I think it's a conspiracy to set France's technology back a few generations by insisting that only analog technology is to be utilized within the French borders. No wonder they're coming in and out of NATO. It's their analog computer, run by a 100k turntable skipping the grooves.

I wonder what our friend Grosse Fatigue has to say about this...

Sarkozy has a better suit and French cuffs, but they seem to be wearing the same wedding band??!!

There are only 36 different facial types.

Quote:
There are only 36 different facial types.

But innumerable types assholes.

New discoveries have determined that the are now 43 facetypes, with a possible 44th being tested now...

Just kidding. According to whom are there just 36 face types?

Quote:
There are only 36 different facial types.

Which two are you??

I'm just kidding- couldn't resist- sorry!!

You guys will have to look that one up. Science-gene related article of some sort I came across 4-5 years ago.

Base genetics will obviously create variations. But it has to do with the amount of 'original females' that the human race is based on.

For example, that European blood is based on 6 women for the most part,and one extra, which isn't that common. That would be 7 of the 36. All this came out at the same time the genome was being mapped. I daresay that if one looks into it now, there'd be more information.

The original middle eastern (but notably different) bloodlines of Judea, mixed with that of the Northern (North east-and middle-'far east European') Europeans as they came in via Syria and above, then across to the west and then down through Europe, for the most part. If you look into the origins of 'Sarkozy', as a name, you might find that to be the origins. Who knows. Just a guess on the last bit.

I went and looked at the background of Sarkozy, etymology of the name, etc. Only needed about 3 minutes..and sure enough, I was correct in my guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy

The potential link exists, genetically, etc. Nothing unusual there.

I still don't get the thing about just 36 facial types, tho. There's infinite variety.
Finite conditions can result in infinite variations down the line. E.g., we eacg have 2 parents but the (say) 5 children of those parents all look different in different ways. The 14th generation down might look way way way different than me!

There is also a remarkable resemblance between Microsoft's Steve Ballmer and Uncle Fester

36 basic facial types that become the basis, and then genetic variance on top of that. When the variance has been stripped away, we are left with 36 basic types, that correspond to the 36 original mothers of the human race. So..36 basic types...with infinite variation.

What I'd like to know is why we get Laura Bush (or any of the last 6 first ladies!) and the French get a super model! Damn!!! They can't get anyone to work much, but they sure know how to party!

Quote:
What I'd like to know is why we get Laura Bush (or any of the last 6 first ladies!) and the French get a super model! Damn!!! They can't get anyone to work much, but they sure know how to party!

That's because we're too busy working, hence, our women look like Laura Bush.

Quote:
36 basic facial types that become the basis, and then genetic variance on top of that. When the variance has been stripped away, we are left with 36 basic types, that correspond to the 36 original mothers of the human race. So..36 basic types...with infinite variation.

While this is off-topic, do you have a cite to a study that supports this hypothesis? I have searched and have found nothing. I also asked a physical anthropologist.

While there is evidence that all homo sapiens descend from a single mother, I have never heard of a hypothesis of "36 mothers".

There is solid evidence that all homo sapien mitochondrial DNA originated from a single mother. As mitochondrial DNA is received only from one's mother - and there is great commonality and small diversity among mtDNA - it appears that there is a single mother from which homo sapiens descend from their homo erectus ancestors.

Perhaps that is where the studies ended up. Who knows. It was a series of BBC articles from about 5-4-3 years back. It also pointed to the work done by the folks who caused the articles to come about. At the time, folks were just starting to get their own DNA tested. Just remember to consider that the given specialist should be 'up' on their own field. Not trying to be rude, it's just that the opposite can be more prevalent. For me, the most recent Exhibit 'A', would be the technology employed in these cables I'm now producing. A friend on a forum was privately informed of their existence ahead of time. He, without my permission, took it to a friend of his who was a physicist..and discussed it. The physicist friend poo-pooed the whole thing. Which is ludicrous to say the least, as a degree in some sort of physics does not make one an expert in cutting edge work in molecular function, plasma physics, MHD, and electrical theory at the molecular-motional level. It would be tricky to be an expert in fields that are at the point that their very definition is still under investigation, never mind the work involved in them.

Professionally borne and bred Ignorance. I run into it every day. I'm not saying this is the case, here, at all. I'm in no-way an expert on the subject of genetics. All I know is the 4-5 articles I read on the subject while in bed at at Holiday Inn...but I always question the experts -and I always question the question.

What it comes down to, for me, is that I take nobody's word for anything. I listen, take it all in -and ruminate, but I dig around regardless of who is giving me an answer or a question on anything. I especially question the guys who tell me with great assurance that 2+2=4, as the folks who are the most centered in their views have the tendency to be the most incorrect in their projections into new areas.

Here's an example from this morning, literally. Big medicine and even those professionally trained and involved in the medical and cellular field have poo-pooed magnetism for a VERY long time.

Here is a recent study posted in MIT Technology Review that say the exact opposite.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/20087/

Quote:
Perhaps that is where the studies ended up. Who knows.

Highly unlikely. The original Berkely paper was published in the January 1987 issue of the journal Nature.

Neither I, nor any of the scientists I know who specialize in evolution, have heard of a 36 facial type hypothesis. One of these I contacted happens to be at Berkley and knows the research intimately.

Oddly enough, I have much greater faith in the specialists in a specific field, then mere observers such as ourselves.

But again, if you have a cite I am very curious as I happen to deal a lot with legal issues involving evolution.

Buddha, you are one deliciously clever animal!

Thanks for the giggles.

Wes Phillips is Mr. Clean after he has cleaned after 600 weddings.