Re: 60 minutes

From: David Jefferson <d_jefferson_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Thu Oct 28 2004 - 22:06:47 CDT

Just a couple of details about the 60 Minutes segment. You may recall
that there were a couple of seconds of film scanning down some source
code, along with a voice-over saying something like "If just one
semicolon of this changes....".

That code flashing by was filmed from my laptop screen. It is voting
system code, and open source as well! I was actually explaining at
that moment that U.S source code is proprietary and secret, so I can't
show it to the audience, but THIS code is open source and I can. (It
is not your code--it is the Dutch code, written in Java, that was
recently opened and that I happened to have on the laptop.)
Unfortunately, my voice explanation was all removed and the mention of
open source was not used.


On Oct 28, 2004, at 7:15 PM, David Mertz wrote:

> On Oct 28, 2004, at 8:32 PM, Alan Dechert wrote:
>> David Jefferson was the star of the show, imo. Avi was great too. I
>> didn't
>> count the minutes on air, but I think David won that one.
> I saw it too. It's too bad they didn't use Doug. But David Jefferson
> was indeed fantastic. Of course, actually mentioning OVC would have
> got us a lot closer to those million hits...
>> Conny McCormack sounded very very naive ...
> In a whole lot of ways. I was a bit shocked how awful she was. When
> I met her she didn't seem entirely to get it, but she didn't seem that
> bad.
> The sad thing about here _60 Minutes_ appearance was that it really
> looked like she was concerned about exactly two thing (in strongly
> descending order): (1) Minimizing the work her office needs to do; (2)
> Giving voters a good feeling about voting. I don't really doubt that
> DREs can do those things, at least if voters remain uninformed about
> the problems.
> In fact, I don't even disagree that those two goals are good in a
> general way.
> But overriding McCormack's apparent concerns is a much larger one that
> she seemed pretty well indifferent about: (3) Ensuring integrity of
> the votes. While I think all three are possible at once, I think all
> us OVC'ers would agree that (3) must come -way- before (1) and (2),
> even if satisfying (3) is to the detriment of the others.
> Yours, David...
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon Nov 1 15:28:54 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 15:28:58 CST