FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Chappie (2015) - Official trailer

Chappie (2015) - Official trailer

(2:34) Robocop, Die Antwoord, and apartheid. Set for release on March 6, 2015, Chappie is a prodigy robot who becomes the adopted son in a strange and dysfunctional family. From the director of District 9, with inspired casting of Die Antwoord.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: milesb (1040 days ago)

Looks like a remake of Short Circuit (1986) "Five Alive" LINK

Nothing new there then?

ReplyVote up (172)down (154)
Original comment

Looks like a remake of Short Circuit (1986) "Five Alive" LINK

Nothing new there then?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

Hope they don't make too much money off this movie or WalterEgo will have a problem with that.

ReplyVote up (152)down (155)
Original comment

Hope they don't make too much money off this movie or WalterEgo will have a problem with that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

I don't have a problem with people making money. I have a problem with people exploiting other people.

I don't have a problem with people making a lot of money, as long as it is within the rules that society agrees on, not on the whim of the corporation - See what I did there? If you were concentrating before, you will know exactly what I mean and appreciate that it is consistent with the bigger picture: that the people should decide the rules that govern society.

I have a problem with pay at the low end. It is not ethical to offer someone a full time job on a wage they can't live on. And then have the tax payer make up the difference. Especially if the company is making a huge profit. And avoiding taxes.

I think the minimum wage should be a living wage, and the tax payer help struggling companies into profit, not strugglling workers because wages are too low to live on.

ReplyVote up (150)down (161)
Original comment

I don't have a problem with people making money. I have a problem with people exploiting other people.

I don't have a problem with people making a lot of money, as long as it is within the rules that society agrees on, not on the whim of the corporation - See what I did there? If you were concentrating before, you will know exactly what I mean and appreciate that it is consistent with the bigger picture: that the people should decide the rules that govern society.

I have a problem with pay at the low end. It is not ethical to offer someone a full time job on a wage they can't live on. And then have the tax payer make up the difference. Especially if the company is making a huge profit. And avoiding taxes.

I think the minimum wage should be a living wage, and the tax payer help struggling companies into profit, not strugglling workers because wages are too low to live on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

“I don't have a problem with people making money.” You seem to have a problem with it. That’s income inequality and you complain about it all the time.

“I don't have a problem with people making a lot of money, as long as it is within the rules that society agrees on” And those people do make their money within the rules. There are some exceptions like the mafia and drug lords and I would agree with those people should be removed from society. Can you give me an example of someone that made their money outside of the rules like Bill Gates, Walmart Family, Warren Buffet?

“not on the whim of the corporation” It’s both. Corporations work within the rules of society and at the whim of the corporation. If society did not want corporations doing something in particular, they can stop it by creating more regulation or rules against it. Can you give me an example of the “Whim of a corporation” that is making someone a lot of money that you disagree with? Is it Walmart selling cheap products that you don’t like? You don’t think Microsoft should be allowed to sell their operating system or office product? McDonalds should be forbidden from selling burgers? What is it?

“I have a problem with pay at the low end.” Then don’t work at that low end but also don’t tell a student what jobs they can have while trying to build experience and to pay for their books. You take the jobs you want and let others take the ones they want.

Important question and please answer this one: Do you think nobody should be allowed to volunteer their time for a cause they think is good such as volunteering at the homeless shelter, the zoo, or Quigly House? Should those people get paid at least $10.10 an hour? Should we make it illegal for students to take internships? That’s where they work for a company for free and get course credits but no pay.

“It is not ethical to offer someone a full time job on a wage they can't live on.” There are some jobs that just do not warrant that much money. We have people holding signs up at the edge of the road. Do you really think that person should get paid enough to support a family of 5, buy a 4 bedroom house, buy three cars, give them healthcare, and pay for all their food, clothing, water, sewage, and electric? That is what we call unskilled labor and you get a very low wage for that kind of work.

Perhaps you will get your wish some day when we replace all those low-end jobs with machines like the ATM. We also have beverage dispensers. Those are taking potential jobs away from people trying to start out.

