I just tested with my 24" LCD. On a white screen it registers 60W. When I change to a black screen (dos window max) it shows 61W.
On lowest brightness it's 21W. On maximum brightness it's 71W. I originally had it on 80% brightness. When power save kicks in for the monitor it's 0 Watts. This was with a DVI connection. Sorry I didn't check for VGA vs DVI.
I have a 20" CRT here also. It shows 61W for the maximized dos box and 102W when switched to maximized notepad.
I think that people that use high bandwidth apps should pay for infrastructure upgrades before all broadband users.
Most ISPs have a speed option. Is this not higher bandwidth users paying for the high bandwidth infrastructure? Why should they also have to charge the content providers who, no doubt, have to pay their ISPs higher rates for higher bandwidths also?
Network nuetrality would forbid QoS from being implemented. All packets are created equal.
Where did I say I wanted network neutrality down to the bit? Let me describe two possible discriminations. They are to discriminate by Content Type and Content Sender. For the most part we have used Content Types in examples of possible services. The discrimination I'm saying would be bad is by Content Sender and this is what the big ISPs want. Most articles I've read talk about Sender discrimination (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2108558 &page=1) even if they do mention all packets being equal it's only because it's easier to understand than making a separate distinction between Type and Sender.
Are you proposing that ISPs would decide not to take money from providers because they aren't big enough?
I work with salesmen that wouldn't touch a customer not willing to pay more than a quarter million. That's for software with no deliverable after they've have the software. So, Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
I also think that if an ISP entered into an exclusive arrangment with on app provider they would open themselves up to anti-trust litigation.
I really don't think anti-trust threats curb much of the abuse. It's always an after the fact solution.
I want the internet to just be the internet. If Comcast works best with Vonage/Google/Barnsandnobles I don't want to have to switch to Sipphone/Yahoo/Amazon just because I switch my ISP. It's all about customer choice. Don't give it away. It's not worth it.
The power is shifted from every tom, dick and harry on the internet to the high value applications, not the ISP.
Are you talking about the buying power I mentioned? How exactly does "the high value application" use buying power? If you are speaking of the VoIP company (example), then yes they now have some buying power (could be good for them to have leverage against your ISP). You must now pay them more because the money has to flow through them to your ISP. The issue is that you no longer have the option of who you want to pay for priority VoIP service. The only options are the ones your ISP makes an agreement with. There can be many reasons your ISP may not want a company to get priority access and I expect most of them will have little to do with providing you the best VoIP value. There's no technical reason they can't grant all VoIP traffic priority access. Of course they would have to recoup the infrastructure costs the way they've been doing it, through your monthly fee.
I'm not arguing against QoS. So, assuming it's actually going to be beneficial to have priority packets (I would agree there's plenty to suggest it would be good,) It seems to come down to how you want to pay for the infrastructure and what you think would deliver it faster. Do we want to force them to recoup through your monthly fees and force them to treat all third parties equally? Or do we want them to charge the third parties where you would only pay for the infrastructure if you subscribe to those services and you give up some of your right to decide what provider will work for the possibility of your ISP implementing the infrastructure sooner?
Some other comments:
If carriers aren't able to re-coup the costs for infrastructure upgrades all VoIP is going to have QoS problems.
Do you believe QoS won't be implemented unless the ISPs can charge services instead of their customers for it? Maybe just delayed? How much of a delay would be OK. 5 Yrs? 6 months?
And if all VoIP companies have to pay to guarantee quality then the competition is a wash...
What are the chances all VoIP companies are going to pay? How big does a VoIP provider need to be before Comcast will even be willing to deal with them? What are your chances of getting a fair deal if you are competing with one of the ISPs existing services? It's only a wash if all VoIP providers are signed up.
It is little different than new companies having to pay high rent in a mall as opposed to locating off-the-beaten-path...
Just because the Pottery Barn is not in the mall doesn't mean they can't use the good clay. However, because a content/service provider doesn't pay for priority access they can't compete (depending on the service). You having convenient access to the Pottery Barn in the mall (where you often have lunch) is a "competitive advantage". An internet company without access to your priority transfer may not be able to guarantee smooth VOIP which is a "competitive necessity". The Pottery Barn can still give you the best pot (the ceramic kind) money can buy. But the VOIP provider could possible not even provide a usable service. Even if it's usable it couldn't possibly be the best service you could get. For some services this would transfer the buying power (the power to choose) of the end consumer to their ISP.
Back then Macs were expensive for people who could only afford $3000, not $4000. Now they are expensive for people who can afford $400 instead of $500. Macs haven't become less "expensive" they've only increased the group of consumers down to those who can afford much less. The groups on both sides of the argument have increased in size but I don't think either side has gained much ground over the other. You even mention families with 2 computers. Some of those families can afford 2 PCs but only one Mac.
The "Apple is expensive" crowd is sounding increasingly absurd.
It does get increasingly absurd to people who can afford an extra $1000 in computer equipment. Spending an extra $100 on computers means nothing to you but some people just decide not to buy a computer altogether. "Apple is expensive" is not absurd to someone who only makes $20k a year. As long as this group of people remains large the argument remains sound.
Are you just meaning it's faster than what we currently use? otherwise it doesn't sound much like FSO. It seems to me that their wireless component is nothing special. Higher than current frequencies, not as high as FSO, but similar to what many others are working on.
The interesting part is the hybrid feature. Sounds like they are creating a single physical layer where the signal travels on both wireless media (the air) and wired media (optic cable) using an all optical converter. This would give you wireless conveniences with wired distances.
Of course they don't talk much about advantages vs having both a wired and wireless network port installed. If price isn't one of them then what is?
Otherwise, most FOSS software licenses don't kick in unless you redistribute the software.
Maybe someone should point out to them, to be complete, that the second table on page 2 that has Open Distribution and Limited or closed distribution columns needs a third one called Internal use only.
It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology to want to charge for bandwidth. Voice and video take a comparatively small amount of bandwidth when measured against the size of the pipe that broadband customers have.
I mentioned MP3s, Video and VOIP. I didn't even mention how it works so how did I show any misunderstanding of the technology? Are you saying BellSouth is not considering charging for reliable and speedy delivery of these types of content?
I'm a big fan of open markets but how do you allow the market to decide what service should be given priority over another? Regulating that all services be given equal priority attempts to remove the market from the equation and eliminates the possibility of technology solving certain problems. You didn't really say what regulations were needed, just that they were needed, so I won't assume you meant this kind of regulation.
whether those bits were html pages or mp3s or program updates is irrelevant to the discussion.
I wouldn't say it's irrelevant but who gets to decide whether they want MP3s or VOIP to take priority? What if one person wants fast VOIP but another only wants fast video? This doesn't seem like a choice that the average user is going to be able to make and regulating one service over another one will become messy real fast. Are these the only two choices? BellSouth is offering a third choice but I think it sounds worse than these two.
Don't consumers always push for fixed cost services? This seems like a pretty clear cut case of trying to bypass consumer desires and embedding the communications cost in the services themselves. That's why I see it worthy of regulating. However, my bias tends to be on the side of the consumer even when their desire tends to be irrational.
Why not sell the priority on their networks like google does ads? Auction off the highest priority to the highest bidder. I mean if you really want the market to decide who gets the bandwidth.
I don't think they want to get paid twice. I think they want the aggregate influence of their subscribers to use as leverage against other companies. That's more flexible than money. If this is allowed it only moves the decision of what you want to use your internet connection for from the consumer to the communications company. Any idea why anyone would want this except ISPs?
Well, not knowing the difference between a ratio and a percentage doesn't make an incorrect statement correct.
By god man, the point was to make the parent question whether they understood the difference between ratios and percents. Not to prove him right with bad logic.
But if you really want to pick apart the logic, then, if he mixed up the definitions of ratios and percentages (which is what i implied) then yes from his point of view it would make his statement correct. Of course I twisted the logic for my own purposes and maybe even a weak attempt at humor, but that doesn't make the logic wrong.
Of course from your point of view it will always be incorrect because you actually know what a percentage is. I brought up the point of view change because I thought it would highlight the source of the problem. I went out on a limb and guessed it's not basic math. I'm sure everyone who posted so far has a firm grasp of division (at least I would hope so). Some may have even used a calculator to be extra sure. In the end the most accurate calculator or most sound logic could not save them from the real problem... a flawed understanding of a percentage.
The JVM is really just a reimplementation of hardware and OS processes. Any OS routine that requires some application level implementation that is not reimplemented in the JVM is not available to the app. Think interprocess communication. Everytime I see java apps work together they communicate over network connections. Is this really that efficient? You also have to decide what port they are communicating on and make sure it doesn't conflict with anything. Did the java designers just decide interprocess communication wasn't useful?
Another issue caused by this is each java "Process" then requires an entire JVM to itself. So essentially if you decide you need to have separate java programs the process start overhead goes from milliseconds (maybe even nano?) to however long it takes to instantiate another JVM. I also would guess there's reasons to want to do this like application fault tolerance or running into process limitations of one process. These things make it impractical for programs that are small and quick. Why spend 14Meg and 6 seconds in process overhead to run a program that's 100kb and takes 200ms to do it's thing. If you can't share that overhead with many small programs those programs will never be practical written in java.
You're right. That is a lot of work. Please straighten these guys out because there must be something easier than this.
How about spending some money on training developers to practise safe coding.
Definitely. Educating the coders has saved us from inefficent apps and poorly documented code. It only makes sense to add secure coding practices to this list of perfection. If only we could have known ahead of time that security might have been a problem.
How about educating average joe to not click on the Britney's image and let him know that she is not going to blow him?
Yes, let's reason with them. The article example only takes the US computers into account. I think they are inferring the US is incapable of listening to reason! We'll show'em.
How about lobbying to pass laws to force software companies to pass a higher standard? Heck even children toys have certain standards that the companies have to adhere to.
I'd hate for my children to be using programs that were a danger to them. Wait... how are computers a danger to my children? Well, anyway, if people won't buy secure software we should force them to buy secure software... once we have secure software from the coders we will teach secure coding practices.
So what if these sentinnels of "guardian angels" themselves have some flaws which these viruses exploit.
No problem. Secure coding practices are easy enough to teach them. Once that's done there shouldn't be any concern.
Don quixote suddenly seems more reasonable to me than this guy.
I don't mind religion in general, but religous groups tend to end up invariably corrupt.
I don't believe this is a feature of religion. It's a feature of human constructed organization. In fact, I believe christianity has become fairly resistant to corruption compared to most other organizations like government (local, national or international), corporations, unions or even non-profits. I believe any organization that holds the whole more important that the individual, in any aspect, will be worse off. Ever since Martin Luther the shift has stayed away from the importance of the church to the importance of the body of the church (the people in it). You are not christian because you give to the church. You are christian because you give. Not because the church granted forgiveness but because you asked for it. The church is not the path to heaven. Your belief is.
You can't stop people from contemplating their purpose. Without religion and the promise of understanding your purpose, I believe people would come to conclusions that would rival the atrocities done in the name of religion.
Looking at history I see the same thing over and over and over... It's hardly funny by now and it's one of the reasons I've coem to hate any and all organized religions...
Whenever I hear this I wonder how much time was spent counting selfless acts done in the name of religion. When harm is done people are eager to write it down and remember it for all time. Selfless acts are not all that meaningful if you take the time to record it and make sure everyone knows.
If the JVM is an entire virtual machine, why does its virtual machine only seem to support running 1 program? I have never seen a single virtual machine run multiple discrete java applications concurrently or in succession unless they were designed to (J2EE sort of does.) What I mean is the "virtual machine" model it uses doesn't inherently give you this capability. If it does I don't know about it (which doesn't mean much really). Without this ability you can't avoid the overhead of restarting the virtual machine between programs.
(note: I am somewhat biased against java and, like most peoples biases, probably causes me to avoid learning things I should have. So, I'm more than happy to be corrected on any of my vague assumptions above.)
I'm totally on your side with this one. Let's talk about all the benefits of no code standards. When I dig into some code and find some problems I like being able to tell who wrote it by the characteristics of the code so I can go make fun of them directly. Also, when I get stuck at a point writing code I know is poor I can just start coding in someone elses style. Makes it hard for them to trace back to me.
This is article is idiotic and totally misses the reason why these types of applications are a success........Microsoft Word is the "type manager" of doc files...
What applications are you talking about? Word wouldn't even qualify as defined by the article. In fact specifically lists Word as a different type of application called Content Creators. The article then lists ones that would apply: iTunes, iPhoto, Juk, Amarok, and digiKam. none of which I would say are used because of their ability to share with others (even though they can contain the ability).
...it's about ease of which you can share that data with other people who have the same interests.
Seriously what applications are you talking about. Certainly not the same applications as the article.
article: "Fuel efficiency and horsepower are improved because hydrogen burns faster and hotter than diesel, dramatically boosting combustion efficiency."
I read this as improving overall combustion efficiency. Although it's stretching their words alittle, what else could it be? The extra heat from the hydrogen must increase the efficiency of the diesel burning. It might be they spend %10 of the energy creating hydrogen (what is the efficiency of electrolosys?) and the little bit of hydrogen burning as fast as it does forces the combustion to reach an optimum temperature quicker. It can then spend more of the cycle in a more efficient state. Of course there can be other reasons that a different fuel mixture is better than others like the extra water produced by the hydrogen burning is acting as a catalytic for some chemical process.
The point being there could be some info out there that says that a 20:1 diesel to hydrogen mixture produces a 20% increase in combustion efficiency and something else that says a mechanical system is 50% efficient at producing hydrogen and that a normal diesel engine is %30 efficient converting diesel to mechanical energy then you email it to someone who's better at word problems than I am and you'll have your answer.
Anyway the only thing I found was that a 15:1 NOx mixture produces from 18% to 25%
Slashdot Mirror
I just tested with my 24" LCD. On a white screen it registers 60W. When I change to a black screen (dos window max) it shows 61W.
On lowest brightness it's 21W. On maximum brightness it's 71W. I originally had it on 80% brightness. When power save kicks in for the monitor it's 0 Watts. This was with a DVI connection. Sorry I didn't check for VGA vs DVI.
I have a 20" CRT here also. It shows 61W for the maximized dos box and 102W when switched to maximized notepad.
Hilarious... The fortune that I had at the bottom of the comments for this artcle:
There is more to life than increasing its speed. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Did someone plan that?
Hey what's this...a glass wall?...I'm trapped!...AAHHHH!!...Hey what's this...a glass wall?...I'm trapped!...AAHHHH!!...Hey what's this...a glass wall?...I'm trapped!...AAHHHH!!...
I think the terrorists may have won, and they only had to kill a few thousand US citizens.
That's nothing. The children have already won, and all they had to do is sneak out on a date with a 19 year old.
I think that people that use high bandwidth apps should pay for infrastructure upgrades before all broadband users.
Most ISPs have a speed option. Is this not higher bandwidth users paying for the high bandwidth infrastructure? Why should they also have to charge the content providers who, no doubt, have to pay their ISPs higher rates for higher bandwidths also?
Network nuetrality would forbid QoS from being implemented. All packets are created equal.
Where did I say I wanted network neutrality down to the bit? Let me describe two possible discriminations. They are to discriminate by Content Type and Content Sender. For the most part we have used Content Types in examples of possible services. The discrimination I'm saying would be bad is by Content Sender and this is what the big ISPs want. Most articles I've read talk about Sender discrimination (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2108558 &page=1) even if they do mention all packets being equal it's only because it's easier to understand than making a separate distinction between Type and Sender.
Are you proposing that ISPs would decide not to take money from providers because they aren't big enough?
I work with salesmen that wouldn't touch a customer not willing to pay more than a quarter million. That's for software with no deliverable after they've have the software. So, Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
I also think that if an ISP entered into an exclusive arrangment with on app provider they would open themselves up to anti-trust litigation.
I really don't think anti-trust threats curb much of the abuse. It's always an after the fact solution.
I want the internet to just be the internet. If Comcast works best with Vonage/Google/Barnsandnobles I don't want to have to switch to Sipphone/Yahoo/Amazon just because I switch my ISP. It's all about customer choice. Don't give it away. It's not worth it.
The power is shifted from every tom, dick and harry on the internet to the high value applications, not the ISP.
Are you talking about the buying power I mentioned? How exactly does "the high value application" use buying power? If you are speaking of the VoIP company (example), then yes they now have some buying power (could be good for them to have leverage against your ISP). You must now pay them more because the money has to flow through them to your ISP. The issue is that you no longer have the option of who you want to pay for priority VoIP service. The only options are the ones your ISP makes an agreement with. There can be many reasons your ISP may not want a company to get priority access and I expect most of them will have little to do with providing you the best VoIP value. There's no technical reason they can't grant all VoIP traffic priority access. Of course they would have to recoup the infrastructure costs the way they've been doing it, through your monthly fee.
I'm not arguing against QoS. So, assuming it's actually going to be beneficial to have priority packets (I would agree there's plenty to suggest it would be good,) It seems to come down to how you want to pay for the infrastructure and what you think would deliver it faster. Do we want to force them to recoup through your monthly fees and force them to treat all third parties equally? Or do we want them to charge the third parties where you would only pay for the infrastructure if you subscribe to those services and you give up some of your right to decide what provider will work for the possibility of your ISP implementing the infrastructure sooner?
Some other comments:
If carriers aren't able to re-coup the costs for infrastructure upgrades all VoIP is going to have QoS problems.
Do you believe QoS won't be implemented unless the ISPs can charge services instead of their customers for it? Maybe just delayed? How much of a delay would be OK. 5 Yrs? 6 months?
And if all VoIP companies have to pay to guarantee quality then the competition is a wash...
What are the chances all VoIP companies are going to pay? How big does a VoIP provider need to be before Comcast will even be willing to deal with them? What are your chances of getting a fair deal if you are competing with one of the ISPs existing services? It's only a wash if all VoIP providers are signed up.
It is little different than new companies having to pay high rent in a mall as opposed to locating off-the-beaten-path...
Just because the Pottery Barn is not in the mall doesn't mean they can't use the good clay. However, because a content/service provider doesn't pay for priority access they can't compete (depending on the service). You having convenient access to the Pottery Barn in the mall (where you often have lunch) is a "competitive advantage". An internet company without access to your priority transfer may not be able to guarantee smooth VOIP which is a "competitive necessity". The Pottery Barn can still give you the best pot (the ceramic kind) money can buy. But the VOIP provider could possible not even provide a usable service. Even if it's usable it couldn't possibly be the best service you could get. For some services this would transfer the buying power (the power to choose) of the end consumer to their ISP.
The "Apple is expensive" crowd is sounding increasingly absurd.
It does get increasingly absurd to people who can afford an extra $1000 in computer equipment. Spending an extra $100 on computers means nothing to you but some people just decide not to buy a computer altogether. "Apple is expensive" is not absurd to someone who only makes $20k a year. As long as this group of people remains large the argument remains sound.
Are you just meaning it's faster than what we currently use? otherwise it doesn't sound much like FSO. It seems to me that their wireless component is nothing special. Higher than current frequencies, not as high as FSO, but similar to what many others are working on.
The interesting part is the hybrid feature. Sounds like they are creating a single physical layer where the signal travels on both wireless media (the air) and wired media (optic cable) using an all optical converter. This would give you wireless conveniences with wired distances.
Of course they don't talk much about advantages vs having both a wired and wireless network port installed. If price isn't one of them then what is?
Maybe someone should point out to them, to be complete, that the second table on page 2 that has Open Distribution and Limited or closed distribution columns needs a third one called Internal use only.
It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology to want to charge for bandwidth. Voice and video take a comparatively small amount of bandwidth when measured against the size of the pipe that broadband customers have.
I mentioned MP3s, Video and VOIP. I didn't even mention how it works so how did I show any misunderstanding of the technology? Are you saying BellSouth is not considering charging for reliable and speedy delivery of these types of content?
whether those bits were html pages or mp3s or program updates is irrelevant to the discussion.
I wouldn't say it's irrelevant but who gets to decide whether they want MP3s or VOIP to take priority? What if one person wants fast VOIP but another only wants fast video? This doesn't seem like a choice that the average user is going to be able to make and regulating one service over another one will become messy real fast. Are these the only two choices? BellSouth is offering a third choice but I think it sounds worse than these two.
Don't consumers always push for fixed cost services? This seems like a pretty clear cut case of trying to bypass consumer desires and embedding the communications cost in the services themselves. That's why I see it worthy of regulating. However, my bias tends to be on the side of the consumer even when their desire tends to be irrational.
Why not sell the priority on their networks like google does ads? Auction off the highest priority to the highest bidder. I mean if you really want the market to decide who gets the bandwidth.
I don't think they want to get paid twice. I think they want the aggregate influence of their subscribers to use as leverage against other companies. That's more flexible than money. If this is allowed it only moves the decision of what you want to use your internet connection for from the consumer to the communications company. Any idea why anyone would want this except ISPs?
By god man, the point was to make the parent question whether they understood the difference between ratios and percents. Not to prove him right with bad logic.
But if you really want to pick apart the logic, then, if he mixed up the definitions of ratios and percentages (which is what i implied) then yes from his point of view it would make his statement correct. Of course I twisted the logic for my own purposes and maybe even a weak attempt at humor, but that doesn't make the logic wrong.
Of course from your point of view it will always be incorrect because you actually know what a percentage is. I brought up the point of view change because I thought it would highlight the source of the problem. I went out on a limb and guessed it's not basic math. I'm sure everyone who posted so far has a firm grasp of division (at least I would hope so). Some may have even used a calculator to be extra sure. In the end the most accurate calculator or most sound logic could not save them from the real problem... a flawed understanding of a percentage.
Another issue caused by this is each java "Process" then requires an entire JVM to itself. So essentially if you decide you need to have separate java programs the process start overhead goes from milliseconds (maybe even nano?) to however long it takes to instantiate another JVM. I also would guess there's reasons to want to do this like application fault tolerance or running into process limitations of one process. These things make it impractical for programs that are small and quick. Why spend 14Meg and 6 seconds in process overhead to run a program that's 100kb and takes 200ms to do it's thing. If you can't share that overhead with many small programs those programs will never be practical written in java.
I think you meant to reply to the parent of my post. Repost it to that one if you really want him to see it.
You're right. That is a lot of work. Please straighten these guys out because there must be something easier than this.
How about spending some money on training developers to practise safe coding.
Definitely. Educating the coders has saved us from inefficent apps and poorly documented code. It only makes sense to add secure coding practices to this list of perfection. If only we could have known ahead of time that security might have been a problem.
How about educating average joe to not click on the Britney's image and let him know that she is not going to blow him?
Yes, let's reason with them. The article example only takes the US computers into account. I think they are inferring the US is incapable of listening to reason! We'll show'em.
How about lobbying to pass laws to force software companies to pass a higher standard? Heck even children toys have certain standards that the companies have to adhere to.
I'd hate for my children to be using programs that were a danger to them. Wait... how are computers a danger to my children? Well, anyway, if people won't buy secure software we should force them to buy secure software... once we have secure software from the coders we will teach secure coding practices.
So what if these sentinnels of "guardian angels" themselves have some flaws which these viruses exploit.
No problem. Secure coding practices are easy enough to teach them. Once that's done there shouldn't be any concern.
Don quixote suddenly seems more reasonable to me than this guy.
Right on.
Only if you don't know the difference between a percent and a ratio.
I don't believe this is a feature of religion. It's a feature of human constructed organization. In fact, I believe christianity has become fairly resistant to corruption compared to most other organizations like government (local, national or international), corporations, unions or even non-profits. I believe any organization that holds the whole more important that the individual, in any aspect, will be worse off. Ever since Martin Luther the shift has stayed away from the importance of the church to the importance of the body of the church (the people in it). You are not christian because you give to the church. You are christian because you give. Not because the church granted forgiveness but because you asked for it. The church is not the path to heaven. Your belief is.
You can't stop people from contemplating their purpose. Without religion and the promise of understanding your purpose, I believe people would come to conclusions that would rival the atrocities done in the name of religion.
Whenever I hear this I wonder how much time was spent counting selfless acts done in the name of religion. When harm is done people are eager to write it down and remember it for all time. Selfless acts are not all that meaningful if you take the time to record it and make sure everyone knows.
(note: I am somewhat biased against java and, like most peoples biases, probably causes me to avoid learning things I should have. So, I'm more than happy to be corrected on any of my vague assumptions above.)
Yup, I'm all for no coding standards.
What applications are you talking about? Word wouldn't even qualify as defined by the article. In fact specifically lists Word as a different type of application called Content Creators. The article then lists ones that would apply: iTunes, iPhoto, Juk, Amarok, and digiKam. none of which I would say are used because of their ability to share with others (even though they can contain the ability).
Seriously what applications are you talking about. Certainly not the same applications as the article.
From the sounds of it
article: "Fuel efficiency and horsepower are improved because hydrogen burns faster and hotter than diesel, dramatically boosting combustion efficiency."
I read this as improving overall combustion efficiency. Although it's stretching their words alittle, what else could it be? The extra heat from the hydrogen must increase the efficiency of the diesel burning. It might be they spend %10 of the energy creating hydrogen (what is the efficiency of electrolosys?) and the little bit of hydrogen burning as fast as it does forces the combustion to reach an optimum temperature quicker. It can then spend more of the cycle in a more efficient state. Of course there can be other reasons that a different fuel mixture is better than others like the extra water produced by the hydrogen burning is acting as a catalytic for some chemical process.
The point being there could be some info out there that says that a 20:1 diesel to hydrogen mixture produces a 20% increase in combustion efficiency and something else that says a mechanical system is 50% efficient at producing hydrogen and that a normal diesel engine is %30 efficient converting diesel to mechanical energy then you email it to someone who's better at word problems than I am and you'll have your answer.
Anyway the only thing I found was that a 15:1 NOx mixture produces from 18% to 25%