- 追加された行はこのように表示されます。
- 削除された行は
このように表示されます。
{{outline}}
{{b_secret
//{{layout rollout,title:メモ
{{memo}}
//}}
}}
!!!解説
{{b_secret
{{youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqvVuyWwhs0&feature=youtu.be}}
}}
!!1
Every new technology raises fears that some jobs will be lost and hopes that new jobs will be created.
出典: https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2017/jan/22/the-new-robot-revolution-will-take-the-bosss-job-not-the-gardeners
https://www.theguardian.com/weekly
!!2
Decades ago, work was a major source of friendships in America.
出典: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/opinion/sunday/adam-grant-friends-at-work-not-so-much.html
{{youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvr--GeAico&feature=youtu.be}}
{{b_secret
{{layout rollout,title:■
Friends at Work? Not So Much
Adam Grant
By Adam Grant
Sept. 4, 2015
242
Image
CreditFanny Blanc
ONCE, work was a major source of friendships. We took our families to company picnics and invited our colleagues over for dinner. Now, work is a more transactional place. We go to the office to be efficient, not to form bonds. We have plenty of productive conversations but fewer meaningful relationships.
In 1985, about half of Americans said they had a close friend at work; by 2004, this was true for only 30 percent. And in nationally representative surveys of American high school seniors, the proportion who said it was very important to find a job where they could make friends dropped from 54 percent in 1976, to 48 percent in 1991, to 41 percent in 2006.
We may start companies with our friends, but we don’t become friends with our co-workers. “We are not only ‘bowling alone,’ ” Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor at Stanford, observes, “we are increasingly ‘working alone.’ ”
Focusing our friendship efforts outside work isn’t the norm around the world. In surveys across three countries, Americans reported inviting 32 percent of their closest colleagues to their homes, compared with 66 percent in Poland and 71 percent in India. Americans have gone on vacation with 6 percent of their closest co-workers, versus 25 percent in Poland and 45 percent in India.
ADVERTISEMENT
It’s not that Americans are less concerned with relationships overall. We’re social creatures outside work, yet the office interaction norm tends to be polite but impersonal. Some people think pleasantries have no place in professional meetings.
In a study led by the social psychologist Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, Anglo-American, Mexican and Mexican-American participants watched a four-minute video of two people working together. Shortly after, the Americans generally remembered just as much as the Mexicans and Mexican-Americans about the task, but much less about the social interaction. Anglo-Americans struggled to remember the socioemotional aspects, such as smiling, handshaking and discussions about movies and weekend plans. In other studies, Americans were less likely to notice subtleties in communication when a message was described as having been sent from a manager at a large company than when the same message was supposedly sent from a friend. There was no such discrepancy between the professional and personal among people from China or South Korea.
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
Why are Americans so determined to get down to business?
The economic explanation is that long-term employment has essentially vanished: Instead of spending our careers at one organization, we expect to jump ship every few years. Since we don’t plan to stick around, we don’t invest in the same way. We view co-workers as transitory ties, greeting them with arms-length civility while reserving real camaraderie for outside work. At best, as the movie “Fight Club” termed our conversation partners on airplanes, colleagues become “single-serving friends.”
Some observers blame the rise of flextime and virtual work. When more people are working remotely, we have fewer chances for the face-to-face encounters that are so critical to companionship. But a comprehensive analysis of 46 studies of over 12,000 employees demonstrated that as long as people were in the office for at least two and a half days per week, “telecommuting had no generally detrimental effects on the quality of workplace relationships.”
EDITORS’ PICKS
The Wounds of the Drone Warrior
A Family in Transition
The Most Powerful Conservative Donors You’ve Never Heard Of
ADVERTISEMENT
This doesn’t rule out the impact of technological advances. When we’re constantly connected with old friends on social media — and we can travel to visit them anytime — why bother making new ones? With 24/7 connectivity, we face a growing time famine, where the pressure to get work done may eclipse the desire to socialize.
But how you react to this time famine might depend on your religion and your sex. In an experiment, Professor Sanchez-Burks randomly assigned people to dress and act professionally or casually, and then tracked their mimicry of a specific interpersonal cue. When Protestant men dressed professionally and solved a business case, they mimicked this social cue at half the rate of those who wore Hawaiian garb and generated vacation ideas. The attire and task had no impact on women and non-Protestant men: They caught the cues regardless of what they were wearing and doing.
The sociologist Max Weber classically argued that the Protestant Reformation had a peculiar effect on American work. At the dawn of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther preached that hard work in any occupation was a meaningful duty — a calling from God. John Calvin took this idea a step further, arguing that people should avoid socializing while working, as attention to relationships and emotions would distract them from productively fulfilling God’s will. Over the generations, these Calvinist teachings influenced Protestants, who came to view social considerations as inappropriate and inefficient in the workplace. Protestant men were especially susceptible, as they were expected and socialized to focus on productivity. For much of the 20th century, American workplaces were largely designed by Protestant men.
