Miscellaneous desk
< June 26	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

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.

June 27

New York Times cover price

What is the history of the price of the NY Times? How much did it cost when first published? In 1960? In 1990?

Interesting. I assume you're interested in the weekday price and not the extra-large Sunday price; and also that you're less interested in price variations outside of New York, which at various times has been defined as being "within 50 miles of the city"[1], within 75 miles[2], and probably other definitions over time. I haven't found a nice graph of the price after Googling a bit. Our article The New York Times says it was 1 cent per copy at its debut in 1851, when it was called the "New-York Daily Times". I searched on the NY Times website for "new york times" newsstand price and on Google similarly and found the following; note there are plenty of gaps.

1851: Price was 1 cent
1883: Price was 2 cents
1970: Raised from ? to 15 cents
1974: changed from 15 cents to 20 cents

Interestingly, this abstract says this increase was "subject to favorable rulings by the Cost of Living Council."

1979: changed from ? to 25 cents
1982: changed from 25 cents to 30 cents
1991: changed from 30 cents to 35 cents
1994: changed from 50 cents to 60 cents
1999: changed from 60 cents to 75 cents
2002: changed from 75 cents to 1 dollar
2007: changed from $1.00 to $1.25
2008: changed from $1.25 to $1.50

A graph of this, were the data to be completed, would be a nice addition to the NYT article. (And would be even more interesting if graphed against its rivals. The Post dropped its price at least once in recent times.) If you had an hour at your local library with all the NY Times articles microfiched, you could rather quickly use sampling to find out the years that price changes occurred, or just look up the years you were interested in. Tempshill (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a book at the bookstore today that had all the New York Times front pages...now of course I can't find it again. But I assume the prices are on every front page. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, here it is. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A semilog plot woud be linear if the price increased exponentially. Edison (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US laws regarding copyright status of current news

In US copyright law, what does it say about news article? In the PRC copyright law, 'current news' is not protectable, and 'current news' is defined as 'simple statement of the fact', which is still vague. I want to know how does the US deal with news.—Ben.MQ (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Could you find sources for this and add a treatment of it to the copyright section of the Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China article? It would be an interesting improvement.

Anyway, see United States copyright law for a lot of information (not comprehensive). There are some types of writing that are not copyrightable in the US. The concept of "news" is not one of these types; it is treated no differently from other types of writing. One thing that is treated differently is an expression of an idea that can't reasonably be expressed in any other way. The short sentence "Michael Jackson has died" is therefore not protected. A news article on the death of Michael Jackson, though, is copyrighted. By the way, under the Berne Convention, countries are supposed to respect works that are copyrighted in other countries, so, assuming you're correct about the copyrightability of news in the PRC, I wonder how Berne is reconciled with ignoring the copyrighted status of news stories written by (and hence automatically copyrighted by) people in other countries. Tempshill (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that simple statements of fact are not copyrightable in general in the US. It doesn't matter whether they are news. "Water is constituted of oxygen and hydrogen." "Michael Jackson is dead." Both would be treated similarly (assuming they are true—if they are purely fictional, then creativity comes into it). (As an aside, simple statements of fact can be patentable. But not copyrightable.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are not copyrightable. Quoting the entirety of a speech reported in the news, for example, has been held not to be a breach of copyright. News reporting is a fair dealing in Australia, and if I remember correctly, is correspondingly a fair use in the United States.

Nonetheless, the particular expression of a news story (other than any factual quotations) is copyrightable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speeches are actually complicated, as they are often not "fixed in any tangible medium", which at least in the US is a requirement for be copyrightable at all. Being widely-reported has nothing to do with their copyright status in the US (see, e.g. I_Have_a_Dream#Copyright_dispute), at least for quoting the entire thing in verbatim (fair use applies, but it is a complicated determination). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of asking for credit card expiration date

When you buy something online with a credit card, what is the purpose of asking for the expiration date? Does it just purely serve as a security challenge question, like a PIN number? Does / can the business actually care about the date? Can they, for example, say that they won't accept credit cards that expire within 1 month? Or can they give preferential treatment to people with later expiration dates? --76.91.63.71 (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it answers the ultimate question, but when I've taken credit card charges in person or over the telephone at work, I've had to give the bank four things (presuming the bank already has the merchant account number and information): name on the card, amount of the transaction, account number, and expiration date. For the bank, I'm sure it serves several purposes, including telling them whether the account is current and verifying that a digit hasn't been missed somewhere (thus charging the wrong account). Sometimes they also ask for the 3-digit security code on the card that's separate from the account number. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't want to take a card that has already expired. Although you may have a new card, it is possible that you have not, therefore don't have a current account. And/or the expired card may be in the hands of an unauthorised person, if you did not follow the directions and cut it in half when the new one arrived. The separate 3-digit check number is sometimes asked for as proof that you have the card in your hand; the other details you might have from finding someone's credit card bill (or transaction receipt) in the garbage. - KoolerStill (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because when the card expires you get sent a new card with the same card number and a new expiry date. The expiry date is asked in case you have simply found an old card in the trash. Or perhaps it lets the credit card limit their liability if they close your account and you don't return the card. Astronaut (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is far simpler than all this. If the expiry date is not quoted how will the equipment know that the card is currently valid? All the other info identifies the user, not the card.86.209.157.37 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

You know the card is valid when the card company tells you it is. Knowing the date doesn't tell you it is valid at all—one can easily lie about the date, or the card number, or any part of it. Only the fact that all of that information is checked against the credit card company tells you it is valid. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the expiry date is needed, as part of the chain of proof that the cardowner is holding the card. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that different than the card number itself? I don't see how that really changes anything. Even the CVC doesn't really prove you have the card itself in front of you. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little searching online brings up this (http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/executive_tech/article.php/3607996) is an interesting article about expiry-dates and relevant to this question. ny156uk (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a security measure. The more information they check, the less chance for fraud. It is easy to fake a seemingly valid credit card number. My credit cards have an additional security number on them also. I think they check the validity of the numbers online while speaking to you. 78.147.242.96 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this doesn't make much sense. The only way they know if it is real is if they check it against a database; if they do that, then it doesn't matter how many extra numbers there are. Having the card physically does not at all guarantee that the transaction is valid (could easily be stolen). I see no real security benefit to having expiration numbers. (CVC would provide security if it was never recorded. That's a big "if", of course, but expiration date is often recorded along with the number.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just think of it as four extra digits of the card number, and the CVC is another three digits. There are a million ways to get each of these bits of information, but the essence is that if you have them, you can charge to the card. One benefit of the expiry date is that it exists outside of the checksum digit and thus can't be calculated in advance. This just presents one more barrier to mass attacks to discover card numbers. Like you say though, in the end it comes down to whether or not the information matches a database. The goal is to make that as difficult as possible for people not actually holding the information. (Plus it forces the clerk to actually look at the card rather than just swiping it) Franamax (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were trying to justify the expiration date, I would probably say, rather, that it was more than just adding four more digits (two of which are within a pretty guess-able range), but instead, the fact that card records expired in a few years would prevent long accumulation of still-valid transactions over a period of time. It puts a cap on how long credit card data in anyone's possession is actually useful. (For the same reason, it's kind of a pain in the neck when you need to change over a lot of recurring payments.) The idea that you'd use it to avoid bruteforcing credit card numbers seems unconvincing to me (you still need a matching name, no?). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never tried to crack a CC system, so I dunno. The primary entity you wish to establish seems to be the person. Obtaining person names is pretty trivial, a rich target would probably be (www.here.com). You would need to also observe the (beans) returned from the requested transactions. Probably though it's a behaviourial thing - did some actual person ever look at the actual piece of plastic in their hand? Did any actual person ever wonder if they're being scammed? The entire credit system works on trust, the expiry date on CCs is just a tiny piece. Franamax (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunwoody Coffin

Does anyone know of a sheet metal toolbox called a Dunwoody (Dunnwoody) Coffin?

