I have to kind-of agree here. Google has recently said that they are able to parse out sections of the pages and "reserve the right" to value those links differently. Matt Cutts made such a statement on a Webmaster Tools Video 9 months ago:

Then January this month he said it doesn't matter where the link is. Confused yet?

#2 - External Links are More Influential than Internal Links

Duh, no brainer there really.

#3 - Links from Unique Domains Matters More than Links from Previously Linking Sites

Sure this definitely makes sense. The more diverse your back link sources are the better you will do.

#4 - Links from Sites Closer to a Trusted Seed Set Pass More Value

Once again pretty obvious (yet hard to determine) knowledge here. You get a bunch of links from trusted sites like a Amazon, government, .edu types sites it is going to help. This is how the myth perpetuated itself saying you need to get .gov and .edu links. It is not necessary to rank to get them, they are almost always highly trusted by Google, that is why they have heed sites rank in the past. But the same affect can be had with any popular .com as well.

#5 - Links from "Inside" Unique Content Pass More Value than Those from Footers/Sidebar/Navigation

Absolutely no doubt here. Reference back up to the video in #1 and you will see Cutts state that as such. Over the years Google has learned that is much easier to stick a link in the side navigation or footer (more than likely site-wide) than it is to go into site content and edit manually. Of course great plug-ins for Wordpress like Crosslinker help make this task easier if you operate a WP blog.

#6 - Keywords in HTML Text Pass More Value than those in Alt Attributes of Linked Images

Another old school understanding of SEO. I think most out there that have done SEO in the past can attest that using text anchors are better than ALT attributes.

#7 - Links from More Important, Popular, Trusted Sites Pass More Value (even from less important pages)

Well duh, when you get a link from www.joeblow.com it is not going to be worth as much as www.cnn.com/joeblow/

#8 - Links Contained Within NoScript Tags Pass Lower (and Possibly No) Value

Not so sure about this one. I have seen plenty of spammers try and knock sites down with this method. The spammer would own a bunch of bad neighborhood sites, like warez or malware sites and then include noscript links (millions) to a site they want to knock down. Seems to work in some cases from what I have scene.

#9 - A Burst of New Links May Enable a Document to Overcome "Stronger" Competition Temporarily (or in Perpetuity)

In today's age or viral video, content and pages this is bound to be true. Some used to think a sudden influx of 1000's of links were an indication of link building through spam methods. That simply can not be true.

#10 - Pages that Link to WebSpam May Devalue the Other Links they Host

Once again this is straight from the horses (Google's) mouth. They have said repeatedly if you link out to crap sites you can see you sites ranking diminish. hate the reference the Google Webmaster Guidelines, but they say:

"Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links."

So what are your thoughts on SEOmoz post?