This "limit" is just a practical limit. If this is correct, then it's just very hard to feed a lot of mass to thig big a black hole, because if you try to feed it too much, it'll blow away most of the mass you were trying to get in. So considering the age of the universe, and the mechanisms by which they accrete matter, you get a max size for the biggest black hole possible.
But if you merged two such black holes, you'd probably get a much bigger black hole, and there would be no limit. Or if there was a limit, it would be due to entirely different effects. Our current theories like General Relativity might not even hold in a situation where two really really big black holes collide, so what would happen is anybodys guess.
Does space even have a temperature? Vacuum insulates rather well and the biggest problem of many space-born devices (think ISS) is getting rid of excess heat. The famous Star Trek line of "It's very cold in space" doesn't really match the reality.
There's the redshifted afterglow of the original Big Bang "fireball", also known as the cosmic microwave background radiation. It's equal to heat radiation of an object at about 3K. If you make something colder than that and throw it into intergalactic space, it'll heat up to that temperature. If something is warmer than that, and there's no heating, then it'll cool down to that temperature. So I'd say space *is* cold.
Closest example of a place that always experiences almost the true temperature of space are the bottoms of the polar craters of the Moon. They are eternally in shade, no sunshine, no earthshine, only distant starts and whatever little heat is conducted through lunar crust.
Oh, that would be bad for practically all Americans. Essentially it'd be "bye bye" for the current western standard of living. Considering that the current "American way" seems to be living on credit to get what they want but can't afford, I think very few Americans would easily adapt to that... There would be major gnashing of teeth, if not actual famine and/or civil war.
And I'm not saying American society couldn't in principle adapt. It's just that if the mechanisms of trade collapse, there's no way to "get the food to the hungry masses in cities". Producers would want to get paid, and if there's no working way to pay then the goods would not move, and if there was some sort of socialization then it might develop into civil war as producers would resist others taking their goods without proper payment.
You might want to check terms like "monophyletic", "polyphyletic" and "paraphyletic", try wikipedia. You seem to be arguing that "great apes" is a polyphyletic grouping. I think you're alone with that view, and practically everybody else considers great apes to be monophyletic...
Also, modern view in biology is, that scientific classifications should be monophyletic whenever possible. Ie. "men are apes", "birds are dinosaurs", "snakes are tetrapods".
Of course there are groups like "warm-blooded animals", which can't sensibly be made monophyletic. In this case it is because last common ancestor of current warm-blooded animals was not warm-blooded, and neither are many currently living desecendants of that ancestor. To be monophyletic, all of them would need to be called "warm-blooded", which would make no sense.
But monophyletic classification of "great apes" does make sense, and therefore "great apes" is considered to be monophyletic by probably all biologists. And even creationists would probably say "great apes" is monophyletic, but they'd of course add that humans have no relation to "great apes"...;-)
Not to mention, all the US debt is in dollars... As dollar loses value, the debt gets smaller. Nobody wants that, it'd be crap for almost everybody globally, who has anything to lose. Some would win big of course, but they'd be few and far between.
Where does the article say that the great apes evolved from great apes?
In modern biological "language" everything that is classified as X evolved from a common ancestor that also was X. And everything that evolved from that common ancestor will be X, in addition to whatever else it is.
Last common ancestor of all great apes was, by defintion, a great ape. And all it's biological offspring are and will always be, by definition, great apes.
There's no way humans could evolve to not be vertebrates or tetrapods or amniotes or mammals or great apes. Even snakes and whales are still tetrapods even though they've lost limbs, and elephants are too, even though they've evolved a fifth limb.
So whatever you are arguing, you might want to change your terminology.
Crocodiles, sharks etc certainly haven't stopped evolving. I bet current species are in many ways different from species that lived just a few million years ago. It just looks like they're not evolving from human perspective, because they all look the same. They're already very optimized for their relatively stable environment and life style, and any changes are very small. Also they can't invade new niches because they just can't compete with other species already in those niches without really major and sudden changes, and that can't happen by evolution. So they just stay in their current niches, where they've reached such perfection that no other species can compete with them there.
But they're still forced to evolve slightly all the time, because there's no such thing as completely stable environment. If nothing else, they're predators and their prey evolves to avoid their current form better, so evolution drives them to become slightly different.
About species: sure there is such a thing as species. It's just that sometimes the boundaries are arbitary or fuzzy, and including time dimension makes it even more fuzzy. But there are also populations that undisputedly are same species, and populations that undisputedly are differnt species.
And for populations that are different species, it's also theoretically possible to define the exact point of time when the last genetic exchange happened between them. And that is one possible definition of speciation event. Too bad it can only be reliably determined many many generations after the event, but still, it's there.
So perhaps we should stop thinking of human technology and evolution as being separate things, something that's IMO hypocritical when we treat the technology of other animals such as species of ant that farm crops or livestock as being an evolutionary adaptation.
It's of course a type of evolution (like eg. stellar evolution is also type of evolution). But it's very distinct from biological evolution and advances under very different "laws". Lumping them together would not be very productive, it would not help our understanding of either.
If it's not coded in the genes, it's not developed by biological evolution.
Now once we can alter our genome at will, things will get a bit muddy. But that's not here and today.
From the point of view of natural selection, there is no "breeding bad genes". If a gene leads to breeding, it's by definition not a bad gene.
And I have hard time imagining a world where even majority of people only stay alive due to constant care of modern medicine. It'd just be too expensive in global scope, we just couldn't support that economically. So it won't be happening. So in the event of human civilization collapsing, most of the people would still be fit and live on... Well, those that wouldn't starve, die in wars etc would live on, but the "genetic defects" would be first to go, so no worries there...
Evolution doesn't need that. It'd be plenty enough for evolution, if ugly people had 1% less children than pretty people. It takes surprisingly few generations for even 1% difference in reproductive success to make the ugly people get very rare.
Mind you, I'm not saying that ugly people have less kids, I don't really have any idea one way or another, especially with contraceptives in play. Just pointing out that it's not about "not breeding" at all, it's mostly about just a small difference.
If anything we should be worried that the increase in harmful mutations in the general population is going to result in increased birth defects / genetic diseases.
I wouldn't be worried about that. Evolution is at least partly about crossing "unfit valleys", ie. new mutations surviving in a population until they have a chance to be combined with another mutations, and only becoming revolutionary after this.
Or to say it another way, keeping various "mutants" alive with modern medicine is bound to increase genetic diversity. I very much doubt a species can get into trouble by being too diverse. If going ever gets tough again (I'm talking about 95% of humans getting killed), it's the diversity that will allow those 5% to survive and carry on. Those with naturally fatal genetic defects will be among that 95% anyway, and will not lower the fitness of the remaining 5% at that point. But they just might have produced a genetic advantage that will then spread in the remaining 5%.
Rocking your car out of the snow requires absence of traction control. If you can't turn it off, good job Ford!
Or, just a suggestion, if you're going to go driving during snowy season, you just *could* ask your parents to give you the normal car keys...
Ford focuses are also notorious deathtraps. The cars crumble more than any other car in their market. Engine will drop at the slightest of frontal impacts (we're talking bumper dent equivalent).
Never heard of this. Can you give a reference?
Or is American Ford Focus a different car from the Europen one? Because if the engine crushed the dummies at a low-speed frontal impact, I kind of doubt it would have gotten *any* stars at all... And about crubmling, a quote from the 2004 model comments: "Front impact: The body structure suffered minimal deformation; the drivers' door could be opened almost normally after the impact."
Mirrors with focal points need to follow the sun. That's moving parts. Moving parts are not good, they cost money and they break down and they are more complex to install. Even if installation cost of no-moving-parts solution is a bit more, you'd still want to take it over a moving-parts solution.
But every erg of energy we have comes from the sun, directly or indirectly.
Nitpick: nope, not from the sun, not even indirectly. Deep geothermal energy (created mostly by radioactive decay, but also partly by gravitational energy of the Earth-Moon system) and fission energy and (some day hopefully) fusion energy don't come from the sun. Our first fusion energy comes directly from the hydrogen that formed in the Big Bang, while energy of fission and radioactive decay come from ancient supernovas. Also eventually we may also use heavier elements for fusion (such as Boron), which were created by supernovas, too.
Saying that images are a core feature of the web really depends on what you use it for.
I disagree. "Core feature" isn't defined by an individual user. Even if you don't need or use a feature, it may still be a core feature of the WWW. And the other way around, even if you use the web for tunneling other protocols over HTTP, that still doesn't make tunneling a core feature of the web, no matter how important it is to you.
I'd say that the core idea of the original web can be summarized as "hyperlinking documents that combine several forms of media". Lynx fails the "combine several forms of media" part (even if you can separately display the images with external viewer, that's more like separating several forms of media that were meant work together;-).
"Web 2.0" then brings additional core ideas, basically dynamic interactivity, but that's another matter.
Even with chaotic systems, and especially with systems where physical laws, especially conservation of energy and momentum, things are pretty predictable for certain time ahead. Chaos comes from uncertainities adding up, until finally that flapping of butterfly can be deciding factor of hurricanes direction. But once a hurricane is moving in a direction, it has a lot of energy and momentum, and it'd take a motherload of butterflies working togheter coordianted to change it's direction... Or one really big one;-).
And that's weather. Climate is another thing, but pretty much same things apply, except in global scale and over longer times and with different uncertainities.
Forecasting chaotic systems can be summed up in one word: inertia.
You're right, it's a valid question. However, I don't really see how adding a dog's DNA fingerprint into the dog permit file would impact the privacy issue any more than requiring the permit already does anyway.
First, dogs are short-lived, and can be "put away" at will, so having dog DNA in a file is not something that affects a human for life.
Secondly, nobody is going to screen you (for jobs, insurance, suspected terrorist) by the DNA of your dog, so the big invasion of privacy made possible by analysing human DNA just isn't there.
Of course there are possibilites of abuse (steal your neighbours dog shit, put it in your from yard, sue for profit), but this can be controlled by simply taking into account that DNA doesn't really prove anything in a case like this. Same could be done with photoshopped photograph of the dog on neighbours lawn even without DNA.
Ok. Note: I'm talking here about the privacy of owning a dog in general, not specifically related to this DNA analysis thing.
Dogs in a city are members of the community. However, they are not responsible for their own actions, but instead the dog owner is. Owning a dog is not really possible (in a city) without it impacting other people. Barking, pooping, running away and doing bad stuff, this all happens all the time when dogs are part of a human community and is pretty much unavoidable.
Also there is the issue of animal rights, it's generally thought that a pet has a right for a decent life, and that the society has not only right but an obligation to enforce that owners provide a decent life for their pets, and dogs are maybe the most common pets, and therefore the most common victims of cruelty and mistreatment.
All this, combined with the fact that problems are in fact real, not just imagination of some control freaks, makes dog ownership non-private thing. And requiring a permit is one way to get the public side of things under control.
If Obama is almost certain to lose Texas, how about he admits the error and doesn't run in Texas at all? So it would be McCain versus Barr. A lot of McCain voters might not bother to vote 'cos they're sure to win, while some Dems just might go vote for Barr, just to oppose McCain. So Barr might have a remote chance of winning against McCain in that case, due to low voter turn-out.
But the main point for dems would be, that if McCain then wins the entire election by small margin and becomes the president, he would arguably again be a republican president who got elected illegally... That might give some nice political ammunition for the next 4 years.
I mean, if Barak is sure to lose Texas anyway, what do they have to lose?
No it's not. If you leave your dog's poop on a public place, it's free game for any DNA analysis or whatever.
You might argue that owning a dog is a matter of privacy and should not require a permit or anything (with which I disagree with, and will elaborate if you want). But if you come to me claiming that a pile of shit left on a public place is your private property, I'll ask if you're insane...:-)
Getting an image like that from a planet orbiting different star would require "collecting photons" for a long long time. Surface details would take even longer, as the rotation of the planet would need to be taken into account too. And it would always be an image of a single planet, and perhaps a separate image for a moon orbiting it, but getting them in the same picture would be just "photoshopping" the images together.
And the image would not really be a photo or a snapshot, but instead made "artificially" by combining photons received over long time. It would be more like a globe map of the planets surface, and then you could render an image of the planet from any angle, or even make a physical map globe.
Sort of like there are "fake" images of a busy city that are void of people. They can be made by taking a lot of pictures from same spot, cutting people out of them (leaving holes in the image), and then combining enough of these images so that all holes can be filled. Except here you wouldn't have images with holes, you would have "images" with just one pixel of color each, and then you'd combine enough of these to get a full picture.
Slashdot Mirror
This "limit" is just a practical limit. If this is correct, then it's just very hard to feed a lot of mass to thig big a black hole, because if you try to feed it too much, it'll blow away most of the mass you were trying to get in. So considering the age of the universe, and the mechanisms by which they accrete matter, you get a max size for the biggest black hole possible.
But if you merged two such black holes, you'd probably get a much bigger black hole, and there would be no limit. Or if there was a limit, it would be due to entirely different effects. Our current theories like General Relativity might not even hold in a situation where two really really big black holes collide, so what would happen is anybodys guess.
Does space even have a temperature? Vacuum insulates rather well and the biggest problem of many space-born devices (think ISS) is getting rid of excess heat. The famous Star Trek line of "It's very cold in space" doesn't really match the reality.
There's the redshifted afterglow of the original Big Bang "fireball", also known as the cosmic microwave background radiation. It's equal to heat radiation of an object at about 3K. If you make something colder than that and throw it into intergalactic space, it'll heat up to that temperature. If something is warmer than that, and there's no heating, then it'll cool down to that temperature. So I'd say space *is* cold.
Closest example of a place that always experiences almost the true temperature of space are the bottoms of the polar craters of the Moon. They are eternally in shade, no sunshine, no earthshine, only distant starts and whatever little heat is conducted through lunar crust.
Oh, that would be bad for practically all Americans. Essentially it'd be "bye bye" for the current western standard of living. Considering that the current "American way" seems to be living on credit to get what they want but can't afford, I think very few Americans would easily adapt to that... There would be major gnashing of teeth, if not actual famine and/or civil war.
And I'm not saying American society couldn't in principle adapt. It's just that if the mechanisms of trade collapse, there's no way to "get the food to the hungry masses in cities". Producers would want to get paid, and if there's no working way to pay then the goods would not move, and if there was some sort of socialization then it might develop into civil war as producers would resist others taking their goods without proper payment.
You might want to check terms like "monophyletic", "polyphyletic" and "paraphyletic", try wikipedia. You seem to be arguing that "great apes" is a polyphyletic grouping. I think you're alone with that view, and practically everybody else considers great apes to be monophyletic...
Also, modern view in biology is, that scientific classifications should be monophyletic whenever possible. Ie. "men are apes", "birds are dinosaurs", "snakes are tetrapods".
Of course there are groups like "warm-blooded animals", which can't sensibly be made monophyletic. In this case it is because last common ancestor of current warm-blooded animals was not warm-blooded, and neither are many currently living desecendants of that ancestor. To be monophyletic, all of them would need to be called "warm-blooded", which would make no sense.
But monophyletic classification of "great apes" does make sense, and therefore "great apes" is considered to be monophyletic by probably all biologists. And even creationists would probably say "great apes" is monophyletic, but they'd of course add that humans have no relation to "great apes"... ;-)
Not to mention, all the US debt is in dollars... As dollar loses value, the debt gets smaller. Nobody wants that, it'd be crap for almost everybody globally, who has anything to lose. Some would win big of course, but they'd be few and far between.
Where does the article say that the great apes evolved from great apes?
In modern biological "language" everything that is classified as X evolved from a common ancestor that also was X. And everything that evolved from that common ancestor will be X, in addition to whatever else it is.
Last common ancestor of all great apes was, by defintion, a great ape. And all it's biological offspring are and will always be, by definition, great apes.
There's no way humans could evolve to not be vertebrates or tetrapods or amniotes or mammals or great apes. Even snakes and whales are still tetrapods even though they've lost limbs, and elephants are too, even though they've evolved a fifth limb.
So whatever you are arguing, you might want to change your terminology.
Crocodiles, sharks etc certainly haven't stopped evolving. I bet current species are in many ways different from species that lived just a few million years ago. It just looks like they're not evolving from human perspective, because they all look the same. They're already very optimized for their relatively stable environment and life style, and any changes are very small. Also they can't invade new niches because they just can't compete with other species already in those niches without really major and sudden changes, and that can't happen by evolution. So they just stay in their current niches, where they've reached such perfection that no other species can compete with them there.
But they're still forced to evolve slightly all the time, because there's no such thing as completely stable environment. If nothing else, they're predators and their prey evolves to avoid their current form better, so evolution drives them to become slightly different.
About species: sure there is such a thing as species. It's just that sometimes the boundaries are arbitary or fuzzy, and including time dimension makes it even more fuzzy. But there are also populations that undisputedly are same species, and populations that undisputedly are differnt species.
And for populations that are different species, it's also theoretically possible to define the exact point of time when the last genetic exchange happened between them. And that is one possible definition of speciation event. Too bad it can only be reliably determined many many generations after the event, but still, it's there.
So perhaps we should stop thinking of human technology and evolution as being separate things, something that's IMO hypocritical when we treat the technology of other animals such as species of ant that farm crops or livestock as being an evolutionary adaptation.
It's of course a type of evolution (like eg. stellar evolution is also type of evolution). But it's very distinct from biological evolution and advances under very different "laws". Lumping them together would not be very productive, it would not help our understanding of either.
If it's not coded in the genes, it's not developed by biological evolution.
Now once we can alter our genome at will, things will get a bit muddy. But that's not here and today.
From the point of view of natural selection, there is no "breeding bad genes". If a gene leads to breeding, it's by definition not a bad gene.
And I have hard time imagining a world where even majority of people only stay alive due to constant care of modern medicine. It'd just be too expensive in global scope, we just couldn't support that economically. So it won't be happening. So in the event of human civilization collapsing, most of the people would still be fit and live on... Well, those that wouldn't starve, die in wars etc would live on, but the "genetic defects" would be first to go, so no worries there...
So ugly people don't breed?
Evolution doesn't need that. It'd be plenty enough for evolution, if ugly people had 1% less children than pretty people. It takes surprisingly few generations for even 1% difference in reproductive success to make the ugly people get very rare.
Mind you, I'm not saying that ugly people have less kids, I don't really have any idea one way or another, especially with contraceptives in play. Just pointing out that it's not about "not breeding" at all, it's mostly about just a small difference.
If anything we should be worried that the increase in harmful mutations in the general population is going to result in increased birth defects / genetic diseases.
I wouldn't be worried about that. Evolution is at least partly about crossing "unfit valleys", ie. new mutations surviving in a population until they have a chance to be combined with another mutations, and only becoming revolutionary after this.
Or to say it another way, keeping various "mutants" alive with modern medicine is bound to increase genetic diversity. I very much doubt a species can get into trouble by being too diverse. If going ever gets tough again (I'm talking about 95% of humans getting killed), it's the diversity that will allow those 5% to survive and carry on. Those with naturally fatal genetic defects will be among that 95% anyway, and will not lower the fitness of the remaining 5% at that point. But they just might have produced a genetic advantage that will then spread in the remaining 5%.
Rocking your car out of the snow requires absence of traction control. If you can't turn it off, good job Ford!
Or, just a suggestion, if you're going to go driving during snowy season, you just *could* ask your parents to give you the normal car keys...
Ford focuses are also notorious deathtraps. The cars crumble more than any other car in their market. Engine will drop at the slightest of frontal impacts (we're talking bumper dent equivalent).
Never heard of this. Can you give a reference?
Or is American Ford Focus a different car from the Europen one? Because if the engine crushed the dummies at a low-speed frontal impact, I kind of doubt it would have gotten *any* stars at all... And about crubmling, a quote from the 2004 model comments: "Front impact: The body structure suffered minimal deformation; the drivers' door could be opened almost normally after the impact."
Mirrors with focal points need to follow the sun. That's moving parts. Moving parts are not good, they cost money and they break down and they are more complex to install. Even if installation cost of no-moving-parts solution is a bit more, you'd still want to take it over a moving-parts solution.
Well, that's only $350 *illion difference, so it sounds like they're paying most of the bailout with a Mars rover. Sounds reasonable.
But every erg of energy we have comes from the sun, directly or indirectly.
Nitpick: nope, not from the sun, not even indirectly. Deep geothermal energy (created mostly by radioactive decay, but also partly by gravitational energy of the Earth-Moon system) and fission energy and (some day hopefully) fusion energy don't come from the sun. Our first fusion energy comes directly from the hydrogen that formed in the Big Bang, while energy of fission and radioactive decay come from ancient supernovas. Also eventually we may also use heavier elements for fusion (such as Boron), which were created by supernovas, too.
And how much do OUM media and OUM drives or readers cost?
I would submit that this is the lament of every intelligent being since the dawn of time (assuming there is a dawn of time).
And also assuming there are intellingent beings...
Saying that images are a core feature of the web really depends on what you use it for.
I disagree. "Core feature" isn't defined by an individual user. Even if you don't need or use a feature, it may still be a core feature of the WWW. And the other way around, even if you use the web for tunneling other protocols over HTTP, that still doesn't make tunneling a core feature of the web, no matter how important it is to you.
I'd say that the core idea of the original web can be summarized as "hyperlinking documents that combine several forms of media". Lynx fails the "combine several forms of media" part (even if you can separately display the images with external viewer, that's more like separating several forms of media that were meant work together ;-).
"Web 2.0" then brings additional core ideas, basically dynamic interactivity, but that's another matter.
Even with chaotic systems, and especially with systems where physical laws, especially conservation of energy and momentum, things are pretty predictable for certain time ahead. Chaos comes from uncertainities adding up, until finally that flapping of butterfly can be deciding factor of hurricanes direction. But once a hurricane is moving in a direction, it has a lot of energy and momentum, and it'd take a motherload of butterflies working togheter coordianted to change it's direction... Or one really big one ;-).
And that's weather. Climate is another thing, but pretty much same things apply, except in global scale and over longer times and with different uncertainities.
Forecasting chaotic systems can be summed up in one word: inertia.
You're right, it's a valid question. However, I don't really see how adding a dog's DNA fingerprint into the dog permit file would impact the privacy issue any more than requiring the permit already does anyway.
First, dogs are short-lived, and can be "put away" at will, so having dog DNA in a file is not something that affects a human for life.
Secondly, nobody is going to screen you (for jobs, insurance, suspected terrorist) by the DNA of your dog, so the big invasion of privacy made possible by analysing human DNA just isn't there.
Of course there are possibilites of abuse (steal your neighbours dog shit, put it in your from yard, sue for profit), but this can be controlled by simply taking into account that DNA doesn't really prove anything in a case like this. Same could be done with photoshopped photograph of the dog on neighbours lawn even without DNA.
Ok. Note: I'm talking here about the privacy of owning a dog in general, not specifically related to this DNA analysis thing.
Dogs in a city are members of the community. However, they are not responsible for their own actions, but instead the dog owner is. Owning a dog is not really possible (in a city) without it impacting other people. Barking, pooping, running away and doing bad stuff, this all happens all the time when dogs are part of a human community and is pretty much unavoidable.
Also there is the issue of animal rights, it's generally thought that a pet has a right for a decent life, and that the society has not only right but an obligation to enforce that owners provide a decent life for their pets, and dogs are maybe the most common pets, and therefore the most common victims of cruelty and mistreatment.
All this, combined with the fact that problems are in fact real, not just imagination of some control freaks, makes dog ownership non-private thing. And requiring a permit is one way to get the public side of things under control.
If Obama is almost certain to lose Texas, how about he admits the error and doesn't run in Texas at all? So it would be McCain versus Barr. A lot of McCain voters might not bother to vote 'cos they're sure to win, while some Dems just might go vote for Barr, just to oppose McCain. So Barr might have a remote chance of winning against McCain in that case, due to low voter turn-out.
But the main point for dems would be, that if McCain then wins the entire election by small margin and becomes the president, he would arguably again be a republican president who got elected illegally... That might give some nice political ammunition for the next 4 years.
I mean, if Barak is sure to lose Texas anyway, what do they have to lose?
No it's not. If you leave your dog's poop on a public place, it's free game for any DNA analysis or whatever.
You might argue that owning a dog is a matter of privacy and should not require a permit or anything (with which I disagree with, and will elaborate if you want). But if you come to me claiming that a pile of shit left on a public place is your private property, I'll ask if you're insane... :-)
Getting an image like that from a planet orbiting different star would require "collecting photons" for a long long time. Surface details would take even longer, as the rotation of the planet would need to be taken into account too. And it would always be an image of a single planet, and perhaps a separate image for a moon orbiting it, but getting them in the same picture would be just "photoshopping" the images together.
And the image would not really be a photo or a snapshot, but instead made "artificially" by combining photons received over long time. It would be more like a globe map of the planets surface, and then you could render an image of the planet from any angle, or even make a physical map globe.
Sort of like there are "fake" images of a busy city that are void of people. They can be made by taking a lot of pictures from same spot, cutting people out of them (leaving holes in the image), and then combining enough of these images so that all holes can be filled. Except here you wouldn't have images with holes, you would have "images" with just one pixel of color each, and then you'd combine enough of these to get a full picture.