{"ygPerms":{"resourceCapabilityList":[{"resourceType":"GROUP","capabilities":[{"name":"UPDATE"},{"name":"READ"},{"name":"WELCOME_MSG"},{"name":"PENDING_COUNT"},{"name":"ACTIVITY_LOGS"}]},{"resourceType":"PHOTO","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"READ"},{"name":"UPLOAD"},{"name":"UPDATE"},{"name":"DELETE"},{"name":"COPY"},{"name":"MOVE"},{"name":"APPROVE"},{"name":"UPLOADTEMP"},{"name":"GROUPCOVER"}]},{"resourceType":"FILE","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"CREATE"},{"name":"UPDATE"},{"name":"DELETE"},{"name":"AUTO_SEND"}]},{"resourceType":"MEMBER","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"READ"},{"name":"EDIT_MODERATOR"},{"name":"DELETE"},{"name":"CREATE"},{"name":"UPDATE"},{"name":"BAN"}]},{"resourceType":"LINK","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"CREATE"},{"name":"UPDATE"},{"name":"DELETE"},{"name":"MOVE_LINK"}]},{"resourceType":"CALENDAR","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"}]},{"resourceType":"DATABASE","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"READ_DATA"},{"name":"CREATE"}]},{"resourceType":"POLL","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"VOTE"},{"name":"UPDATE"},{"name":"CREATE"},{"name":"DELETE"},{"name":"CLOSE"}]},{"resourceType":"MESSAGE","capabilities":[{"name":"CREATE"},{"name":"READ"},{"name":"DELETE"}]},{"resourceType":"PENDING_MESSAGE","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"UPDATE"},{"name":"DELETE"}]},{"resourceType":"ATTACHMENTS","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"DELETE"}]},{"resourceType":"PHOTOMATIC_ALBUMS","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"UPLOAD"}]},{"resourceType":"MEMBERSHIP_TYPE","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"CREATE"},{"name":"DELETE"},{"name":"UPDATE"}]},{"resourceType":"POST","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"UPDATE"},{"name":"CREATE"},{"name":"DELETE"}]},{"resourceType":"PIN","capabilities":[{"name":"READ"},{"name":"UPDATE"},{"name":"CREATE"},{"name":"DELETE"}]}],"modStatus":"MODERATOR","subStatus":"NORMAL","groupUrl":"groups.yahoo.com","intlCode":"us"},"comscore":"pageview_candidate","ygData":{"userId":403915739,"authorName":"Sébastien Guillardeau","from":"=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien?= Guillardeau &lt;s.guillardeau@gmx.at&gt;","profile":"s.guillardeau","replyTo":"LIST","senderId":"U8FuOpizynQhR-lA0l1LaeUOyynceErBDVOeYENAa3jFmMn1-W0qgcxP31s0RWpvw-9TiibfhK-FjaCLH9ivpnxvD4CdxFpCrafMlmySOIkKBfn45ong_4H5yrhUTdaPqqHVyuMi","spamInfo":{"isSpam":false,"reason":"12"},"subject":"Re: [OmT] OmegaT beta version 2.0.4 released","postDate":"1252705940","msgId":15321,"canDelete":true,"contentTrasformed":false,"systemMessage":true,"headers":{"messageIdInHeader":"PDEyNTI3MDU5NDAuMTc5NDcuMjAuY2FtZWxASU5TUElST04+","inReplyToHeader":"PDRBQUEyRDdFLjUwNDA5MDVAbWFyY3ByaW9yLmRlPg==","referencesHeader":"PEFPRUhLQ0tPSU9HUEdDTkxERUtCRUVLTEdBQUEuZC5icmllbEBmcmVlLmZyPgkgPDRBQTkxRjY0LjgwNzAzMDlAZ214LmNvbT4JIDwzRjVENTg2Mi0wNjZCLTQ0NTgtODI5My1DMTY1MzVCNTU1MjdAc3RldmVuZGV3aXR0LmNhPgkgPDRBQTk3OUNFLjkwNjA3MDJAZ21haWwuY29tPiAgPDRBQUEyRDdFLjUwNDA5MDVAbWFyY3ByaW9yLmRlPg=="},"prevInTopic":15319,"nextInTopic":15322,"prevInTime":15320,"nextInTime":15322,"topicId":15243,"numMessagesInTopic":51,"msgSnippet":"Sorry, I could not resist the copy/paste. Administrators might delete this message if they mean that this could be offensive to intellectual property rights.","rawEmail":"Return-Path: &lt;s.guillardeau@gmx.at&gt;\r\nReceived: (qmail 54216 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2009 21:57:26 -0000\r\nReceived: from unknown (98.137.34.45)\n  by m8.grp.re1.