[url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/why-naked-mole-rats-evolved-to-feel-no-pain/[/url]

[QUOTE]These rodents are one of only two mammals known to be eusocial like ants and bees—as mentioned earlier, they have one reproductive female per colony (the other eusocial mammal is also a mole rat).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;444818][URL]http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/why-naked-mole-rats-evolved-to-feel-no-pain/[/URL][/QUOTE]
They live for 30 years! That is amazing for a small animal, especially a rodent. Hamsters live about 3 years. I don't know how long city rats live, but I wish it was less. We fight them all the time where I live.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;444787][url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/japans-space-agency-just-released-a-trove-of-jaw-dropping-moon-photos/[/url][/QUOTE]

What's the scale on those photos? The lack of one makes it hard to judge how big the craters are.

[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;444839]What's the scale on those photos? The lack of one makes it hard to judge how big the craters are.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I had the same thought after the caption in the first photo mentioned that the crater in the picture was 400 km deep.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;444843]Yes, I had the same thought after the caption in the first photo mentioned that the crater in the picture was 400 km deep.[/QUOTE]

It looks like it's been altered to 4km deep now, still doesn't help that much though.

[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;444892]It looks like it's been altered to 4km deep now, still doesn't help that much though.[/QUOTE]
That does make a whole lot more sense though. 400km confused the crap out of me.

[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;444839]What's the scale on those photos? The lack of one makes it hard to judge how big the craters are.[/QUOTE]
To me, from a photographer's point of view, the scale does not matter. The patterns and textures are amazing at any size. :smile:

[QUOTE=kladner;444901]To me, from a photographer's point of view, the scale does not matter. The patterns and textures are amazing at any size. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Sure. But are nipples in the middle of the craters the size of my car? house? property? city? state? country?
Some of those photos look like 1990s cgi (I'm not saying they are). I want to know if it's down to camera quality or just the fact that the features are so large, and images taken from so far away, that they just get turned into a grey smudge.

second picture drigalski crater : diameter of 149 km
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drygalski_(crater[/url])

moretus and clavius
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moretus_(crater[/url])
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavius_(crater[/url])

mare orientale (327 km)
[url]https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110312.html[/url]

copernicus crater (93 km)
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_(lunar_crater[/url])

Marius hils : between 200 and 500 metter high (it say so)

etc

[url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/a-sense-of-scale-the-best-microscopy-of-2016/[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;445098][url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/a-sense-of-scale-the-best-microscopy-of-2016/[/url][/QUOTE]

Related: Some very cool microscopy photos at this site:
[url]http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=929115[/url]

----------------------

[url=phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html]The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate—or is it?[/url] | Phys.org

The strong law of small numbers, cosmology-style? Note also the description of the extreme model dependence of so much of ongoing work in the field, rather (and unfortunately) reminiscent of economics: "we observed what our model permitted us to observe."