Texas Instruments Makes It Harder to Run Programs on its Calculators (engadget.com) 126
An anonymous reader quotes Engadget:
Texas Instruments' graphing calculators have a reputation as hobbyist devices given their program support, but they just lost some of their appeal. Cemetech has learned (via Linus Tech Tips) that Texas Instruments is pulling support for assembly- and C-based programs on the TI-84 Plus CE and its French counterpart, the TI-83 Premium CE. Install the latest firmware for both (OS 5.6 and OS 5.5 respectively) and you'll not only lose access to those apps, but won't have a way to roll back.
The company explained the move as an effort to "prioritize learning and minimize any security risks." It's to reduce cheating, to put it another way... While this could please teachers worried that students will use apps to cheat during exams, enthusiasts are unsurprisingly mad. This reduces the amount of control programmers have over their calculator apps.
The company explained the move as an effort to "prioritize learning and minimize any security risks." It's to reduce cheating, to put it another way... While this could please teachers worried that students will use apps to cheat during exams, enthusiasts are unsurprisingly mad. This reduces the amount of control programmers have over their calculator apps.
So, I see the idea, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
A TI calculator is and always has been an absolutely shitty platform to program on. Nowadays it's even more ridiculous, with much more raw computing power being available for much less money.
Furthermore, calculators as standalone devices are fundamentally obsolete, and the only reason TI hasn't eliminated them entirely is that crazy people persist in allowing their use in classes and on tests, while forbidding better devices.
Teachers, ust fucking forbid calculators outright. Spend an extra 5 minutes designi
Re:So, I see the idea, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
An even better idea would be to design the classwork and tests and etc so that even if you have a calculator loaded up with all kinds of math programs you still have to actually put some work in to come up with an answer that will get the marks.
That would better prepare students for the real world where math isn't necessarily as simple as plugging a few figures into a calculator (or a computer program)
Re: So, I see the idea, but... (Score:2)
The biggest argument Iâ(TM)ve ever seen that makes sense is the storing of equations. When youâ(TM)re taking Thermodynamics, fluid theory, or physics; knowing the equation is damn near 50% of your grade for that problem. Knowing which equation to use to solve your problem proves without a doubt you fully understand the material. Making a stupid math air count less against you. Itâ(TM)s not the answer theyâ(TM)re looking for but comprehension.
Re:So, I see the idea, but... (Score:4, Informative)
No, Texas instruments calculators have never used RPN. You're thinking of HP. I still use my HP-48 every day. It's only 25 years old now. Also have the wonderful Droid48 all on my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-Fiorina HP calculators were the best. I still use my HP 41CV (almost 36 years old) and my HP48 almost daily and I would probably carry a HP15 series with me if it were not for Droid48.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Universe Requires Hard Arithmetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Spend an extra 5 minutes designing your problems so they don't require ridiculous arithmetic
That's not so easy when doing physics: I cannot redesign the universe to make all the physical constants round numbers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Universe Requires Hard Arithmetic (Score:5, Funny)
To make a test more user friendly without a calculator, simply place a header on the test that redefines all universal constants to values that are computationally friendly.
So, we're back to spherical cows...
As a programmer of good conscience, I must object to this. Has no one informed you how dangerous the C preprocessor can be [github.com]? We're now applying this madness to the universe?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't include the whole thing, just #define struct union and was amazed that my program compiled. Of course all the test runs crashed, so if you really want to be dangerous you're going to have to be more subtle.
Re: (Score:2)
So, we're back to spherical cows...
It's actually far worse than that: it's spherical cows with a radius of 1 unit on a planet of mass 1 unit and where the gravitational constant is 1 unit.
Re: (Score:2)
This would not be unprecedented. Planck units [wikipedia.org], used by physicists, set the speed of light and other physical constants to equal 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? The test is about validating comprehension, not how well you can feed a calculator.
For the very simple reason that one of the most important skills in physics is developing a good intuition for whether your result is roughly correct or not so that you can catch mistakes. If you redefine the units for each individual question you will never develop such a skill and those who already have it will not be able to use it leading for far, far more mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was OK to leave your answer as an irrational result with constants there. Side effect was you wouldn't have constant rounding errors throughout your calculations - meaning a more accurate result.
