.jpg?width=300)
Tim Berners-Lee
English computer scientist (born 1955)
The numbers
3 + 4 = 7
Lo Shu grid
Missing: 2. Present digits repeat to show how many times they occur.
Life path 7 — The Seeker
Seven is the analyst and the mystic at once — the tradition assigns it both, and does not treat that as a contradiction. It is read as the number of depth, solitude and the refusal to accept a surface explanation. Its difficulty is distance: the withdrawal that makes the thinking possible is read as coldness by everyone outside it, and 7 is described as being misunderstood more often than it is disliked.
Complete lines
Line of Reason
A complete line in the grid.
Line of Action
The 8-1-6 row complete. Read as follow-through — the traditional marker of someone whose plans reliably become events.
Line of Stability
A complete line in the grid.
Line of Ambition
The 7-8-9 column complete. Read as drive that has both the wish and the machinery — the traditional marker of someone who converts intention into position.
Line of Resolve
The 1-5-9 diagonal complete. Read as determination that survives the middle of a project, when the initial energy has gone and the result is not yet visible.
Line of Sensitivity
The 3-5-7 diagonal complete. Read as emotional and intuitive range — the line practitioners associate with artists and with people who register what is unsaid.
Responsibility
A complete line in the grid.
Organisation
A complete line in the grid.
What is missing
Missing 2
Read as bluntness: reaching the conclusion without the intermediate handling. The tradition frames this as a timing gap rather than a lack of feeling.
Vedic — Ank Jyotish
Moolank 8 comes from the day of the month alone; Bhagyank 7 from the whole date. They differ, which is the ordinary case — the two numbers answer different questions.
Shani
Saturn. Labour, delay, consequence. Feared in popular practice more than any other, and read as the graha that makes people earn things.
Bhagyank uses the same arithmetic as the Western life path, so the two will always agree. That is not two traditions confirming each other — it is one calculation under two names.
In their words
We should work toward a universal linked information system, in which generality and portability are more important than fancy graphics techniques and complex extra facilities. The aim would be to allow a place to be found for any information or reference which one felt was important, and a way of finding it afterwards. The result should be sufficiently attractive to use that it the information contained would grow past a critical threshold, so that the usefulness the scheme would in turn encourage its increased use. The passing of this threshold accelerated by allowing large existing databases to be linked together and with new ones.
This project is experimental and of course comes without any warranty whatsoever. However, it could start a revolution in information access.
I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the TCP and DNS ideas and — ta-da!— the World Wide Web.
The fact that we're all connected, the fact that we've got this information space — does change the parameters. It changes the way people live and work. It changes things for good and for bad. But I think, in general, it's clear that most bad things come from misunderstanding, and communication is generally the way to resolve misunderstandings — and the Web's a form of communications — so it generally should be good. But I think, also, we have to watch whether we preserve the stability of the world — like we don't want to watch this phenomenon like the stock market becoming unstable when it became computerized, for example. We need to look at the whole society and think, "Are we actually thinking about what we're doing as we go forward, and are we preserving the really important values that we have in society? Are we keeping it democratic, and open, and so on?
I don't believe in the sort of eureka moment idea. I think it's a myth. I'm very suspicious that actually Archimedes had been thinking about that problem for a long time. And it wasn't that suddenly it came to him.
Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.
Sourced from Wikiquote, restricted to the subject’s own sourced sections.