You may not be old enough to remember but there used to be soda shops where people would go to just get a drink. Those days are gone because they have been replaced with technology. Just put your money in a machine and out pops a soda.

“And avoiding taxes.” Not happening but nice try again. We have already been through that and you were unable to find a company in the USA that is avoiding taxes. You tried the Apple company but failed. You must have believed something you heard in the media without fact-checking it yourself.

“I think the minimum wage should be a living wage” There is a big difference, in my opinion, between income inequality and minimum wage versus living wage. Income inequality is usually the 1% versus the 99% not the super poor versus the low class.

ReplyVote up (149)down (139)
Original comment

“I don't have a problem with people making money.” You seem to have a problem with it. That’s income inequality and you complain about it all the time.

“I don't have a problem with people making a lot of money, as long as it is within the rules that society agrees on” And those people do make their money within the rules. There are some exceptions like the mafia and drug lords and I would agree with those people should be removed from society. Can you give me an example of someone that made their money outside of the rules like Bill Gates, Walmart Family, Warren Buffet?

“not on the whim of the corporation” It’s both. Corporations work within the rules of society and at the whim of the corporation. If society did not want corporations doing something in particular, they can stop it by creating more regulation or rules against it. Can you give me an example of the “Whim of a corporation” that is making someone a lot of money that you disagree with? Is it Walmart selling cheap products that you don’t like? You don’t think Microsoft should be allowed to sell their operating system or office product? McDonalds should be forbidden from selling burgers? What is it?

“I have a problem with pay at the low end.” Then don’t work at that low end but also don’t tell a student what jobs they can have while trying to build experience and to pay for their books. You take the jobs you want and let others take the ones they want.

Important question and please answer this one: Do you think nobody should be allowed to volunteer their time for a cause they think is good such as volunteering at the homeless shelter, the zoo, or Quigly House? Should those people get paid at least $10.10 an hour? Should we make it illegal for students to take internships? That’s where they work for a company for free and get course credits but no pay.

“It is not ethical to offer someone a full time job on a wage they can't live on.” There are some jobs that just do not warrant that much money. We have people holding signs up at the edge of the road. Do you really think that person should get paid enough to support a family of 5, buy a 4 bedroom house, buy three cars, give them healthcare, and pay for all their food, clothing, water, sewage, and electric? That is what we call unskilled labor and you get a very low wage for that kind of work.

Perhaps you will get your wish some day when we replace all those low-end jobs with machines like the ATM. We also have beverage dispensers. Those are taking potential jobs away from people trying to start out.

You may not be old enough to remember but there used to be soda shops where people would go to just get a drink. Those days are gone because they have been replaced with technology. Just put your money in a machine and out pops a soda.

“And avoiding taxes.” Not happening but nice try again. We have already been through that and you were unable to find a company in the USA that is avoiding taxes. You tried the Apple company but failed. You must have believed something you heard in the media without fact-checking it yourself.

“I think the minimum wage should be a living wage” There is a big difference, in my opinion, between income inequality and minimum wage versus living wage. Income inequality is usually the 1% versus the 99% not the super poor versus the low class.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

"Corporations work within the rules of society" . No they don't because government doesn't represent the people.

You said so yourself. You gave examples of how in the US you don't vote for the President: "In the USA, we cannot even vote for our President. We vote for a member of our electoral college to cast a vote for us. They should vote for who they are representing but there is no law prohibiting them for voting for a different president — and that has happened before."

That's a very trivial example compared to TTIP. It doesn't matter who represents "the people" during TTIP negotiations. If the negotiations are behind closed doors, they don't represent the views of the people. Don't forget, we only know of these negotiations because of leaks.

“It is not ethical to offer someone a full time job on a wage they can't live on." That's because when you hire someone for 8 hours a day (as in a full time job), you are preventing them from earning their living elsewhere. So you should offer at least enough for them to live off.

If they volunteer, they are volunteering their time for free. Pay them what you like.

If you can't afford the living/minimum wage, then you don't have a viable business. Wages are a business cost.

ReplyVote up (161)down (139)
Original comment

"Corporations work within the rules of society" . No they don't because government doesn't represent the people.

You said so yourself. You gave examples of how in the US you don't vote for the President: "In the USA, we cannot even vote for our President. We vote for a member of our electoral college to cast a vote for us. They should vote for who they are representing but there is no law prohibiting them for voting for a different president — and that has happened before."

That's a very trivial example compared to TTIP. It doesn't matter who represents "the people" during TTIP negotiations. If the negotiations are behind closed doors, they don't represent the views of the people. Don't forget, we only know of these negotiations because of leaks.

“It is not ethical to offer someone a full time job on a wage they can't live on." That's because when you hire someone for 8 hours a day (as in a full time job), you are preventing them from earning their living elsewhere. So you should offer at least enough for them to live off.

If they volunteer, they are volunteering their time for free. Pay them what you like.

If you can't afford the living/minimum wage, then you don't have a viable business. Wages are a business cost.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

“you are preventing them from earning their living elsewhere.” No you are not. First there are 24 hours in each day over here in the USA and probably over there in the UK too. A full-time worker usually only works 8 hours a day and 5 of the 7 days in a week. That leaves plenty of time for a second job. Besides, like I have been saying all along, we are not forcing anyone to do anything. If they don’t like that job that is not paying them a living wage, we are not stopping them from earning their living elsewhere.

“If they volunteer, they are volunteering their time for free. Pay them what you like.” Fine, so you agree we can pay people zero but you don’t agree that we can’t pay them between $0.01 and $10.10 an hour?

If we have to pay people a living wage, does that mean we are not allowed to hire someone for 20 hours a week? That’s not enough money to make a living so no part time jobs should be allowed, right?

“If you can't afford the living/minimum wage, then you don't have a viable business.” Wrong. Those companies that hire the sign holders are making profits and they are nice enough to take some of that money and give it to unskilled and uneducated workers that cannot do anything else with their life other than hold a sign. Think the company would go out of business if that person didn't hold that sign? If so, think again. It would be cheaper for that company to put a pole in the ground and glue the sign to the pole.

ReplyVote up (154)down (153)
Original comment

“you are preventing them from earning their living elsewhere.” No you are not. First there are 24 hours in each day over here in the USA and probably over there in the UK too. A full-time worker usually only works 8 hours a day and 5 of the 7 days in a week. That leaves plenty of time for a second job. Besides, like I have been saying all along, we are not forcing anyone to do anything. If they don’t like that job that is not paying them a living wage, we are not stopping them from earning their living elsewhere.

“If they volunteer, they are volunteering their time for free. Pay them what you like.” Fine, so you agree we can pay people zero but you don’t agree that we can’t pay them between $0.01 and $10.10 an hour?

If we have to pay people a living wage, does that mean we are not allowed to hire someone for 20 hours a week? That’s not enough money to make a living so no part time jobs should be allowed, right?

“If you can't afford the living/minimum wage, then you don't have a viable business.” Wrong. Those companies that hire the sign holders are making profits and they are nice enough to take some of that money and give it to unskilled and uneducated workers that cannot do anything else with their life other than hold a sign. Think the company would go out of business if that person didn't hold that sign? If so, think again. It would be cheaper for that company to put a pole in the ground and glue the sign to the pole.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

You didn't comment on "corporations don't work within the rules of society because government doesn't represent the people" . Does that mean you agree?

If you don't agree, cut all the waffle and just explain how 'the people' were represented at secret TTIP negotiations.

ReplyVote up (164)down (153)
Original comment

You didn't comment on "corporations don't work within the rules of society because government doesn't represent the people" . Does that mean you agree?

If you don't agree, cut all the waffle and just explain how 'the people' were represented at secret TTIP negotiations.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

“You didn't comment on ‘corporations don't work within the rules of society because government doesn't represent the people’ . Does that mean you agree?” I purposely ignored that because it was explained ad nauseum in previous comments. You are now being silly mentioning it again when I clearly said that corporations work within the rules of society. Don’t know why you’re starting to sound like SAT and his broken record problem.

“If you don't agree, cut all the waffle and just explain how 'the people' were represented at secret TTIP negotiations.” I told you that one too. Please read the messages that I type because I don’t like repeating myself. I’ll state it one more time for you even though the link you provided was very clear. There were representatives from all those countries. The representatives were hired by us, the people, to be there so all 300,000,000 citizens of the USA didn’t have to be in the room at the same time while the negotiations were going on.

ReplyVote up (166)down (141)
Original comment

“You didn't comment on ‘corporations don't work within the rules of society because government doesn't represent the people’ . Does that mean you agree?” I purposely ignored that because it was explained ad nauseum in previous comments. You are now being silly mentioning it again when I clearly said that corporations work within the rules of society. Don’t know why you’re starting to sound like SAT and his broken record problem.

“If you don't agree, cut all the waffle and just explain how 'the people' were represented at secret TTIP negotiations.” I told you that one too. Please read the messages that I type because I don’t like repeating myself. I’ll state it one more time for you even though the link you provided was very clear. There were representatives from all those countries. The representatives were hired by us, the people, to be there so all 300,000,000 citizens of the USA didn’t have to be in the room at the same time while the negotiations were going on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

Your reasons are void because the meetings were secret.

ReplyVote up (151)down (142)
Original comment

Your reasons are void because the meetings were secret.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

Representatives meeting in secret does not mean our country did not have representation.

ReplyVote up (136)down (148)
Original comment

Representatives meeting in secret does not mean our country did not have representation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

Remember you agreed that: "The people should decide the rules that govern corporations".

The people were not consulted over TTIP negotiations.

PS. Still looking for a real world example where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other'? Let me know when you give up, then I can stop asking you.

ReplyVote up (150)down (155)
Original comment

Remember you agreed that: "The people should decide the rules that govern corporations".

The people were not consulted over TTIP negotiations.

PS. Still looking for a real world example where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other'? Let me know when you give up, then I can stop asking you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

We must be caught in an infinite loop.

I say we had representation there because we elected representatives through an election process to handle the day-to-day negotiations like that. We are a representative republic. We are not a democracy where the 300,000,000 citizens cram into a huge auditorium and individually vote on each issue.

The people are not consulted on issues in our republic unless the elected representative wants feedback. Once they have been elected, they have full power to handle the affairs the way the representative thinks is in the best interest of the public they represent. They are under no legal obligation to take a poll of their constituents prior to creating bills.

When it comes time for re-election, if the representative did a bad job in the eyes of their voters, they risk someone else being voted in to replace them. It is in the best interest of the representative to do what is expected by the majority if they plan on keeping their job for another term.

ReplyVote up (153)down (150)
Original comment

We must be caught in an infinite loop.

I say we had representation there because we elected representatives through an election process to handle the day-to-day negotiations like that. We are a representative republic. We are not a democracy where the 300,000,000 citizens cram into a huge auditorium and individually vote on each issue.

The people are not consulted on issues in our republic unless the elected representative wants feedback. Once they have been elected, they have full power to handle the affairs the way the representative thinks is in the best interest of the public they represent. They are under no legal obligation to take a poll of their constituents prior to creating bills.

When it comes time for re-election, if the representative did a bad job in the eyes of their voters, they risk someone else being voted in to replace them. It is in the best interest of the representative to do what is expected by the majority if they plan on keeping their job for another term.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

Don't be ridiculous. Rules decided in secret and then foisted onto the people is not: "The people decide the rules that govern corporations".

If we woke up tomorrow to leaks that more secet negotiations had taken place without the people even knowing, is that "the people deciding the rules that govern corporations"?

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

And what are you going to do when you can't even find one example where the libertarian's flagship idea "fend for yourself" works best.

Ignoring it doesn't make it less of a shit idea.

ReplyVote up (161)down (155)
Original comment

Don't be ridiculous. Rules decided in secret and then foisted onto the people is not: "The people decide the rules that govern corporations".

If we woke up tomorrow to leaks that more secet negotiations had taken place without the people even knowing, is that "the people deciding the rules that govern corporations"?

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

And what are you going to do when you can't even find one example where the libertarian's flagship idea "fend for yourself" works best.

Ignoring it doesn't make it less of a shit idea.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

“Don't be ridiculous. Rules decided in secret and then foisted onto the people is not: ‘The people decide the rules that govern corporations’.

If we woke up tomorrow to leaks that more secet negotiations had taken place without the people even knowing, is that "the people deciding the rules that govern corporations”?&rdqu o;

Be prepared because this happens all the time with both of our governments. Did we know they were about to raid Osama Bin Laden’s facility before they did it? Nope.

Have you seen all the negotiations that Senators Richard Shelby and Sherrod Brown discuss in private about the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs? They are on the Senate Banking Committee with Elizabeth Warren who you love so much. You see some of the hearings when they interrogate someone but you do not see what goes on behind closed doors about who they are going to question and what they plan on putting into the next bill.

ReplyVote up (145)down (164)
Original comment

“Don't be ridiculous. Rules decided in secret and then foisted onto the people is not: ‘The people decide the rules that govern corporations’.

If we woke up tomorrow to leaks that more secet negotiations had taken place without the people even knowing, is that "the people deciding the rules that govern corporations”?&rdqu o;

Be prepared because this happens all the time with both of our governments. Did we know they were about to raid Osama Bin Laden’s facility before they did it? Nope.

Have you seen all the negotiations that Senators Richard Shelby and Sherrod Brown discuss in private about the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs? They are on the Senate Banking Committee with Elizabeth Warren who you love so much. You see some of the hearings when they interrogate someone but you do not see what goes on behind closed doors about who they are going to question and what they plan on putting into the next bill.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)
Latest comment:

You're so confused you are just proving my point. You agreed that the people SHOULD decide the rules that govern corporations, and now you are telling me there's very little transparency.

Exactly, the government does not represent the people, and that's what needs to change. Get corporations out of politics and let the people run government. That's what you agreed: The people should decide the rules that govern corporations.

That means full transparency. Every government contract, every trade agreement, every salary, every expense claimed, etc. should be on the internet for public scrutiny.

And there needs to be a mechanism for the people to overrule government in case of corruption or government simply not acting in the interests of the people. Something similar to the Swiss system could work well.

ReplyVote up (141)down (152)
Original comment
Latest comment:

You're so confused you are just proving my point. You agreed that the people SHOULD decide the rules that govern corporations, and now you are telling me there's very little transparency.

Exactly, the government does not represent the people, and that's what needs to change. Get corporations out of politics and let the people run government. That's what you agreed: The people should decide the rules that govern corporations.

That means full transparency. Every government contract, every trade agreement, every salary, every expense claimed, etc. should be on the internet for public scrutiny.

And there needs to be a mechanism for the people to overrule government in case of corruption or government simply not acting in the interests of the people. Something similar to the Swiss system could work well.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: abailey (1040 days ago)

We're moving swiftly toward a Marxist ideal. This film looks like it explores those issues. Once we have full mechanisation of labour, then we satisfy the stipulated conditions necessary for the maxim 'to each according to his need, from each according to his ability'.

ReplyVote up (160)down (163)
Original comment

We're moving swiftly toward a Marxist ideal. This film looks like it explores those issues. Once we have full mechanisation of labour, then we satisfy the stipulated conditions necessary for the maxim 'to each according to his need, from each according to his ability'.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1041 days ago)

looks interesting

ReplyVote up (141)down (162)
Original comment

looks interesting

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Daily Mail electric car rant
Daily Mail electric car rant
Business leaders react to Trump's 'Art of the Deal'
Business leaders react to Trump's 'Art of the Deal'
The Last Leg - Adam asks Siri if it's morally OK for Apple to avoid tax
The Last Leg - Adam asks Siri if it's morally OK for Apple to avoid tax
Teddy brings lemonade and ice tea
Teddy brings lemonade and ice tea
Yoann Bourgeois - Celui qui tombe (Whoever falls)
Yoann Bourgeois - Celui qui tombe (Whoever falls)