So clearly the answer is no, you did not do any physics labs since you clearly did not take account of uncertainties. Tiny FP rounding errors will have zero impact on the accuracy of a result when statistical and systematic errors from the experiment are many, many orders of magnitude higher. Indeed, one reason that it is important to evaluate the results numerically is so you can include the uncertainty on the value of the physical constant. This too will be many orders of magnitude larger than any FP rou
Re: (Score:2)
Spend an extra 5 minutes designing your problems so they don't require ridiculous arithmetic
That's not so easy when doing physics: I cannot redesign the universe to make all the physical constants round numbers.
I disagree. Most of my physics tests were either of the short calculations variety (where the arbitrary numbers can be chosen in a way to reduce the need for a calculator) or of the the symbolic variety, where showing the work leading to the final symbolic answer required no calculator at all. I've also had a class where all answers were given with a single significant digit, because that was sufficient to show understanding of the problem and figuring out the additional significant digits was just rote c
Re: (Score:2)
Most of my physics tests were either of the short calculations variety (where the arbitrary numbers can be chosen in a way to reduce the need for a calculator)
You can certainly get away with that in some cases but not by any means all, particularly in labs where you need to use the real values that you measured.
Re: So, I see the idea, but... (Score:3)
Actually a limited device to prevent cheating is not unheard of. In nuclear power school we were limited to a TI-35 because you could not store equations in it. Public schools suggest a Ti-84+ but they make available something for kids that do not have $130 to throw down on a calculator. There is also desmos app and school chrome accounts load an approved graphing calculator.
Re: So, I see the idea, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
My wife is a chemistry teacher, and her perspective is to strike a balance between using a calculator and doing mental math. Her view is that mental math isn't nearly emphasized enough, so when she can she encourages it. There are some problems (like calculating molar mass) that need calculators, but doing quick mental math even for those calculations lets you do a "reality check" that what you've calculated is reasonable. It's shocking how often her students get unreasonable answers, and run with them. e.g. A salt shaker has 0.5 moles of NaCl in it, how many grams of salt are in the shaker? Kids will answer 2922 grams because they forgot a decimal point, but even simple mental math should have raised a red flag (let alone considering whether 3 kg of salt is reasonable for a salt shaker - also a valuable skill).
On her tests/homework/labs the penalty for accidentally mis-typing or mid-reading the calculator is small if the students show their work.
Re: (Score:2)
One lab teacher I had insisted on results being graphed (on graph paper) as the measurement were being taken, so that bad readings stuck out straightaway.
Re: So, I see the idea, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that's another issue, part of all US high school science curriculum (maybe middle school now?) is about getting the kids used to SI units. Every science class I ever took as a high schooler in the US was SI-based. Even math class practical examples use SI (in my experience from the 90's). This is especially relevant in labs - the kids measure out chemicals on balances in g and kg, measure lengths in cm or m, volumes in mL and L, etc. This lets them get a hands-on feel for what, i.e. a kg f
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, they did that 20 years ago also, but that still doesn't mean I know how much a liter of liquid is. By the time you even get to any kind of math you are at least 10. I don't know about you, but I knew by 10 about how much a gallon was because I had been seeing gallon milk my whole life.
It wasn't until I started drinking and smoking herb that I could tell you about what a gram was or how much 750ml was. I have a liter water bottle that I use as well so I could tell you about what a liter of liquid is.
I'
Re: (Score:2)
We do have some consumer packaging in metric units in the US. Smaller packages of soda are usually in English units, but big bottles are a liter or two liters. (Huge 3 liter bottles are occasionally seen.) Wine and spirits are also sold in metric units, with one liter bottles being one of the available sizes.
Grams don't get the same love. it's rare to see anything other than imported packages of food that comes in round number of grams or kilograms. Even in the rare cases where something is offered, like Tr
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile here in the UK, we have the most marvellous fun with our almost totally random mixture of Imperial and Metric
It's a random mixture here in the US as well, but of course a different random mixture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So, I see the idea, but... (Score:2)
Are you actually arguing against learning how to do basic arithmetic in your head? You can call it whatever you objectively want, its a useful skill. What does mental math have to do with mathematicians? Most of those students won't become mathematicians, but all will benefit from being able to do arithmetic in their heads. As a non-mathematician, I do mental math every day to avoid the need to pull out a calculator. I use it while grocery shopping (figuring out unit price, comparing prices), making meal
I'm too old (Score:2)
Re:I'm too old (Score:5, Funny)
I still use a slide rule you insensitive clod! :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We've known that for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Baaaaad idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Those calculators are hideously overpriced as it is.
