Slashdot Mirror

These are NOT "rent-a-cops." Any campus of the UW system that has a police department has a state-certified police force. They are armed and have all the powers that any other city/municipal police department does, including the ability to arrest you or cite you under UW system administrative code or state or local statute, depending on their mood.

http://www.uwstout.edu/police/about.cfm
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=code&jd=UWS

replying to myself to add a relevant link http://www.doa.state.wi.us/docs_view2.asp?docid=521

Sure that is a good and all but what about the family bills that per monthly have to be paid without the second income?

From a VA fact sheet, dated 2004, the VA pays the surviving spouse $967 month plus $241 per each child until that person turns 57 or remarries. It's probably more than that now.

http://dva.state.wi.us/Webforms/Data_Factsheets/survivor_benefits.pdf

That's how it works here in Wisconsin.

And for both of you who demand the statue instead of the explanation, here it is. (pdf, 400k)

I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!

Any sex with a person under 18 is rape in the State of WI. See 948.02 for the under-16 case and 940.09 for the over-16 but under-18 case (first link). So if a 17 year old has sex with a 16 year old, they have both raped each other. It's a perversion of language to call that a rape (even if it remains a crime, I'm not going to wade into that minefield of the exact numerical value for the age of consent) but that's the law. A 17 year old out to lose his virginity is, in fact, seeking to become a rape victim.

Now, the theory that because of this the teacher that showed the kid year old how to use a condom is responsible for the crime because he encouraged (statutory,willing)-rape is bizarre, to say the least.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0948.pdf [PDF]
http://law.marquette.edu/lawreview/Spring%202006/Olszewski.pdf [PDF]

[ AH FUCK UNCLOSED TAGS DAMNIT REPOST. ]

Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone.

The Honorable Representative should read her own laws, because it most certainly is a crime for a person to use a condom (properly) if the other party to the condom usage is under 18 (under 16 and it's a felony). If both are under 18, then it is mutual statutory rape under the laws of the fine state of Wisconsin. So yeah, Mrs. Roys, using a condom is a crime for the vast majority of high school students in your state.

I hasten to say that I'm not at all supportive of the DA's theory that a teacher who instructs students on proper condom usage is somehow responsible for their subsequent crimes. I just wanted to point of that the Representative made a transparently false factual statement about the law in her own State.

See 948.02 for the under-16 case and 940.09 for the over-16 but under-18 case.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0948.pdf [PDF]
http://law.marquette.edu/lawreview/Spring%202006/Olszewski.pdf [PDF]

Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone

is a crime for >80% of the high school students in your state.

See 948.02 for the under-16 case and 940.09 for the over-16 but under-18 case.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0948.pdf [PDF]
http://law.marquette.edu/lawreview/Spring%202006/Olszewski.pdf [PDF]

Ummm -- Juneau, Wisconsin is a city in Dodge County. Juneau County (where this doofus works) does not contain Juneau (the city). Not that it matters much. As a resident of WI, I can say there is a lot of people around here that agree with this doofus. Must be, since according to the law in WI, everybody who has sex with a person under 18 is committing a crime. (Section 949.09 -- 16-18 = misdemeanor, section 948.02 -- 15 & under = felony.) No exception for when both are under the age of 18, you can still get put in jail and on the sex offender registry. Something is wrong when the law criminalizes what over half of people do. But this prosecutor just can not let go of the power to ruin people's lives.

This page (which is referenced by Wikipedia, so it must be correct) only shows ten states as being "left lane for passing only" (and some of those are only on roads with specific speed limits of 65 or 70MPH).

Interestingly though, this doesn't show Wisconsin as a "passing only" state. I started to take a look at the Wisconsin law to figure out what was going on and got bored (and distracted by the parts having to do what one should do when "Passing or meeting frightened animal").

Frank,
    Maybe over in Portland (your neck of the woods) you've had roundabouts for many years. But many places in Wisconsin have only begun putting in roundabouts in the last 10 years or so, and sparingly at that. Maybe you're a brilliant driver, and maybe I'm a bad one. But when I took driving instruction here, there were no roundabouts. They weren't discussed in class, we didn't test-drive on them, etc. So what I'm saying is that even the best driver, when confronted with a roundabout, may be unsure of the correct procedure.

