Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's blog

My science/technology-related thoughts, sometimes controversial, sometimes can be based on limited knowledge base, logic can be non-perfect as well. I develop my vision in iterations. Don't take this blog as an attempt to convince anybody in anything. Each post in this blog reflects my level of understanding of the subject at the time the post was written; so, some posts may not necessarily be correct now.

  • Ask not what a search company can do for you .., or time to refactor the global knowledge base.‏

    No Comments

    Intro.
    The time for great updates in academics has come, - that's the idea of this post; the companies to refactor the "spaghetti" global knowledge can be type of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Wikipedia. The idea to write the post came to me when doing Google search with the phrases "language processing" and "processing language". On the first phrase the results were mostly related to natural language processing. On the phrase "processing language" the results were mostly related to the open source programming language "Processing" (thanks guys).

    I thought that something wrong was about the search because regardless of word order, the two words relate to the broad AI-related scientific concept. But the programming language "Processing" is just an instance of programming language concept probably not related to AI at all. The AI scientific community would need to spend extra time to figure out how to filter out the results if possible at all. That's not only about scientist's productivity, that's about quality of search, quality of scientist's work. 

    Ask not what a search company can do for you.
    So, how to deal with the issue of "blurred search":

    - Are we to ask the search company to tweak something in their search algorithm, by, say,  heavily enhancing their model to provide the kind of option of "academic layer"? If a scientist selects the option, the results would mostly be "academic", about concepts, not about particular realizations (instances).

    - Or should we ask all the web-content creators to follow some basic rules when choosing this or that English word to let their product stay high in search results?

    Neither of the above, in my opinion.

    Time to refactor the global knowledge base.
    These above options are just "patches" to current working system. But, does it make sense "to patch" the current working system or, probably, it would be better off to develop a new approach and build up a new "global knowledge management system" (without destroying the working legacy one)?

    Let's step back and look at the bigger picture. The issues are:
    - A barrier for a scientist to expose his work. Publishing is expensive and takes a lot of time. A work that is not backed up by a good amount of money or authority has a little chance to serve the science. Instead, a not-so-good idea backed up by some kind of authority would make its way up, raise money and pay back to maintain the authority. The system gets counterproductive, it doesn't always serve the entire society.

    - A barrier for a scientist to access works of other scientists. The access is mostly not free. To produce a science-related work one needs to look through, say, hundred of works of others. Where is he expected to get the money? To serve science it takes a lot of money. Is that good? Again, the system gets counterproductive, the researches, who are willing to contribute to science, don't always have access to needed information.

    - A barrier for fellow scientists to review the science-related work. The system is not transparent in this respect. As far as I understand, there exists layer of "middlemen" to decide who would peer review whom. I believe it should work mostly automatic. 

    - Lack of community feature. The community should feature not just "peer review" practice. It should provide tools for collaboration.

    - The scientific works are mostly examples of "spaghetti" knowledge. The ideas are often NOT a)reasonably normalized, b)separated into loosely coupled coarse grained items with clear input conditions, output statements and a body of logic. The "spaghetti" structure doesn't allow a scientist to reuse the logic of scientific works in automatic mode.

    - Automatic connection to a "brain" or to a "mind" project can't easily be done. Reverse engineering of a system (brain) only makes sense if the understanding of the output (knowledge base in this context) of the system is not in "spaghetti" state.  

    - Can't easily be done automatic connection to the kind of "Language learner hub" (see my post http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/2010/11/google-language-learner-hub-or-human.html ) .

    - Can't easily be done automatic connection to the kind of "Pattern Repository and Expert System Over It" (see my post http://weblogs.asp.net/sergeys/archive/2011/05/25/pattern-repository-and-expert-system-over-it.aspx ) .

    How and whom to refactor the global knowledge base.
    - Concept of the structure of a scientific work. A company type of Microsoft, probably, would be the best to lead the development of the concept. The complexity of products they have been dealing with for decades hints that their experience can be reused to define what could be a knowledge item, how to "coarse grain" and decouple knowledge items within a scientific work, how to "entry point" a scientific work down to a particular knowledge item, etc etc.  

