How exactly was the price fixing hurting Rambus' RDRAM?
From Wikipedia:
Few DRAM manufacturers have ever obtained the license to produce RDRAM, and those who did license the technology failed to make enough RIMMs to satisfy PC market demand, causing RIMM to be priced higher than SDRAM DIMMs, even when memory prices skyrocketed during 2002.[13] During RDRAM's decline, DDR continued to advance in speed while, at the same time, it was still cheaper than RDRAM. Meanwhile, A massive price war in the DDR SDRAM allowed DDR SDRAM to be sold at or below production cost. DDR SDRAM makers were losing massive amounts of money, while RDRAM suppliers were making a good profit for every module sold. While it is still produced today, few motherboards support RDRAM. Between 2002-2005, market share of RDRAM had never extended beyond 5%.[14]
In 2004, it was revealed that Infineon, Hynix, Samsung, Micron, and Elpida had entered into a price-fixing scheme.[15] Infineon, Hynix, Samsung and Elpida all entered plea agreements with the US DOJ, pleading guilty to price fixing over 1999-2002.[16] They paid fines totalling over $700 million and numerous executives were sentenced to jail time.
Rambus has alleged that, as part of the conspiracy, the DRAM manufacturers acted to depress the price of DDR memory in an effort to prevent DRDRAM from succeeding in the market. Those allegations are the subject of lawsuits by Rambus against the various companies.
So, yes, this is a massive litigation war.
(April Fools: How about adding a little twist to the current RickRolling tendency?:) )
Not quite. First of all, this is a hardware patent. Second, Rambus was an actual technology developer. Turns out that Rambus' competitors did price fixing to prevent Rambus memory tech from entering the market.
Now, I'm not saying the Rambus guys are poor victims, IMO they're as guilty as the other companies, but I'm thinking that Intel and the others might be getting what they deserve. It's as if Rambus told them: you know the rules, and so do I;-)
But it won't matter, because Microsoft already moved the goalposts to newer proprietary APIs that are patented to boot!
You fail to see the point. So far, Microsoft Windows is the *ONLY* Operating System accepted by the general public. When a competitor arrives, and it's compatible with all the Windows games so far, there won't be any incentive to buy the extra-expensive operating system. Why pay when you can have something better, for free?
Just think of Schools. Government agencies. Thousands of companies which only need a copy of Excel and a few Windows-only software packages to run. In 5 years, game companies will have to face the choice: Whether to keep developing for *one* single operating system, or to develop for *various* operating systems (the Mac will only become more popular in the future, and Linux will reach its critical mass, something that Firefox already achieved).
While some WINE developers are working (and fast!) to implement DirectX 9, other developers are already doing DirectX 10 work, and are adding Vista compatibility features to WINE. So are the ReactOS guys. They already know they're working on a moving target.
And don't forget that the.NET platform has already a Linux implementation.
You think Microsoft's cat and mouse game is a guaranteed success? Do you really think that they'll be able to make a new platform every two years, when they can barely maintain their CURRENT platform? They can't keep up with the vulnerabilities that are discovered by hackers every month!
Microsoft is stagnating. They've already stopped innovating. IE is already behind the competition in the Acid2/3 challenge. They have to change, or they'll die. The good news is that they're not changing...:)
It's useless. They can corrupt ISO to try to keep their Office monopoly, but meanwhile, their Windows monopoly is crumbling down, thanks to the Vista fluke. Wine is getting better every moment, and while ReactOS isn't exactly around the corner, in 5 years it'll be on par with WINE - with 2013's WINE (ReactOS and WINE share a lot of code).
And let's not forget that while Microsoft is powerful, there's a very powerful company called Google that acts as a counterweight.
There's nothing Microsoft can do to prevent falling in their doom. However, they're doing as much as they can to slow down their agony.
OK, I have to get this away from my system. Clicking on the above link nearly forced me to kill firefox (it's a javascript trap!), and it reminded me of a "annoyance vulnerability" I've always hated, and that is present in Firefox: Whenever you want to close the webpage, a javascript message pops up. Unfortunately, the alert messagebox prevents me from closing the window/tab.
My complaint is that for such an old technology, manufacturers still DONT make hardware with that technology. Or maybe some do, but not the ones discussed in this story.
For example "imacs suck" (without quotes) has 265000 hits to your 700, clearly rather hostile to apple.
Are you sure that's not a typo on "emacs sucks"?:P (flame on!)
Popular brands have more people and thus more failures, as long as they're not disproportionate there's really no news there.
I agree with you, and that's exactly what the search results prove:
* The rebooting issue is so common that websites publish a fix for it. * There are people who have reported problems (I also checked the links), so it's clearly NOT an "isolated incident". * There are people who actually said these routers suck (I checked the forums) * In the midst of all the turmoil, I realized Verizon had sneaked GPL code inside these routers.
