The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
OMG! "surfing the net" that expression is sooo nineties! Back in the day we used a 14400bps dial-up modem to connect to Compuserve to catch the waves! Those were the days when you could actually see an image forming in your screen while it was (slowly!) downloaded.
Anyways all that talk about surfing and waves has put me in the mood for some Beach Boys!
Surf's up dude!
many years ago, back in the early days of even MSDOS some unix folks created unix [like] commands for DOS: grep, ls, diff, even ed/sed and one guy even wrote a half descent sh (bourne).
guess what microsoft are doing today! nothing for us to get...something they are very ...excited about
living in the past is just one of their things.
after many otherwise intelligent sounding suggestions that achieved nothing the nice folks at Technet said the only solution was to low level format my hard disk then reinstall my signature. Sadly, this still didn't fix the issue!
I remember back in middle school in the 80s working with HyperCard to set up custom stacks on the school's Macs (goofy things like choose your own adventure games, etc.). And they called them Hyperlinks back then too.
But hypertext was a well known concept. Ted Nelsons book was published in 1974. Every now and then I bring my copy of the book to work to show to young, new employees the ideas of almost fifty years ago. They are amused, and a little bit impressed.
Some are fascinated when I point out Ted Nelson's two different hypertext scenarios: The one that survived, where text is is the vertices (nodes); edges (links) are without content. In the second one, vertices are mere selection points; text is found on the edge between two selection points. You consider text from one vertex to the second to the third and so on as one continous, coherent chain of text fragments to be read as a whole.
The two approaches obviously are suited for different uses. In a network of independent nodes you cannot easily store much data between the nodes. The text-in-the-edges approach is mainly suited for one coherent text body, that can be read along an arbitrary number of paths. When I write a personal letter (I am old enough to remember the days when that was a common thing...), writing one sentence gives me two different associations, two lines of thought, and I wish I could follow both in the following sentence. I am forced to string them out sequentially. In printed books, footnotes are a slight suggestion of the concept, but you can't follow the footnote path very long (*), and you divert from the main track, you are not given two+ equivalent alternative paths.
Most people never considered alternatives to text-in-the-nodes. Presentation of an alternative sets them thinking: Everyone knows the situation where you want to follow two lines of thought from the same point; they certainly see the usefulness of the alternative that lost. So let us bring it back again!
(*) Except for some authors that excel in writing footnotes to footnotes, present major plots in footnotes etc. Some books may be read either way - e.g. "Spoon River Anthology" may be be read as a continous path from one person/epitaph to another one, crisscrossing through Spoon River, even though it textually is a text-in-nodes structure.
Links is highly ambigious, hyperlinks less so. Links may be any sort of reference or asocciation. It may be "backwards" screws/nuts. It may be a radio beam. It may be a fragment of a chain.
There are thousands of ambiguous terms that we still manage to handle. In most cases, we get the right understanding from context. In some contexts, two or more interpretations are equally valid. There is the classical example:
"You are right" - "right" is unambiguous in this context, right? But the statement was made at a tennis court, with two couples. So the complete statement is "You are right. I am left". Is the understanding of "right" still the same?
Now at this tennis court, there are actually three couples who play around. So the statement uttered is not yet complete - it could either be: "You are right. I am left. She is middle." The second meaning of "right" prevails. Or they may be taking a brief rest, and one of the guys tells "You are right. I am left. She is gone!". The last word in the third sentence completely reverses the meaning of the two preceding sentences.