michael said:
>   Methodologies are continually being upset
>   by those who find some other way to do an
>   expensive [time or money] function for an
>   infinitessimal amount of the original.

well, i think we're both on the same page...
except you're reading it and i'm writing it...       :+)

(in other words, if one is interested in
the actual upsetting of methodologies,
then one pays some attention to them.
otherwise, one waits until they play out.)

google is upsetting the methodologies here.
and you are counting that machine translation
will become up to snuff sooner or later, and
you're not interesting in the interim period.
both positions are equally fine to hold...

>   If not, then why talk in such generalities

i don't think i'm talking about "generalities" at all.

in the current case, google is the entity doing it --
or so it has been reported, whether true or not --
and keith is the entity saying "it can't be done"...
(well, he said "not in the next 100 or so years".)

and in the other case i've mentioned -- the "dispute"
between me and my "detractors" on this listserve --
there are no "generalities" either.  we spent 2 years
going back and forth at each other, so the positions
are well-staked-out in the archives if you're curious.


>   It only matters when you get to the point of
>   ending the debating and actually doing something
>   the outside world can see and work with.

right.

except when you're playing poker,
the object is to win as much money
as possible with the hands you win,
and to lose as little as possible with
the ones that you lose.

and that means you don't always
show all of your cards right away...

google ain't showing all their cards.

and i ain't showing all mine either...