On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:29:21PM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:00:57AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10836.html
In case you don't want to pay Nature to read about this, you can
alternatively pay Science...
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko
deb...@onerussian.comwrote:
Exactly! And there is more to it. Someone bold could event exaggerate
that requiring open code on its own is **useless** besides for being
an ideal description of the method implementation. Why useless?
Hi,
you might like to read:
The case for open computer programs
Darrel C. Ince, Leslie Hatton John Graham-Cumming
Scientific communication relies on evidence that cannot be entirely
included in publications, but the rise of computational science has
added a new layer of inaccessibility.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote:
Hi,
you might like to read:
The case for open computer programs
Darrel C. Ince, Leslie Hatton John Graham-Cumming
Seems it's been recommended before in the list.
Scientific communication relies on evidence that
Hi All,
Indeed strong words, published in Nature where you need to pay $32 to
read what we all know already.
Regards,
Oz
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote:
Hi,
you might like to read:
The case for open computer programs
Darrel C. Ince, Leslie Hatton
What is more interesting is the reaction that
followed in serious scientific journals:
1) PLoS ONE (the Open Access Mega Journal that currently
publishes 3% of all the STM literature) now requires
software papers to include the source code under an
Open Source license:
If you have 15$ left have you read the Nature paper, then you could also
read less particular about details version of the same thing from Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/159.full
Research Priorities
Shining Light into Black Boxes
A. Morin, J. Urban, P. D. Adams, I. Foster, A.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:00:57AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10836.html
In case you don't want to pay Nature to read about this, you can
alternatively pay Science...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/159
--
Michael Hanke
Hi,
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote (May 29, 2012):
If you have 15$ left have you read the Nature paper, then you could also
read less particular about details version of the same thing from
Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/159.full
[snip]
Meanwhile we can just keep going
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Brendon Higgins blhigg...@gmail.comwrote:
Ideally the whole system should be open, not just the chunk of code unique
to
each experiment.
+1 Luis
On Tue, 29 May 2012, Brendon Higgins wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/159.full
[snip]
Meanwhile we can just keep going forward making it all possible ;)
...
In
this context, open _code_ and open _platforms_ are two different (albeit
related) beasts.
...
Ideally the
11 matches
Mail list logo