| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | ¿Hasta cuando? Thread poster: José Luis Villanueva-Senchuk (X)
|
|---|
Parrot 
Spain
Local time: 22:09
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Lex romana y la ley del desierto | May 2, 2002 |
Gracias, Rick y dafikdr... voy a tratar de desenredar algo que los traductores intuimos muchas veces pero que muy pocos otros nos creen: interfases culturales.
Muchos vivimos en países cuyas jurisprudencias remontan a la ley romana, modelo de convivencia multicultural. Se basaba en un principio de unir y conquistar y luego de dividir y gobernar; por eso trazaron fronteras hasta en los desiertos, donde las líneas se borran fácilmente. No obstante, en el desierto existe una... See more Gracias, Rick y dafikdr... voy a tratar de desenredar algo que los traductores intuimos muchas veces pero que muy pocos otros nos creen: interfases culturales.
Muchos vivimos en países cuyas jurisprudencias remontan a la ley romana, modelo de convivencia multicultural. Se basaba en un principio de unir y conquistar y luego de dividir y gobernar; por eso trazaron fronteras hasta en los desiertos, donde las líneas se borran fácilmente. No obstante, en el desierto existe una ley mucho más antigua y humana, una de conciencia en la que las verdaderas fronteras se dibujan en el corazón - por eso los neocolonos ingleses, franceses, españoles, italianos, etc., cuando tocaron el tema de Oriente Medio, tachaban a los pueblos de allí de \"anarquistas\". Podían vivir muy alejados de sus pueblos natales y, aún así, seguir prestando apoyo político a un jefe en ausencia; y si moría éste y era reemplazado por uno de menor categoría moral en su opinión, cambiaban de alianza en un abrir y cerrar de ojos, y el \"país\" del nuevo jefe empequeñecía.
Y ¡¡¡AQUI SEGUIMOS INSISTIENDO EN LAS FRONTERAS!!! Seguimos creyendo que una línea dibujada entre Israel y Palestina solucionará todo - ¿quienes son los tontos?
(Los pájaros no, desde luego, si hasta viajan sin pasaporte... Viernes) ▲ Collapse
| | | | Elena Sgarbo (X)
Italian to English
+ ...
| Libertad de prensa: qué vemos y oímos en USA vs qué se ve s\y se escucha en España | May 2, 2002 |
Quote:
On 2002-05-02 06:15, RickZ wrote:
\"There is no such thing, at this date of the world\'s history, in America, as an independent press.
Rick,
Excepto nacer y morir, casi TODO en la vida es relativo. Pienso que todos aquí en Proz tenemos edad suficiente para comprender esto.
Cuando uno habla de prensa independiente, se refiere a una prensa + independien... See more Quote:
On 2002-05-02 06:15, RickZ wrote:
\"There is no such thing, at this date of the world\'s history, in America, as an independent press.
Rick,
Excepto nacer y morir, casi TODO en la vida es relativo. Pienso que todos aquí en Proz tenemos edad suficiente para comprender esto.
Cuando uno habla de prensa independiente, se refiere a una prensa + independiente que otra. \"Independencia absoluta\" no sé si existe -y, después de todo, quién podría decidir qué ES, independencia absoluta? Verdad absoluta? Cómo se miden estas cosas???
Te ilustro mi \'point\'. En casa acá en Chicago nosotros recibimos, vía satélite, muchos canales de TV extranjeros: de Buenos Aires, de Madrid, la RAI, etc, etc.
Cuando ayer por ej. CNN (quizá no la prensa más libre del mundo) reportaba sobre el conflicto en Gaza, mostraron una niñita palestina de 2 años muerta x un tanque israelí, y mostraron un niño israelí muerto a golpes (piedrazos) x un soldado palestino.
En Televisión Española (TVEI), el mismo reporte mostró una niñita palestina de 2 años muerta x un tanque israelí. Period. Sin contrapartida del bando enemigo.
Cuál prensa es + independiente?....
Elena
▲ Collapse
| | | | Valeria Verona
Chile
Local time: 16:09
Member (2003)
English to Spanish
+ ...
Estoy anonadada... muchas opiniones, muchos puntos de vista... pero mientras tanto los poderosos siguen haciendo lo que quieren del mundo y de los pobres mortales.
Rick y Papelu: me siento muy identificada con su visión de la so called \"libertad de prensa\" norteamericana... ufff!!!!!
Saludos desde Buenos Aires,
Vale
| | | | Parrot
Spain
Local time: 22:09
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Sigo esperando que alguien trate este asunto a fondo | May 4, 2002 |
Y el fondo no se puede buscar en EE.UU. porque esa visión no llega. Se trata de una transmisión cultural de suficiente historia como para que llegue quizá a formar parte del .0X% de ADN que no comparten todos los humanos. Lo que vemos hoy son dos paquetes culturales que se han formado EL UNO EN CONTRA DEL OTRO (y no estoy hablando de judíos y árabes porque en el fondo se entienden mejor que nosotros, tratándose de pueblos semitas). Somos nosotros quienes no lo ven porque estamos empleando ... See more Y el fondo no se puede buscar en EE.UU. porque esa visión no llega. Se trata de una transmisión cultural de suficiente historia como para que llegue quizá a formar parte del .0X% de ADN que no comparten todos los humanos. Lo que vemos hoy son dos paquetes culturales que se han formado EL UNO EN CONTRA DEL OTRO (y no estoy hablando de judíos y árabes porque en el fondo se entienden mejor que nosotros, tratándose de pueblos semitas). Somos nosotros quienes no lo ven porque estamos empleando nuestro baremo pos-medioevo de moros-judíos-cristianos y transmitiendo la incomprensión según esas líneas... y si no llega ese razonamiento de los cruzados, ¿cómo se puede esperar que llegue Bush? Sefarad, Ashkenazi, son sólo dos guijarros en la historia de este tránsito, y eso ocurre mucho antes del viaje de Colón. Pero a lo largo de los años, han venido solapándose otros paradigmas que no formaban parte del paquete original, pero que SE IMPUSIERON, empezando por los romanos (sigo con las interfaces y la analogía con los problemas de traducción). Y lo que no me gusta con los medios ahora es la simplicidad con que arrancan de cuajo un incidente, sólo, al parecer, PARA ECHAR LEÑA AL FUEGO, tengan o no un \"hidden agenda\" de esos (lo que duele más, comprendo). Eso es lo que se llama \"alimentar el odio\", pero ¿gratuitamente, o que se pague? Esa cuestión, sí que mosquea.
Y sí, señor, el odio se transmite en los genes... mira a mi suegra y la Guerra Civil... Esto es lo que hay que evitar. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Great Article. | May 5, 2002 |
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/05/04_lies.html
All Lies, All the Time
May 4, 2002
By Richard Mynick aka RichM
We all learned in school that democracy cannot survive without a free press. To drive this lesson home, we were presented with the notion of a \"dictatorship,\" understood in those days to be typifie... See more http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/05/04_lies.html
All Lies, All the Time
May 4, 2002
By Richard Mynick aka RichM
We all learned in school that democracy cannot survive without a free press. To drive this lesson home, we were presented with the notion of a \"dictatorship,\" understood in those days to be typified by the Soviet Union. In a dictatorship, we were told, government directly controls the press. The danger inherent in this arrangement was explained as follows: if a newspaper in a dictatorship ever dares to criticize the government, the offending journalists are sent to a gulag. Thus, power cracks its whip, institutions that set the tone for public discourse are intimidated, and everyone is kept in line. The government can never be subjected to critical review, no matter what it does - and the path to tyranny is wide open.
We were taught, in comforting contrast, that in the American system the press is free, so that many diverse viewpoints may find expression. Journalists may criticize the government without fear of being summarily arrested. In this way, so our cheerful theory ran, news organizations can perform their crucial watchdog function, and government is subjected to responsible scrutiny. This process, over time, was supposed to safeguard against misguided government policy and potential abuse of power.
From the vantage point of 2002, it is apparent that the theory of the role of the press in American democracy - the theory that sounded so comforting and admirable to us during our school years - contained a few flaws. The system breaks down in the case where the government and the media are both agents of the same powerful interests. In this case, the entire concept of \"an independent press\" is exploded. The press cannot be a \"watchdog,\" because it is not truly distinct from the forces animating the government - any more than a left hand can serve as a \"watchdog\" over the right hand of the same creature.
