| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft’s Annual Revenue Reaches $60 Billion | |
|
||
| Time: 16:11 EST/21:11 GMT | News Source: Press Release | Posted By: Michael Dragone | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. today announced revenue of $15.84 billion for the fiscal fourth quarter ended June 30, 2008, an 18% increase over the same period of the prior year. Operating income and diluted earnings per share for the quarter were $5.68 billion and $0.46, representing growth of 42% and 48%, respectively, over the same period of the prior year. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 584 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
8:49:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at 7/19/2008 12:22:37 PM |
|
"I still have 90% of all scientists on my side."
Which 90% ... the stupid ones who haven't noticed the earth is cooling? "Martian icecaps are melting because of orbital change, not increased solar radiation. " Thats hilarious!!! Is that what Gorebots are trying to claim now? What orbital changes? N one mentions them anywhere "From National Geographic: “Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.“ From MIT on Pluto “the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.” Since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn’t fit into “Solar Constant” dismissal theories. From Space.com on Jupiter: “The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.” From MIT on Triton: “At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.” So there is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?" As for "cherry picking" ... which seems to be some sort of euphimism for actually staying current on the science of climate instead of spewing out Gorebottalking points based on 10 year old data. The science "isn't settled". It wasn't settled when 99.9999% of all scientists thought the sun rotated around the earth. It isn't settled now. Try and stay current. It might make you look less like a fool (and a bigger fool than Latch if thats even possible). |
| #27 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at 7/20/2008 12:53:45 AM |
|
Gee... who would have guess my little passing comment about the world would have created such a fire storm!!
I'm definitely not knowledgeable in this area but I do feel, if the human race keeps pumping crap into the atmosphere, keeps burning fossil fuels and keeps dumping crap into the oceans "its a bad thing". You guys keep quoting American-locale stats... thats great for you but what about the rest of the world??? The stats you link to might show the US and/or UK getting cooler... but what about the WORLD AVERAGES?? As much as many American's like to think, ONE country does not count for the rest of the world and what's happening to the rest of us. Down here in the Southern Hemisphere, we are seeing record temperatures with each and every passing year. Fiji, Samoa, Pacific Isands, etc have all seen sea level rises. The Great Barrier reef off Australia is almost disappearing to the naked eye due to the increasing sea temperature, red grapes can now be grown in the southern parts of New Zealand because the temperature increases (completely unheard of only 5 years ago!) and so on and on... Here in Sydney, we are already 2 degree's C higher over last year... which is 4 degree's higher than the 50 year average... we are in the middle of Winter and its 20+ degrees C !! These temperatures would have unheard of only 5-10 years ago. Snow has only just fallen for the first time this year in the mountain ranges inland - and this is July! and consistent pattern of the "falling snow" has been occurring later and later during the winter season and for a shorter duration. IMHO... along with limited knowledge just common sense of what I see happening around me... "something" is definitely happening to the world. It is not cooling but definitely warming up. |
| #28 By 118479 (68.209.64.185) at 7/20/2008 12:56:28 AM |
|
That's no chump change!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com |
| #29 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at 7/20/2008 12:01:18 PM |
|
Sea level has been rising a small amount since the last ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise However, the global sea level has been dropping for the last 2 years. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg As for the Southern Hemisphere ... its almost back to where it was in 1940 (its about .1C above that which is well within the margin of error considering UHI). http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/s17.htm This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 12:01. |
| #30 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at 7/20/2008 12:06:01 PM |
|
As for Sydney, the BOM site shows max temp hasn't changed much.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av I compared it against several 30 year periods. Almost no change. 2008 was a tiny bit cooler than some periods like 1931-1960. |
| #31 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/20/2008 12:15:54 PM |
| #29 Your own chart from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/s17.htm clearly demonstrates your cherry-picking ability. 1940 was an anomaly! Look at the chart as a whole and you can see the trend. |
| #32 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at 7/20/2008 1:03:09 PM |
|
Actually, 1939-1944 were not an anomaly. They were all very close together.