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2009 21:57:26 -0000\r\nReceived: from unknown (HELO n45b.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com) (66.163.168.159)\n  by mta2.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2009 21:57:26 -0000\r\nDKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=lima; t=1252706243; bh=QRfTrVG1uvAU99TfDvj1SfJdSo+GwXwkJQRoUOmtbQM=; h=Received:Received:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Authenticated:X-Provags-ID:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-Id:Mime-Version:X-Mailer:X-Y-GMX-Trusted:X-FuHaFi:X-Originating-IP:X-eGroups-Msg-Info:From:Subject:X-Yahoo-Group-Post:X-Yahoo-Profile:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-YGroups-SubInfo:Sender:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-eGroups-Approved-By:X-eGroups-Auth; b=TlvuCX4DyX3AmLIk5eG8je4wE10n3DVndlYgK3F5s+HLk4VOmyasvVIvhOIH6dn+TFtZrUQ0dEjDut8zmqvsF1POTpxPgQczveL5iYjSBmrPFisvwdp5PTjGAFKvnEQv\r\nReceived: from [69.147.65.174] by n45.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Sep 2009 21:57:23 -0000\r\nReceived: from [98.137.34.32] by t12.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Sep 2009 21:57:23 -0000\r\nX-Sender: s.guillardeau@gmx.at\r\nX-Apparently-To: OmegaT@yahoogroups.com\r\nX-Received: (qmail 78605 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2009 21:53:22 -0000\r\nX-Received: from unknown (69.147.108.201)\n  by m5.grp.re1.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2009 21:53:22 -0000\r\nX-Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20)\n  by mta2.grp.re1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2009 21:53:22 -0000\r\nX-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2009 21:52:20 -0000\r\nX-Received: from d86-32-103-99.cust.tele2.at (EHLO [192.168.2.2]) [86.32.103.99]\n  by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 11 Sep 2009 23:52:20 +0200\r\nX-Authenticated: #19591666\r\nX-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/bEfRagz7b0U/HLx1aZ+AceKIXEmnUINwfbgbypE\n\todkvgzYyp7/kCz\r\nTo: OmegaT@yahoogroups.com\r\nIn-Reply-To: &lt;4AAA2D7E.5040905@marcprior.de&gt;\r\nReferences: &lt;AOEHKCKOIOGPGCNLDEKBEEKLGAAA.d.briel@free.fr&gt;\n\t &lt;4AA91F64.8070309@gmx.com&gt;\n\t &lt;3F5D5862-066B-4458-8293-C16535B55527@stevendewitt.ca&gt;\n\t &lt;4AA979CE.9060702@gmail.com&gt;  &lt;4AAA2D7E.5040905@marcprior.de&gt;\r\nDate: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:52:20 +0200\r\nMessage-Id: &lt;1252705940.17947.20.camel@INSPIRON&gt;\r\nMime-Version: 1.0\r\nX-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 \r\nX-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0\r\nX-FuHaFi: 0.53,0.52\r\nX-Originating-IP: 213.165.64.20\r\nX-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0\r\nFrom: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien?= Guillardeau &lt;s.guillardeau@gmx.at&gt;\r\nSubject: Re: [OmT] OmegaT beta version 2.0.4 released\r\nX-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=403915739; y=0c65FgnoSqQ2_MBtvRl13LIyqczFw2Th8NbMZjtkK4F2laSRKWLPWQ\r\nX-Yahoo-Profile: s.guillardeau\r\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\r\nContent-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r\nX-YGroups-SubInfo: t=0;f=272;g=0qgnX4y0jXSh_JmxAcO1rOh6JMziDIz0vNFAceCKSx7DaW7pYZ9pg8mUp-hOf1bP4rQ;\r\nX-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-system\r\nX-eGroups-Approved-By: didier_briel &lt;d.briel@free.fr&gt; via web; 11 Sep 2009 21:57:22 -0000\r\n\r\nSorry, I could not resist the copy/paste. Administrators might delete\nthis =\r\nmessage if they mean that this could be offensive to intellectual\nproperty =\r\nrights. I&#39;m not aware...\n\nHere an extract of the article by Doug Arnold:\nAr=\r\nnold, Doug: &quot;Why translation is difficult for computers&quot; in: Harold\nSomers =\r\n(ed.): Computers and Translation: Benjamins Amsterdam: 2003,\np.121-122:\n\n**=\r\n*\n=C2=AB [...] At the root of these problems are four particular limitation=\r\ns of\ncomputers, namely, the inability of computers to: \n\n\n     i. perform v=\r\naguely specified tasks\n        \n    ii. learn things (as opposed to being t=\r\nold them)\n        \n   iii. perform common-sense reasoning\n        \n    iv. =\r\ndeal with some problems where there is a large number of\n        potential =\r\nsolutions. \n        \n\n\nPrecisely formulated rules are required because they=\r\n must, ultimately,\nbe interpreted in terms of the normal operations of comp=\r\nuter hardware.\nMuch of the difficulty of natural language processing in gen=\r\neral, and MT\nin particular, arises from the difficulty of finding sufficien=\r\ntly\nprecise formulations of intuitively very straightforward ideas like =E2=\r\n=80=9Cin\nEnglish, the subject usually comes before the verb=E2=80=9D (the r=\r\neally\nproblematic word here is usually, of course). Moreover, regrettably, =\r\na\nprecise formulation is not enough. There are problems for which rules\ncan=\r\n be formulated precisely, but for which solutions still cannot always\nbe co=\r\nmputed (any task that involves examining every member of an\ninfinite set, f=\r\nor example). \n\nLearning also poses fundamental problems from a computationa=\r\nl\nperspective. There are several reasons for this, one of which is to do\nwi=\r\nth the fact that it involves classification, which involves the notion\nof s=\r\nimilarity, which is a vague notion, another being the fact that it\ninvolves=\r\n genuine creativity (rule inventing, not rule following). There\nare learnin=\r\ng algorithms for some tasks, but there is no general reliable\nprocedure for=\r\n learning the kinds of knowledge required for MT. In this\narea, what a comp=\r\nuter needs to know, it must be told, in the form of\nexplicit rules, written=\r\n by humans. \n\nThe third problem is that computers cannot perform common-sen=\r\nse\nreasoning. There are several reasons for this, but perhaps the most\nseri=\r\nous is the fact that common-sense reasoning involves literally\nmillions of =\r\nfacts about the world (water is wet, men don=E2=80=99t get pregnant,\nmost p=\r\neople have two feet, sheep are larger than fountain pens, if B has\nbeen put=\r\n in A then A contains B, for A to contain B, A must be larger\nthan B, and s=\r\no on). The task of coding up the vast amount of knowledge\nrequired is daunt=\r\ning. In practice, most of what we understand by\n=E2=80=9Ccommon-sense reaso=\r\nning=E2=80=9D is far beyond the reach of modern computers.\n\nThe fourth fund=\r\namental difficulty for computers arises even for\nprecisely specified proble=\r\nms which do not involve learning. It is the\nproblem of combinatorial explos=\r\nion. Suppose there are a number of slots\neach of which can be filled in one=\r\n of two ways (say, by a 0 or a 1), and\nthat we have to consider every way o=\r\nf filling the slots (the worst\ncase). The number of possibilities very quic=\r\nkly becomes very big. There\nare two ways of filling one slot, four ways of =\r\nfilling two, and in\ngeneral 2n ways of filling n slots. Every time we add a=\r\n slot, we double\nthe number of possibilities, and hence the amount of time =\r\nrequired.