Slashdot Mirror

Stopped in 1998 huh? Guess that depends on who you ask- this data has it continuing well through 2000 into 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te mperature_Record.png

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhsh gl.gif

Its kind of like my dog who hides his eyes and thinks you don't see him.

1) After looking at here the answer should be clear.
2) Look here.
3) Look here. The CO2 level is increasing dramatically. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2. Pretty much clear, eh?
Now, if you put all these facts together: global temperatures are increasing (1), it is increasing abnormally (2), we do emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (3), CO2 does cause a greenhouse effect, what else is needed to convince anybody that humans cause global warming?
Pretending that there are other causes, or that is not happening at all is just wishful thinking.

When you look here you will see that the temperature increased since 1910, but stagnated between the 1940s and 1980, but then rised again. This seems to fit the storm count data very well.

From the actual university researchers - http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/2.117/2.128/2.139/2.141/1 .1076 It rather seems to me that recent attempts to "breed in" what are considered to be favourable medical components might end up being tonic, tincture and snake oil tomorrow. Still, always nice to be in the newspapers!

Actually, when I look at the data, I can't see how the researchers came to any conclusion. The total temperature change they are talking about is 1 degree celcius. The graph only begins to move up that extra 1/2 degree in the last 80 or ninety years. In fact, the earlier data from tree rings and shells appears to indicate a downward trend until about 1910. The 14 places that the newer data is taken from is all near populated areas, which certainly have other influences such as heat sources in winter and heat from airconditioning in Winter, cars, asphalt, fewer trees etc. Does 1/2 degree even fall within the accuracy of the study? . Perhaps the headline should read "People seem to maybe have possibly made it a little warmer near populated areas over the last 90 years, or not maybe huh?" Here is a link to the graph, the data is close at hand. huh!

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhsh gl.gif

50 posts and nobody calls "FUD" on this?

Can someone please answer the following questions concisely and clearly?

** I'll try.

- If I look at a graph like http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005- 600x283.gif it is certainly convincing that there is warming going on. No question. But all of these graphs seem to start in the 1800s. I've seen other graphs showing longer spans in which the current temperatures, while high, are still well within the normal deviation. How is it that we KNOW that *this time* it's going to go higher? All the models I've read about that project this sort of thing are so full of assumptions and broad variables that they are pretty much useless.

** Exactly. We have never observed a man-made climate change before. So we can only guess many things. We can argue about the details, but we cannot argue that the billions of CO2 we blow into the atmosphere are going somewhere. And, no, we don't have a second planet in the trunk. If the predictions are wrong, we can be happy. Less SUVs, though...

If the predictions are right, we might all end up dead.

I am not going to stake the life of my children on the assumption that we can pollute like heck and nothing will happen.

A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause: * Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world
- Don't plants prefer warmer, higher-CO2 atmosphere? Wasn't it much warmer than +2C at intermittent periods in humanity's past, as well as in more ancient geologic epochs?

** What plants? Any plant or the ones we humans like to eat? Our crops are adapted to specific temperatures, humidity levels and CO2 levels. Lots of tough weeds will love that extra CO2, but our wheat and soy won't.

* Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia *
- What does this even mean? I presume they mean a tripling of the FREQUENCY of bad harvests? Last time I checked, Europe and Russia were not the major food producers of the world. Wouldn't increased temperatures open up large swaths of North America to cultivation more intensively than before? This shift of 'main agricultural region' northward also sort of neatly solves the issue about soil and water table exhaustion in the Central US too, doesn't it? Also, don't most of the tests of increased-CO2 environments show an increased growth, increased CO2 absorption using LESS moisture? That sounds pretty good to me?

Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification *

Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage *
- I don't see how global warming is going to affect this? As far as I can see, the 'global warming' crowd is also predicting increased frequency and increased intensity weather events (ie rain?) which will be recharging aquifers faster than usual. Personally, I think there are just way too many people living in way too crummy of areas.

