Up to the end of the twentieth at the international congresses, conferences and meetings consecutive translation was practiced: the speech of orator was translated in other working languages after its performance. “Depending on the amount of working languages accepted at the assembly of the delegates, each performance was consistently repeated from a tribune several times, that resulted a large loss of time. Only at the end of the 20th incidentally was practiced translation of speeches simultaneously with their listening, which has received its name of simultaneous translation. “It is often argued that the first War Crimes trial (Nuremberg Trial) could not have possible simultaneous interpretation. The highlights of the early postwar period included the active participation of Soviet interpreters in the Nuremberg Trial and the Tokyo Trial of major Japanese war criminals. The real baptism of fire for a large group of Russian conference interpreters was the International Economic Conference held in Moscow in 1952. Since the 19th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, simultaneous translation has been more widely used on such occasions. The technique and hardware of simultaneous interpretation, at first somewhat crude and primitive, were gradually upgraded approaching international standards including a speaker’s microphone, system of posting, headphones and microphones of the interpreters (mounted in special cabins) and headphones for the participants”. Each participant, being connected to the appropriate translation cabin, received an opportunity to listen to translation of speech simultaneously with the performance. The simultaneous translation gave significant economy of time, especially on the international meetings, where several working languages were used. Simultaneous translation gradually pressed consecutive translation and up to the present time became the basic kind of translation at all multilateral international forums. Being the top of the interpreting mastery, it drew my interest towards writing the project on this topic. Besides, as it appeared to be, there is not so much written about exact advices of interpreters or especially for teaching simultaneous translation. Besides, even the best methodology will not create a super-professional interpreter, but using these techniques it is possible to upgrade the level of interpretation skills. The difficulty is that there are only theoretical works concerning this topic and not so many practical advices and exercises for the future interpreters training. Simultaneous translation is one of the most complicated kinds of translation. The main feature of simultaneous translation consists of parallel perception of speech of the orator and giving out the speech in language of translation. This feature of simultaneous translation defines other features of this kind and first of all the rigid limit of time: the interpreter has only the period of pronouncing the speech by the speaker for translation. This time is twice less than what the interpreter has at consecutive translation, and in 20-30 times less, than at written text translation of the same speech. The interpreter has not only less time for translation, but also is imposed to the rate of translation, which should correspond to the rate of pronouncing the speech. Besides simultaneous translation has such special feature as segmental character: the interpreter translates the text in segments in process of their receipt, whereas during consecutive translation (as well as at written translation of written materials) the interpreter listens to the whole text. These features make simultaneous translation very difficult for learning. To simultaneous translation, perhaps, the traditional formula is almost not applied: in order to translation one needs to know two languages and subject of conversation. It is known, that not every man freely speaking foreign language is capable to take possession translation. First, preparation of the oral interpreters included mass ideological preparation, which completely brought to nothing a professional etiquette of the oral interpreter. Ideological sense of translation in the Soviet spirit was put much above its accuracy. Some decent interpreters tried to avoid it. It is where the opinion about harm of training came from. Second, the thematic principle was frequently practiced in training the interpreters (and is practiced still now). This principle is seen in narrow specialization of the training books: “The Textbook of military translation”, “Translation of the chemical texts”. The thematic orientation of training is on the decline, not only because it educates the interpreters with a narrow professional outlook; its main disadvantage consists of mixing different things – knowledge on a theme and professional skills. In other words, knowledge about what to be spoken in the text and knowledge of what to be done with the text. And finally, the third feature, which is, perhaps, most essential for the Russian history of translation. Traditionally, to tell the truth, interpreters were considered as the interpreters of fiction. The theorists of translation focused their attention on fiction as deserving primary attention. Consequently, frequent answer to a question, whether it is possible to learn translation, is understood only in application to fiction. And the answer at once caused difficulties. The art of translation requires such huge volume of background erudition, additional knowledge and performance of complex texture of translation tasks that frequently the thesis about creativeness is put forward, where reigns inspiration. The skill of translating fiction is a specific skill, and though the possession of it is impossible without some rules working for translation of any text, but nevertheless it does not guarantee to the interpreter the skill to translate non-fiction. It is necessary to tell, that intuition and inspiration, which helps to feel and to transfer complex and fine stylistics, individual style and much of other things in translation, prevents the interpreter to take the higher level of wider generalizations, and he would not be able to distribute the personal experience to work with the non-fiction texts, what simply means that the interpreter of fiction frequently, simply speaking, is not able to translate the non-fiction. And nevertheless, definitely: it is possible to learn! The experience of many translation schools of the world shows it. Training there is constructed differently, but always contains a constant set of obligatory components and gives the result. And common sense tells us that to learn is not only possible, but also necessary: it is impossible in the modern world to start up development of this important trade without paying attention. It harms the quality of translation production and reduces prestige of a profession. Machine translation (MT) is a procedure whereby a computer program analyzes a source text and produces a target text without further human intervention. In reality, however, machine translation typically does involve human intervention, in the form of pre-editing and post-editing. An exception to that rule might be, e.g., the translation of technical specifications (strings of technical terms and adjectives), using a dictionary-based machine-translation system. To date, machine translation–a major goal of natural-language processing–has met with limited success. A November 6,2007, example illustrates the hazards of uncritical reliance on machine translation. Machine translation has been brought to a large public by tools available on the Internet, Such as Yahoo!’s Babel Fish, Babylon, and StarDict. This tools produce a “gisting translation” – a rough translation that, with luck, “gives the gist” of the source text. With proper terminology work, with preparation of the source text for machine translation (pre-editing), and with re-working of the machine translation by a professional human translator (post-editing), commercial machine-translation tools can produce useful results, especially if the machine-translation system is integrated with a translation – memory or globalization – management system. In regard to texts (e.g., weather reports) with limited ranges of vocabulary and simple sentence structure, machine translation can deliver results that do not require much human intervention to be useful. Also, the use of a controlled language, combined with a machine-translation tool, will typically generate largely comprehensible translations. Relying exclusively on unedited machine translation ignores the fact that communication in human language is context – embedded and that it takes a person to comprehend the context of the original text with a reasonable degree of probability. It is certainly true that even purely human-generated translations are prone to error. Therefore, to ensure that a machine-generated translation will be useful to a human being and that publishable-quality translation is achieved, such translations must be reviewed and edited by a human. The late Claude Piron wrote that machine translation, at its best, automates the easier part of a translator’s job; the harder and more time-consuming part usually involves doing extensive research to resolve ambiguities in the source text, which the grammatical and lexical exigencies of the target language require to be resolved. Such research is a necessary prelude to the pre-editing necessary in order to provide input for machine-translation software such that the output will not be meaningless. The lessons of machine translations’s first 50 years aren’t the kind we are used to hearing from our best and brightest machines: Make peace with stubborn limitations, cut the hype, think in the scale of decades of gradual evolution, forget about breakthoughs. In our laptops, we already have memory capacity and processing apeed that would have been barely imaginable in the age of the tube-driven mainframes, but machine translation historian John Hutchins believes that even “infinite computer power is not a solution”. What is needed, he says, is deeper insight into the processes of language and cognition. “there is no such thing as `perfect’ translation”, he adds. “There are only translations more or less suitable or successful for specific purposes and contexts”.