I also consider that for one person that complains, there could be a lot of people who do not complain because they're not signed in forums, or just search like me to find a quick solution. It's just like AIDS statistics: Not all of the people infected appear in the numbers.
But this search method is very useful before buying new hardware. After I try this search (hardwarename sucks - but with quotes; sometimes I have to rephrase, like "problems with my" + hardwarename), I can see what I'm going to face after I installing it. In some cases, I haven't found a single match (forgot which ones), or only one or two, so I know i've found a pretty good hardware item, and I proceed to buy it.
The search results alone prove nothing, but I always click on the links (usually at the same time and on tabs) and see if it's just a false positive.
but it is important to note that most people tend to have biases towards hardware based on one or two bad experiences.
So are you saying companies should be forgiven when they give you crap that dies when it shouldn't die in the first place?
I agree, one bad experience is too small to be considered statistically significant. However... googling for "actiontec routers suck" (without the quote) gives us these results:
"Fix For Mysteriously Rebooting FiOS Actiontec Routers - Verizon..." "RE: Need to replace dead Actiontec router... options..." "Help! Verizon FIOS and Actiontec router keeping me from MetaFilter..." "Verizon sued over GPL code in FiOS routers - Engadget" "ACTIONTEC M1424WR Router Problem - [H]ard|Forum" "SmallNetBuilder - Small Network Help - Actiontec MI424WR Review..." "Verizon: FiOS Router Constantly Rebooting? Here's The Fix"
Just FYI, Google returned around 700 hits. And for "Actiontec router problem" (without quotes), I got 13,600 hits. Significant enough for ya?:)
Finally, that GPL violation Issue tells me that Verizon isn't an example of honesty... I'd stay away.
You have some old records of a man who claimed he was God. That doesn't make "He was God." a fact. The only thing that those papers prove is that there once was a man who said he was God.
You hit the nail on the head. Authenticity does not equal veracity. However, it is a prerequisite. Anabaptists claimed that their religion is the one started by the apostles. Catholicism claims the same thing - however, evidence discredits Anabaptism in favor of Catholicism.
analysis over historical records regarding the New Testament can only confirm us that the words in them were actually what the man called Jesus said - and not an invention made by a group of fanboys. But from that to affirming that Jesus is the son of God, that is up to the believer.
In other words, we cannot confirm that religion is true based only on ancient manuscripts - however, we CAN confirm that a religion is NOT true based on ancient manuscripts, if they disprove what the religion claims.
In the particular case of Scientology, physical evidence disproves Scientology's numerous claims - starting with the e-meter.
BTW, there's a flaw in the DVORAK keyboard: It was designed for the English language. I tried writing spanish on a DVORAK keyboard once. Let's just say that the experience wasn't pleasant.
It is true that the interface libraries are also covered by the GPL. But this can be gotten around easily enough by writing your own interface libraries
People can believe what they want, go and pray to whoever or whatever - that's none of my business, but when I see hard-won freedoms attempted to be rolled back people irrational, backward people.
I like where this thread is going;-) Without knowing, you have accepted my idea of communicating. Why? Because you're doing so. Instead of just babbling around hate speech like in your initial post, you've begun to actually communicate, expressing your sincere feelings (even if they're filled with hate and fear). And this is what needs to be done.
I also am against abusing human rights, specially when they're done in the name of religion. Notice that I never said anything against Islam - and that means the Koran, however I did spoke against islamic fundamentalists (ignoring the irony that "fundamentalist" is a western term designated for extremist christians).
Governments were created for a reason, to maintain order and peace among the citizens. When a religion threatens that peace, it must be contained, and neutralized if necessary. So there go UFO cults, Scientology, the KKK, and islamic extremists.
However - I don't agree with your previous commentary regarding the DaVinci code (yes, I'm Roman Catholic - just like Pasteur, Euler, Pascal, Babbage, to name a few). If you want to bash some people at the Vatican, or the pedophile priests in the US or around the world, or the fanatics who blow up abortion clinics, you're MORE THAN WELCOME to do so. But please, all I ask is that people don't bash our religious figures, or invent lies about our congregations (like Opus Dei).
See, there's this thin line between protesting against abuses by religious figures, and insulting all the people who follow a religion. Just because some (or most) followers of a religion do evil, doesn't give you the right of being evil against all the followers of such religion.
You want to debate about the Koran, or Mohammed, or Jesus, Buddha, the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition? PLEASE, DO IT.
But insulting authority or religious figures (or just supporting that behavior) is simply wrong. For three reasons: a) You hurt people's feelings - which is an evil in itself, b) You discredit all the people who follow your beliefs (atheism in this case), and c) Add more fuel to the fire, by motivating extremists from both sides to start more meaningless wars.
