What do you mean "your insistance"? I gave corrected idiot using those terms improperly in the past too.
Heres the big point. You do not have to care, you just look moronic if you do not and use the term. Its sort of like going to a job interview and speaking ghetto slang while dropping the f-bomb in every other sentence. No one except the least educated will take you seriously and any idiot capable of counting to ten will be tacken more seriously.
But yes, i do not have the ability to control what you say or do. I do not even want to either. But i do have the ability ir i am "allowed" to consider you as a noron and tell you why. If you do not like it, you can adjust accordingly.
They could save a lot more money by going home and phoning it in which is basically what it appears they do anyways. I mean they sat on their hands watching genocide, they largely didn't raise an eyebrow when Russia invaded the Ukraine. Sure, they have the charters and declarations and public statements like that sound grand, but even in their most recent peace keeping mission, they picked up and left when bullets started flying their way. I guess keeping the peace was not the real objective? And don't get me started on the peace keepers raping and pillaging
Yeah, it doesn't seem like there is much they do well that cannot be done over the phone or in a video conference with modern technology.
And this is different how? I'm glad somebody asked.
You see, those divestment campaigns only worked because there was no intrinsic need for anything coming from them. You cannot say that about Oil. This campaign is little more than a Greenie placing a bumper sticker on their SUV and driving around town to make sure everyone know they care about the environment. There is no natural, economical, or otherwise viable replacement for the fossil fuels and there will not be any time soon.
Now you can hold signs saying #bring back our girls and feel good about doing something but pretending it is anything more than feel good is dangerous and delusional.
Wow.. If using fucktarded repeatedly didn't show how fucking stupid you are, using USian as if it was an actual word most certainly does.
Here is a hint, the accepted term- even internationally is American. It is because the country is the United States of America and is the only country in north or south America that ends it's country name with America. Other countries have America in their official names, but they do not end it with America in neither their official language or the English version of the name so no other country has claim to the usage.
But it is not just the US who doesn't do anything about AGW concerning coal, natural gas, or oil (which it actually is, per capita GHG emissions in the US was 19.1 metric tons and in 2010, it was 17.6 which is a greater per capita drop than Canada, Japan, China, Italy, Australia, and only 2 tenths of a metric ton less than France). China, India (who both have surpassed the US in raw emissions), almost all third world countries, simply do not give a shit as much as you think they should either. In fact, Most of Europe who put arbitrary limitations on themselves ended up moving production over seas (off shoring) to eliminate accounting of carbon more than eliminating the carbon emissions itself. And Germany, they plateaued and seem to be increasing their emissions now, but they had the added benefit of combining two separate systems (East and West Germany) and doing away with redundant pollution sources with news more efficient sources which explains most of their reductions.
Here is another hint. Perhaps you wouldn't be afraid to post real posts and even use a real moniker if you actually paid attention and knew what was going on rather than jerk your knee so hard that you hit yourself in the head and can only speak from emotion.
Well, they could hold some hearings on it, get Hillary to be a special independent third party prosecutor or hearing officer to maintain an independent appearance, email the information that she will be investigating and have her server get hacked because of all the recent publicity surrounding it.
But any appearance of partisanship would likely be met with a knock on the door some morning and a guy in a trench coat saying look what I have hear, show a tablet of some pictures, maybe play a video or audio recording, and it will be swept under the rug quickly. It would have to be bipartisan and large on scope for anything to actually happen.
Actually, I do not think he would live that long. Someone would probably kill him, be arrested and convicted in a blindly public way, and while we think he is in prison- back in D wing playing house with Buba, he would be doing covert operations in foreign lands under his real name or another cover name.
I think he has to be more tactful than just releasing information. Perhaps getting drunk and slipping a name or two out so a reporter could follow the clues and find the story on their own and have all the republicans blame the vice president would work? It worked for Armatage.
Lol.. Do you think saying "fuck" adds depth of meaning to your words?
I have better odds of making rich by hitting the lottery than I do of being incorrectly put to death by capitol punishment. There were 699,000 or so murders since 1976 when the death penalty numbers can be tracked. There has been 1379 executions in that time span which means less than two tenths of one percent where executed. Furthermore, there are 3035 death row inmates, if we add the already executed of 1379, it comes to a little over six tenths of one percent of all murders over a 4 decade period of time results in a death penalty. Assuming a 318 million population level and an average murder rate per year, I had a little over five thousands of one percent chance of even being charged with one of those murders. Of course that number is flawed because the population is not static but I'm much more likely to be murdered by someone than to be executed for a murder I did not commit.
