注意: 若欲轉載使用英美法筆記 務必留言

目前日期文章:201103 (5)

瀏覽方式: 標題列表 簡短摘要

[HKG][結界女王][07][BIG5][20-52-28].jpg  

Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

(◕‿‿◕)

                    好音樂不聽嗎

 

Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

COVER.jpg  

先來介紹這部動畫

只想告訴你》(日語君に届け英文Kimi ni Todoke

是日本漫畫家椎名輕穗少女漫畫作品。簡稱「君届」取自於日文原名的縮寫。自2005年9月號開始於集英社雜誌《別冊Margaret》上連載,至2010年7月 日文版單行本已發行12冊。台灣由東立出

版社代理,目前單行本已發行12冊。寶島社的『這個漫畫厲害!』2008版第一女性向作品。第32回講談社漫畫賞少女部門得獎作品。

大綱

因為外表陰暗而被人疏遠,有著外號「貞子」的黑沼爽子。習慣了周圍迴避自己的爽子對接受自己的風早翔太滿懷憧憬。在鼓勵著自己的風早、矢野綾音、吉田千鶴、真田龍這些同班同學的關懷下,

爽子漸漸地改變著自己。 這是一部細膩地描寫爽子認識友情和愛情、對手和朋友失戀等各種「初次」的過程的校園青春故事。

片尾專輯

本部ed

 


專輯中另一首好聽的歌


部分內容轉載自維基百科http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%AA%E6%83%B3%E5%91%8A%E8%A8%B4%E4%BD%A0

Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(2) 人氣()

《新世紀福音戰士》

(簡稱《EVA》)最開始是典型的機器人動畫,故事注重描寫戰鬥場景和人物回憶。隨著時間推移,故事逐漸變成對人物內心世界的精神分析式的敘述。《EVA》中的對人物心理的精神分析式的描寫,撲朔迷離、龐大複雜的故事情節,若干宗教、哲學、精神分析學符號的運用,都使得它在日本國內和國際上引起了巨大反響和爭議並成為日本動畫史上的一座里程碑。

41STXXWZWVL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

 

 

「殘酷な天使のテーゼ」(殘酷天使的行動綱領)

歌:高橋洋子/ 作詞:及川眠子/ 作曲:佐藤英敏/ 編曲:大森俊之

 

 

 

残酷(ざんこく)な天使(てんし)のように 少年(しょうねん)よ神話(しんわ)になら

蒼(あお)い風(かぜ)がいま 胸(むね)のドアを叩(たた)いても 私(わたし)だけを ただ見(み)つめて 微笑(ほほえ)んでるあなた そっと ふれるもの もとめることに夢中(むちゅう)で 運命(うんめい)さえまだ知(し)らない いたいけな瞳(ひとみ) だけどいつか気付(きつ)くでしょう その背中(せなか)には 遥(はる)か未来(みらい)めざす ための羽根(はね)があること 残酷(ざんこく)な天使(てんし)のテーゼ 窓(まど)辺(べ)からやがて飛(と)び立(た)つ ほとばしる熱(あつ)いパトスで 思(おも)い出(で)を裏(うら)切(ぎ)るなら この宇宙(そら)を抱(だ)いて輝(かがや)く 少年(しょうねん)よ神話(しんわ)になれ ずっと眠(ねむ)ってる 私(わたし)の愛(あい)の揺(ゆ)りかご あなただけが 夢(ゆめ)の使者(ししゃ)に 呼(よ)ばれる朝(あさ)がくる 細(はそ)い首筋(くびすじ)を 月(つき)あかりが映(うつ)してる 世界(せかい)中(ちゅう)の時(とき)を止(と)めて閉(と)じこめたいけど もしも ふたり逢(あ)えたことに意味(いみ)があるなら 私(わたし)はそう自由(じゆう)を知(し)る ためのバイブル 残酷(ざんこく)な天使(てんし)のテーゼ 悲(かな)しみが そしてはじまる 抱(だ)きしめた命(いのち)のかたち その夢(ゆめ)に目覚(めざ)めたとき 誰(だれ)よりも光(ひかり)を放(はな)つ 少年(しょうねん)よ神話(しんわ)になれ 人(ひと)は愛(あい)をつむぎながら 歴史(れきし)をつくる 女神(めがみ)なんて なれないまま 私(わたし)は生(い)きる 残酷(ざんこく)な天使(てんし)のテーゼ 窓(まど)辺(べ)からやがて飛(と)び立(た)つ ほとばしる熱(あつ)いパトスで 思(おも)い出(で)を裏(うら)切(ぎ)るなら この宇宙(そら)を抱(だ)いて輝(かがや)く 少年(しょうねん)よ神話(しんわ)になれ

Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

Anderson v. Minnneapolis, st.p. s.stm r.r. co.