If on the contrary, you promote peace and understanding, you'll certainly have the moral authority to tell muslim people to act peacefully. The idea to piss off zealots by mocking what they consider the most sacred thing, is tempting, indeed - but it's not the way to go.
To quote Gandhi: "There is no way to peace. Peace IS the way"
If you have to be religious, go for it. Don't get in people's faces demanding this or that rule be changed to suit you. If people say your religion is shit, shut the fuck up about it.
I never said anything about questioning beliefs or morals. I'm talking about company-sponsored (or just moronic) insulting and mocking of the ideals people believe in. Respecting someone's religious figures is respecting the person itself. I can surely debate with muslims about Mohammed or the Koran, but I surely won't draw insulting cartoons of Mohammed - not because Mohammed deserved that respect, but because I respect other people's feelings.
I believe that respect and communication, and not mockery is the way we should take to solve (part of) the world's problems. If you can't understand that, then you're no better than those zealots who bomb buildings because they don't like how they do things.
All of these religious groups that are claiming sacred right to this and that and feel they are being insulted actually need to adhere to the words in their books.
So, all of a sudden you can bash ANYTHING you like and pretend you're not insulting ANYONE? I'm sorry, but one common thing in all (or most) religions is the golden rule, i.e. respect.
If you ridiculize a religion or imply that the religion or the corresponding deity is evil, then you are *ACTUALLY* insulting the people who follow that religion.
But it's very different having a religious authority condemning a cartoon and asking (or even demanding for the sake of peace) for that cartoon to be removed, and some mad bombers causing riots here and there.
All the BS about Mr Gibson's movie was stupid. The crap about The Davinci Code was idiotic. The bruhaha about 'The last temptation of Christ' was ignorant.
I disagree with you on this. While I don't agree with Mel Gibson's view in "The passion of the Christ", I respect his right to make that movie. On the other hand, it's very easy to bash an organized religion and make a conspiracy theory out of nowhere just to make money. Historians (whether they're catholic or not) ARE offended by the Davinci Code. Why? Because it's mostly a bunch of fancy lies and a lot of people believe in those lies.
1. Make a movie/book bashing a certain religion and group of people. If you make up some lies and scandals, the better. 2. Wait for the bashed group of people react against your book/movie, and claim "censorship!" 3. Profit!!
You certainly seem to confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom to insult anything you want because you feel like it, no matter how many people are pissed off". While I strongly disagree with censorship (specially censorship driven by fear, something which makes my blood boil), your post certainly generalizes and treats all religions as a bunch of ignorant zealots. As if the only good religion was the religion that forced its members to shut up to be insulted whenever certain person or economic group decides to make a movie about it.
You hit the nail on the head. I wrote an article in my journal entitled "Consoles, Emulators and DRM" about how consoles are used to rip gamers off. Consoles are nothing but a blatant implementation of DRM for games - right since the game cartridge, which only dedicated hackers are able to copy (and not necessarily for piracy, but for private use i.e. backup). If you ask your friends if they ever had their favorite videogame broken because their disc got scratched, they'll tell you that at least they fear it happening.
You could say the console wars are the equivalent of the browser wars. Implementing non-standard features that the competition has to imitate while remaining incompatible to prevent users from fleeing to the other platform.
And this is why emulation rocks, it frees us from depending on a specific platform to play a game.
As easy as that. It's not easy to change a whole corporate culture, so in the end you have to break the rules to get more efficient.
For example - a friend told me that due to company policies, the SSL port was blocked by the company, so there was no way to securely communicate with the outside (or between the workers themselves, for example, by testing the network - a lot of them used MSN). What kind of policy is that? Just to keep information from leaking without being detected? How about emergencies? People then transferred files and information via open chat, where EVERYBODY could see it. Including non-loyal employees. Last thing I knew is that my friends' team ended up using http tunnelling. In the end, nothing was gained and the IT team spent more time than they should to just work around stupid company policies.
Another example: Forbidding non-default apps, I think this was discussed before. So you can't for example install software that will make your Windows safer, like Ad-aware or Firefox.
This is the problem about management. You just put an idiot in front of the department and have him send orders here and there. But programmers are hackers by nature, we find out how things work and find a way to make them more efficient - whether authorized or not. And the difference between younger and older people is that older people tend to play more by the rules - even when they know the rules are WRONG.
A "safe computing" seminar given by a security expert, could make things much more efficient at work, and educate employees to act smarter instead of having to babysit them with counterproductive policies.
Slashdot Mirror
From Wikipedia:
So, yes, this is a massive litigation war.
(April Fools: How about adding a little twist to the current RickRolling tendency?
Not quite. First of all, this is a hardware patent. Second, Rambus was an actual technology developer. Turns out that Rambus' competitors did price fixing to prevent Rambus memory tech from entering the market.
