Well, mainstreamed, anyway. The more-or-less new vehicle which came about then was the mini-van. SUVs had been around for quite a while at that point with things like the International Harvester Travelall (1953) and Scout (1960), Ford Bronco (1966), etc. becoming available on the US market well before mileage standards.
To be clear, there are some varying definitions out there from anything other than hydrogen to anything other than hydrogen, helium, or lithium. Other than hydrogen and helium is the definition I've run across most often.
Additionally, in astrophysics the term "metal" includes many elements which are not metals in any other field. Astrophysically, metals are any element other than hydrogen or helium, so in addition to ordinary metals like sodium and lithium non-metallic elements such as carbon and oxygen are counted as metals.
Not the current crop, though. I've a Deskjet+ purchased in July 1990 still going strong.
Whilst the USA might be having an unusually cold snap, how often is the temp below 0F there, other than Alaska?
Quite a bit, actually. In my hometown in New York in January the average daily low is just above 0F and it was often colder than Anchorage or Fairbanks, Alaska. It wasn't unusual to have daily high temperatures below 0F. The record low was -37F. I'd say below 0F isn't at all unusual above about 40 degrees north latitude in the US except in coastal areas; you're probably talking about 1/3 of the continental US.
Just about everything I find on that are temporary bans due to wildfire hazards. Hardly think that counts as liberal fascism.
What kind of terrier? Boston, Jack Russel, Patterdale? And when did the dogs get EMP weapons?
Some of them, yes, given that both a compromise documents. Some of the Federalists in particular would, I think, have been perfectly all right with expansive views of the General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses.
Um, yes. Remember the Northeast US blackout a decade ago? Ultimately caused by the failure of one transmission line and the resulting rerouting of power over the grid?
They're all interconnected anyway, so a plant going out can have major effects on the grid as a whole.
I "ignored" it because I read it and saw it had nothing to do with the misstatement I quoted, but was another point entirely.
Parallels is NOT sold in the AppStore. It's installed via a custom stand-alone installer.
You do realize that's not the App store, but Apple's store where they ship you a box with the software?
For one, Miller was an NFA case dealing with short barreled shotguns which upheld the NFA. But, contrary to gun control advocate's wishes, the ruling really didn't hinge at all on the collective vs. individual right debate; the only real discussion in it had to do with the type of firearm and whether that type was protected. Had the Court subscribed to the view it was a collective right related to actual militia service the Second Amendment examination would have ended with the determination that Miller was not a member of a the organized militia and wasn't carrying the shotgun pursuant to militia duty. Examining the firearm and not the person suggests they view it as an individual right.
The Heller opinion actually contains a pretty good discussion of what Miller is and is not and a number of peculiarities surrounding it.
Should probably add I don't think anyone really takes Miller too seriously; it's not a clear opinion in either direction.
Which, grammatically, isn't explanatory not operative. The operative part of the 2nd Amendment is, in full, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In modern construction and words (based on Supreme Court decisions, specifically Heller and Miller) the full amendment would be something like, "Because a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of military usefulness shall not be infringed." The first clause only explains why it's not be infringed; it doesn't impose a limit upon it.
Well, Miller did somewhat limit it based on the militia clause, by saying a firearm which wasn't demonstrated to be militarily useful was not protected, implying that if it had been demonstrated to be militarily useful it would be protected. So, under Miller, an assault rifle (obviously of military usefulness) would be protected but maybe not a break action shotgun. It's an odd case, at any rate, since Miller had died before it reached the Court and his side didn't argue before the Court.
It's pretty routine to be able to go to another country for enforcement of civil judgements. For the US, look up the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, which is law in a number of states.