| Posted: August 28, 2007, 3:12 pm - IP Logged |
|
I think I've made my position very clear on this subject. Aside from the very valid argument that they're more easily and undetectably compromised, using computers to draw lottery numbers removes an essential element from all of the games. We enjoy the excitement of watching the balls blow around inside the hoppers, watching our numbers roll out one by one and, most of all, anticipating that final number while our hearts pound so hard we think we'll pass out or die.
Now, that's exciting; that's a real lottery drawing.
I've watched tens of thousands of true lottery drawings over the years, and I don't remember thinking, even once, "Gee, I wish these drawings were more technologically advanced." Funny thing is, I've never seen even ONE drawing made by a computer. I've seen animated images of computer drawings that were made to look like they were drawn using balls, but I've never seen the actual drawing in real time.
I wish someone would apply this wonderful technology to a game that would cause the general public to see what we've seen. I wish some sports team owner would wake up and realize that he could save hundreds of millions of dollars per year just by creating and organizing virtual football or basketball teams. No more injuries; no more scandals and no more multi-million dollar player contracts. My God; why NOT do it? NASCAR sponsors and owners could also save scads of money by turning live races into video games, as they've done with these virtual lottery drawings.
Just because new technology is available for a given application does not necessarily indicate that it can or should be adopted. We have the technology to enable our government to know, at any given moment, what ANYONE in the country is doing, even while they're inside their own homes. Does this mean we should allow them to do it? We have the technology and means to decimate every other country in the world. Why isn't this technology being utilized? These are extreme examples, to be sure, but here's one more: We have the technology to grow staple crops in pure desert sand. I don't have to ask why this technology isn't being employed, because I already know the answer. It costs 27% more to grow corn or soybeans in hot sand than it does to grow it in soil in a less-hostile climate, thus negating any potential profit (wheat costs 18% more to grow in the desert but, for some reason, sand-grown wheat yields 6% more grain per acre).
So far, with the lone exception of the very first state to convert to using an RNG (I think it was Connecticut, but I wouldn't swear to it), every other state lottery that has embraced these machines has made the same comment: "Other states are already using this technology, and it's important that we keep up with industry trends."
I'm waiting for the day when a lottery public relations spokesman says, "Well, other state lottery directors were jumping off bridges, so ..."
Come, Pinky; we must prepare for tomorrow night...
Jim