** The problem is not just water, but drinkable water. You can't drink polluted water, and we will get more polluted water when ocean levels rise and the seas flood human cities with all their waste. Look at all the filthy water in flooded New Orleans. Glaciers normally store fresh, good water in winter and slowly release it in summer. Without glaciers, much fresh water will simply flow away and not be there when we need it.

97% loss of coral reefs *
- Please. This one is utterly incredible. Maybe 97% loss of CURRENT coral reefs? But as far as I know there have been coral reefs all the way back to the Cenozoic, in conditions of FAR higher global temperature. Basically, if one area gets warmer, other areas that were previously too cool for reef formation will then be warmed into the reef-friendly climate range. Coral reefs are neither static nor permanent.

** Nope. Corals grow slowly, and if the temperatures rise as projected, our current corals will be wiped out before new coral reefs with better adaptation can form. We mi

50 posts and nobody calls "FUD" on this?

Can someone please answer the following questions concisely and clearly?

- If I look at a graph like http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005- 600x283.gif it is certainly convincing that there is warming going on. No question. But all of these graphs seem to start in the 1800s. I've seen other graphs showing longer spans in which the current temperatures, while high, are still well within the normal deviation. How is it that we KNOW that *this time* it's going to go higher? All the models I've read about that project this sort of thing are so full of assumptions and broad variables that they are pretty much useless.

A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause: * Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world
- Don't plants prefer warmer, higher-CO2 atmosphere? Wasn't it much warmer than +2C at intermittent periods in humanity's past, as well as in more ancient geologic epochs?

* Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia *
- What does this even mean? I presume they mean a tripling of the FREQUENCY of bad harvests? Last time I checked, Europe and Russia were not the major food producers of the world. Wouldn't increased temperatures open up large swaths of North America to cultivation more intensively than before? This shift of 'main agricultural region' northward also sort of neatly solves the issue about soil and water table exhaustion in the Central US too, doesn't it? Also, don't most of the tests of increased-CO2 environments show an increased growth, increased CO2 absorption using LESS moisture? That sounds pretty good to me?

Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification *

Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage *
- I don't see how global warming is going to affect this? As far as I can see, the 'global warming' crowd is also predicting increased frequency and increased intensity weather events (ie rain?) which will be recharging aquifers faster than usual. Personally, I think there are just way too many people living in way too crummy of areas.

97% loss of coral reefs *
- Please. This one is utterly incredible. Maybe 97% loss of CURRENT coral reefs? But as far as I know there have been coral reefs all the way back to the Cenozoic, in conditions of FAR higher global temperature. Basically, if one area gets warmer, other areas that were previously too cool for reef formation will then be warmed into the reef-friendly climate range. Coral reefs are neither static nor permanent.

Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus *
Again, FUD: assuming the polar bear and the walrus are entirely unable to adapt to changing conditions. Yes their conditions will change, but with the warming of arctic waters mightn't an increased seal population lead to a BOOM in polar bear populations? I sincerely doubt that polar bears and walrus will vanish.

Spread of malaria in Africa and north America
- Great! Now maybe we can go back to using DDT which was the victim of FUD (Silent Spring) 30 years ago but which has since been proven NOT to cause the terrible results illustrated in that book.

"... when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." -Alston Chase

Personally, every time someone raises a doubt about global warming, the reporter attacks the questioner as a tool of big oil or somesuch. Anyone ever question the motivations of the people proclaiming global warming? Their credulity, their histrionics, and their repeated chicken littling (first it was overpopulation, then we're going to run out of oil about every 15 years, then it was going to be a global ice age, now it's global warming....) all cast HUGE doubts on their credibility with THIS particular disaster.

You asked to see how the data are averaged, and wanted to see it normalized to variance. Here is the site where those records live. Enjoy.
Climate Research Unit Page

Global temperature has risen from 1900 to 1940. Between 1940 and 1970 it did not rise or fall, from 1970 onwards it has risen. See this if you want to see it for yourself.

And in fact, the Sahara was inhabited following the last ice age (see this), and the final drying started around 5000 BP. Some believe the root cause was variations in the earth's tilt (this) -- which doesn't mean that a change in circulation cells wasn't the direct cause of the drying.

