> One could almost predict it scene for scene, cliche for cliche. > Which is part of the problem I guess, because it let you give yourself eyestrain trying to look at flowers and rocks and waterfalls
Yeah I went as a tourist to watch the scenery:).
I didn't give a damn about the "characters outside". I knew I was safe and snug in my "tour bus".
They're only spammers once they've committed the act.
There are tons of bosses who think that it's a good idea to send out emails about their product/services to thousands of people who never asked for them (hey their product is wonderful after all, etc etc).
You can convince some of them that it's not a good idea, in which case they don't become spammers.
And there really are overzealous spamfilters. I've seen people here who think it's a great idea to block off entire IP ranges (not just for their personal systems, but at a corporate level).
I think the reason was they artificially made parts of many scenes in Avatar 2D (and 3D) out of focus. Even some mostly static scenes.
It's not pleasant trying to focus on something that just stays out of focus - ever tried reading those "out-of-focus" texts? That's how Avatar 2D felt like in some scenes. I kept getting the "can't focus properly" feeling in my eyes.
At least with Avatar 3D, I had better idea of what areas in the scene the director wanted me to focus on.
Didn't help for the motion blurred scenes though. I don't like motion blurring. It sucks. In real life if I'm looking at a moving object, it's sharp, the rest of the scenery might go blurry, but it doesn't matter - I'm looking at the moving object. Then if I look at the rest of the scenery it's sharp, the moving objects go blurry.
Make the moving objects blurry, and they'll remain blurry when I try to track them and so I get that "can't focus" feeling which I dislike. Yes I know movies are 24fps. No I don't care that real world recordings of moving objects in 24 fps get "naturally blurred".
Fact is 24 fps sucks. It's way too low a frame rate. Back in the old days 24fps was excusable (it was a technological feat even - keep the film moving so it doesn't burn up, and have each frame pause momentarily before the next frame is moved in, etc).
OK I don't mean that the civilians being killed wasn't appalling. But Bush does share significant responsibility for that incident (and many others).
If you release a lion into field full of sheep and it kills sheep, yes the lion is responsible. But it's your fault too. Killing stuff is just what lions do.
I'm sure there are already people clamoring for the heads of the lions involved in that attack.
But to me it's the real Heads that should roll. The ones who unleashed the lions.
Actually such things are inevitable in a warzone. That's why you should never start wars lightly[1]. Lots of bad stuff will happen.
It's obvious to many in hindsight that it's a camera. But if you look it from the POV from a paranoid nervous young military helicopter pilot, it does look like the tube of a RPG - esp when the camera sticks out from behind the wall...
What follows after that is just what soldiers do - they kill people, and they are _conditioned_ to think it's OK to kill people. So they make up all sorts of excuses so that they can pull the trigger.
If the helicopter pilot isn't paranoid enough, he or his friends will get killed. Because there ARE people out there who are out to kill him and his friends, and yes sometimes there are children around when it happens. And yes, both sides can be relaxed and merrily joking about stuff minutes before they blow away the other side.
War is how you get otherwise reasonable people to kill strangers they have never met and would otherwise be happy to sit down and have a meal with together. You set things up so that if they don't kill the other side, the other side would kill them and/or their friends. If that doesn't happen, you kill/punish them for disobeying orders.
To me the appalling bit is not that civilians were killed because the pilot made a mistake, it's that the war was either started due to lies or incompetence.
I have to say though that the US military seem to have a reputation of being more trigger happy, and even since the WWII days - the joke goes that when a German plane flies over, the British take cover; when a British plane flies over, the Germans take cover; when a US plane flies over, everyone takes cover...;)
I wouldn't do that, since I suspect there's a big overlap in the group of vendors who go "nonsecurity issue" when it is one, and the group of vendors who would sue you if you post the "nonsecurity issue" publicly.
> Why? It won't make you any safer as criminals have ways around this and only enables the government to track you via GPS.
1) Only the smart/resourceful criminals though. So at least you get to track 90% of those who carry phones around. 2) The difference between a noncriminal and a criminal could just be one bad decision on one bad day. And often people forget to conveniently leave their phone at home before making that one bad decision. 3) It's not tracking via GPS, it's via phone cells.
Lastly, the really smart amoral people just work in the finance industry or politics where they legally but unethically take money, they're usually not criminals by definition;).
I think he's lacking in some other department too. From the POV he's talking about, he's just going to make bypassing the technical restrictions a game to his kids.
It's like a boss spending megabucks on technical solution, when he should instead make control of employees mainly a management thing that's aided by cheaper and less elaborate technical solutions.
If Boss just puts up expensive technical controls, and is not known for enforcing policy, he's not going to get compliance.
If the boss is known for enforcing a policy, he's going to get compliance with that policy, even if the boss is not in all the time, and the technical stuff isn't that elaborate.
Sure have some blocking and monitoring, but strict restrictions are counterproductive, maybe the kid/employee really does need to use the computer to do homework/work.
e.g. "Force log-out and/or shutdown of clients for grounding purposes". "Schedule time usage of computer, ex. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on school nights etc.;"
If they can't use the computer at home, they could go out if you're not around. If you're around to stop them from going out, you're around to stop them from using the computers[1] or using them in ways you don't want to use them.
Once they make it a habit of going elsewhere to use the computer, your technical stuff becomes useless.
You just need to know what's going on, and to block certain sites as part of showing you _really_ care what they are up to (you have to prove it in other ways too).
[1] You're the unelected Benevolent (hopefully;) ) Dictator at home.
I thought it checked the "http-referer" - so if you clicked via google, you'll get the answer at the bottom.
But if you copy the URL and paste it on a browser, you don't get to see the answer at the bottom.
Personally what annoys me more than expertsexchange are the journal sites. For those I don't get the answer at the bottom or anywhere, even though it shows up in the Google search results.
Used to be Google policy that a site is not allowed to show different content to Google from what it shows to users - they smacked BMW Germany down for that. But now I see lots of sites getting away with that, and no, those journal sites don't get fooled by the user agent thing.
My point is the situation often isn't as grave as many security researchers like to think.
Yes there is a hole. But there are zillions of holes. If the hacker wants in, they've probably already got in via some PHP exploit or some malware infected PC.
If you've found an exploit in IE or firefox or Windows or OSX or ssh, sure go kick up a big fuss. Or just wait till the next pwn2own competition;).
Whereas if you've found an exploit in some ADSL modem router made by some Korean company, and they're not fixing it after you've reported it. Big deal. Hardly any of the routers will still be working 3 years from now. How many of you got pwned because of those infamous bugs that were present for years without anyone knowing? How many hackers would make a lot of $$$$ from exploiting some non-"vastly deployed" software in your company, and get away with it? Would they be better off concentrating on building windows botnets?
If it's a problem with some vendor supplied app that your company uses, disclose the problem to the bosses. If the vendor doesn't want to fix it, and you're not the boss, it's between the boss and the vendor. You provide info and advice. Of course you don't play down the risks - that's not your job - that's the vendor's job;).
Plagiarism? I watched Avatar for the graphics. Not for the plot or idea. A frigging computer program could generate the plotline/ideas[1].
It resembles other works as much as the other works resemble each other.
What next? Some pizza company suing another pizza company for making their pizza taste like pizzas?
Cheesy stuff has been done for ages.
I doubt a Michelin chef is ever going to claim Frozen Supermarket Pizza Co made a billion dollars ripping off his recipe for melted cheese, pepperoni and dough ("invented" back when he was young and thought he was great).
FWIW, most inventors who patent stuff are like 6 year old kids who just came up with the innovative idea for a ham and cheese sandwich.
Too bad for him, humanity hasn't booted to the next stage yet. That's his dream I think. I doubt he's so disappointed that he didn't make billions from the mouse.
[1] There are computer programs that invent stuff - provide a bunch of parameters and they can vary them to find various "interesting" points.
Maybe things are different now with more hackers looking for holes, but back then you could find bugs, disclose them responsibly and privately, have the vendor/site still not fix them for years, and nobody notices - not even the hackers.
They eventually might fix it in some future release (not even the next major release:) ). Or they replace it with something totally different.
So nobody's hurt. At least that I knew of, which is the other problem: who knows right? Maybe a hacker did find it and was very discreet. Ignorance is bliss or not;)...
It's just like leaving your car unlocked somewhere with the key in the ignition. In certain areas it's a sure thing that the car will be gone the next day, but not everywhere.
For the more obscure areas, if you do disclose it publicly, the risks to the users go up more than if you had kept it quiet.
In the long term maybe the users would be better off using something else, but who is to say the other stuff isn't as crappy? It's not like everyone has so much time to try to exploit everything. Even the security researchers don't look at "everything".