What happens when the press and the government function as two arms of the same creature? The same thing that was feared in the classic case of the police state: the voice of the press becomes corrupted. It assumes the tinny, inauthentic hysterical tone that we associate with the Pravda of the bad old days. (\"Our Great and Wise Leader has proclaimed that our glorious factories have once again surpassed the goals of the Five-Year Plan.\") The press no longer guards the public interest, but becomes an instrument of privilege and power. It blurs issues and spews propaganda. Its voice becomes shrill as it praises its master, insisting on its own rightness and glory. That is the American press of 2002 - all lies, all the time.
With the exception of Bill Moyers on PBS, there is practically no source or analysis of news on American television that is worth seeing. Most of the rest is - let\'s be honest - a nauseating rude low-minded cesspool. Not only does it have no value, it is positively injurious to the wisdom and understanding of those who watch it. The major print media are scarcely any better, and for precisely the same reason: all of them, when stripped of their flimsy disguises and superficial differences, are nothing more than obedient servants of power. They are the left hand, while the government is the right hand; they are all one and the same. That is why the media are incapable of telling the truth about our government and about what is happening to our society. That is why they are incapable of discussing any of the burning issues that must be discussed, upon which the future of our planet depends.
Public discourse in the US is now a rotting edifice. While it never has been wholly pure, the last few years have greatly accelerated the corruption. The terminal phase of the process began when no major US media voice summoned the courage or integrity to speak out against the Supreme Court\'s appointment of George W. Bush as president. There were certainly many serious observers who immediately recognized that something profoundly dangerous had occurred. The New York Times published one (and only one) full-page announcement from a group of hundreds of law professors across the nation, candidly expressing their feelings of anguished betrayal at the Court\'s decision. But neither the Times itself, nor any of its prestigious major-circulation brethren, used its editorial voice to oppose - or even to analyze! - the decision. None had the principles or courage even to undertake a careful editorial examination of the potential ways in which such a decision might prove damaging or antithetical to the spirit of democracy. Instead, all chose to be silent; to pretend that nothing much out of the ordinary had transpired. The path of cowardice was chosen, and the die was cast.
Having shown their true colors that fateful day, it was henceforth no longer possible for the American media to speak the truth. Its shameful silence at the blatant hijacking of a presidential election required a progressively deepening entanglement in the web of lies. Since the election could no longer be spoken of as what it in fact was, since the fact dared not be uttered that the Supreme Court was now just a partisan subsidiary of the American far right, now all matters touching on those sensitive subjects, and all matters that grew inexorably from them, could likewise no longer be called by their true and proper names. Sixteen short months later, we no longer have a real democracy in our country. We have a nation of great military and financial might that pretends to still be a democracy; that pays empty lip service to the vestigial trappings and nominal forms of democracy, while behaving with a unilateral belligerence that is terrifying to the rest of the world. The American media is organically unable to seriously criticize George W. Bush, his policies, or his appointments. They cannot discuss or explicitly identify the forces that are controlling the trajectory of the nation. They can only speak with fawning obsequiousness of those powerful forces, because they are the left hand, while the Bush government is the right hand, of the same creature. And this creature would be disturbed, perhaps angered, should it receive too much direct attention.
In the America that I grew up in, if a politician seriously proposed that this country commit itself to years of an open-ended war against enemies that could be defined, undefined, or redefined as we went along, he would be roundly criticized. To be sure, he would not be criticized by everyone. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal could always be counted upon to support him, as could the National Review. But there would also be a free and strong liberal press, and a worthy opposition party, that would rise together with pride and dignity to denounce and staunchly oppose in principled fashion the destructive insanity of endless war against amorphous phantoms, now offered to the public as the major political project of this country. But the America I grew up in no longer exists. There is no longer a free press with pride, dignity, and principles. There is no longer a real opposition party. Our institutions are so thoroughly corrupt that they are too frightened even to speak of the dimensions or systemic nature of this corruption. All mention of the myriad tentacles of corruption must be swept quickly under the rug and papered over with a layer of fatuous happy-talk - or the whole structure will come crashing down.
