text:
Fangirls Anonymous
I'm not really anonymous, I'm just admitting I have a problem.
Review: Captain Marvel
Angry Man Tears: The Captain Marvel Edition
To Becky, Megan, Ryan and Taylor, on the P-word
Review: 'The 100' S5 Finale: "Damocles Pt. 2"
Review 'The 100' Ep 5.12: "Damocles Pt. 1"
Review: Captain Marv… on Review: 'The 100' S5 Finale: "…
Review: Captain Marv… on Angry Man Tears: The Captain M…
Angry Man Tears: The… on Review: 'The 100'…
Angry Man Tears: The… on Review: 'The 100' S5 Finale: "…
Review: 'The 100' S5… on Review: 'The 100'…
maryploppins	in TV Shows, Uncategorized	 July 4, 2016 June 25, 2018 5,835 Words
Review: 'The 100' Season 3
Welp, I'm coming at this season 3 review far later than I meant to, but I don't think it matters, really. We've got at least 6 1/2 months till the show comes back, so there's plenty of empty space to fill with The 100-related stuff in the meantime. I've been busy but there was so much going on with season 3 that I can't let it go by without writing a proper analysis of it. There's a LOT to unpack in terms of high and low points … particularly because it felt like the reaction to season 3 got a fuckin' hell of a lot more attention than season 3 itself.
It's like, in all the hoopla of fans flipping out all over social media and critical reaction to the Lexa stuff, the show itself got completely lost in the insanity. The show became Jon Snow in the middle of "Battle of the Bastards", when he started to get completely trampled and buried by all the soldiers around him flailing around. Only it feels like The 100 wasn't as lucky as Jon Snow – The 100 was never able to properly climb its way out of the surrounding mess.
Because of all the hoopla around what went wrong, there's been about a bazillion thinkpieces written, nearly all of which focus on the Lexa debacle. This review is NOT that. I am getting thinky and analytical of course, but this will be a top-to-bottom analysis of the entire season from someone who was and still is an ardent fan of the show. What did season 3 get right? Where did it shoot itself in the foot? Let's do a post-mortem.
I'm gonna start with the problematic stuff first, because there really was a lot of good stuff about this season despite its flaws. And much of the course correction happened in the second half of the season, so it feels fitting to save the good stuff for last. Here we go ….
Season 3: The Not-Awesome Stuff
Bellamy and Pike
The Lexa debacle may have been the thing that got the most attention, but by far the weakest element of season 3 was Bellamy and Pike. I say this because this was a writing/directional fuck-up that not only lasted for a huge stretch of the season, but it permanently marred one of the show's main protagonists and most beloved characters. And honestly I don't think there's anything a TV writer can do that's worse than permanently fucking up a favorite character. Why? Because the characters are the reason you love the damn show in the first place. And if you stop loving the characters, then there's no longer any point in watching the show.
Have I stopped loving Bellamy? No, but that is only because when shitty/lazy/nonsensical writing messes up a character, sometimes you have no choice but to try to pretend it didn't happen so that you can keep enjoying the show (and even that only worked because thank god they let Bell start to pull his head out of his ass mid-season, otherwise just as he is for Octavia, he would be dead to me at this point). And as I've explained many times in my episode reviews of this season, the problem was NOT the fact that they made Bellamy do bad things – it was the fact that they did not give a compelling story/reason as to why he was doing the bad things. They cut corners on the story big time and it meant that the audience just looked at him as a complete idiot/asshole rather than empathizing with why he was making poor decisions that were seemingly completely out of character.
For my full rant on this, which also includes the problems with Pike as a character, see my review of ep 3.04, "Watch the Thrones".
The Lexa Catastrophe
Here's why I didn't name the Lexa sitch as the #1 problem of season 3 despite the fact that it got about 8,000x more attention than anything else the show did: 95% of Lexa's story this season was legitimately awesome and well-written. One thing that threw a lot of people off (including myself) about the end result of this sitch is that the writers did take such great care for Lexa's character in the first half of the season. She burst onto the scene in dramatic fashion at the end of ep 2, she was given all of ep 3 to work to prove to Clarke that she had changed, and she was unequivocally the star of ep 4 – battling through to demonstrate her ultimate badass warrior skills. In ep 5 she grew to become nothing less than a revolutionary leader for her people, and in ep 6 she helped Clarke to avoid falling into the "blood must have blood" life. In ep 7 she selflessly let Clarke go, and was revealed to be a super cool part-A.I., essentially A.L.I.E. 2.0 (the new and waayy improved version). While the writers were completely screwing the pooch with much of the Arkadia storyline, the Lexa storyline was the one thing they were actually doing right during the first half of the season.
And yet, even with all this amazing Lexa character-building, in the end The 100 S3 somehow still ended up with half its fandom in complete heartbreak, anger, and straight-up revolt. What the fuck happened?? How the hell did this all go so wrong, so quickly, when the Lexa/Clexa fandom had spent the entire season up to this point basically in a state of euphoria?
Well … there are a couple root causes here. First off, the PTB saved their fuck-up on the Lexa storyline right for the very end, and the end is what people remember. This show kills characters all the time, so of course Lexa was never any "safer" than anyone else in that regard. If anything she was less safe because Alycia was never a series regular. And then when Alycia got a starring role in Fear the Walking Dead, it became all but certain that Lexa would either die or disappear for significant stretches of time. So it's not as if Lexa dying or going far away was surprising in itself to any of the fans. Rather, the problem was this: They killed Lexa right after she consummated her relationship with Clarke. And thus, the story fell right into the harmful trope of the lesbian characters who never get to be happy. And if you do give them any happiness, you then have to immediately punish them by murdering one of them. Not cool.
And then, on top of it, just to twist the knife in the Lexa fans' backs a little more, they killed Lexa in a really dumb way. She got killed by a stray bullet meant for Clarke, but not because she was diving in front of Clarke to heroically save her or anything. Rather, it was by complete accident. It was pure shit luck that she walked into the room when the bullet just so happened to be flying towards the door. Oopsie!! Now, full disclosure: If I'm being honest, I actually really enjoyed both this scene and the entire episode … BUT I watched it as a clueless non-LGBTQ person. Admittedly I still love the ep, but I now totally get why fans felt that Lexa's manner of death was so lame … so "beneath" her in a sense. I can certainly get behind the notion that Lexa deserved a more heroic death. I'm also now educated on the harmful trope it perpetuated …
… Which brings me to the second reason the fans were/are so angry about Lexa – That dreaded "bury your gays" trope and expectations vs. reality. The 100 seemed like it might be the first TV show that could transcend this harmful trope. It gave the fans such an amazing character with Lexa; this character/story was a step up and a step forward from so many shows that had come before it … that when it fell back to this same old shitty trope, it was that much more of a shock and disappointment to the fans. And this is on top of the fact that Jason (the showrunner) set everyone's expectations yet another thousand miles higher by ridiculously teasing Lexa's presence in the season finale.
What the f*&% was Jason was thinking? My take is, to be quite frank, that he was suffering from pure typical straight white dude cluelessness. I think the plight of the LGBTQ community was nowhere on his radar in this decision because he generally doesn't live a life that requires it to be on his radar. And that sucks. Now, for what it's worth, it seems that Jason has paid dearly for his transgression in the aftermath. Things have gone so sideways for him that he seems to have quit social media and quit speaking to reporters altogether at this point. That's pretty extreme. So I think we can safely say that this has been such a lesson for him that the plight of his LGBTQ fans will never, ever fall off his radar again as long as he lives. He and most TV writers pride themselves on never letting fans influence the direction of their shows, but this may be one case where it could happen. At the very least, I'm pretty sure he'll now take more care with LGBTQ storylines from this point forward.
Clarke's Lameness in the First Half of the Season
As much of an ensemble show as The 100 is, it has always had a lead the same way the DelinquentKru has always had a leader. Called "Princess" sarcastically & condescendingly by her peers in season 1, Clarke had become Wanheda a.k.a. the Commander of Death by the start of season 3. With the two opening episodes of the season being named as such. And let's be honest, Clarke is the character I live vicariously through when watching this show. She's the one I relate to most in terms of the way she thinks. She is my protagonist. So when her storyline is boring, I get bored. It's like, no one wants to watch a Jason Bourne movie where Jason Bourne is just kinda standing around watching other people do cool stuff.
And as expected, Miss Wanheda was up to some badass shit in premiere – killing jaguars, rocking a new red 'do, getting laid, having nightma- … ok well that last part sucked for her but it was good to see that she was having guilt over Mount Weather. But anyway, it then came as a real surprise to me when Clarke spent the next 7 episodes just kind of getting dragged around by other people (sometimes literally), and almost becoming a bit player in her own story. I'm kind of exaggerating there, yes. This is an ensemble show, first off, so of course some characters' stories will come to the forefront in some eps while others take a backseat and vice versa. That's how these things work and it's perfectly legit. So that wasn't the issue. The issue, and the reason this became problematic for me is, well, two reasons:
1) Clarke's boringness lasted for sooo long with seemingly no end in sight and 2) It required Clarke to act like kind of a wet rag for too much of that time. And that didn't feel right for her character considering that she's supposed to be a leader. There were literally SO MANY episodes where all this girl did was hang around Polis confined to like 2 or 3 fucking candlelit rooms, making sure her boo was o.k. and telling the Skaikru, "Oh no that's o.k. you guys go without me, I gotta stay here in Polis with these candles and silky pajamas." Even that cool opening scene from the season 3 trailer where she slow-mo strutted into the room dressed/painted up like a Grounder ended up being nothing more than a glorified fashion show! All she did was walk through in slow motion and bow down to Lexa to form the coalition, and then tell Skaikru to fuck off and go do the cool shit without her. "I can't, I have to wash my hair tonight." YAWN.
(Again, I'm kind of exaggerating on the "wet rag" thing because I know a lot of this time was spent making strategic alliances and decisions for her people. The problem is that most of these decisions involved Clarke playing it safe … choosing the "I'll just stay here and hold down the fort" route, which is just never going to be interesting.)
And you know how I know I wasn't crazy for feeling this way? Because my cousin Katie's husband – the absolute epitome of the casual watcher of this show – turned to Katie in frustration at about ep 3.09 and said to her, "Clarke has literally done nothing this entire season but shuffle around a few rooms furrowing her brow. When is she going to do something??" THANK you Joey!! And thank god, the very next episode is when she finally started doing something. It literally took till episode 10 before she left Polis and did something! Well, she did briefly leave and do something in ep 5 and that was one of the key reasons why I loved that episode.
So Lame Clarke, to me, was nearly the most frustrating part of the first half of season 3. Second only to Bizarro Bellamy. I put Lexa's death right up top as well because that was the #1 issue for a very large portion of the fandom, for very legitimate reasons, so I wanted to properly call that out. A fuck-up is a fuck-up even if it's not one that pinged quite as high on my personal fuck-up radar. The good news about Lame Clarke though, is that like The Psycho Bellamy Problem, The Lame Clarke Problem was done away with in the second half of the season. And it's one of the reasons why I found myself enjoying the second half much more than the first half of season 3.
The Lincoln Shitshow
See, here's the thing – Even with how badly the PTB screwed the pooch with the Lexa Catastrophe, in a sense it feels as if they screwed it even worse with the Lincoln story & death this season, despite it getting far less attention. I know it may sound crazy, but hear me out – I do NOT mean this in terms of the ultimate impact on the show & fandom, but rather – I feel that the PTB deserve even harsher blame on the Lincoln side. And here's why:
On the Lexa side, the writers planned out the Lexa storyline meticulously, they did a great job with it before fucking it up at the end, and at least the reason they killed Lexa was due to legit outside constraints: The actress booked the lead on another show. There's really only so much you can do with that.
Now compare that to what happened with Lincoln: The actor and the showrunner decided at some point that they could not deal with each other, and apparently spent a pretty good stretch of this series getting in pissing contests with each other, and it resulted in a complete shitshow on screen. Now THAT is just ridiculously unprofesh and there's no excuse for it. This is not something I normally would feel comfortable commenting so harshly on, but the fact that Ricky Whittle and literally his mom went around screaming this story to anyone who would listen kinda makes this fair game. Sorry guys. And because I only have one side of the story here, and that side was told pretty incoherently to boot, I have no choice but to blame both parties. Is "male ego" written all over this? O.k. now I'm just getting catty. Oh who am I kidding, I was catty from the very first word of this paragraph. Hiss. (And yes I do suspect that male ego is written all over this, probably on both sides to some extent.)
Look, you should take what I say with a ginormous grain of salt because obviously I don't know shit other than what Ricky said on Twitter and in that interview. You know the one. But either way the bottom line is that the Lincoln storyline was a complete mess this season directly as a result of the showrunner and the actor not being able to work together professionally. And that's on them. The odd thing is that in the aforementioned interview, Ricky implied that these issues existed in season 2 as well. So why Lincoln's storyline was good in season 2 and diarrhea in season 3 is beyond me, but maybe it just all came to a head and they realized the relationship was not going to work out by the start of S3. Remember when South Park did that Scientology episode and Isaac Hayes got pissed about it and publicly beefed with Matt & Trey? And then Matt & Trey got back at him by turning Chef into a child molester and then killing him off via a long, preposterously drawn out scene involving both a cougar and a bear-mauling? That's essentially what happened to Lincoln in season 3, except in a far less-funny fashion. Lame.
Season 3: The Awesome Stuff
Man this is going to be a long review, because I've got a lot to say about the awesome aspects of season 3 too. There really was a lot to love about this season despite the significant stumbles along the way. Let's talk about 'em.
A.L.I.E. and Technology as Religion
"Look, I know this world can suck … but at least it's real. We can get through this together." – Monty
I think I already talked about this in my ep 3.07 review, but I need to call it out here as well because it was one of the things I liked most about season 3. Despite the issues I listed above, the overarching theme of the season was great. It's completely natural for any newly forming (or in this case, re-forming in a completely new setting) society to begin to adopt some form of religion. And it makes even more sense in the situation the Skaikru is in – rough and constantly having to fear for/fight for their lives. When Jaha comes in with a promise to take away their pain and offer them peace and salvation in the City of Light, who the hell in this situation wouldn't be tempted to take him up on that offer?