\nSuppose that it takes 1 millisecond to consider one solution: ten=\r\n slots\ninvolves 210 =3D 1024 possibilities, requiring just over a second. W=\r\nith 20\nslots, the number of possibilities rises to 1,048,576, requiring ove=\r\nr\ntwo hours. With 30 slots, the time goes up to 12 days, with 40 it goes\nup=\r\n to over 34 years. Dealing with 41 slots would take over 64 years,\nwhich is=\r\n too long for most humans to wait. Improvements to computer\nhardware are in=\r\nsignificant in the face of this sort of problem: buying a\ncomputer which is=\r\n twice as fast as your present one allows you to deal\nwith exactly one more=\r\n slot in any given time. \n\nThe bad news, from an MT perspective, is that ea=\r\nch of these limitations\nis relevant. Thus, a general, though not very revea=\r\nling answer to the\nquestion we started with [why translation is difficult f=\r\nor computers]\nwould be: =E2=80=9CBecause it involves problems that resist a=\r\nn algorithmic\nsolution (including common-sense reasoning), learning, and\nco=\r\nmbinatorially explosive tasks=E2=80=9D. In order to give a more systematic =\r\nand\nrevealing answer, we need to look at the various tasks involved in MT.\n=\r\n[...] =C2=BB\n***\n\nS=C3=A9bastien\n\nOn Fri, 2009-09-11 at 12:59 +0200, Marc P=\r\nrior wrote:\n\n&gt;   \n&gt; \n&gt; My thoughts on machine translation, FWIW:\n&gt; \n&gt; Gener=\r\nally, I&#39;m sceptical. Translation is the recoding of meaning in a \n&gt; differe=\r\nnt language. Computers don&#39;t understand &quot;meaning&quot; and in my \n&gt; opinion, &quot;ma=\r\nchine translation&quot; is therefore a contradiction in terms.\n&gt; (I \n&gt; prefer th=\r\ne term &quot;machine pseudo-translation&quot; (MPT) for that reason. \n&gt; &quot;Human transl=\r\nation&quot; is also a silly term; by definition, there is no \n&gt; other kind.)\n&gt; \n=\r\n&gt; &quot;Machine translation&quot; is therefore just a form of substitution,\n&gt; without=\r\n \n&gt; understanding. That doesn&#39;t *necessarily* prevent it from being good\n&gt; =\r\nin \n&gt; the sense of being useful.\n&gt; \n&gt; MPT can in fact be quite good. I&#39;m in=\r\ncreasingly hearing that it&#39;s\n&gt; good \n&gt; &quot;for some language pairs&quot;, &quot;no good =\r\nfor Albanian because Albanian is\n&gt; too \n&gt; complicated&quot;, etc., but I think t=\r\nhis is nonsense. All languages could\n&gt; be \n&gt; covered by MPT, perhaps some s=\r\nlightly better than others, but on the \n&gt; whole much the same. In fact, the=\r\n more &quot;complicated&quot; languages, which \n&gt; are often simply those with more co=\r\nmplete grammatical codification, \n&gt; could even be easier for MT to handle, =\r\nbecause stricter grammar could \n&gt; mean less ambiguity. Could. ;-)\n&gt; \n&gt; As I=\r\n see it, there are two main reasons why some language pairs\n&gt; return \n&gt; bet=\r\nter results than others. One, there has simply been more work done\n&gt; on \n&gt; =\r\nthem. The demand for Slovenian &lt;-&gt; Irish isn&#39;t going to warrant \n&gt; dedicate=\r\nd effort any time soon. Two, some language pairs have a\n&gt; similar \n&gt; struct=\r\nure. Not, in my opinion, that a similar structure in itself\n&gt; makes \n&gt; MPT =\r\neasier, because I think that a computer should have no difficulty \n&gt; conver=\r\nting, say, a SVO language into an OSV, and indeed, I&#39;m very \n&gt; sceptical ab=\r\nout any system that is so primitive that it can&#39;t figure\n&gt; out \n&gt; what the =\r\nverb of the sentence is, the subject, etc. No: my impression\n&gt; is \n&gt; that F=\r\nR &gt; EN, for instance, works quite well because structural \n&gt; similarities b=\r\netween these languages result in them sharing similar \n&gt; ambiguities. In th=\r\ne sense, for instance that adverbial phrases can be \n&gt; tossed around in the=\r\n sentence and left to the reader to work out what \n&gt; they apply to.