(03-01) 07:44 PST , (AP) —

A look at Texas’ demographics and how its numbers compare with those of the United States:

_ Percentage of population change, 2000-2007: Texas, 14.6; U.S., 7.2

_ Median age: Texas 33.1; U.S. 36.4

_ Percentage of women: Texas, 50.2; U.S., 50.7

_ Percentage of whites: Texas, 48.3; U.S., 66.4

_ Percentage of blacks: Texas, 11.9; U.S., 12.8

_ Percentage of Hispanics or Latinos: Texas, 35.7; U.S., 14.8

_ Median household income: Texas, $44,922; U.S., $48,451

_ Percentage of foreign born: Texas, 15.9; U.S., 12.5

_ Percentage of population below poverty: Texas, 16.9; U.S., 13.3

_ Percentage of population with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (age 25+): Texas, 24.7; U.S., 27

_ Median home value: Texas, $114,000; U.S., $185,200

___

A look at the state’s trade statistics:

_ Texas’ export shipments in 2006 totaled $150.9 billion, the largest among the 50 states.

_ Texas’ exports rose $55.5 billion from 2002 to 2006, the largest dollar gain in the U.S. and a 58 percent increase over the 2002 level of $95.4 billion.

_ Texas exported to 220 foreign destinations in 2006. The state’s largest market was Mexico, which received $54.9 billion (36 percent) of Texas’ total merchandise export total. Mexico was followed by fellow NAFTA trading partner Canada ($15.6 billion) and China ($6.6 billion). Other top markets included South Korea, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Singapore, Brazil, the United Kingdom and Japan.

_ From 2002 to 2006, Texas’ export shipments to Mexico increased by $13.2 billion. Other countries where Texas recorded large gains in the value of exports over this period were Canada (up $5.7 billion), China (up $4.6 billion), South Korea (up $3.3 billion) and the Netherlands (up $2.7 billion.)

___

Net jobs lost because of changes in trade related to NAFTA, 1993-2004:

_ Texas: 72,257

_ U.S.: 1,015,290

___

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. International Trade Administration; Economic Policy Institute paper, “Revisiting NAFTA,” Sept. 28, 2006.

For most Web site publishers, the phrase “gone dark” has the worst of all connotations. It means a site is no longer running. There’s been a system malfunction, a power failure, a protest, or—worst of all—a permanent company shutdown. But for a new crop of eco-friendly Web site designers, “going dark” is taking on a new meaning. It’s the new way to go green.

The online buzz over “going dark” began in earnest last January after Mark Ontkush, a self-described “green computing evangelist,” wrote a blog post concerning environmentally friendly Web design. Ontkush claimed that if a popular site such as Google («www.businessweek.com») switched its home page background color from white to black, it could save hundreds of megawatt hours a year. He based his claim on the fact that certain types of monitors use less energy to display black than white screens. And according to the Environmental Protection Agency, cathode-ray-tube (CRT) monitors and even some flat-panel screens use less energy to display black or dark backgrounds.

Web site designers quickly created a host of black-background Google home pages in response. With names such as Blackle, Darkoogle, and BlackWebSearch.com, the sites initially appear to be Halloween-themed versions of Google’s annual April fools’ joke. Each, however, does return real Google search results. Google Defends Itself

Google got wind of its dark alter-egos and came to the defense of its choice of a white background. In an Aug. 9 blog post, Google’s green energy czar Bill Weihl wrote that the flat-panel computer screens most common in the U.S. don’t save energy displaying black backgrounds. Weihl referred to a test run by an Australian electronics graduate student comparing the power consumption of Blackle and Google on 27 different monitors. On average, CRT monitors saved 10.8 watts per hour using Blackle.

However, liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitors largely used the same or, in several cases, several watts more energy to display the black background. The results were published Aug. 8 on Australian tech news site Techlogg. “We applaud the spirit of the idea, but our own analysis as well as that of others shows that making the Google home page black will not reduce energy consumption,” wrote Weihl.

CRT and LCD monitors use different amounts of energy to produce a black screen due to their design, says Scott Gray, a product manager at Hewlett-Packard’s («www.businessweek.com») commercial display business unit. CRT monitors produce an image by firing a stream of electrons at phosphorescent material within the screen. The various frequencies with which the electrons hit the phosphorescent material produce the unique colors. Black is the default color of the phosphorescent material when no electrons are hitting it and the electron gun is essentially off. “The CRT is using less current with a black screen so there is less electricity used,” says Gray. “The peak current is with a bright, well-lit image.” Less Saved With LCDs

LCD screens, on the other hand, are lit via fluorescent tube lights located above or behind the LCD screen. The screen scatters the light, creating the picture. When an LCD screen is on, the lights are also on. “Black is not created by the absence of electricity or by turning off the light,” explains Gray. “In a lot of cases, a black screen looks purple because the colors are created by mixing the right pixel elements in the LCD together at the same time (see BusinessWeek.com, 11/22/06, ).

Google doesn’t see much advantage to the black screen, given the dominance of LCD monitors in high tech countries such as the U.S., Japan, and Korea. Ontkush and other eco-computing enthusiasts, however, still see “going dark” as having planet-saving power for the 25% of the world where older CRT monitors are the norm.

March 1, 2008 — US stocks tumbled, capping the market’s fourth-straight monthly drop, after a report showed business activity fell to the lowest level since 2001 and UBS said losses in credit markets may top $600 billion.

American International Group Inc., the world’s largest insurer, declined the most in two weeks after posting the widest quarterly deficit in its 89-year history.

The S&P 500 fell 37.05 points, or 2.7 percent, to 1,330.63, its biggest drop since Feb. 5. The Dow Jones industrial average slid 315.79, or 2.5 percent, to 12,266.39. The Nasdaq composite lost 60.09, or 2.5 percent, to 2,271.48.

The S&P 500 extended its February decline to 3.5 percent after the National Association of Purchasing Management-Chicago said its business barometer contracted as production and employment weakened, boosting concern that the worst earnings slump in six years will continue. The four-month losing streaks for the S&P 500 and Dow are the longest since 2002.

AIG tumbled $3.29, or 6.6 percent, to $46.86 after posting a fourth-quarter net loss of $5.29 billion, or $2.08 a share, following an $11.1 billion writedown on investments linked in part to subprime mortgages. AIG said it expects more writedowns this year.

“Fridays are tough days,” because investors don’t want to be long stocks in case more bad news is reported over the weekend, said David Goerz, chief investment officer of Highmark Capital Management, which oversees $22 billion in San Francisco. “The news with AIG just put everybody in a foul mood.”

Credit-market losses will climb to at least $600 billion from about $160 billion written down so far as investments funded with borrowed money are unwound, UBS credit strategist Geraud Charpin wrote in a note to clients.