In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Prince Harry turned 25 Tuesday in the knowledge that he is now entitled to part of the multi-million dollar inheritance left to him by his late mother. Prince Harry is currently training to become a helicopter pilot with the British Army. Harry was just 12 years old when Diana, Princess of Wales, was killed in a car crash in Paris in 1997. His mother left an estate worth £21 million ($35 million), but more than £8 million ($13.31 million) was paid in inheritance tax, leaving around £13 million ($21.6 million) to be shared between Harry and his brother William, who is second in line to the throne, the British Press Association reported. Much of that money is thought to have been invested but it is not known if the economic downturn has affected the amount. Both princes are prevented from spending the lump sum of their inheritance until they turn 30. But Harry will pocket all income generated by his portion of the estate -- around £300,000 ($500,000) a year.  Watch more about Prince Harry's birthday windfall » . Prince Harry joined the British Army in 2006 and served in Afghanistan for more than two months from the end of 2007 to early 2008, before being withdrawn after news of his secret deployment leaked out to the media. There had been fears that Harry, who is third in line to the throne, could become a target for Taliban militants. According to British media reports, the prince's deployment was subject to a news blackout deal struck between the Ministry of Defence and newspapers and broadcasters in the UK and abroad. He received a promotion to the rank of lieutenant in April last year and is now training to become a helicopter pilot with the British Army's Air Corps. The young royal has also created a few negative headlines, particularly in Britain's tabloid press, in recent years. In February this year, he was formally disciplined by his Army superiors after videos surfaced showing him using offensive language -- referring to a fellow soldier as a "Paki" and another as looking "like a raghead." A spokesman for the prince told CNN: "Prince Harry has apologized for his comments and has been subjected to normal Army disciplinary procedures. The matter is now closed." In a well-publicized gaffe in 2005, Harry apologized after he was photographed wearing a Nazi uniform at a party. "It was a very stupid thing to do and I've learned my lesson, simple as that really," he said in an interview marking his 21st birthday. "I'd like to put it in the past now. What's done is done. I regret it."
Harry was 12 when his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, was killed .
His mother left an estate worth £21 million ($35 million)
Harry will pocket interest from his portion -- around $500,000 a year .

New York (CNN) -- Decades ago, when the Department of Defense was creating the predecessor to today's Internet, one of the main goals was to create a communications system that could endure catastrophic disasters. The Internet was designed to have no central point of failure, allowing anyone to run his or her own communications channel. This was a system that could withstand a nuclear attack. Today, the services built on top of that network have done a great job in enabling communications, perhaps none more dramatically than Twitter. During the days since the Haiti earthquake, the popular social networking and microblogging service has been used for rescue efforts and for fundraising to help stabilize and rebuild the country. So it was big news when Twitter was offline for 90 minutes  Wednesday morning. Technology pundits promptly began hand-wringing -- the weaknesses of having a single point of failure to critical communications had been revealed again! Could we trust Twitter? Did this mean the Web couldn't help us fulfill our most basic obligations to those in need? Not at all. There's no reason that organizations or individuals who want to use the Web to relay critical information have to rely on Twitter or Facebook or Google or any other giant of the technology industry in the first place. We've just forgotten a bit about how the Internet was supposed to work. Rescue organizations and charities should simply be able to use the Web sites they already have to deliver those messages. And wasn't that the promise of the Web in the first place? Weren't we going to stop relying on individual companies as gatekeepers for communication? When blogs took off a few years ago, wasn't it with the promise that we'd all be able to share our voices without having to ask any company for permission? Why did we give that up? Maybe it's because they made it look so easy. Twitter has done an impressive job of growing to handle its enormous number of users, while keeping its service simple. The company has even shown a reassuring sensitivity to the civic and social obligations that come from running such a popular communication service. Companies such as Facebook and Google have stepped up, too. Their hearts appear to be in the right place, and they're doing real work to help people communicate. But the Web is bigger than any one site or any one social network. In my own work, I run a nonprofit that strives to connect government policymakers to the expertise of ordinary people using the Web. We'll naturally make great use of Twitter and Facebook and all the other services, but it'd be unforgivable to pick only one of them as a platform for civic engagement. Telling people the only way to talk to the White House is on Facebook is like saying you can only call your senator by using a particular phone company. And that's the key lesson to learn from Twitter being down while people are depending on it for communication: Some needs are too important to put in the hands of any single company. Communicating in real time about emergency information is clearly one of them. Fortunately there's good news. Smart inventors have already made cutting-edge technologies that let any site deliver messages with the same immediacy as Twitter or Facebook. Now the challenge is reminding all of the social institutions, media organizations and government agencies that they need to use their own communications infrastructure just as much as they participate in services such as Twitter and Facebook. The reality is social networks come and go. Ten years ago, otherwise-sensible companies were paying millions of dollars to America Online to buy "AOL keywords." These were shortcuts to parts of the AOL service, which dominated U.S. Internet access at the time. In fact, many of us have allowed companies to become intermediaries to all our communications, whether it was AOL 10 years ago or Facebook today. But we don't need to ask gateways for permission to publish. We can run our own Web sites, at our own Web addresses and keep control over how we communicate. Think how ludicrous it would seem for someone to decide, say, to offer emergency services as an AOL keyword called "911" instead of having people just dial their phones? That sounds absurd, but you can see advertisements today that essentially say "Find us on Facebook at facebook.com/AcmeWidgets!" Now, Facebook probably won't fade away entirely, like early networks such as Friendster. But those Facebook addresses are just like AOL keywords 10 years earlier. And it is conceivable that the organizations and companies who communicate on Facebook today may want to become more independent. Whether due to emergency or just the everyday requirements of doing business, they ultimately will stop depending on a single point of contact for their communications. This is, after all, how the Web was designed to work. We already see governments and civic organizations using the Web as effectively as the best corporations and media. In the United States, we have a White House that's got an iPhone application and a State Department that's asking us to define democracy by responding on Twitter. Judging by how much technology has affected society already, those first experiments will soon evolve into full-fledged platforms for citizen participation and charitable action. And let's hope they won't have to worry if any one Web site goes down. Because we'll have a web of independent but connected communications systems, just as the Internet was always designed to be. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Anil Dash.
Anil Dash says Internet was designed to endure disasters, free up communication .
Dash: If Web's goal is decentralization, why was Twitter crash so disabling for many?
Dash reminds us that social networks come and go; remember when AOL ruled?
Web users should take charge of their own communication efforts, Dash urges .

Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- The man accused of killing 77 people in a bomb-and-gun rampage in Norway last summer said his actions were justified to save the country from multicultural forces as he went on trial Monday. Anders Behring Breivik raised his arm in a fascist-style salute -- a symbol of "strength, power and defiance against Marxist tyrants," to quote the 1,500-page manifesto attributed to him -- as soon as his handcuffs were removed in court Monday. "I acknowledge the acts but do not plead guilty," he told the court. His trial on charges of voluntary homicide and committing acts of terror is expected to last up to 10 weeks. He is accused of setting off a bomb in central Oslo that killed eight people, then fatally shooting 69 people at a youth camp run by the ruling Labour Party on nearby Utoya Island. Dressed in a black suit and sporting a jawline beard, Breivik listened impassively as prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh read the charges, describing how dozens of young people were shot to death. Breivik says his rampage was meant to save Norway from being taken over by multicultural forces and to prevent ethnic cleansing of Norwegians, said his lawyer, Geir Lippestad. In his manifesto, Breivik railed against Muslim immigration and European liberalism, including the Labour Party, which he said was allowing the "Islamification of Europe." And in court, he called the trial political and objected to the judge's friendship with a former justice minister. "I do not recognize the Norwegian court. You've gotten your mandate from political parties that support multiculturalism," he said. "OK, we will make a note of that general objection," Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen said curtly. Prosecutors played a recording of a terrified girl phoning for help during the shooting rampage, a recording punctuated by constant firing in the background. They also showed security camera video of the central Oslo bomb blast that killed eight people, images that participants in the trial watched with ashen faces. Breivik sat in court without restraints, behind a bulletproof glass barrier set up to protect him during the six hours of proceedings. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg vowed to double down on Norway's traditions of liberal democracy in response to the attacks, and Breivik's trial appears to be no exception. "He was so close to having a bullet between his eyes. The police were so close," said Jorn Overby, who rescued some 15 people from the waters off Utoya during the massacre. But Overby told CNN that he owes Breivik only "a punch in the face for firing at me." "He will get the treatment he needs," Overby said. Experts have given different opinions about Breivik's sanity, which will be a factor in determining what punishment he receives if convicted. Norway does not have the death penalty, and sentencing options could include imprisonment or confining him to a mental facility. But Breivik's defense will try to prove he was sane at the time of the killings, Lippestad said Monday. Lippestad told reporters after the hearing that the defendant had his reasons, but would not disclose them. It is important to Breivik that he be considered sane, Lippestad said after the hearing. Prosecutors outlined Breivik's life before the killings, showing a photo of the messy room where he lived at his mother's house, listing his six failed businesses and referring to his many hours playing the online game "World of Warcraft." Prosecutors said he had "no job, no salary, no money from the government" and was "living off his savings." The defendant smiled briefly when his "Warcraft" character was shown, one of the few times he showed emotion on Monday. He also appeared to be overcome with emotion, fighting back tears, when part of his video manifesto "Knights Templar 2083" was played in court. Lippestad declined to say why Breivik wept, citing attorney-client privilege. But lawyers for the victims said: "No one thought he was crying for the victims." A survivor of Utoya Island, Tore Sinding Bekkedal, said he was surprised to experience "a strange feeling of relief" when prosecutors switched from listing the names of the dead to those of the wounded. "It was an intense gratitude, Bekkedal said during a break in the proceedings. "It took me by surprise that I felt it, that these wonderful people are still among us, that we managed to save these ones at least." Breivik is to begin testifying Tuesday, and asked Monday for his testimony to be broadcast, claiming it as a human right. Most of the relatives of the victims do not want that to happen, according to lawyers who represent the families of victims and survivors. "It's going to be 10 weeks of hell ... to hear this man, to hear his explanation of why he did it and how he did it," said Trond Henry Blattmann, whose son was killed on Utoya Island. In November, prosecutors said psychiatrists had determined that Breivik was paranoid and schizophrenic at the time of the attacks and during 13 interviews experts conducted with him afterward. However, the court sought a second opinion because of the importance of the question of sanity to Breivik's trial. In a report released this month, two court-appointed psychiatric experts said Breivik was sane at the time of the killings. The victims on Utoya Island were among 700 mostly young people attending a Labour Party camp, the same camp Stoltenberg said he had attended every summer since 1974. "I think that one of the main messages from Norway after the tragedy ... was that we were going to protect our democracy. And part of our democracy is the divisions of responsibilities between the government and the courts. It's up to the courts to decide whether this man is going to be sentenced or not, whether he is insane or not. It's not a question which is going to be decided by politicians. That's part of our democratic society," Stoltenberg said. Tore Bjorgo, a terror expert and professor at Norwegian Police University College, said Breivik appears to be overly concerned about his self-image and sees himself in the role of a "fantastic, great person who will save Europe." "It's we who should decide what kind of a society we want; it's not the terrorists," he said. "And the logic of terrorism is to try to provoke responses to get people to act in ways the terrorists want, and it was important that we didn't do that. We didn't go down that road, and that was, I think, a big victory." CNN's Per Nyberg and Marilia Brocchetto contributed to this report.

NEW: Survivor says he owes Breivik "a punch in the face"
Breivik's lawyer says it is important to his client that he be seen as sane .
Prosecutors play a recording of a call for help during the shooting spree .
Breivik is accused of killing 77 people in a bomb and gun rampage .