Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Posted by Nathan on 1 January 2001, 01:00 GMT

We here at ticalc.org would like to welcome you into anno Domini 2001, the twenty-first century, and the third millennium!

For your reading pleasure, I would link to last year's news article, which deals with the millennium. We had a lot of reasonable and irrational people give feedback on both points of view. Let the memories flow!

And, as usual, the January 2001 newsletter has been posted to the Newsletter archives.

Okay...these statistics aren't exact, but I thought I'd annoy Magnus and post them anyhow. Maybe someone will update these. :) Magnus says:

I was just poking around a bit at statistics.
Yearly stats so far (note, figures are not exact :-) I typed them off the web..):

1997: 12,058,640 hits (not a full year, though)
1998: 29,015,076 hits (up 141%, but extrapolating 1997 to 12 months gives 60.4%)
1999: 48,342,747 hits (up 66.6%)
2000: 84,767,923 hits (up 75.3%)

So basically, we have grown more this year than ever before when it comes to
hits! A great work by everybody! We've taken 48.6% of our all time hits this
year. Also, I'm noticing that we are approaching a new record - we now have 14,515
files in our archives, closing fast on 15,000. We also have a total of
17,924 screenshots for these files. This only amounts to about 57% of our
files, though, but it's a huge step up from last year.

Taking a look at our news system, we have:
1997: 21 posted articles (ok, so the system wasn't there back then)
1998: 193 posted articles
1999: 242 posted articles
2000: 219 posted articles

So we have a slight decline there, probably due to the fact that we no
longer have Nick doing an obscene amount of news articles :-) We're still
averaging more than one article every two days. (Standalone articles, like
surveys, not included)

As for comments to these articles:
1998: 4,758 comments
1999: 14,975 comments
2000: 19,333 comments
So it seems our users are writing more :-)

Umm. That ends todays statistics.

Well, that's all for this time around. Please remember that those statistics are raw and meaningless, and are for your entertainment pleasure, only.


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: Happy New Year!
Ryan Pelletier  Account Info

Im pretty sure its the twenty-second century.

     1 January 2001, 16:52 GMT

Re: Re: Happy New Year!
nvidnovic Account Info

I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

     1 January 2001, 18:44 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Happy New Year!
luke195rs  Account Info

No, I think it's the twenty-third

     1 January 2002, 22:50 GMT

Re: Re: Happy New Year!
Ian Bui  Account Info
(Web Page)

No, it really is the 21st Century.

1-100 1st Century
101-200 2nd
201-300 3rd
301-400 4th
401-500 5th
501-600 6th
601-700 7th
701-800 8th
801-900 9th
901-1000 10th
1001-1100 11th
1101-1200 12th
1201-1300 13th
1301-1400 14th
1401-1500 15th
1501-1600 16th
1601-1700 17th
1701-1800 18th
1801-1900 19th
1901-2000 20th
2001-2100 21st Century

     1 January 2001, 22:38 GMT

Re: Happy New Year!
Ryan Pelletier  Account Info

Soon you will see a post from me about it being the 22 century, my cousin posted that because he's a smart @$$ and he thinks he knows everything.
Sorry about that,

     1 January 2001, 16:55 GMT

Re: Happy New Year!
Binky  Account Info
(Web Page)

Of course, I was the first responder to the "2000 not compliant" fake news article and started a massive flame war over the year 2000 and 2001.


     1 January 2001, 17:16 GMT

Re: Happy New Year!
genotheblaster  Account Info

Yeah, woo hoo! 2001! My New Year's Resolution is to finish Triple Triad! Yeah! (and I prolly won't, but oh well =) And now it's the 21st century....it wasn't last year, but now it is.



     1 January 2001, 17:31 GMT

Re: Happy New Year!
jeff hammond  Account Info

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2001 to y'all!!!
can't wait what ticalc.org is up to in the twenty-first century!
keep it up to the third millennium
good work to all the crew
you guys know we luv ya

     1 January 2001, 19:10 GMT

Re: Re: Happy New Year!
Don Quixote Account Info

hmm... first thing I would imagine Ticalc.org will be doing for their site this millenium would be fixing their own little Y2K (plus one) bug. You will notice that somewhere in this page of comments, when january second begins, Rather then cycling from January 1, 2001 to January 2, 2001, The date cycle to January 1, 2002. By the time this gets posted, I imagine it wil be January 1, 2003. later

     1 January 2001, 07:29 GMT

Re: Re: Happy New Year!
Jefferson_Airplane  Account Info
(Web Page)

...we are now in the third milennium...

     3 January 2001, 16:12 GMT

Re: Happy New Year!
kog kog  Account Info
(Web Page)

I hope my programs I made for the new year will be posted. Have a y3k new years boy. And do this for the Glory of Olympia Corp., the largest Corp. in MN. holding 13 programmers led by Joey Moy the CEO and Chairman. wishing this year will bring peace,fame, $$$, and strength and honor.
For CEO and Corporation.

     1 January 2001, 19:59 GMT

Re: Happy New Year!
Eric Sun  Account Info
(Web Page)

So, anyone have any comments to that letter to the editor in the newsletter? Are we all doomed?

     1 January 2001, 20:31 GMT

Re: Re: Happy New Year!
MathJMendl  Account Info
(Web Page)

Yes. I think that it's exaggerated. The writer is pointing out to how ZShell has been written and things are better documented and thinks that signals a decline? Completely wrong. It's a sign of progress that people don't have to recreate the wheel. It's a bit like math. Many of the big discoveries in it have been made a long time ago, since they had not yet been discovered, but does that mean that it has peaked? Not at all. Knowledge accumulates.

Plus, there have still been new innovations. How about HW2Patch and MaxMem and TI-GCC? How about C programs coming out with comparable speeds to assembly, making the number of potential programmers larger (since C is easier than asm)? What about shells like DoorsOS becoming less buggy and new shells being written like Universal OS and TeOS?

Things can only get better from here. Some of the old programmers may be gone but there's no reason that new ones cannot emerge. This letter sounds a lot like some people from the older generation who are yearning for the good old days and saying what a failure the newer generations are, even though people have always been speaking like that and the people in different generations aren't better or worse, they just exist in different circumstances. There's no reason that today's programmers are any worse than before, there are just fewer things that need to be accomplished. This means that instead of writing a shell or a tetris game they can spend time writing a pacman or chess game.

     4 January 2001, 04:16 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Happy New Year!
aselle  Account Info
(Web Page)

The major point that the letter was trying to make is that TI calculator programming has lost its uniqueness. There are so many different platforms one can program in: palm, TI, pc, HP, etc, etc, that there must be a reason to choose any one over another. For me, and for many others the luster that TI programming had was that it wasn't officially sanctioned. It presented a challenge. This challenge was enjoyable to face, and once you had overcome it, you knew you had accomplished something that the calculator wasn't designed to do.

Programming an application that has already been done is mostly trivial. Granted, there is much technical work that is involved and a lot of time, but it isn't so large of a step. Creating a solution to a problem or situation that hasn't been considered is considerably more significant. In effect, SDKs, TI officially sanctioning assembly in the TI-83 and above, trivializes the pursuit in regards to the standards that early programmers embarked upon. If they wanted that kind of support they would have used HPs which have supported programmers from the beginning.

Discovering a way to run arbitrary RAM resident machine instructions on the TI-85 was much more significant than writing a compiler, because a compiler is useless without a way to run the generated code. Considering this fact, all the advances really don't seem all that impressive. Don't get me wrong I believe TI-GCC, and all the others represent a lot of great work that's been done, but I think the early shells were more profound. As far as Doors becoming less buggy, that is really not an innovation but instead a progression, not comparable. New shells are usually also progressions and not great innovations.

Finally, you mention that things can only get better. I don't think this is true at all. A major failure I see of the "modern" TI community is the treatment of the varying AMS incompatibility. Zshell presented a very good model for ROM compatibility. Using a jump table, it created a sort of virtual machine that guaranteed a singular interface for programs. This in effect created a simple operating system. A similar construct would have solved the AMS incompatibility problems. Instead, we go on bumbling about what will run on what ROM. Zshell provided a simple and effective way which was superior. Incidentally, part of the reason why zshell could do this is as the only way to execute programs, it acted as a gatekeeper of sort to programs, and created a selective bias to zshell compatible programs. Granted, the functions available are limited, but there is a fundamental tradeoff between compatibility and functionality, and TI-89 and TI-92+ are really leaning too far right.

In any case, I don't think that there is no chance of the modern community achieving a great deal. I think instead, that different types of people will be attracted to developing for calculators. For me, personally, it has lost its appeal.

     5 January 2001, 04:52 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy New Year!
Eric Sun  Account Info
(Web Page)

It's pretty much lost its appeal for me as well. I haven't touched my Graph Link for three years (actually I think it might be broken now), and only use my calculators for math.

I agree that different types of people will be attracted; before, it was more of the "hacker" crowd who wanted to do the supposedly impossible just because they could; now everything's more conventional. Perhaps as assembly/FLASH programming becomes more mainstream more people will be able to learn to program for calculators, kind of like C++ and Windows.

     5 January 2001, 05:02 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy New Year!

I agree. When I bought my first Ti calc (ti85) all I wanted it for was to play games. Then when the ti92 came out, I had to have one because it had better games. Then I bought a ti89 when it came out. I played games on it for about 2 months. Now the first to calcs i bought are collecting dust and the 89 i use for math only. And I hardly use it. TI should develope a calculator that shows you not only the answer, but how to get there. That is why I don't use the 89. TI beter make a calc that shows how to get the answer soon, or I might just go buy an HP!

     5 January 2001, 19:03 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy New Year!
Nathan Haines  Account Info
(Web Page)

The only time to use a calculator is when you already know how to get an answer to a given problem or to check your work.

If you are using your calculator to brute-force math and to avoid learning how to do the problems you are assigned, then you are abusing the calculator and don't deserve one.

This may not *always* strictly hold true in the Real World (although I can't think of a reason off-hand), this is always the case in school.

     6 January 2001, 09:13 GMT

Re: Happy New Year!
Alexei Postnikov  Account Info

Go 2001!!!Happy New Year Everyone!

     1 January 2001, 20:59 GMT

Re: Re: Happy New Year!
S. G. Account Info

Yes, happy new year! But be careful, some machines are acting up because of the dreaded Y2.001K bug... (yes, it was upgraded!)

     8 January 2001, 22:57 GMT

Re: Happy New Year!

If you read the newspaper regularly you waste around 613 sheets of newsprint every week. Of course for some people that isnít much, but you waste something like 31,876 pages per year. But if you read a newspaper every day of your adult life, this is 613 pages per week times 52 weeks times 57 years (you should live so long!), which is 1,816,932 pages. If there are 80,000,000 adult readers (almost all households) then we discard about 145,354,560,000,000 pages each year. One hundred forty-five trillion, three hundred fifty four billion, five hundred sixty million, thousand pages each year. Say twelve newspapers per cubic foot, a large landfill is say one mile by one mile by a thousand feet, 5,000 times 5,000 is 25,000,000 times 1,000 is 25,000,000,000. 25,000,000,000 divided by 12 is 2,083,333,333 and a third. 134,173,440,000,000 divided by 2,083,333,333 is 64,403. 64,403 landfills are used up by newspapers each year. At this rate in 50 years the nation will be covered in newspaper.

     1 January 2001, 21:08 GMT

Re: Re: Happy New Year!
PolarSmurf Account Info
(Web Page)

i like it

     1 January 2001, 22:21 GMT

Re: Re: Happy New Year!
joelt  Account Info

Good math, but what about recycling? Just think about it. I don't have the stats for that, but think about it.

     2 January 2001, 00:06 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Happy New Year!
CyBeR  Account Info
(Web Page)

Also, there is always the possibility of just burning the paper which does have good uses.

     1 January 2001, 01:52 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy New Year!

You know, that stuff is flammable!!!!

Hee, hee, hee!!!!!!

     1 January 2001, 02:56 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy New Year!
S. G. Account Info

But burning that much paper across the nation would get some adverse results. For the first one, look at the name of the person who first posted the paper information. Also, the raining down of ash on us would not be the most pleasant thing. Nor would the smell.

     8 January 2001, 23:01 GMT

Re: Re: Happy New Year!

don't forget about the several thousand pages are year thrown away by a single printing house that were not used or had errors on it.


     6 January 2001, 22:51 GMT

1  2  3  4  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2012, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer