If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Woman is the only person to opt-out of company lottery pool. Office wins, decides to share with woman. Bonus: Woman who bought winning ticket was cut in line by man also buying tickets   (miamiherald.com) divider line 10
    More: Florida, Lucky Lady, Powerball  
•       •       •

9798 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 3:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-27 03:29:38 PM  
2 votes:
a splendid story.
ruined, a bit, by the cheap and moranic comments on this thread.
2013-03-27 03:57:38 AM  
2 votes:
The "bonus" part is stupid. If the man would've waited there was absolutely no guarantee that the computer would have given him the winning numbers instead. A difference of even as much as one clock cycle in the computer means a whole new set of numbers. Lottery numbers aren't predetermined and in order like a scratch ticket.
2013-03-27 01:57:11 AM  
2 votes:
It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.
2013-03-27 09:51:09 AM  
1 votes:
Endive Wombat:
It was less expensive to include her in the winnings than to deal with a lawsuit.  Their "generosity" was not benevolent by any means.  Giving her the money is an insurance policy against litigation...no more, no less.

Or, you know, they don't want to look her in the eye every day knowing she might somehow resent them all for it (or worse, knowing she's chewing herself up inside for missing out).  It's not like they can quit their jobs on $80,000.
GBB
2013-03-27 06:59:58 AM  
1 votes:
BUTTERFLY EFFECT:
If she would have contributed to the lottery pool, they wouldn't have won.  More tickets = more time to process = different time-based random seed generator = different numbers on the 2nd half of the order.
2013-03-27 05:28:02 AM  
1 votes:

The All-Powerful Atheismo: SnarfVader: The "bonus" part is stupid. If the man would've waited there was absolutely no guarantee that the computer would have given him the winning numbers instead. A difference of even as much as one clock cycle in the computer means a whole new set of numbers. Lottery numbers aren't predetermined and in order like a scratch ticket.

Not necessarily.  Many process take more than one clock cycle, including the generation of random numbers in most architectures.

/pedant AWAY!


Also they were purchasing multiple numbers.  Unless the winning number was the last one on the ticket, then he didn't have chance anyway.  Maybe the man was getting a ticket with pre-set numbers and not a random ticket as well.
2013-03-27 04:18:48 AM  
1 votes:

Pert: FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.

On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.


Yes. There was a huge jackpot a few years back that was major news, 300+ million. Some crazy woman claimed she had the ticket made all sorts of appearances, and then it turned out that she didn't actually have the winning ticket. So when the real winners came forward she claimed that she was going to sue them. I don't know how it turned out.
2013-03-27 03:54:25 AM  
1 votes:

robohobo: Pert: FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.

On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.

Wealth re-distribution is the hot new thing.


Not really. CEOs and the ultra wealthy have been doing it about forty years. The fad has just finally trickled down to the rest of us.
2013-03-27 03:06:06 AM  
1 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.


Yeah... my cynical first take, too

Nezorf: Sounds like a decent story of good people being good people.

"Hey you didn't throw $2 in but we all in this together. "
rather than
"Were going to do this to avoid problems in the future"


Ya know.... these are just folks like all of us, and if we don't feel lucky, and don't feel like we have 20 bucks to spare, pass that week when we've chipped in every week for the past year.
And then our co-workers do the right thing....
It's... stunning
2013-03-27 02:56:50 AM  
1 votes:
Sounds like a decent story of good people being good people.

"Hey you didn't throw $2 in but we all in this together. "
rather than
"Were going to do this to avoid problems in the future"
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report