I respectfully disagree with Ted Nelson.

  He saw HTML as a way to give structure to the Web, which would ultimately result in control, whereas it was on the contrary built as the building block for a uncontroled, free field of expression.

  In some way I think HTML was to HyperText (as a concept) what the Web 2.0 was to HTML : a more user-generated content focused approach which ultimately allowed endless creativity and expression.

  I mean it's funny to see how Nelson is already concerned about rights management and version management. On the other hand I think its view on the Web Browser is really insightful. But whatever tool you use human only have 2 eyes, and for most of us we use both to look at the same thing at the same time.

I think the idea of a work of fiction is to immerge you in a universe, an ambiance, a story, to make you forget you're actually reading or using any kind of media.

  The best way todo this is probably not to rely heavily on hypertext which are constant reminders of the media.

  It could make sense in a Tolstoï novel or a big work of SF where the universe is so complex and vast that you sometimes want to have a quick access to information relevent to the understanding . ( The silmarion and War and Peace are very hard at the beginning because every character has 3 different and unrelated names..., plus they generally have a lot of characters )

  But even if it could enhance the understanding or at least make it more convenient it would still be damaging to the general experience.

  Hypertext is great for quick access to a lot of related small pieces of information, but that's not what you want for a book. You want a deep experience of submerging yourself in a universe. It has to be even more immersive than a movie, and that's why it is so rewarding

I love you.

On my laptop (Core 2 duo P8600, 2GB RAM, aka crap) FF10 with a fresh session (0 tabs) opens in a little under 2.5 seconds under win7.

  So either you run pretty fast, or your PC is full of bloatware/very slow.

  Then again that would be so surprising, the same laptop boots to CATIA V5 in less than 10 seconds, but it takes my university's Quad Core XEON with 16GB RAM over a minute to start the same application.

  Also to consider, when you see the desktop screen of win7, the boot process isn't complete, so it's no freaking use clicking on FF 10 icon, because there are 20 processes running in the background.

Apparently you can't be touched by irony and/or you don't like making sense.

    I meant to say (to be clear) that 12 months is a very long time considering how fast browser tech advances nowadays, which you seemed to disagree with, but you provided a example that was 100% backing my view.

  So Again : FF 3.6 OLD SLOW BAD. FF10 NEW FAST GOOD. Got it ?

Yes because One year is such a short time in software developement nowadays...

When did you last use FF ? v3.5 ?

  I use both right now, on win7, Linux Mint and CrunchBang. My FF always has 20-30 tabs opened, it's my main browser, I only use Chrome when have no browser opened and I don't want to wait for FF to start with my 30 opened tabs.

  Based on my experience, FF 10 isn't bloated at all. It's as fast as Chrome and has way more useful plugins.

  On an unrelated note I trust mozilla a gazillion times more than I trust google.

Given the fact that the US constitution was written by agnostic humanitarians inspired by the Enlightenment and is now supposedly the basis of the far right-wing nutjob christian extremist ideology I'd say they might have wanted it to be a little more self explanatory.
That or do something about education...

You think 117 pages is a long bill ? For regulating the privacy issues on the internet so that is can be compatible with the laws of 27 countries ?
Dude FFS ! It took the senate 3000 pages to make a half baked healthcare reform that's not even close to what French people have been enjoying since 1945 ! (And all the other European nations from roughly the same period of time)
Get over yourself ! Yes it is long, because it is a complicated issue and contrary to what the OP (who's definitely on Google/Facebook payroll) tries to implie they did take a very serious look at what the consequences would be on free speech. Is it a complexe issue that you might not be able to grasp in its full complexity by spending 5 minutes on slashdot : HELL YES.

You do realize Facebook is a private multinational corporation yes ?
It is not and will never be in any sense whatsoever a representative of the USA and/or affiliated with it's government.
There are hundreds of social networking sites all over the world including of course some which were created in europe, but believe it or not social networks extend beyond "the great sea" (you know the one Jesus crossed barefoot to take away all the indians to his father so the pilgrims can have all the turkeys and found the United States to save the world from the devil's reincarnation in the form of a 5feet5 black haired dude with a mustache and a funny accent).
Yes that one, and also the other one that extends from California to the land of the yellow people who make awesome game consoles and Godzilla movies
the whole idea of Social networking is to reflect the actual social connections between real people, which most of the times are global.

Dude, you live in a country where the supreme court judge unlimited corporate donations (aka bribes) to political parties and candidates is considered free speech.
It's about damn time you wake up...
In the US, if you can make money off it it's free speech, if it's about ideas it's communist propaganda

No it's a legislature that make Facebook accountable for the data they said they'd control if you gave them.
In other words the positive outcome I can see from this is : Facebook/google+ close because they get prosecuted for false advertising and breach of their EULA, peopleget a $100 each and we can allsafely move to diaspora where we will actually be in control of our data (or alternatively stop giving a fuck about social networking, which is fine by me)

Exactly, if you google my name you have exactly one person that comes up : me.

This is about saying to Facebook and Google and many others : Okay you tell you users to trust you with their data, then get this data in fucking control.
Right now Facebook is pretending to let you control the data you upload when in fact neither them nor you control it.
A] Facebook deletes data based on algorithmes that you know nothing about as a user.
B] You do not own any of the data you upload to facebook
C] They pretend it is for you own good, but they fail at being able to remove data that would be considered illegal.
i.e. someone who is my friend on facebook tags me on a photo of me naked. I can get untagged but the photo will remain on facebook and I have no legal recourse other than this new proposed right to be forgotten.
Right now there is absolutely NO legal channel for users of social networks to hold Facebook accountable for the data they make available.
There is a pratical solution though : diaspora, or diaspora-like architecture, which is what facebook should have been (had it not been a machiavelic plan to get every last bit of possible data on anyone in the planete in the wrong hands)
On diaspora you own your data, if something is on the network that you posted and you want it removed you just delete it.

Hum... fair point, I hadn't thought about it because Norway is in the EEA (sort of broader economic-focused EU) so you can freely go there from anywhere in the EU if you have a passeport, and stay for 3 months. Once there you can apply for an extension as long as you have a job.
For US citizens I don't know, but Norway has a fairly welcoming immigration policy, especially if you have a job there / have qualifications, and I am 100% sure you don't need to speak Bokmal or Nynorsk to emmigrate there (althought that might come in handy if you plan to work there : Bokmal is spoken by 90% of the population)
You do however need to speak one of the two to have citizenship.