Octopuses Show Scientists How To Hide Machines in Plain Sight (axios.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Octopuses Show Scientists How To Hide Machines in Plain Sight (axios.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday October 12, 2017 @10:00PM from the how-to-train-your-dragon dept.

If you want to learn the art of camouflage look no further than octopuses. Just watch this famous video that shows a diver slowly swimming up to a clump of rock and seaweed, only for part of that clump to turn white, open its eye, and jet away, squirting ink behind it. Materials scientists and engineers have fallen under the octopuses' spell. From a report: Scientists have engineered a material that can transform from a 2D sheet to a 3D shape, adjusting its texture to blend in with its surroundings, per a new study published today in Science. They mimicked the abilities of an octopus, which can change both shape and color to camouflage. This is a first step toward developing soft robots that can hide in plain sight, robotics expert Cecilia Laschi writes of the research. Robots that can camouflage may one day be used in natural environments to study animals more closely than ever before or in military operations to avoid detection, she writes.

33 of 63 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I believe the correct terminology is... by h33t+l4x0r · 2017-10-12 22:07 · Score: 3, Funny

Octopussies.
Military applications by tinkerton · 2017-10-12 22:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's always the military applications because that's where the money is. What was it again for US? 700 bn + 130 bn or so for ongoing wars. With a bunch of obfuscated and indirect costs on top.
1. Re:Military applications by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 23:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yep, "defense" spending. Boggles the mind that a significant portion of Americans accepts military spending, but balks about providing healthcare to all its citizens. You put that in perspective, if the $700 billion figure is correct, as today it has been reported that Trump is saving $7 billion (1% of the military budget) by cutting healthcare subsidies which affects millions of lower income Americans. Of course, it probably ends up costing more in lost productivity for people who are ill and can not afford medical services.
2. Re:Military applications by omnichad · 2017-10-13 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  The middle ground between those two extremes is as wide as the ocean.
3. Re:Military applications by Gilgaron · 2017-10-13 03:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  For better or for worse, the best jobs some of his supporters are likely able to get would be found by joining the military. It has become a right-friendly make-work program.
4. Re:Military applications by gurps_npc · 2017-10-13 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's not really about the 'money'. It's about politics.
  The GOP has developed a myth that somehow military technology spending works, while civilian does not. This despite the fact that military is FAMOUS for horrendously overspending on stupid crap that doesn't work.
  For this reason they refuse to spend money on non-military technology.
  The scientist counter this by re-framing all grant request as military in nature. US government funded medical research is huge - but only because they convinced the military to paying for it. Surely General, you care about your soldiers, right? You want them to have the best medical care, right? So fund our research.
  It's medical research. We have the money for it and the political will. It should be funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.
  But the GOP has political objections to admitting that the US government works - except the military - so we have to do this silly work around.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
5. Re:Military applications by mikael · 2017-10-13 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Just cover your vehicle in LED lights and smartphone CCD's
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
6. Re:Military applications by sexconker · 2017-10-13 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  This despite the fact that military is FAMOUS for horrendously overspending on stupid crap that doesn't work.
  Most of the horrendous overspending is just fake accounting to cover the black budgets.
7. Re: Military applications by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-13 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Healthcare spending tops military spending - 27% to 22% of Federal spending. And that does not include State spending on healthcare. We spend a massive amount of dollars every year on healthcare, which is curious given that the Constitution is explicit in its statement about Federal support of the military but curiously quiet about healthcare (other than the massively over-twisted-and-stretched "public welfare" clause used to justify any spending that anyone in Congress wishes to dole out to their benefactors or constituents).
8. Re:Military applications by tinkerton · 2017-10-13 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  I can more or less agree. Just present your research as having military relevance. But I don't think it's harmless. I'll put it another way: after a while everyone decide they benefit from plugging into the military industrial complex which then helps it grow and increases the concentration of power. And such power concentratoin is a bad thing and we shouldn't do bad things now should we.
Camouflage by Obfiscator · 2017-10-12 22:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Anyone else notice how the octopus in the video was the only part of the clump of seaweed not swaying in the current? Guess they have to work on imitating that next.