If the government of the United States wants to destroy every international treaty, to ignore the threat of global warming, to build military bases all over Central Asia under the pretext of \"fighting a war against terrorism,\" and to define its principle role in the world by its open-ended \"war\" - there is no one on television that will say a word against it. The editorial page of the New York Times will not criticize it, nor will the Washington Post. Like the obedient fawning sycophants that they\'ve become, they will lamely assert that we are \"protecting our freedom,\" or some such nonsense. And if, by chance, an eminently forgettable actor from a mindless 25-year old TV series is suddenly arrested on suspicion of murdering his wife, it is only to be expected that the media coverage of this phenomenally insignificant event will be massive, easily dwarfing discussion of every other issue. There will be \"interviews\" on Larry King, with \"experts\" who won their spurs during the frenzy of the O.J. Simpson trial. There will be no time or energy left for discussion of Enron, and the ways in which it was so disturbingly able to have its many friends in Congress pass laws and regulations and make appointments to its liking. This is the America of 2002 - no discussion of real issues, and hysterical \"coverage\" of non-issues. That which must be spoken about, because it\'s so important, cannot be spoken about, because it\'s too threatening to the powers controlling the system.
If there is a sudden coup d\'etat in oil-producing Venezuela carried out by the military and big business interests, and the government of the United States speaks approvingly of the coup, the New York Times will not criticize it. Far from it. No, the Times chortles happily that \"a would-be dictator\" has been deposed, and \"Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened.\" The US will of course continue to self-righteously style itself the world\'s great protector of democracy. The New York Times and the US government are two hands of the same master. They speak the same language. In this language, the twice-elected Venezuelan president is a \"would-be dictator,\" while the military and US-friendly oil executives that seize power merely \"intervene\" to save democracy. The irony of these appellations goes largely unnoticed.
The short-lived Venezuelan coup is a vivid demonstration that neither the government nor the media of today\'s United States \"stands for democracy.\" They stand, rather, for whatever expediency seems likely to benefit American oil policy. To maintain the pretense of standing for lofty principle, when the reality is so rank and ignoble, is characteristic of decrepit, decaying political institutions.
Our old media rules went something like this: \"the free press should act as a watchdog to monitor the government.\" Our modernized rules work more like this: the media must not discuss any subject in such a way that it\'s uncomfortable or threatening to moneyed power. It must not examine the type of corruption that exists when government becomes the servant of corporate influence. If a corporation buys the allegiance of a slew of congressmen, this must not be examined. But if a Democratic congressman has an affair with a young woman, this must be investigated in excruciating detail. If the Pentagon buys tens of billions of dollars of weapons that even Rumsfeld said won\'t work, from companies closely linked to the ruling right wing government, this must not be discussed. It\'s not polite. If Wall Street touts the stock of various companies on what later proves to be totally fraudulent grounds, this may be mentioned, but not in a way that raises penetrating questions about the breadth of Wall Street corruption. If CEO\'s earn 450 times what average employees earn, this inequality\'s rationale may not be explored in too high-profile a manner - it\'s unattractive.
Serious money doesn\'t care for that kind of publicity. If the federal budget includes a $48 billion increase in defense spending, this fact may be reported, but the implications may not be examined with any persistence or vigor. If hundreds of billions are earmarked for a missile defense system that will never work - thus depriving all manner of health, education, housing, and other social programs of funds - this issue too, cannot be seriously discussed. It may be mentioned, briefly and in low-key fashion, but not pursued with the same relentless intensity that a Democratic congressman\'s extramarital affair would surely attract. Not with the same ferocious high-megawatt 24/7 coverage that the TV has-been\'s murder case would attract. If every government agency originally chartered to oversee compliance with rules for clean air and water is now fully staffed by Bush appointees - loyal agents, one and all, of the most notorious and powerful corporate polluters, who in turn were all big Bush campaign contributors - this too, can unfortunately not be carefully scrutinized. Not under the new rules. This is how the once-proud American \"free press\" now operates. It cringes at the feet of its master, more fearful of offending, than interested in speaking the truth.
Are there leading Republican congressmen with close ties to white supremacist groups? Yes, quite a few of them - but this is an uncomfortable topic; better that the media ignore it. Did the new director of Bush\'s \"Office for Democracy and Human Rights\" plead guilty to lying to Congress under oath in the Iran-Contra affair? Yes, but let\'s overlook that; why be divisive in this \"time of war?\" Is the new US ambassador to the United Nations another Iran-Contra criminal? Yes, but better not to focus on that unattractive detail. Is the new Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs closely linked to the terrorist bombing of a passenger jetliner? Yes, but it was only a Cuban jetliner, so why raise a fuss? Let\'s just refer to him respectfully as \"Mr. Reich\" in mainstream coverage, and ignore the furtiveness with which the White House appointed all three of these men while Congress was in recess, so as to avoid open confirmation hearings and the attendant adverse publicity.