1939 -0.119 1940 0.009 1941 0.055 1942 -0.047 1943 -0.106 1944 0.050 If Al Gore and Jame Hansen were alive then they would have proclaimed the end of the world in 10 years and blamed it on CO2. And then it cooled for 30 years finally getting back the 1939-1944 range about 1982. Those non Gorebots who actually read the literature are now aware of longer term 20 and 30 years cycles of warming and cooling that have NOTHING to do with CO2. Has it warmed since the last little ice age in the 1800's. Yes. Was it cause by man or CO2? Not likely. Its been warming since the last full ice age. And it will warm a little and cool a little until some mechanism we dont get yet plunges us back into another full-blown ice age. As it has every 10-20,000 years for 100,000 years. Maybe you could read about the Milankovitch cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles We are at the peak (hot) stage of a cycle right now. If we weren't, it would be ice age time. |
| #33 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 7/20/2008 1:41:47 PM |
|
Yep. As I said, we simply do not know enough about AGW/C to base national and global policies on what little we do understand. It's as insane as any of man's policies over the centuries that were based upon ignorance.
That said, pollution free, fossil fuels free energy simply makes sense and developing it is a terrific goal for all of us and creating new energy sources needs to be a priority for all of us. Until we are there, we need to drill like sons of guns, use what we have more efficiently, conserve all we can, and above all... stop buying into BS. We have to understand that the same hacks that got us here are the same idiots that will make billions tricking us into buying new products that they have conditioned us to believe are "green" New fluorescent bulbs for example.... good right? Nope. The amount of energy they take to produce is huge and the mercury in them is outrageous. They do produce more light for less energy, BUT, BUT, BUT... THEY ARE NOT/NOT GREEN....and not all are created equal. Some are greener, but none are as "green" as the bulbs you've been using for over a hundred years. |
| #34 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/20/2008 1:59:35 PM |
|
10-20,000! I wish I could be as vague! That's like saying it will be cooler perhaps, sometime in the near future.
You seem to totally dismiss man's influence on the planet. We have driven countless species to extinction, eradicated much or the world's C02 consuming rain forests, and destroyed parts the OZONE layer, which is partially recovering due to the realization that a problem existed and the willingness to take action. |
| #35 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at 7/20/2008 2:16:17 PM |
|
In religion it it is necessary to have certainties. The Goracle and his followers prefer the certain knowledge that it is the evil human being who has caused warming and if we only flagellate ourselves by destroying our economies, all will be well.
Climate isn't certain. Never has been, never will be - until the Sun expands and consumes the Earth. Then it will be hot all the time. Species went extinct before man -- remember the dinosaurs. New species are evolving. Mature forest rot and give off more CO2 than they consume. But only those truly blinded by the Goracle ignore the cooling that has occurred. And ignore history. And think the climate has been exactly the same for millenia until 1988 when Hansen gave his speech. It was warming during the Medievil Warm Period. It got really cold during the Maunder and Dalton minimums. Climate is never the same from year to year let alone decade to decade or century to century. Open your mind to the new scientific discoveries. Quit being a luddite. Stop being afraid of finding out man is so insignificant he can't warm or cool the planet. Bigger forces are at work. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 14:21. |
| #36 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at 7/20/2008 2:19:55 PM |
|
"Cutting trees does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. In fact, it helps to LESSEN the greenhouse effect.
This is, in many ways, an oversimplification, but: Trees capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, split the carbon from the oxygen, release the oxygen back into the atmosphere, and store the carbon in the form of plant tissues like cellulose. Though water vapor accounts for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect, it is the carbon dioxide (according to the global warming alarmists) that is the culprit behind what they believe to be the current "run-away" greenhouse effect that has caused the global warming that we are experiencing today. So, trees are a good thing, because they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. But here's the catch. Trees die. And when they die, they rot. And when they rot, all of that carbon that was stored inside of them over their long lives is released into the atmosphere and combines with oxygen to form... you guessed, carbon dioxide. So, if we allow a tree to go all the way through its natural life cycle, all the way through death to decomposition, then the carbon-dioxide-reducing capability of that tree will have been completely wasted. Now, to be honest, that's not entirely true. In temperate forests, some of that carbon gets stored in the soil. But the point is, if we just let that tree die and rot, the vast majority of the carbon stored in it will be returned to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, and most of the anti-global warming potential of that tree will be completely wasted. On the other hand, if we CUT that tree, before it dies, and then convert it to lumber, the carbon stored in that lumber will be permanently sequestered for as long as we can prevent that lumber from rotting. To prevent rotting, it can be treated with any of numerous chemicals, or simply kept away from water. Moreover, young, fast-growing trees capture and consume much more carbon dioxide than older, mature trees. Therefore, we shouldn't wait until the tree is nearing the end of its life. We need to harvest this tree when it is still young. And as soon as the tree is harvested, another tree needs to be planted in its place, to capture more CO2. On a continuous cycle of harvesting and planting, a well-manage pine forest can permanently store over 100 metric tons of carbon per acre per year. " http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_the_cutting_of_trees_or_deforestation_contribute_to_the_greenhouse_effect This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 14:20. |
| #37 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/20/2008 4:26:21 PM |
|
"We need to harvest this tree"
Is that what you call it? You sir, are now bordering on the moronic! The torching of the Brazilian rain forests is not "harvesting". The North American lumber industry at least tries to "harvests" trees through replanting efforts. The rain forests are not being "harvested" they are being obliterated! |
| #38 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 7/20/2008 5:10:40 PM |
|
Are there still any rainforests? Those were almost gone, when I was still in grade school... you know back when the rainforest erasure and acid rain (remember that one?) were gonna be the cause of our mass extinction.
Every decade, the wackos find another "reason" to redistribute wealth. "I probably have 90% of the scientific community on my side" And all 90% get their grants from the same folks. Think for yourself. I'm relatively young (34), but even I remember the following extinction-level claims: - acid rain - global cooling (Late 1970s) - nuclear power plants - global warming (currently) - smog in big cities - deforestation (is that the same as 'no more rainforests'? - ozone hole (havent heard this one as much in a couple of years. I wonder why) - genetically modified food - CFCs - DDT Each one was GONNA KILL US ALL. Yet there are more people today than ever before. Which reminds me... lets add another one to the list... - Overpopulation ...EDIT... Thought of a couple more... - Y2K - Giant asteroid hitting earth. Don't you remember? Right after a couple of asteroid movies were released, there were LEGITIMATE calls for a planetary asteroid defence. LMFAO. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 17:20. |
| #39 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/20/2008 5:50:44 PM |
|
We already addressed the CFCs which is why the Ozone has somewhat stabilized.
- Smog in Big Cities: As far as I know we've done very little as a nation about this, but who wants to breath clean air right? - DDT: We stopped using it which is why species like the Bald Eagle and the Lightning bug are making comebacks (and unfortunately the mosquito as well) - deforestation: Still going on steadily in South America. -Overpopulation: I'm not sure how many people this planet can sustain but who cares as long as the western world has its 3 and 4 car families. --Nuclear power Plants: I think this is a viable option provided it is done correctly and safely (How about re enriching spent fuel rods instead of burying them in the desert?) This post was edited by rxcall on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 17:51. |
| #40 By 92283 (24.64.223.204) at 7/20/2008 6:24:55 PM |
|
Smog? Do you know what the London killer fog was? As I showed earlier, the air is much cleaner in the Northern Hemisophere than it used to be causing a large increase in received sunshine. That may have masked the cooling trend until now. The Southern Hemisphere has cooled quicker because the air was less dirty to begin with.