    - Scientist global identification. The players type of Microsoft, Google, Facebook are quite good at it.

    - Tools to develop a scientific work, - MS Office and Visual Studio, Open Office etc.

    - The concept of collaboration. Companies like Facebook and Wikipedia have proven experience in the area, why not to reuse it?

    - Search system over the global knowledge base, - major search companies.

    What to start with.
    A user identification is working already by Microsoft, Google, Facebook and others. Next steps could be:
    - Some portal with email address a user can send his work to. By message_id the publication (content of the email) should be accessible to everyone.
    - A set of templates for office software or even Visual Studio should be available to let a user to compose and properly format his work.
    - Some tag system to label the works.
    - Some community functionality to let users to organize into groups and "peer review" each other.

    Probably it's time not to only navigate through academics or scholar content, it's time to start creating knowledge in new format and refactor old content.

    Thank you.
    Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
    http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/
    http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS

    Read more...

  • Hawaii Convergent, Part 3. The Moat And Arch Of Hawaii. Now: Active Fracture Tectonics.

    No Comments

    Now: Active Fracture Tectonics.
    There was a post by me, Sergey D. Sukhotinsky, "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/hawaii-convergent-part-2-introducing.html > Since then I generalized the concept to include celestial objects. See "Tectonics Of A Celestial Object Driven By Material Differentiation And Migration In Temperature Gradient Under Tidal Deformations."
    < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2012/07/tectonics-of-celestial-object-driven-by.html > Let's name the concept: "Active Fracture Tectonics".

    Basics of Active Fracture Tectonics.
    - Driving force. The mechanism to reshape Earth's solid surface (crust) is driven mostly by Earth's tidal deformations by Moon, Sun etc.
    - Active Divergent Fracture Zone. The kind of a fracture zone that develops the compressional stress within crust. The next conditions are normally met:
       a) deformations within the fracture zone caused by tidal deformations of Earth's body;
       b) water layer above the fracture zone to provide effective cooling;
       c) access for magma from beneath the fracture zone;
       d) absence of source of external compressional stress that blocks this Divergent Fracture Zone to spread crust.
    - Crust Lamination at Divergent Fracture Zone caused by material differentiation and migration In temperature gradient under tidal deformations. A Divergent Fracture Zone develops mechanically stronger fraction on the top of the spread crust due to water ensured temperature gradient. The weaker fraction is getting spread on the bottom of it in molten form.
    - Passive Divergent Fracture Zone. Active Divergent Fracture Zone can't be curvy. Thus, some regions of a spherical crust  undergo extensional stress. The resulting Divergent Fracture Zones could develop in Active Divergent Fracture Zone if the listed above conditions are met. Otherwise Passive Divergent Fracture Zone develops under extensional stress. The conditions that prevent a Divergent Fracture Zone to develop active (just to name a few):
    - Absence of water layer above it.
    - Limited access of water due to heavy sedimentation.
    - Pollution of the zone due to sedimentation.
    - Limited access of magma from beneath, say, due to the underlying subducted slab.
    - Pollution of the magma from beneath, due to a recycled subducted slab.
    - Slab Pull. The Mechanically stronger fraction on the top of the spread crust at a Divergent Fracture Zone can be denser than the underlying magma. So, a subducting slab on delamination could get denser than the underlying magma and get sunk down to the depth of corresponding magma density. That process of slab sinking could be considered as the secondary driving mechanism behind Active Fracture Tectonics. The slab sinking adds seismic events to tidal deformations and participates in magma convection.

    The Moat Of Hawaii.
    The mechanism to pump magma/lava up to the surface is different between Plate Tectonics and Active Fracture Tectonics. But once magma/lava gets pumped up, both concepts explain the moat as crust overload.

    The Arch Of Hawaii. Plate Tectonics's Plume/Hotspot approach.
    The Arch Of Hawaii is something that Plate Tectonics's Plume/Hotspot approach has a problem to explain (in my opinion). The common sense tells, if a load is placed on ice then, yes, a depression develops, but, no, there will be no arch around the depression. The Hotspot's idea that hot magma upwells around the depression to form arch seems not to work well, as, for instance, the "hotspotless" mount chain - Line Islands Chain built its own arch without help of a hotspot.

    The Arch Of Hawaii. Active Fracture Tectonics approach.
    Let's recall - a Divergent Fracture Zone develops mechanically stronger fraction on the top of the spread crust, the weaker fraction is getting spread on the bottom of it in molten form. Hawaii chain is a convergent zone. The top layer of the incoming crust is getting consumed down under crust. The less dense fraction of the bottom layer of the incoming crust tends not to flow under the depression, accumulating at some distance from the convergent zone. The volume of the material with the density less than the density of crust gives local rise to crust forming arch. When that less dense material got the chance to break up through the bent crust, - highly fluid lava shows on the ocean flow in violent volcanic events.

     Active Fracture Tectonics: Doing Physics and Maths.
    Time unit: Tera second (Tc).
    As I wrote in "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/hawaii-convergent-part-2-introducing.html >:
    "There is the only time unit - second, To make records shorter, Tera second (Tc) can be used". There is no much sense in maintaining the over-complicated legacy set of time-span names like Cenozoic, Mesozoic etc. In fact, we just can't afford to ignore help from the side of physicists, mathematicians, software and electronic hardware developers, other scientists. Let's speak one language - the language of physics. Let's not build artificial barriers around particular domain of science, - The Earth does not belong to only geologists. See my, Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's post "Code First, Model First, or Behavior First? (Talking On Plate Tectonics, Earth Science)" < http://weblogs.asp.net/sergeys/archive/2011/08/30/code-first-model-first-or-behavior-first-talking-on-plate-tectonics-earth-science.aspx > .
    Earth layers in plain English.
    Again, as I wrote in "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2..." there is no much sense in maintaining the outdated concept of "asthenosphere/lithosphere". The changes of properties of Earth with depth that are seen with Geophysics instruments could mark the layers' boundaries. The layers defined this way could be called in plain English, such as "brittle", "ductile", "transition" or similar.

    Active Fracture Tectonics: Next Order Approximation compared to Plate Tectonics.
    Plate Tectonics did do its great job to consolidate scientists in their research on Earth evolution. Alfred Wegener paid the price to be heard and stay forever in our memories as the hero. But, time's passing, we need to keep on moving on. The very concept that the outer solid layer of Earth is loosely coupled to underlying layer, and the parts of the outer solid layer could be loosely coupled to each other still holds quite well.
    What's new is that the loosely coupled parts of the outer solid layer are products of fracture zones. The fracture zones create them off underlying magma, move them, break them apart and provide the force to subduct them (in addition to Slab Pull force.)

    Credits (in chronological order) .
    1. I was born in Ukraine. This wonderful land must be a special place on Earth. Try to search Famous Ukrainians Hollywood.
    2. My mother was Russian born in Russian North not far from Ural region. The life had never been easy in the region.
    3. My father is Jewish born in Ukraine.
    4. I graduated from MIPT(Moscow), then the best educational institution in Physics/Maths domain in the world.
    5. My wife and my daughter are very much helpful.
    6. In terms of money: NASA, NOAA, NDF, USGS, many other US-based scientific organizations plus GOOGLE spent billions on products I used virtually for free. Without the products it was not possible to advance a single step in the research.

     © 2012 Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
    http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/
    http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
    --
    Message-ID: <BLU172-W41011A63784270A135073EDB790@phx.gbl>
    From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <sukhotinsky@live.com>
    To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
    Subject: Hawaii Convergent, Part 3. The Moat And Arch Of Hawaii. Now: Active Fracture Tectonics.
    Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:59:55 +0300
    ---

    Read more...

  • Tectonics Of A Celestial Object Driven By Material Differentiation And Migration In Temperature Gradient Under Tidal Deformations.

    No Comments

    Introduction.
    How a celestial object and its satellite could be formed, was suggested in my
    "The Formation Of A Satellite Of A Celestial Object By The Differentiation Of Particles' Speed Vectors."
    http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/formation-of-satellite-of-celestial.html
    and
    "The Double Moon Formation. The "Condensation/Ejected Ring" Concept. (The Formation Of Multiple Satellites Of A Celestial Object)."
    http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/double-moon-formation.html
    In other posts of my "Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's Blog" (sukhotinsky.blogspot.com and divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com) I suggested that the driving force of Earth Tectonics originates within the divergent boundaries due to tidal deformations and temperature gradient. The important point was that the driving force keeps a divergent boundary under compressional stress, not extensional stress. Now let's try to fill the gap between the two themes. Let's elaborate on how tidal interaction between a celestial object and its satellite could be developing tectonic processes on the object.

    Local "negative feedback" of the dry surface.
    - When crust is formed and there is no liquid over crust, the crust is cooled through its surface by radiation. A developing fracture would cause magma/lava to pump up according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The magma/lava would cool down and the place around the fracture would be getting thicker and, thus, stronger against deformations.

    - The thinner crust is in some location, the faster gets the process of magma solidification on its bottom, the sooner the thickness of local crust would match the thickness of neighboring crust.

    The above two mechanisms feature local negative feedback (so to say), thus, are unable to grow to cause global tectonic processes.

    Global process due to presence of liquid over the surface of crust. A model.
    A developing fracture in crust is getting filled with liquid. Let's postulate that the material within the fracture has to differentiate under the deformations and the differentiated components have to migrate within the deforming zone. Let's leave to prove the postulate to future generation of scientists.
    Now we can suggest a model of two fracture zones in crust under an ocean of some liquid. The fracture zones are parallel to each other and the distance between them is roughly equal to their dimensions. The question is, how would the two fracture zones develop over time, taking into account they both develop compressional stress in the crust? Would they live independent lives developing similar chemical compositions, or would one fracture zone act on another zone the way, the second zone will be developing different chemical composition?

    In other words would one fracture zone be able to develop stronger composition due to faster well-cooled spreading of the crust? Would the second zone become a convergent zone due to the compressional stress developed by the first zone? Yes, I think, the second zone would be getting contaminated with sediment when consuming oceanic crust, the zone would be getting "weak", the thermal gradient would drop, the strongest and heaviest components would be getting washed off the zone, fresh magma finally would be blocked from reaching the surface in the second zone. And, finally the second fracture zone would became a convergent zone under the compressional stress developed by the first zone. The examples of the second type of fracture zone can be Hawaii chain and Lousville seamount ridge, in my opinion.

    Some reasons to differentiate.
    - Difference in melting temperature. Naturally, under the zone deformations, the solidifying material (the material with highest melting temperature), on reaching the cooled surface, would get stuck between the divergent boundaries, the more ductile material would be getting "washed" down between the boundaries.
    - Difference in hardness(firmness) in solidifying state. The less strong material is getting crushed under the deformations and is getting "washed" down between the boundaries.
    - Difference in the density. Gravitation gives the denser material less chances to reach surface.

    The scales of migration.
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes material differentiation and migration in temperature gradient under deformations to work for the entire scale from micro (molecular) level up to the range of full Universe. For a particular scale the specific implementation of the mechanism could be described as working over the smaller scale mechanisms. In the case of the Earth, I'd like to think, it could be possible to describe the next (among others) effects:
    - On micro level it could be differentiation of isotopes;
    - On the greater scale it could be the process of the development of intrusions within the solidifying material.
    - On even greater scale, it could be the process of, say, the development of magma chambers under a volcano.
    - Further, it could be the process of developing the difference between the material in convergent and divergent boundaries.
    - Even further, it could be the process of developing the difference between the material in Earth's core and its outer layer. The 3-D mechanism of magma transportation for this case is beyond the scope of this post. But the surface-related mechanism, the crust recycling mechanism is worth to be mentioned here. The magma's material captured by the divergent boundaries is the product of magma differentiation, and under some conditions the composition could contain some dense elements in greater proportion then the original magma contains itself. Later on subduction and heating, the slab would loose the less dense (say, water-related) components, and the resulting slab would became quite dense, even, possibly, denser than the surrounding magma. Such a slab would be able to reach extraordinary depths.

    The material differentiation and migration under deformations may not necessarily be fully responsible for all the above effects. The above effects can go even without it. Say, gravitation on its own could be causing the differentiation on the density even without the presence of deformations of the material. And on molecular level under the thermal gradient without deformations the differentiation would take place because the objects of the layer, molecules are "vibrating" already.

    The importance of understanding how material differentiate and migrate in temperature gradient under deformations.
    The importance of understanding how material differentiate and migrate in temperature gradient under deformations can't be overestimated. It not only may give a key to theoretic questions such as "How does a celestial object develop", but is of great practical importance. Some of the aspects of practical importance were outlined by me in my:
    Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's Blog
    http://weblogs.asp.net/sergeys/archive/2011/08/30/code-first-model-first-or-behavior-first-talking-on-plate-tectonics-earth-science.aspx
    "Code First, Model First, or Behavior First? (Talking On Plate Tectonics, Earth Science)."
    http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/08/code-first-model-first-or-behavior.html
    "Porphyry Copper. More On Reshaping Pangaea (Gondwana)."
    http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porphyry-copper-more-on-reshaping.html

    © 2011 Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
    http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/
    http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
    --
    Message-ID: <BLU138-W6B9467391C2598093C199DBD20@phx.gbl>
    From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <    sukhotinsky@live.com>
    To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <    cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
    Subject: Tectonics Of A Celestial Object Driven By Material Differentiation
     And Migration In Temperature Gradient Under Tidal Deformations.
    Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 03:47:40 +0300

    Read more...

  • Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics.

    No Comments

    Message-ID: BLU138-W6990FC2FFFC5180FD81B7DBF80@phx.gbl
    From: sukhotinsky@live.com
    To: cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com
    Subject: Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics.
    Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:21:30 +0700

    Read more...

  • Hawaii Hotspot Puzzle. Suggesting Hawaii As A Moving Convergent "Coldspot".

    No Comments

    Two microplates - two pieces of the puzzle.

       I'm sure I am not the first to point out the next fundamental controversy about Hawaii Hotspot. Let's consider the border between the two microplates:
    - first: the microplate between Mendocino and Murray Fracture Zones. Let's assume Kure Atoll, Midway Atoll belong to this microplate.
    - second: the microplate between Murray and Molokai Fracture Zones. Let's assume Pearl and Hermes Atoll, Laysan Island belong to this microplate.

    Rolling events back.
       Murray Fracture Zone points roughly to Pearl and Hermes Atoll that is approx 2,300 from Kilauea, current location of the hotspot. Rolling events back, we may suggest that at proposed 8-9 sm/year speed, the hotspot was at Pearl and Hermes Atoll location some 25-30 million years ago.

       To see how the microplates were positioned one relative to another back 25 MY ago, let's just cut the oceanic crust that was spread for the past 25 MY (including the crust that has been overridden by the NA continent). There is huge difference between the amount of crust that was spread by the microplates. Roughly, the second plate added approx more than 400km of it's length than the first microplate did.

    Hotspot motion.
      Back 25 MY:
    - the oceanic floor of Pearl and Hermes Atoll was approx 400km east relative to Midway Atoll .
    - then in no time the hot spot must had jumped from Midway Atoll over that 400km east to build Pearl and Hermes Atoll. 
    - then the hotspot slowly returns to its normal position; the Pearl and Hermes Atoll, that was left behind the hotspot, returns back on the faster moving microplate to get in line with Kure and Midway Atolls. This concept of "smart" oscillating hotspot looks unrealistic to me.

       Some break in the path around Pearl and Hermes Atoll seems to exist, but as the break distance is considerably less than expected 400km, we may conclude that the microplates did spread at different rates, but the spot is the feature of geometry of global tectonic forces around the region.

    Suggesting another mechanism for Hawaii - moving convergent "coldspot".
       The microplates are spreading out at different rates and are bumping into the wall of oldest crust. There must be convergent/divergent zones to accommodate the different rates of the crust spreading. Why not to suggest Hawaii to be a part in the convergent process?

    Comparing magma beneath the divergent boundary to the stuff beneath a convergent "coldspot".
       The material of the accommodated crust is not exactly the same as the material of the fresh magma coming from bottom into the divergent boundary. Accommodated sediments change chemical composition and melting point of the stuff beneath the convergent "spot". In fact as the melting point gets lower, the spot along the path better be called "coldspot", not "hotspot". Many other parameters should be different between the fresh magma and the stuff beneath the spot, but, I, Sergey D. Sukhotinsky, the author of this post, think that this probably should be the theme for another post.

    Conditions to maintain the process of pumping magma/lava up.
    - sufficient temperature gradient along the magma/lava path;
    - deformations within the spot of the amplitude and speed to cause sufficient local displacements of magma/lava;

    Conditions the process of pumping magma/lava stops at:- too much oceanic crust is brought up and down by the convergent coldspot:
       a)the cold layer gets too thick, the temperature gradients gets too low;
       b)the spot "diffuses"; the greater region gets the deformations, local displacements of magma/lava diminishes;
    - the spot moves off the focus of global tectonic forces, the amplitude of crust deformations drops. 
    The regions cools down as magma stops pumping up; the region gets resistant to deformations due to the increased thickness of crust.

    The focus of global tectonic forces probably is the intersection of the two lines:
    - North to South fracture line through the Pacific plate.
    - West to East probable fracture line connecting south borders of Asia and North America. Thick and rigid continents prevent Pacific plate from bending between continents along West-East line when Moon's plane of orbit gets North. Thus the max bending stress of Pacific plate would be along the probable WE fracture line connecting south borders of Asia and North America.

    The "coldspot" process resumes:
    - the focus of global tectonic forces moves south-east on the plate as the plate itself moves north-west;
    - magma under the new location is not spoiled with sediments;
    - the amplitude of crust deformations is good at the location because the crust here is pre-bent by the load of the chain of volcanoes and the chain itself ceased to bend due to the increased thickness.
      New fracture segment develops south-east to the old sub-chain of volcanoes.  The fracture pumps magma up developing new segment of the volcano chain.

    How to tell if the concept is correct.
       I need more time to figure it out; right now I got a couple of ideas on where to look for the evidences:
    - the relief of the chain of volcanoes should show that the region is under west-east compression, that contradicts slab-pull concept but is in line with ridge-push concept; 
    - there should be a gap in the age of the sediments (and crust) on the both west and east sides of the chain because some crust was consumed to build the volcanoes and to recycle the bottom of the spot into underlying magma. The time-width of the time-gap should roughly be equal to the time span a volcano was active within. That is somewhat greater time than it is now usually thought of. That's because the evidence of early activity of a segment of volcano chain is hidden deep within the volcano or even got molten and got recycled into the underlying magma. I'd like to estimate the time gap could be as great as up to 10MY.
    --

    Read more...

  • Code First, Model First, or Behavior First? (Talking On Plate Tectonics, Earth Science).

    3 Comments

    Software industry to address Plate Tectonic.
       With the "Model First" concept a developer still needs to suggest a model. What if a model were to be built automatically, based on a set of observations? That's probably too fantastic in a general case. But, does a special case exist to justify it? I think, yes, this can be Plate Tectonics, Earth Science.

    Read more...

  • Language Learner Hub, or Human Common Intermediate Language (HCIL).

    1 Comment

    What is the best strategy to learn a new language, - to take courses, - to study books on grammar, style, usage, - to listen to audio? That’s the kind of a question every educated person asks himself/herself. The learning curve is expected to be smooth, to let the focus of a person’s main activity stay unaffected.
    So, can a big IT company revolutionize the way how people learn and use languages?

    Read more...

  • PC Hardware Architecture Perspective.

    3 Comments

    These 3 items: CPU, RAM, Videocard are logically pretty much decoupled from the rest of the PC System Unit. And when the RAM will be getting nonvolatile, - I don't see why this "brain" should not get physically decoupled from the rest of hardware on the Mother Board. I'd call the rest of hardware - the "spinal column".

    Read more...

  • Blank-Powerful-Client Architecture

    No Comments

    Imagine a client is based not on a CPU like Intel Core, and not even on a GPU like the one built in a video card by NVIDIA or AMD/ATI. Imagine a client's main brain were some CPLD or FPGA, that could be configured dynamically.

    Read more...