You are the one who obviously needs remedial English Comprehension course. Let me start by quoting almost half of the summary

This clearly shows that Sad Puppies is in response to the winners of Hugo awards last year. Which is wrong on two fronts. First as you are unable to understand, this is Sad Puppies 3, as in the 3rd year it has been run. Second Sap Puppies nominees are all over the political spectrum and include women.

The summary very clearly states that the AC who wrote it thought that Sad Puppies was a response to last years winners of Hugo awards. So yes it is relevant that Sad Puppies has been around for longer than the summary stated. Sad Puppies is all about exposing an ideology.

Discounting the movies which are vary from bad to downright horrible, I do find Starship Troopers a dystopian future. In the first handful of pages you have terror weapons being used on Skinnies, something to the effect of "I'm a bomb and will explode in 30 seconds". Tactical nuclear weapons being shot off left and right. Just with the opening I don't want a future where these are valid military tactics.

One of the core concepts of the book is the franchise is only available through Federal service. So in order to vote you must be indoctrinated into the government and there is no concept of loyal opposition. I don't recall the exact name, but everyone was required to take a class along the lines of History and Moral practices. One thing that has always stood out for me in those sections is the concept of total war. Again I may have the specifics wrong, but the teachers makes a comment about "ask the leading fathers of Carthage how war never solves anything" Implying that wiping out your enemies is not only a valid tactic but is the best one.

At the end with the last drop of Rico's Roughnecks, humanity is appearing to win. But I would say it is at the cost of what makes humans in general good and noble.

A key message throughout the book is that the ends justify the means, that to me is bleak.

Let's see your sources for calling his assertions lies. All my research says what he posted is truthful. The only thing that can be argued is Scalzi gaming the system, he has definitely encouraged nominations and voting trends. He just hasn't been as open about it.

Heck you don't have to give Baen your money. For a very long time they have run their free library with quite a few books available in multiple eReader formats. For a long time Baen held out against Amazon and Barnes & Noble by only selling eBooks through their site in order to keep the cost to readers down.

As opposed to the Tor dominated Hugo's that had a blacklist of authors. The Hugo's have been political for a long time, but it was an unopposed political bias. Now the politics have been challenged.

Have you seen the numerous reviewers and authors who have stated that they will not read any Sad Puppies related work because it is was part of the slate? They have already come to the conclusion that anything Sad Puppies related is not worthy of winning a Hugo. Some have said they will read the Sad Puppies works but regardless of merit will rank them below No Award because of politics.

Your selections from Science Fiction may have been the more Utopian style that Star Trek popularized, but post-apocalyptic and dystopian Science Fiction has long been popular. Some of Heinlein's works were very bleak, have you ever read Starship Troopers? Jerry Pournelle's chronicled the downfall of human society over a long period. Authors like Larry Niven contributed to the War World novels which again take place in a dystopian universe.

I can't agree with you more. The current cliche that has held a lock on the Hugo awards is so biased and hateful. Just go read any comments from the main editors of Tor to see what illogical hatred is.

You've got this backwards. John Scalzi has pushed his own slate in the past. It is constantly down played because he is a "right" author instead of a "wrong fan". This sort of gaming is nothing new to the Hugo's, what is new is that a conservative / middle of the road political group has published a slate and encouraged new blood to get involved with the Hugo's.

I don't think I've ever seen a /. summary that is so utterly wrong and biased. I've now started following the Hugo's and when I get home tonight I'm buying a supporting membership.

First off this is Sad Puppies campaign #3, so it wasn't a sudden reaction to the winners of last year's Hugo's. The first two campaigns worked on verifying the integrity of the awards with Larry Correia, a former accountant, leading the verification. The conclusion was an unqualified opinion that the awards are indeed fairly voted on.

This year the Sad Puppies campaign chose to publish a list of their nominations and encourage fans who had never been part of the Hugo process to nominate works, the Sad Puppies encouraged critical thinking and said nominate books you think are worthy. This is very much like what John Scalzi and other authors have done in the past.

Well with the introduction of new blood into the process the Sad Puppies slate pretty much swept the nomination process. Larry Correia even turned down a nomination because of his involvement with running the Sad Puppies campaigns.

Now we see the backlash from the so called progressives who are willing to burn the awards to the ground by telling everyone to vote No Award for the majority of categories. The sure hatred and virulence since the nominations have been announced are shocking.

I'm now proud to carry the label "Wrong Fan", I've been reading Science Fiction since elementary with some of the earliest books I remember being a bunch of the Tom Swift novels. Yet because I like the works by authors such as Tom Kratman (even if he is very heavy handed with the politics), Larry Correia, David Weber, and pretty much anything published by Baen, I'm not worthy of being involved with the Hugo process.

The main people behind Tor publishing are some of the most reprehensibly in the whole process. The sheer hatred amazes me, for them it is also ego since Tor has dominated the Hugo's for 20+ years.

Several reviewers and authors I've never heard of have gone so far as to state that they will either not read the Sad Puppies related works, or if they do read them won't consider them on their worth. I've seen one blog that some author stated she will rank every Sad Puppies related work below No Award just because it was nominated and on the Sad Puppies recommended list.

Where is the progressive ideas of tolerance here? This is blacklisting in the worst way and I can tell you it is firing up fans who have never cared about the Hugo's in the past.

That's what you get for using a bleeding edge process.

Fast is something that will be a major selling point of autonomous cars. With great computer controlled precision I'd want highway speeds to be much higher in good conditions. The point on good looking was already addressed, and I can only state that a good looking car will be a major concern for the majority of the buyers.

It's a "chinese restaurant" among the marketplace, too.

A few years ago I set up seller accounts on three of them. One of those marketplaces bought out the other two, so now I have one account (luckily they allowed me to merge the accounts, with some loss of history).

As long as we're linking to official announcements of business-targeted e-mail systems, I should mention IBM Verse. (disclaimer: I work for IBM. I do not speak for IBM.)