And given this show's futuristic sci-fi setting, it also makes sense that religion would come in the form of technology. It was cool to see the way Polis tied back to Becca and the Polaris space station, and that Becca herself was the mythical figurehead of the Grounders and their first Commander – Bekka Pramheda. And when I found out that Lexa's "spirit" that she always talked about in season 2, the one that would be passed to the next commander … when I found out that this "spirit" was actually an A.I., unbeknownst even to her … I was blown away at how seamlessly it all tied together. It's just pretty fucking brilliant and it's not something I was expecting until shortly before it happened in ep 3.07.
And in the end, what our beloved 100 characters found out was that there really isn't anything in existence that can solve all the world's problems. No religion, no cult, no A.I. (particularly not version 1.0 of said A.I.!), no virtual City of Light created/programmed by humans for the very purpose of preserving humanity. In the end, it was an interesting and rather terrifying experiment that Clarke had to hit the kill switch on to save humanity from itself. Time to get back to reality, kids. And to try to figure out how to save the planet from nuclear destruction.
Octavia & Indra
As much as I hated what the writers did to Bellamy in eps 4 through 8, it did seem to come with a slight upside, which is that it helped propel Octavia's transition into a much a much more mature person and more effective team player. Bellamy's bad behavior was only one of many things that drove Octavia to be better this season, but it was the one that probably shined the brightest light on her progress. Because as one Blake sibling went down a path of utter stupidity and assholery, falling under Pike's Trump-like spell of anger and hatred, the other sibling chose the path of goodness, and, well, constructive behavior.
While Octavia certainly had some annoying FBB (Floorboard Baby) spells this season, she managed to overcome them pretty well … and episode 11 seemed to be a turning point for her. The murder of Lincoln set her back on the FBB path, understandably, and it started to get annoying again by ep 11. But when Monty literally killed his (psycho) mother to save Octavia, she seemed to finally realize that the DelinquentKru really did give a shit about her. Apparently it takes a LOT to prove yourself to Octavia. From that point forward, she seemed to be finally committed to being part of the Kru.
And while Bellamy's idiocy shined a light on Octavia's goodness this season, the character who has by far put in the most work towards making something of the girl is Indra. This show seriously must NEVER lose Indra. If they ever kill her I will seriously kill them. She is like The 100's Brienne of Tarth, but more cranky. Nothing broke my heart more last season than Indra dumping Octavia, and nothing made me more happy than them becoming a team again in season 3. When Clarke was acting like a limp noodle for the first 9 episodes, Indra and Octavia became the stars of the show for me. The only regrettable thing is that they didn't get more screentime together. We need much more in season 4. Best scene for me by far was ep 3.07, where for the first time, Octavia got a chance to repay Indra by slapping some sense into her for once. The scene got me really verklempt and then super pumped up. Octavia and Indra are each great characters on their own, but together they are magic.
Now, with all this said, I'm not entirely sure what the meaning is behind the very last scene of season 3 being Octavia murdering Pike for pure vengeance and then storming out of the throne room while everyone was recovering from their City of Light spells. Was it simply meant for closure on her (and our) hatred of Pike, or is it indicative of the next direction her character is going in? And if it's the latter, what direction is that, even? Just more ruthless, in the vein of Arya Stark? Or are we gonna go back to "fuck everyone I hate all of you and I don't belong in your stupid club" again? I really, really hope it's the Arya thing and not the other one. Because if so then we're right back to FBB mode. Cross your fingers.
Dude. I really loved Raven's arc this season. As the show's resident punching bag-slash-pin-cushion, it made complete sense for her to be A.L.I.E.'s first City of Light convert. And it allowed a couple things: 1) For the poor girl to live a happy pain-free life for a few episodes and 2) It gave us the beginnings of the creepiness of the City of Light cult. It's not that we didn't already know how creepy they were before this, but Jaha has always been nutty, so for me it didn't really hit home until Raven converted and chipped herself. When we realized that she had forgotten Finn, that's when shit really got real.
And yes, it eventually sent her down a torture-porny path again with the wrist-slitting and the shoulder dislocating while tied to the bed. Hmm at least she got to bite a chunk out of Clarke in the meantime. Literally. But those episodes were so fantastically creepy though. Especially 3.11, where Raven got to brutally psychoanalyze every member of the DelinquentKru to their face and leave every one of them in a puddle of confusion and insecurity, and rage in several cases. And she came out of it a new and improved human, with the knowledge from the ALIE chip still embedded in her brain.
I was worried about Raven at the beginning of the season, because I was afraid that her physical problems would wind up sidelining her character all season. But it ended up being quite the opposite – she played one of the most pivotal roles of the season in saving humanity, by hacking into the Citadel and giving Clarke access to the kill switch. She was AS much the hero of the season as Clarke was by going into the City of Light. And the imagery of the raven appearing on the door to the kill switch gave me lots of feels after all these two have been through on this series. I really, really need them to work as a duo more in season 4. Please.
Miller & Bryan
One of the major bummers of the fact that The 100 got publicly ripped to shreds for the Lexa death this season is the fact that the show had taken such care to introduce more LGBTQ characters than just Lexa/Clarke. Maybe the writers fucked up the Lexa thing at the end, but Miller & Bryan was another sign that they were trying harder in this area than most shows out there ever do. I have more to say on that topic but I'll save it for the end. For more thoughts on Miller & Bryan you can check my review of ep 3.08.
Kabby, Harpy (Monty + Harper), and Murphy, Oh My!
This review is FAR too long, which means I need to touch on these quickly, but I'll link to other reviews where I elaborated more on some of them:
Season 3 was the season of Kabby! What the hell more do you want from this show, you greedy motherfuckers??
Monty + Harper YAY!!
Murphy how did you become such a sweetie pie!?
DelinquentKru Back Together to Save Humanity
These 4 Plus Raven, Monty, Harper, Miller, Bryan, and Murphy!
One thing I didn't call out in the "Not-Awesome" section of this review (though I did mention it in a couple episode reviews this season) is the fact that there was a a bit of a feeling in the first half of the season that The 100 had bitten off slightly more than it could chew in terms of story, characters, and world-expanding. With Polis and the Ice Nation both entering the story at once, there were suddenly a LOT of new characters and settings we were juggling, and we weren't entirely sure how many of them we should care about. It was actually a significant factor in the why it felt like the show was starting to lose sight of Clarke.
But I later realized that it wasn't just Clarke that was the problem – Our OG players, the DelinquentKru, the ones who made us fall in love with this show in the first place, were all scattered about and not exactly working as a team. Hell, they were even working directly against each other in several cases. Bellamy, Monroe (and even Miller and Harper for a bit? Am I making that up?) had all fallen under the stupid spell of Pike, Jasper was just whining and drunk and angry at everyone, Monty was doing whatever it took to gain Mommy's approval, Clarke was lounging around Polis looking after her sweety-pie, Raven was in such pain she could barely do very much, and Octavia was trying to figure out how to take down Pike. The show separated our Delinquents a lot in season 2, but at least they were all still on the same team that season. Not so in season 3, and it was a real drag.
It wasn't until ep 10 that our Delinquents finally realized that they needed to get their asses back to each other and work as a team again if they wanted to actually save humanity from its own idiocy (i.e. Jaha & ALIE). And when they did, I went into my happy place. I fell in love with this show in season 1, and season 3 brought that dynamic back that, to me, makes the show what it is. For more on this you can read my ep 3.13 review.
Clarke Becomes Clarke Again
I'll keep this section short because it really goes hand in hand with the DelinquentKru being back together, but ep 10 was where Clarke finally got her ass out of Polis (well technically she left Polis at the end of 9 but she didn't show back up again until the end of ep 10) and got back to bidness. Calling this section "Clarke Becomes Clarke Again" is probably a slight exaggeration, but at the very least it's "Clarke Starts to Finally Do Stuff Again".
And what I loved loved loved about the finale is that after sidelining her for such a long stretch early in the season, the finale all came down to Clarke taking the lead to risk her life and brain matter to go into the City of Light by her lonesome, using ALIE 2.0, to save the day. It took the entire team of people to get her through it of course, as it should, but it was back to Clarke doing what she does best – taking charge to get shit done. And it was no waltz either, the struggle was real in the finale and with the help of all her peeps (Abby, Murphy and Raven being the MVPs), she got 'er done. Clarke, we're glad to have you back.
My Season 3 Final Thoughts
The 100 Pays for the Sins of All Shows Before It
Let's talk about tropes for a sec. Remember when The 100 killed Wells off in the 3rd episode of the series?? It was a nicely shocking touch, but did it have to be him? They only gave the poor kid 3 fucking eps, and I thought he was going to be a main character!! And the "kill the black guy first" trope is one of the OLDEST and most well-known in the book. It's so old that it's at least a decade past its prime even in horror movie parodies at this point. He would have added an interesting dynamic to the show but they had to go and kill him 3 eps in. I was so shocked they'd do this that when it happened, I spent a little while honestly being certain it was a dream sequence, or that there was somehow more to it than what I had just seen. But there wasn't. That was it. They just straight-up murdered the black guy right away.
O.k. I got myself more worked up about that than I meant to. But my point with this is, this show is not above using shitty tropes, and it never has been. And yet even with these issues, it's still 10 times better than most other shows out there in its diversity of cast, its usage of LGBTQ characters in awesome roles, its inclusiveness of a major character struggling with a disability without any sort of magic fix (even the infinity chip didn't work out so well, did it!), and its overtly feminist slant. Like yes, it fucks shit up, but at least it tries?
Think of The 100 like an eager jumpy puppy that wants to do awesome things, but doesn't always know the right way to go about them. Lexa is hands-down one of the best and most complex characters I've ever seen on television, but because the show developed this amazing character and storyline and then eventually shit the bed with how they finished her arc, it has been crucified for kind of the entire shebang. It's also been crucified not just for its own mistake, but for the mistake of literally every TV show and every movie that has ever come before it. Why? Because it got further than nearly all of those shows and movies did, so it was supposed to be The One That Did it Right. The expectation for those other shows & movies was very low. The 100 helped raise the bar much higher, and then it didn't quite meet its own challenge.
But the thing is: Humans make mistakes. Humans have to learn from those mistakes. And because humans create TV shows, no TV show is going to be perfect. Every TV show fucks up here and there. The 100 at least tried where many other shows don't even bother. And the upside to that is that lessons have been learned from this. Future TV shows will learn from what The 100 did so well and where it messed up. And that is a good thing. And while The 100 is still on the air, I do hope that the couple thousand people who still go to IMDB immediately after every single episode (that's 10 eps so far from 3.07 onwards) giving every single ep 1 star to drag down the IMDB ratings will eventually let go of their anger and their thirst for vengeance and move on. Punishing a couple hundred innocent cast & crew members for the sin of one person (the showrunner) is not constructive or helpful to anyone. Everyone, including Jason, knows where they went wrong this season, and unless someone has a time machine, we are where we are now and the only thing we can do now is move forward and learn from it.
And now, here we are. I've seen this happen many times before: A TV show will do great stuff, gain positive attention, get too big for its britches, have some big stumbles, cause an uproar with a large portion of its fandom, and quietly start being awesome again while no one notices because they all gave up on it after the thing it did wrong earlier. And The 100 did this in a HUGE way this season – getting a hell of a lot more press for the one particular stumble than anything else it ever did. 98% of the press the show got from 3.07 onwards was about that one thing and nothing else, and there's a really good chance that the Lexa Debacle is all most people will ever know about the series even a decade after it ends. But there is still that group of us, who've loved the show since season 1, who then fell back in love with it when it refocused on its core strengths after all the dust settled. The question now for The 100's survival will be, in season 4, whether it actually can go back to garnering wider attention for simply being an awesomely entertaining show (and that, of course, will require S4 to be awesomely entertaining to begin with). I'll be here hoping for the best.
That's all folks. May we meet again (in season 4).
Abby Griffin
Bellarke
Clexa
Commander Lexa
Jasper Jordan
Linctavia
Monty Green
The 100 review
Review: 'The 100' S3 Finale: "Perverse Instantiation Pt. 2"
Covert Affairs Flashback: The Walkerson Breakup
12 thoughts on "Review: 'The 100' Season 3"
Willa says:
The whole making two MOC the face of xenophobia and having white women as the face of peace and understanding was such a racist mess. As much as I disliked Lexa (I can not forgive her being in brownface, Bindi and having Maori tattoos, as a Bi Asian woman I just can't) they fact that she was killed of by a stray bullet just like Tara on Buffy was horrible. Why not have Lexa her be put in exile if Alycia could not appear as a regular. Overall this is a great rundown of Season 3.
maryploppins says:
Thanks!! You have a good point about Bellamy & Pike, I didn't think about that aspect of it. One thing I did notice though … is like – Hey guys, it's great to hire a black actor in a prominent role in season 3 (Pike), but did you really *have* make him The Literal Worst Fucking Person Ever and then kill him off at the end of the season?? Monty's mom too, now that I think about it. With Lincoln and Sinclair gone now, I think these guys need to hire more PoC as good guys in S4.
Pingback: Review: 'The 100' Ep 3.09: "Stealing Fire" – Fangirls Anonymous
Pingback: Review: 'The 100' Season 4 Premiere: "Echoes" – Fangirls Anonymous
Pingback: Review: 'The 100' Ep 4.02: "Heavy Lies the Crown" – Fangirls Anonymous
Pingback: Review: 'The 100' Ep 4.04: "A Lie Guarded" – Fangirls Anonymous
Pingback: Review: 'The 100' Ep 4.11: "The Other Side" – Fangirls Anonymous
Pingback: Review: 'The 100' Ep 4.12: "The Chosen" – Fangirls Anonymous
Pingback: Review: 'The 100' Season 4 – Fangirls Anonymous
Pingback: Review: 'The 100' Ep 5.02: "Red Queen" – Fangirls Anonymous
Pingback: Review: 'The 100' S5 Finale: "Damocles Pt. 2" – Fangirls Anonymous
Pingback: Angry Man Tears: The Captain Marvel Edition – Fangirls Anonymous


