out your code -- it's probably still way better than trying to reproduce your result based on the prose that describes your algorithm.

By your logic, no one should have access to a programming language because what if that language is wrong. A ton of scientific research is done in Matlab, yet you don't hear anyone complaining that code produced in Matlab may not be correct because you aren't looking at each individual bit of information as it is processed.

The idea of providing your code, in fact, solves the exact problem that you're describing. The point of research is not to reproduce results -- certainly, that's a first step in many lines of research, but it by itself is not a result. However, if you find that the code used to produce some results is incorrect, then you do have a result, and this furthers that field of research immensely, because no longer are a string of papers going to build on an incorrect result. Everyone can be confident in a result and move on from that point.

Your line of reasoning may make sense when you talk about "equipment" in terms of sensors and proprietary hardware, but when we're talking about software that runs the same on whatever hardware you're using, being able to reproduce a result is only a first step. Shortening that step and allowing everyone to scrutinize how you did it only catalyzes further research.

I just wrote that to a random contact on my Gmail Chat list. I'm sure they'll get it.

Bits is not bits in the brain. We don't have a bunch of neurons representing ones and zeros.

A neuron is either spiking or not spiking, but everything is very temporal; with some stimulus (a particular input current) a neuron might spike at a rate of 100 Hz, with another input, at 20 Hz. How do we translate these spikes into information we can use? Well, we're trying to figure that out.

In addition, in the brain, we do not have the cleanness of digital processing. There is lots of noise from a variety of sources, so a lot of effort is taken to be resistant to noise.

Does it matter if things are carbon or silicon? No, but there's a huge difference between the transistors of today and the biological neuron. The "wet computer" as described is probably not exactly like a biological neuron, but I can assure you it is not like a modern transistor, and that in itself makes this an interesting project.

From the 1.7 release announcement:

- Default character set is now UTF-8, but other character sets are supported via an improved internationalization support.

Full of what's new / changed.

I haven't done enough research on Alzheimer's to support the link between the two, but the destruction of dopamine-producing cells in Parkinson's surely has an effect on long-term memory.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5943/1017

A lack of dopamine affects other cognitive functions, so I can imagine seeing similar behavioural effects as one sees in Alzheimer's, but I'm not aware of Alzheimer's characteristic loss of neurons and synapses in Parkinson's disease. So the link between them seems a bit shady to me.

Artificial intelligence, simply put, is just applied computer science. The name is just intriguing enough that it gets (got?) decent funding.

I guess not all DVRs are created equally then, because when I was at my parents' house I was constantly frustrated by how difficult it is to fast forward through commercials on their Shaw-supplied DVR. The first level of fast-forward, which should double the speed the video playback, almost appears to slow it down, then jumping to the second level makes it skip fast enough that you're likely to have next week's Lost spoiled for you. A few years ago there was a button to skip exactly 15 seconds, which made it very easy to skip commercials, but they essentially disabled that button quite a while ago, and since then the fast-forward / rewind capabilities have gotten gradually worse. I'm not sure how many people use DVRs supplied by their cable company, but the ability for the company to push updates to essentially cripple your machine is something that needs to stop.

Me, I'll stick to downloading everything with the commercials already stripped out.

It's common practice for a journalist to strip those nonsense syllables from an audio interview transcribed to text. Just sayin'.

I saw District 9 last night and I have to say I was incredibly disappointed. After reading the good reviews, I was expecting to feel something during the movie, but instead it was just another action movie. Nice special effects, but the plot and characters were just awful. The main character has absolutely no personality; he changes his behaviour from scene to scene I guess to fit what the writers thought would be best for the action.

The phrase is "case in point".