What you call deforestation, they call land use changes for agricultural reasons. As for DDT ... its ban has killed 10's of millions in Africa. etc etc Still, your whining has nothing to do with the current state of global cooling and the myth that CO2 has caused warming. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 18:25. |
| #41 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 7/20/2008 7:01:18 PM |
|
about CFC's... this one is another example of Gore’s lunacy .... the idiot savaged our automotive manufacturers over CFC's and air conditioning units in the early 90's. Highly efficient R-12 was replaced by R-134a and costs went right through the backsides of consumers and the automotive industry - despite the fact that they were closed systems and actually released few CFC's... here's the kicker...
The amount of CFC's released in the developed world was tiny... the main source was and remains the millions of tons of CFC's and R-12 in particular used in the open atmosphere by developing nations as a cleanser for circuit boards. No telling Gore that. The self-important asshat thought that by breaking it off in our butts that he'd saved the world. Pure nonsense. Better manufacturing techniques transferred from the developed countries to less developed nations introduced closed cleansing systems, but the amount didn't go down at all - it went up, yet the ozone hole closed on its own. It re-opens, closes, moves, changes shape and opens/closes again and again... due to changes in the magnetic poles as near as anyone can tell. And all those plants and jobs? Gone. All the people? Out of work. Gore? He’s still slobbering all over himself. |
| #42 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/21/2008 9:40:51 AM |
| Based purely on past AW history, if parkkker has his usual mittfull of links of cherry-picked "facts" to support his position, he's almost always wrong. |
| #43 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at 7/21/2008 1:18:34 PM |
|
#42 That was a very bitter concession.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html |
| #44 By 8556 (12.206.195.4) at 7/21/2008 2:09:21 PM |
|
#38: The incredibly low temperatures that are the incubator for ozone depletion have abated somewhat. This has allowed the so called "ozone hole" to heal quite a bit as upper atmosphere 02 is, and always has been, broken down by solar UV radiation and then reacts to form ozone. O3 then blocks much of the UV radiation from striking the earth. Free radical reaction, with clorine radicals, in upper atmospheric low temperatures that occur mainly over the antarctic, break down 03 in a chain reaction that quckly turns millions of O3 molecules into O2 for each clorine radical present. The ozone layer is "self healing" as long as the very specific, very cold, environment that exists only over the poles is not present elsewhere.
Check some science articles for a more lucid explanation of atmosoheric ozone formation and why it will aways be present as long as there is O2 in the atmosphere. |
| #45 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 7/21/2008 2:26:06 PM |
|
When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Don't you think it's time we discussed this rationally? Like before we destroy our economies? There are great reasons to go green. Carbon isn't one of them in this context. |
| #46 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 7/21/2008 2:31:29 PM |
| When the world discovers just how badly Gore has misled people and how many hundreds of billions he has cost them, what then? Do we get to send him an invoice, or try him for gross negligence? I mean, as a world leader, I think he does have some larger responsibilty. |
| #47 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 7/21/2008 2:50:06 PM |
|
I learn something everyday.
Here I was still sitting in ashes over the ozone hole... and now I'm to understand that its been CORRECTED? What a relief. |
| #48 By 8556 (12.206.195.4) at 7/21/2008 3:06:50 PM |
| #47: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071003100537.htm |
| #49 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 7/22/2008 10:41:29 AM |
|
The words change, but the intent is the same...
REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH |
| #50 By 240980 (204.124.183.66) at 9/15/2009 7:57:37 PM |
|
You be acquainted with that saying, it takes a village to frame a child?
Evidently, Kanye's village has failed him. He <a href=https://wiki.nla.com.de/display/~buycialis/Buy+Cialis+Online+Canadian+Pharmacy>buy cialis online</a> obviously doesn't secure a real adherent in the world. There does not play to be anyone who can journey by through to him, to promulgate him catch on to that he needs to curb his obnoxious behavior. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 584 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
8:49:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