It's too insignificant to be overly concerned about it as far as I can tell.
They will probably pass a law saying you cannot discriminate against prior convictions or something unless you can demonstrate some need for security that requires it.
The Governor of Ohio is already trying something similar. He's expanded or trying to expand professional license qualifications to convicts who have been trouble free for an amount of time. He said something about how do you expect recidivism to be low when released prisoners cannot even get jobs they can likely support themselves on. I'm not aware of any specific legislation but I saw him bring it up in a couple speeches.
I would say it is a low rate considering. It's less than one person per year per jurisdiction. And that likely would still be true if you discounted the jurisdictions that have a moratorium on the death penalty. And I guess there are 18 states which do not even have the death penalty as an option.
With the exception of California, Texas and Oklahoma, I would also say the use of the death penalty in sentencing is relatively low.
I need a creditable cite for that number. Best guess estimates I can find from anywhere that is not pushing an agenda is a measly 50 innocents and they specifically admit that is incorrect because it is just a transference of the 4% of people who on death row end up getting their sentence overturned or converted to life in prison.
Hell, Wikipedia only lays claim that 10 specific people are thought to have been wrongly put to death with another 39 carried out in the face of evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Of course I'm not sure what they think is evidence but I do not really care. There are 52 separate jurisdictions (with two being the same but listed separately due to separate branches of authority) capable of sentencing someone to death in the US and over the last 4 decades all they can come up with is 49 people who might have been innocent and 10 that actually were. That is an extremely low rate if you ask me.
And your assumptions seem wrong too. We accept all sorts of risks in life and this is just no different. There are plenty of opportunities to find innocents and stop them from being executed. In fact, you get more chances and more legal support if you are sentenced to death than if you received life in prison. The far vast majority of innocents are weeded out before it happens.
1) Making sure you don't execute an innocent man. How many times has a combination of witnesses who falsely recollect (either on purpose or just due to the fact that people's memories are always worse than they think they are), an overeager prosecutor (death penalty conviction = tough on crime campaign slogan = election to higher office), and a desire to hold SOMEONE responsible resulted in a death penalty conviction of someone who was later shown to be innocent? How many times has that "later shown to be innocent" come AFTER the execution took place?
And exactly how many has that happened to? I've looked and all I can find is that about 4% of death row inmates end up with convictions overturned or the death penalty converted to life in prison, And if an innocent person still made it through to be put to death, wouldn't that make whoever lied guilty of murder to homicide to some degree?
2) Making sure the execution isn't inhumane. Ok, we've decided via a court of law that John Smith is guilty. He's exhausted all appeal opportunities designed to help prevent innocents from being executed (see #1). It's time to execute him. There is always some element that would like to see the person suffer before death. Left to those devices, we could resort to something like slowly sawing off limbs/appendages while he's fully awake. That would definitely result in agony before death. However, that would also be highly inhumane. On the other hand, we could give him a painless drug that puts him to sleep and then have him only breathe nitrogen. However, those "revenge elements" start objecting to his peaceful demise. So we get the situation where we're trying to find a cruel way of execution - but not TOO cruel.
As far as I am concerned, the people on death row knew there was a penalty of death associated with their actions. Why is this not considered suicide by those people? As for cruel, we have worked hard and successfully to prevent cruelty in executions up until this drug manufacture decided not to sell the drugs for the purpose of executions. The firing squad, hanging, electrocution and gassing people were all replaced by drugs and are now only being considered or taken back up due to the lack of the drug. So I don't buy the cruelty aspect and I think the execution is an extension of committing suicide.
You do not get the death penalty for accidentally killing someone.
Or are you trying to excuse the accidents leading to death in order to cry against the intentional deaths of people who intentionally killed others? Strange how one justifies things if that was the case.
But here is a thought exercise for you. If someone knows they would be getting the death penalty for murdering people in a certain way (usually more than one person and intentionally with heinous acts of violence), wouldn't that be the same as them committing suicide? We already have suicide by cop, and there are strong arguments for doctor assisted suicide, why is this considered different?
They would need to be move off the schedule 1 declarations first. There is likely a lot of resistance to doing so because as a schedule one drug, they cannot be prescribed for any reason and are considered to have absolutely no medical use.
