Comment author: MugaSofer 21 August 2013 05:11:54PM -1 points [-]

Great list. Upvoted.

Creation of single-action devices via Transmutation (like some of the things Harry tried in his experiments). Muggles can then study, analyze, experiment on, or copy the Transmuted devices while they last.

I think that actually failed ...

Comment author: Aureateflux 21 August 2013 05:30:51PM *  1 point [-]

Yeah, Harry discovered that you can't transmute something that hasn't already been created through more conventional means.

Comment author: Velorien 20 August 2013 03:15:32PM 2 points [-]

That's going to take some capital!

What world domination process are you imagining? Money doesn't buy you power. It buys you bribes, and lobby groups, and campaign funds, and mercenaries for coups, and so on. With some creative thinking, any and all of those should be obtainable through a combination of magic, blackmail, manipulating the weak-minded, and other means already at Harry's disposal (especially if he has someone like Draco to supplement the latter).

Comment author: Aureateflux 21 August 2013 02:40:46AM 2 points [-]

You sound like you think he doesn't need capital at all. Why would Harry avoid using a resource that would facilitate reaching his goals? Wouldn't the rational thing to do be to use the methods that accomplish your goals in an effective and timely manner?

There are times when solutions other than money would be more effective, and there are times when money would be more effective or efficient. So why should he eschew that resource just because he can?

Comment author: Baughn 19 August 2013 06:45:59PM 2 points [-]

5% per day is already a 54 million-fold increase per year, what more do you want? ^^;;

Comment author: Aureateflux 20 August 2013 01:31:29AM 0 points [-]

Entirely the wrong question. Harry Potter is planning on taking over both the Muggle and Magical world. That's going to take some capital!

Comment author: TrE 17 August 2013 06:06:28AM 3 points [-]

The Holocaust, the Bosnian genocide and the Rwandan genocide I would not consider "DIY" genocide since they weren't the result of a single human's actions, but required support from their society. In contrast, a single competent evil (or mad) wizard is, as Harry put it, an extinction event.

Comment author: Aureateflux 19 August 2013 03:56:24PM 3 points [-]

So, just to clarify, by DIY you mean one person effects the entire genocide rather than many people personally involved in the genocide, doing the killing themselves. In a sense, the Y in your DIY is singular, and the Y in mine is plural.

Also, my general schema of "DIY" is that it's a cheaper but more difficult alternative to the normal approach--which usually involves hiring someone to do your project for you or buying a ready-made product. Since most genocides tend to be executed the hard way-- you can't buy genocide in a box, although some chemical weapons might come close-- I felt that genocide is fundamentally a DIY project. It's just a ... fun ... project for the whole community, rather than one person. Like building a playground. That kills people. (This is going to a very bad place isn't it?)

I'm able to accept your definition of DIY, though I still prefer to think that genocides require a certain degree of personal agency from its participants and that second person pronouns can be plural.

Comment author: Baughn 19 August 2013 12:59:41PM 2 points [-]

It's pretty easy, isn't it?

Check the exchange status, go back in time, buy stocks that are about to go up in price. He can't stop them from going up in price, sure, but him buying is perfectly consistent. I expect he could get a few percent per day without even trying hard.

Comment author: Aureateflux 19 August 2013 03:39:17PM 0 points [-]

That's true, but to make the REALLY big bucks, you need to make the bet no one else does a la Trading Places.

Comment author: Fermatastheorem 19 August 2013 04:13:13AM 1 point [-]

Not the same; agreed. However, there was no ritual done to Harry!Horcrux in JKR-canon either.

Comment author: Aureateflux 19 August 2013 05:55:53AM 1 point [-]

I think the idea was that with Harry the requirements of the ritual were fulfilled, though accidentally. One of those requirements is the death of an innocent.

But the HP wiki says that there's some kind of incantation that goes along with it, so that's either optional or... whatever. It seems to be like the Goblet of Fire portkey. The rule is the rule except when it isn't.

The biggest difference between Harry-as-horcrux and Quirrel-as-horcrux is that Voldemort doesn't seem to have killed anyone (as far as we know) to possess Quirrel. So even if Harry might have accidentally become a horcrux, Quirrel didn't, although he might have served the same purpose a horcrux does in "keeping the soul anchored to the mortal world."

I'm definitely not trying to argue that these things are consistent here, though. The point is that when people say something is "effectively" something else, they mean "practically" or "almost" rather than "actually." Unless someone finds some corpus data that suggests that Rowling's dialect (or, hell, her ideolect might be workable since she HAS written several rather large books) has a different usage...

Comment author: Baughn 18 August 2013 10:58:46AM *  1 point [-]

Time-Turner work on the LSE.

Now, how did I miss that possibility?

Harry's stinking rich anytime he wants, then.

Comment author: Aureateflux 19 August 2013 04:10:37AM 0 points [-]

Except that observed information can't be changed using the Time-Turners. So the scope of his actions are somewhat limited. Doesn't stop him from being able to short a stock, but he can't single-handedly cause a stock's fortune to reverse. That still leaves plenty of possibilities to make money, but it wouldn't be as easy as it sounds. He'd be mixing the complicated natures of stock trading and time travel, and that's before he starts thinking about avoiding insider trading laws.

Comment author: Fermatastheorem 19 August 2013 03:43:08AM 1 point [-]

Last paragraph of this Pottermore screenshot describes him as an 'effective horcrux' I presume because he's possessed by the remaining part of Voldemort's soul.

Comment author: Aureateflux 19 August 2013 04:00:04AM 1 point [-]

"Effective" is not the same as "actual." Quirrel wasn't a horcrux in the sense that Harry or Nagini were horcruxes, even with what she's saying there. She just meant to say that Quirrel was like a horcrux. No ritual was done to make him into a horcrux.

Comment author: bramflakes 17 August 2013 01:59:08PM *  3 points [-]

Magical goods maybe, magical services certainly not. There are many things that magic could do to add value to non-magical objects, which then do not require any further magic to sustain (see Harry and Hermione's discussion about helping to manufacture nanotechnology and/or Alzheimer's cures).

Comment author: Aureateflux 17 August 2013 11:53:11PM 3 points [-]

That's true. Everyone's talking so much about stealing gold and magical artifacts that I didn't think of magical services.

Comment author: bramflakes 17 August 2013 12:12:22PM 3 points [-]

On the other hand trade is generally seen as good and there are huge and obvious benefits to trade between Muggles and wizards.

The mutual benefits of trade are non-obvious to humans, and many cultures have seen merchants as low-status because of a naive notion that they don't contribute anything.

Comment author: Aureateflux 17 August 2013 01:30:18PM 0 points [-]

I think even simpler than this is the fact that the wizards don't have anything of worth to trade to the Muggles, since non-magical people have a hard time even seeing magical artifacts, much less using them.

Muggles have plenty of things that would be useful to Wizards, but the reverse isn't true.

View more: Next