How net neutrality deals with customers who run their personal server at home. My view is that they should also get equal preference as public online service providers. At least they are paying the money for the bandwidth used.
Most of the explanations i see in the internet about net neutrality deals with only content downloaded or streamed from public online services. I think it is ironic.
The guy spent his entire life accumulating massive amounts of wealth, spent virtually none of it, and is now using it to make the world a better place. What don't you find amazing about that?
I think he's a somewhat odd case, in that accumulating wealth, rather than the wealth itself, is what he finds interesting. He doesn't seem to have any particular desire to build huge mansions or leave a multi-generation legacy or anything, but really likes running Berkshire Hathaway. He did it well enough that he now has a huge pile of money that he doesn't really need or even particularly want, so now wants to find something useful to spend it on.
I agree in general.
But it seems you put a lot of weight on donation part.
Donating to charity is OK activity.
Gates Foundation is probably one of the best charities, but donating is not nearly as important in comparison with Buffet's contribution to the society while he was making his billions.
The billions Buffet made is a rough indicator of how much he contributed to the society. If he did not contribute -- he wouldn't make his fortune.
Buffet also shared his investing advise, which is extremely valuable.
So again, in comparison with what Buffet did already donations themselves do not look as amazing.
The greatest thing either of these men have done with their lives is commit to philanthropy. Everything else pales in comparison, and the biggest impact they will have on the world will have been through their philanthropy. They'll be remember for two things: being filthy rich, and what they did with those riches. Little will be remembered about either of the men personally, I dare say.
Tell me, downvoter, what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have done that will be more memorable than perhaps in a few years having wiped out malaria? Windows Vista? The Zune? Buying Gillette and Geico?
Downvotes contribute nothing to a discussion, and without commentary they serve little purpose, save to inform the downvotee that you have something against what they said yet felt disinclined to share it..
The present world have more software freedom if Bill Gates wasn't the one who helped put a computer in most homes in the developed world, but he was still an instrumental individual in the computing revolution. Like Andrew Carnegie, he will leave a legacy with a complicated narrative.
Except if your internet goes down. Which happens to me often enough that I only really pay for my service 8 months out of the year, the rest being comp'd. Gotta love Cablevision.
Also, what happens if/when, for whatever reason, your node gets a flood of traffic? It can kill all your bandwidth, since most people in the US don't have that much to begin with. And most people would not think to pull the plug (heh pun) if that were to happen, rather they would blame it on the ISP, I'd think.
But it's certainly a cool thought. I'd be more interested in it being used for P2P file sharing, but restricted to friends. Like wirehog.
EDIT: It dawned on me that file sharing would take up a ton more bandwidth than 99% of social networking. In either case, I suppose some software limits could be set to throttle requests.
You are missing the point here. The real point is ownership of data. who owns it? Cloud has its uses. But for personal data you better of keeping it in your control. It is not that difficult.
