Arguably… They could be.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1857113,00.html
It is really easy (and almost costless) to reduce the quantity of water they use. It might indeed seem an abonimation to continue using them.
Arguably… They could be.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1857113,00.html
It is really easy (and almost costless) to reduce the quantity of water they use. It might indeed seem an abonimation to continue using them.
That sounds like a rather bad idea to me. Not eating means being hungrier next meal, and will probably lead to… overeating. What’s more, it seems having many small meals is better than having a few big meals (your glucose level is more stable, and your insuline regulation will be less likely to make you overweight).
/ Reeves, if both players play (C, C) and then divide up the points evenly at the end, isn’t that sort of… well… communism?
Is this wrong for other reason than cached thoughts though ? (Probably yes, but you didn’t explain it).
Well since he starts the sentence with SOMETIMES,wether it’s negative or positive his sentence is correct. I guess you could nitpick on insisting that corr(X,Y) != 0 …
upvoted for not taking argument as soldiers.
beware of spoilers.
Just in case : “1984” was written in 1947. The original title of the book was to be “1948″, the editor asked Orwell to change it so he reversed the numbers.Or so I have heard, I can’t seem to find the confirmation, if anyone could confirm or infirm ?
HPMOR!Harry’s wand signalled itself to him by BLUE and BRONZE sparks, while Canon!Harry’s one made red and gold. (IMO as a reference to the Phoenix, not Griffindor).
I’d take it as a strong hint from EY that Ravenclaw IS Harry true House.
Well, each of them successively defied Death by asking a gift from it. Still far-fetched, I admit.
“How is this relevant?”
It is relevant because i you cannot find any experimental differences betweenn you and a you NOT experiencing, then maybe there is no such difference.
re-reading chapter 76 made me realise the prophecy could not be about Voldemort at all :
Let’s look at this prophecy in detail :
“The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches,”
Vanquish, as Snape said, is a strange word to describe a baby accidentally toasting Voldemort, especially since we have evidence that this might not be what really happened. “Dark Lord” is used by EY quite loosely, and not as something specifically relating to Voldemort. Indeed, Dumbledore seems to worry that he could be this Dark Lord. Now, if we step outside of what we think we know about the prophecy...
Who is Harry trying to “vanquish” ? Who is it which Harry has “the power to Vanquish” ?
Dementors ? Death in general ? Dementors as an incarnation of Death ?
Could Death be considered as the Dark Lord ? I admit this is stretching the use of the word Dark Lord, but it does sounds interesting and more appropriate to Vanquish. Now, bear with me a moment and let’s look at the rest of the prophecy : Born to those who have thrice defied him,
Now, while Lily and James have defied death 3 times, there’s a million person in the same case on the planet. But WHO has defied Death three times in the Universe ?
The Peverell Brother. Harry’s ancestors through the Potter Family.
Born as the seventh month dies, And the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal,
The Tale of the Three Brothers specifically says : ”...”And then he [the third brother Ignotus, owner of the Cloak] greeted Death as an old friend, and went with him gladly, and, as equals, they departed this life.” Harry having the Cloak works, as such. Alternatively, Harry “killing” Dementors make Death and he litteraly equals, in that they can destroy each other.
But he will have power the Dark Lord knows not,
The only unique powers Harry has are Dementor 2.0 and partial transfiguration Dementor 2.0 seems rather good.
And either must destroy all but a remnant of the other, For those two different spirits cannot exist in the same world.
I find really interesting that nowhere it is said that the dark lord “lives”. “Destroy all but a remnant” could mean Dementing Harry, or Destroying all dementors except one, or giving Philosopher’s Stones to everyone but without the death rate falling to zero (because accidental Death would still happen buit would not be an inevitability.
Note that this theory (still improbable, if I had to bet on it I wouldn’t assign more than a 15 % chance for Death to be the “Dark Lord” of the prophecy) is still compatible with Dumbledore trying to trick Voldemort in a Dark ritual, or both of them interpreting the prophecy as in canon.
For all those wandering WHY wizards don’t use their powers to get money from the Muggle economy...
Canon!Lucius does, according to Rowling (from her website Pottermore):
″ The Malfoy name comes from old French and translates as ‘bad faith’. Like many other progenitors of noble English families, the wizard Armand Malfoy arrived in Britain with William the Conqueror as part of the invading Norman army. Having rendered unknown, shady (and almost certainly magical) services to King William I, Malfoy was given a prime piece of land in Wiltshire, seized from local landowners, upon which his descendants have lived for ten consecutive centuries.
Their wily ancestor Armand encapsulated many of the qualities that have distinguished the Malfoy family to the present day. The Malfoys have always had the reputation, hinted at by their not altogether complimentary surname, of being a slippery bunch, to be found courting power and riches wherever they might be found. In spite of their espousal of pure-blood values and their undoubtedly genuine belief in wizards’ superiority over Muggles, the Malfoys have never been above ingratiating themselves with the non-magical community when it suits them. The result is that they are one of the richest wizarding families in Britain, and [b]it has been rumoured for many years (though never proven) that over the centuries the family has dabbled successfully in Muggle currency and assets. Over hundreds of years, they have managed to add to their lands in Wiltshire by annexing those of neighbouring Muggles, and the favour they curried with royalty added Muggle treasures and works of art to an ever-expanding collection. ”
For all those wandering WHY wizards don’t use their powers to get money from the Muggle economy...
Canon!Lucius does, according to Rowling (from her website Pottermore): The Malfoy name comes from old French and translates as ‘bad faith’. Like many other progenitors of noble English families, the wizard Armand Malfoy arrived in Britain with William the Conqueror as part of the invading Norman army. Having rendered unknown, shady (and almost certainly magical) services to King William I, Malfoy was given a prime piece of land in Wiltshire, seized from local landowners, upon which his descendants have lived for ten consecutive centuries.
Their wily ancestor Armand encapsulated many of the qualities that have distinguished the Malfoy family to the present day. The Malfoys have always had the reputation, hinted at by their not altogether complimentary surname, of being a slippery bunch, to be found courting power and riches wherever they might be found. In spite of their espousal of pure-blood values and their undoubtedly genuine belief in wizards’ superiority over Muggles, the Malfoys have never been above ingratiating themselves with the non-magical community when it suits them. The result is that they are one of the richest wizarding families in Britain, and [b]it has been rumoured for many years (though never proven) that over the centuries the family has dabbled successfully in Muggle currency and assets[/b]. Over hundreds of years, they have managed to add to their lands in Wiltshire by annexing those of neighbouring Muggles, and the favour they curried with royalty added Muggle treasures and works of art to an ever-expanding collection.
Well, rationalists should end up “winning” insofar as winning means “doing better than non-rationalists ON AVERAGE.
Then again, it doesn’t mean all rationalists end up living 120 years old and extremely rich. If yo are a non-rationalist born with 1 billion of dollars on your bank account you’ll probably end up richer than a rationalist born in North korea in a poor family with no legs and no arms.
But on the other hand, if you cannot identify the causes for your defeats as completely independant of yourself, it probably means you are doing something wrong or at least not optimally.
In the lottery example above, there is 99 other worlds where the rationalist who bought the tickets is better off than the man who did not (unless the lottery is rigged, in which case the rationalist is the one who realised that this smells funny and doesn’t buy tickets). Or more intuitively, if there is a lot of such lotteries, the Rationalist buying the tickets every time will end up richer than the man who doesn’t.
IN YOUR LIFE, there is probably enough such “lotteries” for you to end up better off if you are rationalist than if you are not, and reliably so.
(and “you did everything right” but maybe the right thing to do would have been to arrive at the sales office earlier).