There would likely be a lot of opposition to even creating an exception for executions to the schedule one classification. This would come from people who oppose capitol punishment or even people who conceived slippery slope arguments. Right now, it's illegal under federal law.
The same is also true for Marijuana in the states that legalized it and the only thing stopping federal prosecution is refusals of local law enforcement to cooperate and an order from the president to not prosecute in states that have made it legal. But federally, it is a schedule one drug and the federal government doesn't even recognize medical uses of it.
Near as I can tell, they say about 4% of death row inmates end up getting their sentences either overturned or commuted in some way to avoid the death penalty. That 4% number cannot be transferred to those actually put to death because it stems from the overly abundant checks within the system on death penalty cases. I'm willing to suggest that more innocent people die from accidents revolving around police in high speed chases than on death row who were innocent.
Nah, they are already wrestling with a necessary evil (execution). In a twisted sort of way, it's done humanly and discretely so it will be less evil.
Quit frankly, I'm not sure what the problem is. It's not you throwing the switch, it's not you on the receiving end of the switch. And it definitely sounds more just than giving a mass murderer less than 4 months prison sentence per victim who has said he would kill more people if released.
Sometimes it's just better to end the problem permanently. That's a necessary evil but one that many people are willing to not only accept but expect.
You have to understand that the licensing for these kind of performances is big because they hit you twice. First, if you were to purchase an officially licensed karaoke track or a normal song track for DJing between singers, you will be paying between $3 and $4 US for each new song. But then you also need a public performance license on top of that. So when they figure the 10 billion value, they are probably thinking the licensing costs and increased unit costs. Technically, you aren't supposed to be able to go to walmart and pick a CD out of the bargain bin and play it at a bar or allow people to sing over top of it. You need to pay more because they have so much money, it gets lonesome and needs more to keep it company or something.
I'm with ya on actually experiencing it. I don't know how many people who couldn't carry a tune if you put it in a basket and duct taped it to their hand, have ruined my night because the karaoke decided to go longer then scheduled and I showed up a bit early. But every once in a while, you do find a gem in the mix who does a decent enough job or even outshines the original version of the song. In my neck of the woods, that is few and far in between and generally relies in me drinking a 6 pack before I notice them.
If he is flying the drone as part of his job, yes it is commercial.
As for youtube, some accounts receive a portion of the ad revenue based on the volume of hits. It's possible that his account has enough hits that he is getting revenue from posting drone videos online.
However, I just read the letter and do not see where it mentioned adds. It mentioned they receive a complaint about videos posted to youtube and after looking at them, the "complaint" does appear valid, then drops a list of a lot of rules concerning commercial and hobby use.
I did watch a couple of the videos and they seem well produced and of decent quality but they also were of events and locations which may give the impression they may have been produced for commercial reasons (eg, promoting the water tribe event or the closed down pier building, a fleet maintinence facility are a couple I noticed that might be construed as possibly being commercial in nature as they could be for hire scenarios without actually asking to find out) .
Dude, didn't you get the memo? It's not the justice system, it's the "just us" system now. Something about hooked on phonics and hillbilly BS but it seems they literally believe it is the "just us" system now.
I'm not sure there are a lot of impoverished any ethnic group getting a concealed carry license. They should, but I imagine that most of their finances is spent on either trying to live comfortable, or trying to temporarily escape the pitfalls of their life rather than purchasing a firearm and ammunition and jumping through legal hoops.
Are you suggesting that only impoverished minorities are being shot by police?
In the USA, the county auditors office will give you a listing of the homes, owners, purchase price, current tax appraised value and much more. Often this is online and available from anywhere in the world. For instance, you can go to
which is the county auditors office property page for Franklin county Ohio (Columbus Ohio area). You can select search, then by any means you have and gain access to the property records. For instance, I searched for willis under the search by owner, then double clicked the first one that popped up, selected detailed and saw lot size, number of buildings, assessed value, taxes paid, taxes owned, owner's name and address, number of buildings and so on.
For vehicles, it's a little less easy and you need a reason. You need to know the V.I.N number and I have yet to find an automated system that doesn't require an access fee. But you can go to the title office for the county and search the vin number to get a copy of the title information. On it, it will list the current owner of record, previous owner of record, the last mileage reading when it was transferred to the current owner, type and style including color of the vehicle when registered and the last license plate number issued to the car.