\n&gt; \n&gt; Ul=\r\ntimately, though, there is no getting around the lack of \n&gt; understanding. =\r\nWhen I began working in a German translation agency, I \n&gt; had German collea=\r\ngues on hand to explain to me what my source texts \n&gt; meant, and I made use=\r\n of them. It quickly became apparent that if I\n&gt; was \n&gt; unable to understan=\r\nd the source text, their better understanding of\n&gt; it \n&gt; wasn&#39;t based upon =\r\na superior grammatical analysis to mine. It was\n&gt; based \n&gt; upon what the te=\r\nxt could logically (i.e. by human logic) mean. The \n&gt; computer, though, doe=\r\nsn&#39;t have this capacity. The grammatical\n&gt; analysis \n&gt; will improve, of tha=\r\nt I&#39;m convinced, but it still won&#39;t be able to \n&gt; translate &quot;time flies lik=\r\ne an arrow&quot; or &quot;le jeune homme ferme la\n&gt; porte&quot;. \n&gt; I have heard proponent=\r\ns of MPT say that they have &quot;demystified&quot; the \n&gt; &quot;time flies like an arrow&quot;=\r\n example (which is often cited), but the \n&gt; problem for MPT is that there&#39;s=\r\n nothing to demystify: the sentence\n&gt; has \n&gt; two meanings, simple as that, =\r\nand a computer has no way of knowing is \n&gt; meant: the statement that time p=\r\nasses very quickly, or the\n&gt; instruction \n&gt; to get a stopwatch out and star=\r\nt timing flies (with further \n&gt; sub-ambiguities). The reason some MPT progr=\r\nams have &quot;cracked&quot; the \n&gt; example sentences like &quot;time flies like an arrow&quot;=\r\n is that they&#39;ve\n&gt; been \n&gt; programmed in, but programming in every possible=\r\n linguistic\n&gt; ambiguity, \n&gt; never mind unintentional bad expression by the =\r\nauthor, is simply\n&gt; impossible.\n&gt; \n&gt; Given that MPT can&#39;t and never will be=\r\n perfect (in the absence of \n&gt; artificial intelligence or pre-editing), it =\r\nfollows that it has to be \n&gt; checked. Even if it&#39;s 95% perfect, it all has =\r\nto be checked, which\n&gt; means \n&gt; that it all has to be read and understood, =\r\nand just reading and \n&gt; understanding can easily account for 50% of the wor=\r\nk of translating. \n&gt; Then the &quot;broken&quot; style (even if grammatically perfect=\r\n) of the MPT \n&gt; output has to be made fit for human consumption, and that t=\r\noo can\n&gt; easily \n&gt; take 50% of the time, which is why the savings are likel=\r\ny to be very\n&gt; small.\n&gt; \n&gt; Here&#39;s my workflow:\n&gt; \n&gt; Stage - percentage of t=\r\notal time required\n&gt; \n&gt; 1. Rough translation - 30%\n&gt; 2. Checking against or=\r\niginal - 30%\n&gt; 3. Print out, read through, mark up, transfer corrections - =\r\n20%\n&gt; 4. Repeat 2. - 20%\n&gt; \n&gt; MPT would give me a rough translation. It mig=\r\nht even be as good as my \n&gt; own rough translation (I doubt it), but even if=\r\n it were, it can&#39;t \n&gt; actually replace Stage 1, because in the process of p=\r\nroducing an \n&gt; equivalent rough translation to MPT, I have read and underst=\r\nood the \n&gt; source text, so if I begin with Stage 2 using MPT output as if i=\r\nt\n&gt; were \n&gt; the product of Stage 1, I still have to do that. The maximum sa=\r\nving\n&gt; is \n&gt; therefore only a fraction of Stage 1. Let&#39;s assume for the sak=\r\ne of \n&gt; argument that raw MPT output halves the time that it takes me to\n&gt; =\r\nproduce \n&gt; Stage 1, i.e. that rewriting the MPT output takes only half as l=\r\nong\n&gt; as \n&gt; typing in my own rough translation. A 50% time saving during St=\r\nage 1 \n&gt; would result in a saving of 15% of the total job time. That&#39;s \n&gt; i=\r\nnteresting enough for it to be worth my while considering using MPT\n&gt; as \n&gt;=\r\n a tool for myself, but it isn&#39;t sufficiently large to have much of an \n&gt; i=\r\nmpact upon end-customer prices, i.e. customers saying &quot;Here&#39;s the\n&gt; MPT \n&gt; =\r\noutput - half the work is already done for you.&quot; In any case, as I\n&gt; said \n=\r\n&gt; previously, if good MPT becomes available to everyone (whether on\n&gt; line =\r\n\n&gt; or through affordable commercial packages), customers won&#39;t be able\n&gt; to=\r\n \n&gt; apply that argument any more than they could say &quot;Here&#39;s a dictionary\n&gt;=\r\n - \n&gt; I want a 50% discount&quot;.\n&gt; \n&gt; At the bottom end of the market, on the =\r\nother hand, where the\n&gt; standard \n&gt; of translation is rubbish anyway, MPT i=\r\ns obviously going to make a \n&gt; substantial impact and will probably put a l=\r\not of people out of \n&gt; business. I hope it does. ;-)\n&gt; \n&gt; Marc\n&gt; \n&gt; Tony Ba=\r\nldwin wrote:\n&gt; &gt; Steven DeWitt wrote:\n&gt; &gt; \n&gt; &gt;&gt; Just to add my two cents, i=\r\nt is beyond fantastic to have the\n&gt; Google \n&gt; &gt;&gt; Translate feature added to=\r\n OmegaT. It is inevitable to have to\n&gt; embrace \n&gt; &gt;&gt; these changes in the t=\r\nranslation industry and make the most of\n&gt; them \n&gt; &gt;&gt; instead. The OmT deve=\r\nlopment team is amazing. Thank you, thank\n&gt; you, \n&gt; &gt;&gt; thank you!\n&gt; &gt;&gt;\n&gt; &gt;&gt;=\r\n Steven\n&gt; &gt;&gt;\n&gt; &gt;&gt;\n&gt; &gt;&gt; \n&gt; &gt;\n&gt; &gt; I have to say, in the past 24 hours since d=\r\nownloading and trying\n&gt; this \n&gt; &gt; new feature, I translated 3 French docume=\r\nnts to English, and was\n&gt; frankly \n&gt; &gt; alarmed at how well google was handl=\r\ning them.\n&gt; &gt; It almost takes the fun out of my work. I just had to make mi=\r\nnor \n&gt; &gt; corrections in grammar, word order, and punctation, at times, for\n=\r\n&gt; the \n&gt; &gt; most part.\n&gt; &gt; However, just now I did a quick c. 600 word Portu=\r\nguese to English \n&gt; &gt; translation, and am pleased to note that google&#39;s off=\r\nerings for\n&gt; this \n&gt; &gt; pair were terrible. I won&#39;t be out of a job too soon=\r\n, hopefully.\n&gt; &gt;\n&gt; &gt; Above all, however, having this feature available made=\r\n the FR/EN\n&gt; work go \n&gt; &gt; by rather quickly, opening up my time so that I w=\r\nas able to take on\n&gt; the \n&gt; &gt; PT/EN materials.\n&gt; &gt; I might have to consider=\r\n lowering my FR/EN rates, though, since the\n&gt; work \n&gt; &gt; goes so quickly. Ob=\r\nviously, this will vary based on the subject \n&gt; &gt; matters, etc. The FR/EN t=\r\nexts I just completed were all pretty\n&gt; basic, \n&gt; &gt; whereas the PT/EN mater=\r\nials were rather technical. That may be an \n&gt; &gt; important factor to conside=\r\nr, perhaps.\n&gt; &gt;\n&gt; &gt; :)\n&gt; &gt; /tony\n&gt; &gt; \n&gt; \n&gt; \n&gt; \n&gt; \n&gt; \n\n\n[Non-text portions o=\r\nf this message have been removed]\n\n\n"}}