I can't speak for whether Armstrong would like seeing something named after him or not. However, I can say that the "Armstrong Base" exists, just not by that specific name. NASA officially renamed their Dryden Flight Research Center to the Armstrong Flight Research Center on March 1, 2014. See http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dr... for some info. The test range there will still be named after Dryden though.

I took a quick look at the article, and it does not appear to be about vehicular traffic. Here are a few lines from the introduction:

"It is notable that the jamming in vehicular traffics has natures different from that in pedestrian traffics. The former is explained by the time delay in the responses of the drivers, and this is the reason why the jamming may easily occur with vehicles only in one direction [10]. In the latter case, on the other hand, the jamming is caused by the collision of agents in opposite directions [7]. This study is mainly focused on this pedestrian case.

In the present work, we use the CA approach and find that the minimal risk for a jamming of the pedestrian flow occurs when a small fraction of traffic-rule ignorers is present within a majority of traffic-rule abiders."

From this, it would appear that they're talking about pedestrians, not vehicles, in the article, so the post title here is misleading.

I think they've changed things a little bit over time. It does seem like anyone is able to register an account, which would allow them to start submitting papers. But looking at the help pages, I see this on an endorsement system: "Effective January 17, 2004, arXiv.org began requiring some users to be endorsed by another user before submitting their first paper to a category or subject class." They note that this isn't peer review, but it "will verify that arXiv contributors belong [to] the scientific community". They also moderate submissions, and the help page on this topic says: "arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission." While also not real peer-review, it "helps to ensure that arXiv content is relevant to current research".

Perhaps some areas are better than others about self-moderating/reviewing submissions. My experience with the astro-ph archive, which I've read for many years, is that most of it is generally good material, often pre-prints of papers that will appear in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. Not all of it is like that of course, but I think there's a lot more signal than noise in the astro-ph section at least. Just my opinion.