I wonder how long before Cleveland just sends in SWAT on a daily basis to search for recyclables, and if you are found to have some not currently in the bin, they summarily execute you, sell your organs on the black market, and bill your family for the bullet? Only a matter of time!
Re:scientology copyrights their religious scriptur
on
Medieval Copy Protection
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Where's your house? I only ask because you claim it's morally reprehensible to ask somebody not to steal, so I assume you have no problem with people breaking in and snatching all of your stuff. As you say, by claiming you somehow have more of a right to your possessions than I do, you're playing the same endgame. You think all other men your slave. That or you're illiterate and totally failed to read even the summary. Did you even read the headline, or is your usual tirade against copyright law only (slightly) on-topic by pure chance?
The sounds aren't quite the same, but Quick Basic for MS DOS had a program in the Examples folder that does almost exactly this. Generates random data and shows various sorting techniques on it visually, playing a different tone for each comparison made. Not as much data (since it had to graph it in 320x200), much slower in a 286, and sound was done by internal speaker, but same idea at least.
Yeah, that's the best way for gangs to get away with murder. See, if multiple people have access to the murder weapon, you can kill your enemies with absolute impunity. If they've wronged your gang, you all have motive. If more than one member has access to the weapon, you don't even need to hide the murder weapon. Wipe it down, or just all handle it. There, whoever they arrest just because witnesses place you at the scene, just have other members testify that they wanted him dead, and had access to the weapon, too. And they don't have to lie and open themselves up to perjury charges, even! There, reasonable doubt, they HAVE to let the killer go free. And arrest the ones who said they could have done it? On what grounds? They let the other guy go free with MORE evidence against him, there's no witnesses this time, how can you, the jury, find him guilty on less evidence than another jury found his brother innocent on? Anyways, doesn't take a genius to figure out, that's why almost all gang killing go unpunished.
Oh, there is permanently. Perhaps not for ADHD, but for the other thing doctors, even in Canada, are paid millions to over-diagnose: Depression. I knew somebody who was "depressed" in that they were occasionally sad. They almost instantly got put on Effexor. Effexor is an incredibly harsh disruptor of concentration. Because of these drugs she went from an occasionally sad A+ student to an actually depressed D average student. It destroyed her concentration so completely that she could not converse, by the end of a sentence she had forgotten the start. The doctor refused to take her off "I'm not qualified to take somebody off of it" well who is qualified? "Nobody". Oh it turns out the contraindications say never to give it to a 14 year old, but what do the doctors care, they're paid by the prescription not for following ethics. "That just means it hasn't been tested on children, but it's perfectly safe, stop second guessing me and reading labels!" So, she said if they won't take her off she will stop taking them. "No don't do that, the withdrawal is incredibly harsh, you can't ever come off them, you'll become so depressed you can't function and will never recover!" It seemed pretty permanent to me.
If I say you can write an NES emulator in X lines of code, it doesn't logically follow that I'm claiming that any program of X lines of code is an NES emulator. Troll harder.
Slippery Slope is a fallacy, with the exact same form and purpose of a bunch of other fallacies. If you can find no valid complaints with a course of action (such as putting drunk drivers in jail) you either attack the person (call them liberal police state cryptofacist nanny state nazis like 75% of the posts in this article are), or you change the argument and argue against that (straw man) or you concoct a diabolical conspiracy that this is the first overture of. In all of those cases you don't need to make a single argument about the actual case at hand, you have something way easier! In this case, you argue that the end result will be bad, and therefore any step along the way is bad. In this case, the step goes something like, interlocks in criminals' cars, interlocks in all cars, total alcohol prohibition, total fluid prohibition, mass extinction as entire human race dies from dehydration, eternal winter as sun is blacked out from the ash of 6 billion burnt dead. Only, there's not actually a problem with punishing murderous criminals. So, when there is serious legislation pending with regards to mandatory interlocks in all cars (as opposed to prohibitionists "demanding" it), bring it up then. Until then, the argument is no different than saying "Step 1, jail murders, step 2, jail all Americans. Therefore, murder should not be punished by jail time."
I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be an ASCII drawing of a circle, just like [ ] is supposed to be a box, and ( o Y o ) is supposed to be boobs. Lots of primary/middle school textbooks use circles or boxes for the spot you put the answer. So what happens is, a student sees "4 + 3 + 2 = circle" and writes 9 in the circle. They do that all of the time, tests, assignments, that's how it works. You add the numbers and put them in the circle. So, they see "4 + 3 + 2 = circle + 2" and they put 9 in the circle like always, they do the math left to right like they're supposed to, and after they have done that, there is another + 2 after they are done, so they add 9 and 2, since they have "9 + 2" still, now it's 11. It's reasonable, because they were never taught what = means, exactly, just to put the answer in the circle, and to do things left to right. The problem is, they haven't learned algebra yet. So, chuckling about how they couldn't derive it from first principles is just stupid. Show it to them once they've seen algebra. Saying that 70% of americans in grade X got it wrong, but 0% of chinese of the same age were wrong, is meaningless if they teach algebra there sooner. You might say "100% of Chinese who have learned algebra understood algebra, but 'only' 30% of Americans who have never seen algebra, picked it up on the spot".
When I was in grade 9 or 10, I missed like a week of school with a bad case of the flu. I guess we learned algebra that week. When I came back it was test time, and the teacher said I could do it later since I missed the whole section. I said "Naw I'll be fine" and wrote it. I guess I'm in the 30% because after going "Wut" over and over I figured out what it meant. But I can totally see how they could be totally confused by it, circle or x or whatever other placeholder you like. 70% sounds about right for how many wouldn't get algebra if you threw it in their faces with no warning. Obviously, in hindsight everybody on Slashdot would say "OMG SO FUCKING EASY JUST ALGEBRA WHAT RETARDS", but it's not obvious until you have your "ah ha!" moment.
I saw that in textbooks right on the cusp of learning algebra, to ease you into it. Only, it's not really "( )", it's, well...Slashdot doesn't support unicode so I can't show you...but, it's supposed to be a circle. TFA didn't use one either. IDK if it's because they're not using the same textbooks I've seen, or just because they don't know how to type unicode, either. At any rate, students would, from their earliest years, be used to seeing "2 + 2 = ( )" or "2 + 2 = [ ]" where those are supposed to be circles or boxes for them to put the number in. Or, perhaps "2 + 2 = ___" a blank line for them to put the answer in. The point was that, with no explanation of the equal sign, they come to the wrong conclusion about that circle. They see "4 + 3 + 2 = circle + 2" and they do what they've always done, by rote, and put 9 into the circle, then proceed on to the next little bit, which is +2, there, 9 + 2 is 11, they wonder why there isn't another circle, and make one.
At any rate, your solution of "just use algebra" is absurd, they haven't learned it yet. Algebra is what they're trying to teach them with this. And the point is, it doesn't matter. If they show them "x = 2 + 2, so x is 4", they just might get it. But, if they see "4 + 3 + 2 = x + 2" they would do the same as before "x is 9, so x + 2 is 11". They're just assigning too low a priority to equality in the order of operations, really...and also thinking in C I suppose, where (x = 9) + 2 does equal 11;)
And not just websites, other automated systems have this issue, too! Like that collections agency that didn't even phone, just filed lawsuits in their own jurisdiction and hoped for default judgments. Well, that's way too many lawsuits to pay for lawyer time for, so they just had a computer automatically generate lawsuits. You need a signed affidavit though. No problem, just have the computer insert a signature copied from a scanned document! So, like most collections agencies, and like the RIAA/MPAA members, they sent out thousands of lawsuits "signed" by a lawyer who never even saw the documents, let alone read them. Not a problem, common practice right? Well, except that for this one company, that lawyer whose signature they "pirated" died. So they were filing lawsuits "signed" by a dead man well after his death. Boy were their faces red! Not only did their case get thrown out when this was revealed, but the counter-suit cost them a 9 million dollar judgment. I'm amazed they got away so lightly with submitting forged affidavits to the court!
How to pirate a DRM free game: Download torrent, run installer, play.
How to pirate an extremely heavily DRM locked game: Download Assassin's Creed 2 torrent, run installer, copy "Crack" folder to game folder, play.
And you think that 20% is a conservative estimate for how many pirates will give up and buy it, because of that extra step? It is awfully hard, copy a whole fucking file.
If the developer didn't want Apple using their app, and screenshots thereof, for any and all purposes, in perpetuity, then maybe they shouldn't have signed that right over to Apple.
It seems they shared your concern, because there's a toggle between "Realistic 3D" mode and "2D Tactical" with a hexagon overlay and terrain etc. represented by 2D icons.
According to TFA, he refused to see a doctor to confirm diabetes because his brother died from it, and he didn't want to die too. He also didn't see a doctor about a splinter in his toe that got severely infected, swelling and smelling rotten.
You have it backwards. Triablism is the opposite of competition. Tribalism isn't "I prefer my project so I will make it better than yours" it's "You are an idiot, why bother competing when I'm already better and always will be". It's not "I like this feature we should do that too" it's "That feature is in Windows, it's garbage, lets not even think about it!"
Don't call it a theory. "Irreducible complexity" is a demonstrably false hypothesis, not a theory. At any rate, his argument is basically "I can't see how this could evolve in steps, and as I am omniscient and omnipotent, that is proof of its impossibility, QED." At any rate, his implicit assumption that he's all knowing and all seeing is also easily refuted. He claims that there is a spider that shows irreducible complexity. However, it's easy to show steps how this spider could have evolved from a similar spider without ever being at a disadvantage, even though according to Behe, every single component is useless alone, and the spider is useless without all of them. Just utterly false. Irreducible complexity can also be shot down via Reducto Ad Absurdum. An arch is made of arch stones, and a keystone. Without the keystone, the entire arch collapses. Without the rest of the arch in place, the keystone cannot be placed. Therefore, one cannot build an arch, as it requires both parts to exist, and neither part can be placed without the other already in place.
He also likes the mousetrap example. (Even though the mousetrap is designed). He says the current spring loaded wire mousetrap is irreducibly complex because without any of its components, it doesn't function. This is trivial to show as wrong: Start with a basic cartoon mousetrap. A box with a piece of cheese in it, and a stick on the cheese holding the box up. Flaws? The mouse can shift the box and perhaps escape. Solution: Hinge one edge so it is harder to shift the box. Next Flaw: It takes a lot of eating for the stick to fall, closing the trap. Solution: connect the stick to a latch, and place the bait on a pressure plate that will release the latch at a very light touch. Next Flaw: You can't move the trap because its bolted to the floor. Solution: Create a baseboard and hinge the lid to the base, not the floor. Next Flaw: It's still somewhat possible for the mouse to lift the box and escape underneath. Solution: Spring load the hinge so it closes with more force, and remains closed. Next Flaw: The mouse, being a rodent, can chew its way through the wooden box. Solution: Make the box out of metal. Next Flaw: When releasing mice into your field, they tend to head right back into your house for all the free grain. Solution: Remove the edges of the metal box except the hinged edge. This will strike the mouse with the force of the spring. Next Flaw: The sheet of metal distributes the force evenly over the mouse. A fair number survive, maimed and possibly trapped. You need to put them down yourself, and sometimes they escape and die in the wall. Solution: Replace the metal sheet with a metal wire so the force is focused on one point of their neck. And there you have it. You went from a primitive trap to a modern trap. Each step improved the efficiency of the design. Saying "A mousetrap needs the plate, the latch, the spring, the base, and the wire, and without any it is not functional" is true, but beside the point.
With no exceptions, "irreducibly complex" bullshit that Behe has come up with can be shown to be reducible. And besides which, by asserting that all changes need to be beneficial, he's showing he knows nothing at all about evolution. Changes need only be not-highly-disadvantageous. They not only don't even need to be helpful, they can even be slightly harmful if it doesn't impact the creature TOO much.
Nothing evolves into something else. You're making fun of Pokemon but still thinking like it. Species it not an intrinsic value. There is no such thing as the "human race". All those things we call "humans" are are roughly 7 billion collections of DNA, that happen to be able to create offspring if you pair almost any of them up by gender. So, we create the word "species" to mean a group of individuals with similar enough DNA that they can interbreed. Humanity is, of course, not fully able to interbreed. There are already mutually-infertile couples. Two "humans" who are both fertile, but cannot produce viable offspring because their DNA is too distant. However, in perhaps as little as 10,000 years you'll find there is more than one species of human, where there exist large easily identified population groups that can only breed within the group. Speciation has already been observed in fruit flies, since their generations last only a few days, not a few decades. Take a colony of fruit flies, separate them into two different environments, and in a few weeks they will no longer be genetically compatible. You will have taken one "species" and split it into two.
Slashdot Mirror
The better question is, does each writer for the paper have to pay it? Or is it just the paper?
I wonder how long before Cleveland just sends in SWAT on a daily basis to search for recyclables, and if you are found to have some not currently in the bin, they summarily execute you, sell your organs on the black market, and bill your family for the bullet? Only a matter of time!
Where's your house? I only ask because you claim it's morally reprehensible to ask somebody not to steal, so I assume you have no problem with people breaking in and snatching all of your stuff. As you say, by claiming you somehow have more of a right to your possessions than I do, you're playing the same endgame. You think all other men your slave. That or you're illiterate and totally failed to read even the summary. Did you even read the headline, or is your usual tirade against copyright law only (slightly) on-topic by pure chance?
The sounds aren't quite the same, but Quick Basic for MS DOS had a program in the Examples folder that does almost exactly this. Generates random data and shows various sorting techniques on it visually, playing a different tone for each comparison made. Not as much data (since it had to graph it in 320x200), much slower in a 286, and sound was done by internal speaker, but same idea at least.
Yeah, that's the best way for gangs to get away with murder. See, if multiple people have access to the murder weapon, you can kill your enemies with absolute impunity. If they've wronged your gang, you all have motive. If more than one member has access to the weapon, you don't even need to hide the murder weapon. Wipe it down, or just all handle it. There, whoever they arrest just because witnesses place you at the scene, just have other members testify that they wanted him dead, and had access to the weapon, too. And they don't have to lie and open themselves up to perjury charges, even! There, reasonable doubt, they HAVE to let the killer go free. And arrest the ones who said they could have done it? On what grounds? They let the other guy go free with MORE evidence against him, there's no witnesses this time, how can you, the jury, find him guilty on less evidence than another jury found his brother innocent on? Anyways, doesn't take a genius to figure out, that's why almost all gang killing go unpunished.
What the fuck are you talking about? Matching DNA is kind of exactly the sort of thing that's evidence that a sample came from the same person.
Oh, there is permanently. Perhaps not for ADHD, but for the other thing doctors, even in Canada, are paid millions to over-diagnose: Depression. I knew somebody who was "depressed" in that they were occasionally sad. They almost instantly got put on Effexor. Effexor is an incredibly harsh disruptor of concentration. Because of these drugs she went from an occasionally sad A+ student to an actually depressed D average student. It destroyed her concentration so completely that she could not converse, by the end of a sentence she had forgotten the start. The doctor refused to take her off "I'm not qualified to take somebody off of it" well who is qualified? "Nobody". Oh it turns out the contraindications say never to give it to a 14 year old, but what do the doctors care, they're paid by the prescription not for following ethics. "That just means it hasn't been tested on children, but it's perfectly safe, stop second guessing me and reading labels!" So, she said if they won't take her off she will stop taking them. "No don't do that, the withdrawal is incredibly harsh, you can't ever come off them, you'll become so depressed you can't function and will never recover!" It seemed pretty permanent to me.
If I say you can write an NES emulator in X lines of code, it doesn't logically follow that I'm claiming that any program of X lines of code is an NES emulator. Troll harder.
Slippery Slope is a fallacy, with the exact same form and purpose of a bunch of other fallacies. If you can find no valid complaints with a course of action (such as putting drunk drivers in jail) you either attack the person (call them liberal police state cryptofacist nanny state nazis like 75% of the posts in this article are), or you change the argument and argue against that (straw man) or you concoct a diabolical conspiracy that this is the first overture of. In all of those cases you don't need to make a single argument about the actual case at hand, you have something way easier! In this case, you argue that the end result will be bad, and therefore any step along the way is bad. In this case, the step goes something like, interlocks in criminals' cars, interlocks in all cars, total alcohol prohibition, total fluid prohibition, mass extinction as entire human race dies from dehydration, eternal winter as sun is blacked out from the ash of 6 billion burnt dead. Only, there's not actually a problem with punishing murderous criminals. So, when there is serious legislation pending with regards to mandatory interlocks in all cars (as opposed to prohibitionists "demanding" it), bring it up then. Until then, the argument is no different than saying "Step 1, jail murders, step 2, jail all Americans. Therefore, murder should not be punished by jail time."
Congratulations, you are smarter than a fifth grader.
I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be an ASCII drawing of a circle, just like [ ] is supposed to be a box, and ( o Y o ) is supposed to be boobs. Lots of primary/middle school textbooks use circles or boxes for the spot you put the answer. So what happens is, a student sees "4 + 3 + 2 = circle" and writes 9 in the circle. They do that all of the time, tests, assignments, that's how it works. You add the numbers and put them in the circle. So, they see "4 + 3 + 2 = circle + 2" and they put 9 in the circle like always, they do the math left to right like they're supposed to, and after they have done that, there is another + 2 after they are done, so they add 9 and 2, since they have "9 + 2" still, now it's 11. It's reasonable, because they were never taught what = means, exactly, just to put the answer in the circle, and to do things left to right. The problem is, they haven't learned algebra yet. So, chuckling about how they couldn't derive it from first principles is just stupid. Show it to them once they've seen algebra. Saying that 70% of americans in grade X got it wrong, but 0% of chinese of the same age were wrong, is meaningless if they teach algebra there sooner. You might say "100% of Chinese who have learned algebra understood algebra, but 'only' 30% of Americans who have never seen algebra, picked it up on the spot".
When I was in grade 9 or 10, I missed like a week of school with a bad case of the flu. I guess we learned algebra that week. When I came back it was test time, and the teacher said I could do it later since I missed the whole section. I said "Naw I'll be fine" and wrote it. I guess I'm in the 30% because after going "Wut" over and over I figured out what it meant. But I can totally see how they could be totally confused by it, circle or x or whatever other placeholder you like. 70% sounds about right for how many wouldn't get algebra if you threw it in their faces with no warning. Obviously, in hindsight everybody on Slashdot would say "OMG SO FUCKING EASY JUST ALGEBRA WHAT RETARDS", but it's not obvious until you have your "ah ha!" moment.
I saw that in textbooks right on the cusp of learning algebra, to ease you into it. Only, it's not really "( )", it's, well...Slashdot doesn't support unicode so I can't show you...but, it's supposed to be a circle. TFA didn't use one either. IDK if it's because they're not using the same textbooks I've seen, or just because they don't know how to type unicode, either. At any rate, students would, from their earliest years, be used to seeing "2 + 2 = ( )" or "2 + 2 = [ ]" where those are supposed to be circles or boxes for them to put the number in. Or, perhaps "2 + 2 = ___" a blank line for them to put the answer in. The point was that, with no explanation of the equal sign, they come to the wrong conclusion about that circle. They see "4 + 3 + 2 = circle + 2" and they do what they've always done, by rote, and put 9 into the circle, then proceed on to the next little bit, which is +2, there, 9 + 2 is 11, they wonder why there isn't another circle, and make one.
At any rate, your solution of "just use algebra" is absurd, they haven't learned it yet. Algebra is what they're trying to teach them with this. And the point is, it doesn't matter. If they show them "x = 2 + 2, so x is 4", they just might get it. But, if they see "4 + 3 + 2 = x + 2" they would do the same as before "x is 9, so x + 2 is 11". They're just assigning too low a priority to equality in the order of operations, really...and also thinking in C I suppose, where (x = 9) + 2 does equal 11 ;)
And not just websites, other automated systems have this issue, too! Like that collections agency that didn't even phone, just filed lawsuits in their own jurisdiction and hoped for default judgments. Well, that's way too many lawsuits to pay for lawyer time for, so they just had a computer automatically generate lawsuits. You need a signed affidavit though. No problem, just have the computer insert a signature copied from a scanned document! So, like most collections agencies, and like the RIAA/MPAA members, they sent out thousands of lawsuits "signed" by a lawyer who never even saw the documents, let alone read them. Not a problem, common practice right? Well, except that for this one company, that lawyer whose signature they "pirated" died. So they were filing lawsuits "signed" by a dead man well after his death. Boy were their faces red! Not only did their case get thrown out when this was revealed, but the counter-suit cost them a 9 million dollar judgment. I'm amazed they got away so lightly with submitting forged affidavits to the court!
Not a copyright case.
How to pirate a DRM free game: Download torrent, run installer, play.
How to pirate an extremely heavily DRM locked game: Download Assassin's Creed 2 torrent, run installer, copy "Crack" folder to game folder, play.
And you think that 20% is a conservative estimate for how many pirates will give up and buy it, because of that extra step? It is awfully hard, copy a whole fucking file.
If the developer didn't want Apple using their app, and screenshots thereof, for any and all purposes, in perpetuity, then maybe they shouldn't have signed that right over to Apple.
Windows only at launch, OS X version may eventually be released at some point in the future. No Linux version mentioned.
It seems they shared your concern, because there's a toggle between "Realistic 3D" mode and "2D Tactical" with a hexagon overlay and terrain etc. represented by 2D icons.
According to TFA, he refused to see a doctor to confirm diabetes because his brother died from it, and he didn't want to die too. He also didn't see a doctor about a splinter in his toe that got severely infected, swelling and smelling rotten.
How would neighbors know whether or not your contractor filed for the appropriate permits?
You have it backwards. Triablism is the opposite of competition. Tribalism isn't "I prefer my project so I will make it better than yours" it's "You are an idiot, why bother competing when I'm already better and always will be". It's not "I like this feature we should do that too" it's "That feature is in Windows, it's garbage, lets not even think about it!"
Also, explain how racism isn't prejudice...
Not that similar, there's no conclusion that the liberals cause the asteroid, and there's no ad for Goldline.
Other laws do that already. It's already illegal to refuse to honor a warranty for any use action that didn't cause the damage.
Don't call it a theory. "Irreducible complexity" is a demonstrably false hypothesis, not a theory. At any rate, his argument is basically "I can't see how this could evolve in steps, and as I am omniscient and omnipotent, that is proof of its impossibility, QED." At any rate, his implicit assumption that he's all knowing and all seeing is also easily refuted. He claims that there is a spider that shows irreducible complexity. However, it's easy to show steps how this spider could have evolved from a similar spider without ever being at a disadvantage, even though according to Behe, every single component is useless alone, and the spider is useless without all of them. Just utterly false. Irreducible complexity can also be shot down via Reducto Ad Absurdum. An arch is made of arch stones, and a keystone. Without the keystone, the entire arch collapses. Without the rest of the arch in place, the keystone cannot be placed. Therefore, one cannot build an arch, as it requires both parts to exist, and neither part can be placed without the other already in place.
He also likes the mousetrap example. (Even though the mousetrap is designed). He says the current spring loaded wire mousetrap is irreducibly complex because without any of its components, it doesn't function. This is trivial to show as wrong: Start with a basic cartoon mousetrap. A box with a piece of cheese in it, and a stick on the cheese holding the box up. Flaws? The mouse can shift the box and perhaps escape. Solution: Hinge one edge so it is harder to shift the box. Next Flaw: It takes a lot of eating for the stick to fall, closing the trap. Solution: connect the stick to a latch, and place the bait on a pressure plate that will release the latch at a very light touch. Next Flaw: You can't move the trap because its bolted to the floor. Solution: Create a baseboard and hinge the lid to the base, not the floor. Next Flaw: It's still somewhat possible for the mouse to lift the box and escape underneath. Solution: Spring load the hinge so it closes with more force, and remains closed. Next Flaw: The mouse, being a rodent, can chew its way through the wooden box. Solution: Make the box out of metal. Next Flaw: When releasing mice into your field, they tend to head right back into your house for all the free grain. Solution: Remove the edges of the metal box except the hinged edge. This will strike the mouse with the force of the spring. Next Flaw: The sheet of metal distributes the force evenly over the mouse. A fair number survive, maimed and possibly trapped. You need to put them down yourself, and sometimes they escape and die in the wall. Solution: Replace the metal sheet with a metal wire so the force is focused on one point of their neck. And there you have it. You went from a primitive trap to a modern trap. Each step improved the efficiency of the design. Saying "A mousetrap needs the plate, the latch, the spring, the base, and the wire, and without any it is not functional" is true, but beside the point.
With no exceptions, "irreducibly complex" bullshit that Behe has come up with can be shown to be reducible. And besides which, by asserting that all changes need to be beneficial, he's showing he knows nothing at all about evolution. Changes need only be not-highly-disadvantageous. They not only don't even need to be helpful, they can even be slightly harmful if it doesn't impact the creature TOO much.
Nothing evolves into something else. You're making fun of Pokemon but still thinking like it. Species it not an intrinsic value. There is no such thing as the "human race". All those things we call "humans" are are roughly 7 billion collections of DNA, that happen to be able to create offspring if you pair almost any of them up by gender. So, we create the word "species" to mean a group of individuals with similar enough DNA that they can interbreed. Humanity is, of course, not fully able to interbreed. There are already mutually-infertile couples. Two "humans" who are both fertile, but cannot produce viable offspring because their DNA is too distant. However, in perhaps as little as 10,000 years you'll find there is more than one species of human, where there exist large easily identified population groups that can only breed within the group. Speciation has already been observed in fruit flies, since their generations last only a few days, not a few decades. Take a colony of fruit flies, separate them into two different environments, and in a few weeks they will no longer be genetically compatible. You will have taken one "species" and split it into two.