They still had a market with enthusiasts, old-school handheld fans and engineers though.
They just lost that. Big time.
Stupid move. *NEVER* piss off the opinion leaders in your customer base.
Re:Baaaaad idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some great calculator apps for phones now, although I think it would be nice if one of them had a proper re-think about how the UI should work rather than mostly copying older calculators.
What I miss on the phone is a proper keypard. Just can't seem to work as quickly with a touch screen. For that reason I still keep an old calculator around.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone who knows how to type (or in your case, 10 key) can do it as quickly on a virtual touch screen keyboard as they can on a real keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
You need the physical sensation of the keys, the edges and gaps between them, to locate your fingers and type fast. Touch keyboards will never be as easy to use as decent physical ones.
There are open source calculators now. I might get one. Alternatively a Bluetooth keyboard would do the trick but there would need to be an effort to get apps to support it. I bet most don't even support the basic 10 key devices, let alone special buttons. In fact there isn't even a standard way to do them with USB and by ext
Re: (Score:2)
Those calculators are hideously overpriced as it is.
You can say that again, over USD 100 on Amazon [amazon.com]. I thought it was just a ploy to charge $40 for the programmers version of a $20 calculator, but who the fsck would pay > $100 for a simple calculator that's in the $15 price range on Aliexpress [aliexpress.com], and that's including free shipping from China?
Re: (Score:2)
Those calculators are hideously overpriced as it is.
You can say that again, over USD 100 on Amazon [amazon.com]. I thought it was just a ploy to charge $40 for the programmers version of a $20 calculator, but who the fsck would pay > $100 for a simple calculator that's in the $15 price range on Aliexpress [aliexpress.com], and that's including free shipping from China?
I grew up with Casio. FX-57, FX-6000G, things like that. I still have the one I used in college 30 years ago, still going strong. When I try to use a TI, everything is in the wrong place. I probably saved more than I spent on calculators in my lifetime by not buying a TI.
Re:Baaaaad idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if you just look at them from the point of view of processing power, display technology, and other common technology metrics, then sure, it's overpriced. But, as someone who paid $200 for one twenty years ago (TI-86), it's one of the view devices that I have from that era, maybe the only one, that still functions perfectly.
There's something to be said about a specialized tool that does exactly what you need and nothing more. It's easy to pick it up off the shelf after some time of not using it, and know that the batteries won't have gone dead. The screen on time for a few commodity batteries is way more than any smartphone I've ever owned. The keys have never failed. I've dropped it more than a few times. It boots up instantly.
It's very sad that they are taking away some programming functionality. I imagine the higher end units won't lose this functionality. I can see why they did it. Too many students cheating on exams. Personally, I'm all for exams not allowing fancy calculators unless the exam is something that would have been open book anyway. For things like calculus and algebra it's easy enough to make undergrad level tests that don't require a calculator at all, or could be done on a TI-30, such that you don't have to worry about checking if they are cheating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I remember, it was a vulnerability in the TI-82 and TI-85 ROMs from the '90s that unintentionally made it possible to run custom assembly programs in the first place. TI decided to make it an official feature of later generations of calculators, at least until now.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid move. *NEVER* piss off the opinion leaders in your customer base.
Enthusiasts are "opinion leaders", like the Linux desktop crowd are "opinion leaders" to the general purpose PC market. They are such an incredible minority that they are easily ignored when chasing profits on the larger market.
There's a reason they get away with selling their overpriced toys, and it's nothing to do with enthusiasts, old-school handheld fans or engineers, the three of which make up a customer base no one would ever want: Someone who values a tool and looks after ti.
Selling a calculator to a
Probably not such a bad idea.. (Score:2)
So 20 years ago, those calculators were solid for the price range. You wouldn't get that much open ended computing power with that much open endedness (sure, the gaming handhelds of the time were more powerful, but not accessible). At the time there was a general market of tinkering that had not much better to tinker with in the form factor than a calculator.
Time has moved on and for under $100 you can get 8 cores at 1.4 ghz, 16 GB of NAND, 1440x720 5.5" screen, 2GB of RAM with high speed wifi and network.
O
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
you must have a very strange school system. In Europe you are supposed to *write* the calculations you make on paper, and the calculator is to cross check. Before grade 6 or 7 you are not allowed to use any. And when you are allowed to use one, it does not matter which brand ...
I guess you always will be a country of cronies ...
