While it is preferable to follow certain rules of grammar for use of Latin phrases, that is within the confines of acceptable English practice. "Profesora" has not, in fact, ever been used--as far as I am aware--in the English language, as an English term. Not, at least, enough to be conventional rather than eccentric. These days, perhaps all the more due to it being Spanish (though being in the Western US where we have a lot of Spanish speakers, perhaps I'm just reinforced given that perception; the east coast, on the other hand, tends not to know jack about Spanish from our POV). I am okay with it to the extent someone would have a Latin or Romance background, but the significations associated with "professor" vs. "profes[s]ora" aren't quite the same, so from that POV I would avoid it myself since it would seem to be a mis-communication, therefore an error.
And "-a" isn't even a solid indication, in English, that a term is actually a feminine for Latin. ("-a" isn't even just feminine in Latin, depending on case!). It *frequently* is in Spanish, but not enough for someone without the prior knowledge. For the last three or so centuries, however, even when Latin was widely taught, been acceptable to mix Latin forms as properly understood or most likely to be, rather than force correctness based on the classical Latin forms (and I have critiques on usage dating back over a 100 years in my personal library), so I don't get the hostility: oversensitivity to "correctness", to me, bespeaks being a poseur--as is often the case in English grammar.
It all seems like the pedantry of correct for case with "I and me" without regard for the actual use-intentions of the personal speaking English, given that the complaints are often applied to usages which antedate the oldest grammars and indicate a different mode of thinking altogether--i.e. evince a feature of English-speakers' mind that doesn't even exist in other classical languages. (Even modern, simplified English, possesses pre-classical features, and actual mixtures of features that span several language families, that ante-date the periods of major influence by Romance and Latin upon the Teutonic, e.g. altering mid-vowels to change tense, not just endings). It's the...gilded age of English armchair philology and grammatical-wishful thinking by the sophomorically over-read and over-credentialed, regarded only for being critics and clever...just not "right."
But in general, critiques of English usage typically proceed out of posing rather than expertise. It's a long-standing tradition in Anglophonic countries, and unfortunate for all the confusion has bred. e.g. I was recently standing in line at a post office and literally stood next to two old women, one who had been warned against the horrific error in saying "dug" rather than "digged", and the other warned contrarily about the error of "digged" over "dug." Both were also pissed I wouldn't take their side...or amused that I could explain the history of that "issue" though a young man, and that the other was so stupid to prefer a "non-word" they had never encountered. I actually found myself in disbelief that either could have suffered such limited exposure.
Your parent actually is that counter example, you failed to comprehend it.
How so? Hubris meant an especial sort of ignorance for imagining one is godlike, like the gods, may ignore the gods...it's use as mere insolence, overconfidence, or neglect of the dangers one may encounter, is to empty the word of any special meaning and make it superfluous--but people then proceed to use it because it SOUNDS educated and special.
If by "plenty of areas to improve" they simply meant the documentation for business use, however, then it just means they need the documentation improved.
Okay, I hope I've misunderstood you. I work in genomics research, and your post seems, on its face, misinformed at best. Are you seriously suggesting that the computer modeling common to physics and chemistry can be applied to biological systems?
Always keep in mind that physicists operate on a different plane in their own world dealing with quite different formal objects (or aspects) of "things" but they don't know it.
They essentially are making biological weapons in violation of international treaties, but they're saying it's all OK because it's for research?
No, they are seeing what happens with certain changes that occur in viruses that are not improbably to occur in the wild (e.g. any single human that picks-up two strains of flue viruses could be the incubator for a fused variety--and the odds are actually pretty good) so that we know how to respond; I was going to write more but someone else beat me to it, http://science.slashdot.org/co...
AND by doing this sort of work they can also develop novel methods of treatment or ideas on how to do so for viruses with characteristics and behavior that haven't appeared in the wild *yet*. This is the only way to do it, really. The problem now is how to beat the **** out of the level-1 maturity bipolar psychopathic egos who run biology labs like little kingdoms and flagrantly ignore safety rules (a buddy of mine is actually a primary auditor for universities' science programs who receive government funding and he is almost never not floored with how egregiously endangering these operations are to their participants, those on the unversity, and all those around not because "OMG I'M A F***ING IDIOT AND NOTHING THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS SHOULD EVER BE DONZ!!!" but because of things like "um, you do realize you're committing a felony by storing 1000 gallons of that kind of alcohol in water jugs, right?"
The hubris of thinking "it's OK, I'm a trained professional, nothing bad can happen" is mind boggling.
Ordinary mortals should never be taught the word "hubris", they always use it wrong/inappropriately.
We are becoming a country where the rich can do anything they want to everyone else.
"Rich" is the wrong word--and the distraction (intentional). Here's your correction:
We [have become] a country where [increasingly] th[ose with pull] can do anything they want to everyone else.
Centrists feel 'off', their views are more complicated, harder to grasp.
Or they don't really think that hard about them at all, just go what's known and comfortable. The linear view of politics and social issues misses that it's not an either-or with an in-between; those who actually are centrists are therefore pretty...sad creatures, especially when the "extremes" are often questioning the foundation of the views of the polar opposites...of the mainstream.
I'm sure you have plenty of experience with what is sadly the majority of Americans: "whatever as long as I can get my check to get my choice for hits in life."
Bullshit. The actual authors of this union's Constitution stated, repeatedly, frankly, any law that infringes or nullifies a right can, what? Be abrogated by the citizen with impugnity. It's only "radical" because dura lex sine jusiticia reigns once again.
I'm all for "law" that is "prudentia", i.e. for prudence or good; false laws pretending to be for public protection and other nonsense but really serve to erect unlawful monopolies, guilds, business protections, etc., are deprivations of rights under the colors of law--and those who make and enforce them deserve to be federally arrested and thrown down a hole as the Federal Code requires.
I live in Colorado, btw, notorious for this: the excuse here is that the cabs are a public utility. Strange that if I give a neighbor a lift for free it's legal but if he pays for gas it's technically and suddenly not. (Obviously they don't typically prosecute that, but selective enforcement to evade court scrutiny by ensuring the proofs the laws are not laws at all just invalidates the law in the first place.) That what millions do here daily, with insurance--including coverage of other occupants--is suddenly a public utility if any money or value, whatsoever, changes hands.
Go learn to think before citing dura lex without context. Even the Romans didn't put-up (long) with that bullshit. We just happen to be drunk under the stupor of "order" by force rather than...actual order. And it's damn time the boomers start getting off'd by their dementia to start eliminating their pseudo-sophisticate influences in that regard.
Moreover, you do realize the public figures who like to say "the laws the law" OPENLY MOCK THE IDEA THAT THERE IS ANY 'LAW' BESIDES FORCE--that is, in the law schools, don't you?
I DO get to choose the laws that I have to follow: if a "law" says to murder you--not going to do it; help you do it to or aid someone else in that, not going to do it; take your rights? not going to do it; assist any government actor in it? not going to do it.
Grow a pair.