I've thought of the roundabout as a big circular intersection. As such, I thought perhaps I should signal my intent to turn prior to entering the roundabout. I now see from this presentation at http://www.dot.state.wi.us/safety/motorist/roaddesign/roundabouts/av/roundabout.swf that intent is established first by choosing your entrance lane and that you ought to use your turn signal prior to exiting the roundabout.

If you use them every day, I suppose it seems absurd that someone wouldn't know how. But let's be fair.

And, this is precisely why so many people fear guns. They want to hide behind the AC tag, and use vulgarity - knowing they are safe. They also expect to be just as safe when they choose to run their mouth on the street. I'll bet my dollar against your penny, if a real man answers his little potty mouth, AC will pick up a rock, a club, a knife, or something because he's AC. When the real man shoots him dead, then that man is in the wrong for having a weapon. Go figure.

Anonymous COWARD.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/pubs/ttp/ttp-09-2003.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Go, coward, read. The facts are, when the populace is armed, violent crimes go down. When citizens are disarmed, crime goes up.

Since we have already established that you are a coward, allow me to ask a simple question: If/when you ever creep out of your Mama's basement, hoping to drag a female into your den, would you rather face women who are armed, and are able to resist? Or, would you rather face defenseless women? I don't give you much chance in either instance - but I am perfectly happy with armed women. Knowing that she can shoot you dead if you get out of line just helps to keep a guy honest.

I love headlines like these, which you will NEVER read in gaywad anonymous coward magazines:
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2005/04/jacksonville-great-grandmother-shoots.html
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-47396.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20001128/ai_n9979806/

Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were both gun control proponents. I suppose you would like those individuals, right? Douchebag, yourself.

Laws are made by legislative branch, not executive branch.

Yes, laws which create school districts and give them authority to act are made by the legislative branch. Violating those laws by defying the authority granted to the district under those laws is a violation of the law.

OCCASIONALLY, the legislative branch SPECIFICALLY grants an agency the power to make a law.

At least in the US system of government, what the legislative branch may do is grant authority to adopt policies subordinate to law ("regulation", broadly) to executive agencies, and failure to comply with any exercise of that authority, generally, violates the law which gives the authority in the first place.

Schools don't have that.

Schools, do, in fact, in most (and I would imagine all) jurisdictions have authority under the law compliance with which is legally mandatory, and defiance of which is contrary to the law.

In particular, in Wisconsin, schools specifically are granted authority under WI statute 118.258 to "adopt rules prohibiting a pupil from using or possessing an electronic communication device while on premises owned or rented by or under the control of a public school.", and, further, WI statute 118.001 calls for broad construction of school district powers (" The statutory duties and powers of school boards shall be broadly construed to authorize any school board action that is within the comprehensive meaning of the terms of the duties and powers, if the action is not prohibited by the laws of the federal government or of this state."), which extends also to the authority under Wisconsin laws of teachers in the schools (see annotation to statute 118.001.)

Activity was described 1. Texting when the TEACHER, not a rule, told her to stop. (even if the school regulation had the force of law, the teacher did not.

Incorrect assumption. Most like, the school rules made obedience to the teacher on that mandatory, and almost certainly those rules were within the scope of the authority of the school under the law, meaning that failing to comply with the teacher's orders was a violation of law.

So We have disobeying a teacher which can in NO way be called disorderly conduct

Really? Again, please post the disorderly conduct statute applicable where this occurred and explained how this act is outside the scope of that statute.

Or, better yet, here it is (WI statute 947.01):

Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

Note that one of the annotations of case-law precedents notes that "Defiance of a police officer's order to move is itself disorderly conduct if the order is lawful."

I'm interested to here your argument that, under this law, disrupting instruction in the classroom by refusing to obey a teacher's order, presuming that the order is within the teacher's authority in the classroom under the law, cannot, "in any way", be considered "disorderly conduct", or, alternatively, your explanation as to how this is outside the teacher's authority under the law.

