国内价格

Angus Woo wrote:
...

一個人是在就事論事, 還是在為了贏得什麼而扭曲事實, 旁人自有公斷. 我們發言的目的不也是為了給旁人多一個判斷角度和依據嗎. 也許錯的是我們自己而不是別人呢?

lbone wrote:

高水平的个人译员，可以参考以上数据定一个适合自己的价，我相信至少应该可以拿到比上面的底数略高的价，有信心的，可以要更高的价。之所以直接和国内公司报价对比，原因是很多翻译公司拿出的译稿的质量也不过尔尔。

Yueyin Sun wrote:

建议你先不要谈价格了，政治就更不要谈，至少目前不要谈。拜托。

Libin PhD wrote:

非常同意，中国打下了一颗废弃的卫星，西方舆论一片哗然，美国打下了一个废弃的卫星，西方舆论完全沉默，这就是新闻报道中选择性报道的妙处。

redred wrote:

大哥，希望你永远保持神秘，不要以满脸胳腮的壮汉形象出现，你一直是众男士心中的“女神”，我真有点妒忌。

chance wrote:

你指的可能是部分西方国家？我们这里就有很客观的报导和分析。



[Edited at 2008-02-29 11:16]

lbone wrote:

单位是中文字符数，不计空格。



[Edited at 2008-02-29 06:39]

jyuan_us wrote:



就是英譯中按中文字計算。這樣計算﹐終端客戶在和翻譯公司簽合同之前他是不知道總價錢的。連價錢都不知道﹐怎麼可能簽合同呢﹖這樣的買賣能做得成嗎﹖用一個不太嚴謹的類比﹕如果你去飯館吃飯﹐飯館說了你先別問價錢﹐我也不知道﹐等您吃完了再算。這樣做﹐還有人敢在那裡吃嗎﹖

另外一方面﹐讓中文譯稿在不影響質量的前提下漲出20%的字數來﹐是輕而易舉的事﹐如果終端客戶同意按照中文字算﹐無異於任人宰割。

在翻譯工作的鏈條上﹐人人都不傻﹐難道只有終端客戶願意當冤大頭﹖如果這樣的話﹐翻譯公司也太好開了﹐各位都別做翻譯了﹐登個廣告直接找終端客戶﹐豈不是又輕鬆又多賺。

不明白。

Libin PhD wrote:

舆论哗然是指一味指责，客观的报道和分析与一味指责是有很大区别的。

Libin PhD wrote:

舆论哗然是指一味指责，客观的报道和分析与一味指责是有很大区别的。

NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin insisted that the interception attempt is not a ruse to try the defense system on a satellite or to one-up countries that have made similar attempts. The administration was harshly critical of China when it destroyed an aging satellite in orbit a year ago.

The difference, Griffin said, "is, one, we are notifying, which is required by treaties and law, okay?" The Chinese satellite was destroyed at a much higher altitude -- about 600 miles -- creating a field of orbiting space debris that is hazardous for other spacecraft.

The United States and Soviet Union conducted anti-satellite tests in the mid-1980s but stopped once it became clear that the debris from the destroyed spacecraft became a danger to other satellites and even spaceships. Griffin said the low altitude at which the satellite will be targeted -- about 150 miles -- will minimize orbiting debris.

"The lower we can catch this, the quicker the debris reenters," he said. More than half the pieces will burn up or land before making two revolutions around Earth, and the rest will come down in "weeks, maybe a month, but it's a very finite period of time that we can manage."

Jeffrey said that the fuel tank is the only piece of the craft that was not expected to break up on reentry and that it is hoped that the missile can destroy it in space. If it hits the ground, it could leak gas and cause potentially fatal injury over an area of the size of about two football fields, he said, adding that "this is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings."

wherestip wrote:



Dr. Li,

The topic you brought up piqued my curiosity, so I looked for some explanation. Here seems to be the U.S. position on what makes the two actions different.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021401704_2.html?sid=ST2008021403174

Please understand I'm just linking what I found on the subject. I know nothing about space technology, and definitely not taking sides.



[Edited at 2008-02-29 17:45]

chance wrote:

李斌肯定懂多了。但我觉得这件事不是技术区别，而是政治问题。

一写“政治”这两个字，突然想起来太敏感，能谈吗？

wherestip wrote:



那当然. 他是这方面的专家博士.

美国政府肯定也有为自己的政策自圆其说的地方.

我看干脆把这一栏改称 "政治及其它敏感问题" 好了



[Edited at 2008-02-29 18:03]