If the president himself is the financial creation of the Enron Corporation, if most of the people in his administration come from Enron, consulted for Enron, and invested heavily in Enron, and if his administration makes appointments and passes legislation favorable to Enron, that allows Enron to loot hundreds of billions of dollars from the state of California, its own employees and shareholders, and the United States Treasury, you might think that this would amount to a bit of a scandal. You would be wrong. In the United States of 2002, it\'s not a scandal unless the corporate media says it\'s a scandal, and they will not call something a scandal if it centers on the ability of large corporations to procure gargantuan favors from government. It is only a scandal if a member of the political party that\'s less than 100 percent devoted to granting corporations their every whim is caught doing something wrong. (Of course, strictly speaking, it is not really necessary that he/she actually be caught doing something wrong; it is only necessary that he is repeatedly said to have done something wrong. Being repeatedly said to have done something wrong is fully sufficient cause for the corporate media to declare the matter a scandal of the highest megawattage; \"in-depth interviews\" with \"experts\" on Larry King will quickly follow.)
Was the terrorist attack of 9-11 important? Oh, yes, just give the media a moment, and they\'ll be glad to solemnly assure you that the Bush regime\'s mammoth giveaways to defense contractors and its attacks on civil liberties and its turning our entire society into a giant war machine - all this is amply justified by the outrages of 9-11. But, if the attacks were important enough to justify all that, aren\'t they important enough to be fully investigated by Congress? And didn\'t the president himself take steps to make sure that there would be no serious congressional investigation of the intelligence lapses leading to 9-11? Here, one can confidently expect the media to suffer a bout of sudden amnesia, regarding the importance of 9-11. For these are the kinds of questions that servants of power will not pursue.
In the America I grew up in, people would have noticed that the Bill of Rights was being blatantly violated by the USA PATRIOT Act. People would have noticed that hundreds of persons arrested last fall are still in jail with no charges being filed, and that the US Attorney General told a panel of senators in December that if they had any serious questions about what the government was doing, they were just \"giving comfort to the enemy.\" People would have noticed the administration\'s new \"Nuclear Posture Review\" that was released in March, putting the world on notice that the United States might well be expected to use \"battlefield\" nuclear weapons in its upcoming war against Iraq. People would have noticed the absurdity of a vice president claiming to be upholding some lofty principle of office, by keeping secret the details of how he designed our national energy policy together with a bunch of rich cronies -- even though he supposedly works for us, and we thus have a right to know everything about how that policy was made. People would have noticed these things because some degree of vibrant political awareness was part of the America that I grew up in. The media was part of that -- not all the media, to be sure, but enough of them to make a difference.
But in the new America, the one born on 12/12/00, such things are barely noticed and quickly forgotten. This is because the media is the social organ charged with conducting the public discourse, and it is no longer anything but the left hand, while the Bush regime is the right hand, of the same creature. In this America, one must confidently expect dictators who support us to be described in leading newspapers as \"defenders of democracy,\" while popularly-elected foreign presidents who criticize us are termed \"would-be dictators.\" We can confidently expect any news story whose essence centers on corruption in high places to be downplayed, deflected, and marginalized. We must expect that the transfer of the hundreds of billions of federal budget dollars now stuffing the maw of defense contractors - not augmenting the security of the American people but probably decreasing it, as US military aggression inevitably inflames world resentments - will receive far less media attention than the combination of Al Gore\'s beard, Gwyneth\'s dress at the Oscars, and the TV has-been\'s murder trial. We can now look forward to the next media extravaganza - the new and improved all-channel \"Demonization of Saddam Hussein\" campaign, opening soon on a TV screen near you, which will surely whip up the fervor necessary to bomb and kill a hundred thousand people or so, possibly with nuclear weapons. The cheerleading machinery will ramp to proper pitch by tirelessly flogging the lofty moral pretext (\"protecting us from Saddam\'s weapons of mass destruction\") - and scarcely a word will be said about oil.
