Do you think the Apple version would cost more? [Technabob]

WolframAlpha folks are billing this as a half-priced graphic calculator, with that added benefit that it plugs into the existing WolframAlpha search engine, but again I keep coming back to the fact that I can point my browser at that web site and it costs me substantially less than $50 to do so.

Said WolframAlpha rep Josh Dilworth in an email to Gizmodo today, "How many people will buy it? We're not sure, but looking at the other apps that are $50+, we think that we're of at least comparable in utility and functionality, if not more. And, part of what the company is also doing is making a statement about the non-trivial nature of WolframAlpha's capabilities, and how much the system has matured since launch."

What better way to show maturity than peg your inaugural App Store app with one of the higher price tags in the whole system. Amiright? Commenters, help a blogger out and let me know what I'd be paying a premium for if I purchased this. [App Shopper via Scoble]

TI's PR person told GigaOm that her husband, a realtor, uses the real live calculator at the office, but would use the iPhone app in the field, so he doesn't have to carry extra stuff. I'd think sooner or later, the app, with its ability to relabel buttons clearly and instantly, would eventually win out. At least until a totally organic touch version that can do the same calculations comes out. (Why stick so religiously to these old forms?)

The cheating argument, however, is valid: TI suggests that people still buy actual calculators because test givers prohibit students from whipping out their iPhones. So there's at least one strike against well-executed convergence. [GigaOm; iTunes Store link]

At first I wanted to make fun of him, but he told me that he always has his Sharp calculator in his pocket for work and such since he can't stand the one on his BlackBerry Curve. It is true the calculator on the Curve kinda sucks, though the iPhone's isn't enough to make me switch. Granted I don't use the calculator for much—not, apparently, nearly as much as this guy.

The Wall Street Journal is all over a different type of calculator dilemma, how TI's newest $135 graphing TI-Nspire is overkill for some and many students prefer older graphing models or just iPhone apps. Are you with this guy? Can nothing replace the old-school calculator? Or do you think he's just a holdout, and calculators are destined to melt away entirely into cellphone firmware, end of story?

Using data gleaned from the book The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, these circular "computers" could calculate weapons effects like yield and range when the big one dropped. The instrument pictured here is circa 1960, and is one of several pictured in a gallery on the Oak Ridge Associated Universities website. [ORAU via Dinosaurs and Robots via Boing Boing]

The new color Databanks are $59 each. Never be uncertain of your restaurant tip perentage again! [Casio via Gear Log]

In addition to its obvious simplicity, the Kotaska replica boasts strange retro features like "paper" and a rare Shinshu Seiki Model-102 drum printer. The firmware is old school too, having been extracted from the original Busicom ROM. Be sure to read the narrative about this classic gadget of yesteryear in the link for more on its history. You might learn something.

Curious about building your own? Have a nostalgic itch for the days when you couldn't hit the widget button on your laptop and have a calculator pop up instantaneously on screen? Kotaska has you covered, my friends, with the schematics for this rare recreation, as well as the original source code.

There's a few more schematics where that came from, if that's your sort of thing. [4004 via Slashdot]

Difference Engine No. 2, designed in 1847, was designed to calculate and tabulate values run through polynomial functions up to the seventh order. It, along with the other Babbage Engines, is considered to be the first automatic computing machine.

For those who slept through all their math classes, think of an equation like y=x^3+4x+4, where you're given a list of integers and asked to solve for y in each instance. Babbage was tired of repeatedly doing this by hand and wanted an automated way to solve polynomial functions. He thought there was too much room for human error, so he put together the Difference Engine, which acts like a super-powered calculator.

The machine is powered by a hand crank, which gets the various gears, levers and springs moving, and uses giant mechanical rods representing number values around to push around a bunch of numbers until—presto, change-o—you have your answers printed on a piece of paper (technical, I know).

The Difference Engine No. 1 design, created in 1821, is one of the earliest concepts for a computer. It was able to handle 16-digit numbers run through polynomials up to the 6th order and print them out in tabulated form. It required 25,000 parts, would have stood eight feet tall and weighed 15 tons.

Difference Engine No.2, finished in 1849, was a sleeker, more powerful beast (similar to the difference between Iron Man's Mark 1 and Mark 2 suits). It was designed to handle numbers 31 digits long, only required 8000 parts, and in addition to printing paper results, could imprint tables into a plaster mold for future reproduction. The specs called for it to stand 11 feet long and weigh 5 tons.

The machine design even features built-in error detection, where the machine jams if it comes across a non-whole number at any point in the process. I'll avoid getting into the nitty-gritty of the forumlas and equations, because frankly, its neither as interesting or impressive as the mere fact that Babbage concocted this in the 1800s. But you can read up on the full computational breakdown here. [Computer History Museum]

FIC Introduces 2.2 lbs UMPC with Detachable Calculator [TG Dialy]
Images via TG Daily

The Choc-U-Lator does have the "sweet smell" of chocolate, according to the Japanese product page. But aside from the looks and the smell, there's nothing chocolate about it. To top it off, it only performs extremely basic functions.

So let's recap: Not real chocolate. Not exactly an upgrade for a TI-89. Verdict: not worth $4. You're better off buying a real candy bar and stealing a cheap-o calculator from the bank. – Matt Buchanan

Product Page [via Pop Gadget]

There's a total of 72 different calculators in this collection. I wonder if anyone out there has a comparable collection of Texas Instrument calculators so we can compare and contrast 'em. I mean, I know ours are better in every way, but I'd like to see just how much better. – Nicholas Deleon

72 Old Soviet Calculators [English Russia via Digg]

But this achievement is actually a bit sad for two reasons...

1. The first quantifiable comparison I could make would be McDonald's "billions and billions served", or however that goes. Of course we eat more hamburgers than we do calculators, but it still feels like a loss.

2. Will Casio ever sell another billion? Will dedicated calculators even be around in another 50 years with the cost-effective advancements in microprocessors and all-in-one devices? Should they?

What do you think? –Mark Wilson

Casio Sells...[JCNetwork]