For a look into what language would be like without a set of laws, please see Ahua, the Water Language.

This is my last rejected submission on climate change - posted anonymously to avoid karma-whornig accusations.

New evidence of climate change unprecedented in human history seems to arrive almost every day. Two new studies have added more data to the mountain of evidence supporting the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. A UN Environmental Program report shows that the world faces a 'staggering threat', with the Arctic already being severely affected, with thawing of much of the sea ice and the Greenland icecap predicted.

The extinction of polar bears and seals seems likely. Worse, the decrease is salinity will affect the thermohaline pump that drives the North Atlantic drift, potentially stopping the Gulf Stream and reducing Europe to an icy wilderness. But it's not all bad news - the reduced ice cover will open new areas for gas and oil extraction!

Meanwhile, at the other end of the planet, Nature reports that the respected British Antarctic Survey has shown that loss of sea ice has causedAntarctic Krill populations to crash; this is the probable cause of crashing populations of various species, including the Gentoo penguin. (BAS press release here.) Sceptical readers may be interested to note that the US government now accepts that human CO2 emissions are causing climate change.

The argument is convincing, and I haven't heard a good counterargument.

Curve of temperatures over the last two millenia

CO2 levels over the last 500k years as measured from the arctic ice record (notice the huge spike at the end of the graph)

What you fail to see is that the "other side of the argument" is supported by kooks and / or people paid by the industry. Note that I am certainly not blaming you for this: to a layman (and we are all laymen in most domains, regardless of our expertise in any particular domain), this is not obvious. The kooks exploit this fact and present themselves as respectable scientists which 99% of the time they are not.

The consensus on global warming in the scientific community (read: people who do actual science and publish papers through peer-reviewing processes) is among the strongest you'll find in any scientific field.

I think the best possible parallel is with creationism. To many people in the US, it is not at all unreasonable to think that the earth is less than 10000 years old. After all, the crackpots who support these kinds of "theories" seem respectable and their arguments sound plausible. The general public cannot be expected to know that these "arguments", when they exist (most of the creationist babble runs along the lines of "I can't understand how something as complex as life could evolve, therefore it didn't"), are based on lies and falsehoods.

Thomas-

Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.

Thank you for reminding us about the cycle of photosynthesis, which among other effects gobs up CO2 and water, and produces sugar (for the plant to eat) and dioxygen as a byproduct.

Now what do you think they do with all this sugar ?

Now please hit Google and learn about the other part of the energy cycle present in most plants and indeed in most modern living organisms, which is called "respiration" (you may have heard about it): an oxidation process using dioxygen to degrade aforementioned sugars into ATP (nearly universal form of energy storage in living cells) and BLOODY CARBON DIOXIDE !

This page summarises the main points in an intuitive way.

At any rate, the production of oxygen by trees is simply tiny. The massive release of oxygen in the atmosphere, arguably one of the most important events in the history of life, was caused by the first photosynthetisers, like cyanobacteria - bacteria that do use photosynthesis to produce sugar (and oxygen), but degrade this sugar through older, less efficient mechanisms such as fermentation. Of course they did not use respiration, because before they appeared there was no oxygen to breathe (duh !)

Besides causing havoc in the primitive fauna, the so-called "oxygen holocaust" led to the appearance of the much more efficient respiration mechanism. Which in turn allowed for the emergence of much more complex forms of life (Eukaryotes) in a Bacterial world.

Most experts agree that the average global temperature was higher in the middle-ages than it is now...

Yeah right.

Someone save us from the product of the US education system !

Thomas-

The temperature mentioned in your source is from satellite-measurements. These are complex measurements that need corrections to find the meaning of the data. In general these measurements do not compare well to surface-temperature measurements.

You can compare with the surface measurements here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

You can see there is no evidence for global warming until about 1975. After that, the increase in temperature has been quite significant.

There are lots of interesting things that could be done to produce more ecologically friendly buildings.

