I highlight text, too.

Some people hover over the text that they are reading, moving the mouse in parallel lines across the screen and indicating to Google the speed at which they read,
Some people don't move the mouse at all while reading.
Some people throw the mouse to the corner of the screen while they're reading.
Some people hover over ads but don't click. Others avoid hovering over ads.
Some people's behavior changes when they use a laptop versus a desktop.

Most of the people I know consistently perform a single mousing behavior on websites, and there's a finite amount of variation between individuals.

The idea to observe people's idiosyncratic behaviors in order to classify them into actionable categories is pretty obvious, though, and I don't see how Google's saying "This *specific* behavior, in this *specific* industry" in a patent application qualifies them to prevent other organizations from performing this sort of analysis.

It doesn't help that the linked article is terrible. A whole pile of performance updates are being made in addition to the UI changes:

JagerMonkey
HTML5 Parser off main thread
64 bit support
Startup timeline optimizations
Reduced I/O operations on main thread
JS threads and GC
DOM Performance improvements
Layers for compositing, scrolling

+

Graphics compositing with Layers
Hardware acceleration using Direct3D
Multitouch support
Aero Peek integration
OSX integration

I'd suggest reading the actual presentation for more information:
http://beltzner.ca/mike/2010/05/10/firefox-4-fast-powerful-and-empowering/

So, have your kid create a Facebook account and visit the profiles of every Labor party representative, employee, and intern you can find, accusing each and every one of them of child abuse.

It doesn't work, because it's a silly libertarian ideal, based on an incomplete model of rationality.

Calling people idiots because they are either unwilling or unable to mold their behavior to fit your ideal is juvenile, and it doesn't change the fact that your arguments are based on completely unrealistic assumptions.

Scalpers are rent-seeking middlemen who don't add any value to their product.

Supermarkets and McDonalds and BK all add value to the products they resell, either by assembling them into individual servings of bulk product, or by presenting their products for sale with many other options. Scalpers, in contrast, push people out of the ticket-buying process using unfair automation tactics (in violation of the first seller's TOS, typically), then relist those tickets at higher prices for their own personal gain, taking advantage of people's desire to consume a limited resource to earn money for themselves. Scalpers are a broken window, a drain on society. Their "business" is fundamentally unfair and if it isn't illegal, it should be.

This "vote with your dollars" bullshit doesn't work in the real world.

This is the most ridiculous semantic argument I have ever read. Saying that "time doesn't exist" is a cop-out for simple minds.

"Time" is the word we use to describe the chain of causality that human beings can commonly observe. Yes, there are a lot of assumptions inherent in our definition of the word, but that doesn't mean you can say it doesn't exist. All you can do is speculate on the nature of time based on your observations (i.e. "The only thing we have is present-moment memories, etc"), attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis, and seek falsifying or confirming evidence for that hypothesis.

It just so happens that's really difficult to do when every frame of reference you have occurs (or appears to occur) within the very thing you're trying to study.

I see this is a sign that the government is realizing the importance of the internet to the future of commerce and national security.

Minimum speed mandates are the first step towards government-maintained infrastructure. By setting a target the telcos will be unable to reach, and buoying consumer expectations to expect this level of service soon, the door is opened for the government to implement solutions for upgrading or providing a portion of the telecommunications infrastructure themselves.

Frankly the telcos have nobody but themselves to blame. They took taxpayer money and instead of spending it on infrastructure upgrades to keep the US competitive with other nations, they sat on their collective asses raking in record profits while the quality of their networks and their customer satisfaction went to shit. If market forces worked, this would be unnecessary.

The NSA and Google are in the same business: information.

They may have different motivations and methods, but at their core they are both organizations that collect huge amounts of information and use that information as a means to an end.

Google's "don't be evil" is a tacit acknowledgment of the power information wields, and seeing them team up with a disreputable organization like the NSA makes the parallels between the two very obvious, generating a flurry of AC comments to capitalize on the memetic opportunity.