That's Sir Tim to You 249
andrew_j_w writes "British born creator of the web Tim Berners-Lee has finally received his Knighthood from the Queen. It's nice to a pioneer, who certainly not a household name, get such a high honour from the establishment. Hopefully more people will now recognise the great work he did!"
Re:Whats next? (Score:2, Informative)
But for how long? (Score:5, Informative)
Free was key, says Lee (Score:5, Informative)
In this day and age of superfluous patents [slashdot.org] and frivolous lawsuits [slashdot.org], Sir Tim Berners-Lee [w3.org] gently reminds us of the importance of free and selfless contribution [cnn.com] for the betterment of humanity. Speaking at the ceremony for winning the Millennium Technology Prize [technologyawards.org] (as reported earlier on Slashdot [slashdot.org]), he said that he would never have succeeded if he'd tried to charge money for his inventions. The prize committee agreed, citing the importance of Berners-Lee's decision never to commercialize or patent his contributions to the Internet technologies he had developed, and recognizing his revolutionary contribution to humanity's ability to communicate.
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Informative)
As for his business contributions, well...
He's already knighted, but can't use Sir... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
Although you can argue semantics (okay yes, he literally said it.) What he meant, was that he was instrumental in the funding of ARPANET. So, in a sense, you can say that the internet probably wouldn't exist, or at least would have taken longer to come into existence, had it not been for Al Gore. I'm no Al Gore apologist (well, except here, I guess) but the guy does deserve some credit for having the foresight to help fund the project. (I don't for a moment believe he had the foresight to see what the internet would become, but then nobody else did either.)
Note: The Web is not The Internet. (Score:3, Informative)
All he did was take an existing markup language, make a few mods, and came up with a really neat idea and tool. The Web is not The Internet. The web -relies- on the Internet.
(I'm not begrudging him his due either, though when the web first came along all of us 'net users were a bit ticked at the drops in our bandwidth until the backbones caught up).
Re:Whats next? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wait... (Score:2, Informative)
Having said that, Al Gore was not in any way instrumental in initiating funding for the creation of ARPANET. According to this history of the Internet [leidenuniv.nl], the plans for ARPANET were published in 1966/67, and it was operational by 1969. During this time, Al Gore was still an undergraduate student [infoplease.com], so not in any position to 'take the initiative' in funding creation of anything. Gore apparently finished law school in 1976, at which point he entered American politics as a member of congress.
Yes, but the 'report' has been roundly condemned (Score:5, Informative)
The commons has to vote, and when a majority decision is reached, it goes to the Lords for ratification.
The Lords act as the 'public conscience' (and hey, it actually does work like this). Despite their allegiance to any party, there are myriad examples of the Lords sending a bill back to the Commons saying 'it has to cope with X better', where X could be any under-privileged group you care to mention. The Lords are *not* elected, They have a duty of *moral* care - and frankly they do a good job, despite the privilege that the system inherently (no pun intended
In fact the Commons (the elected representatives) have the ability to over-rule the Lords if a bill goes back and forth 3 times. This is 'the voice of the people', but the Lords can raise an almighty stink (and have done), saying *why* they rejected the bill. This has been an unbelievable embarassment to governments in the past, and it takes a strong-willed government to push a bill through regardless. The last was Thatcher, and I think she paid a heavy price for not negotiating a compromise.
The take-home message is simple - the UK has 2 houses. One is elected and needs to justify its existence. One is not, and acts for those who cannot speak out for themselves. At least that's the idea, and although it's not perfect, it does seem to work reasonably well when you couple it with an independent media, at least IMHO...
Simon
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe now I'll stop hearing those stupid Al-Gore-invented-the-Internet commments since the guy who really invented (what most people consider the Internet) is getting recognition for it.
Um, he's the one who tried to take credit for it ... (and before you copy/paste, yes, I have read the "full quote").
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Informative)
To be called "Sir " you must be a British subject. So, Bill Gates is indeed a Knight of th British Empire (KBE), but no amount of money will allow him to be called Sir Bill, unless he renounces his US Citzenship and becomes a British subject. Even then, I'm not sure naturalized Brits get the "Sir' privilege.
Interestingly, for not a lot of green, you can buy a Lordship and be a real "Lord of the Manor." These are called Baronial Lordships and "Lord of the Manor" is about the equivalent of "homeowner" in the US.. Though bad etiquette, many Americans do buy Baronial Lordships and called themselves "Lord Finkelstein", though they are not true members of the peerage.
Good FAQ about all this complicated feudal stuff here. [baronage.co.uk]
Re:Yes, but the 'report' has been roundly condemne (Score:5, Informative)
The Lords isn't just restricted to the traditional gentry. Politicians, statesmen, judges etc are all appointed to the Lords, regardless of their family origin. Indeed, for many years, the House of Lords has been seen as a way for a government to "promote" a troublesome Cabinet Minister, flattering his (or her) ego, while reducing the potential for damage.
Under the current system, the Lords can effectively delay a Bill's progress for a single year, after which, the Commons can drive it through using the Parliament Act. This doesn't happen very often, though. In situations where the Commons appears to have been trying to pass a piece of legislation for many years without success, the logical conclusion is that the Government does not actually want to pass the legislation. A good example of this would be the bill on foxhunting, which has been proposed pretty much every year since Labour came to power in 1997, but has been defeated in the Lords every year. One may suspect that Blair has no real interest in banning foxhunting (it is a bit of a non-issue, in all fairness, compared with much of the other business of government), but he finds it a useful rallying point on which to focus the rebellious left-wingers in his party each year.
The Lords does actually work remarkably well in practice; far better than it really has any right to. It acts as a conservative (with a small "c") influence upon any government and is a useful check on hastily thought out populist and/or badly drafted legislation. It's been one of the most effective defenders of civil rights in the UK since Labour came to power.
It's a good illustration of how counter-intuitive the British constitution can be. One of the other most effective checks upon governments who would go too far comes from the unelected, heriditary monarch. Her powers are, in reality, extremely limited, but as the current Queen is, contrary to the general public perception, a formidable expert on Britain's constitutional system, the moderating effect can be valuable.
He is not Sir Bill (Score:4, Informative)
You are only get the honorific 'Sir' if you have a knighthood.