Laws are made by legislative branch, not executive branch.

Yes, laws which create school districts and give them authority to act are made by the legislative branch. Violating those laws by defying the authority granted to the district under those laws is a violation of the law.

OCCASIONALLY, the legislative branch SPECIFICALLY grants an agency the power to make a law.

At least in the US system of government, what the legislative branch may do is grant authority to adopt policies subordinate to law ("regulation", broadly) to executive agencies, and failure to comply with any exercise of that authority, generally, violates the law which gives the authority in the first place.

Schools don't have that.

Schools, do, in fact, in most (and I would imagine all) jurisdictions have authority under the law compliance with which is legally mandatory, and defiance of which is contrary to the law.

In particular, in Wisconsin, schools specifically are granted authority under WI statute 118.258 to "adopt rules prohibiting a pupil from using or possessing an electronic communication device while on premises owned or rented by or under the control of a public school.", and, further, WI statute 118.001 calls for broad construction of school district powers (" The statutory duties and powers of school boards shall be broadly construed to authorize any school board action that is within the comprehensive meaning of the terms of the duties and powers, if the action is not prohibited by the laws of the federal government or of this state."), which extends also to the authority under Wisconsin laws of teachers in the schools (see annotation to statute 118.001.)

Activity was described 1. Texting when the TEACHER, not a rule, told her to stop. (even if the school regulation had the force of law, the teacher did not.

Incorrect assumption. Most like, the school rules made obedience to the teacher on that mandatory, and almost certainly those rules were within the scope of the authority of the school under the law, meaning that failing to comply with the teacher's orders was a violation of law.

So We have disobeying a teacher which can in NO way be called disorderly conduct

Really? Again, please post the disorderly conduct statute applicable where this occurred and explained how this act is outside the scope of that statute.

Or, better yet, here it is (WI statute 947.01):

Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

Note that one of the annotations of case-law precedents notes that "Defiance of a police officer's order to move is itself disorderly conduct if the order is lawful."

I'm interested to here your argument that, under this law, disrupting instruction in the classroom by refusing to obey a teacher's order, presuming that the order is within the teacher's authority in the classroom under the law, cannot, "in any way", be considered "disorderly conduct", or, alternatively, your explanation as to how this is outside the teacher's authority under the law.

Do you have any references for this?

This is from Wisconsin. Here you go: Wisconsin Statute 943.13 Trespass to Land.

Your ideals won't save your stupid ass from a beating or a bullet. Wise up.

Your beating or bullet won't save you from a civil suit or jail time. Wise up.

In Wisconsin you are not allowed to evict a tenant between November and March (IIRC). The idea is that people can freeze to death without a home.

This is a common belief, but it isn't actually true. See here:

http://www.portagelawyers.com/pamphlets/landlord_tenant.asp#A8
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/stat0704.pdf

Of
  course
  nitrates
  are
  harmless!

Native Americans didn't even have calculus when they were discovered, and couldn't even make cast iron, let alone steel.

Native American may not of had calculus but Europeans didn't have "zero".

and couldn't even make cast iron, let alone steel.

American Indians were mining copper before the Americas were "discovered". In 1848 a copper mine was found showing mining was done as early as 3000BC on the shore of Lake Superior in Wisconsin.

http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=Gerald+Polzin

I went to visit him in Jail, and he said he did not commit everything they charged him with. Never the less, he is in prison now. I think I will go visit him again this summer.

Here is a direct link to "Wisconsin Department of Corrections
SOR Registrant List" that skips the anonying lawyer bullshit, and gets right to the meat.
http://offender.doc.state.wi.us/public/search/sor?x=58&y=11&last_name=Polzin&first_name=Gerald&page=1&action=searchbyname&acknowledged=true

836.10 Written threats to kill or do bodily injury; punishment.--If any person writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter or inscribed communication, so written or composed, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, the person so writing or composing and so sending or procuring the sending of such letter or communication, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.--s. 1, ch. 6503, 1913; RGS 5094; CGL 7196; s. 995, ch. 71-136.

