Slashdot Mirror
Tim Berners-Lee Attains Knighthood
sandalwood writes "Tim Berners-Lee has been promoted to Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire for coming up with that 'intarweb' thing we all use. Characteristically modest, he said that he was an ordinary person who created something that 'just happened to work out.' He will join luminaries like Isaac Newton, Francis Drake, and... Mick Jagger."
"Tim Berners-Lee", of course, is just a clever pseudonym for Al Gore. The article failed to mention this.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
..now he can slay orcs and save princesses like the best of us.
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
Canadian Cynic, canadian politics is less boring than you
Tim Berners-Lee Attains Knighthood does that come with +2 armour?
Well, pardon him for departing from your standards of perfection. I for one don't fault him for accepting an award that he so obviously deserves. History notwithstanding, being knighted is a high honor (honour!) for a Brit. I say congratulations to him.
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
No, you don't have to be English, you can get an honourary knighthood. And Tim Berners-Lee IS English. And ARPA didn't invent the world-wide-web. Just the internet (www implies HTTP and HTML)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. No, you don't have to be English.
A great many Scots, Welsh, Irish, Canadians, etc have been knighted.
2. Some things weren't invented by Americans, the Web is one of them. Deal.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
Rather than Mick Jagger.
Gawd bless 'er.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
... and here's the actual link I failed to put into my original post.
One wonders where we would be today with the WWW if Tim had chosen to patent his invention?
Except that it's not really an honour from the queen. Decisions are made by some top secret bunch of civil servants, vetted by the Prime Minister and then "suggested" to the queen. Not much better, admittedly, but an improvement none the less.
Reform is coming, but the present style of system won't go away until the monarchy finally keels over. I'll celebrate as much as anyone on that day, but until then the honours system is the only way to formally recognise people's acheivements. Inventing Hypertext certainly deserves some recognition IMHO.
During the early 90's his research was put down by other Hypermedia researchers. Their view: "we've been there, done that; your implementation is too simple, too restrictive; our research is towards two directional linking..., other systems before you are better...". His first paper was rejected by the Hypertext Conference in 1991, and he settled for a demo table in the same venue.
The key to his success is that he made it simple and free (as in beer)! Others, like Nelson's Xanadu, were too ambitious. Others, like Hypercards, Hypernotes, Hyperdisco, etc were never free.
The BBC article highlights that in one of the side boxes: "Offered free on the Net".
I'm glad to see TBL get some more recognition. The original concepts behind html and semantic markup were well designed for their time and deserve more recognition. 99% of web designers today seem to have no idea why they should be using 'em' instead of 'b' tags, nor do many seem to even care about semantics and platform neutral markup. TBL and his semantic web ideas need all the recognition they can get.
A few years ago I watched a special on PBS about the birth of the Internet. The astounding thing was watching a video featuring a dozen guys hanging around a chalkboard laying out the eight or so connections that formed the forst internet web. No fancy electronics, just a groupd of guys standing around a chalkboard and talking.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Preface: not a troll
Could someone please explain to me the British fetish for its Monarchy ? The government is now a constitutional democracy, so why is there so much homage paid to the archaic traditions and figureheads of the past?
A great example of this is the insane media land-grab over Princess Diana's death. Hundreds of thousands of people die in traffic accidents each year - why was hers so deserving of three whole months of media coverage, weeping, wailing, and moaning?
This is what knighthoods are about - accepting official appreciation of the work done to create the internet, an apolitical act. The poster above ridicules TB-L for accepting the award - it would be right and proper to decline for political reasons, but in this case there are none. Anyway, he's a nice guy. Matthew
It's not political. Politically, the British monarchy doesn't do much of anything. It is mostly a cultural thing. The monarchy is a cherished institution of Great Britain. It represents the history and culture of a great country. It has endured for hundreds of years as one of the most stable governments in the West. The British monarchy has one of the oldest democratic traditions in the world, and Britain gave birth to the philosophers from which our founding fathers derived their inspiration. Getting rid of the British monarchy would be like getting rid of the monuments of Greece, because they take up space that could be put to better use.
There is no need for everything in the world to be cold and logical. If a country wants to hold onto a 'silly' institution as a symbol of their nation, so be it.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
Queen's official title:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
UK!=England.
So I guess anyone in the commonwealth can be given an honour. However, TBL is British, so it doesn't matter.
Tim Breners-Lee *is* English. He was born in London and graduated from Oxford. While ARPANET was an American project, Breners-Lee worked on the web while he was at CERN, and it was first made available at CERN in 1990.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
that everyone knows the names of Edison, and for the most part, Tesla. But, when it comes to folks such as Tim Berners-Lee, J. Prespert Eckert, John W. Mauchly, etc. nobody has any clue who you're talking about.
Unless I'm mistaken, the revolutions that these folks spurred were arguably as important to the state of modern society as was the lightbulb, telephone, or rail transit.
So, the next time England goes to war are Elton John, Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger going to be leading the charge?
Hundreds of other great men and women have been able to resist the kow-towing to the monarchy. I which he had joined them.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
That's funny, the article (BBC) certainly refers to him as "Sir Tim", and says he has been knighted.
Politas
errr - no it isn't.
KBE does mean Sir Tim.
See here.
Sir Tim HAS been knighted. He didn't get an OBE or some other lesser award. The parent post is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Politas
Well I wonder if TBL will ever be asked to go on a crusade to the holy land or re-claim brittany from those Frenchies. Theres certainly no damsels in distress, imprisoned in a tower by an evil uncle. There are no dragons left to slay and the holy grail got sold on ebay for $5.99 Sorry but a real knight belongs in our stories and myths. The highest honor we can give TBL is not a three letter prefix Sir, but the recogniton that his work, kick started all this web stuff and his ideas for the furture of the web are more important than making a fast buck.
I for one, welcome our British web overlords.
Ah, here's the correction, from some article on knights in E! Online (hardly a credible source, but the first credible source I could find after 5 minutes googling):
A few Americans--Rudy Giuliani in 2001, for example--have received what's called Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. American knights can't use Sir before their names, but they can choose to add KBE to the end. So, the next Indiana Jones movie will be directed by Steven Spielberg KBE.
OK, then, that's settled.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
Whatever else a knighthood brings with it it's got to be a great pickup line and a geek can use all the help available.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
And of course, CERN is in Geneva, Switzerland. So, not only was the Web invented by a Brit, it was invented in Switzerland, which is possibly even further away from North America than the UK...
Well, since your flamebait is modded insightfull I think I'll flame back and see if the moderaters get it right this time.
Politically, the British monarchy doesn't do much of anything. It is mostly a cultural thing. The monarchy is a cherished institution of Great Britain.
The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy. It is very much a political thing. Despite the Crown's very limited role in politics they are by defination involved as the Head of State (not Head of Government).
It represents the history and culture of a great country. It has endured for hundreds of years as one of the most stable governments in the West.
The "most stable" is a matter of opinion but I'll let that stand.
The British monarchy has one of the oldest democratic traditions in the world, and Britain gave birth to the philosophers from which our founding fathers derived their inspiration.
Have you ever heard of the Roman Republic? England wasn't a member of that. They were occupied later during the Empire. And yes, Locke and Hobbes provided many ideas for the American Government. But so did Plato, Aristotle and numerous philosophers in France during the Enlightenment. England does not have a monopoly on those ideas and at the time, did not practice them.
Getting rid of the British monarchy would be like getting rid of the monuments of Greece, because they take up space that could be put to better use.
If I recall correctly you still have a good deal of the Parthenon in the British Museum and the Greek have been asking for those pieces back for years.
If you're going to be on a high horse, make sure the horse is on solid ground. And this is flamebait but I feel better saying it.
I don't understand. I thought Elton John was a queen.
In America, the royals are the sons and daughters of the greatest of all the robber barons.
In Britain, the royals are the sons and daughters of the greatest of all the feudal barons [which is the same as robber].
In America, you are allowed to become a noble or start a new line of nobility by getting filthy rich and then buying yourself a Senator. You can then pass your wealth to your children so they can be nobles for having done nothing.
In Britain, the Queen hands you a medal, and then you can possibly get a seat for yourself and your descendants in the House of Lords. You can then pass your wealth to your children so they can be nobles for having done nothing.
At least in the UK, the monarchy has a lot of interesting history behind it, and some way cool outfits. Swords and capes! Now that is cool. Plus, the titles are awesome - for the king when the next one is: "His Most Britannic Majesty".
In America, well, we just say, "Mr.Gates".
This is my sig.
On Americans receiving honors from foreign states:
US Constitution
I.9.8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
But not from a republic (like India). You have to owe allegiance to the Queen, like Canadians and Australians.
The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy. It is very much a political thing. Despite the Crown's very limited role in politics they are by defination involved as the Head of State (not Head of Government).
>>>>>>>>>>>
Huh? You declare that the Monarchy is very much political, and then immediatelyl admit that it has a very limited role in politics. Which is it?
The "most stable" is a matter of opinion but I'll let that stand.
>>>>>>>>>>
FI said "one of" the most stable. The British government has been remarkably stable for hundreds of years. Unlike France, the democratization of Britain came not through a bloody revolution, but a gradual transition.
Have you ever heard of the Roman Republic? England wasn't a member of that.
>>>>>>>>>
I didn't say first, I said oldest. Generally, when we talk about the oldest of some thing, we do not consider things that no longer exist, like the Roman Republic.
Locke and Hobbes provided many ideas for the American Government. But so did Plato, Aristotle and numerous philosophers in France during the Enlightenment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes other philosophers did influence the Founding Fathers. Some directly and others indirectly. But the primary philosophical basis for the American government was British philosophy.
England does not have a monopoly on those ideas
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
Did I claim it did?
and at the time, did not practice them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
While Great Britain did not practice the precise philosophy espoused by Lock and others, many of those philosophers' ideas were derived from British practice. Great Britain has been a free society for hundreds of years, even under the monarchy, and much existing pratice was codified by its philosophers.
If I recall correctly you still have a good deal of the Parthenon in the British Museum and the Greek have been asking for those pieces back for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
What's your point? I am not claiming that Britain is faultless. Indeed, as someone of Indian descent, I have an innate dislike of Britain and its colonial period. However, I do recognize a good thing when I see it. Great Britain has a very proud and rich history, and a tradition of freedom. The monarchy is a part of that, and is a cultural institution that should remain in place as a reminder of the nation's glory.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
BBC link explains nothing
This explains all.
There is a difference between KBE and CBE - the K confers knighthood
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Good for him! and about time too.
And why stop at a knighthood? They should make him an Url.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
This will certainly be redundant, but there are many that have refused Knighthood for example they include rock star David Bowie, Nigella Lawson, John Cleese, Kenneth Branagh, Albert Finney, Vanessa Redgrave, and many more. Knighthood is a pathetic extension of imperialism that no longer exists.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
FWIW, Sir Tim's gong, Knight-Commander of the Order of the British Empire is of higher precedence than Sir Mick's gong, as a Knight Bachelor . I wondered whether Mick didn't get admitted to an Order because it might cheapen the experience for the existing members?
Blessed +5 Dragon Scale Mail, in fact, if you're willing to put up with the -57 aura of sheer geekliness.
Tweet, tweet.
Well, by definition, no, unless you subscribe to some of the weirder resolutions to the "Grandfather Paradox".
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
A knighthood is bestowed upon anyone as a recognition for significant service to the nation. IE, Rudy Guliani received a knighthood for his service to british citizens in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks.
A common myth is that you can't use the title outside of the United Kingdom, or that you can't use the title in the United States, etc. This is rooted in the United State's constitutional requirement that officers of the federal government and the several states not accept titles from foreign governments. This is known as Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. My understanding is that there isn't anything intrinsic to the honor which nullifies it outside of the british isles or the commonwealth.
In the UK, few civil servants ever become rich from their jobs. Working at CERN, Sir Tim was ultimately just another Civil Servant and could only be compensated as such. Recognition for civil servants comes through the honours system. In this case it was richly deserved.
Al Gore made an honest claim about something that he was justly proud of. And somebody deliberately misquoted him to make it appear that he was claiming to have "invented the internet".
It wouldn't be so annoying if this deliberate campaign hadn't been so successful at painting this honest (if dull) politician as a "liar", and possibly costing him the election (which was stolen anyway).
Look, I've been on the Net since 1988 (via world.std.com, the first commercial ISP), and I can assure you that Al Gore was the first person in the Senate to take it seriously. He provided funding when the NSF was going to pull the plug, and the all the commercial internet providers were squabbling over peering agreements. Read some back issues of "Boardwatch" magazine to learn about all this, OK?
Just because you don't like to hear it doesn't mean it's not true. And something isn't funny just because it's repeated a lot.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
I don't know if any americans have realised this yet, but a Knighthood in England is basically a "Presidential Medal of Freedom", UK style.
.au and we wanted to become a republic once. It failed miserably because people didn't like the model the Government came up with.
AFAIC, TBL deserves it more than anyone. And if he accepts it, it's his choice.
As for the monarchy, I'm from
The only defference between the Queen and the President is she was born into it, whereas he had to BUY his way into it (not without some help from daddy).
You have to owe allegiance to the Queen, like Canadians and Australians
Actually, it's a no-go for Canadians, who are barred from accepting foreign honours. Just ask Terry Matthews and (especially) the notorious ex-Canadian Lord Black of Crossharbour.
What Canadians do have is the Order of Canada, which is essentially a knighthood without the titles (sir etc...). The Order of Canada is awarded by the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen of Canada, who just happens to be the same person as the Queen of England - who isn't allowed to bestow titles on Canadians. Simple, eh?
In other news, for a good review of the British honours system see here.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
Parent above is correct, the Queen does not choose any of the recipients of honours. They are chosen by 10 commitees of civil servents who put suggestions to an 11th committee to make final decisions.
Awards are not only given to famous people, but to people who make a difference and are the pride of the UK. My old headmaster has an OBE.
About the Queen using the internet for porn though, I know that's not true. She gets the Sunday Sport for her porn fix.
PHP
The award is really from the government, they draw up the list of honours from various sources. The Queen presents it as she is the current head of state, there are very few awards that the Queen personally gifts.
The Irish Republic's "we're not Britain" complex is quite ancient and predates the idea of Britain; the Romans never reached Ireland and it retained a separate cultural identity despite a long history of efforts over hundreds of years to change it forcibly. And there's rather more to it than "no taxation without representation" Citizens of Republics are generally proud of the fact that the have no monarchy, no established church, and no hereditary privilege (all citizens are born equal--no "Lords" or hereditary peers). The Irish Republic is one such, like America. It would be FAR more accurate to say that American national identity is defined by a "we're not British" sentiment. The Christmas issue of the Economist had an interesting comparison between how well Kings and Queens of England++ (ie., and of whatever else they ruled at the time) stacked up against US Presidents. Guess who comes out on top! :-)
Anyway, the Republic of Ireland is an independent country. Get over it.
I sense that americans are in a sort of awe, giving to the title of Knight more weight than it deserves.
But britons certainly know that there are and have been many "Knights" that they wouldn't want to be associated with. Lord Archer, for one. And a whole host of showbiz people whose only mind was to get rich at the expense of art.
Sigged!
It is actually consistent with James - he was James I - ie the previous five Scots James were ignored.
The numbering is of Monarchs of England - one of the consequence of being the senior partner/conqueror? Wales was under English rule by then so it wasn't just England, and there were some colonies in places like Virginia etc...
Good to see Knighthood now represented at MIT's innermost, by a Midknight Kommander no less!
Let's hope Gnighthood is next for RMS.
Al Gore made an honest claim about something that he was justly proud of. And somebody deliberately misquoted him to make it appear that he was claiming to have "invented the internet".
... right down there with Fox News and the National Equirer.
That "someone" who deliberately misrepresented what Al Gore said (and whose misrepresentation was then repeated by other, lazy journalists ad nauseum) would be Declan McCullagh of WiReD magazine, whose yellow journalism redefines the color yellow, and who enjoys enough of a rapport with slashdot editors to have his byline placed on any story of his slashdot links to (unlike, say, this story here, and just about every other story linked to).
He single handedly drew attention to the LiViD (Linux DVD) project by publishing a hysterical article about DVD pirates writing software (before it was even working, and knowing full well that the project wasn't about copying DVDs, it was about playing them on Linux, something one couldn't do back then. He subscribed to the mailing list, he knew exactly what he was doing.)
His career is littered with the destroyed public image of more people and projects than I can reasonably count, and his deliberate, premeditated sabataging of Al Gore by deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting him places him at the lowest level of journalism
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The thing that Vint Cerf et al says is completely true?
What Gore said was completely uncontrovertial until, as FreeUser and K8Fan say, Declan McCullagh reprinted the quote claiming it meant Gore said he "invented" the Internet. Nobody used the word "Invented" or claimed Gore meant "invented" until McCullagh stuck his oar in.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So, for example, someone called Tim Berne in 1950 would, if they were to bounce a cheque in 1962, miss a credit card payment in 1965, and then declare bankruptsy twice, would be called "Tim Berners-Lee".
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The Internet name had been used for this existing network for years before Gore ever got involved.
Well, yes and no. The case of the first letter is significant here. The term "internet" was used in the ARPAnet community by the late 70's. But the term "Internet" was consciously introduced in the early 80's with a more precise meaning.
There were a lot of early writings that attempted to make a distinction. An "internet" was more or less what we now call a LAN or an "intranet", a collection of machines using one or more types of comm hardware, with IP used to make them all play nice together. There were (and still are) many "internets". Each may consist of a number of different (hardware) networks, but at the IP level, they can be treated as a single network. The IP protocol intercedes for the software to make the hardware networks interoperate.
The "Internet" was conceived as a top-level internet that connected all of them as a single world-wide network. This was significant not because it needed new technology, but because it was to be a permanent part of the world's communications, not under the control of any single agency or government. The significant innovation here was the idea of a permanent comm system with distributed, cooperating management.
People in academia had talked about this, of course. But by the early 80's, it really hadn't been done. There was a world-wide ARPAnet, yes, and lots of little internets in different organizations. But their interconnections were partial and transitory. I well remember the frustrations of trying to send email from within one company or school to someone in another. At that time, the UUCP email system was often much more reliable, because its store-and-forward approach didn't depend on routing and permanent connections. Even today, with much of the Internet using transient dialup connections, email depends on a store-and-forward scheme, and most home machines and portables can't put things on the web, because they don't have permanent connections. So the Internet with a capital 'I' still hasn't really been fully implemented.
Al Gore rightly deserves a lot of credit for funding development of "the Internet", which happened in the 80's. He can't take much credit for "internet" development, which happened mostly in the 70's.
Of course, if you use an OS that doesn't make case distinctions, you might not understand the difference.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
there was a time when sir mick was persona non grata in england, not for his rock-n-roll lifestyle, but because he was failing to pay taxes on his millions...