Ive lost ALL confidence in CGC - UPDATE on page 221 2 2

[kav]

A guaranty is not a guarantee

 

Explain that drivel.

Guarantee, vb. 1. To assure that a promise will be kept {the coach guaranteed that every boy on the team would play at least one inning}. 2. To agree to answer for another’s unpaid debt or other unfulfilled obligation {the father guaranteed his son’s car loan}. 3. To state with confidence {I guarantee that our client will be pleased with the settlement offer}.

 

Guarantee, n. The promise that an act will be carried out or a condition will be fulfilled {I will give you a written guarantee that the brief will be filed on time}.

 

Guaranty, n. The promise to pay the debt or fulfill the obligation of another if that person fails to do so {the father signed a guaranty for his son’s car loan}.

 

Guaranty formerly functioned also as a verb—a variant of guarantee—but that form is now obsolete. Guaranty should now be used only in its modern legal sense, as a noun.

 

Explain that drivel.

A guaranty is different from a guarantee cause they're, like, different.

[MatterEaterLad]

Less drivel. More photos of Kelly Brook.

[kav]

Less drivel. More photos of Kelly Brook.

(thumbs u

[Flaming_Telepath]

Less drivel. More photos of Kelly Brook.

 

[MatterEaterLad]

Less drivel. More photos of Kelly Brook.

 

 

Just got my vote for Boardie of The Year 2014.

 

[techtre2003]

If you knew how to do something which was in demand to the point where people paid you to do it based on the skill rather than just the labor, would you teach them how to do it?

 

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences.

 

For CGC though, not at all.

 

Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it.

 

 

Sad but true as I think we'd be much more advanced in those fields if there were more knowledge sharing going on.

 

You'd de- incentivize the entire industry. Without the prospect of a profitable monopoly you can't get the research funded. NOT sharing is what makes research possible

 

That's definitely a point against it and I really do understand that. I still believe in a lot of a cases a better system could be developed which could benefit more people by the advancement of knowledge and still retain profitability. Greed just plays too big a part in the whole equation for that to happen.

 

Edit:

Here is a super simplified example of what I'm trying to say:

 

Company A puts $10 million into R&D for a specific drug that they predict will be a $20 million a year drug.

Company B is doing the same thing. Company A and Company B have both figured out a few different things working to create this drug that the other hasn't yet. They don't want to share that information because they don't want to share the $20 million a year they will get from the drug.

However, if they had worked together they could have put the drug on the market 2 years earlier, split the profits and be working on another project.

 

Again, over simplified but that's kind of the concept I was implying with the knowledge sharing being a beneficial thing.

What you are talking about happens all the time. I worked for a small biotech research firm and we had partnerships with Proctor and Gamble and SmithKline. When a major company, like P&E, puts out a new drug, process, or piece of equipment there is frequently a smaller partner in the wings making a profit off of it as well.

 

That's why I said super simplified. That was the easiest way I could think of to make my point. I guess it wasn't a good example. You actually gave a great example though:

 

"The hard-science labs will publish findings in journals, it is a requirement to keep tenure, but you are smoking crack if you think these scientists aren't secretive about their experiments until they are ready to publish. Many, not all, but many file for patents before they publish. The patents usually belong to the University but the scientists get the praise and the tenure; occasionally they will even get a cut of profits when the patent, or company, sells."

 

Just replace my Company A and Company B with Scientist A and Scientist B.

[kav]

If you knew how to do something which was in demand to the point where people paid you to do it based on the skill rather than just the labor, would you teach them how to do it?

 

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences.

 

For CGC though, not at all.

 

Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it.

 

 

Sad but true as I think we'd be much more advanced in those fields if there were more knowledge sharing going on.

 

You'd de- incentivize the entire industry. Without the prospect of a profitable monopoly you can't get the research funded. NOT sharing is what makes research possible

 

That's definitely a point against it and I really do understand that. I still believe in a lot of a cases a better system could be developed which could benefit more people by the advancement of knowledge and still retain profitability. Greed just plays too big a part in the whole equation for that to happen.

 

Edit:

Here is a super simplified example of what I'm trying to say:

 

Company A puts $10 million into R&D for a specific drug that they predict will be a $20 million a year drug.

Company B is doing the same thing. Company A and Company B have both figured out a few different things working to create this drug that the other hasn't yet. They don't want to share that information because they don't want to share the $20 million a year they will get from the drug.

However, if they had worked together they could have put the drug on the market 2 years earlier, split the profits and be working on another project.

 

Again, over simplified but that's kind of the concept I was implying with the knowledge sharing being a beneficial thing.

What you are talking about happens all the time. I worked for a small biotech research firm and we had partnerships with Proctor and Gamble and SmithKline. When a major company, like P&E, puts out a new drug, process, or piece of equipment there is frequently a smaller partner in the wings making a profit off of it as well.

 

That's why I said super simplified. That was the easiest way I could think of to make my point. I guess it wasn't a good example. You actually gave a great example though:

 

"The hard-science labs will publish findings in journals, it is a requirement to keep tenure, but you are smoking crack if you think these scientists aren't secretive about their experiments until they are ready to publish. Many, not all, but many file for patents before they publish. The patents usually belong to the University but the scientists get the praise and the tenure; occasionally they will even get a cut of profits when the patent, or company, sells."

 

Just replace my Company A and Company B with Scientist A and Scientist B.

[techtre2003]

Less drivel. More photos of Kelly Brook.

 

 

Just got my vote for Boardie of The Year 2014.

 

 

I'll 2nd that (and third).

[Badger]

If you knew how to do something which was in demand to the point where people paid you to do it based on the skill rather than just the labor, would you teach them how to do it?

 

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences.

 

For CGC though, not at all.

 

Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it.

 

 

Sad but true as I think we'd be much more advanced in those fields if there were more knowledge sharing going on.

 

You'd de- incentivize the entire industry. Without the prospect of a profitable monopoly you can't get the research funded. NOT sharing is what makes research possible

 

That's definitely a point against it and I really do understand that. I still believe in a lot of a cases a better system could be developed which could benefit more people by the advancement of knowledge and still retain profitability. Greed just plays too big a part in the whole equation for that to happen.

 

Edit:

Here is a super simplified example of what I'm trying to say:

 

Company A puts $10 million into R&D for a specific drug that they predict will be a $20 million a year drug.

Company B is doing the same thing. Company A and Company B have both figured out a few different things working to create this drug that the other hasn't yet. They don't want to share that information because they don't want to share the $20 million a year they will get from the drug.

However, if they had worked together they could have put the drug on the market 2 years earlier, split the profits and be working on another project.

 

Again, over simplified but that's kind of the concept I was implying with the knowledge sharing being a beneficial thing.

What you are talking about happens all the time. I worked for a small biotech research firm and we had partnerships with Proctor and Gamble and SmithKline. When a major company, like P&E, puts out a new drug, process, or piece of equipment there is frequently a smaller partner in the wings making a profit off of it as well.

 

That's why I said super simplified. That was the easiest way I could think of to make my point. I guess it wasn't a good example. You actually gave a great example though:

 

"The hard-science labs will publish findings in journals, it is a requirement to keep tenure, but you are smoking crack if you think these scientists aren't secretive about their experiments until they are ready to publish. Many, not all, but many file for patents before they publish. The patents usually belong to the University but the scientists get the praise and the tenure; occasionally they will even get a cut of profits when the patent, or company, sells."

 

Just replace my Company A and Company B with Scientist A and Scientist B.

Your analogy still doesn't work. Academia is a different environment than for-profit research. There are massive amounts of inter-company cooperation and partnerships which disproves the whole line of drug companies not working together. Of course they work together; there is money to be made.

[FlyingDonut]

I haven't read any of this. Can somebody summarize?

[kav]

I haven't read any of this. Can somebody summarize?

'CGC is messed up because of science.'

'No it's not because of science.'

That's basically in a nutshell.

[Hulksdaddy1]

I haven't read any of this. Can somebody summarize?

'CGC is messed up because of science.'

'No it's not because of science.'

That's basically in a nutshell.

 

You forgot:

 

"Unicorns fart"

"All carpet looks the same"

"Some like unicorn/carpet circle jerks"

[techtre2003]

Unicorns fart rainbows. People keep forgetting this pertinent fact.

[Gotham Kid]

More photos of Kelly Brook.

 

 

 

[Gotham Kid]

A guaranty is different from a guarantee cause they're, like, different.

 

The only guarantee there is is that Kelly is hot !

[kav]

A guaranty is different from a guarantee cause they're, like, different.

 

The only guarantee there is is that Kelly is hot !

[gaz973]

I haven't read any of this. Can somebody summarize?

If I'm forced to endure the drivel contained in this thread then so should you be.

[ComicLock-migration]

Another problem besides the grading resto check and page quality flip floping is the lack of a response. They made one statement before closing up one day and have just tried to lets this die on its on. Did they get the book? Should they have to send it off to a 3rd party what is going on?

[Bropper]

Another problem besides the grading resto check and page quality flip floping is the lack of a response. They made one statement before closing up one day and have just tried to lets this die on its on. Did they get the book? Should they have to send it off to a 3rd party what is going on?

 

Sorry, but that information is classified and on a need to know basis. Only the inner circle is allowed to know all the details of this matter. Now just move along and forgot this whole thread even exists. If everyone would just stop posting this whole matter will be considered resolved and everything is as it should be.

[MatterEaterLad]

I don't think we'll hear anything else unless CGC finds some sort of external fault (like a known micro trimmer).

 

CGC said, "Hey, we screwed up." I think that's all we're gonna get.

 

I'd feel better if they said, "Whoops, our intern graded the book last time--our bad."

 

At least that's a plausible explanation and better in the long run than thinking that a team of experts screwed up on the same book multiple times.