Gmail does not implement IMAP standard correctly. I am aware of two currently existing problems (and there were more iirc): ENVELOPE response is occasionally misformed for more complex messages. Gmail sends EXPUNGE unsolicited responses when it is forbidden by the standard. Gmail sends the responses to some queries out of order - this behaviour is formally correct but is not what some IMAP clients expect. Still, many IMAP clients which use IMAP in a POP fashion and never - or rarely - encounter these problems. Try using a more sophisticated IMAP client which makes an effort to optimize the amount of transferred data and keeps long-lived network connections the way IMAP was designed for - and you will understand what the grandparent had in mind.

As somebody has already mentioned in the comment on PhysicsCentral, a realistic model should take into account the dependence between the probability of causing an accident resulting in a traffic jam and the driving style. I could read only the abstract. If the parameter q is the only parameter used, it is not entirely surprising that they got the results they got. In such a model, the rule-obeying drivers driving in the same direction stick together. Rule non-obedience makes the fluid more compressible. Shock waves in compressible fluids appears at higher velocities. It is surely nice their model agrees with the intuition. I would not call such a simplified model realistic, though.

I see you have tried to be funny and in the result you have failed to be informative. Do you imply that there is no point in striving for fuel efficiency because this will increase the overall fuel consumption? If that is the case, I disagree. It is like saying "there is no point in saving money because will spend more". Promoting hybrids and all-electric cars is done best by making the fuel consumption expensive. Also, citing the wikipedia page you linked to:

Jevons Paradox is sometimes used to argue that energy conservation is futile. For example, that more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil. This is usually presented as a reason not to increase fuel efficiency (if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).

Several points can be raised against this argument. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil, the rebound effect is usually small, and so increased efficiency usually reduces resource use. (However, fuel use may still increase because of faster economic growth.) Second, even if increased fuel efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, this ignores other benefits associated with increased fuel efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with peak oil. Third, fuel use will decline if increased fuel efficiency is met with government intervention (e.g. a green tax, license fees, etc.) that keeps the cost of use the same. By mitigating the economic effects of government intervention designed to promote ecologically sustainable activities, efficiency-improving technological progress may make the government intervention more palatable, and more likely to be implemented.

I may be preaching to the choir here...