--
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
1. Re:Camouflage by Xest · 2017-10-13 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  As a diver, and underwater photographer, this sort of thing is exactly what I've started to notice over the years. When I started diving you'd go down with a guide and they'd drag you round at their pace, and the pace of a bunch of other people in the group and you'd see these amazing reefs and amazing creatures, it was an absolute revelation about the amazing things that exist in our world.
  But it was nothing compared to when I first went out by myself, and slowed right down to take my time to find smaller macro subjects, and started glancing at every inch of the reef to see what I could see, only to realise that when you slow down, and take your time to let your eyes spot exactly the type of out of place things you describe that you then spot the other 75% of the reef that you just never noticed before. The blennies that hid so fast when they saw you coming you never knew they were there, the tiny sea horses perfectly camouflaged in with whatever they're attached to, the frogfish that just look like common coral stuck to the rocks, the octopus that has disguised itself perfectly into some plant, rock or crevice, the flounders, rays, angel sharks and variety of other ambush predators buried in the sand.
  There are massive proportions of the underwater ecosystem that we just do not even notice until we slow down, even stop, and take the time to notice the incredibly subtle out of place things you've spotted in this video, and that's when the ocean both on and off reef really begins to amaze you. If you've only done guided tours of reefs at typical tour speeds then you've only experienced a fraction of what the reef has to offer, if you've not even done a dive then you've not experienced what is far and away the most incredible and alien ecosystem on our planet.
  But if you ever get the chance to do a dive, do it justice and find a partner, or pay the extra and hire a private dive master who is willing to let you take the time to really experience the reef, and really spot what's there. Deeper isn't always better, some of my favourite dives have been no less than 6 metres where I can stay down for 1 hour 30 mins on a single 12 litre tank and really take my time to spot the most amazing things - with environments this diverse you're sometimes even spotting species that aren't even formally known to science yet.
2. Re:Camouflage by dpidcoe · 2017-10-13 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I've always had kind of the reverse experience. Diving by myself I don't notice much, but whenever I go with someone else we always find crazy stuff. I remember once with my old dive instructor he motioned everyone to a stop, then slowly started creeping along the bottom on his fingers. We all thought he was just showing off how good he was at controlling his buoyancy, but then he suddenly dug his fingers into the sand and scooped out an armload of stingray. He held it for a few seconds, then let it jet off a few meters away where it re-buried itself in the sand in a matter of seconds. The only thing visible were its eyes, which just looked like two very evenly spaced and uniform rocks.
3. Re:Camouflage by Xest · 2017-10-13 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  I know where you're coming from - I think that's probably precisely though because your instructor has had the time to properly scour the reef and learn what to look for, I didn't mean to suggest it's automatic, more that it's a skill and one you learn by taking your time, and that it's one that creates a completely different experience for you.
  Part of the challenge is that it's not that instructors aren't seeing these things as they go by, they probably are, but that they don't see merit in stopping for them. I do still go on guided dives, especially when I'm orienting myself to a new area sometimes, but now that I've learnt to spot things like octopus it's amazing how many instructors or dive guides I see spot things like that and just keep on moving for various reasons ranging from them being hungover from the night before, to having no interest in things like that having seen a thousand, to being on a schedule, to being lumped with a lot of novices with poor buoyancy and just wanting to get them off the reef before they damage anything more.
  So effectively the point I'm making is that it's worth taking time to learn that skill that that instructor you had has, so that once you've taken your time to pick it up, you'd have spotted exactly what your instructor did.
Re:Are they really octopuses? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 22:59 · Score: 1

They prefer to be know collectively as "Hydra" but it never caught on.
Re:Are they really octopuses? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 23:09 · Score: 3, Informative

One would think they prefer to be known collectively as octopi.
WRONG

Usage
The standard plural in English of octopus is octopuses. However, the word octopus comes from Greek and the Greek plural form octopodes is still occasionally used. The plural form octopi, formed according to rules for some Latin plurals, is incorrect
Re:Are they really octopuses? by GrumpySteen · 2017-10-12 23:14 · Score: 3, Informative

One would think a pedant would be aware that the word octopus originates from Greek and wouldn't use Latin pluralization rules on it.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
But who am I kidding? Pedants are rarely aware of anything other than their desire to make themselves feel smart by correcting others, even when they're wrong to do so.
Re:Video is 'augemented' by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-13 00:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Uh-oh. Yes octopuses can change their skin texture using muscles under the skin.
Re:Are they really octopuses? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-10-13 00:21 · Score: 1

Grammar Nazi fail.
Re:Are they really octopuses? by Presence+Eternal · 2017-10-13 00:35 · Score: 1

Actually, pendants mostly like to hang around doing nothing all day. Pedants hate that they can't fix their mistakes in Slashdot comment threads. Other folks have more esoteric tastes, like trying to trick people into checking their spelling for no good reason.
Obligatory... by coofercat · 2017-10-13 00:35 · Score: 2

I had some of this material somewhere... now where did I put it?
(thank you, I'm here all week)
Re:Video is 'augemented' by tinkerton · 2017-10-13 01:27 · Score: 1

Just think of it as frowning.
The applications are endless by hyades1 · 2017-10-13 01:44 · Score: 1

"Isn't it astonishing, Smedley, how much that fully-functioning surveillance drone resembles a set of tiles in the ladies change room at the university gym!"
"You have my word, sir, no terrorist shall pass through that venue unobserved!"

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
You can't easily see these robots by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-13 01:59 · Score: 2, Funny

But it's a dead giveaway when they squirt ink at you.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Video is 'augemented' by hyades1 · 2017-10-13 02:38 · Score: 1

They absolutely 100% DO change their skin texture. I've seen it myself. And I have no doubt there's thousands of snorkelers and divers who can back me up on this.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Chameleon Circuit by techdolphin · 2017-10-13 02:57 · Score: 1

I am surprised they were not studying chameleons because Dr. Who's TARDIS used a chameleon circuit.
Squirting ink ... by PPH · 2017-10-13 03:26 · Score: 2

... and running away. Are you sure this wasn't the Washington Post?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Predator 4 by Zorro · 2017-10-13 03:50 · Score: 1

Arnold Schwarzenegger VS a Giant Octopus!
Re:Video is 'augemented' by Xest · 2017-10-13 04:02 · Score: 1

Take it from a diver who has photographed many octopus over the years, yes they absolutely do change their skin texture and not simply their colour.
Re:Video is 'augemented' by Xest · 2017-10-13 04:18 · Score: 1

I can go one better and provide a couple of images that illustrate exactly this behaviour that I took personally. I have photographed a lot of octopuses, and whilst these aren't the best shots, they were taken literally seconds apart and highlight the rapid change.
https://ibb.co/ctiTAb
https://ibb.co/fFyjiw
As you can see (and as the video shows) they typically use more texture when they're hiding to obscure their shape, then they smooth themselves out to reduce drag in the water when they want to flee.
Re:Are they really octopuses? by mikael · 2017-10-13 05:35 · Score: 1

What's the plural of Grammar Nazi? A Blitzkrieg of Grammar Nazi's?

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Video is 'augemented' by sexconker · 2017-10-13 05:56 · Score: 1

dam u dum
Re:Are they really octopuses? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-10-13 06:20 · Score: 1

Grammar Nazipis.