From Florida state legislature, notice the date, 1913. Shall I carry on and supply an example from Wisconsin, re "harassment with credible threat", 947.013, from 1984, as last revised? http://www.legis.state.wi.us/acts89-93/83Act336.pd f

So, yeah... uh, no, it's not only become a crime in the last decade because of celebrities scared of stalkers.

Line item veto would allow the president (who ultimately signs the bill into law based on the recommendation of congress) to say "WTF is this crap doing in here!?!" so he scratches that paragraph out and signs the rest.

Line item veto is NOT the answer! I used to think it was, until I heard a great argument -- namely, in a well-functioning democracy (let's suspend disbelief here for a minute), laws are passed that are the result of debate & compromise by both sides. A line-item veto would be a tool for the executive (whose job it is to implement & enforce said laws), to *change* law & potentially cut out whatever comprises have been made to get the law passed.

For an extreme example, see this outrageous use of letter-by-letter veto power that Gov. Doyle has in Wisconsin. He partially vetoed words & numbers in the budget bill to redirect $400 million from transportation to schools. Link to PDF of Frankenstein Veto

Here is the link I forgot to include in my previous post:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/regs/ Deer06regs2-14.pdf

- discharging firearm within 100 feet of a road

Isn't it "within 50 feet of the centerline"? See top of page 12:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/regs/ Deer06regs2-14.pdf

I've always wondered why such charges aren't trivially dismissed on the grounds that the hunter shot a robot, not a deer.

Because it's ooooo-so-illegal to shoot at a deer when you are within 50 feet of the centerline of a highway.
See top of page 12:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/regs/ Deer06regs2-14.pdf

It's not the "shooting at the robodeer" that gets you, it's the "discharging a firearm out the passenger window of your buddy Billy Ray's pickup after he pulled over on the shoulder". Regardless of whether or not you thought the robodeer was real, it's hard to explain your way out of shooting from a vehicle that is on a public road.

That being said, there are many things hunting is not. I've previously posted some of my thoughts on the topic.

There is no grand tradition of getting back to our roots and learning vital survival skills. I would not want to have to pit my skills against the great outdoors without access to a modern outfitter and their magical technological wonders. Being able to fire a bow is nothing close to being able to make one, and there is a huge difference between a stick and a string compared to a modern compound bow. While I've certainly learned some survival skills, hunting isn't about learning ancient skills, its about outdoor recreation.

Venison can be good, but good steak will usually taste better and cost much less.

Unleashing a hoard of armed and dangerous recreational hunters upon the woods may not be the best form of animal population control.

There most certainly are hunters who are just out there to 'kill things' and have little regard for what they hunt or where they do it, but such asshats seem to invade most types of recreation. However they usually don't get to carry firearms while doing so.

Here in Wisconsin, the deer herd has been a problem for many years, and they most certainly are out there starving and damaging crops. A serious debate could certainly be held about the effectiveness of current and past measures to keep the herds in check.

• 6 GtC/year emitted per year
• 100 kilos per 10" balsam fir (50 years old; that's a bit slow
  of a turn-around for the market, but older trees absorb more carbon).
• 800 trees per acre

In Wisconsin's State v. Picotte (2003) an individual caused severe injuries to another, and that person died about two years later from those injuries. He was initially convicted with some type of assault charge, but after the guy died, they convicted him of a murder charge.

English common law, in the 13th century created a concept called the Year and a Day Rule in which a person is not culpable for a person's death due to injuries they caused if the person dies 366 days after the injuries were caused.

The Wisconsin legislature had entertained statutorily eliminating the Year and a Day Rule, but failed to do so, so the common law precedent stood and the conviction overturned.(Though the court did eliminate it from that point further (essentialy saying that the common law precedence is archaic) but let it stand for this one case.)

Hence, a British law from the 13th century (which no longer exists in Britain) played a major role in an American murder case in 2003.

The article -- and its bit about the bill requiring the source to be disclosed to citizens -- refers to the bill as introduced. On November 3rd, the committee gutted the disclosed source requirement. On November 10th, the new version of the bill was in place and THAT was what was passed.

Legislative history of AB627: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/AB-627hst.p df

From TFB:

5.91 (19) The coding for the software that is used to operate the system on election day and to tally the votes cast is publicly accessible and may be used to independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the operating and tallying procedures to be employed at any election.

This is somewhat less than what is usually meant by the term "Open Source". But it seems that at least voting machines running a completely closed operating systems are ruled out.

As for paper trails from vote machines, it is extremely important that we are not fooled by it...

For example, take a look at the wording of this document. (from WI) http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=344 9&locid=47

Read the last paragraph.

In short, you sure the paper trail is printed at the time of the vote and can you see the result? If not, it is worthless.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/AB-627.pdf/

2005 2006 LEGISLATURE
2005 ASSEMBLY BILL 627
August 24, 2005 Introduced by Representatives POCAN, FREESE, AINSWORTH,
BERCEAU, BLACK, GRIGSBY, GUNDERSON, KESSLER, LEHMAN, LOTHIAN, MOLEPSKE,
MUSSER, NELSON, PARISI, POPEROBERTS, RICHARDS, SEIDEL, SHERIDAN, SHERMAN,
SHILLING, SINICKI, TOWNSEND, TRAVIS and WOOD, cosponsored by Senators
PLALE, CARPENTER, ERPENBACH, GROTHMAN, HANSEN, A. LASEE, OLSEN, REYNOLDS
and RISSER. Referred to Committee on Campaigns and Elections.
AN ACT to amend 5.84 (title) and 5.91 (18); and to create 5.84 (3) and 5.91 (19)
of the statutes; relating to: electronic voting system standards.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Currently, with limited exceptions, every municipality with a population of
7,500 or more must use voting machines or an electronic voting system at all
primaries and other elections held in the municipality. Either mechanical or
electronic voting machines may be used. No electronic voting system, including an
electronic voting machine, may be used unless the system meets statutory standards
and is approved by the State Elections Board for use at elections held in this state.
The system must enable an elector to privately verify the votes selected by the elector
before casting his or her ballot. All electronic voting systems must be tested publicly
before each election to determine if they are functioning properly. If voting machines
are used, ballots need not be printed and distributed to electors, but if electronic
voting machines are used, the machines must maintain a cumulative tally of votes
cast that is retrievable in the event of a power outage, evacuation, or malfunction so
that the record of the votes cast prior to the time that the problem occurs is preserved,
and the machines must produce a permanent paper of record of the vote cast by each
elector at the time that it is cast that enables a manual count or recount of the
elector's vote. Currently, there is no requirement pertaining to accessibility or
independent verification of software that is used to operate a system or to record and
tally the votes cast.
This bill provides that if a municipality uses an electronic voting system that
consists of a voting machine, the machine must generate a complete paper ballot
1
2
2005 2006 Legislature 2 LRB2044/3
JTK:kjf:rs
ASSEMBLY BILL 627
showing all votes cast by each elector that is visually verifiable by the elector before
the elector leaves the machine and that enables a manual count or recount of each
vote cast by the elector.
The bill also provides that the coding for the software that is used to operate the
system on election day and to tally the votes cast must be publicly accessible and
must be able to be used to independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the
operating and tallying procedures to be employed at an election. In addition, the bill
provides that each municipal clerk or board of election commissioners of a
municipality that uses an electronic voting system for voting at an election shall
provide to any person, upon request, at municipal expense, the coding for the
software that the municipality uses to operate the system and to record and tally the
votes cast.
For further information see the local fiscal estimate, which will be printed as
an appendix to this bill.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
enact as follows:
SECTION 1. 5.84 (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
5.84 (title) Testing of equipment; custody of requirements for programs
and ballots.
SECTION 2. 5.84 (3) of the statutes is created to read:
5.84 (3) If a municipality uses an electronic voting system for voting at any
election, the municipal clerk shall provide to any person, upon request, at the
expense of the m

..provides that if an electronic voting machine is used at a polling place, the board of canvassers must perform the recount using the permanent paper record showing the votes cast by each elector, as generated by the machines.