The first is simply to make more efficient use of natural light! I stayed for a week in a new residence building at The University of East Anglia (Norwich, UK) and the building really intrigued me. It had hollow lighting columns running up to the top of the building, despite being a rather tall apartment. So there was natural light from the top reaching all floors. That definitely saves lighting costs.

So with approaches like that (using natural light as much as you can) coupled with clear solar panels, you could both use natural lighting and collect power for electrical lighting later on. Improve actual lighting with high-efficiency (85% +) white LEDs (last forever) or high efficiency fluorescents, and you've got one amazing power-efficient building.

The problem is that these supplies -- solar panels, white LEDs have large initial costs. As these costs come down we'll see lots of nice new interiors. I can only expect such things to become more common as people actually realized they're screwed for cheap power.

This is a nice page describing the THC and its import.


This is it

Anglia Polytechnic University (APU) is the Polytechnic not University of East Anglia (UEA)

It's called Rapid World Modelling and is a current PhD running at my old university.

Bob

I live in Norfolk which has some cool wind turbines going. Like this bad boy in Swaffham. They're going to build another even bigger one there soon. They are building the UK's biggest wind farm on the sand bank just off the coast here. They are even talking about converting some of the old wind mills/pumps that used to drain the marshes here to generate electricity which I think would be really good if it means more of them are preserved and serving a useful purpose.

I live in Norfolk which has some cool wind turbines going. Like this bad boy in Swaffham. They're going to build another even bigger one there soon. They are building the UK's biggest wind farm on the sand bank just off the coast here. They are even talking about converting some of the old wind mills/pumps that used to drain the marshes here to generate electricity which I think would be really good if it means more of them are preserved and serving a useful purpose.

The crew of a Mars mission will be 50-somethings who will die of natural causes before they have a chance to develop cancer from radiation exposure during a Mars trip. Send somebody in their late 20s or early 30s like Apollo/Shuttle and they are going to have some obvious and serious health problems from the trip before they live out their lives. Most people don'r realize how serious radiation in space is. The biggest problems are cosmic rays and solar flares. During the Apollo program there was an August 1972 flare which could have subjected an astronaut to 20,000 REM in 14 hours - 20 to 40 times the lethal dose. Luckily Apollo 16 was back and Apollo 17 was still on the pad. On a Mars mission there won't be any such luck. It lasts YEARS instead of a week and radiation exposure is UNAVOIDABLE. Once you get outside the Earth's protective magnetosphere, you are literally on your own in the unknown...

So if it turns out to be a problem, we'll just have to build some machines that take HUGE AMOUNTS of CO2 out of the air. All sorts of interesting experiments are underway as to how one might do this. Such as by seeding the oceans with iron filings.

We don't yet have a _good_ solution to the problem, so we should spend some more time thinking about it until we do. Making grand, ludicrously expensive symbolic gestures that have no significant impact on actually fixing the problem (Kyoto), is not a good idea.

Here is the first sentence of his translation of the Gettysburg address:
Garronum & sep an pas wi perz yzes fovi o c terle u nov dem, ygeni i libs, & diwe a l wee k al on e fony eg.

If it is legal to be a racist neo-nazi in the US, I don't see why we should tolerate this in Europe.

Here's a response to this article that my brother wrote on some BBS many moons ago:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/menu/student_media/MAG-NET/Ch ristmas/santa2.html

Thank you, quantum physics.

... all these "environmentalists" were, even then, claiming that all the pollutantants that we're spewing into the atmosphere was going to drastically affect the global climate. Tricky bit was, the doomsayers were NOT talking about global warming... they were saying that industrial soceity was bringing about global COOLING!!! ...

Well, come on guys... which is it?

You can't have it both ways.

If environmentalists were predicting a climate change 50 years ago that's actually pretty insightful. That the direction of the change was wrong is hardly surprising, given the massive complexity to predicting weather. We can't even reliably predict the weather for the next day! What would have been clear 50 years ago was that we were pumping massive amounts of waste into the atmosphere (and rivers etc.), so much that we were changing its composition. It's good to know that some people back then had the foresight to realise that this may have effects on the climate.