I guess you can get the information from the state DMV also. This article shows the claims on that.
I have never went to the DMV directly for this information and it has been probably more than 10 years since I needed to (Used to repossess cars). With the new camers in use, this information is easier to collect but it still costs a fee.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean "your insistance"? I gave corrected idiot using those terms improperly in the past too.
Heres the big point. You do not have to care, you just look moronic if you do not and use the term. Its sort of like going to a job interview and speaking ghetto slang while dropping the f-bomb in every other sentence. No one except the least educated will take you seriously and any idiot capable of counting to ten will be tacken more seriously.
But yes, i do not have the ability to control what you say or do. I do not even want to either. But i do have the ability ir i am "allowed" to consider you as a noron and tell you why. If you do not like it, you can adjust accordingly.
They could save a lot more money by going home and phoning it in which is basically what it appears they do anyways. I mean they sat on their hands watching genocide, they largely didn't raise an eyebrow when Russia invaded the Ukraine. Sure, they have the charters and declarations and public statements like that sound grand, but even in their most recent peace keeping mission, they picked up and left when bullets started flying their way. I guess keeping the peace was not the real objective? And don't get me started on the peace keepers raping and pillaging
Yeah, it doesn't seem like there is much they do well that cannot be done over the phone or in a video conference with modern technology.
And this is different how? I'm glad somebody asked.
You see, those divestment campaigns only worked because there was no intrinsic need for anything coming from them. You cannot say that about Oil. This campaign is little more than a Greenie placing a bumper sticker on their SUV and driving around town to make sure everyone know they care about the environment. There is no natural, economical, or otherwise viable replacement for the fossil fuels and there will not be any time soon.
Now you can hold signs saying #bring back our girls and feel good about doing something but pretending it is anything more than feel good is dangerous and delusional.
Wow.. If using fucktarded repeatedly didn't show how fucking stupid you are, using USian as if it was an actual word most certainly does.
Here is a hint, the accepted term- even internationally is American. It is because the country is the United States of America and is the only country in north or south America that ends it's country name with America. Other countries have America in their official names, but they do not end it with America in neither their official language or the English version of the name so no other country has claim to the usage.
But it is not just the US who doesn't do anything about AGW concerning coal, natural gas, or oil (which it actually is, per capita GHG emissions in the US was 19.1 metric tons and in 2010, it was 17.6 which is a greater per capita drop than Canada, Japan, China, Italy, Australia, and only 2 tenths of a metric ton less than France). China, India (who both have surpassed the US in raw emissions), almost all third world countries, simply do not give a shit as much as you think they should either. In fact, Most of Europe who put arbitrary limitations on themselves ended up moving production over seas (off shoring) to eliminate accounting of carbon more than eliminating the carbon emissions itself. And Germany, they plateaued and seem to be increasing their emissions now, but they had the added benefit of combining two separate systems (East and West Germany) and doing away with redundant pollution sources with news more efficient sources which explains most of their reductions.
Here is another hint. Perhaps you wouldn't be afraid to post real posts and even use a real moniker if you actually paid attention and knew what was going on rather than jerk your knee so hard that you hit yourself in the head and can only speak from emotion.
Altitude + tetrahedron + ignorance.
Are you surprised or confused?
Actually, in some games, they call the flight formation which would appear to be a triangle a pyramid. Perhaps the writer plays some of those games.
You better read that again.. This time, pay attention to the part that says this "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace
Well, they could hold some hearings on it, get Hillary to be a special independent third party prosecutor or hearing officer to maintain an independent appearance, email the information that she will be investigating and have her server get hacked because of all the recent publicity surrounding it.
But any appearance of partisanship would likely be met with a knock on the door some morning and a guy in a trench coat saying look what I have hear, show a tablet of some pictures, maybe play a video or audio recording, and it will be swept under the rug quickly. It would have to be bipartisan and large on scope for anything to actually happen.
And then he would be the senator from Russia!
Actually, I do not think he would live that long. Someone would probably kill him, be arrested and convicted in a blindly public way, and while we think he is in prison- back in D wing playing house with Buba, he would be doing covert operations in foreign lands under his real name or another cover name.
I think he has to be more tactful than just releasing information. Perhaps getting drunk and slipping a name or two out so a reporter could follow the clues and find the story on their own and have all the republicans blame the vice president would work? It worked for Armatage.
