My main gripe is this comment in the last point: “Du Mez closes her narrative with no proposed solutions, no path forward, and no appeal to the gospel.” This is an argument I have seen advanced against other Christians who have said something critical of evangelicalism (e.g. I agree with the author that: “To say that this book is important, that it should be widely read, that it should be taken seriously, is obvious.” It is a lot more thoughtful and considerate than others I have seen. As we increase in our knowledge of history, the temptation is to exercise power over those who are gone, render judgment on them, and emerge from the exercise justified, righteous, and pure. The dead are at our mercy–they cannot come back and offer their explanations, their justifications, their apologies, or their acts of restitution. The dead are a source of contemplation for us in the present they offer us perspective, humility, and aid us in our own self-examination as we study their lives. And we love the dead for their own sakes, rather than for some utilitarian purpose we might have for them. Loving the dead means we tell the truth about them, as far as it is possible given our limitations and the complexities of the past. This love is not sentimental, nor does this love absolve the subjects of their sins. Schweiger argues that the Christian historian has a duty to love the historical subjects she studies, who are now dead. It is an essay on writing history by Beth Barton Schweiger, entitled “Seeing Things: Knowledge and Love in History,” published in Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and The Historian’s Vocation. I make my criticism through the lens of one of the most powerful essays I have ever read. More than anything, this passage from the review grabbed hold of my imagination, and had me wondering of a better way: Wilsey lays his cards on the table, "I admit, at times I wanted to find ways to argue that she (Du Mez) was objectively wrong." And still, as a victim of abuse himself, Wilsey also writes, "any honest appraisal of a book like this must reckon with the ugly details of the narrative. What a honest soul searching review! Now, I am a poor reader of books, and easily persuaded, so take my appreciation for the review with that in mind. Well this review really nailed it in my opinion. The review caught my eye as the book has been mentioned numerous times on the sub, and I've had a kind of uneasy feeling about the book.
0 Comments
Process Color: Process-color images are comprised of cyan, magenta, yellow and black (CMYK). These separations are done in vector-based graphic programs such as CorelDRAW and Adobe Illustrator. Spot-color separations and prints generally are used for logos, school designs, clip art, hard-edged graphics, cartoons or other images that have a dark outline. Spot-color images generally have specific solid colors, but also can have small halftone dots for shading. Spot Color: This is the bread and butter of the industry. If the image has gradations, shading or photorealistic elements, those parts of the color separation need to be converted to halftone dots that can be burned onto a screenįollowing are details on types of separations common in the decorated apparel industry. library(raster)į <- system.file("external/d", package="raster") Deal with the names after that, if necessary. In your loop you should probably use double brackets ]īut you would use either stack (if the rasters can be stacked - they need to have the same extent and resolution), or else lapply. I don't get those error messages, if you can help me, or you had the same or a similar problem, i'm taking any hint ! rasterObjectFromFile(x, band = band, objecttype = "RasterLayer", :Ĭannot create a RasterLayer object from this file. Number of items to replace is not a multiple of replacement lengthĢ: In vec_of_raster <- (month <- raster(files_vec)) :Ĥ: In vec_of_raster <- (month <- raster(files_vec)) :Ħ: In vec_of_raster <- (month <- raster(files_vec)) :Ĩ: In vec_of_raster <- (month <- raster(files_vec)) :ġ0: In vec_of_raster <- (month <- raster(files_vec)) :Įrror in. Here are the errors (and warnings) that i get : Error in. I'm afraid i want to use two objects (raster and vector) that are either to close to work that way, or can't be associate. Raster_vec(vec_of_raster,files_vec,month,"1995") Vec_of_raster<-(month<-raster(files_vec)) Raster_vec<-function(vec_of_raster,files_vec,month,year_str) Vec_of_raster<-c("raster",length(files_vec)) Setwd(dir = "E:/perso/NEON-DS-Field-Site-Spatial-Data/SJER")įiles_vec=list.files(path = "E:/perso/NEON-DS-Field-Site-Spatial-Data/SJER",full.names=FALSE, recursive=FALSE) I did that for now (here i just tried for 5. I wanted to automate the creation of my raster by month. I'm using a function, and a loop inside this function to create my raster. I did it by hand, but it's really long and i am trying to optimize a bit this code. I'm working on data (24 month, jan,jan2,etc, and for different years), and, for each month (jan,jan2,feb,feb2,etc) i want to create a raster. I am trying to create a vector of raster in R, let me explain.
Free mp3 juice download site software#The usage of our website is free and not require any software or registration. Free forever - MP3Juices promises to never charge, you can get all the music you need at mp3juices.ninja, even you don’t need to register. Free mp3 juice download site full#You can maintain full trust in the downloaded mp3 files.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |