Reading about the computer mess in Tennessee shows why computer generated numbers can not be a reliable source of random numbers. Now, before I get into all of the conclusions, questions and possible lead in to a full blown investigation, we need to step back and look at this a little more carefully; understand what has happen in a way that gives rise to level of perception that was not present before this took place.
I see many incorrect perceptions being thrown out into the public to distract attention from a different view. A view that if pondered upon a bit can kind of make you say, "Oh yeah! You could be right." One of the misperceptions is that this was a 'computer error' or a 'programming error' as if these things seemingly happen unbeknownst to the lottery officials and their constituent underlings. Wrong, 'computer errors' and 'programming errors' don't just happen by themselves, they are a direct result of 'human action'. An action that placed code in the computer by someone for a specific reason. That reason is to place some kind of control on the outcome of what numbers will be produced. However, a control on random numbers is something of a contradiction in terms. Truly random numbers are uncontrolled; yet there in the software of the beast is this control. A paradox arises from something so simple. If your objective is to have randomness, then there should be no restriction on the outcome. The only thing that could be done is to test the experiment to see if it is indeed random, not restrict it. This test for randomness comes after the numbers have been chosen, not during it's inception. Now the questions of investigation, 'Why was this code there?', 'Who stood to benefit from the code being there?', 'Why did the test for randomness fail?', 'Are the tests for randomness reliable?', 'Were the test of randomness deliberately over looked to get a product out into the market that was knowingly faulty?'... it could go on, but that's a job for the investigation team.
Here's the simple fact, computer don't just do things with out some kind of 'human action' to cause it. Computers do whatever we make them do regardless of the end resulting action produced by the computer. These are not mysterious entities capable of sentient thought and capable of making changes that seem to come from nowhere. Someone had to place that code on the computer for a reason.
This leads to something more putrid though. If this one little control exists, there might be more. There might be code to reduce the number of wins in a way that gives the appearance of randomness, yet there really isn't. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. This is why this one issue needs to be expanded beyond the scope of not only Tennessee and the code problem. This needs attention on a Nation wide basis for all computer generated numbers that goes far above just a simple 'programming glitch'.
There is only one glitch in the lottery industry today, computer generated numbers. Get rid of that and you've fix the glitch.
April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 October 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 August 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 January 2006 November 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004