Guy finds out his girlfriend cheated on him, confronts her at a hair salon with a gun and holds everyone hostage.
I am a bot | Feedback | Github | If you cannot access the mirror, please submit feedback with your OS and version, your browser and version, and a screenshot if possible. | If you were unable to watch the mirrors using a reddit app, please try again. A fix has been applied.
This happened in Uruguay. He held a total of 15 people hostage. When the police arrived, he shot 3 times at them but the police never shot back. The police then negotiated with him and he eventually let everyone go. He was promptly arrested and there are no reported injuries.
yeah so did they get back together?
Flowers and a gun ❤.
Give this person their gold, damnit!
Sooo... are you gonna give em their gold or what?
Oh - you were expecting someone else to do it? I see.
Estranged seems like the song we're looking for.
His name is Gaston ffs.
"No one commits crime like Gaston.
No one does time like Gaston!"


text:
A Tale of Courage, Resilience & Hope For Justice in Wendy Bangura's "Tears, Trials, and Triumphs"
By Ajong Mbapndah L
With roles in successful movies like Entrapped, Blood Brothers, Koming from Africa, Twisted Brain, Royal Dilemma 2, Diary of a serial Killer, Njidika in America, Busted Life, Greedy Realtor, and Ekei among many others, Award winning actress Wendy Bangura has carved a niche for herself on the International and African film scene. From her native Sierra Leone to stardom in the USA, it has been an agonizing tale of heart-breaking experiences, courage, and resilience for the sultry actress chronicled in her book titled "Tears, Trials, and Triumphs."
According to Wendy Bangura, the book is a true-life story of the unexpected tragedy that struck her family during the calamitous civil war of the 90s in Sierra Leone. In the book, Wendy Bangura shares the tears, and tribulations she went through and how prayers, great determination, hope and big dreams ultimately led her to triumph in the face of all odds.
Wendy's triumph is a reminder to always have faith, believe in divine providence, have hope, work hard and even the worse adversity would be overcome
While she talks a lot about the divine provision of God, Wendy Bangura dedicates her triumph to the memory of her late father Captain Hancil Bangura, a man she considers as her hero. The man described in the book as noble, hardworking, generous, patriotic, and a most loving husband to his wife and kids was summarily executed on 29 December 1992. Captain Bangura, Quartermaster of the Sierra Leone Army was executed alongside 29 other individuals without a trial or any due process.
Accustomed to living a stress-free life with all the pecks from her doting father, Wendy's world came crashing. She gives graphic details of family activities on the day of the incident up to the point where a group of soldiers came and took her father to the military headquarters for a meeting. A meeting he never came back from.
Initial efforts by the family to get answers yielded no fruits, no one had answers for anything. To make matters worse, her family was not only placed under house arrest, but everything was also carted away by the power drunk soldiers. Vehicles were seized, property confiscated, and bank accounts frozen.
Wendy Bangura dedicates her triumph to the memory of her late father Captain Hancil Bangura, a man she considers as her hero
For the young girl that Wendy Bangura was, the experience was traumatizing. A good Samaritan working in the military learnt of additional plans by the military government to further hurt the family and facilitated their escape.
Later in the book, Bangura says several sources eventually fingered a certain Sergeant Musa of the NPRC regime as the brain behind the killing of her father and other Northerners in the army as a way of trying to restore Southern (Mende) rule. The book details the reign of terror of the NPRC and its eventual collapse.
From 1992 when tragedy struck to 1997 when the family had the opportunity to move to the USA thanks to the Diversity Visa Lottery program, Wendy Bangura sheds light on the challenges faced by her family to survive. While Bangura again gives top credit to divine providence for the survival of her family under the miserable conditions which stood in stack contrast to the princely life they had when her father was alive, a number of benefactors are equally acknowledged for been there for them.
While Wendy and her family may have braved the ordeal, their hope for some form of justice remains largely unfulfilled. In January 2013, a delegation of families of victims of the December 1992 massacre led by Julius Bombay Kamara Jr son of the Former Inspector General of Police James Bombay Kamara tabled their case before then President Ernest Bai Koroma.
Under the canopy of the 29 Memorial Foundation for Justice and Development. The group indicated that the families had suffered for so long and it was time to serve justice by atleast seeking to get the truth of what actually happened. From the book, we learn that President Koroma attributed inaction to the politicization of the issue. He assured the families that he understood their emotions and sorrow and pledged to do all in his second term to address the issues ……
Despite the palpable pain and sorrow manifested by Wendy Bangura in the book, one can see in her the proud and patriotic flare she probably inherited from Captain Hancil Bangura. For those who know nothing about Sierra Leone, the book gives 101 lessons on the rich history and culture of that West African country. From the people to its own tales of slavery, colonial legacy, and checkered political history, Bangura gives the reader a good feel of the history of her country.
Intended or not, Wendy Bangura equally gives the reader a reason to be curious about visiting Sierra Leone. From its healthy cuisine, the unparalleled beauty of its women, spectacular beaches, great view of the Atlantic Ocean, Bangura's description of Sierra Leone is one of a country that lovers of tourism must add to their list. The depiction of Sierra Leonians as Killers in the movie Blood Diamond is wrong says Bangura.
"It is hard to see my people scorned by the world when the majority of us are peaceful, fun-loving, and God-fearing people,' she writes.
The multi talented Wendy Bangura does is not only a famed actress but a talented producer as well.
Wendy Bangura who has equally produced successful movies like The Unforgettable Words ends the 142-page book with pictures of her family and some of her works. The book is easy to read. Been the fiercely ambitious and goal getter that Wendy Bangura is, one would not be surprised if someday the book is adapted to film.
As Sierra Leone continues its march forward from the chaotic past with despicable acts from the civil war, Bangura's book is a reminder that nothing should ever be taken for granted. It is a call for introspection on values that should guide a modern society, a society where tribalism has no place, a society which recognizes and encourages hard work, one where people are not sentenced and killed without trial and one where justice delayed is justice denied. Wendy's triumph is a reminder to always have faith, believe in divine providence, have hope, work hard and even the worse adversity would be overcome.
"Tears, Trials, and Triumphs," is available on Amazon , and other online book distribution networks.For information on how to get autographed copies from the author, contact bwendy2012@gmail.com

