Brit who invented world wide web finally gets knighted

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:36 pm

"Tim Berners-Lee, the British inventor of the world wide web, has received his knighthood from the Queen.

The "father of the web", who already has an OBE, went to Buckingham Palace to get his reward for "services to the global development of the internet".

In 1991, the knight of the web came up with a system to organise, link and browse pages on the net.

Famously modest, he said he had just been "in the right place at the right time" and did not want his photo taken.

During the hour-long ceremony held in the Ballroom at the Palace, the Queen knighted Sir Tim using the sword that belonged to her father, King George VI."

Source: BBC News

FETUS · Post by **FETUS** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:03 pm

I thaught al gore invented the internet

Sephiroth · Post by **Sephiroth** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:25 pm

FETUS wrote:I thaught al gore invented the internet

Hmmm....I thought so too...

Post by **Roofus** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:48 pm

Actually, Al Gore only invented TCP/IP.

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:08 pm

I think he originally stated that he only helped to create the internet, whilst working with the US Army.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:53 pm

az_bont wrote:I think he originally stated that he only helped to create the internet, whilst working with the US Army.

He said something like "We took the initiative to begin creating the internet". "I invented the internet" is a ludicrous exaggeration - and in fact, the funding he championed DID lead to creation of much of the modern internet.

In 1991, the knight of the web came up with a system to organise, link and browse pages on the net.

From the jist I get, it sounds like what he created became HTML. Right?

For a minute, I was going to post he didn't invent the internet. Then I remembered the internet and world wide web aren't the same thing... Heh.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:04 pm

Yeah, Berners-Lee basically put together the foundations of HTTP and HTML. Hypertext is much older than the Web (the concept dates at least back to 1945, even if useful implementations did not exist until decades later), but Berners-Lee was the one who created the near-seamless integration of hypertext and networking that we know today. The W3C has a concise biography and a look at the original browser, called WorldWideWeb.

Veggita2099 · Post by **Veggita2099** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:11 pm

They claim the Internet has been around since the 50's or 60's, or something of that nature. Of course it was not as we know it today, it was basically a dull and boreing way to communicate pretty much.

Rev. Layle · Post by **Rev. Layle** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:40 pm

yep, the internet and TCP/IP has been around WAY WAY longer then the WWW

FETUS · Post by **FETUS** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:15 am

yeah my grampa had the "internet" when my dad was a teenager. He even still has the old modem that you just set your phone on.

Rev. Layle · Post by **Rev. Layle** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 3:02 am

well having a modem doesn't mean you had internet access. i had a modem in the 80's to dial up BBS systems. but none of that was the internet, and none of it used TCP/IP. there was a loose system of BBS computer systems that would deliver messages/mail called FidoNet.

perry · Post by **perry** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 6:16 am

Have you seen they're thinking of gettin rid of knighting !?! Saying it's too old and outdated.. they wanna use something new and more modern..

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:16 am

Some random black guy nobody has heard of kicked up a stink, because it promoted a class system and reminded him of the British Empire to much (Knight of the British Empire).

There was a discussion at Slashdot, of all places, that pretty much summed up my feelings on the subject:

Space cowboy wrote:It's not often said, but the British Empire was one of the first to enshrine the rights of man on a global scale. Slavery and all its connotatations came late in the empire's history, and frankly stood against almost everything the empire originally stood for (but by this stage, the money-men had taken over There are no noble actions in the enslavement of continents, but let's be clear here - the UK sold slaves from Africa to the USA, nowhere else. To deride the 'empire' for it's failings is to deny the good whilst celebrating the bad about the political system of the time.

The empire was a good thing during a time when war was commonplace, it brought stability to areas of conflict, it imposed Pax Britannia in the same way that the USA imposes Pax Americana today - the UK ruled through trade and prosperity within its territories, as opposed to the other colonial powers which tended to be more .. austere. Tell me the difference between what happened then and what happens now, As far as I can see, it boils down to 'the US allows countries their own government as long as it does not interfere with US foreign policy'. Not too different from 'The UK allows the locals to do their own thing, subject to overall control from the governer'

If you look at the evolution of the colonies that the UK had, compared to those that the other world powers at the time had, I think you'll see a more liberative and free society within the ex-UK colonies than the others. Even those countries that were our competitors at the time must concede that the model of democratic and fair government by the people of the people has its roots in the UK's parliamentary system. If you doubt me, look it up. See how nepotism and favouritism were rife in the politics of the day. Like it or loathe it, the rule of law was a rule imposed on *all* British subjects, since the Magna Carta enshrined the right of the common man to be treated with the same dignity as the Lord.

