laptop needed

From: Lara Shaffer <lara_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Mon May 09 2005 - 01:16:10 CDT

Hi everyone,
  I have been traveling a lot for OVC doing some public speaking/outreach.
It would be really great if I had a laptop as I could get a lot more done on
the plane, in airports, at conferences, etc, and I wouldn't have to rely on
other people's laptops to show powerpoints, etc. Unfortunately, I don't
have one and I don't think it's in the OVC budget right now for me to get
one.
  Does anyone have an extra one or an older one they don't need or one they
could let me borrow until either I have the money to get one myself or OVC
has the money to get me one?
  I don't need anything fancy or high-powered. Even just something that
runs Excel and Word and has a USB port so I could use my flashmem stick to
download emails and put them on there and then write replies on the plane or
type up contacts into the excel spreadsheet, etc. Best would be one with a
wireless card, but I'm not picky. :)

Thanks!
Lara Shaffer :)

Director of Development

Open Voting Consortium

831-419-0758

lara@openvoting.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net>
To: <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 1:01 AM
Subject: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 7, Issue 51

> Send OVC-discuss mailing list submissions to
> ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ovc-discuss-owner@listman.sonic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of OVC-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Shamos Rebuttal, Draft 3 (Ron Crane)
> 2. Possible resource (Edmund R. Kennedy)
> 3. Re: Megascanner drivers (was Re: [OVC-discuss] Options
> arising fromscanner tech...) (Ed Kennedy)
> 4. Re: A comment in Teresa's letter about the Automark needs
> more information (Teresa Hommel)
> 5. Sigh. Correction needed to the newsletter. (Jim March)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:30:56 -0700
> From: Ron Crane <voting@lastland.net>
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Shamos Rebuttal, Draft 3
> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Message-ID: <4BE4BBF9-BF3F-11D9-ADE4-000A95B95AD8@lastland.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> On May 6, 2005, at 9:55 PM, Edward Cherlin wrote:
>
> > On Friday 06 May 2005 17:25, Ron Crane wrote:
> >> On May 6, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Edward Cherlin wrote:
> >
> >>> OK, I have started a complete revision today.
> > ...
> >>>> My
> >>>> next draft will include full formal citations for all the
> >>>> hyperlinks (talk about drudgery!)
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I'm sorry, but I'm going to add more. I'll help, too.
> >>
> >> Great. I'll wait for your revision, then we can work on it
> >> together. Any idea when you'll be able to share something?
> >>
> >> -R
> >
> > Attached.
>
> Thanks. I like the added emphasis on transparency and citizen auditing.
> The phrasing needs some work, which I'll perform in the next draft.
>
> I would like to describe instances of gambling machine cheating, but
> not the one about Ron Harris. The reason is that 3.5.1 advocates
> requiring intrusive inspection of voting machines along the same lines
> as gambling machines, which are thus inspected by the Nevada Gaming
> Control Board. But Harris did his cheating while working for the Board,
> and using its inspection equipment to insert his cheating code. This
> introduces a difficult rhetorical issue that would make us look like
> we're talking out of both sides of our mouths. If you know of other
> instances of gambling machine cheating that involve vendors, please
> bring them up.
>
> Some of the other changes tend to defocus the argument, such as the
> comments about the Founders and 'Reflections on Trusting Trust'.
>
> Generally I want to keep the focus on dishonest vendors (as opposed to
> politicans and voting officials), since Shamos's main argument is that,
> with a few tweaks, vendors can be trusted. They must not be, and their
> global reach implies a global reach for potential vendor fraud.
>
> I disagree with some other edits. For example, on average, the
> incentive to verify votes is substantially weaker than the incentive
> to verify financial transactions. Almost everyone cares about her
> money, while many (a majority, in most cases) don't care enough about
> voting even to cast a ballot. I don't want explicitly to raise "the
> possibility of an alliance between vendors and political parties or
> even administrations, as in disputed elections in Central Asia...."; it
> will sound too much like "conspiracy theories" to many readers. The
> qualification about one-party districts is an oxymoron: the voting
> system knows the parties involved in each election, so it's not going
> to shift votes between parties if there isn't more than one party
> involved (e.g., during a primary election). I strongly disagree with
> your deletion of the argument about vendors distributing Trojan Horses
> along with regular updates; it is a perfect subterfuge. "Cheating with
> triggers" requires vendor-provided malware, so it's already implicitly
> covered elsewhere. Also it will read like conspiracy theories to many,
> since it requires many individuals to cooperate to produce any
> significant effect.
>
> I am deleting the last item in 5. It's a minor point, and I refuse to
> cite any improperly-conducted poll (such as the ACM's poll on paper
> trails) in any formal paper.
>
