Net neutrality supporters seem to have a static view of the internet, which is strange because they normally consider themselves "tech-savvy" people. This issue is about scarcity. People are demanding more bandwidth than is available. So, there are areas where prices might go up, or traffic more in demand than other traffic gets prioritized. But, even with the current not so perfect system, bandwidth is growing like crazy. The issues we're seeing now are growing pains for a still-young internet. Growing up can get a little bumpy. But people demand a smooth road, NOW! They want to permanently subject the internet to a huge regulatory apparatus in order to "solve" a transient problem. Tech-savvy people are supposed to be able to grasp the difference between static and dynamic systems. I guess impatience overcomes rationality.

This study is interesting, but I suspect it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The sample group is tiny, and the IQ increase is huge. I think an interesting and fairly easy-to-answer question is: how does the average IQ of large numbers of synesthetes compare to the population at large? I've had the most common form of synesthesia (letters-colors) from my earliest memories. I don't think it was induced by environmental factors like colored magnetic letters. The phenomenon for me is not actually seeing a floating yellow 'A' like on a fridge. It's that 'A' simply IS yellow. Think of it this way: when you perceive the color yellow, you have an aesthetic experience. I have the same aesthetic experience when I perceive the letter 'A'. I enjoy having this condition and it has been helpful to me.

Well of course, governments have always wanted to prevent people from hearing certain things. But, it is just as despotic to force people to hear things. This is especially true if I have a megaphone and people are listening to me. This is true whether what I'm being forced to say is good ("You should brush your teeth") or bad ("You must obey our dear leader for he is the king of all men"). It's the second case that is at issue here.

So many people here do not get what freedom is. Freedom is NOT forcing others to provide information you think they should provide. The very essence of freedom of speech is to decide what to say, and what not to say. Those that think Baidu should somehow be compelled to provide the "correct" information sound like they'd be happy with a "Ministry of Information" that gets to decide what is "correct" speech, in both content and quantity. The freedom of speech is a guarantee that you will be offended and pissed off by what someone says, or what they leave out that distorts context. Think hard. Deal with it. Defend liberty.