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


In our family of three girls, two of us are currently enjoying the challenges and joys of parenting daily, and the third sister is currently earning her Bachelor's degree in Human Resources Management. As much as a relief as it is when you've finished a rough semester of tight time lines and rough exams, the lifestyle of a student is a wonderful experience. Manage your own schedule, plan your own time, and of course, you have the flexibly to socialize whenever you want!
Sounds like maternity leave... except, if you're a stay at home mom, or have light part time duties, guilt and exhaustion usually prevent you from doing much for yourself. You might experience some of that freedom, without the constant presence of friends, or the stimulation that classes and readings offer. That very first stage of motherhood can be as boring as it is tiring, and long nap times are more likely filled with housework or Netflix.
Why not combine some of that independence with some low commitment learning? It will give your brain some exercise, and might just offer an interesting topic to talk about over dinner or baby groups. We are going to look at two different approaches to banishing the baby brain without emptying your pocket book in the process. Today's options are FREE!
Websites (ie. Lumosity) and MOOCs – If you happened to be sitting in front of a computer and you're looking for a little more brain training; why not consider a training program. It can be as easy as a few minutes of game-based play on a site that tests for memory and logic, or as involving as a Massive Open Online Course. Never heard of a MOOC? You're not alone. Luckily we have a clever resident librarian to tip us off! Google describes MOOCs as "
"anyone who decides to take a MOOC simply logs on to the website and signs up"
A quick search of the available material and I found courses in economics, Spanish, nursing, and a lot more. Delve in to some material that has interested you for a while without the tuition fee to go with it!
Library and Community Center Classes - If part of the reason you're feeling slow and unchallenged is spending too much time in the house, why not see what resources are in the public spaces near you. There are things you can do with or without your little one in tow. Just having conversation with new people can lighten your mood and help you find an interesting hobby. Join a book club, learn to knit, learn to dance, or improve your computer skills. Since you're out anyways, pick up a book to bring home with you. It might (and by might, I mean definitely will) take you a little longer to read with a kid or two around the house, but giving yourself 15 minutes to read, even light subject matter will utilize a different aspect of your brain. Personally, I love an Agatha Christie mystery. They are well written, witty, and relatively short, so it won't take up too much room in your diaper bag or purse!
How do you shake off the mommy fog on a budget? Tell us about it on Facebook!


