The concept of this page is A v B: Who would win? Which is better? For many of these I think there is a clear winner.
This related to the various "Religious Wars" as are often discussed for "fun" at places like this xkcd forum on "Religious Wars" [http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=40].
Here is an example of ISO 8601:
2003-06-22T21:13:45Z. Pro: ISO 8601 goes from largest units to smallest units. This means that you can sort by string directly instead of having to convert the information into a date object first. ISO formatting is also shorter than RFC formatting.
Here is an example of RFC 822:
22 Jun 2003 21:13:45 UTC. Pro: The presence of "Jun" make month unmistakable from day of month.
See also my section on Time.
My vote is for ISO 8601.
Q: Given a room 15 ft. 3-3/4 in. by 21 ft. 7-1/2 in., what is the area in square yards? A: 36.79 sq. yd. attained with difficulty.
Q: Given a room 4.667 m by 6.591 m, what is the area in square meters? A: 30.76 m2 attained with ease.
Who could not love the fact that specific gravity of water is 1 while the density of water at specific conditions (4 C and 1 atm) is 1 kg/L = 1000 kg/m3 = 1 g/mL = 1 g/cm3? It's so sweet that 1 g of water is 1 mL = 1 cm3 under specific conditions. In contrast, the density of water as 62.4 lb/ft3 has no beauty to it.
SI (the metric system) is superior in many other ways to the UK System. See also my section on Measurements.
My vote is for System Internationale.
The idea of Esperanto (or equivalent constructed language) is beautiful but given that people already have their native natural languages, and will probably learn English if it isn't their native language, then I don't think Esperanto will ever win out over English.
English, as ugly and beautiful as it is, will rule this planet. Plus as far as computer character encoding, English fits fine into ISO 8859-1, whereas Esperanto has to use Unicode.
On a side note: Languages that need say 26 characters, are superior to languages (EGs: Chinese) that require thousands of characters.
My vote is for English.
XHTML enforces better coding than HTML. .... No wait, it's just been a lexical annoyance and time waster with no real benefit, especially since hand formed "bad" HTML doesn't go away.
My vote is HTML 5.
This one is so easy. It's not about the coffee... it's about the donuts.
My vote is Krispy Kreme.
In the most common calendar on the globe, the years start at 1 AD or 1 CE. Years prior to that start at 1 BC or 1 BCE.
AD is an abbreviation of Anno Domini in Latin or "The year of the Lord" in English. CE is an abbreviation of "Common Era", which is a non-secular description.
BC is an abbreviation of "Before Christ". BCE is an abbreviation of "Before the Common Era".
My vote is for CE.
"The United States and Canada [plus Mexico and the Philippines] are today the only industrialized nations in which the ISO standard paper sizes are not yet widely used."
"While all ISO paper formats have consistently the same aspect ratio of sqrt(2)=1.414, the U.S. format series has two different alternating aspect ratios 17/11=1.545 and 22/17=1.294. Therefore you cannot reduce or magnify from one U.S. format to the next higher or lower without leaving an empty margin, which is rather inconvenient."
ISO 216 paper sizes include: 4A0, 2A0, A0, ..., A4, ..., A9, A10, B0, ..., B10, C0, ..., C10. A0 is the largest and base size of 1 square meter (the larger sizes (such as 2A0) comes from the German DIN standard). Mathematically folding a hypothetical size in half yields the same aspect ratio and the next lower size, plus the diagonal will always be the shorter side times sqrt(3). The actual paper sizes are approximations in millimeters. EG: A0 is actually 999949 mm^2, i.e. 51 mm^2 or 0.0051% short of 1 square meter. The relative sizes are B > C > A -- this way an A4 letter can fit in a C4 envelope, which can in turn fit in a B4 envelope.
Also since paper is specified in g/m^2, ISO 216 makes it easy to calculate the mass for a given amount of paper.
North American paper sizes include: letter, legal, executive, tabloid, A, ..., E.
Check out this beautiful illustration from Wikipedia:
|-0||841 x 1189||1000 x 1414||917 x 1297|
|-1||594 x 841||707 x 1000||648 x 917|
|-2||420 x 594||500 x 707||458 x 648|
|-3||297 x 420||353 x 500||324 x 458|
|-4||210 x 297||250 x 353||229 x 324|
|-5||148 x 210||176 x 250||162 x 229|
|-6||105 x 148||125 x 176||114 x 162|
|-7||74 x 105||88 x 125||81 x 114|
|-8||52 x 74||62 x 88||57 x 81|
|-9||37 x 52||44 x 62||40 x 57|
|-10||26 x 37||31 x 44||28 x 40|
My vote is for ISO 216 Paper Sizes.
Before I go on with this discussion, it should be noted that I'm very proficient with chopsticks.
Lets compare these utensils:
Summary: The fork has 4 wins, chopsticks have 2 wins, and there are 4 ties. It seems that chopsticks are more server oriented while forks are more consumer oriented. Both must be supplemented with more specialized utensils depending on the dish.
My vote is for the fork.
Butter and margarine (aka vegetable spread and the like) are equivalent in calories and both get their calories from fat. However, there are differences in the fat.
Margarine costs roughly twice as much as butter. Hence for the sake of money, I think margarine is the clear winner.
For melting onto foods, I think a soft margarine would work better better than butter. For making flaky crusts and such, butter is necessary.
For pure taste, butter is preferred. This is the best reason to choose butter.
My vote is for butter in moderation.
Formula is artificial breast milk that became popular during WWII because of the extreme labor contributions that women had to make then. Formula is convenient and consistent. Formula is not free.
Breast milk is so much, much, much, much, much better than formula.
Breast feeding is difficult logistically, technically, and physically. If a mother has difficulty, then she should seek advice and support:
BTW: No cow's milk until the baby is 1 year old. Whole milk until the child is 2 years old.
See also these off-site related links:
My vote is for Breast Milk.
This is sort of like the lossless v lossy argument. Storage, bandwidth, and processing rates get better all the time, so why sacrifice quality? This image from the Wikipedia article on Progressive Scan [W] is worth a thousand words:
My vote is for Progressive Scan.
The paper is more conveniently located from the front, and further away from scraping the wall.
My vote is to hang toilet should hang from the front.
You normally read and live in chronological order. If you have want to see the latest items on a long list, then just go to the end of the list. The only time you might want reverese chronological order is when you want to see just the latest few items.
My vote is for Chronological Order
Page Modified: (Hand noted: 2008-05-14 06:00:19Z) (Auto noted: 2012-12-29 15:18:31Z)