Why are illegal immigrants being called undocumented? The are documented, by their countries of origin. The reason they are undocumented in the US is because they are here ILLEGALLY. They have no right to claim legal status when they did not go through the proper legal process. IMO, these people are brazenly flouting our immigration laws without any fear of prosecution which only encourages more illegal immigration. This has to stop.
Illegal is illegal.
Not in the US. Illegal is only applied when there isn't an upside for those assigning the labels not doing so. Illegal war? Nope, those are opportunities to increase employment across a suite of contractor companies! Illegal immigrants? No! They're undocumented workers! (With legal family members who can vote!) Or maybe they're migrant workers! (Everyone likes inexpensive strawberries, after all!) Illegal financial transactions at megabanks? No! They're financial irregularies that will be investigated, after all taking action could badly damage the financial sector!
>> I've noticed the IPs trace back to Microsoft or Amazon domains
This is probably stuff running on VMs in Amazon or Azure cloud services. Users can create VMs with insecure passwords and they are often the target of attacks.
At least in Azure, you have to go out of your way to do so -- both the out-of-the-box Linux VMs and Windows VMs create your primary user account for you, and they do some reasonable password strength checks on it.
"nearly infinite" is not a reasonable term. It's either finite, or infinite, where the latter can be further classified into countable and uncountable infinities, or higher transfinites in the Cantor hierarchy. The main question is: are the possibilities finite or infinite? If they were infinite, you could use this to encode infinite amount of information in the physical system (by setting up a superposition state where the probability density is specified with arbitrary precision), which would break the Bekenstein bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
Well that was just couching the statement because they're suggesting the original system had just two states. Not sure I buy that, but I backed down from infinite.
"Catastrophically collapse", really? What's catastrophic about it?
Generally speaking, when it collapses, it involves destroying a nearly infinite number of possibilities in an absolutely irreversible way. The collapse is complete.
Its pretty much the definition of catastrophic.
That said, its a bit of hyperbole that probably wasn't needed. But its not inaccurate.
I've never bought or sold anything on Silk Road. However the actions of the government are threatening my rights to be free from government persecution. Drugs in and of themselves have the potential to harm the users and no one else short of other illegal actions
No they're not. Drugs are illegal. The DEA's job is to enforce those laws.
Full stop.
If you don't like it, you have three choices: - Bitch about it (but, please, stop doing it online -- we don't care) - Change the laws - Ignore the laws and accept the full consequences of that decision.
By one means or another, someone buying a Tesla has had some significant level of success that puts them in the top percent or two of earners in the US -- or inherited it. Odds are the majority of those are not dim enough to get all panicked and manipulated the way people were with the Firestone thing or the Toyota thing. Even when their "cheaper" models come out, they'll still be at the upper end of what would be considered a "middle class" car. Mouth-breathers who get freaked out by the media are generally not upper-middle-class.
Will it have some impact? Sure. But I doubt this qualifies as their "Toyota" moment.
Eugenics is the theory and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population. In the 20th century we didn't have genetically altered humans, so the only way to do it was to make some humans not reproduce, either by sterilization or murder. Now we are adding a new scientific option, but the end result is the same, only living humans that we consider 'perfect'. Humans need diversity, in the future there may be good reasons to keep about populations with traits we don't agree with now.
In the sense that anyone means when talking about Eugenics, its "sterilization or murder" not "improving the genetic quality of the human population".
And, its pretty safe to say the vast majority of the moral outrage was because of the sterilization and murder, not the concept of improving humanity.
Hitler would be proud. Once this can be done on a regular basis, the differences between the born-privileged (children born to parents with money to custom design their child to have movie-star looks and high IQ) will relegate the masses to a modern serfdom.
Hitler wasn't selecting for an Aryan nation. He was killing for an Aryan nation. So that's really a poor example.
And here's a secret -- children of the privileged already (and have always) had that benefit. The wealthy and successful rarely have children with sloth like troglodytes -- they meet people of similar educational, physical, economic and other qualities. They don't send their children to a random selection of schools. Their children, more often than not, end up equally successful and privileged.
And the masses are already relegated to a modern serfdom.
Francis Galton came up with this idea over a hundred years ago. It wasn't a good idea then, it still isn't.