It was made as a graduation requirement for the sheet metal course at the Dunwoody Vocational School in Mpls, MN during the 60's and 70's I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullulloo (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a page for the school Dunwoody College of Technology. Maybe you could contact someone there. You should state what specifically your question about that box is. Your term didn't get any ghits, so maybe it's a bit off. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to be tough to find anything out about - if they stopped doing it in the 1970's - that was a long time before the Internet was around - so there is unlikely to be much about it on the net. It's also a very narrow topic - so it's unlikely that books have been written on the subject - it's hardly newsworthy - so we're not going to find it in newspaper archives...that doesn't leave many places to search! Your best chance (as '71 says) is to contact the college and hope that someone who worked in the metal shop in the 1970's is still around to talk about it. Does the school perhaps maintain a list of alumni - or have an alumni association? If so, then perhaps you could find the email address of people who graduated from that course over those years and ask them directly? SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swiping: Credit vs Debit

I live in Canada so I don't know if this is a common phenomenon in other countries, but when I make a purchase at a store with my credit card, say Visa, the cashier takes the card from me and swipes it him or herself. On the other hand, when purchasing with my debit card, he/she asks me to swipe the card myself. Why is that? Acceptable (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that phenomenon in the US - I swipe the card, and then about 25% of the time the cashier asks me whether it's a credit or debit card. Tempshill (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it from time to time, and it seems to depend on the cashier personally. Mostly I swipe it myself, but some shop attendants get frustrated by customers putting the card in the wrong way round, so to forestall that they take the card off them, and do it themselves. I know one particular person who always does this with me, but other attendants at the same shop rarely or never do it. Whether it's a debit or credit card doesn't come into it, because these days it's often impossible to tell just from the card. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it all the time, in a number of different stores (SW Ontario). I've even seen a cashier reach to give me my card, then withdraw it again until the electronic transaction was completed. I haven't asked, but I've always assumed it was something to do with the perceived greater chance of theft of credit cards (no PIN required, just a signature). The cashier might want to wait for confirmation before giving you back a potentially stolen card. Matt Deres (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on the particular store's swiping setup. If the swipe slot is on the till out of the customer's reach, the cashier will do it. But if it's on the pinpad, close to the customer and hard for the cashier to reach, the customer will do it. If it's easily accessible to either, I guess that's when you get variation.

Similarly, if credit and debit are swiped through different slots, as they are at the store where I work, that's why you might see a difference between when you pay with one or the other. At my store, I swipe credit cards on the till, but let the customer swipe their own debit cards on the pinpad.