Yet in recent years, America has become noticeably less Protestant, dropping from roughly 70 percent in the 1950s to 57 percent in 1985, 49 percent in 2005, and 37 percent last year, according to Gallup. The proportion of Protestant chief executives has declined, too. Why, then, does the Protestant ethic persist?
A generational shift has reinforced the transactional mind-set in American workplaces, regardless of sex and religion. Although the evidence is strong that different generations generally want similar things out of work, the value placed on leisure time has increased steadily. When the psychologist Jean M. Twenge led an analysis of work preference surveys completed by high school seniors in 1976, 1991 and 2006, 17 percent of baby boomers strongly valued more than two weeks of vacation time, compared with 25 percent of Generation X and 31 percent of millennials.
When we see our jobs primarily as a means to leisure, it’s easy to convince ourselves that efficiency should reign supreme at work so we have time for friendships outside work.
BUT we may be underestimating the impact of workplace friendships on our happiness — and our effectiveness. Jobs are more satisfying when they provide opportunities to form friendships. Research shows that groups of friends outperform groups of acquaintances in both decision making and effort tasks.
ADVERTISEMENT
When friends work together, they’re more trusting and committed to one another’s success. That means they share more information and spend more time helping — and as long as they don’t hold back on constructive criticism out of politeness, they make better choices and get more done.
What will make workplaces less transactional? Research suggests that social events aren’t always effective: People don’t mix much at mixers, and at company parties, they mostly bond with similar colleagues.
Technology companies like Google and Facebook provide opportunities for shared games, sports, exercise and meals — and research suggests that playing together and eating together are good ways to foster cooperation. Meanwhile, LinkedIn has encouraged employees to take their personal lives to work by hosting Bring in Your Parents Day. And at organizations ranging from McKinsey to Chevron, an increasingly popular step is to build alumni networks, as universities do. As Reid Hoffman, Ben Casnocha and Chris Yeh observe in their book “The Alliance,” alumni networks can encourage employees to invest in relationships even when they won’t stay at jobs for decades.
Whether we bond at work is a personal decision, but it may involve less effort and vulnerability than we realize. Jane E. Dutton, a professor at the University of Michigan, finds that a high-quality connection doesn’t require “a deep or intimate relationship.” A single interaction marked by respect, trust and mutual engagement is enough to generate energy for both parties. However small they appear, those moments of connection can transform a transaction into a relationship.
Adam Grant is a professor of management and psychology at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, fellow of the Martin Prosperity Institute, the author of "Give and Take" and a contributing opinion writer.
How do you bond with your coworkers — if you do at all? Tell us on the Times Opinion Facebook page or in the comments with this story. We may highlight your response in a follow-up to this piece.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
}}
}}
!!3
When John Sauven, executive director at Greenpeace UK, heard a woman complain on the radio that supermarket croissants were cheaper to buy wrapped in plastic than paper, he was so startled he went straight to his local Co-op.
出典: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/02/coca-cola-big-corporations-waste-crisis-plastics-recycling-packaging-circular-economy
{{b_secret
{{layout rollout,title:■
Is it fair to blame Coca-Cola and big corporations for our waste crisis?
Guardian sustainable business
Circular economy
Some global corporations are trying to address the environmental impact of throwaway culture, but campaigners say they remain part of the problem
Olivia Boyd
@oliviaboyd
Wed 2 Aug 2017 07.00 BST Last modified on Mon 21 Aug 2017 10.01 BST
Shares
1353
Comments
29
Pile of plastic bottles
Our throwaway habits are causing an environmental crisis. Photograph: imageBroker/Rex/Shutterstock
When John Sauven, executive director at Greenpeace UK, heard a woman complain on the radio that supermarket croissants were cheaper to buy wrapped in plastic than paper, he was so startled he went straight to his local Co-op
“It was true,” Sauven said at a recent Guardian roundtable discussion on the future of waste. “If I bought two croissants in a brown paper bag, it was 79p [each], and if I bought them in a big plastic container it was 63p [each]. And I just thought ... this is a complete failure of the system.”
The failure, of course, goes far beyond croissants. From the 300,000 tonnes of clothing the UK sent to landfill last year to the 7m coffee cups we chuck out each day, the scale of our throwaway habits are startlingly clear.
Coke Bottles Found on beach clean in Mull, Scotland
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Coke bottles found during a beach clean in Mull, Scotland. Photograph: Will Rose/Greenpeace
So too are the impacts: images of bags and bottles washed up on beaches, or sea life tangled in plastic netting, give grim credence to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s now familiar prediction that the oceans will contain more plastic than fish by 2050.