> The qualifications you added to the conclusion weaken it substantially,
> and introduce terms not elsewhere defined ("auditable dual data paths",
> "Best Practices").
>
> Finally, I am a little confused by your edit in 3.3. Earlier you
> blasted [1] my comparison between software and bridges, saying that,
> "among historians of bridge engineering it fails the laugh test--in
> fact the guffaw, hoot, and holler, pounding on the floor with tears in
> your eyes test." But your edit leaves the comparison intact, with a
> general qualification "normally" (which, BTW, is already implied by the
> footnote), and the addition of a description of the Tacoma Narrows
> bridge - and its mechanism of failure - that only confuses the
> argument.
>
> I'll kick out another draft tomorrow.
>
> -R
>
> [1] I (and probably others) would be happier at OVC if our discussions
> contained rather less dragon-fire.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: text/enriched
> Size: 4131 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url :
http://listman.sonic.net/pipermail/ovc-discuss/attachments/20050507/cbd77ac8
/attachment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 19:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Edmund R. Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [OVC-discuss] Possible resource
> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Message-ID: <20050508022434.27785.qmail@web80303.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5083
>
> --
> 10777 Bendigo Cove
> San Diego, CA 92126-2510
>
> 858-578-8842
>
> Work for the common good.
> My profile: <http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/>
> I blog now and then at: <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 19:42:31 -0700
> From: "Ed Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Megascanner drivers (was Re: [OVC-discuss] Options
> arising fromscanner tech...)
> To: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list"
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Cc: Jim Bohorquez <jimb@mesapower.com>
> Message-ID: <004001c55377$959f8400$6401a8c0@homet3uj9pkik9>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
> reply-type=response
>
> Hello:
>
> What are they using to scan checks, a dedicated machine? Also, what does
> the IRS use to scan returns? Jim Bohorquez of Mesa Power told me that he
> had worked up something special for the IRS when he worked for IBM. I'm
> copying him to see if he has any input.
> --
>
> Thanks, Edmund R. Kennedy
>
> Always work for the common good.
>
> 10777 Bendigo Cove
> San Diego, CA 92126-2510
> USA
>
> I blog now and then at: <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim March" <jmarch@prodigy.net>
> To: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list"
<ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Megascanner drivers (was Re: [OVC-discuss] Options arising
> fromscanner tech...)
>
>
> > Edward Cherlin wrote:
> >
> > <sniiiipage>
> >
> >>Here is the one high-speed scanner listed at
>
>>http://www.scanstore.com/scanning/document_imaging/peripherals/scanners/ad
f/ADF_Scanner.asp
> >>"KV-S2065L 62ppm B&W Duplex 8.5x14" - KV-S2065L
> >>Panasonic KV-S2065L 62ppm B&W Duplex 8.5x14" Specs $5525"
> >>
> >>for which SANE lists Linux drivers.
> >>"KV-S2065L SCSI good" (meaning good but not complete support)
> >>
> >>Specs
>
>>http://www.panasonic.com/office/templates/PDIC_BuyNow.asp?Category=1063&Mo
delNo=kv-s2065l
> >>300 page feeder
> >>daily duty cycle 8800 pages
> >>
> >>62 ppm is nominally 3720 pph.
> >>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Sorry Ed, you missed something.
> >
> > It's 62ppm *duplex*. That means only 31ppm single-sided.
> >
> > The Canon is 3x faster for only $300 more - 90ppm single-sided, 180ppm
> > duplex. Again, what's happening here is that the mechanical paper
> > handling is the hard part, the actually scanning is easy, so they quote
> > ppm rates in "duplex" to make it sound faster (classic marketing). And
> > the Canon paper hopper is bigger (at least 500 sheets vs. 300 and to be
> > honest I wish 1,000 was available at a good price point). Finally, the
> > Panasonic you mention does paper to legal size (8.5x14) where the Canon
> > can hit 11x17 (and I can think of at least one potential application for
> > that).
> >
> > Like I said, the Canon is a hell of a deal if we can sort out the
drivers.
> >
> > Another point on that: Canon execs must be aware of the "controversy"
> > surrounding US voting systems, at least the US side managers and word of
> > the issue has probably gotten to Japan by now. Canon might like the PR
> > benefits of being tied to a "white hat solution" and hence help out with
> > driver R&D - esp. since the same R&D gives them the Linux market...
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > Sidenote on software design: we could set it up to scan both sides,
throw
> > out blank sides in software while counting the number of same, and as
long
> > as the number of discarded blanks equals the number of data-rich sheets
we
> > know there wasn't a jam or anything AND we can work with ballots that
were
> > stuck in upside-down, rightside-up, maybe even backwards if we're clever
> > enough and have an "orientation symbol" somewhere to reference. Now the
> > county elections staff can cram 'em in there any ol' way! :)
> >
> >
> > Jim
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC discuss mailing lists
> > Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> > arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 22:47:46 -0400