Programming it a another way to solve it (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember my differential equations class. My university promoted the Ti Voyage 200 (basically a QWERTY Ti89 that we can use in Canada because we aren't stupid) and authorized us to program function in it. It also have a policy that if the answer is right, you get all the points even if you didn't write anything else (but if it's wrong, you get 0)
Most exercise were array or repetitive mathematical task so I was able to program advanced scripts to solve the equation in seconds. So at the final exams, I plugged in the correct number in my function, wrote down the correct answer and left after within 15min with my friend jaw on the floor persuaded I gave up. I got perfect score.
Now you can argue that I dont respect the art of solving equations, but in my opinion I put my mind to solve the problem efficiently. Didn't keep me from programming a deeply complex 6D array correlation analysis in Python for my Master degree in robotics.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you can argue that I dont respect the art of solving equations
Providing you didn't copy the program from someone else then that's no argument. The only argument that can be made here is that you put no effort into demonstrating your understanding of the topic in the test, and worse, the marking system accepted it.
University mathematics is not about the answer. Having a correct answer doesn't necessarily demonstrate understanding of mathematics.
Talking with the TA and Prof? (Score:2)
The only argument that can be made here is that you put no effort into demonstrating your understanding of the topic in the test
Well, the software he wrote himself to process the equation solving *IS in itself the demonstration* of understanding the topic.
If he didn't understand the topic, he wouldn't be able to write a software to do it.
and worse, the marking system accepted it.
Maybe the parent poster did actually talk with his professor and all the teaching assistants about this equation solving software he was building ?
We don't know but maybe they were all discussing with him as he was building his tools, and at the end the accept his ultra-laconnic answers as-is becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Now you can argue that I dont respect the art of solving equations
Providing you didn't copy the program from someone else then that's no argument. The only argument that can be made here is that you put no effort into demonstrating your understanding of the topic in the test, and worse, the marking system accepted it.
University mathematics is not about the answer. Having a correct answer doesn't necessarily demonstrate understanding of mathematics.
I'm very intrigued on how you can have the correct answer in differential equations without understanding the mathematics. This not philosophy classes.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need calculus to approximate and add up each slice of data, though I guess the tests being timed limit that. But there are people good enough with an abacus to get the right answer using simple arithmetic in many cases.
Hint: Calculus is not used in computer science. Ask yourself why.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very intrigued on how you can have the correct answer in differential equations without understanding the mathematics. ...
By cheating
And I certainly can write you any program needed to do the math without grasping it, by simply following a step by step tutorial what has to b done to solve it. If you can not do that you should not develop software.
Alternative Reality Canada (Score:2)
My university promoted the Ti Voyage 200 (basically a QWERTY Ti89 that we can use in Canada because we aren't stupid)....Didn't keep me from programming a deeply complex 6D array correlation analysis in Python for my Master degree in robotics.
Really? All the Canadian universities I know promote these devices called "laptops" which are often used specifically for teaching students python programming and none of them have policies that if you get the right answer you get all the points regardless of whether you show any working because cheating sites like Chegg are a real problem.
It seems that you come from some alternative-reality Canada. I'd suggest grabbing some of our laptop devices and heading back there: you'll make a mint selling them.
Students rely on calculators too much as is (Score:3, Interesting)
Students should learn how to "do the math" and then use the calculator to solve the difficult computations and provide the relevant graphing. However, they want to use the calculator to do everything and not write anything on their papers. This often leaves them with an answer but no displayed work to see where they went wrong. One miscalculation and their answer is 100% wrong because they have shown no work.
I would prefer to use the TI-30 in the classroom except for when graphing is necessary. Has most of the necessary functionality but without the ability to easily view your last few steps requires you to write more down on paper.
I think it is a bad idea to remove the programming from the calculators. If we are worried about cheating, we just limit the use of the calculators. 99 percent of problems can be designed and solved without them when the student can show conceptual understanding.
I don't know if it is teachers who are pushing for this change or it is test providers or testing centers. When I was working to be certified to teach math, it would have been incredibly easy to store programs in memory. They did a basic wipe of the calculator but nothing extensive.
This is strictly a business decision by TI. The question is who is their ideal customer. If their ideal customer is more worried about cheating than programming, the decision makes sense even if it upsets a subset of customers...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Students rely on calculators too much as is (Score:4, Insightful)
Maths really is a sequence like this - you learn what a part of maths is about, work it manually for a while until your understand it, upload the busywork of that part to a machine, then use the knowledge gained to introduce a new part of maths. You work it, understand it, and upload it to another machine. Rinse and repeat. The first step is when you understand arithmetic and then start using a 4-banger; in the end the machine you are using is a supercomputer doing some kind of calculus in 15 dimensions.
Re: (Score:2)
Students should learn how to "do the math"
Yes but only once. Once they've demonstrated they can multiply they should be allowed to use the multiply button. Once they've demonstrated they can do basic algebra they should be allowed to type complex equations into their calculator. etc. etc.
There's no point bogging down students repeating pointless tasks.
Or is there... I remember one classic tutorial in our advanced engineering mathematics class. I can't remember exactly what we were doing but during the process there were variables in matrices and pa
Re: (Score:2)
Students should learn how to "do the math"
Yes but only once. Once they've demonstrated they can multiply they should be allowed to use the multiply button. Once they've demonstrated they can do basic algebra they should be allowed to type complex equations into their calculator. etc. etc.
There's no point bogging down students repeating pointless tasks.
There is also the issue of understanding error growth. Each time you turn an iirrational number into a "number on your calculator" you lose precision. Do that enough, and your answer drifts. Teaching young minds to keep things symbolic until the end - THEN plug in values - avoids growth in the error in any calculation. Don't use "3.14159" for PI - leave it as PI until the end.
Re: (Score:3)
We used to graph by hand. The TI-86 and other programming and graphical calculators didn't happen until university. High school can definitely be done on a TI-30, as can most of an engineering degree. I know because I did this. We had to get a TI-86 for first year calculus but most students found that it was mostly useless, and only used for a very small part of the class which could have been just as easily done without a calculator, or left join. I am glad that I bought the TI-86 at the end of things thou
This will backfire for TI big time (Score:2)
Many in the calculator community are extremely pissed at TI. They've just removed a significant feature of a sold product through a software upgrade unilaterally, unannounced, without consulting with their community beforehand to try and work out alternative solutions. Last time Sony tried to do something similar (OtherOS on PlayStation 3), it ended very, very poorly for them.
The fact that their official replacement for ASM/C programs is a Python interpreter running on a Cortex-M0 co-processor with 32 KiB o
Re: (Score:2)
and a put_pixel() fill rate of 48 pixels per seconds only adds insult to injury.
Holy hell... thats unbelievably bad...
Even a 1200bps modem from 1981 transfered 120 characters per second.... across twisted pair phone lines, through dozens of switches....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the mid 80s most local BBS systems only had 1200 baud.
Notice that I said "baud" not bps, because in modem technology there are often more than 2 symbols. Otherwise you'd be limited to probably 9600 baud.
A wifi modem using QAM gets 6 bits per symbol, for example.
Baud is not a funny way to spell bps.
Re: (Score:3)
1200 baud equaled 1200 bits per second.
The trouble with you being pedantic here is that then you then fuck it up. Look long and hard at what you then said in your pedantic mode. Find the error if you can.
Re: (Score:2)
I note that you said "baud" but I also "note" that the difference in the case of 1200 bps modems is zero.
1200 baud equaled 1200 bits per second.
The trouble with you being pedantic here is that then you then fuck it up. Look long and hard at what you then said in your pedantic mode. Find the error if you can.
I doubt I can find it; you couldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
1200 baud equaled 1200 bits per second.
Ys and no.
X baud dos not equal X bits per second.
It mans X "symbols" which nearly can have arbitrary size.
No idea if a 1200 baud modem only used 1 bit symbols and had - as you say - only 1200 bits pr second.
My 9600 baud modem made 32kB pr second ...
Re: (Score:2)
You remember wrong. The low-end data rates, 110 and 300, were the only ones at which baud equaled bps.
The next two speeds, 1200 and 2400 bps, actually ran at 600 baud, using multi-bit encodings.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that their official replacement for ASM/C programs is a Python interpreter running on a Cortex-M0 co-processor with 32 KiB of RAM and a put_pixel() fill rate of 48 pixels per seconds only adds insult to injury.
They provide excellent support for their Cortex-M0 processors. I use GCC with open source toolchain, and I can ask a forum question and it gets answered by an engineer, and they don't complain that I don't use their toolchain. When there was a bug in the Makefile in one of their GCC examples, I didn't have to wait for an update; they gave me the fixed code right in the forum response! Within hours.
That's why I'm on their side. This is an educational product. They should do whatever the teachers say is best.
Re: (Score:3)
I've not bought another sony product since the ps3, and now actively avoid them...
I also no longer purchased any more ps3 games after they dropped otheros support, as newer games force a firmware update which irrecoverably destroys your linux installation.
I recently bought a tv and some noise cancelling headphones, sony was an option but i discounted them based on how they treated me as a ps3 customer.
I also advise people against sony who ask me for product advice.
I'm not the only one who thinks this way...
Re: (Score:2)
numworks calculator (Score:3)
I use the numworks calculator. It comes with Python built into it, and you can make changes and recompile the whole system if you want something different:
https://github.com/numworks/ep... [github.com]
School use for tests (Score:2)
Where are calculators like the ones from TI used today? In my experience only in the classrooms. Engineers and other mostly use laptops or phones.
Considering that since 2018 for example in France, all calculators approved for use during official exams need to be certified and have a lobotomising exams-mode if they're programmable. For TI to decide to stay in that last big market at the cost of getting rid of C and Assembler programing, this makes a lot of sense.
Here's an explanation in French about this: ht [calculatri...tifique.eu]
Re: (Score:3)
They are used in schools, because TI drives the curriculum. It's literally a camel's nose under the tent situation. And I don't know why graphing is so important in a calculator, we did just fine without it back the early '80s, but they have managed to make it important through their curriculum. And TI probably sells them for a 1000% mark-up too (I joke, it's probably more like 2000%... $5 COGS to $100 list price), since they use such ancient CPUs and crappy LCDs. I doubt V-tech would even use stuff that an
Re: (Score:2)
People say that, but it is a stupid theory.
Math isn't taught in schools because a camel stuck its calculator through the window. That's just insane.
You thought numbers get graphed because of a conspiracy by TI? What?
A classic $2 5-banger should really be enough for anything that doesn't need trig functions, and a 10-digit scientific for that.
So, you don't even math, then. Or you don't math anything important, and can spend all day on the one problem because you're a pure aristocrat with no connection to Earthly concerns like time.
Re: (Score:2)
Downvote me for the sin of replying to myself, I deserve it.
But I can't not add; when I was a kid, we didn't have graphing calculators. But we still graphed a lot of our numbers.
It is worth having the calculator just to save on graph paper, if you're doing that much math.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually, in classrooms they use specific models like the one in the story.
But they also have fancier ones with extra features, that you're not allowed to use on tests, or even in some classes. Those are the ones people would buy for home use.
I can't imagine programming one. It was a big deal for students 25 years ago, because they didn't have cell phones. Having a programmable calculator that you could write custom software for was basically a tablet computer with a small screen from the past. Of cou
Good luck with that (Score:3)
Lest we forget, up until the TI-83 and TI-86, native TI programming was only possible through hacks. It seems really unlikely that TI ('s calculator division) is going to be able to produce a truly locked-down calculator, particularly since they don't even have IOS/Android's benefit of running on a chipset designed for security and compartmentalization. At 'best', unlocking the calculator is going to involve opening the case and re-flashing the ROM. Which means, essentially, that *only* the sufficiently motivated (which is to say, primarily the cheaters) are going to have a hackable calculator. I hope teachers realize how empty a gesture this is.
Re: (Score:2)
particularly since they don't even have IOS/Android's benefit of running on a chipset designed for security and compartmentalization
Did you know: TI is one of the leading IC vendors on planet Earth? It's true! They have exactly whatever chipset they want.
I mostly use TI embedded processors. Why do I pay more for a TI chip instead of a bottom shelf ARM from another vendor? Well, one of the reasons is they have better security.
Not sure what "compartmentalization" would mean in this context. That seems to be a more general application design issue than an IC variable.
Also, note that the term "chipset" is normally only used in the context o
Similar behavior by Casio (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False.
https://hackaday.com/2020/05/24/dmca-takedown-issued-over-casio-code-that-wasnt/ [hackaday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But what it does is to enable someone sneaking a computing device into an exam where the presence of such devices is restricted to 'approved' models. By installing this in a Casio model that might be approved for use during a test, it puts such approval at risk and damages the market for it.
Is the DMCA a proper tool to control such uses? I don't know as IANAL. Is it sort of pointless in that the aforementioned processor and display could be glued into practically anything? Yes. But I don't know how
Re: (Score:2)
What are you going to do? Make everyone with a insulin pump check it at the door?
Yes. If they want to sit for the test in the main group, they should be prepared to do that.
People who need accommodations that are not consistent with the normal rules should be sitting separately, so their accommodation doesn't degrade discipline during the test.
This sort of attitude is necessary if testing is important. Maybe testing isn't actually important. But you'd have to prove that separately, and first. Right now, the status quo includes the belief that the testing is important. So you reduce frau
Re: (Score:2)
People who need accommodations that are not consistent with the normal rules should be sitting separately
That won't do much good if the apparatus they sneak in has some sort of connected capability. You'd have to seat them outside of the 5G coverage areas. It's not just about electronically slipping notes to the smart kid in the next row. It's also about people not contacting a boiler room full of professional test takers halfway around the globe.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had finished reading you'd have found:
And then you can just have increased test proctors for the "has medical electronics" group, so they also won't be able to cheat.
Re: (Score:2)
have increased test proctors for the "has medical electronics" group
Because everyone with a medical device is going to be OK with some greasy teaching assistant fingering their life critical equipment just to make sure that it's real and unmodified. That could in fact be an ADA violation.
Fraction of marlet (Score:4, Interesting)
What fraction of TI's graphing calculator market is the programming enthusiasts? That will tell us how big of a market hit they will take.
Personally, I never especially liked graphing calculators once the novelty of graphing a parabola on it wore off. I programmed with it a bit in high school, but nothing serious. I'm not sure my math/science teachers were especially keen on making them a major part of the curriculum. Certainly once I left high school I stopped using it for anything but normal calculation.
As a scientist that works in a lab, I have several cheap $15 Casio FX-300s scattered about, and I love them. They're more convenient than using my phone, especially if I have gloves on, and practically indestructible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fraction of marlet (Score:2)
My biggest requirements are: I want to be able to see the equation I've typed to identify typos (the Casio FX-300's have a small second line where your actual typed equation is displayed, then the answer is displayed on the main, larger line), and I want to set the calculator to permanently display results in scientific notation. I want an answer of 20 to read 2E1, because when I'm doing a lot of my mental math I break it down to scientific notation in my head anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like a decent graphic calculator, I keep an eye out for a used CG-50 or similar. Even they are far from ideal though. I want
- Decent screen. It's 2020, give us high contrast and high resolution for readability.
- Engineering unit display/entry support, with shortcut buttons so I don't have to do [e][9][-] every time. Some Casios have it.
- Bluetooth or USB so I can send the answer direct to my computer (keyboard emulation).
- A decent clipboard, not just single number memory.
- Programmer mode with hex and
Re: (Score:2)
Ti's main customer for their graphing calculators for decades now has been the K12 Market. They ceded the professional and engineering market to HP.
They've been doing things for years to stop programing on their calcs because most teachers would complain that students were using it as a gameboy. Examples include disabling ASM shells in older calculators before officially supporting ASM, Then requiring an expensive SDK if you wanted to program officially, then encrypting OS downloads to use DMCA if you tried
CASIO fx-9860GIII (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm an engineer and my 20-year-old calculator died a couple of weeks ago. My new one is a CASIO fx-9860GIII that can also run Python scripts. You can write and debug them on your PC and load them on the calculator via USB. It's awesome!
Re: CASIO fx-9860GIII (Score:2)
I don't think your calculator is allowed on the same standardized tests this one is, and that's what this decision seems to come down to.
The TI-84 Plus CE is approved for use on the following exams:
PSAT®, SAT®, and ACT® college entrance exams
AP® exams that allow or require a graphing calculator
Approved for use on the IB® Diploma Programme exam
At least nobody has said anything about the firmware blocking native code on other TI models yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Me no get it (Score:2)
Texas Instruments' graphing calculators have a reputation as hobbyist devices given their program support, but they just lost some of their appeal. Cemetech has learned (via Linus Tech Tips) that Texas Instruments is pulling support for assembly- and C-based programs on the TI-84 Plus CE and its French counterpart, the TI-83 Premium CE. Install the latest firmware for both (OS 5.6 and OS 5.5 respectively) and you'll not only lose access to those apps, but won't have a way to roll back.
I don't get this. Ever since I first used the venerable HP-48SX as a programming platform back in the 90's, I always found the TI line of calculators deficient when it comes to programming.
And that was back then? Now why when you can use a smartphone and invoke Wolfram Alpha? Or program powerful systems using Python and NumPy?
Me no get it.
Oh for Pete's sake! (Score:2)