The role of business in addressing this crisis has become the subject of fierce debate in industry and policy circles. And that was clearly on show at a Guardian roundtable event, sponsored by recycling and resource management company Suez.
‘There is so much out there’: Kenya’s plastic bag battle – in pictures
New business models needed
A key idea under discussion was the circular economy, a model that aims to keep resources in a perpetual, benign cycle, rather than send them to the dump after first use. While companies at the table, including Marks & Spencer and the Co-op, have publicly embraced the concept, Sauven argued that without greater ambition and more radical change from business, the circular economy risked becoming another buzzword.
“We need to make sure this doesn’t just replace sustainability ... and that we keep creating words which don’t actually mean very much in terms of substance,” Sauven said. “What we’re talking about is not just tinkering with the system, we’re talking about a much more systemic shift.”
Advertisement
A particular flashpoint for the roundtable was the release of a new packaging plan by Coca-Cola. The soft drinks giant has become emblematic of big business’s contribution to the waste problem thanks in part to a high profile campaign by Greenpeace, which claims the company generates more than 100bn plastic bottles a year.
Coca-Cola has promised to up the recycled content of its bottles to 50% by 2020 and research the impact of deposit return schemes (DRS), where consumers are asked to pay a refundable deposit on cans or bottles. It has also launched a campaign “to encourage people to recycle and dissuade littering”, said Nick Brown, head of sustainability at Coca-Cola European Partners.
“We know communication on recycling is really difficult, it tends to be quite factual ... there’s a bit more we think can be done to change behaviour, around making more of an emotional connection and explaining the benefits of recycling.”
Fruit and veg come in their own natural wrapping. Why do we smother them in plastic?
Tom Hunt
Read more
For Carina Millstone, executive director at food waste campaign group Feedback, these pledges missed the true scope of the change needed to create a sustainable society. In fact, she argued, the resource-extractive, consumption-based business model of a global corporation such as Coca-Cola was fundamentally incompatible with the needs of the planet.
“The idea of driving public awareness, making it easier for people [to recycle], isn’t going to cut it ... Coca-Cola will not exist if we achieve sustainability. That’s the reality of it,” she said.
New business models that promote longevity and durability of goods are needed instead, argued Millstone. Such a transformation would require a “re-regionalisation of economies”, away from the low-cost globalised production model that has made it cheaper, for example, to buy a new pair of shoes than repair old ones, she said.
“Back in the day, we had cobblers all over the place. We don’t any more ... because the big companies that dominate and create our way of life have figured out it’s cheaper to manufacture shoes elsewhere, taking advantage of lax environmental regulation and poor resource use, and the relative cost of labour.”
Local creativity
Millstone is not alone in seeing a “local, vibrant economy” as key to solving an integrated set of resource and social challenges. Already, the UK is dotted with repair cafes, which provide tools, materials and advice to locals wanting to fix anything from bicycles to crockery.
Sophie Unwin, founder of Remade in Edinburgh, a social enterprise that teaches repair skills and sells refurbished computers and furniture, is part of this movement. As well as keeping goods out of landfill, her business has created 10 jobs over the past three years, she said.
Library of Things
Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Library of Things lends goods to the community. It is one of a growing number of local schemes that promote a circular economy model. Photograph: Sebastian Wood
Meanwhile, Cat Fletcher, the Brighton-based director of online reuse network Freegle, has been working with artists and designers to turn hard-to-recycle goods such as office in-trays into new items like sunglasses and light fittings.
“There’s a great opportunity with hyper-local creativity,” said Fletcher. “It’s happening all over the world. There’s Precious Plastics who are making little machines, which you can literally have at home and reprocess your own plastic, and maybe turn it into fibre for a 3D printer, or mould it into pot plants.
“There’s an entire mall in Sweden which only has second-hand, upcycled goods ... There is unlimited potential in what you can do. It’s a matter of tapping into the existing people and helping them.”
Calls for government action
But can this community approach drive change fast enough? David Palmer-Jones, chief executive of Suez UK, which processes around 9m tonnes of waste per year, was doubtful. “What we fail to recognise is the scale,” he said. “Local initiatives are fantastic to show what can be done … [But] to get scale and get speed of change we require government intervention.”
While there were calls for the government to implement a compulsory, nationwide DRS, Iain Ferguson, environment manager at the Co-op, warned against clumsy, top-down solutions.
“Voluntary systems give you the opportunity to be flexible and innovative,” he said. “Badly designed mandatory schemes shut that down”. The correct approach would fuse the two and incorporate a system of rewards, he added.
