I haven't heard of another story recently that reinforces the need to check and double check information before making financial decisions. On Monday an investment newsletter mistakenly sent out a story about United Airlines (UAL) filing for bankruptcy which caused the price of the stock to drop as worried investors banged out, "sell, sell, sell!" on their keyboards.

The only problem was that the bankruptcy story, passed off as a current event by the investment newsletter, actually happened back in 2002. Something that investors could have figured out if they took a minute to read the article or confirm information.

United denied the rumor that it was undergoing bankruptcy after it became clear that this old news had caused its stock price to drop Monday. Analysts expect United's stock to make a recover as the market opens on Tuesday, which could cause the investors who pulled out on Monday a loss if they haven't been paying attention to today's news.

Slightly more troubling is the fact that Income Securities Advisors Inc, the company who published the item sees nothing wrong with the action and doesn't plan to put any measures in place to prevent old news from being republished in the future.

Don't get me wrong, the losses on this one lie at the hands of investors who didn't adequately research a piece of information before acting on it, and I am sure some of them will suffer financially for their rashness. In another example of market forces, I'm sure that by not addressing the issue, Income Securities Advisors Inc's newsletter will be dealt with accordingly as readers look for more reliable sources of information. Don't forget a hot tip to sell stock should be given the same research that a hot tip to buy stock gets. Don't get burned by your own lack of ignorance.

Google is digitizing microfilm from old newspapers and bringing it online to you -- free. It's springing for the cost to put the old film online, opening up vast amounts of local American history that had been sequestered in dingy library offices, too difficult for most researchers to find.

Here's how it works: Go to Google's News Archive site. Type in whatever you're curious about: Your name. Your hometown. Your address. Some historical event. Whatever you like. After you hit search, you'll see a list of dates on the left. Take one of those, or hit "other dates" and you can search within a date range.

For newspapers like the New York Times, you'll find an excerpt and, depending on the date, you may get to see the whole thing for free or may be asked to pay. Here's a story from 1875 on a theater riot in my neighborhood. Google sends me to the New York Times site, where I see an abstract, then I click on a link and get the PDF.

The Times seems to be more generous than a lot of newspapers. If I want to see a 1934 article from the Washington Post on Cary Grant's divorce, it'll cost me $4. I get an excerpt about the "English beauty" charging "extreme cruelty" for free.

If you're wondering why your expensive salon shampoo works so much better than the generic stuff at the local drugstore, this might be part of the reason...

Dan Ariely, a researcher in behavioral economics at Duke University, published a study on Tuesday suggesting that the "placebo effect" works even better when test subjects believe that their medication is expensive. Working with colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Ariely conducted a study in which he subjected 82 volunteers to light electric shocks. After the first shock, the volunteers were offered a pill that the researchers described as a "painkiller." Half were told that the pill retailed for $0.10 a dose, and the other half were told that it cost $2.50 a dose.

The results were pretty compelling: 61% of the subjects who were told that the medicine was $0.10 a dose found that it was effective, while 85% of the subjects who were told that the drug was $2.50 a dose found it effective. While other studies (not to mention common sense!) have shown that people value things more highly if they cost more, this study demonstrated a very impressive disparity based on cost. Of course, 82 volunteers constitutes a pretty paltry sample size, and this study should probably be backed up with more extensive analyses, but the conclusions were still impressive, and have wide-reaching consequences for generic medications; in fact, Ariely has questioned whether or not cheaper medications may not be less effective, merely by virtue of their lower price.

Given my wife's explorations into bargain-priced skincare and my own experience with the wonders of Trader Joe's vitamin aisle, I wonder how many people are paying small fortunes for lotions, conditioners, and vitamins that are no more effective than generic brands. Take that, placenta shampoo!

Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. He's found that bargain-priced beer gets him just as toasty as the pricy bottled stuff.