You must not be from the U.S. There are no "governor" laws in the US currently, although the Department of Transportation is currently working on trying to get one passed. Even if they do, it will have to phase in over time, due to the lack of governors in most trucks in the U.S.
Maybe because Sony Pictures Television has already announced plans to do a Wheel of Time TV series last April? Of course, there have been many other announced plans to do so, and nothing has happened so far. But the Sony announcement at least seemed to be grounded in reality.
So I read the article and have a basic understanding of the technology. I can see how "reversible" applies at the low level, but it is a poor choice for a description of this process. Adiabatic computing might be better, but people who have never taken thermodynamics probably don't understand that word. I'd suggest something like "No Waste Computing" or "No Heat Computing" might be a better description (neither is strictly true, but the potential waste heat is extremely low, i.e. just saying "low heat" doesn't seem adequate). My descriptions are not necessarily a better description in terms on understanding what is going on, but a description of what the benefit of the process is, which I think is more appropriate in this case.
Reply to This Share
I don't see the logic in your proposal. If your proposal was implemented it would require that people respond to trolls before the troll could be moderated. Responding to trolls, flamebait and off topic comments are exactly the wrong thing to do. I'm not completely sure I'm not violating this principle with this response. If you feel so strongly about this why do you feel the need to post anonymously?
Besides, moderation isn't directly censorship. If you don't want to read "censored" responses just set your browsing level to -1. People choose to self censor based on how much they choose to trust the members who moderate.
So I read the article and have a basic understanding of the technology. I can see how "reversible" applies at the low level, but it is a poor choice for a description of this process. Adiabatic computing might be better, but people who have never taken thermodynamics probably don't understand that word. I'd suggest something like "No Waste Computing" or "No Heat Computing" might be a better description (neither is strictly true, but the potential waste heat is extremely low, i.e. just saying "low heat" doesn't seem adequate). My descriptions are not necessarily a better description in terms on understanding what is going on, but a description of what the benefit of the process is, which I think is more appropriate in this case.
Well, it's a lot different from listening to the radio, since music typically is just a background activity, and even if you are listening to news / talk, you don't have to respond. It's really a question of how much concentration is required to talk vs. send a text, and whether that concentration distracts you from your primary responsibility, which is to drive the car safely.
In my opinion, even this type of texting takes more concentration than talking, since people tend to start talking without really thinking too hard about what they are going to say (i.e. if you transcribed what people typically say in conversation it would be full of extra words, "redo's", etc.). When you are texting it takes a little more effort to concisely respond, depending on how much pride you take in not looking like an idiot.
For me, it comes down to what the topic is, whether it would be texting or talking. For the case you specifically outlined, that doesn't take much concentration or brain power (and could also easily be done while stopped for a brief moment). But if someone calls or texts and asks you to make a decision about something, or reports something that affects you emotionally, that can easily be dangerously distracting.
But this is still significantly less dangerous than trying to hold a phone and type/swype or even correct speech to text while the car is moving. Another issue would be whether you check your screen to see what Siri actually typed when you dictated a text, or do you ask Siri to read back the text?
It depends on what the issue is. Yes, there are a lot of Chiropractors who indulge in all kinds of quackery. But Chiropractors are licensed to take X-rays and diagnose issues with the back that don't require surgery. People "throw their back out" doing something they shouldn't have done, and injure their back in such a way that can be solved by a chiropractic adjustment. Think of the equivalent of a jammed finger or dislocated shoulder as one example. Perhaps something like that may solve itself eventually, or perhaps a masseuse might be able to deal with it, but masseuses don't have anywhere near the training a Chiropractor has, and are typically not trained for non muscle related injuries (and masseuse/massage therapy training is significantly more varied across the states than that required for a licensed Chiropractor), whereas a Chiropractor can handle both muscle and non muscle related issues.
