Miscellaneous desk
< September 5	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 6

HVAC Acronym

It was my impression HVAC actually stood for Heating Ventilating And Cooling when cooling was first used to make buildings more comfortable in the summer months by cooling the air within the building.

That definition does make more sense when you think of what is actually happening to the air within a building.

I do understand that many people think HVAC stands for Heating, Ventilation (or Ventilating) and Air Conditioning, meaning they get cooling when "HVAC" is used, but actually all together or any one category of the three (Heating, Ventilating & Cooling) will "Condition" the air.

I also remember back in the 50's people came to understand "Air Conditioning" means the place had cool air where they could go to in order to escape the heat of the summer.

Is there any way to determine if the initial intent of HVAC was really to mean Heating Ventilating And Cooling??

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StormyNormie (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Depot, at least, routinely uses HVAC to mean Heating Venting And Cooling.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been playing around with the Google Ngram Viewer. (I was hoping to show a nice signal where one phrase takes off at about the same time HVAC does, and the others sort of slide in later.) Though the case-sensitive search complicates things, it's pretty consistent in that "Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning" is the only one that shows up (starting in the 1940s or so), and variants with "cooling" and "ventilating" don't even register ("Ngrams not found"). At least in the books Google is basing its work over, it looks like "Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning" is the most common phrase. That meshes with the conventional rules for acronyms/initialisms, where you omit little words like "and", unless you need to torture it into something. That said, "HVAC" itself has spikes starting in the 1930s, though, so I'm not sure if that's some other meaning of HVAC, or if there's a coverage issue in the ngram viewer. - Another, similar way to approach the issue is to look at things like newspapers and magazines from the time when the acronym HVAC was first being used. As people would be unfamiliar with it, they'd likely accompany it with a definition. For example the New York Times has it's full back archives availible and searchable. Searching for HVAC gives the earliest as a 1979 article defining it as "heating, ventilating and air conditioning". You might have better luck getting earlier references by searching in trade journals or similar. -- 71.35.99.22 (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the building design and construction business (in which I work) it's "Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning." Air conditioning is a broader category that includes cooling and the measures that deal with humidity control in both heating and cooling modes, and it's impossible to properly address cooling without manipulating humidity. I can probably scare up a print reference from at least the 1980s at my office. Air conditioning is concerned with both latent heat (which involves temperature and relative humidity), and sensible heat, which is temperature alone. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of human migration

One of the issues in tomorrow's general election in Australia, is the number of people who try to enter Australia illegally. The way this has been covered in the UK has included interviews with a few migrants and their stories are pretty much the same: the economic or security situation in their home country, or their belonging to a persecuted group leads to their decision to leave; they scrape together tens of thousands of dollars to pay people smugglers; a lengthy journey on a leaky and overloaded boat; and with no guarantee of success when they arrive in Australian waters. Contrast that to my trip to Australia a few years ago: apply for a tourist visa; pay a bit over a thousand dollars for a return flight; arrive safely at an airport after a some hours of flying. Why do migrants pay so much for such a risky journey when it is remarkably safe and easy to enter Australia as a tourist, and once safely in Australia they could simply disappear? Astronaut (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the saddest issue about tomorrow's election is that the politicians have pandered to the racists so well that they have convinced too many people, including the editor above, that arriving on Australia's shores and seeking asylum is illegal. It's NOT! it's amazing what a campaign of vilification can achieve. Another misconception fed by the manipulative politicians is that desperate refugees have the kinds of choices described above. This is a complex and controversial topic over which many people, obviously including our editor above, have been misled. Not sure it's a safe one to have here. And I truly don't know where to begin answering the OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong there HiLo. Australian politicians have not convinced me of anything. Their (proposed) policy of shipping them off to PNG or holding them indefinitely on some desert island, is inhumane and pretty damn abhorrant to me. But I'm not asking about the politics of Australia - it could be any developed country, but Australia is currently in the news. I'm simply curious about the choices the already poor migrants make to get into Australia. Why would a migrant not have the choice I describe? For example, if they can find $16,000 to pay a people smuggler (like the guy interviewed on the BBC this morning), would it not be easier to find $2,000 and be sure of getting their feet on Australian soil? Paying so much leaves him owing a large sum to family, friends, loan sharks or whoever, some of whom might not be too friendly if they don't get their money back. Or am I missing some other issue here? Astronaut (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut, someone has convinced you that these people have done something illegal. They haven't. That's a lie promulgated by politicians and shock jocks pandering to racists. While your question is based on a lie, it's very difficult to answer, HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. No one has convinced me that these people have done anything illegal and I'm getting a little upset by the possible suggestion that I'm some kind of closet racist. They have a legitimate right to claim asylum. However, my question is not about politics or legality and is not based on a lie. According to the news reports I have seen, migrants pay a huge amount to criminals for unsafe passage to their destination, while I believe there is a far cheaper and far safer route available. If the cheaper and safer option of flying is not available to them, then could someone explain why it is not available, because that is never explained in the news reports? Astronaut (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the fuck did you say "...people who try to enter Australia illegally"? If it's not racism, it's ignorance. I can't stand people who ply this bigoted bullshit. Wikipedia should not tolerate it! HiLo48 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This thread needs to end right now: Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA before you write another word. SteveBaker (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith! I twice politely explained to Astronaut that he was wrong to use the word "illegal" to describe these people. He persisted. That's NOT good faith. That's stubbornly using Wikipedia to continue vilify and promote racism in the face of better information. THAT'S the problem here. Wikipedia MUST NOT be used in this way. Ignoring another's editor's polite and good faith advice disqualified Astronaut from further assumptions of good faith and protection from personal attacks. HE was personally attacking asylum seekers right from the start. I had to do something to stop that. And it worked. Wikipedia must never become a tool for racial vilification. I was protecting Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I take great exception to is Astronaut's "it is remarkably safe and easy to enter Australia as a tourist, and once safely in Australia they could simply disappear". He calls the refugees "illegals" (they're clearly not), but in the same breath he's advocating people overstay their visas, which is the real illegality here. This is actually a massive problem that gets proportionately next to zero coverage in the media. There are far more people in Australia who shouldn't be, than those who try to get here as refugees in boats. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this editor, who SteveBaker wants us to show good faith to, is, in the face of repeated advice to stop it, persistently describing a legal act as illegal, and promoting something else that is illegal. No longer a candidate for a presumption of good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath, HiLo. For one thing, Astronaut used the word illegal exactly once. That may have been just carelessness, or he might have seen reports that described the asylum-seekers' behavior as "illegal". The question of legality is completely tangential to his question anyway, nor do I see how it matters much (but of course I have a low opinion of law, or at least positive law, in general). The actual question was about why they would go to so much expense and risk, when he thought he saw an easier way.

As far as advocacy, I don't see that. He wants to know why they don't do it. Where did he say they should do it? Nowhere. --Trovatore (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In his initial post he proposed that those wanting to live in a country could use a tourist visa to enter the country, then simply "disappear", thereby breaching the terms of their visa. THAT'S illegal. And I don't care how few times he used "illegal" in his post. He wouldn't retract it, and tried to defend his position. So long as that word is there, Wikipedia is vilifying asylum seekers. It's an extremely offensive post. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "vilifying" unless you think that illegal==bad, which is a fairly silly thing to think. Speculating, he might have been willing to revisit what he'd said about "illegal" if you hadn't acted like a guy who just got the chip knocked off his shoulder in a bar. --Trovatore (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just silly. The reason the word "illegal" is used by those publicly opposing the arrival of boat people IS to vilify them. I won't apologise for my wording. I began politely. This is an important issue for Wikipedia and the world. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the reason some Aussie politicians are using the word. You have no warrant to assume that's the reason Astronaut used it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's obfuscation. It's simply incorrect to call it illegal. Those attempting to vilify asylum seekers use that word. It shouldn't be used here, no matter what the intent. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bullshit. It may well be factually incorrect to call it illegal (don't know; don't care enough to bother finding out). But no matter how wicked your compatriots might be in using the word, it doesn't reflect on Astronaut unless he had the same intent. --Trovatore (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they don't fly to Australia is they cannot get a visa. The airlines will not fly someone to Australia without a suitable visa or passport. The airlines have to return them back where they cam from if they make a mistake and the person cannot enter the country. The attempted illegal immigrant cannot get a visa because so many in the same sort of situation have illegally entered Australia or failed to leave. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a bit more detail, and maybe more careful language: Different countries have different visa agreements with each other. For most citizens of first-world countries, it is easy to get visa to most other countries, or there may even be visa waiver programs or treaties like the Schengen Agreement in force that make travel without visa possible. For citizens of less developed countries, getting a visum is a lot harder - they may need to post a bond, demonstrate a valid reason for travel and sufficient funds, and/or name a sponsor (or sponsoring organization) to ensure that they return home. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quibble - "visa" is short for charta visa, "document that has been looked at", and is therefore singular. The plural would be chartae visae. Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False friends - I knew that the English version is visa/visas, but in Germany we use visum/visa, and I naturally assumed our version was righter ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, thanks for the correction. I would have thought the plural of German "Visum" would be "*Visüme", but obviously not. This is now rather off-topic, unfortunately. Tevildo (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The world will end! The alternative "Germanic" plural in Germany is "Visen", but at least in my experience, "Visa" is more common. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Visa (document)#Visa refusal. The nationality is a big factor when the risk of not returning is evaluated. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Countries who's citizens have no particular need to emigrate to Australia have no problem whatever in getting short-term holiday visas...or perhaps even entering the country without a visa at all. But citizens of countries where people are desperate to escape to the fabled land of milk and honey where the streets are paved with gold do not have that privilege. It's quite clearly not racism. If you're a British citizen, then you can travel to Australia no matter your religion, sexual identity or skin color - while a white, anglo-saxon protestant with a chinese passport cannot. It's not racism it's country-of-origin-ism. It's just a matter of simple numerics. I'm sure there are British people and Americans who go to Australia on a tourist visa and never leave - but the numbers are small enough to be tolerated and are probably balanced by the number of Australians who illegally go in the other direction. But when huge numbers of people are likely to abuse the tourist visa system, something has to be done. Now, you might well argue that borders should be open and people should be able to come and go as they wish - and there is something to be said for that - but it's not how the world works.

When countries are suddenly hit by such influxes - the consequences can be severe. I recall when Idi Amin abruptly expelled 80,000 Pakistani people from Uganda - most of them had valid British passports and 30,000 of them arrived (perfectly legally) in Britain over a period of just a few months. The chaos that ensued was not pretty and it took years for the situation to sort itself out and for the immigrants to settle into the rhythm of British life. Actually, the final result has not been a bad thing - we have more cultural diversity and it can be argued that the country is better as a result. But controlling and slowing that sudden wave of immigrants would have been much better.

So it's not unreasonable for countries to need to control the flow of people across their borders so that they can manage human migrations in a way that is not unduly detrimental to their own society. SteveBaker (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the situation in Australia. The numbers involved are far too small to matter. What's happening there is purely political. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's been mentioned above, but even if you do manage to get a visa (which to be clear is probably the biggest hurdles) this is no guarantee you are going to be allowed in once arriving. Officials can and do cancel your visa and turn you away upon arrival if they believe you are going to violate the terms of your visa, as anyone who's ever watched Border Security must well know (or probably any of these sort of shows, most of what we're talking about here is hardly unique to Australia). Oh and another thing, you actually need some sort of recognised travel document generally a passport to even get a visa, something many of the people involved may not have (even if they have some sort of refugee recognition document, the ability to travel on it is likely to be limited). So no travelling to Australia as a tourist for some refugee in Indonesia isn't anything like what you may have experienced as a clearly legitamate British tourist~~Briton~~. Of course there are also plenty of people who pay for fake passports, for an Australian visa etc etc. And while I'd prefer not to enter into the controversy, if you think that no border agents and embassy officials consider race amongst the many other things they will openly admit to considering like country of origin, travel history, availability of funds/economic conditions, whether you have a job and stuff back home to go back to, your behaviour and replies to questions (like your reasons for visiting, what you intend to do) etc etc I would suggest you have an unrealistic understanding of human nature. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "sudden influx" of asylum seekers to Australia. The TOTAL numbers involved are around 45,000 over 12 years or so. Australia's ANNUAL formal immigration intake is four times that number. It's those pandering to the racists and the ignorant in society who try to make them think that it's massive and that it's a problem. Nearly 140,000 Vietnamese boat people came to Australia in the 1970s and 80s. The current rate of arrivals is a minuscule trickle. This is far more a nasty political game than an immigration issue. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what that has to do with my response. I didn't say anything about a sudden influx of asylum seekers or comment in numbers or the effects of immigration in any way. Did you intend to respond to SteveBaker again instead? Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the semantics of the original question and the debate that arose from it, there is a big difference between unauthorised arrival and illegal entry. It's not against the law to arrive without documents and request asylum, nor to reach a country on valid documents and then do so. The illegality arises when you cross the border without going through the proper procedures, ie by avoiding immigration control altogether or by trying to get through with false papers or on a false premise. It's this action that may then be used to criminalise you, or deny your asylum request, or both. This UK document offers some plausible reasons why people might be unable or unwilling to obtain visas and passports to allow them to travel to seek refuge, and why they may be deterred from requesting asylum immediately on reaching the country on false documents, even though UK immigration rules require would-be asylum seekers to do so as soon as possible, ie at the port of entry. Note that this government document states that "The case of Norman established that a person who sought entry as a visitor when his true intention was to claim asylum was an illegal entrant. Had the IO on arrival known that asylum was intended, then he would not have granted entry as a visitor", suggesting that going down the tourist visa route with the intention of requesting asylum once you get your feet on UK soil may also harm your chances of a favourable result. - Ka renjc 17:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me apologise for any offence caused to HiLO48 and JackofOz. I was really taken aback by the accusations of racism and tried twice to say that wasn't the case and that my question wasn't about the issue HiLo48 tried to make it into. Unlike Australian politicians, I had no intention to vilify asylum seekers, or anyone else who seeks to enter Australia, legally or illegally. The whole premise of my question was based on the rather naive assumption that the tourist visa application process would be as simple for everyone else as it was for me. My thought here was that a valid visa is just a mechanism to have an airline transport you to your destination, and once safely on the ground you can enter the country and disappear (at risk of later arrest and deportation), or apply for asylum (at risk of being refused entry and deported immediately). Thanks to the discussion about visas and the link provided by PrimeHunter, I have now learned the process isn't as equal as I had assumed; though I imagine that many of those obstacles could be removed with some of the money that might otherwise be given to the people smugglers (eg. showing money in a bank account, buying a return ticket, arranging a hotel stay, etc.) Thanks to the links provided by Karenjc, I can see that not everyone has a good understanding of the process of applying for asylum. Astronaut (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Font used in this image

I am trying to find the name of this font but I can't. File:U2.svg. I've instaled inkscape but I cannot find it. Does anyone know? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you deleted this question? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly just an unresolved edit conflict or a glitch in the database - looking at the history, nobody seems to have explicitly deleted it. Anyways, if you look at the image page, it says "U2 logo, created with Clarendon Light typeface", which is described at Clarendon (typeface). Does that answer your question? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, Miss B. I had a very weird edit conflict when replying to the last question, and it appears that my reply may have overwritten your question when I resubmitted my answer. I'm not sure why it happened, but I'm glad you figured it out and repaired it. - Ka renjc 17:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Karen :D. And yes, that answer my question Stephan. Thank you very much. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]