Well, I started out thinking there wasn't a law on the books yet, but here is some of what was done. I guess sealing the record is one thing.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/...
and
http://www.ideastream.org/news...
Lol.. Do you think saying "fuck" adds depth of meaning to your words?
I have better odds of making rich by hitting the lottery than I do of being incorrectly put to death by capitol punishment. There were 699,000 or so murders since 1976 when the death penalty numbers can be tracked. There has been 1379 executions in that time span which means less than two tenths of one percent where executed. Furthermore, there are 3035 death row inmates, if we add the already executed of 1379, it comes to a little over six tenths of one percent of all murders over a 4 decade period of time results in a death penalty. Assuming a 318 million population level and an average murder rate per year, I had a little over five thousands of one percent chance of even being charged with one of those murders. Of course that number is flawed because the population is not static but I'm much more likely to be murdered by someone than to be executed for a murder I did not commit.
It's too insignificant to be overly concerned about it as far as I can tell.
They will probably pass a law saying you cannot discriminate against prior convictions or something unless you can demonstrate some need for security that requires it.
The Governor of Ohio is already trying something similar. He's expanded or trying to expand professional license qualifications to convicts who have been trouble free for an amount of time. He said something about how do you expect recidivism to be low when released prisoners cannot even get jobs they can likely support themselves on. I'm not aware of any specific legislation but I saw him bring it up in a couple speeches.
I would say it is a low rate considering. It's less than one person per year per jurisdiction. And that likely would still be true if you discounted the jurisdictions that have a moratorium on the death penalty. And I guess there are 18 states which do not even have the death penalty as an option.
With the exception of California, Texas and Oklahoma, I would also say the use of the death penalty in sentencing is relatively low.
Nah, nothing is 100% in life. It's a variable worth living with. Especially since DNA can exclude people far too easily today.
I need a creditable cite for that number. Best guess estimates I can find from anywhere that is not pushing an agenda is a measly 50 innocents and they specifically admit that is incorrect because it is just a transference of the 4% of people who on death row end up getting their sentence overturned or converted to life in prison.
Hell, Wikipedia only lays claim that 10 specific people are thought to have been wrongly put to death with another 39 carried out in the face of evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Of course I'm not sure what they think is evidence but I do not really care. There are 52 separate jurisdictions (with two being the same but listed separately due to separate branches of authority) capable of sentencing someone to death in the US and over the last 4 decades all they can come up with is 49 people who might have been innocent and 10 that actually were. That is an extremely low rate if you ask me.
And your assumptions seem wrong too. We accept all sorts of risks in life and this is just no different. There are plenty of opportunities to find innocents and stop them from being executed. In fact, you get more chances and more legal support if you are sentenced to death than if you received life in prison. The far vast majority of innocents are weeded out before it happens.
And exactly how many has that happened to? I've looked and all I can find is that about 4% of death row inmates end up with convictions overturned or the death penalty converted to life in prison, And if an innocent person still made it through to be put to death, wouldn't that make whoever lied guilty of murder to homicide to some degree?
As far as I am concerned, the people on death row knew there was a penalty of death associated with their actions. Why is this not considered suicide by those people? As for cruel, we have worked hard and successfully to prevent cruelty in executions up until this drug manufacture decided not to sell the drugs for the purpose of executions. The firing squad, hanging, electrocution and gassing people were all replaced by drugs and are now only being considered or taken back up due to the lack of the drug. So I don't buy the cruelty aspect and I think the execution is an extension of committing suicide.
You do not get the death penalty for accidentally killing someone.
Or are you trying to excuse the accidents leading to death in order to cry against the intentional deaths of people who intentionally killed others? Strange how one justifies things if that was the case.
But here is a thought exercise for you. If someone knows they would be getting the death penalty for murdering people in a certain way (usually more than one person and intentionally with heinous acts of violence), wouldn't that be the same as them committing suicide? We already have suicide by cop, and there are strong arguments for doctor assisted suicide, why is this considered different?
They would need to be move off the schedule 1 declarations first. There is likely a lot of resistance to doing so because as a schedule one drug, they cannot be prescribed for any reason and are considered to have absolutely no medical use.
There would likely be a lot of opposition to even creating an exception for executions to the schedule one classification. This would come from people who oppose capitol punishment or even people who conceived slippery slope arguments. Right now, it's illegal under federal law.