The substitute amendment also directs the Elections Board to promulgate rules to ensure the security, review, and verification of software components used with each electronic voting system approved by the board for use at elections in this state. Under the substitute amendment, the board must require each vendor of an electronic voting system to place its software components in escrow with the board. The substitute amendment prohibits the board from providing access to the components to any person except in a recount of an election. If a valid petition for a recount is filed in an election in which an electronic voting system is used to record and tally the votes cast, the board must provide access to the software components used to record and tally the votes to one or more persons designated by each party to the recount if each designee first enters into an agreement with the board under which the designee agrees to maintain the confidentiality of all proprietary information provided to the designee. The substitute amendment permits a county or municipality to contract with the vendor of an electronic voting system to permit a greater degree of access to software components used with the system than is otherwise authorized under the substitute amendment.

Your wish is their command.

That's an itsy bitsy teenie weenie fraction.

Can I put an itsy bitsy teenie weenie fraction of chlorine gas in your immediate vicinity, then?

Small quantities of things cause large effects.

I first became interested in the paper trail issiue after seeing a poting here early in 2001, and began bugging Rep. Pocan shortly thereafter.

Got the Attention of the State Elections Board in Jan 2003, resulting in decertification of prior machines that April.

Pocan had a paper trail bill a little over a year ago which passed the Assembly unanimously, but was not acted upon in the Senate before they closed shop for the year. Pocan at the time told me adding an open source code clause was too late, buy promised to include my language in re-introducing the bill this year.
See my March 18, 2004 post

The Elections Board is currently examining equipment to be purchased 1 for each polling place, for handicapped voters. The systems they examined last week provide paper trails, but are closed source code. Elections Board notice to County Clerks (Word.doc)

That depends on how you define a lake.

Minnesota DNR defines a lake as being larger than 10 acres. Of which there are 11,842. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/faq/mnfacts/water.html

From Wisconsin's own DNR:
"Of the 15,081 documented lakes in Wisconsin, only about 40 percent have actually been named. The majority of the unnamed lakes are very small, less than 10acres." 60% of 15.081 is 9048. A majoriy of 9k would be about 6k-7k. Therefore about 9000 lake is accurate. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/lakes/Lak es1a.pdf

If Minnesota counted all body of water less than 10 acres, there would be well more than 15k.

"Use tax is the counterpart of sales tax. It must be paid on all taxable items purchased from retailers who do not collect Wisconsin sales tax and all taxable items brought into Wisconsin. It applies to purchases made in foreign countries as well as other states. Use tax only applies when Wisconsin sales tax is not charged."

What's great is you get double taxed for things you buy out-of-state but bring home to use. For example, I drive down to Gurnee Mills just north of Chicago and buy a CD. I pay the 6%+ IL sales tax, then drive home. According to WI law, when I file my taxes, I must pay the 5% use tax on that CD. This proposal by Gov. Doyle is just an extension of the current use tax.

Here's a snippet from Wisconsin's rules for registering:

Anyone wishing to vote in the state of Wisconsin, where they are required to register, has three options to register:

<snip>

3. AT THE POLLING PLACE ON ELECTION DAY: If you wish to register to vote at your polling place, you must bring proof that you have lived at your present location for 10 days preceding the election. For purposes of voter registration, a form of identification constitutes acceptable proof of residence if it includes:

1. A current and complete name, including both the given and family name; and
2. A current and complete residential address, including a numbered street address, if any, and the name of a municipality.

If you cannot supply acceptable proof of residence, your registration form can be substantiated and signed by one other elector who resides in your municipality, corroborating your residency information. The corroborator must then provide acceptable proof of residence.

Yes, zebra mussels do CLEAR the water, but they do not CLEAN it. What they do is they remove all the sediment that other creatures oftem feed on, thus making it unavailable. However, they pass most pollutants right on (except for some heavy metals and such which they bioaccumulate like crazy, poisoning any creatures which then eat them.)

And the clearing of the water actually causes problems in and of itself. There is still a super high nutrient load in the water, and the extra light allowed in causes several noxious weeds to grow out of control, choking out most normal vegetation, destroying habitat several animals use (especially for egg laying) and choke waterways from human navigation.

