TI vs. Calculator Hackers
Nyall writes "So a bunch of TI calculator programming enthusiasts got together to factor the keys Texas Instruments uses to sign the operating system binaries for the ti83+ (a z80 architecture) and the ti89/v200 (a 68k architecture) series of calculators. Now Texas Instruments is sending out DMCA notices to take them down."
I'm a lurker in that community and I have to say I'm extremely disappointed with TI. The community has had to reverse engineer every component of the hardware with no help from TI, and has done an amazing job writing development tools and mapping out which memory addresses do what.
Here's the wikileaks link to the keys.
It's highly unlikely that the factors of an RSA private key are subject to copyright protection. Therefore the groups may have a viable claim for DMCA misrepresentation under subsection (f):
Texas Instruments may just have Diebolded itself.
They are more successful than HP calculators. As a MS/Phd engineering student I haven't seen a HP calculator in 6 years except at a store.
And just in case you forget how badly that went down, here's a reminder...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSQIoXf294E
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Have you tried installing a 32 bit OS on a VM, like say, virtualbox to talk to the calculator? I know it's not exactly what you want, but it might do the trick.....
Unfortunately there is now a step 5:
5. Get defecated on from a great height by TI
The weird thing is that TI is actually quite good about open source support in other divisions. They make OMAP reference platforms available at very reasonable price (BeagleBoard, OMAPzoom) for open source hackers.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
While math classes like calculus and ODEs typically ban calculators from tests, there are still all kinds of chemistry, physics, and engineering classes where a 50g is both allowed and incredibly useful for homework and tests. More than any other feature, the efficient units system in the 50g really helped me in physics and was a great check that my calculations were correct.
It's ironic that you use Blizzard as your example here, given that their response to bnetd established the precedent of using the DMCA to shut down reverse engineering.
I don't know if I'd put the teachers that don't allow calculators on tests in the "control freak" category. When I was in college, some of the most laid back teachers were of that variety. Typically, they'd make up problems such that you shouldn't need a calculator to solve them, unless you really sucked at arithmetic, in which case they'd have some dumb calculators available.
Reverse engineering for the purpose of creating compatibility is an exception to the DMCA restrictions. That doesn't mean TI won't sue, but still...
There's too much to check for anyway. If you require that the student has a TI-83, they can probably store any number of things in any number of ways. You could store a bunch of cheat notes in some variable. There isn't evough time to walk around to every students desk before the exam and check for the existence of programs anyway. There was 200 students in my Year 1 calculus course in university. They mostly showed up 10 minutes before the exam started. There was no time to verify that they don't have any programs on the TI. Also, there was some required programs to do certain questions. And there wouldn't be any time to verify that it was the proper code running and that there wasn't some special input, that would tell the program to go into some other section of the code, where tons of other functionaliy was available. So our math courses have basically 2 options with this. Make it so that you can do the exam on a TI-30, and only allow these or similar, so that you couldn't program them, and therefore cheat. Or 2, require that they use the TI-86, but design the test such that you assume they are cheating, and make it so that it won't help them anyway.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
no, that would be intel's state-of-the-art graphics chip Larrabee.
As a long time member of the TI community, I have to say that I'm glad Slashdot is covering this. TI consistently works against the enthusiast community, and this is blatantly obvious in their new Nspire line of calculators. The 83+/84+ line has been their one concession to sanctioned assembly programming, and they still threaten legal action against anyone who starts delving into operating system stuff.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Oh well, I figured everyone would get it. HP Calculators use "Reverse Polish Notation" (RPN), also known as "postfix notation". Unlike ordinary "infix notation" calculators, in which you put the operator between the two operands, HP calculators take both operands followed by the operator, thereby eliminating the need for parenthesizing an expression. So, where you might enter "5 * ( 3 + 4 ) =" on an infix calculator, you'd enter "5 [enter] 3 [enter] 4 [enter] + * " on an HP calculator. Every time you enter a number, it gets pushed on the stack. Every operator pops the top two items off the stack, performs the operation, and pushes the result on the stack.
One can write English sentences the same way if one considers the verb to be the operator, while the subject and direct object are the two operands. Thus, what I wrote was the RPN equivalent of "I can't believe that they would be so shortsighted!".
I've found that "completely open-book" is common in statistics courses. I don't think that is the case for other kinds of maths or science courses.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
It's z80. The 82, 85, 86 had to be hacked via a hex-edited backup file before it could be made to run assembly. The 81 only just not had exploits discovered to allow it to run assembly. The 83 didn't officially support it, but send(9prgmname was a sort of backdoor that allowed it. The 68K series is a little bit different story, but the differences in versions between hardware/firmware (my 68K terminology isn't quite up to speed), even in the same model make running assembly a pain in the arse. Look up "ghostbuster" (or something like that) on ticalc.org to see what I mean.