December 1

What is the purpose of mortar between bricks? Cant they stan on their own?--79.75.46.66 (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar holds them together. Think of it like the difference between a stack of Lego bricks which lock together and a stack of smooth blocks. If you knock against either stack with some force, the smooth block stack will crumble before the stack that is locked together. Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the holes in the bricks, yes? Mortar fills in those holes and helps lock the bricks together - conceptually similar to legos, as you said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what Dismas said, it is possible to build a dry stone wall without mortar, but in order for it to be stable, the stones must be selected to interlock well. As Baseball Bugs says, some bricks have holes right the way through, but it is much more common for them to have frogs. Warofdreams talk 12:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a UK thing. I don't think I have seen a brick with a frog that wasn't an antique. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently cornerstones may have frogs also. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holes in bricks have much more to do with speeding the drying and firing of the bricks, and reducing the mass of the brick, than they have to do with providing sockets into which plugs of mortar can fit. There's a sufficient abundance of friction in a sandwich of bricks and mortar to make holes structurally redundant. As to the frog (an indentation in the bedding face of the brick), whilst it is admitted that it provides a key for the mortar joint, its main purpose is to force the brick material into the corners of the mold when manufacturing dry-press bricks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When stones were used, mortar was great because it distributed the weight of the stone more evenly on the one below, and that would help to prevent cracks if your stones were not cut perfectly smooth. Probably not the same issue with bricks as you are using a mold. Googlemeister (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to parallel the thread a couple of days ago, in which someone wondered why tile has grout. Bricks can't stand on their own - they'd fall over when leaned upon, as just a thin pile of bricks. Mortar confers lateral strength to the wall; not a great deal in structural terms, which is why we have reinforced masonry, but enough for everyday purposes, particularly if there's a load on the top. Mortar allows the load to be spread evenly across masonry surfaces, thereby increasing the load-bearing capacity per unit of area and eliminating stress concentrations. No masonry unit is perfectly square or consistently-sized, and a dry-laid brick wall will quickly become a mess as cumulative dimensional differences assert themselves. Brick is graded by its adherence to size tolerance, in North America going from most consistent at FBX and growing looser with FBS and FBA. I've learned the hard way to specify FBX if the look is crucial, but even FBX can be off by a significant fraction of an inch from one brick to the next. Mortar is crucial as a first line of defense against moisture penetration. Dry-laid walls are used only for structurally undemanding applications like landscaping walls where the irregular look is desirable (and then usually with random fieldstone), or in massive, perfectly fitted blocks like that found at Mycenae or in Inca architecture.

As Tagishsimon points out, the holes in bricks have no particular structural role, but instead allow for more even firing and marginally lighter weight. The strength is developed at a much smaller scale via the mortar's attachment to the brick surface. Acroterion _(talk) 17:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, bricks with holes are usually extruded and cut with wires, while bricks with frogs are usually individually mo(u)lded. The frogs can bear a manufacturer's name or trademark. Frogged/molded bricks are commonly found in North America, used mostly where a rustic look is desired. Acroterion _(talk) 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In articules about building stonhenge groups have only used manpower and modern methods to duplicate the structure but, couldnt the original creaters have used animals instead of man power?

• Where the Creators of Stonehenge more advanced and more peaceful than other ancient people?

• What tools where used to make Stonehenge?

• Why was Stonehenge created?

• Who created Stonehnege?

If my questions are unanserable please just say so! Dont waste your time being complicated a simple "I dont know" will do just fine! --Ms.xenon (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start with the Stonehenge article and see where it takes you. There is lots of information (and speculation) about Stonehenge on the internet, public TV, etc. It makes for interesting subject matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the idea of using animal power, if the estimate of Stonehenge being constructed around 3000BCE is correct, there may not have been any large draft animals present on the British Isles to use. You need more than cats & rats to move objects that large. Wikipedia probably has an article on the history of mammals in the British Isles that would confirm this idea, but I'm at work and don't have the luxury of browsing until I find it. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammals of Great Britain, and the related list of extinct animals of Britain. Warofdreams talk 12:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, the UK's Channel 4 showed a documentary called "Secrets of Stonehenge" last week. Here's a link to the minisite: [1] from where you can watch it again through 4oD if you're in the UK. I don't know if it's available anywhere else. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - I don't know what 4oD is, but I couldn't view the said documentary. Location is Poland. Sad cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4oD = 4 on Demand, i.e. being able to watch Channel 4 programmes via the interweb after they were broadcast. Like the BBC iPlayer. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! --Ms.xenon (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One more Question:Could the creators of Stonehenge have tamed wolves or other large mammals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms.xenon (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely large animal present at the time sounds like the aurochs. These were certainly domesticated in Asia, even at this date, but I don't know whether they were ever domesticated in Britain (probably not). Other large animals were bears, elk, and red and roe deer, while the European Bison became extinct in Britain around this date; these seem less likely candidates for use in transporting and erecting the stones. Stonehenge was built by a Neolithic society, and according to our article on the subject, the use of domesticated animals is a feature of the Neolithic. Wolves were among the first animals to be domesticated (becoming the dog), so I see no reason why the builders of Stonehenge could not have tamed them - this article suggests that domesticated dogs were present in Britain during the Neolithic. Warofdreams talk 11:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask this because the builders could have used a sled of sorts and dog and human teams to pull the stone. This would have been complicated because of the boggy ground and weght of the stone but it could have worked. There would have to have some differences between the design we see today and what would have worked with the folige and mud instead of snow and ice.hmmmm.........--Ms.xenon (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that using dogs would have really simplified the process, though - you'd still have the same range of options available. Not to say that it might not make sense to use them, to reduce the number of humans needed to move and place the stones, but in order to use a different or easier process, you'd need animals substantially stronger than humans. Warofdreams talk 10:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is completly correct dogs aren't substaintualy stronger.Its all about how you built the sled and how you used the animals that make the difference. The use of dogs would have made the process easier and harder at the same time. If you attached each animal to the sled directly the effect would be different than if you put them in the usual formation (two rows with strongest dogs in rear and lead dog in front).

Hi,

I'm currently in the 9th week of recovering from a Medial Collateral ligament strain. I'm 23 and it's the second time this has happened to the same knee in just over two years. Recovery progress at the moment is very slow. The only time I have seeked medical advice is at the hospital straight after the injury, where it was bandaged up and i was given crutches to keep the weight off my leg.

I love playing 5 aside football and am wondering if anyone else has had a similar injury and if they can share their experience of how long it took to fully recover?

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.10.144 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we can't offer you advice about how best to treat your injury here at the Reference Desk. Your best bet would be to contact your physician, who can offer you specific, detailed instructions on how to manage your recovery. (You might also seek referral to a physiotherapist or other expert in sports medicine.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The doctor at the hospital advised that the only way it will heal is by resting it and not exerting myself too much when i get back to playing sports again. I'm more interested in hearing other people's experiences of the same injury, rather than advice on how to treat my own. But thanks for the reply :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.10.144 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I think about it, I've probably came to the wrong place to ask such a question! I thought I'd see what response I get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.10.144 (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it wrong to say that the lion is the King of the Jungle when in fact they don't live in jungles? Does anyone know where this term came from? --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think "the jungle" is merely an outdated idiom for Africa. I hope we discover the origin. Doesn;t seem to be The Jungle Book, which was my first thought. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing old Google Books searches, it seems like the tiger was more commonly called the "king of the jungle" in the 19th century, which would make a lot more sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I've often heard the lion called the "king of beasts", but I don't think I've ever heard "king of the jungle", unless my memory is failing me. Maybe that term comes from the same place that would have us believe that tigers live in Africa. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tiger? In Africa? --Jayron32 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the equally strange king of the forest. 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He apparently lived in the forest in Oz. That might be what the lyricist was thinking of. Although maybe he was just afraid to be seen out in the open. "King of Beasts" used to be the more typical term, as I recall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. It's probably also harder to find an appropriate rhyme for "jungle" (although they apparently couldn't find one for "forest" either...) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe Tarzan?—eric 22:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle may merely be a euphamism for the wild, uncivilized rurality of nature. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i want to make a wikipedia account but i'm having trouble thinking of a username. i don't want to use my name, and i have few intrests or hobbies that would be acceptable names to use on wikipedia. could suggestions be given please thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.170.111 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was exploring a name meanings book when I came up with mine (in 6th grade for a D&D game admittedly). I took a variation of my first name and stuck a synonym of the meaning of the rest of my name onto that. If you can find anything that "sounds good" this method may work for you. Caltsar (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I name you User:Few. That still seems to be available. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage is blank but that account was registered in 2006.