As for all the comments that doubt that global warming is going on, you only have to do a simple web search to find some statistics on how the mean temperature has risen over the past 100 years.

Here's a few links I just found:
This graph of the mean world temperature over the last 150 years
From this report
Global Temperatures
A paper from the Proceedings of National Academy of Science

And there is heaps and heaps more evidence if you care to look.

The fact that the world leaders had a conference in Kyoto to discuss global warming means that the evidence is clear enough to worry them. It should probably worry everyone else too.

This paper is about research like that.

Vibration is indeed useful, I never meant to dispute that. However, I still think a pin grid array would be more useful (provided it had high-enough resolution).

---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.

Thank you, Bruce! I thought I was losing my memory.

I was immediately annoyed by the terms of the initiative: 'a donation in your name or a grant for future work for Helios, at your choice' -- if they make a donation in your name, it implies you're being rewarded for work already done (and should be allowed to pick your own charity, dammit) but if you need the cash for yourself, 'you owe them' some future work. Contradictory!

At first, I wrote it off as a lame PR stunt ("We were going to make a modest donation to an open source charity for publicity purposes, but if we can rope in a developer commitment instead, that's good too"), and I couldn't find any indication of the Foundation they mentioned on the Helios web site, but figured it was in the 'members only' developer section. Annoyingly: "For all the info you need to develop applications for the VTech-OS, click here." leads to nothing but a registration form and click-on license with terms that guarantee your work will not be GPL! (the complete license is listed at the end of this post)

Further research located a Linux/Open Source Foundation sponsoring 'groundbreaking' student competitions in Europe with 1Venture, 4linuxjobs (.co.uk, .nu, .se, etc.), but though the contest links all seemed to be 'down' or inaccessible from the US). I did find this little snippet in the archives of the Anglian Linux User Group:

"The Linux/Open Source Foundation (LOSF) is a trust with the sole purpose of supporting the development of Linux/Open Source by arranging contests and sponsoring events."

This Linux/Open Source Foundation also"placed 50,000 ord shares [in 1venture.co.uk] with institutional & other clients of JM Finn & Co @ 50p" -- whatever that implies.

So basically the Helios contest will "donate" cash to a company that sponsors contests. Is that enough to call it a scam? Not really. However, i remembered the Helio's click-on license (which you needed to accept for any developer info) and its disturbing conditions, and I wondered if their 'contests' might not be a scam to lock up innovative but undeveloped ideas from hungry students and budding developers.

"The submissions must be used through a browser or something similar - again freely available via the Internet."

What? No e-mail submissions? How very odd. But then they'd have to supply an e-mail address, and there might be an audit trail. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but if you review the materials linked, you'll find that I left out a lot of stuff that raised questions in my mind.

I'll close with the license text I promised:

----------------------------------------------
THE HELIOS CLICK-ON LICENSE FOR DEVELOPER INFO
----------------------------------------------


Public User License Agreement

PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY.
The Helio Software Development Kit contains the copyrighted and proprietary property of VTech Informations Ltd. This License Agreement is a legal contract between you and VTech Informations Ltd. that grants you certain limited rights to modify, reproduce, and use the information and software contained within the Helio Software Development Kit, in exchange for your expressly agreeing to the terms, conditions, restrictions, and waivers of warranty detailed below.

Unless you have a written license agreement signed by VTech Informations Ltd. that expressly supersedes this Agreement, your downloading of the Helio Software Development Kit indicates your acceptance of the terms of this License Agreement.

1. The Licensed Development Kit
This License Agreement applies to all technical information and software that is included in or distributed with the Helio Software Development Kit ("the Licensed Development Kit.") The Licensed Development Kit may include source code and/or object code forms of the VT-OS operating system, the Application Programmer Interface, drivers, sample applications, and additional code and information.

2. Copyright Statement
The Development Kit and any included software and information is owned by VTech Informations Ltd. or its suppliers and is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions.