Wonderful small portrait of a young woman holding child on a dog.
In this antique painting a Welsh hat is in the foreground, and a house is off to the left in the scene.
The back has the framer's label of "E. W. Roberts" of "Cardiff". Circa 1870.


Participants get a chance to win a cycle tour in Sicily, Italy.
Student learn what happens to our recycling once it gets picked up from the curb.
Class to present on trip to Montreal and Quebec City in Ucluelet on June 19 and Tofino on June 20.
A Ucluelet councillor wants Civic Studies to be taught in local classrooms.
School will host graduation ceremony on Saturday, June 11 at 2 p.m.
"What they showed at the end of this year was that they could compete with the best Single-A teams in the province."
Mike Rhodes' 18th season as the school's wrestling coach look like it will be a rebuilding one.


HOUSTON (CN) – A Texas online high school claims its diplomas are nationally accredited and accepted by colleges and the U.S. military, though in fact "consumers pay hundreds of dollars for a worthless piece of paper," the Texas attorney general claims in court.
Texas sued Lincoln Academy and its owners in a public interest complaint in Harris County Court.
"Defendants operate a fraudulent online high school diploma mill, headquartered in Houston, Texas, known as Lincoln Academy, which sells bogus online high school diplomas to consumers nationwide, including Texas, for fees starting at $299," the complaint states.
The school lures consumers with outright lies about its qualifications, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says in the lawsuit.
Lincoln Academy's educational program is nothing more than an online test that takes less than four hours, and is far below the level expected of a high school graduate, with questions like, "Who was the first president of the United States?" Texas says in the lawsuit.
"Simply paying the fee of $299 and taking the online test … and receiving a passing grade are all this is required for the consumer to receive a Lincoln Academy diploma, along with a falsified transcript – all in as little as one week," the complaint states.
The school claims it charges a flat fee, but it charges more for students to make the "honor roll" and for study guides that it ripped off from the Texas Education Agency in violation of copyright laws, the attorney general says.
Lincoln Academy claims it "has been 'educating students for over thirty-five years," though it actually opened in 2010, Texas adds.
The lawsuit includes complaints from students who say they were cheated by Lincoln Academy.
Texas seeks a temporary restraining order to shut the school down and freeze its assets.
The lawsuit was filed Monday. A Lincoln Academy receptionist told Courthouse News on Tuesday that she was not aware of the complaint. The school did not return a phone message and email seeking comment.
Named as defendants are Lincoln Academy, National Home School Accreditation of America, High School Diploma Online, Charles J. Lubbat, David C. Lubbat, Catherine Lubbat, Nancy Lubbat, Momentive Group LLC, Momentive Apps LLC, Nyloc Enterprises LLC, Rylex LLC dba Brownstone Academy, Charles Lubbat and Constandi Lubbat.


NEW YORK, Nov. 8, 2018 /CNW/ -- Buck, an integrated HR and benefits consulting, administration, and technology services firm, today launched its next-generation BuckConnect™ platform for employers to manage their HR function and drive ideal employee behaviors.
BuckConnect aggregates the full spectrum of a company's health, wealth, and career programs and delivers them in a highly intuitive mobile and web experience to maximize employee engagement. It creates a one-stop-shop for both the individual and the organization, while the underlying administration services remain vendor agnostic.
"The HR industry is in the midst of an unprecedented shift in the employee experience," said Scot Marcotte, Chief Technology Officer of Buck. "Technology exists to recast HR service delivery from a human-centered perspective, using natural language, artificial intelligence, and robotic process automation. These complex, high-tech capabilities allow us to create an increasingly high-touch, tailored, and simplified environment for the individuals HR serves."
"With our diverse and national workforce, enabling employees to easily access all of their benefits and compensation information, and engage them in their programs, had been a challenge for us," said Terri Moore, Sr. Benefits Specialist, Daimler Trucks North America. "Buck consolidated five different vendor partners into a single experience for our employees. With 67% of our population using the site regularly – a significant number of whom access it through their smartphones – we've seen marked improvement in our employee engagement while streamlining some of our processes."
The platform incorporates Buck's proprietary modules, analytics, and industry expertise and helps employers offer a highly tailored user experience that effectively drives behavioral change, resulting in higher employee satisfaction rates, a healthier employee population, and increased productivity.
"BuckConnect will help organizations and employees keep pace with rapidly changing dynamics in healthcare, retirement, and talent," said Jack Freker, Chief Executive Officer of Buck. "Our clients and prospects have consistently expressed their strong desire for this level of employee engagement. And this has been directly reinforced by analysts, who've shared 100% of companies need this and until now, no one offers it. In response, we've worked closely with their specific requirements and created a platform that fully enables a personalized and high touch AI-enabled experience."


The wonderful label Cascine has found yet another rough diamond. The Whendays are Serge and Simon from Stockholm and their debut EP -which will be out November 15th-is pure bliss. Four tracks of "slow-burning atmospherics, sliding in a synthesized code of warm, diffuse beats and low-end bass". Amazing. Grab the opener Untru Love II for free below.


America's Electric Company is a family owned and operated family business serving the Livingston County and surrounding areas.
We are committed to delivering the best product, the best service, and the best overall experience in the bathroom remodeling industry. We stand behind our commitments – we guarantee it!
Bob's Speedometer & Automotive Service, Inc.
Commercial and residential roofing, siding, and gutter repairs and replacements. 5-star reviews on Angie's List and Google. Powered by gratitude since 2001.
P O Box 219, 400 N. Clinton St.
Plumbing and water treatment! The new leader in water treatment! - Watertech.com water systems!.
RCI Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc.
Roman's Pool Supplies & Service, Inc.
Paints, stains, and supplies for all your home needs.
We specialize in HVAC service, installation, and maintenance for residential and commercial clients.