Facts:

This is a fire case brought against the defendant railway company.

 

Plaintiff had a verdict.

 

The appeal is from an order denying a motion in the alternative for

    上訴             

judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

                             

A forest fire, which originated in a bog and was found by the jury to have

                            沼澤, 泥塘

been caused by the negligence of the defendant, swept over a large area.

                                        經過

It merged with another fire of independent and uncertain origin, and the

  合併                                         不確定的起源

combined fires burned over plaintiff’s property.

               燒毀

Issue(s):

 

Whether the defendant was liable that the origin fire caused by the

 

negligence of defendant might not cause harm to plaintiff but combine

 

with another fire, superior in strength but of unknown origin?

 

Rule of Law:

  1. if plaintiffs property was damaged by a number of fires combining

 

one…being the fire plead …the others being of no responsible origin, but

 

of such sufficient or such superior force that they would have produced

 

the damage to property regardless of the fire pleaded, then defendant was

 

not liable.

 

minn. 357,………….. this court considered the cook case but refrained

 

from expressing approval or disapproval of its doctrine. The supreme

 

court of Michigan has referred to it as good law….the supreme court of

 

Idaho says the opinion is logical and well reasoned , but the discussion is

 

in a large measure theoretical and academic….judge Thompson in his

 

work on negligence, vol.1.§739, says that the conclusion reached is so

 

clearly wrong as not to deserve discussion. If the cook case merely decide

 

that one who negligently sets a fire was not liable if another’s d property

 

is damaged, unless it is made to appear that the fire was a material

 

element in the destruction of the property, there can be no question about

 

the soundness of the decision. But if it decides that if such fire combines

 

with another of no responsible origin, and after the union of the two fires

 

they they destroy the property, and either fire independently of the other

 

would have destroyed it, then irrespective of whether the first fire was or

 

was not a material factor in the destruction of the property, there is no

 

liability , we are nor prepared to adopt the doctrine as the law of this state.

 

If a fire set by the engine of one railroad company unites with a fire set by

 

the engine of another company, there is joint and several liability , even

 

thought either fire would have destroyed plaintiff’s property. But if the doctrine of the cook case is applied and one of the fires is of unknown

 

origin, there is no liability. G.S. 1913. §4426,leaves no room for the

 

application of a rule which would relieve a railroad company from

 

liability under such circumstances. Moreover the reasoning of the court in

 

mcclellan v. st. paul, m & m. ry. Co. 58 minn. 104,59 n. w. 978 leads to

 

the conclusion that , regardless of the statute, there would be liability in

 

such a case. We, therefore ,hold that the trial court did not err in refusing

 

to  instruct the jury in accordance with rule laid down in the cook case.

 

Analysis:

  1. if the plaintiff was burned out by some fire other than the bog fire,

 

which other fire was not set by one of the engines, then, of course, the

 

defendant was not liable. if the plaintiff was burned out by fire set by one

 

of the defendant’s engines in combination with some other fire not set by

 

any of its engines, then it is liable.

 

  1. if you find that other fire or fires not set by one of defendants engines

 

mingled with one that that was set by one of the defendants engines, there

 

may be difficulty in determining whether you should find that the fire set

 

by the engine was amaterial or substantial element in causing plaintiff’s

 

damage. If it was, the defendant is liable, otherwise is not.

 

  1. if you find that bog fire was set by the defendants engine and that

 

some greater fire swept over it before it reached the plaintiff ‘s land., then

 

it will be for you to determine whether that bog fire. Was a material or

 

substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s damage. If it was defendant was

 

liable. If it is not, defendant is not liable. If the bog fire was set by one of

 

the defendant’s engines, and if one of the defendant’s  engines also set a

 

fire or fires west of kettle river, and those fires combined and burned over

 

plaintiff’s property, then the defendant is liable.

 

Conclusion:

  We find no error requiring a reversal and hence the order appealed

from is affirmed.

維持原判決 原告可向鐵路公司求償

Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()