Its not Eugenics. All of evolution happens because of trait preference. Eugenics is the trimming of less desirous genetic traits through sterilization (preventing a new generation) or more direct ending of the current one. Picking traits isn't that. People who seek out companions of their race, or their ethnicity, or with ripped abs or big boobs are all selecting for traits in the next generation. Or, as another modern example -- China's allowing of a second (or third) child( for couples with graduate degrees. Also not eugenics.
And come away very disappointed. I tried that in my 20s, I found a bunch of 50 year old women, and 1 or 2 15 year olds. Nothing in between.
Plus, generally speaking, its not all that hard to get into Mensa. Maybe harder than to get into the cub scouts or something, but its not rocket science... so the people who end up in there tend to be a lot less intelligent than they want to believe they are, or have crushing self doubt and are looking for validation. In either case, unless you happen to be one of those, too, not a good way to meet people.
Why do you think damn near every finance and sales person was chained to their desk until late on Monday evening? Because *every* business works that way.
And here I was under the impression that the military wasn't a business. But I guess suiting up for the next avoidable war has higher margins than providing basic sustenance to women and children.
Way to go, guys. You're really doing a heckuva job.
Wow, even more moronic posts, or maybe you're just trolling. In either case, it doesn't matter if you're a non-profit, a public company, a private company, an individual, a church, a charity or a government agency. You buy goods and services to utilize in producing whatever it is you're expected to produce. Could be a healthy community, could be a flock of followers, cars, growing children into adults or blowing the everliving shit out somewhere on behalf of a country. The need to do reasonable bookkeeping is common across all of them, even if most individuals suck about it. From that standpoint, they're all businesses.
Of course, via a certain level of abstraction, the military IS there as a business. We've overthrown governments for corporate interests many times in the last 150 years. It may happen via back room handshakes and sweet consulting deals after leaving office rather than invoices for services rendered, but it still happens.
So you're basically trolling or stupid on two counts -- feigning a belief (or actually holding a belief) that government didn't exist for the powerful, and feigning a belief (or actually holding it) that basic accounting practices are only held by independent corporations.
This article is pointless--a fiscal year ended on September 30th. Of COURSE the business is going to spend money like crazy--just about every purchasing department in the company waits until the very last day to fill out their orders. Doing so allows them to negotiate for better deals to benefit the shareholders, or allows them to be told how much they've got to spend. This is not a surprise, folks. It's just timing, that's all.
There. Tweaked it a bit, just to drive home how moronic this article is.
This is a pure politics story. Why the fuck is this on slashdot? Its not news for nerds and not stuff that matters to anybody but political junkies.
No, its not even politics. Its just business.
Its *normal* for most companies to deal with contracts at the end of the quarter. Its especially normal for the end of the fiscal year. Budgets ended that day, so there's a desire by both the bean counters in the DoD and the companies they're buying things from to get the contracts signed before the end of the fiscal year.
Anyone who thinks this is some big conspiracy or shocking is staggeringly ignorant of the real world and likely has either never had a job or had a job so low they never were exposed to things like fiscal years and end-of-quarter.
Why do you think damn near every finance and sales person was chained to their desk until late on Monday evening? Because *every* business works that way.
NIST has in many instances blocked independent investigations into 9/11, as well as lied about its own findings and devised unscientific explanations for the controlled demolitions of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. AE911truth
You know, this is probably the first time in the history of 9/11 whackjob posts on Slashdot that the reply is actually relevant to the story. Because they have nearly identical basis in reality.
Why use algorithms that are standardized on by the federal government and have been looked at exhaustively by experts around the world when you can use an untested crypto system? After all I'm sure the NSA wants to ensure that bad guys have access to everything the government is encrypting by first weakening the encryption standard, then standardizing the US government on the use of them.
Not to troll, but i wonder what would happen in the "IP" era of the US economy? If Ford tried this today would he still win or would the "patent holders"?
Only people unfamiliar with history would call today the IP era. The period from the late 1800's through the early 1900's had vastly more corporate, patent, IP and such shenanigans going on. Today is almost comically tame compared to then.
Why did you think Apple was tying the ad revenue model and the iCloud integration so tightly into all their operating systems these days? It's where the money's at.
