not sure why this is at -1

Yep, and that number doesn't even include (managed) switches and good firewalls

Well I kind of chuckled when you said

because it couldn't make more clear how (as per /. etiquette, of course, I know) directly jumping to the comment section is your usual MO, when in reality, the occasional guy who actually does spend a few minutes on reading TFA is not unheard of.
Therefore it could have been a funny and subtle troll as well; thanks for ruling out that possibility :).

Besides, It's also very possible that the poster just reads /. the way I do, which is skimming the front page for stories of potential interest (i know, i know), opening them in background tabs, and only /then/ going through the opened stories, eh, comment sections, one by one. So there's quite a delay between clicking on a story (causing comments to be loaded), and actually looking at it for the first time.

Not sure if I should mod you funny or troll, so I'll comment instead.

I like to keep FF running all the time, too, but it (or the javascripts on certain sites) consume just too much CPU. here's my crude cure

#!/bin/sh

if [ -f /tmp/.ffstopped ]; then
pkill -CONT firefox; pkill -CONT npviewer; pkill -CONT plugin-container
rm -f /tmp/.ffstopped
else
pkill -STOP firefox; pkill -STOP npviewer; pkill -STOP plugin-container
touch /tmp/.ffstopped
fi

I.e. it's kind of a toggle. Works best when bound to a key combo of the window manager or so. Process names might also differ on Linux

Actually with all the 3rd party javascripts on here, I'd like to correct my estimate to about 40-50 machines.
Try get a basic clue on what comprises a network.

There were probably around 10-20 machines involved in you posting this comment here. One of them runs Windows.

wtf? for instance?

A hundred times this.

Too much overhead? It has less. In particular because the FCS is no lo longer computed over the (always changing) hop limit.

He presumably meant to multicast the link-local multicast address, causing the link-local nameservers to advertise themselves as such.

That's only because dumb people (like you) don't realize in the first place when it would be useful. p2p comms with both ends behind a NAT?
Sure, i mean routing your shit through a 3rd party server also makes it "work", but it's arguably undesirable, except for dumb people (like you, again) who do not care. Happy Skyping.

Yeah. It's showing.

God dammit. I see what you're trying to say, but seriously this is so wrong. It's no big deal (i.e. easy to implement) to have End-to-End connectivity and still not be "exposed" to the oh-so-hostile Internet.
It is a big deal (i.e. impossible) to actually get End-to-End connecitivity when you do need it but find yourself behind a (carrier grade) NAT.

Breaking this one fundamental principle for the added comfort of being able to just deploy a NAT and feel reasonably secure is totally not worth it. Really, stop.

By definition? What?