The choreography guys are doing it wrong, agreed. This does not change the fact that martial arts have seen hundreds of years of use by professionals (like the Chinese military prior to the arrival of guns) in real-world situations.

Alternatives: crush face with elbow, for example. Or slap with the back of the hand. Kick in the balls. There is no shortage really

Agreed, but easy to break a finger even with a haymaker to the hard skull behind the soft face. Anyway, maybe hoofs would be a better evolutionary adaptation to punching.

Also, it's not just about callouses, but about breaking bones as well.

See the other posts in this thread, where I already wrote that I know that, and made my point that many martial arts go out of their way to *avoid* punching with the fists, such as the Chinese peasants who codified Tai Chi Chuan in the 18th century, who we can assume to not have lacked knuckle callous.

Yeah, "doing it wrong" in the sense of doing it at all. Sure, calluses and all, not stretching the skin over the knuckles, etc., I know. But fists still are so not good for punching that, as I said, many martial arts don't use it at all (e.g., in Tai Chi Chuan punches are performed only with the back of the (fisted) hand). One would think that if the fists evolved for punching, as the study seems to claim, they would be built for punching, which they aren't really - notwithstanding the fact that with lots of conditioning, practice, and thinking about it you can kind of use them for punching

Absolutely. Also, study author should watch less movies and punch someone for real. He will realize that human hands are really bad for punching, you get open bleeding knuckles in no time, and injuries if your fists and arms are misaligned. It's not an accident that martial arts that use punches spend a lot of practice to getting it right, and many don't use closed-fist punches with exposed first phalanges at all.

Ok, I guess we must have different definitions of what it means for a company to take the linux desktop serious.

"serious"?

Actually Unity would be very poorly suited to a touch interface. See Shuttleworth's answers for some of the reasons.

So which other alive Linux company cares for the desktop?

"Informative" mod is utterly wrong. If you had bothered to research what you are posting about (which would have been easy, as a Google query for "ubuntu phone" brings you right here), you would have known that Canonical is aiming for precisely the opposite of what MS tried. MS forces the phone interface on PC users, with the traditional Desktop being forced into Metro). Canonical wants to make it so that if you plug an external monitor/keyboard/mouse into your phone, your phone runs the appropriate PC UI for these devices (while continuing to run the phone UI on the phone in parallel)

It absolutey does for me. I just checked to make sure.

Thunderbird and any other FOSS email client I used since 1996 had email threading. I am stunned that some people were not aware of email threading until Gmail.

The fact that they have open wheels comes into play before the fragility. Because of that, cars easily launch into the air, and we have seen it happen quite regularly. That's always been a part of F1 and open-wheel racing in general, and it's what makes the driving about finding clean lines around the car in front of you, while leaving a centimeter of space, instead of just bumping it out of the way like in touring cars. And it's what F1 fans generally appreciate.