Even so, these PhD candidates are screwed for life by being associated with this guy. Most institutions will think twice about letting someone that couldn't spot fraud in their midst.

Its a bit easier with mathematics, engineering and computer science papers as your equations and methodology must be clearly spelled out, and generally it will get checked out by the reviewers, and they know what to expect usually for data. I.e. general behaviors, expected distributions for certain processes, etc. If you are bullshitting they can usually pick it out. Some of them are real assholes as well about nit-picking through everything. Essentially, psychology is too subjective to be considered a science in my opinion, and should have stricter requirements for having papers accepted. Psychology students should at least take some upper level mathematics and stats courses along with some scientific ethics classes to get their PhD so they know how not to bias their conclusions. A good example of how easy it is to screw with definitions to get any result you want from data is the "Does eating a meal on a big plate mean you will eat more?" problem. People genuinely thought this was true but as it turns out, if you redefine what a "large" plate is, what a "medium" plate is, and what a "small" plate is you can pretty much get any result you want. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129126/, this example is a pretty good one because it shows that suppose if you had an agenda against big plates, you could prove yourself right without actually fabricating anything through your misunderstanding of statistics and experimentation.

Not exactly irrelevant, as what is easy and what tastes good usually were the things that helped us survive in the past.

Nice spin on liberalism there. Liberalism is attempting to "balance" things out because it is well know what happens when you have absolutely no protections for workers and the lower classes, i.e. feudalism. Capitalism will always result in some wealthy class ruling a lower class because money rules politics and eventually it will cause unfair bias in laws benefiting the wealthy and/or corporations. Saying that money doesn't influence politics and that the little guy has more say than a wealthy entrepreneur is a pipe dream. Liberals just want an equal chance at becoming wealthy for everyone meanwhile having an equal voice in politics for everyone but rarely does this happen in our modern society. Also, Liberal people are willing to part with their money in exchange for government programs in the form of taxes. If you think that as soon as a liberal person got rich they would change there mind, you simply are wrong. There are plenty of liberal wealthy and middle class people who are perfectly willing to spend some extra cash in exchange for universal health care and welfare in case they ever are down on their luck.

The reason the system is a joke is because of the admins and because of easy access to college loans which the administration is all too happy to take and keep gouging students so that it can grow and leech off the entire system.

Essentially, you have easy access to loans allowing morons who have no business going to college to go to college, then you have the colleges willfully reducing the requirements to get good grades and graduate on some of their more popular programs, like marketing/business, then you have administration swelling just like any bureaucracy and spending more money on useless or redundant positions. The professors aren't the ones to blame, they are producers compared to the administration which are becoming the consumers. The reason Asians come here to study is because we have damn good professors for engineering and sciences. However, for some reason in American culture everyone chooses to be a business major because its easy and they expect that they will make a lot of money with it compared to the effort put in. As a consequence you have colleges flooded with business students and the administration is dumbing down the program so that its just like going to 4 years of common sense classes and re-learning shit you should have learned in high school. News flash for these people, spending 4 years partying and barely getting by for grades is a fucking waste of your time. Get a job. The bad thing is is that administration has an incentive to dumb down programs to fuel their revenue and to justify having redundant and useless positions. Having worked at 2 different universities in various departments, I can tell you first hand how much waste there is with people just screwing around or taking days off for no good reason, or spending countless hours in useless meetings that literally interrupt your work and don't yield any benefits as you just simply continue doing what you were already doing afterwards. Having a meeting about being more productive that lasts 4 hours and actually interrupts you from being productive is the type of shit they have. Granted, with as lazy as people are there they probably need it but they rarely listen. Instead its just a drain on the time of the people who are already productive thus reducing productivity overall. Other meetings include planning other meetings, planning useless events for students, or discussing the "direction" the dept. wants to go several times a week.

Tenured professorships are valuable, as it allows research to continue that otherwise may have political consequences that are not necessarily right. To get rid of tenure track professors would essentially make our entire university system an even bigger joke than it currently is as it would be easy for anyone with an agenda to step all over the professors, and Asia would just dominate us even worse. Ever notice how many Asians come here to study? We must be doing something right. If anything, they need to get rid of all the administration bureaucracy. They have people that do the same job and spend half their day screwing around. Then they have upper level admins making half a million dollars a year who take multiple days off a week. Its sickening how lazy people are that work at universities. Professors are partially included in that, but many of them are working hard all the time doing actual beneficial research like my mathematics professors who study things like wild fires. If high school education is a joke its because they simply pay teachers too shitty and also require ridiculous bullshit courses about feelings meanwhile no child left behind is cutting funding from schools that need it the most. It essentially makes all the talented people pick other careers since the whole system is a joke, so you just get college burn-outs that graduated with 2.5 GPA's as teachers since they can't do anything else.

What are you even talking about? How are conservatives trying to do that? All I see conservatives doing is trying to maintain the status quo.

This is still more-or-less a significant domain reduction over the human face. If you weren't human you wouldn't be able to identify one face from another. Try identifying faces upside-down sometime in a split second. We are uniquely built to identify very small variations in the human face in upright position. I suspect the front end of a car would be much less difficult. For example, first classify what the make of the car is, then classify color, then classify markings. If you have a database of cars in the race you will find a match with high probability.

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2499210&cid=37875118 There are image processing techniques that would work with relatively small identification marks and a sufficiently "good enough" camera. The processing may take 5 minutes but you can cut to commercial and have a human verify it later. The issue is getting the original system accurate enough you are 99 percent sure whoever crossed the line first, crossed it. Facial recognition systems already have this level of accuracy. Just like voting systems however, for fairness you need human review before passing definite judgement. Apply some science and you would have a killer product there. Im surprised there aren't more industries employing at least one academic to make their systems more cutting edge.

Most likely power consumption due to the power needed for each cpu and cooling requirements (which affect the space needed and infrastructure needed to store it all). I don't think an AMD cluster is less reliable over an Intel one in ideal physical conditions for the AMD processors on each. What I mean by that is, sufficient cooling and power supply for the AMD cluster since they are known to be more power hungry and require more cooling.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2498782&cid=37871308

Sorry, meant higher performance per cluster / cost.

You may be right. Since I don't have concrete evidence here, I will admit that I simply was wrong about saying exclusive. I have been at 2 top tier universities and as such my sample is not large enough to say anything about it in regard to universities in general. I suspect universities buy AMD because its a higher cost/performance per cluster if you don't factor power consumption (nor anything else) into your metric.

Anonymous coward, please don't refer to the Bible as your "tech manual for life", it only discredits you. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

BTW http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2498782&cid=37871308