A competent Chiropractor can take an X-ray and will refer you to a doctor if there is an injury that is not suitable for their skills, e.g. surgery is required. But back surgery should be the absolute last resort for fixing a back problem. You should always get a second or even third opinion before having back surgery.
I'd avoid any Chiropractor that wants you to visit on an ongoing basis. If that is the case, you would be right in that a masseuse would be a better and cheaper alternative. I have a Chiropractor who is willing to deal with a specific issue and solve it and that's it. I've visited him for a total of 3 sessions for two different back problems in the last 10 years. There's nothing temporary about the relief I got.
Actually, I'm fine with what they are doing, although I don't think it is the smart thing for them to do. I think they are gambling that people will want to see each episode as soon as it comes out, and therefore will be pay the monthly fee for a while. But I think this plan of theirs is going to backfire. People who are willing to take chances will be more likely to just download it from various torrent sites rather than pay a montly subscription. I prefer to remain legal, but I'm also patient. I would have been willing to pay $20-$30 to buy a season pass to all the episodes. Instead I'll wait for the finish of the season, subscribe for one month, and watch all the episodes within that month. So they'll only get $5.99 from me (I may pay $9.99 for the commercial free subscription), which I consider a bargain.
You are partly correct and partly wrong. IANA is part of ICANN, so it is not independent of ICANN. But the RIR's are independent organizations. For IPV4 IANA is out of the business of assigning address blocks, since they handed off their last blocks of IPV4 addresses to the RIR's. IANA is still involved in IPV6 address assignment, i.e. they are the top level of the pyramid, and they give out large blocks of addresses to the RIR's. But it would be difficult for IANA to try to enforce a policy like this, since they could only try to exert influence on an RIR, and each RIR services many countries.
In this case, it is AFRINIC (the RIR for Africa) that is talking about adopting this policy.
The BBC produced a documentary called "Space Race" in 2005 that covered both the US and USSR space programs. Sergei Korolev and Werner Von Braun were main characters in the documentary. Many people in the US didn't like it because they felt it was overcritical of Werner Von Braun. Since I was already aware of the controversy regarding Werner Von Braun's nazi past, it wasn't surprising to me, and I thought it was reasonably balanced in its approach. Note that the subject is fairly controversial, so opinions span the spectrum from he should have been sentenced to life imprisonment for war crimes, to he was completely innocent. I believe that he did get a pass on a thorough investigation of his involvement due to his value to the U.S., and it is not clear from the details (biographies and documentaries tend to spin the facts differently) what the true story is.
Anyway, if you want to learn more about Korolev you can search for "BBC space race" on youtube. The entire four part series is still available for viewing, and I thought it was well done.
Agree 100% that it is utter madness. I'm a Republican and I'm aghast that the party chose Trump. Both parties chose terrible candidates, and the ones running in the primaries weren't all that great either.
However, I don't agree that there is something that can (or should) be done from outside the parties to reform them. I have to believe that sooner or later something will give. The problem is that more and more people are leaving both parties, with independent voters reaching the highest percentages ever. What that results in is the remaining members getting more and more radical, with the parties finding less and less common ground. And it doesn't appear that things will get better as the Democrats look to get more radical after the results of this election. It's going to be harder and harder for a candidate to appeal to the remaining party members to get nominated, and then appeal to the more moderate independents.
Each party needs to come back to recognizing that they need to also appeal to the independent voters. Instead the independent voters get left with a choice of two terrible candidates. It's hard to imagine the two party system breaking down, but I feel we are on that path. If the current parties keep getting more extreme I feel that there will eventually be a movement for a new more moderate party (I doubt that any of the existing third parties will fill that void). In my opinion, perhaps the "Rational Party" would be a good name.:)
Agreed. There is no information available to tell how long someone spent browsing a page. Sure, if there is a record of a page retrieved, and then a record of another page retrieved that was linked on the initial page, and the time between those two retrievals was relatively short you can probably infer that the time on the first page was probably the time spent looking at the page. But in general people have a variety of browsing methods, may have taken a break to do something else (or their web browsing is the "break" while do some other task), etc. Any long time between page retrievals does not allow a conclusion that the time between those two retrievals indicates that the entire time was spent on that page.