> From: Teresa Hommel <tahommel@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] A comment in Teresa's letter about the
> Automark needs more information
> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Message-ID: <427D7DD2.2020205@earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I don't know who the specific individual was, but there will be a report
> issued by the organization, and I'll let you know when it comes out.
>
> Teresa Hommel
>
> Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>
> >Hello Teresa:
> >
> >Did that satisfy the disabled person who had the
> >problem with the Automark? Regardless, I'm very
> >pleased by this development.
> >
> >Thanks, Ed Kennedy
> >
> >--- Teresa Hommel <tahommel@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>The Automark as demonstrated on May 3 in Syracuse NY
> >>has a privacy
> >>sleeve (cardboard folder).
> >>
> >>The unmarked ballot is placed into the folder by the
> >>election worker. No
> >>one can see the ballot face while the ballot is in
> >>the folder. The human
> >>assistant (of the voter who cannot manually handle
> >>their own ballot)
> >>carries the folder with the ballot in it to the
> >>Automark, places the
> >>folder on the Automark, and pushes the ballot
> >>forward by touching the
> >>ballot through a small opening in the folder. This
> >>causes the Automark
> >>to pull the ballot into the Automark.
> >>
> >>The voter the uses the various devices attached to
> >>the Automark to vote
> >>on the ballot. The ballot comes out of the Automark
> >>directly back into
> >>the folder. No one can view the ballot face or the
> >>votes on the ballot.
> >>The human assistant places the folder on the optical
> >>scanner, pushes the
> >>ballot forward by touching the ballot through the
> >>small opening. This
> >>causes the optical scanner to pull the ballot into
> >>the optical scanner.
> >>
> >>The law and the idea of the private and independent
> >>vote is that no one
> >>can view the voter's votes.
> >>
> >>That has been accomplished with this well-designed
> >>folder, I believe
> >>designed by some elections folks in the midwest.
> >>
> >>Teresa Hommel
> >>
> >>
> >>Ed Kennedy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ><http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/April.2005/0027.html>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>Hello Ron and Teresa:
> >>>
> >>>Arthur caught this little article above about the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>AutoMark and I dug
> >>
> >>
> >>>it out of the archives for you. Actually, it's
> >>>
> >>>
> >>really a case of how
> >>
> >>
> >>>shameless and desperate the DRE manufacturers are
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to use the fact
> >>
> >>
> >>>that quadriplegics might have to handle the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>ballots as an allegedly
> >>
> >>
> >>>valid excuse to not have paper ballots. Sooner
> >>>
> >>>
> >>than we think,
> >>
> >>
> >>>many quadriplegics will get remote control arm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>like devices attached
> >>
> >>
> >>>to their wheel chairs and be able to handle paper
> >>>
> >>>
> >>ballots with
> >>
> >>
> >>>reasonable privacy. Until then though, it goes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>way beyond reasonable
> >>
> >>
> >>>accommodation IMHO to claim that the existence of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>quadriplegic are a
> >>
> >>
> >>>valid excuse for all of us to not use paper
> >>>
> >>>
> >>ballots.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>
> >>>Thanks, Edmund R. Kennedy
> >>>
> >>>Always work for the common good.
> >>>
> >>>10777 Bendigo Cove
> >>>San Diego, CA 92126-2510
> >>>USA
> >>>
> >>>I blog now and then at:
> >>>
> >>>
> >><http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
> >>
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>OVC discuss mailing lists
> >>>Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
> >>
> >>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>OVC discuss mailing lists
> >>Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> >>
> >>
> >arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://listman.sonic.net/pipermail/ovc-discuss/attachments/20050507/fb5efb16
/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 22:59:56 -0700
> From: Jim March <jmarch@prodigy.net>
> Subject: [OVC-discuss] Sigh. Correction needed to the newsletter.
> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Message-ID: <427DAADC.5090102@prodigy.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> This bit:
>
> --------------
> In addition R. Lee Wrights, Vice-chair of the Libertarian National
> Committee and Libertarian Jim March, who is also on the board of Black
> Box Voting, wholeheartedly support OVC.
> --------------
>
> WRONG.
>
> I'm a Republican who "leans Libertarian", a member of the Republican
> Liberty Caucus. Also known as a "Ron Paul Republican" or "small-L
> libertarian". As I've said on numerous occasions. When I use a "short
> form", I'm clear about what I am: a registered Republican.
>
> Sorry, but I need a correction made.
>
> Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discussion list
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>
> End of OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 7, Issue 51
> ******************************************
>

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:26 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT