【ただひたすら書き込むスレ】

雑談 chat

d67873f9 anonymous 2017-05-17 19:40
在宅なのに出ないで再配達を頼む女性が多すぎるんだよなあ。
凄い無駄。
0619b423 anonymous 2017-05-17 20:02
日本でドローン配達は問題多過ぎだからまたまだ先の話だよアメリカがどうやるのかじっくり観察しよう
58d32df7 anonymous 2017-05-18 22:25
Torから書き込みテスト
19654917 anonymous 2017-05-20 16:15
君が犯人
君も犯人
君は犯人
君を犯人
君で犯人
君に犯人
0be9d815 anonymous 2017-05-22 09:38
■ゾディアック・ボート
 いわゆるゴムボート。とても頑丈で傷に強い。荒波にも耐え、軍や特殊部隊、民間で幅広く使われている。
 反面とても重い。
 軍隊でこのボートを使っているのを見たら、だいたい特殊部隊だと思っていい。
 日本では西普連が使用している。
c52e77a7 anonymous 2017-05-22 09:48
■西普連
 西部方面普通科連隊。約600名からなる連隊。
 名前からして普通の歩兵の部隊かなーと思ってしまうが、実態は特殊部隊である。
 離島を防衛するための即応部隊として設立された。自衛隊で唯一陸海に展開できる部隊で、
離島奪還等の時、海から上陸し偵察、拠点確保し本隊の上陸を援護する危険な任務を主とする。
 その性格からアメリカ海兵隊と合同訓練をよくやっている。
46aebdf4 anonymous 2017-05-22 18:12
>>19654917
君がゴア、君もゴア、君はゴア、君をゴア、君でゴア、君にゴア
c6a72ea6 anonymous 2017-05-25 16:45
<明治>「カール」販売中止 中部地方以東 販売低迷で
https://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20170525-00000060-mai-bus_all

一時代を築いたカールも衰退したか……
1da45138 anonymous 2017-05-26 13:18
さあ仕事だ。
420c0022 anonymous 2017-05-27 01:09
>>c6a72ea6
カールって有名ではあるけどわざわざ買うかというとたしかにあんま買わないんだよね
何より酒に合わないってのが個人的には致命的
34bb8798 anonymous 2017-05-27 04:28
友達の家に遊びに行った時のおやつとしては評価が高かったようなきがするなぁ
「カールだ!」と皆言葉に出さないまでも結構早く菓子盆から消えていっていたのを思い出す
して手に油が付いて、結局その子の家のスーファミやらのコントローラーはテカテカになる運命だった。まぁポテチとかでも同じだったか
c785c260 anonymous 2017-05-27 08:20
カールのカレー味は旨かった記憶
でも確かに手が汚れやすいよねw
11d2851b anonymous 2017-05-27 12:14
手が汚れるのが嫌だから箸で食べてるな
7eca6119 anonymous 2017-05-27 13:29
Knight Armard Rolling Limitedの略でしたっけか。
121cf47b anonymous 2017-05-27 13:29
カールはあまり好きじゃなかった、チーズ味のスナック菓子全般好きじゃなかったけど
カールの歌は好きだった、なんとかかんとかおやつはカールってやつね
d8ac8d01 anonymous 2017-05-27 13:52
私はカールよりもカールっぽい見た目のキャラメル味の豆の入ったスナック菓子が好き
b3ef721f anonymous 2017-05-27 15:16
今時 其れにつけても とか言わないな
94b64c94 anonymous 2017-05-27 16:24
>>d8ac8d01
キャラメルコーン?
7ecef6bb anonymous 2017-05-27 16:51
>>94b64c94
それも最近見ないな
93d9c88b anonymous 2017-05-27 17:10
確かにキャラメルコーンはたまに食べたくなる
8b6e76b5 anonymous 2017-05-27 19:35
カールのライバルはうまい棒
cd4f3584 anonymous 2017-05-27 19:37
あとキャベツ太郎とか

そう考えると価格の面でもなぁ
89fe01dd anonymous 2017-05-27 19:51
>>7ecef6bb
スーパーに行ったら置いてあった。
カールは見なかったなあ。
851123c9 anonymous 2017-05-27 21:16
確かに販売努力が足りてなかったかもしらんね
コラボとか期間限定フレーバーとか

まあ注力商品じゃなかったってことなのこな
c240a820 anonymous 2017-05-27 21:40
>>851123c9
いやいやカールおじさんは企業のコーポレントアイデンテテーだから
単に企業の戦略の失敗

東ハトのキャラメルコーンは大成功した。
b9c569d4 anonymous 2017-05-27 22:02
>>c240a820
その割にチョコレートのCMばっかりだったような気がする
1d1aa056 anonymous 2017-06-01 00:04
2017-06-01
48c5e3eb anonymous 2017-06-07 13:19
来週月曜の面接で今後の人生が決まる
絶対に内定取りたい
68a7b2b5 anonymous 2017-06-10 11:40
LANケーブルを自作しようとしてRJ-45コネクタを買い忘れる夢を見た
bb6cbfde anonymous 2017-06-10 12:12
最近は売り手市場だそうで、羨ましいです。
>>48c5e3eb
e9fd99f8 anonymous 2017-06-10 13:14
5月までに内々定取った人の半分が就活継続らしいので、月末以降は辞退ラッシュが見られそうです
無い内定の自分には羨ましい限り
096928a5 anonymous 2017-06-10 13:39
https://twitter.com/nittaryo/status/870074895329144832
cd2c9603 anonymous 2017-06-10 14:23
今って内定は何段階くらいあんの?
内々々定くらいはあるでしょ?
5341aff9 anonymous 2017-06-10 15:09
そんなの内々々
282fad7c anonymous 2017-06-10 15:12
氷河期に入社して、中年で首を来らて、どこも雇ってくれない、おじさんからみたら、
羨ましくてしょうがない。
eb42e185 anonymous 2017-06-10 15:15
>>68a7b2b5
最近は自作ってどうなの? 転送レートが上がって自作は怖いんだけど
f8f4d2d9 anonymous 2017-06-10 15:17
>>096928a5
50〜1000人程度の企業に応募してるけど、第一志望は300人強
でも電機メーカーだから電気科の競争率高い・・・
203e7577 anonymous 2017-06-10 16:34
無い内定
内々定
語呂は同じでも意味が違う
30fd391d anonymous 2017-06-10 21:39
オープンソースソフトウェアのライフサイクルと同じくらい時期がわからん
90d44ce1 Carloscar [adkins-8312@mail.ru] 2017-06-15 01:04
?Sample essay
The remainder of this essay crafting tutorial is influenced by a short sample 'divorce essay' (about 1,000 words).
To finish all for the associated tasks, it is easiest if you happen to have the sample essay in front of you.
A major change that has occurred while in the Western family is undoubtedly an increased incidence in divorce. Whereas within the past, divorce was a relatively rare occurrence, in recent times it has become rather commonplace. This change is borne out clearly in census figures. For example thirty years ago in Australia, only a person marriage in ten ended in divorce; nowadays the figure is in excess of a particular in three (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996: p.45). A consequence of this change appears to have been a substantial increase while in the selection of one parent families and then the attendant problems that this brings (Kilmartin, 1997).
An important issue for sociologists, and indeed for all of society, is why these changes in marital patterns have occurred. On this essay I will seek to critically examine quite a lot of sociological explanations for your 'divorce phenomenon' and also consider the social policy implications that just about every explanation carries with it. It will be argued that the optimal explanations are to be found inside a broad socio-economic framework.
Just one type of explanation for rising divorce has focused on changes in laws relating to marriage. For example, Bilton, Bonnett and Jones (1987) argue that increased rates of divorce do not necessarily indicate that families are now alot more unstable. It is conceivable, they claim, that there has always been a degree of marital instability. They suggest that changes within the law have been significant, basically because they have provided unhappily married couples with 'obtain to the legal remedy to pre-existent marital problems' (p.301). Bilton et al. therefore believe that changes in divorce rates tend to be easiest explained in terms of changes inside legal strategy. The problem with this type of explanation however, is the fact it does not consider why these laws have changed with the to begin with put. It could be argued that reforms to family law, at the same time given that the increased rate of divorce that has accompanied them, are the product of way more fundamental changes in society.
Another type of explanation is a person that focuses precisely on these broad societal changes. For example, Nicky Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995) argues that increases in divorce and marital breakdown are the result of economic changes that have affected the family. Just one example of these changes is the raised material aspirations of families, which Hart suggests has put pressure on both equally spouses to become wage earners. Women as a result have been forced to become both equally homemakers and economic providers. According to Hart, the contradiction of these two roles has lead to conflict and this is the main cause of marital breakdown. It would appear that Hart's explanation cannot account for all cases of divorce - for example, marital breakdown is liable to occur in families where only the husband is working. Nevertheless, her tactic, which is to relate changes in family relations to broader social forces, would seem to be to be increased probing than a particular that looks only at legislative change.
The two explanations described previously mentioned have very different implications for social policy, particularly in relation to how the problem of increasing marital instability may be dealt with. Bilton et al. (1995) offer a legal explanation and hence would see the solutions also being determined in this particular domain. If rises in divorce are thought to be the consequence of liberal divorce laws, the obvious way to stem this rise is to make them less obtainable. This tactic, one particular imagines, would lead into a reduction in divorce statistics; however, it cannot really be held up as a genuine answer to the problems of marital stress and breakdown in society. Indeed it would appear to be a method directed added at symptoms than addressing fundamental causes. Furthermore, the adventure of social workers, working with the area of family welfare suggests that restricting a couple's accessibility to divorce would in some cases serve only to exacerbate present marital problems (Johnson, 1981). In those cases where violence is involved, the consequences could be tragic. Apart from all this, returning to a whole lot more restrictive divorce laws looks to be a choice minimal favoured by Australians. (Harrison, 1990).
Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995), crafting from the Marxist-feminist position, traces marital conflict to changes while in the capitalist economic strategy and their resultant effect around the roles of men and women. It is difficult to know however, how these an analysis can be translated into practical social policies. This is on the grounds that the Hart program would appear to require on the earliest position a radical restructuring in the economic strategy. Whilst this may be desirable for some, it is not really achievable inside of the existing political climate. Hart is right however, to suggest that a lot of marital conflict could very well be linked in some way to the economic circumstances of families. This is borne out in a number of statistical surveys which indicate consistently that rates of divorce are higher among socially disadvantaged families (McDonald, 1993). This situation suggests then that social policies really need to be geared to providing aid and security for these varieties of families. It is minimal cause for optimism however, that in recent years governments of all persuasions have proven an increasing reluctance to fund social welfare programs of this kind.
It is difficult to offer a comprehensive explanation with the growing trend of marital breakdown; and it is even a whole lot more difficult to choose solutions that may ameliorate the problems created by it. Clearly though, as I have argued with this essay, one of the most useful answers are to be found not inside of a narrow legal framework, but inside of a broader socio-economic an individual.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that, whilst we may appear to be living in the time of increased family instability, research suggests that historically, instability may have been the norm rather than the exception. As Bell and Zajdow (1997) point out, during the past, one parent and step families have been even more commonplace than is assumed - although the disruptive influence then was not divorce, but the premature death of a single or both equally parents. This situation suggests that in studying the fashionable family, a particular needs to employ a historical perspective, such as the possibility of searching to the past in searching for ways of dealing with problems during the current.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Divorces, Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Provider.
Bell, R. and G. Zajdow (1997) Family and household. In R. Jureidini, S. Kenny and M. Poole (eds). Sociology: Australian Connections. St Leonards. NSW: Allen and Unwin
Bilton, T. K. Bonnett and P. Jones (1987). Introductory Sociology. 2nd edition. London: MacMillan.
Haralambos, M. (1995). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 3rd edition. London: Bell and Hyman.
Harrison, M. (1995). Grounds for divorce. Family Matters. No 42 pp 34-35.
Johnson, V. (1981). The Last Resort: A Women's Refuge. Ringwood: Penguin.
Kilmartin, C. (1997). Children divorce and one-parent families. Family Matters. No. 48. ( Available in the market On-line )
McDonald, P. (1993). Family Trends and Structure in Australia. Australian Family Briefings No 3. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
9eb28675 anonymous 2017-06-16 02:34
テステス
839a2bcb anonymous 2017-06-16 10:10
>>9eb28675
[[テスト]]
855247cc anonymous 2017-06-21 13:30
国民は適切な手続きで法の改廃を直接的ないし間接的に行えるという民主国家
その民主国家で国民の定義は法によってなされるというのは循環論法になるのではないか?
法によって国民が任命され法によって任命された国民によって法としての正当性が認めらえている国籍法
法が不変の真理でない事は法の改廃が行える事で分かるが、という事は本来なら国民として含められるべき人達ないし本来なら国民として認めてはいけない人達が法によって国民として排除ないし任命されていたとしたら?
循環論法によらず"国民を任命する何らかのもの"を認めるというのは、国民よりも上位の何かを認めるわけで民主国家とうものの否定にならないか?
客観的な基準で解決するかな?
でもその客観的な基準は誰が決めるのかな?
ea2ed9f5 anonymous 2017-06-21 20:58
循環論法という言葉の使い方が意味不明すぎるなあ

ともかく、権利の正当性は現在の国民から国籍法改定によって新たに選ばれた国民へ、現在の国民の権利行使をもって移管されただけだろう
あと「本来」ってどっから出てきたんだ
国民によって決められた法が国民の定義を行う、これ以外に適切な「国民の定義」があるという仮定がそもそも民主主義の前提と対立してる
f0b54cbb anonymous 2017-06-27 21:36
やっほーーーーーーー!(ストレス発散)
67c5cf2f anonymous 2017-06-28 08:48
おはよう(まだ出勤してない)
1c5995f3 anonymous 2017-07-01 00:03
7月になってしまった
20708435 anonymous 2017-07-01 00:20
ほんとだことしもあと半年
4d6a5941 anonymous 2017-07-21 04:21
>>1b6d00f4
ブラック企業なんていわれている企業は、ただ単に市場における労働の価値を適正にしようとする圧力の一環にすぎんからな
不当に高い賃金を支払わされれば残業でもさせて時間当たりの賃金を適正値にしようとするのも当然
自由市場というのはそういうもんで労働に限定せず不当に高いものや安いものには淘汰圧がかかる
労働者の待遇がどうのなんてのは社会の都合なんだから、そういうのは社会福祉でどうにかする問題で私企業に押し付ける問題じゃない
852aa55c anonymous 2017-07-21 19:04
もし本当に賃金を「適正」にしてるんなら、堂々と賃金が安いことを表示すればいい
違法なサービス残業ではなく正規の残業にできるよ
労働者が寄り付かなくなる? それが自由市場だ

自由市場は競争によって社会の効率を改善するというが
労働市場においてブラック企業はブラックでない企業と競争できてないんだよ
不効率な経営を労働者からの不当な搾取でごまかしているだけ
方や、法を遵守し効率化を行って踏ん張っている企業がある
どっちが社会に有用かわかるね

Top of this page. | 0 1 2 3 old>> | Archive | Mobile

limit: 1536KB

雑談 chat

(【ただひたすら書き込むスレ】/200/0.1MB)

Powered by shinGETsu.