It's a lot harder[1] for humans to thrive on a pure vegetarian diet (IMO eating eggs is not vegetarian).
Sure seems far easier and cheaper to get sardines than maca or goat cheese. Protein, B12, taurine, calcium, iron, etc all in bite sized packages:).
So much easier then to just add say a few sardines or other similar oceanic fish a week to a mainly vegetarian diet, than to do what these bunch do.
The fact is humans are omnivores, and ones that appear to do rather well on diets that include sea fish. And yes if you eat a good steak or burger once in a while, it's not going to kill you (unless you're really unlucky:) ).
[1] But it's still not as hard as having a cat thrive on a vegan diet.
Yeah, but there's much scientific evidence that red meat and candy are unhealthy foods for most people.
So if you're going to eat red meat or candy you might as well eat them in the way you like and the ones you like.
In contrast if you want to eat what's good for you, then you'd be eating more vegetables and fish (preferably the lower food chain ones with less mercury).
"bird's nest" aka dried caked swiftlet saliva is not a stunt dish in China.
It's supposedly a health food. A popular ingredient in various traditional chinese concoctions (food/drink) for post-partum mothers.
Dried saliva does have a high protein content and other stuff. I don't know whether it really is good for health:).
As for stunt dishes, I sometimes think that a lot of foods/dishes were probably invented/discovered by young men under the influence of alcohol...
"Oh crap, looks like it's gone bad or something. Sure looks strange". "Hey Johansson/Wong/Sato/Sanna, I dare you to eat this". "Yeah, I bet he won't dare". Johansson/Wong/Sato/Sanna: "Oh yeah? How much?".
> Just don't think about what it's made of and you'll be fine.
I dunno, just looking at the haggis recipe makes me want to try it - looks tasty to me...
I suspect that in my country (Malaysia), they often have to import MSM and similar stuff to make nuggets, sausages etc - because over here stuff like liver, gizzards, lungs, stomach etc can just be packed just the way beef cuts and chicken wings are, and sold at supermarkets. People actually buy that stuff "as is". No need for disguise...
A fair number of people here know the difference in taste and textures of cooked liver, heart, lungs, pancreas, stomach (apparently there are different "kitchen" names for the different stomachs too ) etc.
The water I prefer to drink doesn't tend to taste of anything unpleasant.
Some tilapia taste like mud[1] to me. Not all though. I guess it's a matter of what they eat or drink. Perhaps you could try putting them in a "clean flushing tank" first for two weeks before eating them[2] (not sure what you should feed them to make them tastier during those two weeks, but I guess you could experiment ).
Most humans have evolved to have a major part of their digestive systems outside their bodies.
These digestive system compartments include: The Kitchen and The Dining Table. They allow humans to eat a wide variety of foods that otherwise would be unedible or unpalatable (some stuff is poisonous till cooked), without requiring them to carry around huge extra stomachs.
[1] If you like it rare/blue/"well done"/poached go ahead. No point making two animals (you and your victim) suffer. If you don't like meat, please don't eat it.
> Vegetarian diet requires a lot of knowledge of nutrition to make work, but it is far more energy-efficient. Those animals don't subsist on air.
But not all land is good for growing plants that humans can eat and thrive on.
> Meat, however, tastes good.
And a diet that includes fish is scientifically proven to be good for you.
Humans aren't that great at converting ALA to DHA. You can't easily get those healthy long chained omega acids from a vegetarian diet, without supplements.
Slashdot Mirror
> One could almost predict it scene for scene, cliche for cliche.
:).
> Which is part of the problem I guess, because it let you give yourself eyestrain trying to look at flowers and rocks and waterfalls
Yeah I went as a tourist to watch the scenery
I didn't give a damn about the "characters outside". I knew I was safe and snug in my "tour bus".
They're only spammers once they've committed the act.
There are tons of bosses who think that it's a good idea to send out emails about their product/services to thousands of people who never asked for them (hey their product is wonderful after all, etc etc).
You can convince some of them that it's not a good idea, in which case they don't become spammers.
And there really are overzealous spamfilters. I've seen people here who think it's a great idea to block off entire IP ranges (not just for their personal systems, but at a corporate level).
I'm not sure how you managed to read that from what I posted.
;)
Or you're just "trigger happy"?
Avatar in 3D was much better for me than 2D.
I think the reason was they artificially made parts of many scenes in Avatar 2D (and 3D) out of focus. Even some mostly static scenes.
It's not pleasant trying to focus on something that just stays out of focus - ever tried reading those "out-of-focus" texts? That's how Avatar 2D felt like in some scenes. I kept getting the "can't focus properly" feeling in my eyes.
At least with Avatar 3D, I had better idea of what areas in the scene the director wanted me to focus on.
Didn't help for the motion blurred scenes though. I don't like motion blurring. It sucks. In real life if I'm looking at a moving object, it's sharp, the rest of the scenery might go blurry, but it doesn't matter - I'm looking at the moving object. Then if I look at the rest of the scenery it's sharp, the moving objects go blurry.
Make the moving objects blurry, and they'll remain blurry when I try to track them and so I get that "can't focus" feeling which I dislike. Yes I know movies are 24fps. No I don't care that real world recordings of moving objects in 24 fps get "naturally blurred".
Fact is 24 fps sucks. It's way too low a frame rate. Back in the old days 24fps was excusable (it was a technological feat even - keep the film moving so it doesn't burn up, and have each frame pause momentarily before the next frame is moved in, etc).
Nowadays 24 fps is disappointing.
OK I don't mean that the civilians being killed wasn't appalling. But Bush does share significant responsibility for that incident (and many others).
If you release a lion into field full of sheep and it kills sheep, yes the lion is responsible. But it's your fault too. Killing stuff is just what lions do.
I'm sure there are already people clamoring for the heads of the lions involved in that attack.
But to me it's the real Heads that should roll. The ones who unleashed the lions.
Actually such things are inevitable in a warzone. That's why you should never start wars lightly[1]. Lots of bad stuff will happen.
It's obvious to many in hindsight that it's a camera. But if you look it from the POV from a paranoid nervous young military helicopter pilot, it does look like the tube of a RPG - esp when the camera sticks out from behind the wall...
What follows after that is just what soldiers do - they kill people, and they are _conditioned_ to think it's OK to kill people. So they make up all sorts of excuses so that they can pull the trigger.
If the helicopter pilot isn't paranoid enough, he or his friends will get killed. Because there ARE people out there who are out to kill him and his friends, and yes sometimes there are children around when it happens. And yes, both sides can be relaxed and merrily joking about stuff minutes before they blow away the other side.
War is how you get otherwise reasonable people to kill strangers they have never met and would otherwise be happy to sit down and have a meal with together. You set things up so that if they don't kill the other side, the other side would kill them and/or their friends. If that doesn't happen, you kill/punish them for disobeying orders.
To me the appalling bit is not that civilians were killed because the pilot made a mistake, it's that the war was either started due to lies or incompetence.
I have to say though that the US military seem to have a reputation of being more trigger happy, and even since the WWII days - the joke goes that when a German plane flies over, the British take cover; when a British plane flies over, the Germans take cover; when a US plane flies over, everyone takes cover... ;)
[1] http://slashdot.org/journal/208853/How-to-reduce-unwanted-wars
Short stories are OK for movies actually. 2+ hours is actually a short time to squeeze an entire book in.
With many movies you could have a better ending or explanation for things, but it's just not going to fit in 2-3 hours.
I wouldn't do that, since I suspect there's a big overlap in the group of vendors who go "nonsecurity issue" when it is one, and the group of vendors who would sue you if you post the "nonsecurity issue" publicly.
Maybe you could sell the vulnerability to one of those security sites, black, white or grey: http://blogs.verisign.com/idefense/2010/02/casablanca-buying-vulnerabilities-and-digressing.html
Uh no. That's what I use wikipedia for. Where else are you going to find info like that?
Yes, but do those phones by default automatically send their GPS coordinates somewhere?
AFAIK they don't. They only do that if the users have configured their phones to do so.
> Why? It won't make you any safer as criminals have ways around this and only enables the government to track you via GPS.
;).
1) Only the smart/resourceful criminals though. So at least you get to track 90% of those who carry phones around.
2) The difference between a noncriminal and a criminal could just be one bad decision on one bad day. And often people forget to conveniently leave their phone at home before making that one bad decision.
3) It's not tracking via GPS, it's via phone cells.
Lastly, the really smart amoral people just work in the finance industry or politics where they legally but unethically take money, they're usually not criminals by definition
I think he's lacking in some other department too. From the POV he's talking about, he's just going to make bypassing the technical restrictions a game to his kids.
;) ) Dictator at home.
It's like a boss spending megabucks on technical solution, when he should instead make control of employees mainly a management thing that's aided by cheaper and less elaborate technical solutions.
If Boss just puts up expensive technical controls, and is not known for enforcing policy, he's not going to get compliance.
If the boss is known for enforcing a policy, he's going to get compliance with that policy, even if the boss is not in all the time, and the technical stuff isn't that elaborate.
Sure have some blocking and monitoring, but strict restrictions are counterproductive, maybe the kid/employee really does need to use the computer to do homework/work.
e.g. "Force log-out and/or shutdown of clients for grounding purposes". "Schedule time usage of computer, ex. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on school nights etc.;"
If they can't use the computer at home, they could go out if you're not around. If you're around to stop them from going out, you're around to stop them from using the computers[1] or using them in ways you don't want to use them.
Once they make it a habit of going elsewhere to use the computer, your technical stuff becomes useless.
You just need to know what's going on, and to block certain sites as part of showing you _really_ care what they are up to (you have to prove it in other ways too).
[1] You're the unelected Benevolent (hopefully
I thought it checked the "http-referer" - so if you clicked via google, you'll get the answer at the bottom.
But if you copy the URL and paste it on a browser, you don't get to see the answer at the bottom.
Personally what annoys me more than expertsexchange are the journal sites. For those I don't get the answer at the bottom or anywhere, even though it shows up in the Google search results.
Used to be Google policy that a site is not allowed to show different content to Google from what it shows to users - they smacked BMW Germany down for that. But now I see lots of sites getting away with that, and no, those journal sites don't get fooled by the user agent thing.
Perhaps they pay Google to be allowed to do it.
My point is the situation often isn't as grave as many security researchers like to think.
;).
;).
Yes there is a hole. But there are zillions of holes. If the hacker wants in, they've probably already got in via some PHP exploit or some malware infected PC.
If you've found an exploit in IE or firefox or Windows or OSX or ssh, sure go kick up a big fuss. Or just wait till the next pwn2own competition
Whereas if you've found an exploit in some ADSL modem router made by some Korean company, and they're not fixing it after you've reported it. Big deal. Hardly any of the routers will still be working 3 years from now. How many of you got pwned because of those infamous bugs that were present for years without anyone knowing? How many hackers would make a lot of $$$$ from exploiting some non-"vastly deployed" software in your company, and get away with it? Would they be better off concentrating on building windows botnets?
If it's a problem with some vendor supplied app that your company uses, disclose the problem to the bosses. If the vendor doesn't want to fix it, and you're not the boss, it's between the boss and the vendor. You provide info and advice. Of course you don't play down the risks - that's not your job - that's the vendor's job
Plagiarism? I watched Avatar for the graphics. Not for the plot or idea. A frigging computer program could generate the plotline/ideas[1].
It resembles other works as much as the other works resemble each other.
What next? Some pizza company suing another pizza company for making their pizza taste like pizzas?
Cheesy stuff has been done for ages.
I doubt a Michelin chef is ever going to claim Frozen Supermarket Pizza Co made a billion dollars ripping off his recipe for melted cheese, pepperoni and dough ("invented" back when he was young and thought he was great).
FWIW, most inventors who patent stuff are like 6 year old kids who just came up with the innovative idea for a ham and cheese sandwich.
This guy here must be pretty disappointed at how stupid we all still are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart#Anecdotal_Notes
Too bad for him, humanity hasn't booted to the next stage yet. That's his dream I think. I doubt he's so disappointed that he didn't make billions from the mouse.
[1] There are computer programs that invent stuff - provide a bunch of parameters and they can vary them to find various "interesting" points.
And they do get away with it.
:) ). Or they replace it with something totally different.
;)...
Maybe things are different now with more hackers looking for holes, but back then you could find bugs, disclose them responsibly and privately, have the vendor/site still not fix them for years, and nobody notices - not even the hackers.
They eventually might fix it in some future release (not even the next major release
So nobody's hurt. At least that I knew of, which is the other problem: who knows right? Maybe a hacker did find it and was very discreet. Ignorance is bliss or not
It's just like leaving your car unlocked somewhere with the key in the ignition. In certain areas it's a sure thing that the car will be gone the next day, but not everywhere.
For the more obscure areas, if you do disclose it publicly, the risks to the users go up more than if you had kept it quiet.
In the long term maybe the users would be better off using something else, but who is to say the other stuff isn't as crappy? It's not like everyone has so much time to try to exploit everything. Even the security researchers don't look at "everything".
I'm sure we can take his word for it. I didn't say it's impossible.
It's just not easy, just look at what this guy eats: http://www.brendanbrazier.com/vega/index.html
Maca - some plant that's native to the Andes.
Or the others: http://www.dynamicbodies.com/vegetari.htm
Goat cheese sandwiches.
It's a lot harder[1] for humans to thrive on a pure vegetarian diet (IMO eating eggs is not vegetarian).
Sure seems far easier and cheaper to get sardines than maca or goat cheese. Protein, B12, taurine, calcium, iron, etc all in bite sized packages :).
So much easier then to just add say a few sardines or other similar oceanic fish a week to a mainly vegetarian diet, than to do what these bunch do.
The fact is humans are omnivores, and ones that appear to do rather well on diets that include sea fish. And yes if you eat a good steak or burger once in a while, it's not going to kill you (unless you're really unlucky :) ).
[1] But it's still not as hard as having a cat thrive on a vegan diet.
Yeah, but there's much scientific evidence that red meat and candy are unhealthy foods for most people.
So if you're going to eat red meat or candy you might as well eat them in the way you like and the ones you like.
In contrast if you want to eat what's good for you, then you'd be eating more vegetables and fish (preferably the lower food chain ones with less mercury).
> Granted, they can't run concurrently but it's a fair approximation of what you're looking for.
I find it a bit strange that firefox doesn't allow you to run different instances concurrently.
"bird's nest" aka dried caked swiftlet saliva is not a stunt dish in China.
:).
:).
It's supposedly a health food. A popular ingredient in various traditional chinese concoctions (food/drink) for post-partum mothers.
Dried saliva does have a high protein content and other stuff. I don't know whether it really is good for health
As for stunt dishes, I sometimes think that a lot of foods/dishes were probably invented/discovered by young men under the influence of alcohol...
"Oh crap, looks like it's gone bad or something. Sure looks strange".
"Hey Johansson/Wong/Sato/Sanna, I dare you to eat this".
"Yeah, I bet he won't dare".
Johansson/Wong/Sato/Sanna: "Oh yeah? How much?".
Or very hungry people.
I wonder which category casu marzu falls in
> Just don't think about what it's made of and you'll be fine.
I dunno, just looking at the haggis recipe makes me want to try it - looks tasty to me...
I suspect that in my country (Malaysia), they often have to import MSM and similar stuff to make nuggets, sausages etc - because over here stuff like liver, gizzards, lungs, stomach etc can just be packed just the way beef cuts and chicken wings are, and sold at supermarkets. People actually buy that stuff "as is". No need for disguise...
A fair number of people here know the difference in taste and textures of cooked liver, heart, lungs, pancreas, stomach (apparently there are different "kitchen" names for the different stomachs too ) etc.
The water I prefer to drink doesn't tend to taste of anything unpleasant.
Some tilapia taste like mud[1] to me. Not all though. I guess it's a matter of what they eat or drink. Perhaps you could try putting them in a "clean flushing tank" first for two weeks before eating them[2] (not sure what you should feed them to make them tastier during those two weeks, but I guess you could experiment ).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosmin
[2] http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a902885434&db=all
If you're going to eat meat, you might as well enjoy it whatever way you like it[1], and so far lots of animals prefer cooked meat to raw meat:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080922-nhm-raw-deal.html
Most humans have evolved to have a major part of their digestive systems outside their bodies.
These digestive system compartments include: The Kitchen and The Dining Table. They allow humans to eat a wide variety of foods that otherwise would be unedible or unpalatable (some stuff is poisonous till cooked), without requiring them to carry around huge extra stomachs.
[1] If you like it rare/blue/"well done"/poached go ahead. No point making two animals (you and your victim) suffer. If you don't like meat, please don't eat it.
> Vegetarian diet requires a lot of knowledge of nutrition to make work, but it is far more energy-efficient. Those animals don't subsist on air.
But not all land is good for growing plants that humans can eat and thrive on.
> Meat, however, tastes good.
And a diet that includes fish is scientifically proven to be good for you.
Humans aren't that great at converting ALA to DHA. You can't easily get those healthy long chained omega acids from a vegetarian diet, without supplements.
If humans didn't eat cows and had little other use for them, cattle might join the ranks of those endangered/extinct species.