3. Your Rights Under This Agreement
By agreeing to this License Agreement, you are granted the right to use the Licensed Development Kit solely to create software application programs for VTech's Helio line of products, or other VTech products that use the VT-OS, and to distribute, market, license and sell such application programs. You may modify or adapt the software and may incorporate the software, or part thereof, into your own programs, thereby creating a Derivative Work. YOUR USE OF THE LICENSED DEVELOPMENT KIT AND THE CREATION AND USE OF DERIVATIVE WORKS IS STRICTLY SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED BELOW IN SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 7.

4. Your Obligations Under This Agreement
All copies of the Licensed Development Kit software and other materials from the Licensed Development Kit must include the VTech copyright notice and any Derivative Work you create, including software that modifies, adapts, incorporates, or excerpts the Licensed Development Kit, in whole or in part, must include a conspicuous statement near the beginning indicating that your software is adapted/modified/copied from the VT-OS operating system. For example, a statement satisfying your obligation under this section for a version of the VTech Operating System which you have modified would read, "This operating system software has been adapted and modified from VT-OS version _____."

Any Derivative Work you create that interacts with a user must display to the user the conspicuous statement described in this section above. For example, the above-described statement should appear briefly upon startup of the Derivative Work, or it should be displayed upon selection of a pull down menu item or button labeled "About This Software..."

5. Restrictions To Your Rights Under This Agreement
YOU AGREE NOT TO DISCLOSE, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, SUBLICENSE, SELL OR USE THE LICENSED DEVELOPMENT KIT OR ANY DERIVATIVE WORK, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF CODE THAT YOU MAY HAVE ADDED OR MODIFIED, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED HEREIN. If you would like to distribute, disclose, publish, sublicense, sell or use any portion of the Development Kit for any purpose not expressly permitted herein, you must obtain from VTech a written Private License Agreement that expressly supersedes this agreement and grants you additional rights, signed by an authorized representative of VTech Informations Ltd.

In order to request a Private License Agreement that grants you rights differing from those contained herein, you may either (1) send email to productinfo@vtech.com, or (2) you can write to:

VTech Informations Lt., 560 Division Street, Campbell, CA 95008

In your request, please include your contact information, and a description of the type of license in which you are interested.

You understand that the sale or distribution of the Licensed Development Kit or any Derivative Work, for charge or otherwise, in violation of this Agreement constitutes a violation of United States Federal Law.

6. Disclaimer of Warranty and Liability
THE DEVELOPMENT KIT AND ANY INCLUDED SOFTWARE AND INFORMATION ARE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF PERFORMANCE OR MERCHANTABILITY. DUE IN PART TO THE VARIOUS HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENTS IN WHICH THE LICENSED DEVELOPMENT KIT MAY BE USED, NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE IS PROVIDED, EVEN IF YOU HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF SUCH PURPOSE.

THE DEVELOPMENT KIT, INCLUDING SOFTWARE AND INFORMATION, IS ALSO PROVIDED TO YOU WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY AGAINST INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OWNED BY ENTITIES OTHER THAN VTECH INFORMATIONS LTD.

NEITHER VTECH INFORMATIONS LTD. NOR ANY AFFILIATED ENTITY WILL BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES OF ANY KIND ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THE USE OF THE LICENSED DEVELOPMENT KIT. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE LICENSED DEVELOPMENT KIT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE, AND YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE LICENSED DEVELOPMENT KIT WILL BE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.

IN NO EVENT SHALL VTECH OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, WARRANTY OR OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE GROUNDS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THIS VTECH PRODUCT, EVEN IF VTECH HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. BECAUSE SOME JUISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

7. U.S. Government Restricted Rights
If you are acquiring the Development Kit on behalf of any unit or agency of the United States Government, the following provision applies - It is acknowledged that the software therein and the documentation were developed of private expense and that no part is in the public domain and that the software and documentation are provided with RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of The Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 or subparagraph (c)(1) and (2) of the Commercial Computer Software--Restricted Rights at 48 CFR 52.227-19, as applicable. Contractor/manufacturer is VTech Informations Ltd., 560 Division Street Campbell, CA 95008

This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California.

Copyright VTech Informations Ltd. 1999