(I used to do both, through the machine's "home base" instead of the pinpad, but we got a new system last week that split the credit and debit into different slots, and a new pinpad that I'm having the devil of a time with, so I've decided just to let the customers do their own debit swiping. It usually works better that way.) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might also depend on the amounts of money involved and the store's experience with stolen/expired cards. If they are holding the credit card, and it comes through as bad, they are supposed to retain and destroy it. If it just comes through as insufficient credit, they have the card as "hostage" while the customer finds another card or digs up cash. - KoolerStill (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that with Chip and Pin in the UK the cashier is specifically supposed not to touch the card, and there are "extra security requirements" (no idea what) if they do. Of course, that doesn't necessarily happen in practice and plenty of customers still hand their cards over as we used to do before chip&pin. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was never told about any "extra security requirements" when I used to work in a shop. Rather, I was told never to take the card at all - just point to the card machine and tell them to put it in. Of course, this is still UK so not entirely relevant to the OP's question. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the thread just above, if you use a credit card, the clerk is supposed to check the hologram on the card to be sure it changes colour, check the expiration date, make sure the card is signed on the back, and check your signature on the slip to be sure it even remotely resembles the signature on the card. The merchant agreement with the card processor actually says that's supposed to happen and some clerks even do it. Debit cards are different, if you hold the "secret" PIN number, you're assumed to be the authorised user. Check for security cameras pointed at the debit terminal and raise hell if you see one. BC Liquor has just changed over to a new system where they don't touch the credit card, as part of the switch to Chip'n'PIN. It also means that if my magstripe doesn't scan, they won't accept the card, i.e. they will no longer punch in the transaction manually. This is a lesson that if you accidentally demagnetise the card, you can no longer get beer. :) Franamax (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an anecdote: I was in airport duty-free once, used a Visa card. I'd "lost" the card, requested a new one, then found the old one and had it in my bag also, and inadvertently used it. The clerk swiped it and handed it back, then suddenly came up with a reason to ask for it back to "check something". She called another clerk over to "figure out the problem" and we all stood there for awhile while she carefully muttered to the other guy things about "it says hold the customer...shouldn't we call security..." I eventually figured it out, found my new card and asked for scissors to chop the old one. The lesson? At least some CC terminals are set up to deliver messages about "destroy card" and "fraud - hold for police". I've never actually handled card transactions, but that experience is pretty good evidence for the practice. Again, the difference with debit cards is that as long as the funds are in the account, go ahead and take the funds, gabba-gabba-hey, it's all good. Franamax (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For credit card purchases, it used to be the case that the checkout person held on to your card until you'd signed the slip so that they could check that the signature matched...but I've never seen that done in the last 10 years at least. There's a web site out there somewhere where someone tried writing increasingly bizarre things on the credit slip and having it accepted...starting with signing "Mickey Mouse" - moving on to simplifying his signature to one long horizontal line - to drawing a picture of a flower, a house, a car, etc - eventually writing "I stole this card and I'm getting away with it!" in tiny letters where the signature should be. The checkout staff never queried it - and the credit card company paid out just the same. So why bother with the signature? It has absolutely no function anymore.

I believe you are referring to [3] by John Hargrave, the same man who pranked the 2007(?) Super Bowl in Tampa. Freedomlinux (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more annoying: One of the best security features they ever added was the simplest - put the person's photo on the card. My VISA card has that - but the checkout staff never even look at it - even in stores like Home Depot where you swipe your card, enter your pin and the terminal says "HOLD CARD UP FOR CASHIER TO INSPECT" (or something like that) - it's all completely ignored! This is such a simple technique - and it would eliminate almost all fraud at almost zero cost. Grrrr! SteveBaker (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bacnotan

How can I get more information about history of Bacnotan, La Union, Philippines from year 1850 and on. I am looking for gobernadorcillo Named Angel Lopez back in 1850 and on. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.252.48 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article Bacnotan, La Union? Also, have you Googled bacnotan "angel lopez"? The latter brings up nine hits, not many at all, but they seem relevant. Tempshill (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Shirts sleeves stick out?

When wearing a black Tuxedo, should the white shirt underneath stick out at the cuffs? Acceptable (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wearing a proper dress shirt, then yes, your doubled cuffs and cufflinks should be visible. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of American readers (and by the use of the word "Tuxedo", I'm guessing the OP is American, although the term is becoming quite common in the UK these days), "dress shirt" in this context doesn't mean any shirt with a collar and buttons, it means a specific type of formal shirt with doubled cuffs and a pleated front that is worn with Black Tie. (There is some variation, but that's the most common. In the UK, anyway.) --Tango (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Tuxedo article has pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Called a dinner jacket in Britain. 78.147.242.96 (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was always taught that cufflinks should not be showing when wearing a suit-jacket. "You're not a pirate." was the phrase. ny156uk (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about a suit-jacket, we're talking about a dinner jacket. Algebraist 12:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, you don't want the whole of the cuff showing - just a bit (perhaps a enough to let people glimpse your expensive cuff-links). See the images on the Black tie article for a guideline. Astronaut (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The cuffs on my dress shirt go up several inches, I would only have about one inch showing beneath my jacket. --Tango (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, of course, how you're standing. When your hands are by your sides, you should only be able to see a small amount (less than an inch) of cuff. When you reach out your hand, for example, to shake hands, more cuff, and your cufflinks should become visible, but not the whole cuff. Steewi (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]