This is not to say that the British Empire was inherently good (or bad), you only have to look at 4th July to see most Americans attitude [grin], but consider what the situation would have been if the British sense of 'fair play', (and the system of law that it created), the English language, and the idea of Democracy as a fair form of government were never spread around the globe. This is the legacy of the Empire that you denigrate so tritely. Consider. Would you have done so well in different circumstances ? Consider that seriously for a moment.....

To get back more to the parent post: we (the Brits) honour those who serve more than is typically asked. We give them a title, a mark of distinction, a way of marking them as 'better' than average. If you don't like that, well, that's your privilege. Personally, I think ole Tim deserves every honour he gets. It's a distinction that goes back several hundred years, and I think he stands tall in the company of his peers. Well done Sir Tim.

Simon

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:10 pm

As far as I can see, it boils down to 'the US allows countries their own government as long as it does not interfere with US foreign policy'. Not too different from 'The UK allows the locals to do their own thing, subject to overall control from the governer'

There is a certain irony that one of the most ingrained, classical American beliefs is that everyone has the right to self-government, and war is justifiable if you're under someone else's thumb. You can see it in a lot of our films, at least if they're more then a few years old - American film makers will almost always side with revolutionaries getting out from under the control of foreign power, even largely benign ones.

That belief has been fading slowly for some time, which I think is sad. Oh well.

As far as knighting goes... My biggest problem with it is that an awful lot of the knightings seem to consist of "Oh, you, you made a lot of money for the Queen, so here's your knighthood!". I think it is a truely great tradition which I am glad is still maintained, I just don't like the reason some people recieve it.

As far as the British empire goes... You're not likely to get a lot of positive opinions about it from Americans, but I'd say they were more akin to the Romans than the Mongols in their treatment of subject people. It doesn't mean I like it, as Imperialism always bothers me - it's pretty much the only thing I dislike about my favorite president, for instance (Teddy). I also think the world would be even worse off if, say, the Spanish had had the empire instead of the British.

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:01 pm

Lartrak wrote:As far as knighting goes... My biggest problem with it is that an awful lot of the knightings seem to consist of "Oh, you, you made a lot of money for the Queen, so here's your knighthood!". I think it is a truely great tradition which I am glad is still maintained, I just don't like the reason some people recieve it.

Which knights would these be? As far as I'm aware, nobody earns money for the Queen. She gets her palace and jewels and servants and such, but other than that I don't think anyone actaully earns her money.

Post by **Roofus** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:07 pm

Lartrak wrote:As far as the British empire goes... You're not likely to get a lot of positive opinions about it from Americans, but I'd say they were more akin to the Romans than the Mongols in their treatment of subject people. It doesn't mean I like it, as Imperialism always bothers me - it's pretty much the only thing I dislike about my favorite president, for instance (Teddy). I also think the world would be even worse off if, say, the Spanish had had the empire instead of the British.

I'd agree with that. Just compare the US and Canada to Mexico.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 4:10 pm

az_bont wrote:
Lartrak wrote:As far as knighting goes... My biggest problem with it is that an awful lot of the knightings seem to consist of "Oh, you, you made a lot of money for the Queen, so here's your knighthood!". I think it is a truely great tradition which I am glad is still maintained, I just don't like the reason some people recieve it.
Which knights would these be? As far as I'm aware, nobody earns money for the Queen. She gets her palace and jewels and servants and such, but other than that I don't think anyone actaully earns her money.

By "the Queen" I really mean the country as a whole. I guess I'm kind of wrong about money... But I just don't think artists should really be knighted, that is what I meant I guess. Like Elton John. Well, Elton John isn't the best example, as he has done more than just music.

Of course, I have no real perspective on the matter anyway.

BTW, who picks who gets knighthood?

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 4:21 pm

Lartrak wrote:ust don't think artists should really be knighted, that is what I meant I guess. Like Elton John. Well, Elton John isn't the best example, as he has done more than just music.

He was officially awarded that for his long career in music, and his extensive chatrity work. Bill Gates got one for his contribution to British business and extensive charity work. There's normally more to it than them just being good at making music or similar.

Lartrak wrote:BTW, who picks who gets knighthood?

The Queen does, although she gets reccomendations from the PM and others.

http://www.britainusa.com/faq/showfaq.asp?SID=333

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:09 pm

He was officially awarded that for his long career in music, and his extensive chatrity work.

Yeah, he's done an awful lot of children's AIDS charities, which is great.

perry · Post by **perry** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:44 am

The only reason it was at Slashdot is because some nerd was getting one

but there is no reason to ever take knighthood away. We knight those who shine above others. They deserve.