Actually, its where the growth is at, not where the money is at. Google (who is VASTLY better at such things) is not profiting off Android because that isn't where the money is at. Its an uptapped reservoir of revenue for Apple that is relatively easy to get into, but its not a panacea for their problems. Its a transfusion, not suture. Apple, as a public company, exists for one reason only -- to return on investments that their investors are making. The dividend helps with that. but the high multiple that Apple is trading at means AAPL must be a growth stock, not a stock people invest in for the long term (like Microsoft). Apple is failing at that right now because their growth over the last five years has been entirely about penetrating new markets -- and that essentially plateaued two years ago. Ads won't drive growth.
Now, its plausible that AAPL is trying to do what Microsoft did very successfully after its value peak 13 years ago -- transition to a slow growth company that people invest in mostly for the reliable dividends. Its a good strategy because it allows them to live comfortably in second or third place. Plenty of investors (myself included) make very comfortable money off MSFT's dividends, and AAPL could get there, too.
AAPL is a risky stock in 2013, though. because so much of their revenue -- as another replier to me stated -- comes out of media tie-ins to the iOS ecosystem. A bigger slip with the iPad or iPhone could sink the company because, unlike a Google or a Microsoft, they have effectively nothing to fall back on.
Unfortunately for you, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Any company in the world right now, Samsung included, would want to be as unfortunate as Apple right now.
When it comes to the financial prospects of technology companies, my job is to know precisely what I'm talking about.
And to take advantage of people like yourself who think otherwise. Easy pickin's, as they say. Its people like you -- who think you understand finance -- that make it so easy to pull down an easy chunk of cash on swing like happened yesterday. You push the value up, and the pros cash in on it. Thanks! And given how precarious their situation is, its easy to short it when it blips back down again.
Unfortunately for AAPL, its investors and its long term business, the number of sales of the phone in the first three days is good really for only one thing -- this month's revenue.
Its a given that last week some percentage of iPhone users were sitting on devices that were out of contract. Its also pretty much a given that the majority of people in that state are waiting for a new iPhone, since they would've already switched to another handset if that was their intent. So its just basic math at that point -- how many phones do they have actively being used globally, and how many of them are up for contract. With their large customer base, if they sold 3m of them, it would've been a complete flop. But 9m doesn't mean it *wasn't*.
What investors want to see is: - Does their existing trend in losing users taper off at this point? A large but shrinking market is not good for long term investment, even if short term revenue is solid. - Do the devices start to sell better in the markets where Apple isn't #1 or #2? (Which is a lot of them outside of the North American market!) - Do the handsets move the needle with software or media sales?
AAPL, as a stock, has always been a "fun" one to invest in -- you get solid 5-10% swings driven by inexperienced investors, and you can game those constantly to make a quick buck. It won't start to crawl its way back up to where it was before its near-constant downward trends since Tim Cook took over until the professional investors start seeing growing substance behind the hype.
Most of those sources are risk averse, resulting in a lot of look alike products.
It's the more harebrained schemes like this one that Kickstarter is all about. The ones that the establishment won't look at while they pump out COD XIXIX11 and it's related cash cows.
Oh absolutely. But that risk is a risk for a reason. People shouldn't be surprised when money thrown at unvetted ideas disappears. No one who put down $20 on that Kickstarter asked for a business plan, or to see their market analysis. And, clearly, also had never built professional software or they would've known there wasn't nearly enough capital there. And if there's not enough capital at the start, you better be asking those questions or you have no idea if the rest will ever materialize.
You'd think VC's would be mildly interested in new games considering Grand Theft Auto V made Rockstar Games a billion dollars yesterday. That was 1 day's sales. The first day it was available.
VC's, unlike Kickstarter supporters, know what the odds really are of a game that starts development ever shipping. And the odds that a game that ships ever breaks even.
There's a reason things don't get traditional funding. And a reason why this game in question isn't getting funding. If there was a market, and the team was sure to deliver, then there'd be people lining up to invest in it. The fact that there aren't simply means the due diligence the potential investors are doing are turning up concerns about the viability of the investment. They're seeing more detail than you'd see.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are illegal immigrants being called undocumented? The are documented, by their countries of origin. The reason they are undocumented in the US is because they are here ILLEGALLY. They have no right to claim legal status when they did not go through the proper legal process. IMO, these people are brazenly flouting our immigration laws without any fear of prosecution which only encourages more illegal immigration. This has to stop.
Illegal is illegal.
Not in the US. Illegal is only applied when there isn't an upside for those assigning the labels not doing so. Illegal war? Nope, those are opportunities to increase employment across a suite of contractor companies! Illegal immigrants? No! They're undocumented workers! (With legal family members who can vote!) Or maybe they're migrant workers! (Everyone likes inexpensive strawberries, after all!) Illegal financial transactions at megabanks? No! They're financial irregularies that will be investigated, after all taking action could badly damage the financial sector!
Same thing happened with Microsoft's Kinect for XBOX 360.
I suppose if we're just repeating made up stories... um, same thing happened with those Toyotas!
Hi,
>> I've noticed the IPs trace back to Microsoft or Amazon domains
This is probably stuff running on VMs in Amazon or Azure cloud services. Users can create VMs with insecure passwords and they are often the target of attacks.
At least in Azure, you have to go out of your way to do so -- both the out-of-the-box Linux VMs and Windows VMs create your primary user account for you, and they do some reasonable password strength checks on it.
"nearly infinite" is not a reasonable term. It's either finite, or infinite, where the latter can be further classified into countable and uncountable infinities, or higher transfinites in the Cantor hierarchy. The main question is: are the possibilities finite or infinite? If they were infinite, you could use this to encode infinite amount of information in the physical system (by setting up a superposition state where the probability density is specified with arbitrary precision), which would break the Bekenstein bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
Well that was just couching the statement because they're suggesting the original system had just two states. Not sure I buy that, but I backed down from infinite.
In either case, its still catastrophic.
Correlation does not imply causation
Well, if we're going to toss out /. comments that are unrelated to the article ... hmmm....
"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these superconductors!"
"It only collapsed because of anticompetitive market practices through a series of shell companies that Microsoft controls."
or
"I'm not sure what to think of this until PJ tells me what to think. I'm so PISSED at the NSA for taking her from me!"
"Catastrophically collapse", really? What's catastrophic about it?
Generally speaking, when it collapses, it involves destroying a nearly infinite number of possibilities in an absolutely irreversible way. The collapse is complete.
Its pretty much the definition of catastrophic.
That said, its a bit of hyperbole that probably wasn't needed. But its not inaccurate.
I've never bought or sold anything on Silk Road. However the actions of the government are threatening my rights to be free from government persecution. Drugs in and of themselves have the potential to harm the users and no one else short of other illegal actions
No they're not. Drugs are illegal. The DEA's job is to enforce those laws.
Full stop.
If you don't like it, you have three choices:
- Bitch about it (but, please, stop doing it online -- we don't care)
- Change the laws
- Ignore the laws and accept the full consequences of that decision.
obviously gasoline cars never catch on fire
Its almost a rite of passage for a 60's era 911 to catch on fire. Porsche did just fine.
By one means or another, someone buying a Tesla has had some significant level of success that puts them in the top percent or two of earners in the US -- or inherited it. Odds are the majority of those are not dim enough to get all panicked and manipulated the way people were with the Firestone thing or the Toyota thing. Even when their "cheaper" models come out, they'll still be at the upper end of what would be considered a "middle class" car. Mouth-breathers who get freaked out by the media are generally not upper-middle-class.
Will it have some impact? Sure. But I doubt this qualifies as their "Toyota" moment.
Eugenics is the theory and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population. In the 20th century we didn't have genetically altered humans, so the only way to do it was to make some humans not reproduce, either by sterilization or murder. Now we are adding a new scientific option, but the end result is the same, only living humans that we consider 'perfect'. Humans need diversity, in the future there may be good reasons to keep about populations with traits we don't agree with now.
In the sense that anyone means when talking about Eugenics, its "sterilization or murder" not "improving the genetic quality of the human population".
And, its pretty safe to say the vast majority of the moral outrage was because of the sterilization and murder, not the concept of improving humanity.
Hitler would be proud. Once this can be done on a regular basis, the differences between the born-privileged (children born to parents with money to custom design their child to have movie-star looks and high IQ) will relegate the masses to a modern serfdom.
Hitler wasn't selecting for an Aryan nation. He was killing for an Aryan nation. So that's really a poor example.
And here's a secret -- children of the privileged already (and have always) had that benefit. The wealthy and successful rarely have children with sloth like troglodytes -- they meet people of similar educational, physical, economic and other qualities. They don't send their children to a random selection of schools. Their children, more often than not, end up equally successful and privileged.
And the masses are already relegated to a modern serfdom.
Francis Galton came up with this idea over a hundred years ago. It wasn't a good idea then, it still isn't.
Its not Eugenics. All of evolution happens because of trait preference. Eugenics is the trimming of less desirous genetic traits through sterilization (preventing a new generation) or more direct ending of the current one. Picking traits isn't that. People who seek out companions of their race, or their ethnicity, or with ripped abs or big boobs are all selecting for traits in the next generation. Or, as another modern example -- China's allowing of a second (or third) child( for couples with graduate degrees. Also not eugenics.
And come away very disappointed. I tried that in my 20s, I found a bunch of 50 year old women, and 1 or 2 15 year olds. Nothing in between.
Plus, generally speaking, its not all that hard to get into Mensa. Maybe harder than to get into the cub scouts or something, but its not rocket science... so the people who end up in there tend to be a lot less intelligent than they want to believe they are, or have crushing self doubt and are looking for validation. In either case, unless you happen to be one of those, too, not a good way to meet people.
Why do you think damn near every finance and sales person was chained to their desk until late on Monday evening? Because *every* business works that way.
And here I was under the impression that the military wasn't a business. But I guess suiting up for the next avoidable war has higher margins than providing basic sustenance to women and children.
Way to go, guys. You're really doing a heckuva job.
Wow, even more moronic posts, or maybe you're just trolling. In either case, it doesn't matter if you're a non-profit, a public company, a private company, an individual, a church, a charity or a government agency. You buy goods and services to utilize in producing whatever it is you're expected to produce. Could be a healthy community, could be a flock of followers, cars, growing children into adults or blowing the everliving shit out somewhere on behalf of a country. The need to do reasonable bookkeeping is common across all of them, even if most individuals suck about it. From that standpoint, they're all businesses.
Of course, via a certain level of abstraction, the military IS there as a business. We've overthrown governments for corporate interests many times in the last 150 years. It may happen via back room handshakes and sweet consulting deals after leaving office rather than invoices for services rendered, but it still happens.
So you're basically trolling or stupid on two counts -- feigning a belief (or actually holding a belief) that government didn't exist for the powerful, and feigning a belief (or actually holding it) that basic accounting practices are only held by independent corporations.
This article is pointless--a fiscal year ended on September 30th. Of COURSE the business is going to spend money like crazy--just about every purchasing department in the company waits until the very last day to fill out their orders. Doing so allows them to negotiate for better deals to benefit the shareholders, or allows them to be told how much they've got to spend. This is not a surprise, folks. It's just timing, that's all.
There. Tweaked it a bit, just to drive home how moronic this article is.
This is a pure politics story. Why the fuck is this on slashdot? Its not news for nerds and not stuff that matters to anybody but political junkies.
No, its not even politics. Its just business.
Its *normal* for most companies to deal with contracts at the end of the quarter. Its especially normal for the end of the fiscal year. Budgets ended that day, so there's a desire by both the bean counters in the DoD and the companies they're buying things from to get the contracts signed before the end of the fiscal year.
Anyone who thinks this is some big conspiracy or shocking is staggeringly ignorant of the real world and likely has either never had a job or had a job so low they never were exposed to things like fiscal years and end-of-quarter.
Why do you think damn near every finance and sales person was chained to their desk until late on Monday evening? Because *every* business works that way.
e.g. substituting a random number generator for the pseudo random output of an encryption to which they know the private key.
If I hadn't already posted in this discussion, that'd be getting a Funny mod point.
NIST has in many instances blocked independent investigations into 9/11, as well as lied about its own findings and devised unscientific explanations for the controlled demolitions of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.
AE911truth
You know, this is probably the first time in the history of 9/11 whackjob posts on Slashdot that the reply is actually relevant to the story. Because they have nearly identical basis in reality.
Or stupidity. One of the two.
Why use algorithms that are standardized on by the federal government and have been looked at exhaustively by experts around the world when you can use an untested crypto system? After all I'm sure the NSA wants to ensure that bad guys have access to everything the government is encrypting by first weakening the encryption standard, then standardizing the US government on the use of them.
Not to troll, but i wonder what would happen in the "IP" era of the US economy? If Ford tried this today would he still win or would the "patent holders"?
Only people unfamiliar with history would call today the IP era. The period from the late 1800's through the early 1900's had vastly more corporate, patent, IP and such shenanigans going on. Today is almost comically tame compared to then.
Why did you think Apple was tying the ad revenue model and the iCloud integration so tightly into all their operating systems these days? It's where the money's at.
Actually, its where the growth is at, not where the money is at. Google (who is VASTLY better at such things) is not profiting off Android because that isn't where the money is at. Its an uptapped reservoir of revenue for Apple that is relatively easy to get into, but its not a panacea for their problems. Its a transfusion, not suture. Apple, as a public company, exists for one reason only -- to return on investments that their investors are making. The dividend helps with that. but the high multiple that Apple is trading at means AAPL must be a growth stock, not a stock people invest in for the long term (like Microsoft). Apple is failing at that right now because their growth over the last five years has been entirely about penetrating new markets -- and that essentially plateaued two years ago. Ads won't drive growth.
Now, its plausible that AAPL is trying to do what Microsoft did very successfully after its value peak 13 years ago -- transition to a slow growth company that people invest in mostly for the reliable dividends. Its a good strategy because it allows them to live comfortably in second or third place. Plenty of investors (myself included) make very comfortable money off MSFT's dividends, and AAPL could get there, too.
AAPL is a risky stock in 2013, though. because so much of their revenue -- as another replier to me stated -- comes out of media tie-ins to the iOS ecosystem. A bigger slip with the iPad or iPhone could sink the company because, unlike a Google or a Microsoft, they have effectively nothing to fall back on.
Unfortunately for you, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Any company in the world right now, Samsung included, would want to be as unfortunate as Apple right now.
When it comes to the financial prospects of technology companies, my job is to know precisely what I'm talking about.
And to take advantage of people like yourself who think otherwise. Easy pickin's, as they say. Its people like you -- who think you understand finance -- that make it so easy to pull down an easy chunk of cash on swing like happened yesterday. You push the value up, and the pros cash in on it. Thanks! And given how precarious their situation is, its easy to short it when it blips back down again.
Unfortunately for AAPL, its investors and its long term business, the number of sales of the phone in the first three days is good really for only one thing -- this month's revenue.
Its a given that last week some percentage of iPhone users were sitting on devices that were out of contract. Its also pretty much a given that the majority of people in that state are waiting for a new iPhone, since they would've already switched to another handset if that was their intent. So its just basic math at that point -- how many phones do they have actively being used globally, and how many of them are up for contract. With their large customer base, if they sold 3m of them, it would've been a complete flop. But 9m doesn't mean it *wasn't*.
What investors want to see is:
- Does their existing trend in losing users taper off at this point? A large but shrinking market is not good for long term investment, even if short term revenue is solid.
- Do the devices start to sell better in the markets where Apple isn't #1 or #2? (Which is a lot of them outside of the North American market!)
- Do the handsets move the needle with software or media sales?
AAPL, as a stock, has always been a "fun" one to invest in -- you get solid 5-10% swings driven by inexperienced investors, and you can game those constantly to make a quick buck. It won't start to crawl its way back up to where it was before its near-constant downward trends since Tim Cook took over until the professional investors start seeing growing substance behind the hype.
Most of those sources are risk averse, resulting in a lot of look alike products.
It's the more harebrained schemes like this one that Kickstarter is all about. The ones that the establishment won't look at while they pump out COD XIXIX11 and it's related cash cows.
Oh absolutely. But that risk is a risk for a reason. People shouldn't be surprised when money thrown at unvetted ideas disappears. No one who put down $20 on that Kickstarter asked for a business plan, or to see their market analysis. And, clearly, also had never built professional software or they would've known there wasn't nearly enough capital there. And if there's not enough capital at the start, you better be asking those questions or you have no idea if the rest will ever materialize.
You'd think VC's would be mildly interested in new games considering Grand Theft Auto V made Rockstar Games a billion dollars yesterday. That was 1 day's sales. The first day it was available.
VC's, unlike Kickstarter supporters, know what the odds really are of a game that starts development ever shipping. And the odds that a game that ships ever breaks even.
There's a reason things don't get traditional funding. And a reason why this game in question isn't getting funding. If there was a market, and the team was sure to deliver, then there'd be people lining up to invest in it. The fact that there aren't simply means the due diligence the potential investors are doing are turning up concerns about the viability of the investment. They're seeing more detail than you'd see.