Thanks. Nothing that Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations would not sort out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need an established account before you can usurp as mentioned in the page you linked to. So you'll at least need a temporary name first. If you get lucky maybe an admin will ignore the normal requirements but it seems it may be easier to just choose a different name if you have no great hold over it (the fact that you have no great hold over it may count against you too). Also with SUL the usage on any other wiki needs to be considered as well. An actually as it turns out Few is used on other wikis [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generate a "random" word and go from there. I always liked the word tocsin, which is available. So is umbrage, vicissitudes and laconic.--droptone (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:User also is still available, if you are interested in flaunting your namelessness. —Akrabbim^talk 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the userpage is empty but the account already exists and has in fact been blocked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't anything show up here? —Akrabbim^talk 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logs only go back to December 2004 - see Help:Log. Warofdreams talk 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pick up a real paper dictionary, flip to a random page, point your finger to a random location, and write down the word definition you pointed to. Now repeat this and write down a second word. Concatenate the two, and this is your new Wikipedia username. It gives you street cred, too, by demonstrating how little you care about your online name. Even more street cred when other editors start making assumptions about your interests, ethnicity, or nationality based on the username. I just went through this exercise and came up with User:Smokefriend. That is an awesome username and took exactly 10 seconds. Tempshill (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or go through an atlas and find what looks like an odd name - some parts of the world have all sorts of weird and wonderful placenames - Northern Scotland, for instance. Grutness...wha? 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of online name generators for things like Dungeons & Dragons characters. Do a Google search on "random character name generator" - those generate some nice names. eg I tried [3] and got "Sealamin Bearcharger". SteveBaker (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you can just hear random words and phrases that you realize would make a good username (I came up with User:Afterthought, another abandoned account]]. Or you can modify the name of an ancient lizard (User:Terrordactyl, abandoned), or just use some tasty food (User:General Tso, surprised this hasn't been created yet). —Akrabbim^talk 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:He (or She) Who Must Not Be Named. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What general subject matter of articles would you be editing? Maybe a user name that suggests that topic, if you have any particular topic in mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder to all, if you're checking if a username is in use with WP:SUL in place you're going to need to check all wikis. So use [4] instead of any en.wiki tool to look for existing usernames. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think of a word (or use a thesurus for synanoms) then abbreviate it or put to random words together. --Ms.xenon (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just mash the keyboard and then pick a segment that you like, which is what I did. Jkasd 07:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got User:Crotchetiness from droptone's link. Fun site by the way. I like playing around with words. Another word that randomly sprung to my mind, which I liked since secondary school (11 years) is desmurgy, which is a word for the art of properly bandaging people. User:Desmurgy is also free. Both of the names I gave seem not to have been used in the past. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you register an account, there's a word verification thing where you have to type in the words from the image to prove that you're either human, or a really cool advanced artificial intelligence that can do stuff like that. You can do what I did and use the words as your username too. --Hence Piano (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For fun pick an unmentionable obscenity (even today there must be a few left) and use it spelt backwards as your name. If this is questioned you can choose between the modes Defence ("it's a pure coincidence, I never dreamed anyone would read it so unconventionally") and Attack ("Wikipedia is uncensored, how DARE you limit my Right to Free Speech"). An example was Gaylord M'Sagro. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are many medical drugs so expensive while others others are affordable? Is it the cost of the equipment needed to produce these drugs?, is it the cost of the ingredients to produce these drugs? is it the cost of the worker's expertise? or is it a combination of all of these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.113.181 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Generic drug#Economics for some of the answers. Nanonic (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To (mis)quote a related discussion on The West Wing, the second pill costs five cents, but the first one costs 100 million dollars. They have enormous development and testing costs to amortise. It's much the same model for movies, music, and computer software, and drug companies are every bit as worried about their product being copied (without licencing) by manufacturers who can make pills at a fraction of the cost (because those copies aren't paying off the R&D) -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay hits the nail on the head. Furthermore, only a small fraction of research projects ever come to market; it is impossible to know going in if a drug will "work" or not, there are MANY ways in which a promising line of research will end up running into an ultimate dead end; so you also end up paying for the development of literally hundreds of drugs that never come to market. Again, this is a necessary part of the development process; lots of promising compounds end up nowhere and you still need to pay for that research, without the 100 dead-ends, you would never end up with the one great drug. --Jayron32 20:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus a lot of those dead ends might not be shown until 5-10 years (and many millions of $) into testing. "Sure that drug cures allergy symptoms. Unfortunately it also gives 16% of those who take it massive nausea, 3% of them long term memory loss and it will kill 0.5%" Googlemeister (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most drugs never even make it to THAT stage even. Something like 90% of all drug research dies in the pharmacokinetics stage; that is the drug shows lots of promise in test tubes or rats, but ends up being used by the human body in problematic ways. For example, a drug may show that it stops the growth of cancer cells in petri dishes, but it turns out that the drug is isntantly metabolised in the liver, preventing meaningful amounts of it from circulating in the blood, then it never gets to human testing. There are thousands of "active" compounds which do exactly what we need them to do, but which the body's metabolic processes destroy or modify in ways that make it inconvenient or actually impossible to deliver the drug effectively to make it useful. --Jayron32 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a given drug from the same supplier is ten times as expensive in the U.S. as in Canada, it sounds like a ripoff. Edison (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or that Canada subsidizes drugs and that much of the rest of the cost is hidden in your Canadian taxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to give an extreme example; from Prescription drug prices in the United States - Lipitor (40 mg/90 tablets) costs $361.99 from CVS/pharmacy. The same drug obtained in England with a prescription would cost £7.20 ($12), the NHS still pays the full price to the supplier but absorbs the cost via taxes. Nanonic (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prescription drugs are not cheap in Canada because of subsidy. And the costs are not hidden in taxes. The reason drugs are cheaper in Canada is that the prices are regulated; the can't be supplied as part of the healtchcare system unless they are supplied at a price agreed by the health system. Drug suppliers agree to a lower price because they would rather sell to an entire country at a low price than not sell to it at all. That's how the free market works. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's how a regulated market works, shirley? Prokhorovka (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a free market, just one in which the major purchaser is state owned. --Tango (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a major purchaser. The Canadian healthcare system is a relatively small buyer in world terms (even smaller since it's actually several provincial systems). The drug companies could easily choose not to sell there if they wanted. However, unsurprisingly, they choose to make some money rather than no money. As I said, that's the free market. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the major purchaser within Canada. --Tango (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanonic, I don't really know much about the situation in the UK but I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. The general aspects are I'm pretty sure similar to Pharmac here in NZ. As the comments following yours have mentioned, the situation in most places with subsidised medicines is that the government agency buying the drug negotiates with the supplier on the price. If multiple similar drugs are available or if even generic drugs are available, this gives them ample bargaining power on what drugs they choose to purchase (and subsidise) and at what price... Obviously if only one drug is available their power is somewhat limited since their only other option is to simply not purchase the drug which in some cases is problematic. Herceptin is a kind of an example of the later. Clearly the NHS is paying a lot more then £7.20 but precisely how much we don't know. Such information tends to be commercially sensitive (since the drug companies don't want other purchasers to know since they'll be demanding the same thing nor is there any reason the NHS would want the results of their hard fought negotiations to be known so others can just piggy back off their success) so isn't usually released so we'll probably