Existence of Malice

A plagiarist knows that he is a plagiarist. A false Ph.D., having received the title with plagiarized work, knows that he, in fact, does not deserve the title. Very especially, if the subject field, as the title of the dissertation makes it clear, is "... design and analysis of distributed software systems," where a lot of disasters may occur, upon incompetent service, by incompetent, unqualified people, then what do you call it?

copycat82 plagiarizes, has false claims, and contains an immense amount of errors, including self-contradictions. Still, it has been granted a Ph.D. title. That is horrifying - both academically, and also with respect to the subject field.

Lethal and/or financial disasters may follow. Think of an earthquake-emergency system, or a very critical financial transaction, or maybe a nuclear reactor (with a few computers working for it), and/or an aeroplane. Who can rely on some critical software if verified by that copycat82 method, or by that person, and/or by those professors who granted such a Ph.D.?

Even if it were not in a lethal subject, the research enterprise is still valued by the humanity, usually, as it improves our lives, whether directly, or indirectly. Why grant a research-implying degree to some cut-and-paste which cannot manage its seams, and the plagiarizing is screaming its existence? It is essentially, buried at its merger. The person with such a lack-of-achievement, yet with such an over-ambition, grabbing a degree that he does not deserve, mayyy only go on like that, in the later decades - but now, with a "Ph.D. degree," as a false witness.

If Safety Involves Verifying,
copycat82 is Double Disasterous

copycat82 is not only a weird case that has been granted a Ph.D. title by a jury, but the very subject of it is about "design and analysis of ...". As a result, it not only points to a degeneration of the Ph.D. title as a license, but also points to material disasters lurking somewhere.

An awkward tool, claiming its (probable future) tolls?

Safety and verification are not necessarily the same. (see Leveson's) But safety-verifying people may use the established verification tools, maybe with some minor extensions, to fit their own purposes. e.g: Nancy Leveson has a paper that does the safety-analysis with Petri nets. Given that the copycat82 has been granted a Ph.D. degree, by some jury, in the subject of "... design and analysis of distributed software systems," the Murpy rule may apply: Now that it exists, somebody, someday, may use it, without noticing that, it is not verifying really.

Only "Filling Vacancies"?

In the early 1980s, president Reagan in USA, publicized a project called SDI (Strategic Defense Inýtýative), or the so-called "Star Wars" project, a defense shield, above USA, against missiles, etc. The likes of Parnas resigned (see, his famous essays about it), and Karp (see the interview, in CACM, when he got the Turing award), declined to take part in SDI. However, at the same time, some unqualified person(s) appear to be licensed about such. e.g: The author(s) of copycat82/83, and the jury who granted a title to it. In fact, copycat82/83 obtained ARO (the USA Army Research Office) support, too. What next? If any task in SDI, or similar pojects, is let to such people, how could you trust your defense system? If the design and/or verification responsibility is left to the copycat82-person, then, the examples in the copycat82-text, does provide the glimpse to an invited nuclear holocaust.

This also relates to the general issue of the founding/starting of such big projects/centers, and then going out to find personnel to fill the "vacancies" - possibly based on such titles, as a "Ph.D." When the standard itself is abridged, the whole logic of such selections-to-seats degenerates.

and so on...
to teach ignorance?

In addition to ARO funds, even if no part in defense projects such as SDI is taken, applying an academical position, itself is malicious, when it is with a plagiarized, that is, invalid, Ph.D.

Unless the victims (that is, the students to attend the lectures) study the topics themselves, they would not possibly learn anything, to any passable level. The awful condition of copycat82, lacks achievement, itself. Let alone helping others.

e.g: How would a person, who cannot think of the side-effects, when a macro is not expanded before verifying, attempt to teach computer-science-thinking, in a university? The page about that UnPhD person discusses further such cases.

copycat82, the un-PhD
No Ph.D. title(s).

If copycat82 is still to be called a "Ph.D.", then we should never trust another such title and, we have to find ways to verify the value of the individuals, by ourselves, for our specific needs, when employing them - whether for teaching, or research. In other words, the alternate name of copycat82, the UnPhD, serves a dual purpose. Either copycat82 will be revoked, or the Ph.D. titles, even when from a well-known university, may be discarded, and the lurking possible disasters, kept in mind.

Either copycat82 is to be declared null-and-void (revoked), or otherwise, the Ph.D. title, effectively, is junked. My sensibility suggests the former. And in case we witness some inertia, I think we should lump that group of untrustables, by asking copycat82-siders: "What do you mean by siding with it? Do you have objections to the arguments presented here? Otherwise, do you think such a false-title is only funny? If we are talking of a standard here, does the responsibility belong only to the person who presented the plagiarizing, vague, and faultfull publication, or also to those who let him go on, instead of being assertive against, even when the case is obvious?" Someone who holds such a low-standard, probably, should be untrusted himself/herself, either.

• A standard (for academia and research): If copycat82 is O.K., then the value of that standard is null and void.
• Was the jury manipulated? How often may that occur? How often, and how easily may we revoke, once the case is evidenced? What sort of a standard is that, if it is easier to assign a title, than to revoke a wrongdoing, when a sub-standard item is noticed?