While their unchecked growth in the wild does cause problens, zebra mussels could make an interesting part of a constructed bioremediation system (at least in waterways which are already infected by the zebras anyways.)

A couple of links on zebra mussels:
Wisconsin DNR
Minnesota Sea Grant
Missouri Department of Conservation
Iowa DNR

And slightly more technical link outlinking some ofthe risks of overfiltration

Somehow, none of the articles ever mention that the Wisconsin State Elections Board decertified unverifiable touchscreen systems after I convinced them a year ago. Too far ahead of the curve, I guess.

The Executive Director's report

Ugly and blatant, perhaps. But many minority representatives (both State and Federal) would not have been / would not be elected without redistricting.

All sorts of interesting articles and view points available via Google.

Here is an interesting page with a lot of resources on the subject.

Wisconsin for example already has this. You can enter a ZIP code to locate all sex offenders in your area. Actually, a sex offender recently moved into our otherwise quiet neighborhood. I found this out first through the website above, and a week later a town meeting was held about the very same person.

In January, 2002 the State Elections Board approved two closed source touch screen voting systems, the ES&S Votronic DRE and the GBS Accu-Touch EBS 100 DRE.

This spring I raised the system integrity issues with the Board, and persuaded them to revoke the certifications.

How nice it must be for you, that the "statistics" you heard jibe with your preconceived notion. Let's look at some data though, shall we?

According to Wisconsin's Department of Administration total US energy consumption stood at 68.0 quadrillion BTUs in 1970 (of which 63.5 quadrillion BTUs was in greenhouse-producing hydrocarbons). The comparable figures for 2001 were 97.0 quadrillion BTUs total (of which 82.4 quadrillion BTUs was in hydrocarbons). That's an increase of nearly 43% in 31 years, in total energy consumption, and nearly 30% in hydrocarbon burning energy consumption. Other figures are even worse, eg growth in electricity sales in the period 1990-2001 was 24% according to the Department of Energy.

Now, what these figures don't show is the actual growth in greenhouse emissions; efficiency improvements could also mean that although more power is being generated, less hydrocarbons are being burnt to generate it. No doubt there are better sources out there, but this page at the DOE shows US greenhouse emissions gently rising since the early 1980s, and this one likewise shows US energy consumption per capita gently rising over the same period (presumably the turning point was when people got over the oil shocks of the 1970s and stopped worrying about energy efficiency).

So while more efficient technology is no doubt having an important effect, it's not enough to negate that of increasing energy demands. You'll need to let go of your comfort blanket, or at least find a new one ...

In January, 2002 the State Elections Board approved two closed source touch screen voting systems, the ES&S Votronic DRE and the GBS Accu-Touch EBS 100 DRE.

This spring I raised the system integrity issues with the Board, and persuaded them to revoke the certifications.

In January, 2002 the State Elections Board approved two closed source touch screen voting systems, the ES&S Votronic DRE and the GBS Accu-Touch EBS 100 DRE.

This spring I raised the system integrity issues with the Board, and persuaded them to revoke the certifications.

In January, 2002 the State Elections Board approved two touch screen voting systems, the ES&S Votronic
DRE and the GBS Accu-Touch EBS 100 DRE.

This spring I raised the system integrity issues with the Board, and persuaded them to revoke the certifications.

It helped that after garnering over 10% in the last race for Governor, the Wisconsin Libertarian Party was able to place a representative on the Board, the only 3d Party State Elections Official in the US.

The State of Wisconsin will do just that this year. I'm not sure if it is only the state taxes, or if they'll allow you to do federal also, but somehow I'd think that a state agency would only be able (allowed?) to do state revenue.

ok, if something isn't there to affect you...how are you going to get affected by it? do some reading oh, and CWD has been around for over 20 years...started in the western US....nobody's died from it.

WI DNR site has a FAQ and other info on CDW here

I found the spot you were thinking of, dealing with the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. From Wisconsin's version of the UCC [pdf]:

402.316(2)
(2) Subject to sub. (3) , to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."

emphasis in above paragraph is mine