The MobiLimb was created by researchers in France and is made up of "five servo motors, an Arduino microcontroller and a sensor, and it can do a number of unsettling things that are straight out of nightmares," according to Engadget.
Marc Teyssier, a PhD student and one of the researchers behind the project for the dismembered limb, legitimized its existence.
"In the spirit of human augmentation, which aims at overcoming human body limitations by using robotic devices, our approach aims at overcoming mobile device limitations (static, passive, motionless) by using a robotic limb."
Th MobiLimb can prop itself up so you can watch a video, or provide an alternate way to grip your device.
But there's one function that is really disturbing.
The articulated digit can be skinned to resemble a human finger, and it can stroke your wrist while you're using your phone.
Someone implied that single people could benefit from this invention as a companion.
What would the next-generation MobiLimb offer consumers?
The attachment could come in handy should an unfortunate life-changing incident were to occur.
But the gadget is still giving people goosebumps.
Others saw a more erotic potential.
Now here's a function not advertised by MobiLimb's creators.
Feelings are mixed. But the jury is in.
As to why such a creepy gadget was invented, we can't quite put our finger on it. But then, when it comes to consumers' needs, these guys may be out of touch.
The campaign is part of the Scottish government's One Scotland project in an effort to reduce hate crime.
One letter reads:
"Dear transphobes, do you think it's right to harass people in the street? Right to push transgender people around in clubs? Right to humiliate, intimidate and threaten them online? Well we don't."
"That's why if we see you doing harm, we're reporting you. We believe people should be allowed to be themselves. Except if they're spreading hate."
"Yours, Scotland."
(In another letter, the country says it has a "phobia" of homophobic behavior.
"If you torment people because of who they love, shout word that we are not going to write, or use violence because you don't like who someone is holding hands with, you should be worried."
"If we see or hear your abuse, we're calling the police. That's because love lives in this country, not hate."
"Yours, Scotland."
(One Scotland's website describes the organization as one that aims to continue building an inclusive society while recognizing the significant strides made so far towards equality.
"One Scotland embodies the inclusive society we want in Scotland, where equality and human rights are respected and every individual and minority group feels valued."
The website defines hate crimes as abuse that "can be verbal or physical and has hugely damaging effects on the victims, their families and communities, and we all must play our part to challenge it."
"Police Scotland takes hate crime very seriously. In the last year there were over 5,300 charges of hate crime reported to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland1."
"However, there are many more incidents that go unreported. We all have a responsibility to report hate crime if we witness it – it's the only way we can challenge it, and put an end to it for good."
Justice minister Humza Yousaf is familiar with being a victim of a bigotry and is encouraging people to call out and report any incidents involving harassment.
"As somebody who has faced Islamaphobic and racial abuse over the years, I know how upsetting being a victim of hate can be. Hate crime and prejudice are completely unacceptable and we are absolutely committed to tackling it."
"We all have a role to play in stamping out prejudice and I would ask anyone who witnesses a hate crime to play their part and report it. Justice agencies such the police and Crown Office will deal sensitively with reports made and people should have confidence in how they will be treated. Last year there were over 5,300 charges of hate crime reported to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland but there are still many incidents that are going unreported."
Henrietta Mochrie identifies as transgender and has been the victim of repeated harassment and abuse. She emphasized the importance of speaking out against the hatred.
"I'll often get street harassment, sometimes this has escalated to the point where I've been followed by people shouting abuse at me, just because of who I am."
"It makes me feel really down and scared to leave the house. It's important that if you witness hate crime that you report it to take a stand against hate."
One Scotland's ad campaign officially launched on Wednesday.
Hopefully, it won't take too long before other nations follow suit in this bold, yet necessary fight for equality.
H/T - OneScotland, PinkNews, Twitter
Hundreds of artists have signed a letter threatening a boycott if SiriusXM's parent company, Liberty Media, doesn't back down from opposing the Music Modernization Act.
The act, which was expected to pass through Congress, streamlines royalty payments in the new age of digital technology, but it seems SiriusXM is objecting to a small section that would have the satellite radio company paying royalties on recordings dating before 1972.
That's a whole lot of songs and a whole lot of money the company is hoping to skip out on paying, but not if stars like Paul McCartney, P!nk, Stevie Nicks, Sia, Carly Simon, Gloria Estefan, Mick Fleetwood, Don Henley, Max Martin, and Katy Perry can help it.
The letter read, in part:
I'm writing you with grave concern about SiriusXM's opposition to the Music Modernization Act (Classics Act included).
We are all aware of your company's objections and trepidation but let me say that this is an opportunity for SiriusXM to take a leadership position. As you are aware, 415 Representatives and 76 Senators have already cosponsored the MMA along with industry consensus. It's SiriusXM vs all of us. We can either fight to the bitter end or celebrate this victory together. Rather than watch bad press and ill will pile up against SiriusXM, why not come out supporting the most consequential music legislation in 109 years? We do not want to fight and boycott your company but we will as we have other opponents. Stand with us! Be brave and take credit for being the heroes who helped the MMA become historic law! Momentum is building against SiriusXM and you still have an opportunity to come out on the right side of history. We look forward to your endorsement but the fire is burning and only you can put this out.
SiriusXM resoponded with a letter of their own:
Over the past several weeks, we have been the subject of some stinging attacks from the music community and artists regarding our views on the Music Modernization Act. Contrary to new reports and letters, this is really not about a SiriusXM victory, but implementing some simple, reasonable and straightforward amendments to MMA. There is nothing in our "asks" that gut the MMA or kills the Act. So let's talk about the substance of the amendments we propose, because we truly do not understand the objections or why these concepts have incited such a holy war.ontrary to the accusations, SiriusXM has proposed three simple amendments to the MMA.
First, SiriusXM has asked that the CLASSICS Act recognize that it has already licensed all of the pre-1972 works it uses. This amendment would ensure that artists – the people who are supposed to be at the heart of the MMA – receive 50% of the monies under those existing licenses. Is that unfair? Just today, Neil Diamond wrote in the LA Times that: "I receive a small amount of songwriting royalties, but no royalties as the recording artist." How can that happen? To date, SiriusXM has paid nearly $250 million dollars in pre-'72 royalties to the record labels. We want to make sure that a fair share of the monies we have paid, and will pay, under these licenses gets to performers. Without this provision, artists may never see any of the money SiriusXM paid, and will pay, for the use of pre-1972 works. Artists not getting paid hurts our business!
Second, Sirius XM thinks that the fair standard to use in rate setting proceedings is the standard that Congress chose in 1995 and confirmed again in 1998 – which is called the 801(b) standard. However, we are willing to move the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard contained in the MMA. In exchange, we have asked for the same concession that the MMA grants to other digital music services, but we were left out of — simply that the rates that were set last year for five years now apply for ten years. We thought this was a fair compromise when we read the "new" MMA that was released this weekend by the Senate, and are willing to live by that compromise.
Third, SiriusXM is asking the simple question: "Why are we changing the rate court evidence standard for musical compositions in this legislation so that it gives another advantage to broadcasters over satellite radio and streaming services?" There is no policy rationale for this change to tilt the playing field further in their favor, and frankly no one has been able to explain it to us. It is only fair that we debate why the change to Section 114(i) is in the MMA.
Did you all catch that? It sounds like lawyer speak for "we don't really want to say where we stand."
It seems all the letters were for naught. The Music Modernization Act passed in the U.S. Senate.
It was time to celebrate and dance in the streets.
As the saying goes, honest pay for honest work.