text:
A decision theory approach to conservation fencing
"In a conservation funding climate that is characterized by insufficient resources, and where donors...are increasingly demanding that return on investment be demonstrated, conservation fencing decisions cannot continue to be based solely on ecological intuition." This is the assessment of a group of Australian collaborators seeking a practical method of identifying the best sites for erecting conservation fences. Fences may not sound like the most exciting or innovative management technique, but in fact they are often a vital component of reintroduction schemes, the success of which is often dependent on the exclusion of potential predators such as foxes (Vulpes vulpes), cats (Felix catus), feral dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), and dingoes (Canis lupus dingo); fences can also be used to limit the activity of exotic herbivores that compete with the natives for vegetative resources.
(An example of conservation fencing)
According to the Australian research group, there has been a fair amount of research on how to design useful fences, but not much work on how to choose places in which to erect them. A variety of local features can influence habitat suitability, including vegetation, management history, distance from infrastructure or boundaries, and cultural significance; expenses associated with construction and maintenance will also be important. This large number of variables can make fencing seem "a costly and uncertain action," which is why the researchers have used decision theory to develop a method of selecting--and defending, if necessary--fencing locations. They have also field-tested their recommendations in a conservation site in Western Australia in order to examine the efficacy of their plan.
The selection process involves four steps, the first of which is to state a specific conservation objective and then select a metric (a "benefit function") that can be used to measure how well a particular plan achieves this goal. For instance, the collaborators were tasked with creating an exclusion site (or sites) in the planned Lorna Glen Conservation Reserve; there, locally extinct mammal species could be reintroduced as part of the Operation Rangelands Restoration project. The failure of previous "hard introductions" indicated that many species would benefit from a "soft introduction" that would allow them to acclimate to their new habitat. Thus, the objective in Lorna Glen was to set aside as large a predator-free area as possible in which these reintroduced mammals could live and breed; size of site would therefore be an accurate indication of a plan's suitability.
(One area of the Lorna Glen Conservation Reserve, or Matuwa)
The second step is to collect data on spatial features that could impact the benefit function. These may be ecological, economic, social, or even political. In the case of Lorna Glen, for instance, the managers collected information on the vegetation in, and underlying geology of, preserve land; land management history (particularly in association with pastoral activities), and the cultural significance of certain areas to local Aboriginal residents. Collection of these data should allow researchers to identify all potential fencing locations within a larger site. Once this list is compiled, researchers can move on to the third step: identifying constraints associated with the project. Cost is likely to be a major constraint, and managers should be sure to consider not only the initial outlay but also expenses that will be required for maintenance. Each project will likely also have a number of other constraints associated with the spatial feature data collection previously. For instance, conservationists in Lorna Glen wanted to avoid land degraded by cattle stockading, utilize existing clearings (in order to minimize costs associated with fence erection), incorporate a particular type of habitat (sand dunes/plains with spinifex) and underlying geology (calcrete) preferred by the mammals they were reintroducing, and stay away from areas of Aboriginal significance.
Each of these constraints can then be used as a filter to remove potential fencing sites from the list. If a site doesn't meet any one of the requirements, it cannot be included on the final consideration list, so the order in which the filters are applied is unimportant. However, progress will be much quicker if managers start with the filters they expect to be most stringent, as this will more speedily trim the list to a more workable number of options. The results of the filtering process can be dramatic; whereas the Lorna Glen project started with an infinite number of possibilities, the list was ultimately reduced to just 32 options. The final phase of the evaluation process involves assessing the benefit function associated with each potential choice in order to see which maximizes the desired output. The Lorna Glen managers used an equation that calculated the maximum amount of undegraded land that could be set aside by fencing in one or more of the areas that had made it through all of their filters. The calculation indicated one clear solution that was head and shoulders above the rest; this fencing scheme would protect 560 ha of non-culturally significant land, incorporate appropriate habitat features, and provide maintenance staff with easy access to its boundaries, all while staying within both short- and long-term budgetary constraints.
(A boodie, Bettongia lesueur, one of the native mammals that has been successfully introduced into the new exclosure at Lorna Glen)
The main goals of the decision theory method was to provide managers with a defensible way of choosing fence location. However, one beneficial side effect is that this process improves the ability of managers to logically consider what might otherwise be an overwhelming amount of information. According to the authors, people who are confronted with a large number of choices will often ignore many of them and then use oversimplified rules for making a selection; unsurprisingly, this method of choosing something that is "good enough," rather than "optimal," often does not facilitate the best conservation or management plans. By following a pre-established list of steps, such as those outlined here, managers are more likely to select an appropriate course of action. Further, by keeping detailed notes on each step of the process, they can make their methodology transparent--providing information not only to funding bodies, but also to other managers who may face similar issues.
The authors do admit, however, that their "flexible decision-support tool" is not perfect. During installation of the Lorna Glen fencing, for instance, they ran into several problems resulting from inaccurate or missing data; clearly, some amount of ground-truthing would have been useful to ensure that all ecological and spatial information used in the analyses was up-to-date. The collaborators are quick to point out that all methods are associated with uncertainty, however, and emphasize that their optimal site remained the first choice even after the updated data had been included in their analyses. Thus, the system appears to be robust, and may become even more so as future modifications are made to account for uncertainty more explicitly.
If you enjoy reading these posts, you should visit the Anthrophysis Facebook page!
Bode, M., Brennan, K.E.C., Morris, K., Burrows, N., and Hague, N. 2012. Choosing cost-effective locations for conservation fences in the local landscape. Wildlife Research 39:192-201.
http://www.conservation-contractors.co.uk/fencing-contractors.html
http://www.exploroz.com/Places/59059/WA/Lorna_Glen.aspx
http://www.milamba.com/australia/inhabit/animals/anim25.htm
Fencing is quite important in this instance we have an animal ranch and we had to get containment fences. Before we started using Fence Crafters for our commercial fence projects, we were always plagued with companies who overpromised and underdelivered. Fence Crafters has continuously delivered quality work on time, every time for our property management firm and we recommend them to anyone.
" We support the FSC by making sure that all the timber we use in our services are clearly FSC certified. We are great supporters of this charities work and will continue to contribute by using FSC certified timber".
A primer on conservation design
Are anthropogenic pressures increasing the speed o...
Different personalities in urban and rural house s...
How effective is the endangered species act?
Triatomines and street lamps: Like moths to a flame?
An introduction to urban endocrine ecology
Combating depression with green care therapies
Human perceptions of animal cognition
Mammals and meat: Does carnivory impact weaning?
Brainstorming new methods of scientific outreach
The impact of pets on decisions about disasters


text:
A kálium-szulfát (K2SO4) egy a kálium kénsavval alkotott sója, mely fehér, vízben jól oldódó kristályos port alkot. Nem gyúlékony anyag. Elsősorban műtrágyaként alkalmazzák.

Története
Már a 14. század óta ismerik, többek közt Glauber, Boyle és Tachenius is leírta. A 17. században arcanuninak, vagy kettős sónak is nevezték, mert savas és lúgos só keverékének tekintették.

Természetes források
A kálium-szulfát számos ásványban megtalálható:

 Arkanit K2SO4
 Kainit MgSO4·KCl·H2O
 Schönit K2SO4·MgSO4·6 H2O
 Leonit K2SO4·MgSO4·4 H2O
 Langbeinit K2SO4·2 MgSO4
 Glaserit  K3Na(SO4)2
 Polihalit K2SO4·MgSO4·2 CaSO4·2 H2O
 Szingenit K2SO4·CaSO4·H2O

Néhány ásványból, például a kainitből elég könnyen kivonható, mert a többi só kevésbé vízoldékony.

Kálium-klorid hozzáadásával a kieserit-ből (MgSO4·H2O) magnézium-klorid, és vízben oldott kálium-szulfát keletkezik.

A Földön előforduló káliumsók tengerek és tavak bepárlódása révén keletkező üledékekből származnak. A Föld káliumsó-készlete mintegy 250 milliárd tonnára tehető (kálium-oxid-egyenértékben kifejezve), ebből mintegy 9,4 milliárd tonnát lehet gazdaságosan kiaknázni. Az évi káliumsó-felhasználás 25 millió tonna (K2O) körüli érték, ennek mintegy 95%-a kálium-klorid.

Előállítása
A kálium-szulfát csak kis mennyiségben fordul elő közvetlenül hasznosítható formában (arkanit) Németországban, az Amerikai Egyesült Államokban és Oroszországban, sokkal elterjedtebb kettős sóiként (pl. glaserit, kainit, langbeinit, leonit, polihalit, schönit, szingenit). A kálium-szulfát előállított és felhasznált mennyisége meghaladta az 1,5 millió tonnát kálium-oxid-egyenértékben kifejezve 1986-ban és 1987-ben. Ipari előállításának módszere attól függően változik, hogy az adott helyen melyik ásványi formája hozzáférhető. A kitermelt ásványokat kémiai eljárások és tisztítási (kristályosítási) műveletek kombinációjával alakítják át kálium-szulfáttá. A legfontosabb eljárások az alábbiak:

 Glauber kálium-klorid, és kénsav segítségével állította elő a kálium-szulfátot. A reakció során hidrogén-klorid szabadul fel, gáz formájában:

2 KCl + H2SO4 → K2SO4 + 2HCl

Ez az eljárás az alapja a Mannheim- ill. a Hargreaves-módszernek. Ezt a két eljárást azokban az országokban használják, ahol nagy mennyiségben található kálium-klorid, de természetes szulfátsókból kevés van.

 Egy hasonló módszerben kén-dioxidból, oxigénből és vízből közvetlenül (in situ) állítják elő az előző eljáráshoz szükséges kénsavat (ez az ún. Hargreaves-eljárás).
 Kálium-klorid és magnézium-szulfát (kieserit) reakciójában elsősorban Németországban állítanak elő kálium-szulfátot az alábbi reakcióegyenlet alapján:

2 KCl + MgSO4·H2O → K2SO4 + MgCl2

 Kálium-klorid és langbeinit vagy schönit reakciójában készítik a ma használt kálium-szulfát mennyiségének mintegy a felét. Langbeinittel a következő reakció játszódik le:

4 KCl + K2SO4·2 MgSO4 → 3 K2SO4 + 2 MgCl2

A langbeinit elsősorban Új-Mexikó államban (USA) található nagy mennyiségben.
A schönit-alapú eljárás kiindulóanyaga a németországi sótelepekben található magnéziumásvány, a kieserit. A reakció során a kálium-klorid kieserittel reagál és schönit képződik, amely továbbreagál a kálium-kloriddal:

2 KCl + 2 (MgSO4·H2O) + 4 H2O → K2SO4·MgSO4·6 H2O + MgCl2

K2SO4·MgSO4·6 H2O + 2 KCl → 2 K2SO4 + MgCl2(aq)

 Kálium-klorid és kainit reakcióját elsősorban Szicília szigetén használják kálium-szulfát előállítására. Az első lépcsőben schönit keletkezik, majd ez magasabb hőmérsékleten vízzel magnézium-szulfáttá és kálium-szulfáttá alakul, mely utóbbi kikristályosítható:

4 (KCl·MgSO4·2,75 H2O)(aq) + H2O → 2 (K2SO4·MgSO4·6 H2O) + 2 MgCl2

K2SO4·MgSO4·6 H2O → K2SO4 + MgSO4 + 6 H2O

Kálium-klorid és nátrium-szulfát reakciója két lépcsőben játszódik le. Először glaserit keletkezik, majd további kálium-klorid hatására kálium-szulfát képződik:

6 KCl + 4 Na2SO4 → Na2SO4·3 K2SO4 + 6 NaCl

Na2SO4·3 K2SO4 + 2 KCl → 4 K2SO4 + 2 NaCl

 A kálium-szulfát más reakciók melléktermékeként, például salétromsav előállítása során is keletkezik:

2 KNO3 + H2SO4 → 2 HNO3 + K2SO4

Tulajdonságok
A kálium-szulfát anhidrát változata valójában kettős, hatoldalú piramisszerű kristályrácsot alkot, de besorolása rombos. A kristályok átlátszóak, nagyon kemények, valamint sós, kesernyés ízűek. Vízben jól oldható, kálium-hidroxidban és etanolban nem oldékony.

