DJ Wilson
- 8005 comments
- 33233 likes given
- 4077 likes received
Bio not provided
Dj idoltime is a moderator of:
@TiMB Maybe you could say Bill Walton was this guy in college and injuries destroyed him. Grant Hill was less than expected? It's hard to call those guys fails..
@jakesnake99 @HoopStoryteller Seems to fit to me too. Had a decent year.
@ian21 @dj idoltime @noBjustRyan This is the dumbest idea that I have ever heard.
@ian21 @dj idoltime @noBjustRyan yeah, I was also trying to think about how something like the endorsement system for LinkedIn or something could be used as part of a person's credentialing portfolio for finding jobs.
@noBjustRyan @dj idoltime Yup. I have tried to figure out how one could utilize social networking systematically to improve credentialing for jobs, but it always comes down to how easy it would be to cheat the system.
@noBjustRyan I hope they run agent-based simulations after they construct their best employee model and collect simulated data for their baselines! XD
CLUTCH
@Dan_tm @AK1984 @HoopStoryteller @noBjustRyan Look we can all win here. We just need to convince MJ that he can add these valuable established players and Cho will hopefully not tell him they suck enough that they can still get Wiggins just fine adding the pu pu platter into the deal.
@TiMB how the hell did I get you to do this trade with me?
http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/6/23/1533887/draft-my-junk-admire-it-hold-it#40432876
@Dan_tm @dj idoltime @dario argento @skywaker9 (David) @ian21 I checked. I have SEVEN (7) endorsements on LinkedIn that say you're dead wrong buddy!
Did we put this meaningful thing up? IDERTDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9NjKgV65fpo
@dario argento @dj idoltime @skywaker9 (David) @ian21 The NKF does suggest additional research is required to make a recommendation which would be, in my opinion, the only reasonable suggestion one could make.
Of course, as I have stated before, public health research is really difficult to consider when planning future public health policies. We have seen the public react to supposed data on things from the autism supposedly produced by immunizations to cancer being caused by smoking cigarettes. The actual conclusive proof (in any direction) from things like this aren't always possible.. but most people have finally come to consensus that the first is a crock of shit and the second is deadly accurate. My position is that being there is inconclusive data on both sides that can directly pinpoint the actual physiological impacts on general flouridated water on living tissues for all subpopulations of the public doesn't make throwing a small concentration into the water because we can't validate the exact problems a smart course.
@dario argento @dj idoltime @skywaker9 (David) @ian21 The problem with that statement is three-fold. One, the findings of research being done by chemists on those direct impacts of fluoridation on living tissue is not consistent with the CDC's recommended levels. So the line for overflouridation is unknown. Two, studies indicate thatthe source of the flouride makes a difference in ability be properly absorbed by the body for anything useful. Three, the recommended levels and what constitutes overflouridation dramatically change in subpopulations which is exactly why young infants aren't recommended to use flouridated water for formula or kidney failure patients.
@dario argento @dj idoltime @skywaker9 (David) @ian21 There is plenty of replication available for those studies as well. Trying to analyze the health impact of a public health campaign is difficult. Focusing on the research on various concentrations of the chemical and how it directly impacts the living organisms aren't as susceptible to "statistical anomalies".