How about doing anything that takes a long time and you don't want to remain logged in for it to complete? For example you are running a standard program that is going to take hours or even days to process some data, so you redirect stdin to/dev/null, stdout to one file, stderr to either the same file or another file, and you start the whole thing with the nohup shell command.
There is already a well established mechanism for cleaning up background processes, i.e. the SIGHUP signal. And there is already a mechanism for explicitly stating that you don't want a process to die when you log out, and that is the shell's "nohup" command (which blocks the hangup signal that is sent to the process when the user exits).
And in what way does this new mechanism "enhance security"? Running something in the background after you log out doesn't give you any more privileges than if you remained logged in.
Why do the systemd folks think they need to keep reinventing the wheel? This feels like a solution in search of a problem.
Huh? Full disclosure, I'm an HPE employee. Where did you get the idea that HPE doesn't have any hardware products? We spun of HP Incorporated which does the more consumer oriented products that most consumers associated with HP, so that is why they got the original logo. They make printers, laptops, notebooks, desktops and workstations, and a lot more.
Basically now we spun off the former EDS that HP bought from Ross Perot some time ago. We're still a major player in hardware. Just go to the HPE website (www.hpe.com) and click on Products. We make servers, from smaller rack servers up to huge Enterprise scale servers. We make storage hardware, network hardware, etc. Basically, if it's something you'd find in a corporate data center, we make it AND support it.
This is already partially solved in a way similar to passenger jets, which have to deal with a similar problem. You need enough oxygen for each passenger to last long enough until the problem can be addressed. For a passenger jet, that means 12-15 minutes while the pilot dives to low altitude. For a low pressure tunnel emergency that means slowing the train down and then letting normal air pressure into the tunnel in a controlled fashion.
As far as air resistance is concerned, I think you are thinking about lower speeds than are planned for a hyperloop solution. Hyperloop designs are considering speeds that approach or possibly exceed mach 1. Drag goes up exponentially (velocity squared), so the air density becomes a much greater issue at those speeds. Besides drag, you also have to take into account the heating of the train due to drag.
Maglev is becoming a viable technology for long distance rail. The low pressure tunnel allows for more efficient low drag travel, perhaps even supersonic travel. How do you propose that the train "float" on a cushion of air in a low pressure environment? What form of propulsion are you proposing that is going to work in this low pressure environment, assuming you have a solution for the "floating" problem that doesn't involve maglev?
Yes, I agree that "Body Transplant" technically makes more sense, however, as other people have noted, the head is part of the body. When you hear "Head Transplant" you know exactly what it means. If you hear "Body Transplant" it's not completely clear what that might mean without further clarification.
Right, but the other side of the equation is not zero. Coal fired power plants, and the associated mining is responsible for the vast majority of mercury in our food chain. During normal operation, the effective radiation released from coal fired plants are ~100 times that of a nuclear plant. Combustion of fossil fuels produces air pollutants that lead to increased cancer risks and statistical increases in related deaths. Combustion of fossil fuels also are a major source of greenhouse gases.
Then note that the Fukushima accident was close to a worse case scenario, i.e. a major earthquake, followed by a tsunami. Even then, better planning could have prevented this disaster. The safety standards in place at Chernobyl were so ridiculous it's not even worth considering when it comes to accessing nuclear power risks. Lets learn from our mistakes and make improvements, rather than throwing in the towel and increasing use of fossil fuel power plants.
I applaud the view of France, who never wavered in their pursuit of nuclear energy, as opposed to Japan and Germany who overreacted to the situation. I think both countries will eventually regret the path they've taken. I'd certainly like to see the U.S. pursue nuclear energy, since it is the only practical clean energy source that addresses the issue of base load, other than hydroelectric plants, which have significant limitations in where they can be installed.
I'm all for other clean energy sources like wind and solar, but anyone who thinks we can move to them for all our energy needs is living in a fantasy world. The only way that can happen is with unrealistic breakthroughs in storage technology, not the steady increase in storage capability that we've seen over the last 100 years. Stop reading and believing all the "major breakthrough" stories posted to Slashdot regarding this. Inevitably they turn out to be false, or just another step on the same progression we've seen over the years.
But perhaps some of those accidents caused by the car drivers are indirectly caused by the truck drivers. Truck drivers used to be the knights of the road. Now they drive like they drive their car. A lot of times when there is a backup of traffic on a highway it is due to a truck trying to pass another truck. They start to pass, get to a hill can't complete the pass, start to pass on the downhill, then hit another hill, etc. Sometimes it takes more than 5 minutes for a truck to get ahead of another truck and then they proceed to travel a 1-2 mph faster than the truck they passed.
Meanwhile, as soon as the pass is complete, a lot of car drivers speed up to pass the trucks before another truck gets the idea that they have to pass another truck. Or they try to pass on the right of the truck that is still trying to overtake the "slow" truck in the right lane. I've seen lots of crazy maneuvers made by car drivers in this situation, induced by the incessant need for truck drivers to pass other trucks, which didn't seem to happen anywhere near as often 20-30 years ago as it does now. So yes, the car drivers may be ultimately respsonsible, but some of it is brought on by the behavior of truck drivers. With AI trucks we'll probably see a lot more truck caravans all following each other at the same speed in the far right lane, without the need to keep passing each other.
You're correct that it is not a 50% improvement, but because of your bad math (1/3 of 12 is 4, not 6). The real fail is the article which got it wrong with respect to Xeon E5 V2. You can get Xeon E5 V2 chips with 15 cores, so the V3 chips are really only a 20% improvement.
Slashdot Mirror
You must not be from the U.S. There are no "governor" laws in the US currently, although the Department of Transportation is currently working on trying to get one passed. Even if they do, it will have to phase in over time, due to the lack of governors in most trucks in the U.S.
Maybe because Sony Pictures Television has already announced plans to do a Wheel of Time TV series last April? Of course, there have been many other announced plans to do so, and nothing has happened so far. But the Sony announcement at least seemed to be grounded in reality.
So I read the article and have a basic understanding of the technology. I can see how "reversible" applies at the low level, but it is a poor choice for a description of this process. Adiabatic computing might be better, but people who have never taken thermodynamics probably don't understand that word. I'd suggest something like "No Waste Computing" or "No Heat Computing" might be a better description (neither is strictly true, but the potential waste heat is extremely low, i.e. just saying "low heat" doesn't seem adequate). My descriptions are not necessarily a better description in terms on understanding what is going on, but a description of what the benefit of the process is, which I think is more appropriate in this case. Reply to This Share
Sorry, I must have messed up somehow and posted this in the wrong topic.
I don't see the logic in your proposal. If your proposal was implemented it would require that people respond to trolls before the troll could be moderated. Responding to trolls, flamebait and off topic comments are exactly the wrong thing to do. I'm not completely sure I'm not violating this principle with this response. If you feel so strongly about this why do you feel the need to post anonymously? Besides, moderation isn't directly censorship. If you don't want to read "censored" responses just set your browsing level to -1. People choose to self censor based on how much they choose to trust the members who moderate.
So I read the article and have a basic understanding of the technology. I can see how "reversible" applies at the low level, but it is a poor choice for a description of this process. Adiabatic computing might be better, but people who have never taken thermodynamics probably don't understand that word. I'd suggest something like "No Waste Computing" or "No Heat Computing" might be a better description (neither is strictly true, but the potential waste heat is extremely low, i.e. just saying "low heat" doesn't seem adequate). My descriptions are not necessarily a better description in terms on understanding what is going on, but a description of what the benefit of the process is, which I think is more appropriate in this case.
