|
Nick Disabato Marries TI-89
Posted by Michael on 27 September 2004, 05:14 GMT
In what has become a major media event, former ticalc.org news editor Nick Disabato has married his beloved TI-89 graphing calculator. The wedding was originally scheduled for October 16, but Nick decided to adjust the date after hearing of the recent lack of news on ticalc.org. "It was horrifying," he said, "and since 89-snookums and I were ready, we decided to take the plunge and help out ticalc.org as well!" Nick and Ms. 89 have been engaged since late July, several years after their original meeting in the electronics section of Target. Ever since the departure of his 86, Nick has been searching for a calculator that would, well...complete him in life. Now that he's found that special something, the entire ticalc.org staff wishes him the best of luck and that years of happiness may follow.
Due to the secrecy, only the couple's closest friends were invited. Magnus Hagander served as best man; Joey, Morgan, Jon, the Voyage 200, and others were also in attendance. From within the spacious lecture hall in the college math department, Nick proceeded down the wedding aisle with his bride-to-be rolling by his side in her motorized wheelchair. Shortly thereafter, they entered into the sacred bond of holy matrimony while astonished onlookers wept with uncontrollable emotions.
![[Oh sweet calculator love]](/images/news/2004-09-27-nickd2.jpg)
Details of the reception are carefully being guarded, but we were able to obtain a picture of their first kiss. Immediately following the wedding, the reception began - guests danced to Nick's own techno remixes. Joey was observed doing the funky chicken after having one too many glasses of non-alcoholic champagne. When interviewed, he commented, "Nick is such a great guy. I'm very happy for him." Nick only exclaimed something involving calculus theorems as he and Ms. 89 left the building. She would not talk to anyone, but only flashed the graph of r = 8sin(2*theta).
![[mmm baby! Do you want to integrate? I'd love to be the area under your curves!]](/images/news/2004-09-27-nickd.jpg)
We should announce here that the TI-89 has now changed her last name in accordance with the usual custom, and will hereafter be known as Mrs. TI-Disabato. Nick and his wife are hoping for offspring within a few years. "We're hoping for ASM programs, but if we get BASIC, that's okay too," Nick commented before vanishing with his new wife into his bedroom. They are rumored to be engaging in rather passionate activities at this time.
|
|
|
Reply to this article
|
|
The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.
|
|
|
Re: Nick Disabato Marries TI-89
|
adamvio 
|
|
My Eyes, My beautiful Eyes!!! It Burns!!! From seeing that that I had to throw out my TI-83 Plus. IM BLIND!!!
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
28 September 2004, 22:16 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Nick Disabato Marries TI-89
|
|
soccerfun981
|
|
Everyone on my soccer team thinks that im next (im in love with my calculator, and i use it hours a day at school). :D
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
29 September 2004, 01:07 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Nick Disabato Marries TI-89
|
TheCalcGenius
(Web Page)
|
|
So does this mean that anyone that is a relative of Mrs. TI-Disabato (all TI-89s that exist) must be called "Mrs. TI-Disabato"? :-)
I can see that in my mind...
Some guy: "Can I see your TI-89?"
Guy with 89: "HEY! GET AWAY FROM MRS. TI-DISABATO!"
Some guy: *confused*
Guy with 89: "SHE'S MINE!"
*other guy leaves while muttering "Nerd." under his breath*
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
29 September 2004, 05:12 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Nick Disabato Marries TI-89
|
Konrad Meyer
(Web Page)
|
|
01010100 01001001 00101101 00111000 00111001 01110011 00100000 01101011 01101001 01100011 01101011 00100000 00111000 00110011 00101011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100101 01110100 01100011 00101110 01110011 00100000 01000000 00100100 00100100 01100101 01110011 00101100 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100000 01110001 01110101 01100101 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00101100 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100000 01100100 01101111 01110101 01100010 01110100 00101110 00100000 01010100 10010010 01011010 01110000 01110010 11101000 11010010 11100110 01000000 11100110 11101010 11000110 11010110 01011100 01000000 10101000 11010000 11001010 01000000 11100000 11010010 11000110 11101000 11101010 11100100 11001010 11100110 01000000 11000010 11100100 11001010 01000000 01000100 11100110 11100000 11001010 11000110 11010010 11000010 11011000 01011100 01000100 01000000 10011100 11011110 11101110 01011000 01000000 11101000 11010000 11001010 01000000 11001100 11011110 11011000 11011000 11011110 11101110 11010010 11011100 11001110 01000000 11011000 11010010 11011100 11001010 01000000 11001100 11100100 11011110 11011010 01000000 11000010 01000000 11000110 11011110 11011010 11001010 11001000 11110010 01000000 11001010 11011100 11101000 11010010 11101000 11011000 11001010 11001000 01000000 01000100 10100100 11001010 11001000 01000000 11101100 11100110 01011100 01000000 10000100 11011000 11101010 11001010 01000100 01110100 00011010 00010100 00011010 00010100 01000100 10010010 01000000 11010000 11000010 11101000 11001010 01000000 11101000 11010000 11001010 01000000 11101110 11011110 11100100 11011000 11001000 01000010 01000000 10010010 01000000 11101100 11011110 11101000 11001010 11001000 01000000 11001100 11011110 11100100 01000000 10011100 11000010 11001000 11001010 11100100 01000010 01000100 00011010 00010100 00011010 00010100 01011010 01011010 10010110 11011110 11011100 11100100 11000010
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
29 September 2004, 23:17 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Nick Disabato Marries TI-89
|
JcN
(Web Page)
|
|
uhhh.....yeah.
01110000 11111000 01111100 10001000 10000000
10000000 00100000 10000000 10010000 10000000
10000000 00100000 10000000 10100000 10000000
01000000 00100000 10000000 11000000 10000000
00100000 00100000 10000000 11000000 10000000
00010000 00100000 10000000 10100000 10000000
10010000 00100000 10000000 10010000 00000000
01100000 11111000 01111100 10001000 10000000
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
30 September 2004, 00:59 GMT
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
slower
|
|
Toobasic
|
|
BTW, did anyone else notice that the 84+SE is actually a few clocks slower than the 83+(not SE)?
I'm talkin when it comes to executing ASM programs. I ran the same program on both calcs at the same time, I think it was pong, anyways, I started both at the same time, and by the time the ball went to 1 side of the screen and back, The 83+ was ahead by over 10 pixels(don't know exact amount, just alot). That aint human error, because the timing wouldn't cause a difference that large.
Anybody know why? My guess is they have the same processor speed(Which means TI is lying to everyone) but the 84+se has a higher interpretting speed(for basic), and the OS just makes ASM programs slower.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 October 2004, 02:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slower
|
|
Toobasic
|
|
BTW, did anyone else notice that the 84+SE is actually a few clocks slower than the 83+(not SE)?
I'm talkin when it comes to executing ASM programs. I ran the same program on both calcs at the same time, I think it was pong, anyways, I started both at the same time, and by the time the ball went to 1 side of the screen and back, The 83+ was ahead by over 10 pixels(don't know exact amount, just alot). That aint human error, because the timing wouldn't cause a difference that large.
Anybody know why? My guess is they have the same processor speed(Which means TI is lying to everyone) but the 84+se has a higher interpretting speed(for basic), and the OS just makes ASM programs slower.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 October 2004, 02:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slower
|
|
Toobasic
|
|
BTW, did anyone else notice that the 84+SE is actually a few clocks slower than the 83+(not SE).
I'm talkin when it comes to executing ASM programs. I ran the same program on both calcs at the same time, I think it was pong, anyways, I started both at the same time, and by the time the ball went to 1 side of the screen and back, The 83+ was ahead by over 10 pixels(don't know exact amount, just alot). That aint human error, because the timing wouldn't cause a difference that large.
Anybody know why? My guess is they have the same processor speed(Which means TI is lying to everyone) but the 84+se has a higher interpretting speed(for basic), and the OS just makes ASM programs slower.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 October 2004, 02:45 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|
