I think it's not necessarily the only time he spends with his wife, except when he's travelling. I think the key words here are "morning" and "100% focused on each other".
92 karma · joined May 18, 2009
1. Taking so long to get my bags, then getting them re-scanned, that I miss/almost miss the connector
and/or
2. answering 20 questions to the customs officer
Imagine a [moving] wall, on an interstate, moving at 30MPH. No matter what is happening behind this wall, it is impossible to maintain an average speed faster than the wall. You can try any amount of tricks to smooth out traffic, but it will be impossible to ever move past this wall. As long as there is a steady stream of traffic, no car will ever do more than 30MPH until this moving wall gets out of the way.
So now let's, more realistically, replace the wall with a bunch of slow drives, and ask 2 important questions:
1. How to get out of this situation? -- We want these drivers to all SPEED UP! It's really as simple as this. Until these bottleneck drivers move out of the way, you can only smooth out traffic, but never increase the speed.
2. How to avoid this problem in the first place? -- In general, there will be some bottleneck. After too many cars are going through this bottleneck at once, there will be slowdown. Ideally, these bottlenecks should be identified and no more than the maximum amount of cars at a time should enter the bottleneck to decrease the speed of traffic.
Of course, that's easier said than done, but I think the important thing to take away from my ramblings is this:
The best way to get rid of a traffic jam is: if you are in the front of the pack and have a chance to accelerate, you should do so as quickly as possible. If everybody were to do this, average speed could then be increased.
Agnosticism is 'There may be a god, but I don't care enough to claim one way or the other', I think the 'fence sitting' argument is good.
Atheism is: 'There is no god' ie, Richard Dawkins
Atheism is a stronger claim than Agnosticism.
It is also, with few exceptions, acceptable to grab food in the 'center' with your own chopsticks. I guess chopsticks don't get dirty :)
One thing that drives me crazy about chopsticks is when you want to cut something, you have to do that X trick and sort of cross the chopsticks, or use the spoon. I'm a wiz with chopsticks, but a knife and fork is the ultimate combo. It wins at every category except noodle soup and sushi.
My unqualified claim is that Chinese is "Hard to learn, (relatively) easy to Master" due to the reasons stated in the article... English would be "Easy to learn, hard to master", primarily due to the insane vocabulary and tricky grammar. How many chinese born speakers have you heard say "the, than, 's, that, which, at, " and the like, not to mention correctly pronounce all the various english sounds, not to mention American vs British english.
Anyways.. Point is. Chinese is hard. But so are other languages.
Of course, picking up another language that is similar to yours would be much easier. (English -> German), or (Mandarin Chinese -> Cantonese). It's all relative.
Something pretty curious about Chinese, though, is how difficult it is to understand if you don't know it. When being welcomed to a shop, they say 歡迎光臨 (Huānyíng guānglín) which I never noticed until I learned it, after which point I have heard it constantly. For comparison, in Tokyo, I vividly remember countless occurances of "irashaimase"
I am an American native learning Chinese as my first additional language. I found Pimsleur to be marginally useful, but I am now almost done with Unit 1 of Rosetta and for me, Rosetta is much better than Pimsleur...
It really depends on a combination of things, such as your learning style, and perhaps which language you are learning.
One thing of note, is that Rosetta is more about the long haul. If you just want to learn a few conversational pieces it might be better to go for Pimsleur... Rosetta doesn't give you much you can use conversationally at first, it spends a lot of time teaching you things like "this is a girl" "this is a girl and her dog playing" and what not.
Also, if you used Rosetta v2, from what I understand v3 is leagues ahead of v2. I have no personal proof of this however, since I just use v3.
If you want to get somewhere approaching fluency without going to classes, I don't think it can get much better than Rosetta Stone + Flash Cards.
This could be fixed by using:
always @(posedge clk or rst or set)
I am guessing the thing that throws a verilog designer off the trail is that "always @(posedge clk or negedge rst)" is commonly used for asynchronous reset in ASICs (if you are using it in FPGA's except for the DCM's and as input to a clk-rst module.... stop), and this works just fine but if you want to do a d flip flop with an asynchronous SR condition, you can't use "negedge" on the rst signal.
However, synthesis will probably treat it asynchronously. Of course this is also bad because there will be a simulation/synthesis mismatch.
At any rate, the question is a bit ambiguous due to the unclear vhdl code.