Well, it's a lot different from listening to the radio, since music typically is just a background activity, and even if you are listening to news / talk, you don't have to respond. It's really a question of how much concentration is required to talk vs. send a text, and whether that concentration distracts you from your primary responsibility, which is to drive the car safely.
In my opinion, even this type of texting takes more concentration than talking, since people tend to start talking without really thinking too hard about what they are going to say (i.e. if you transcribed what people typically say in conversation it would be full of extra words, "redo's", etc.). When you are texting it takes a little more effort to concisely respond, depending on how much pride you take in not looking like an idiot.
For me, it comes down to what the topic is, whether it would be texting or talking. For the case you specifically outlined, that doesn't take much concentration or brain power (and could also easily be done while stopped for a brief moment). But if someone calls or texts and asks you to make a decision about something, or reports something that affects you emotionally, that can easily be dangerously distracting.
But this is still significantly less dangerous than trying to hold a phone and type/swype or even correct speech to text while the car is moving. Another issue would be whether you check your screen to see what Siri actually typed when you dictated a text, or do you ask Siri to read back the text?
It depends on what the issue is. Yes, there are a lot of Chiropractors who indulge in all kinds of quackery. But Chiropractors are licensed to take X-rays and diagnose issues with the back that don't require surgery. People "throw their back out" doing something they shouldn't have done, and injure their back in such a way that can be solved by a chiropractic adjustment. Think of the equivalent of a jammed finger or dislocated shoulder as one example. Perhaps something like that may solve itself eventually, or perhaps a masseuse might be able to deal with it, but masseuses don't have anywhere near the training a Chiropractor has, and are typically not trained for non muscle related injuries (and masseuse/massage therapy training is significantly more varied across the states than that required for a licensed Chiropractor), whereas a Chiropractor can handle both muscle and non muscle related issues.
A competent Chiropractor can take an X-ray and will refer you to a doctor if there is an injury that is not suitable for their skills, e.g. surgery is required. But back surgery should be the absolute last resort for fixing a back problem. You should always get a second or even third opinion before having back surgery.
I'd avoid any Chiropractor that wants you to visit on an ongoing basis. If that is the case, you would be right in that a masseuse would be a better and cheaper alternative. I have a Chiropractor who is willing to deal with a specific issue and solve it and that's it. I've visited him for a total of 3 sessions for two different back problems in the last 10 years. There's nothing temporary about the relief I got.
Actually, I'm fine with what they are doing, although I don't think it is the smart thing for them to do. I think they are gambling that people will want to see each episode as soon as it comes out, and therefore will be pay the monthly fee for a while. But I think this plan of theirs is going to backfire. People who are willing to take chances will be more likely to just download it from various torrent sites rather than pay a montly subscription. I prefer to remain legal, but I'm also patient. I would have been willing to pay $20-$30 to buy a season pass to all the episodes. Instead I'll wait for the finish of the season, subscribe for one month, and watch all the episodes within that month. So they'll only get $5.99 from me (I may pay $9.99 for the commercial free subscription), which I consider a bargain.
It's not that high a bar. You can get your own domain for around $1 per month.
You are partly correct and partly wrong. IANA is part of ICANN, so it is not independent of ICANN. But the RIR's are independent organizations. For IPV4 IANA is out of the business of assigning address blocks, since they handed off their last blocks of IPV4 addresses to the RIR's. IANA is still involved in IPV6 address assignment, i.e. they are the top level of the pyramid, and they give out large blocks of addresses to the RIR's. But it would be difficult for IANA to try to enforce a policy like this, since they could only try to exert influence on an RIR, and each RIR services many countries. In this case, it is AFRINIC (the RIR for Africa) that is talking about adopting this policy.
That is pure space conspiracy lies, on about the same level as the US moon landings being faked.