Felhasználási területek
 fő felhasználási területe műtrágyaként való alkalmazása, a növények számára a legkönnyebben hasznosítható kálium-műtrágya, így a legjobb rendelkezésre álló talajjavító, különösen klorid-érzékeny növényi kultúrák esetében használható, mint például a szőlő, citrusfélék és más gyümölcsök, burgonya és egyéb zöldségek, vagy akár a dohány. A kálium-szulfát mintegy kétszer annyiba kerül, mint a kálium-klorid, ezért csak a fenti, indokolt esetekben használják műtrágyaként.
 timsó előállítására, bőrcserzésre, üveggyártásra és -újrahasznosításra, ásványvíz adalékolására, műgumi, színezékek és gyógyszerek gyártására is alkalmazzák
 az élelmiszeriparban elsősorban csökkentett nátriumtartalmú élelmiszerek esetén, sós íze miatt alkalmazzák, E515 néven. Napi maximális beviteli mennyisége nincs meghatározva. Élelmiszerekben felhasznált mennyiségek esetén nincs ismert mellékhatása.

Jegyzetek

Források
 http://www.food-info.net/uk/e/e515.htm

Szervetlen káliumvegyületek
Szulfátok
Élelmiszer-adalékanyagok

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
SPRING-GUNS' BILL.
HC Deb 17 May 1827 vol 17 cc895-901 895
The Order of the day for taking into consideration the Lords' Amendments to the Spring-Guns' Bill having been read,
§ Mr. Charles Calvert
observed, that, by the amendments which had been introduced into the bill in the House of Lords, it was rendered general; and Spring-guns were prohibited from being set for the protection of any property, except in houses. In houses they might be set both clay and night; which latter permission seemed to him to be an extraordinary one, and calculated to produce accident. Some time ago, at the request of a number of market-gardeners in the neighbourhood of London, he had presented a petition on the subject in their behalf; and, at their further request, he was now prepared to move an amendment to the amendments introduced into the bill by the Lords. It was well known that there were large gardens in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, which, although walled, were accessible; and, to deter from the robbery of which by boys and others, the appearance of spring-guns was the surest means. The market-gardeners declared, that, unless they were allowed to set spring-guns and man-traps, they could not adequately protect their property. He meant, therefore, to move as an amendment to that amendment of the Lords—that nothing in the act should be construed to render illegal the setting of spring-guns or mantraps in houses—the addition of the words, "or in any garden, hot-house, or conservatory, enclosed by a wall seven feet high; due notice being conspicuously given of their being so set."
Mr. W. Bankes
said, that this bill had come back from the Lords, different not only in its details, but in principle. He was one of those who agreed that such deadly engines as spring-guns were hardly justifiable for the protection of game, but he was far from thinking that it was right to carry the principle of their abolition so far as to withdraw them from other and more valuable property. Their very existence inspired a salutary terror in trespassers, and he trembled at the consequences of its being known that they were withdrawn altogether. For these reasons, he should dissent from these amendments.
Mr. Peel
admitted that game, as a 896 source of amusement, was a species of property which ought to be protected, but he was far from thinking that it was justifiable to use means for that protection destructive of human life. Upon that principle, therefore, he had supported the present bill in its progress through the House, and more particularly because it took away that wide arena which existed of woods and plantations, in which such engines were before permitted. But there appeared to be a broad distinction between the use of spring-guns in uninclosed and extensive grounds, where their deadly effects might be visited upon inadvertent trespassers, and such places as market-gardens, by the security of which from robbers a large class of men obtained their subsistence. When a man inclosed his ground by a wall seven feet high, and thus took the best precaution in his power to exclude trespassers, his case was most undoubtedly different from those, where there was nothing to protect but a pheasant, and no safeguard but a fence. He therefore dissented from the Lords' amendment in this respect. And really the House should know that there was no class of men which required protection more than these market-gardeners, for in no place was the police more lax than in the immediate neighbourhood of large towns. Within the towns themselves the police was generally well-regulated; but this strictness drove the vagabonds out a few miles upon the roads, about the places where these market-gardens were situated. He had, early in the session, without reference to this question, moved for a committee to inquire into the state of the police near the metropolis; for he had reason to know, that the consequence of having horse and foot patrols in London was, that the bad characters were banished four or five miles out upon the roads. In order, therefore, to an effectual suppression of crime, it would be necessary to place that particular branch of the police upon a more efficient footing. In many places it was most mischievously ineffective. Throughout the whole of that extensive district comprehending Twickenham and Richmond, the peace of the county almost depended upon the individual activity of colonel Clitheroe. Many of the market-gardens were situated in that district; and, until a better police was set on foot, he thought it not unreasonable that the market-gardens should be protected by spring-guns. At the same time, he 897 thought it would be better if the market-gardeners were called upon to provide for the protection of their grounds by taking into pay a sufficient number of ordinary constables, who, if they did their duty, would be sufficient for all purposes. He had not the smallest doubt but that if an investigation took place into the causes of the increase of crime, it would turn out to be closely connected with depredations upon such property. Whilst the amount of great crimes was diminished, the sum of offences against property had greatly increased. This he ascribed to the defective state of the police in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. Until something else was done, he could not dispense with this species of protection to the market-gardeners.
§ Mr. C. N. Pallmer
agreed, that, until some other protection was afforded the market-gardeners by a more efficient police, they ought to be allowed to protect their grounds by spring-guns. The subject seemed to have been viewed in rather a curious light in another place, for the only instance in which they permitted the setting of spring-guns was that in which a man was most unlikely to use them; namely, in his dwelling-house. The market-gardens were a species of property especially subject to depredation, from being so near town, and they were therefore entitled to special protection.
§ Lord Althorp
said, he had supported the bill originally, upon the ground, not that spring-guns were unjustifiable for the protection of game only, but because he would not permit such deadly weapons to be used in any case in which a man would not be warranted in firing a gun from his hand. He did not understand that a market-gardener would be justified in firing upon a trespasser with a gun; and therefore he would not allow the use of spring-guns in such cases.
§ Mr. Tennyson
denied the validity of the arguments which had been urged by the hon. member for Corfe castle. The principle of the bill had undergone great extension in the House of Lords; and, in his opinion, the improvement was commensurate with the extension. If the House adopted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Southwark, they would make a material change in the criminal jurisprudence of the country. It ought also to be recollected, that the same amendment had been ineffectually proposed in another place.
§ Mr. Monck
opposed the amendment.
§ Lord Milton
observed, that the real question for the House to consider was, whether, by disagreeing to the Lords' amendments, they would postpone for a year the advantages to be derived from the bill; or, by agreeing to those amendments, would merely subject the market-gardeners to a temporary inconvenience, which might be remedied next session.
Mr. Frankland
Lewis remonstrated against any allusion to the opinions of the other House. Those opinions ought never to influence the decisions of the House of Commons. By its merits, and by its merits alone, ought the bill under consideration to be tried. It ought to be recollected, that the market-gardens were the property of a very large and industrious class of individuals, who ought to be encouraged to supply the London market as cheaply as possible. It was impossible that they could fence round their extensive grounds so securely as to prevent persons who were determined to get over the fence from doing so; although the fence were such that no person could violate it by accident. That was the distinction between gardens and woods. No case had been made out of any individual having suffered from spring-guns set in these gardens. The only objection to them therefore was theoretical. It would be most unjust to deprive the persons in question of protection, and to put their property in jeopardy without any grievance having been shown to exist. On all these grounds he supported the amendment.
Dr. Lushington
observed, that there was much good sense in taking all the benefits that could be obtained from any measure, when all that it was desirable to obtain could not be secured. He who adhered rigidly to what was called principles, frequently lost opportunities of accomplishing much practical good. He was disposed to assent to the amendments which had been made by the Lords; first, because they were in conformity to the general principles of our law; and, secondly, because they were in conformity to the view which, in his opinion, the legislature should take of the manner in which property ought to be protected. He said "ought;" because he believed the security of property in this country by severe enactments was carried much further than it ought to be carried. Although the acquisition and the just security of property were advantageous to 899 the community as well as to the possessor, there were limits beyond which neither the acquisition nor the possession ought to be protected. Property was only one means of happiness; the happiness of all was the end of the security of property. They who maintained the justice of setting spring-guns in woods for the protection of game, might as well say that it would be justifiable at any hour of the night to fire guns through the wood, in the hope that if any poachers were there they would be killed. Such an act, however, would be murder. An hon. friend of his, lately a member of the House, had the misfortune, during his absence from home, to have a spring-gun set in his garden. He had the still greater misfortune of having a man killed by that spring-gun. He (Dr. L.) had been an eye-witness of the misery in which this accident had involved his excellent friend. The loss of his garden, or of his whole property, would not have inflicted upon him half the pain that he endured for weeks and months; and yet he was not to blame, for he had given strict orders to his gardener to load the spring-gun only with powder—an order which was, unhappily, disobeyed. This example was sufficient to show, that, if the setting of spring-guns were allowed at all, it would frequently happen that the indiscretion of inferior persons, who were reckless or thoughtless of consequences, would be the cause of the loss of human life. With respect to gardens, where was the necessity for this kind of protection? Large gardens were watched. He spoke of his own knowledge, of such large gardens as those at the bottom of Highgate-hill. Those gardens had persons to guard them at night. It would be otherwise impossible to prevent the intrusion of stragglers. If persons would have valuable property in open fields, easy of access, it was their duty to guard it against depredation; and if they did not do so, they must bear the loss. It was on this principle that some of the wisest and best men in this country had reprobated the practice of tradesmen who left their goods exposed at their shop-doors. The expense of guarding these gardens was nothing as compared with the profit derived from them. Had any hon. gentleman an idea of the advance in the retail price of garden-stuff sold in the market? It was a thousand-fold. The small increase of expense, therefore, which the employment of watch- 900 men would occasion, would be comparatively trifling. Justice and humanity called for the total abolition of the practice of setting spring-guns. The House ought to consider, that on this subject they were legislating with respect to a description of offence which no member of it was likely to commit. There was, therefore, no community of feeling between the legislature and the criminal; and that consideration ought to induce them to pass the bill in its present state, by acclamation.
§ Sir C. Wetherell
opposed the lords' amendments, and fully concurred in all the views of his right hon. friend. He contended, that, according to the law of England, protection to property from injury was justifiable.
§ Lord Sandon
asked, if it was justifiable by the common law, for a person to do that by agency which he would not do by himself. If a person could not shoot a man climbing a wall, could he do so by a spring-gun, or any other engine? He contended, he could not. Such doctrine was alike repugnant to the common law and natural law, which was anterior to it.
The amendment was agreed to.
§ Mr. C. Calvert
moved, respecting the setting of Spring-guns in the next clause, that after "continued," there be added, "from sun-set to sun-rise."—Agreed to.
moved the next amendment, on the lords' amendment, which rendered the bill general in its operation, with the exception of dwelling-houses; he proposed, with the intention of bringing the bill back to its general form, that instead of dwelling-house, there be inserted, "unless in woods, under-woods, greenhouses," &c.
Mr. S. Rice
urged the inexpediency of altering the lords' amendments, which were, perhaps, made in the very expectation of their being rejected here. He hoped the House would not be seduced to lose the bill altogether, by now negativing some objectionable clauses, but would carry the bill in its present shape, and trust to chance for future improvements.
concurred in these suggestions. They had no right to look on the amendments made in the bill in the Lords, in any other light than as the amendments of the lords generally; although, out of that House, if he were asked the question, he could point out the author of those amendments. Let the House take the bill as they found it, 901 and not take on themselves the odium of throwing it out altogether, which would in all probability be the result of pressing these amendments. The House then divided; For the amendment 24; Against it 46; Majority for the bill as it was 22.
submitted an amendment for permission of spring-guns to the owners of gardens, hot-houses, or conservatories, surrounded by a wall seven feet high, by setting a conspicuous notice on the wall.
said, that persons who could keep such places, could also keep a watchman to protect them.
said, that it was not so; as many of the persons for whose benefit this clause was proposed were market-gardeners, who cultivated the gardens and conservatories attached to large houses which had been dilapidated. The House divided: For the Amendment 23; Against it 40; Majority against it 17.
The other lords' amendments, with amendments, were agreed to, and ordered to be sent back to the Lords.
Back to ADMINISTRATION OF THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.


text:
Der Extension Gunners Football Club ist ein Fußballverein aus Lobatse, Botswana. Aktuell spielt der Verein in der höchsten Liga des Landes, der Botswana Premier League.

Der auch "Mapantsula" genannte Verein wurde 1962 gegründet. Er gehört zu den erfolgreichsten seines Landes. In den 1990er Jahren hatte der Klub seine Glanzzeiten und gewann drei nationale Meistertitel. Auch den Challenge Cup konnte er dreimal gewinnen. Durch die Erfolge konnte er sich mehrmals für die afrikanischen Wettbewerbe qualifizieren.

Erfolge
 Botswanischer Meister: 1992, 1993, 1994
 Botswanischer Pokalsieger: 1988, 1992, 2011

Stadion

Der Verein trägt seine Heimspiele im Lobatse-Stadion in Lobatse aus. Das Stadion hat ein Fassungsvermögen von 22.000 Personen.

Trainerchronik

Statistik in den CAF-Wettbewerben

Weblinks

Fußballverein aus Botswana
Gegründet 1962
Sport (Lobatse)


text:
Q: Reducing the number of series plotted gives console error I'm using Dygraphs in an AngularJS application to show time series plots of data from a data-logger. Angular handles retrieving new data and updating the graph series when the data arrives, and Dygraphs is updating the plots nicely using an Angular $watch(). The problem arises when I want to switch to a different set of data, specifically one that contains fewer series. I see a console error (using Safari 5.1.9 on OS X 10.6.8):
'undefined' is not an object (evaluating 'this.series_[b].yAxis')

at line 2 of dygraph-combined.js. Nothing untoward seems to happen, and the graph updates correctly, but I'd rather it didn't happen!
I had a few problems getting Angular to switch the graph data source correctly: what worked for me is to change the data source inside a $timeout(,0) call, while changing the other options immediately. This means that there will be a (brief) mismatch between the number of series, and the number of series titles and/or axes. If the number of series doesn't change, or increases, I don't get this error. Can anyone see what is going wrong, and advise me on how it can be avoided?
I've written an Angular directive to instantiate a Dygraph:
'use strict';
angular.module('dygraphs', []);

angular.module('dygraphs').directive('mrhDygraph', function ($parse, $q) {
    return {
        restrict: 'A',
        replace: true,
        scope: {data: '=', initialOptions: '@', options: '='},
        link: function (scope, element, attrs) {
            var dataArrived = $q.defer();
            dataArrived.promise.then(function (graphData) {
                scope.graph = new Dygraph(element[0], graphData, $parse(scope.initialOptions)(scope.$parent));
                return graphData.length - 1;
            }).then(function(lastPoint) {
                scope.graph.setSelection(lastPoint);
                scope.$emit('dygraphCreated', element[0].id, scope.graph);
            });
            var removeInitialDataWatch = scope.$watch('data', function (newValue, oldValue, scope) {
                if ((newValue !== oldValue) && (newValue.length > 0)) {
                    dataArrived.resolve(newValue);
                    removeInitialDataWatch();
                    scope.$watch('data', function (newValue, oldValue, scope) {
                        if ((newValue !== oldValue) && (newValue.length > 0)) {
                            var selection = scope.graph.getSelection();
                            scope.graph.updateOptions({'file': newValue});
                            if ((selection >= 0) && (selection < newValue.length)) {
                                scope.graph.setSelection(selection);
                            }
                        }
                    }, true);
                    scope.$watch('options', function (newValue, oldValue, scope) {
                        if (newValue !== undefined) {
                            scope.graph.updateOptions(newValue);
                        }
                    }, true);
                }
            }, true);
        }
    };
});

and then in my controller, I switch graph data sources like this:
$scope.setGraphDataSource = function (plotData, sourceData, scaleFactor) {
    $timeout(function () {
            $scope[plotData] = [];
            for (series in removeWatch) {
                removeWatch[series]();
            }
            removeWatch = [];
            var col = 0;
            for (series in sourceData) {
                removeWatch[series] = function (col) {
                    return $scope.$watch(function () {return $scope.logs[sourceData[col]].data.length},
                    function (newValue, oldValue, scope) {
                        updateCol(plotData, col, scope, scope.logs[sourceData[col]],
                                    sourceData.length + 1, scaleFactor[col]);
                    })}(col);
                col = col + 1;
            }
        }, 0);
}

$scope.showTemperatureGraph = function () {
    $scope.setGraphDataSource('graphData', ['OutsideTemperature', 'InsideTemperature'], [1, 1]);
    $scope.graphOptions = {labels: ['Time', 'Outside', 'Inside'],
        series: {'Inside': {axis: 'y'}, 'Outside': {axis: 'y'}},
        axes: {x: {valueFormatter: function (ms) {return $filter('date')(new Date(ms), 'dd/MM HH:mm')}},
               y: {valueFormatter: function (num) {return num.toFixed(1)}}
            },
        xlabel: 'Local Time', ylabel: 'Temperature (ºC)', stepPlot: false};
};

Any suggestions, comments, or even answers would be welcome!
Thanks

A: It's possible the series are not matching up correctly. When you update the graph, what is the the existing values of g.getOption("labels")? Do you provide a new set of labels? What format is the input data? Is it CSV? If so, does it have a header?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange