"after a bystander broke a window with a tree branch" Ah yes, the bulletproof windows that could double as submergible windows for an unspecified amount of time at an unspecified depth.
Jimius
And it's just mediocre coffee anyway. Roasted too dark just to keep a consistency in flavour between locations. Starbucks is a tax dodging lifestyle brand, they could start a clothing line and make the same money as they do selling coffee.
When they stretch harder they just blame the war/immigrants/politics/weather. When there's some slack it's because of the company's tireless work at improving everyone's life. Until it's time to stretch again.
Denmark says no, the politicians in Greenland say no. What is Trump going to do? Invoke article 5 on himself?
Cool, what you're doing over there?
Too old to explore the world, too young to explore the universe.
Why more? Why add an extra layers, more complexity? Why not just ban deposits? The rental contract already covers damages caused by tenants. And it's not like you pay a €2000 deposit, cause €10.000 worth of damage and not have to pay the additional €8000.
Maybe in the past, with cash payments and paper records. Deposits added a layer or security. But does that still hold true today? I'm sure landlords will disagree.
If the landlord believes the tenant left the property in a damaged state, they can enforce the contract. Upside is that it's not worth it to sue for trivial shit like nail holes or greasy stove vacuums. Now the tenants are always on the backfoot, spending money to get their own money back.
Also, the earth will never be in the same place twice. So it's not even like you can only jump increments of a solar year.
You're not making a lot of sense. So I see no point in talking any further.
after some years plenty believed it had to do with WMD’s
No, it was very clear it was to get Iraq out of Kuwait after it invaded. Iraq wanted to gain more regional dominance and add Kuwait's oil reserves to it's own economy after the costly Iran-Iraq war.
you Canadians
Also not Canadian, the world is a big place
The potential being halting growth and seemingly halting further metastasis.
"Eight out of sixteen patients who could have their responses evaluated were able to demonstrate their tumour size did not grow and no new tumours appeared."
But only half of the recipients appeared to have had this benefit. Good news none the less.
It seems OP is aware of this.