The BBC produced a documentary called "Space Race" in 2005 that covered both the US and USSR space programs. Sergei Korolev and Werner Von Braun were main characters in the documentary. Many people in the US didn't like it because they felt it was overcritical of Werner Von Braun. Since I was already aware of the controversy regarding Werner Von Braun's nazi past, it wasn't surprising to me, and I thought it was reasonably balanced in its approach. Note that the subject is fairly controversial, so opinions span the spectrum from he should have been sentenced to life imprisonment for war crimes, to he was completely innocent. I believe that he did get a pass on a thorough investigation of his involvement due to his value to the U.S., and it is not clear from the details (biographies and documentaries tend to spin the facts differently) what the true story is. Anyway, if you want to learn more about Korolev you can search for "BBC space race" on youtube. The entire four part series is still available for viewing, and I thought it was well done.
The comment says it all. Please tell me I missed a month.
Agree 100% that it is utter madness. I'm a Republican and I'm aghast that the party chose Trump. Both parties chose terrible candidates, and the ones running in the primaries weren't all that great either.
However, I don't agree that there is something that can (or should) be done from outside the parties to reform them. I have to believe that sooner or later something will give. The problem is that more and more people are leaving both parties, with independent voters reaching the highest percentages ever. What that results in is the remaining members getting more and more radical, with the parties finding less and less common ground. And it doesn't appear that things will get better as the Democrats look to get more radical after the results of this election. It's going to be harder and harder for a candidate to appeal to the remaining party members to get nominated, and then appeal to the more moderate independents.
Each party needs to come back to recognizing that they need to also appeal to the independent voters. Instead the independent voters get left with a choice of two terrible candidates. It's hard to imagine the two party system breaking down, but I feel we are on that path. If the current parties keep getting more extreme I feel that there will eventually be a movement for a new more moderate party (I doubt that any of the existing third parties will fill that void). In my opinion, perhaps the "Rational Party" would be a good name. :)
Agreed. There is no information available to tell how long someone spent browsing a page. Sure, if there is a record of a page retrieved, and then a record of another page retrieved that was linked on the initial page, and the time between those two retrievals was relatively short you can probably infer that the time on the first page was probably the time spent looking at the page. But in general people have a variety of browsing methods, may have taken a break to do something else (or their web browsing is the "break" while do some other task), etc. Any long time between page retrievals does not allow a conclusion that the time between those two retrievals indicates that the entire time was spent on that page.
How about doing anything that takes a long time and you don't want to remain logged in for it to complete? For example you are running a standard program that is going to take hours or even days to process some data, so you redirect stdin to /dev/null, stdout to one file, stderr to either the same file or another file, and you start the whole thing with the nohup shell command.
There is already a well established mechanism for cleaning up background processes, i.e. the SIGHUP signal. And there is already a mechanism for explicitly stating that you don't want a process to die when you log out, and that is the shell's "nohup" command (which blocks the hangup signal that is sent to the process when the user exits).
And in what way does this new mechanism "enhance security"? Running something in the background after you log out doesn't give you any more privileges than if you remained logged in.
Why do the systemd folks think they need to keep reinventing the wheel? This feels like a solution in search of a problem.
Huh? Full disclosure, I'm an HPE employee. Where did you get the idea that HPE doesn't have any hardware products? We spun of HP Incorporated which does the more consumer oriented products that most consumers associated with HP, so that is why they got the original logo. They make printers, laptops, notebooks, desktops and workstations, and a lot more. Basically now we spun off the former EDS that HP bought from Ross Perot some time ago. We're still a major player in hardware. Just go to the HPE website (www.hpe.com) and click on Products. We make servers, from smaller rack servers up to huge Enterprise scale servers. We make storage hardware, network hardware, etc. Basically, if it's something you'd find in a corporate data center, we make it AND support it.
This is already partially solved in a way similar to passenger jets, which have to deal with a similar problem. You need enough oxygen for each passenger to last long enough until the problem can be addressed. For a passenger jet, that means 12-15 minutes while the pilot dives to low altitude. For a low pressure tunnel emergency that means slowing the train down and then letting normal air pressure into the tunnel in a controlled fashion. As far as air resistance is concerned, I think you are thinking about lower speeds than are planned for a hyperloop solution. Hyperloop designs are considering speeds that approach or possibly exceed mach 1. Drag goes up exponentially (velocity squared), so the air density becomes a much greater issue at those speeds. Besides drag, you also have to take into account the heating of the train due to drag.
Maglev is becoming a viable technology for long distance rail. The low pressure tunnel allows for more efficient low drag travel, perhaps even supersonic travel. How do you propose that the train "float" on a cushion of air in a low pressure environment? What form of propulsion are you proposing that is going to work in this low pressure environment, assuming you have a solution for the "floating" problem that doesn't involve maglev?
Yes, I agree that "Body Transplant" technically makes more sense, however, as other people have noted, the head is part of the body. When you hear "Head Transplant" you know exactly what it means. If you hear "Body Transplant" it's not completely clear what that might mean without further clarification.
Right, but the other side of the equation is not zero. Coal fired power plants, and the associated mining is responsible for the vast majority of mercury in our food chain. During normal operation, the effective radiation released from coal fired plants are ~100 times that of a nuclear plant. Combustion of fossil fuels produces air pollutants that lead to increased cancer risks and statistical increases in related deaths. Combustion of fossil fuels also are a major source of greenhouse gases.
Then note that the Fukushima accident was close to a worse case scenario, i.e. a major earthquake, followed by a tsunami. Even then, better planning could have prevented this disaster. The safety standards in place at Chernobyl were so ridiculous it's not even worth considering when it comes to accessing nuclear power risks. Lets learn from our mistakes and make improvements, rather than throwing in the towel and increasing use of fossil fuel power plants.
I applaud the view of France, who never wavered in their pursuit of nuclear energy, as opposed to Japan and Germany who overreacted to the situation. I think both countries will eventually regret the path they've taken. I'd certainly like to see the U.S. pursue nuclear energy, since it is the only practical clean energy source that addresses the issue of base load, other than hydroelectric plants, which have significant limitations in where they can be installed.
I'm all for other clean energy sources like wind and solar, but anyone who thinks we can move to them for all our energy needs is living in a fantasy world. The only way that can happen is with unrealistic breakthroughs in storage technology, not the steady increase in storage capability that we've seen over the last 100 years. Stop reading and believing all the "major breakthrough" stories posted to Slashdot regarding this. Inevitably they turn out to be false, or just another step on the same progression we've seen over the years.
But perhaps some of those accidents caused by the car drivers are indirectly caused by the truck drivers. Truck drivers used to be the knights of the road. Now they drive like they drive their car. A lot of times when there is a backup of traffic on a highway it is due to a truck trying to pass another truck. They start to pass, get to a hill can't complete the pass, start to pass on the downhill, then hit another hill, etc. Sometimes it takes more than 5 minutes for a truck to get ahead of another truck and then they proceed to travel a 1-2 mph faster than the truck they passed. Meanwhile, as soon as the pass is complete, a lot of car drivers speed up to pass the trucks before another truck gets the idea that they have to pass another truck. Or they try to pass on the right of the truck that is still trying to overtake the "slow" truck in the right lane. I've seen lots of crazy maneuvers made by car drivers in this situation, induced by the incessant need for truck drivers to pass other trucks, which didn't seem to happen anywhere near as often 20-30 years ago as it does now. So yes, the car drivers may be ultimately respsonsible, but some of it is brought on by the behavior of truck drivers. With AI trucks we'll probably see a lot more truck caravans all following each other at the same speed in the far right lane, without the need to keep passing each other.
That was supposed to be "but not because of your bad math ..."
You're correct that it is not a 50% improvement, but because of your bad math (1/3 of 12 is 4, not 6). The real fail is the article which got it wrong with respect to Xeon E5 V2. You can get Xeon E5 V2 chips with 15 cores, so the V3 chips are really only a 20% improvement.