The same is also true for Marijuana in the states that legalized it and the only thing stopping federal prosecution is refusals of local law enforcement to cooperate and an order from the president to not prosecute in states that have made it legal. But federally, it is a schedule one drug and the federal government doesn't even recognize medical uses of it.
How many is many?
Near as I can tell, they say about 4% of death row inmates end up getting their sentences either overturned or commuted in some way to avoid the death penalty. That 4% number cannot be transferred to those actually put to death because it stems from the overly abundant checks within the system on death penalty cases. I'm willing to suggest that more innocent people die from accidents revolving around police in high speed chases than on death row who were innocent.
Nah, they are already wrestling with a necessary evil (execution). In a twisted sort of way, it's done humanly and discretely so it will be less evil.
Quit frankly, I'm not sure what the problem is. It's not you throwing the switch, it's not you on the receiving end of the switch. And it definitely sounds more just than giving a mass murderer less than 4 months prison sentence per victim who has said he would kill more people if released.
Sometimes it's just better to end the problem permanently. That's a necessary evil but one that many people are willing to not only accept but expect.
You have to understand that the licensing for these kind of performances is big because they hit you twice. First, if you were to purchase an officially licensed karaoke track or a normal song track for DJing between singers, you will be paying between $3 and $4 US for each new song. But then you also need a public performance license on top of that. So when they figure the 10 billion value, they are probably thinking the licensing costs and increased unit costs. Technically, you aren't supposed to be able to go to walmart and pick a CD out of the bargain bin and play it at a bar or allow people to sing over top of it. You need to pay more because they have so much money, it gets lonesome and needs more to keep it company or something.
I'm with ya on actually experiencing it. I don't know how many people who couldn't carry a tune if you put it in a basket and duct taped it to their hand, have ruined my night because the karaoke decided to go longer then scheduled and I showed up a bit early. But every once in a while, you do find a gem in the mix who does a decent enough job or even outshines the original version of the song. In my neck of the woods, that is few and far in between and generally relies in me drinking a 6 pack before I notice them.
If he is flying the drone as part of his job, yes it is commercial.
As for youtube, some accounts receive a portion of the ad revenue based on the volume of hits. It's possible that his account has enough hits that he is getting revenue from posting drone videos online.
However, I just read the letter and do not see where it mentioned adds. It mentioned they receive a complaint about videos posted to youtube and after looking at them, the "complaint" does appear valid, then drops a list of a lot of rules concerning commercial and hobby use.
I did watch a couple of the videos and they seem well produced and of decent quality but they also were of events and locations which may give the impression they may have been produced for commercial reasons (eg, promoting the water tribe event or the closed down pier building, a fleet maintinence facility are a couple I noticed that might be construed as possibly being commercial in nature as they could be for hire scenarios without actually asking to find out) .
Dude, didn't you get the memo? It's not the justice system, it's the "just us" system now. Something about hooked on phonics and hillbilly BS but it seems they literally believe it is the "just us" system now.
I'm not sure there are a lot of impoverished any ethnic group getting a concealed carry license. They should, but I imagine that most of their finances is spent on either trying to live comfortable, or trying to temporarily escape the pitfalls of their life rather than purchasing a firearm and ammunition and jumping through legal hoops.
Are you suggesting that only impoverished minorities are being shot by police?
In the USA, the county auditors office will give you a listing of the homes, owners, purchase price, current tax appraised value and much more. Often this is online and available from anywhere in the world. For instance, you can go to
http://property.franklincounty...
which is the county auditors office property page for Franklin county Ohio (Columbus Ohio area). You can select search, then by any means you have and gain access to the property records. For instance, I searched for willis under the search by owner, then double clicked the first one that popped up, selected detailed and saw lot size, number of buildings, assessed value, taxes paid, taxes owned, owner's name and address, number of buildings and so on.
For vehicles, it's a little less easy and you need a reason. You need to know the V.I.N number and I have yet to find an automated system that doesn't require an access fee. But you can go to the title office for the county and search the vin number to get a copy of the title information. On it, it will list the current owner of record, previous owner of record, the last mileage reading when it was transferred to the current owner, type and style including color of the vehicle when registered and the last license plate number issued to the car.
I guess you can get the information from the state DMV also. This article shows the claims on that.
http://www.ehow.com/how_731172...
I have never went to the DMV directly for this information and it has been probably more than 10 years since I needed to (Used to repossess cars). With the new camers in use, this information is easier to collect but it still costs a fee.