never really know. But there's a good chance the full price the NHS is paying is a lot lower then the cost in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A key factor in determining the price of a drug is whether it is still under patent. While the patent lasts only the drugs company that created it can make and sell it, so they can charge large amounts (and pay off their development costs). Then the patent expires and the drug becomes "generic" and is made by lots of different companies and the price plummets (this is why Aspirin, for example, is so cheap). This, incidentally, is precisely how the patent system was designed to work - it's one of only a few industries where it has the desired effect. --Tango (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tango is entirely correct, but it may be worth adding that a drug patent expires in a relatively short period, on the order of a decade or so (varying from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and according to whether early challenges to the patent by generic manufacturers are successful or not), so that the original creators have a reasonable time in which to recoup their overall development costs (on the marketed drug and all the unsuccessful ones, as described above), their running costs and research reinvestment costs, and make an acceptable profit for their shareholders (interpretations of "reasonable" and "acceptable" may vary), from a limited period of exclusivity, but cannot continue making large profits from uncompeted sales after that. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they do a great job establishing brand loyalty that is. Googlemeister (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs definitely get cheaper when they go off patent. Regarding Canada, if their prices are regulated, and the drug companies need to recoup their costs somehow, then they'll charge higher prices in countries where the prices are not regulated and/or the average income is assumed to be high enough they can get away with it. In effect, Canada's price regulations help to screw the Americans. C'est la vie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with many above. The basic reason drug prices are so high, especially in the USA, is because the drug companies are ripping Americans off with spectacular success. They are able to translate their profits into political clout that writes laws and buy politicians to ensure their unusually high profits in an era of declining innovation. As they make profits elsewhere too, "regulated" prices in countries with patient-oriented health systems are hardly raising prices for Americans and probably lower them due to economies of scale and what competition occurs across borders. A major reason for high costs is the amount now spent on marketing costs; it substantially exceeds R & D costs. This article by two former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, or the authors', Arnold S. Relman and Marcia Angell articles here are good references. As they say, describing pharmaceutical industry arguments similar to some above, "The rhetoric is stirring, but the arguments simply do not hold up."John Z (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Sweet Briar College in Amherst Va. ever given reduced or free tuition to Amherst county residents? I have been told this by several people. I have contacted the school and spoke with an Admissions councelor that has been with the school for 11 years and she said that she has been asked this questions many times but to her knowledge it is a rumor. I would like to know if it was ever true. Cambrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.69.59 (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the admissions councelor at the school itself has no knowledge of such a discount, then there is little chance of any random strangers on the internet having more information than that admissions councelor. I would take her statement as authoritative... --Jayron32 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this may be a somewhat stupid question, but in what kind of shops can you buy massage oil? --Leptictidium (mt) 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Type "Buy massage oil" into google, and find good prices yourself? There is almost nothing that cannot be bought online. --Jayron32 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Sorry for not being specific enough, I meant in which kind of "regular" shops you can buy it (chemist's, perfume shops, etc?). Leptictidium (mt) 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex shops probably carry the stuff. Any moderately sized city should have a "classy" sort of sex shop; not the really dirty porno shops with the little booths, but "lingerie stores" that carry "erotic toys" and that sort of stuff. In the U.S. some prominent chains include Frederick's of Hollywood, Pricilla's, Adam & Eve. Just about any sex shop will carry the stuff, but depending on your attitutes towards this, you may want to shop at one of the higher end shops (think of looking for the Bloomingdale's of sex shops, not the WalMart of sex shops, if you catch my drift). --Jayron32 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specialist soap shops will also have it, if you're embarrassed about trying a sex shop - somewhere like the Body Shop or lush (not sure if that's a worldwide chain, but there's likely to be some sort of equivalent wherever you are). Grutness...wha? 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this search will help you. Astronaut (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My local Walgreens and Walmart both have an adequately large selection of massage oils placed (coincidentally?) right by the condoms and other sex gels. --96.230.224.80 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider homepathic suppliers and suppliers for people in the massage industry. Steewi (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bath & Body Works and similar stores carry fancy types. Your local drug store probably does too. You can buy it online, too, of course. It is really not rare. Nor is it just associated with sex! --Mr.98 (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't need anything special for massage oil. Grapeseed, rapeseed, avocado, almond, hempseed, are all excellent massage oils and I buy them all at my local supermarket. Just don't whatever you do use baby oil. It's derived from crude oil and doesn't sink in to the skin. If you want a scented massage oil, any chemist will have them. Body Shop do a range, as do Boots (if you're UK based). --TammyMoet (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Massage#Equipment#Oil. You can buy Baby oil that is a lightly perfumed Mineral oil, as an alternative to plant or herbal oils, in regular shops (chemists, perfume, mother's) without the expense and indignity of being seen in the kind of emporia that Jayron32 might drift towards.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)TammyMoet please explain your advice not to apply baby oil because up to millions of mothers use it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think TammyMoet is making a distinction between baby oil, a crude byproduct that mostly just relieves discomfort, and various essential massage oils, which will do more for the skin. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above, but also because the two jobs require different things. When you apply oil to a baby, you're applying it for a couple of reasons, but primarily as a lubricant. You don't want it to be absorbed easily, because that would leave you with a sticky or dry area again after a few minutes, defeating the purpose. When you're massaging someone, they don't particularly want to be slippery and oily for the rest of the day; you want there to be lubrication to for the rubbing part, but then you'd like the oil to go away - so something that gets absorbed after a while is exactly what you want. Matt Deres (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup Matt that's right. However, I personally wouldn't want to massage a crude oil derivative into my baby. It's amazing what marketing will do... --TammyMoet (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly safe, unlike "massage oils" which often contain potent allergens. Massage oils containing almond oil can even cause life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. "Natural" means nothing. "Natural" ingredients are not safer. --NellieBly (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with crude oil derivative? Googlemeister (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to move my water bed downstairs. Presumeably, I have to empty out the water, move the bed, and then refill it. What is the best way to do this? Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick a garden hose in it, suck on it to start a siphon and then put the end of the hose out the window. At least that is how I did it. Rmhermen (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or run the hose into the bathtub. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the siphon for the waterbed by first pumping water from a downstairs hosebib (outdoor faucet) into the waterbed, then once the column of water is established, disconnecting from the downstairs outdoor faucet and letting the hose siphon the water out. I used a germicide in the waterbed like copper sulphate, so ingesting it by sucking on the hose was strongly discouraged. A downstairs laundry sink, or any downstairs sink with a hose fitting on the spigot might serve. It is a two person operation, to know when the hose is filled, so that siphonage can be established.

If the hose is securely attached to the drainhole in the filled waterbed (they have attachments for that kind of thing) and the other end is safely positioned in wherever you're draining it to, then you don't have to put your mouth on it. Just get on the bed and force some water into the hose. That should get the process started. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a continuous downward path from the top of the bed to the drain, then just sloshing the water might start a siphon, but I doubt you could get it up over the windowsill and back down lower than the starting point by that means. The lower end of the hose being substantially lower than the start is needed to have sufficient pressure for quick draining. By the faucet starting method, you could get it to drain (slowly) from a bed on 1 foot pedestal to a tubdrain in the bathroom. A drill pump could also be used to prime it. Edison (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the hose needs to be generally downward. I was thinking back years ago to when we had to drain ours (long since sold, though). Basically you need a column of water in the hose, and it will "pull" the water out, provided most of the hose is below the level of the bed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]