My teachers were exactly right, back in the old America that I knew, loved, and was so proud of - democracy cannot survive without a free press.
▲ Collapse
| | | | Aurora Humarán (X)
Argentina
Local time: 17:09
English to Spanish
+ ...
| ALARMA COMUNICACIONAL | May 5, 2002 |
Lo que muestra la CNN: ¿reproduce o CREA la realidad? ¿Miente o dice la verdad? En uno de sus libros y eludiendo los casilleros, Umberto Eco analiza la información y la cultura en tiempos IRREMEDIABLEMENTE ( ) mediáticos.
En el libro Umberto Eco para principiantes, Nerio Tello se centra en sus escritos de semiótica y su análisis de la cultura de masas. Es ahí donde sobresale la sutileza de Eco para entender el auge d... See more Lo que muestra la CNN: ¿reproduce o CREA la realidad? ¿Miente o dice la verdad? En uno de sus libros y eludiendo los casilleros, Umberto Eco analiza la información y la cultura en tiempos IRREMEDIABLEMENTE ( ) mediáticos.
En el libro Umberto Eco para principiantes, Nerio Tello se centra en sus escritos de semiótica y su análisis de la cultura de masas. Es ahí donde sobresale la sutileza de Eco para entender el auge de los grandes medios de comunicación.
Desmarcándose de \"aristócratas\" (elitistas que desprecian todo lo que implique masividad) y de \"optimistas\" (ingenuos que presuponen una imaginaria inocencia y neutralidad en los medios de comunicación), Eco DESNUDA EL MODO EN QUE LOS GRANDES IMPERIOS (¿emporios?...)de la cultura de masas constituyen y:
MOLDEAN EL MODO EN QUE LAS CLASES POPULARES
SE DIVIERTEN
IMAGINAN
Y HASTA SUEÑAN...
\"Apocalípticos e integrados\" es un ensayo donde eco analiza esos fenómenos y fue publicado en 1964: la CNN todavía no se \"había digerido al mundo\".
Cuarenta años después, sus \"herramientas de análisis\" siguen proporcionando un material imprescindible para pensar en (y alarmarse por..) la importancia cada día mayor que los grandes medios de comunicación de masas tienen en nuestras vidas.
Y me viene a la memoria esto de mi admirado Eduardo Galeano, cito textual:
PARA LA CÁTEDRA DE HISTORIA:
Durante el año 1998, los medios globalizados de comunicación dedicaron sus más amplios espacios, y sus mejores energías, al romance del presidente del planeta con una gordita voraz y locuaz llamada Mónica Lewinsky.
Fuimos todos lewinskizados, en todos los países. El tema invadió los periódicos que desayuné, los informativos radiales que almorcé, los telediarios que cené y las páginas de las revistas que acompañaron mis cafés.
Me parece que en el 98 también ocurrieron otras cosas, que no consigo recordar.
Aurora: Sufriré de \"wishful thinking\" (you may say I´m a dreamer...) pero siento que todo esto que parece irremediable tiene solución. Habrá que seguir pensando.
Saludos Aurora ▲ Collapse
| | | | Guiri
Spain
Local time: 22:09
Spanish to English
Los medios son como cualquier otro articulo del mercado. Necesitan el mayor numero posible de compradores. Lo que vemos y leemos ha pasado por una criba de gustar o no a la clientela.
¿Quien ha itentado buscar alguna noticia sobre Chechenia o lo que los gobiernos interesados estan haciendo para proteger los intereses de sus subditos detenidos por orden presidencial y en contra de la ley actual de los EEUU en Guantanamo, la investigacion sobre los casos de antrax? Estos son noticias no... See more Los medios son como cualquier otro articulo del mercado. Necesitan el mayor numero posible de compradores. Lo que vemos y leemos ha pasado por una criba de gustar o no a la clientela.
¿Quien ha itentado buscar alguna noticia sobre Chechenia o lo que los gobiernos interesados estan haciendo para proteger los intereses de sus subditos detenidos por orden presidencial y en contra de la ley actual de los EEUU en Guantanamo, la investigacion sobre los casos de antrax? Estos son noticias no aptos actualmente para el publico. No la transmiten, luego no existe. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » ¿Hasta cuando? | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