For many around the table, better coordination at Westminster, where responsibility for waste falls between different departments, was essential. Phil Cumming, senior sustainability manager at M&S, pointed to Scotland – which has a dedicated agency, Zero Waste Scotland, to deliver the government’s circular economy strategy – as a more effective example.
Rauno Raal, chief executive of the organisation that runs Estonia’s hugely successful DRS, argued that his country also offered a useful lesson. Since 2005, Estonian customers have paid shops a deposit on a bottle of cola, for example, which they can reclaim as a discount on the next purchase if they return the empty bottle. Last year, 75% of cans and 87% of PET bottles were returned.
Circular economy isn't a magical fix for our environmental woes
Micha Narberhaus and Joséphine von Mitschke-Collande
Read more
The scheme was only made possible, said Raal, by government action. “The discussion here is exactly the same as in Estonia 12 years ago. All the retailers were afraid, the producers were afraid ... everyone was fighting against the return scheme. The government asked all the producers and retailers to be at the table and said, very clearly, ‘OK, you don’t want a DRS, then we will do it as a governmental institution’.”
But if the government is key, so too are citizens, added Raal, saying that personal values – inculcated by family and teachers – were vital to changing consumption patterns and conserving resources.
Adam Lusby, lecturer in circular economy implementation at the University of Exeter, disagreed. Consumers – and consumption – were the wrong target, he said. “We don’t need to go on a big campaign to change people’s behaviour, we just need to change how we design stuff.”
That means better product design, but also a better designed economy, one which, as a first step, would tax non-renewable resources, such as the fossil fuels used to make plastic, rather than labour: “Instead of fighting over who does what, there are some good, healthy, macro economic decisions that can be made,” Lusby said.
}}
}}
!!4
The practice of naming storms (tropical cyclones) began years ago in order to help in the quick identification of storms in warning messages because names are (32) to be far easier to rremember than numbers and technical terms.
出典: https://public.wmo.int/en/About-us/FAQs/faqs-tropical-cyclones/tropical-cyclone-naming
{{b_secret
{{youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ROQLsbQMo&feature=youtu.be}}
}}
{{b_secret
{{layout rollout,title:■
Historical Background (active tab)
Procedure of Naming Tropical Cyclones
The practice of naming storms (tropical cyclones) began years ago in order to help in the quick identification of storms in warning messages because names are presumed to be far easier to remember than numbers and technical terms. Many agree that appending names to storms makes it easier for the media to report on tropical cyclones, heightens interest in warnings and increases community preparedness.
Experience shows that the use of short, distinctive given names in written as well as spoken communications is quicker and less subject to error than the older more cumbersome latitude-longitude identification methods. These advantages are especially important in exchanging detailed storm information between hundreds of widely scattered stations, coastal bases, and ships at sea.
In the beginning, storms were named arbitrarily. An Atlantic storm that ripped off the mast of a boat named Antje became known as Antje's hurricane. Then the mid-1900's saw the start of the practice of using feminine names for storms.
In the pursuit of a more organized and efficient naming system, meteorologists later decided to identify storms using names from a list arranged alpabetically. Thus, a storm with a name which begins with A, like Anne, would be the first storm to occur in the year. Before the end of the 1900's, forecasters started using male names for those forming in the Southern Hemisphere.
Since 1953, Atlantic tropical storms have been named from lists originated by the National Hurricane Center. They are now maintained and updated by an international committee of the World Meteorological Organization. The original name lists featured only women's names. In 1979, men's names were introduced and they alternate with the women's names. Six lists are used in rotation. Thus, the 2015 list will be used again in 2021.
The only time that there is a change in the list is if a storm is so deadly or costly that the future use of its name on a different storm would be inappropriate for reasons of sensitivity. If that occurs, then at an annual meeting by the WMO Tropical Cyclone Committees (called primarily to discuss many other issues) the offending name is stricken from the list and another name is selected to replace it. Infamous storm names such as Haiyan (Philippines, 2013), Sandy (USA, 2012), Katrina (USA, 2005), Mitch (Honduras, 1998) and Tracy (Darwin, 1974) are examples for this.
}}
}}
!!5
It ( ) occuurred to me that he ( ) miss the chance.
!!6
In the event of nuclear war, the British government has at least one shelter hidden away in the very heart of London.
{{b_secret
{{youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVNUGJO4YA&feature=youtu.be}}
}}
!!7
Cultural heritage generally (a) to mind artifacts, historical monuments and buildings, as well as archaeological sites.
{{b_secret
{{youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7jcFawQaGA&feature=youtu.be}}
}}
!!!参考
{{b_secret
{{attach}}
}}
!!!掲示板
{{bbs2 サポート掲示板,20}}
----
{{b_secret
{{category 過去問}}
}}
{{counter yourund}}
