I didn't read through to the full article, of course; this is Slashdot. I'll do that in a minute. But the SEM image they showed in the first link was not scales; it was just the surface of the exoskeleton. Scales are quite different.

One of the first people to comment on the Nature article has it right. The definition of "jargon" being used here is incorrect, so the article comes off, to me, as fussy straw man b.s. Terms that help you define, for example, a phenomenon specific to your discipline are not at all necessarily jargon. Jargon is calling your laboratory a "lab," or saying 'we did 17 "runs" of an assay to confirm our results.' Jargon refers to the terms you do not use when you publish a formal paper because -- they're informal.

you are welcome to try Bugscope, whose 12th anniversary was yesterday http://bugscope.beckman.illinois.edu/

Free Public Wireless

They are preparing, apparently, for when we have blown everything up here and need somewhere else to go. But actually I think this is part of NASA's 'constant contact' plan, like the election, when McCain kept saying outrageous stuff just to keep himself in the news. I have been leery of NASA since they did their horrendously offensive dog-and-pony show about the Martian meteorite/life on Mars thing. Does the moon belong to us? Do we have the right to blow it up? It seems like an expensive schoolboy stunt.

just about spit tuna salad onto my keyboard