Now, I'm not saying the Rambus guys are poor victims, IMO they're as guilty as the other companies, but I'm thinking that Intel and the others might be getting what they deserve. It's as if Rambus told them: you know the rules, and so do I
You fail to see the point. So far, Microsoft Windows is the *ONLY* Operating System accepted by the general public. When a competitor arrives, and it's compatible with all the Windows games so far, there won't be any incentive to buy the extra-expensive operating system. Why pay when you can have something better, for free?
Just think of Schools. Government agencies. Thousands of companies which only need a copy of Excel and a few Windows-only software packages to run. In 5 years, game companies will have to face the choice: Whether to keep developing for *one* single operating system, or to develop for *various* operating systems (the Mac will only become more popular in the future, and Linux will reach its critical mass, something that Firefox already achieved).
While some WINE developers are working (and fast!) to implement DirectX 9, other developers are already doing DirectX 10 work, and are adding Vista compatibility features to WINE. So are the ReactOS guys. They already know they're working on a moving target.
And don't forget that the
You think Microsoft's cat and mouse game is a guaranteed success? Do you really think that they'll be able to make a new platform every two years, when they can barely maintain their CURRENT platform? They can't keep up with the vulnerabilities that are discovered by hackers every month!
Microsoft is stagnating. They've already stopped innovating. IE is already behind the competition in the Acid2/3 challenge. They have to change, or they'll die. The good news is that they're not changing...
It's useless. They can corrupt ISO to try to keep their Office monopoly, but meanwhile, their Windows monopoly is crumbling down, thanks to the Vista fluke. Wine is getting better every moment, and while ReactOS isn't exactly around the corner, in 5 years it'll be on par with WINE - with 2013's WINE (ReactOS and WINE share a lot of code).
And let's not forget that while Microsoft is powerful, there's a very powerful company called Google that acts as a counterweight.
There's nothing Microsoft can do to prevent falling in their doom. However, they're doing as much as they can to slow down their agony.
OK, I have to get this away from my system. Clicking on the above link nearly forced me to kill firefox (it's a javascript trap!), and it reminded me of a "annoyance vulnerability" I've always hated, and that is present in Firefox: Whenever you want to close the webpage, a javascript message pops up. Unfortunately, the alert messagebox prevents me from closing the window/tab.
Any idea if this is going to be fixed in FF3?
My complaint is that for such an old technology, manufacturers still DONT make hardware with that technology. Or maybe some do, but not the ones discussed in this story.
Are you sure that's not a typo on "emacs sucks"?
I agree with you, and that's exactly what the search results prove:
* The rebooting issue is so common that websites publish a fix for it.
* There are people who have reported problems (I also checked the links), so it's clearly NOT an "isolated incident".
* There are people who actually said these routers suck (I checked the forums)
* In the midst of all the turmoil, I realized Verizon had sneaked GPL code inside these routers.
I also consider that for one person that complains, there could be a lot of people who do not complain because they're not signed in forums, or just search like me to find a quick solution. It's just like AIDS statistics: Not all of the people infected appear in the numbers.
But this search method is very useful before buying new hardware. After I try this search (hardwarename sucks - but with quotes; sometimes I have to rephrase, like "problems with my" + hardwarename), I can see what I'm going to face after I installing it. In some cases, I haven't found a single match (forgot which ones), or only one or two, so I know i've found a pretty good hardware item, and I proceed to buy it.
The search results alone prove nothing, but I always click on the links (usually at the same time and on tabs) and see if it's just a false positive.
Perhaps the GP poster meant it doesn't exist or isn't commercially viable (whether it's because of monopolistic practices or not) in the U.S.
One thing bothers me with providers refusing to do XVid-like (divx,xvid,h.264, whatever) decoding. DivX technology is friggin' 10 years old.
but it is important to note that most people tend to have biases towards hardware based on one or two bad experiences.
..." ..." ..." ..."
:)
So are you saying companies should be forgiven when they give you crap that dies when it shouldn't die in the first place?
I agree, one bad experience is too small to be considered statistically significant. However... googling for "actiontec routers suck" (without the quote) gives us these results:
"Fix For Mysteriously Rebooting FiOS Actiontec Routers - Verizon
"RE: Need to replace dead Actiontec router... options
"Help! Verizon FIOS and Actiontec router keeping me from MetaFilter
"Verizon sued over GPL code in FiOS routers - Engadget"
"ACTIONTEC M1424WR Router Problem - [H]ard|Forum"
"SmallNetBuilder - Small Network Help - Actiontec MI424WR Review
"Verizon: FiOS Router Constantly Rebooting? Here's The Fix"
Just FYI, Google returned around 700 hits. And for "Actiontec router problem" (without quotes), I got 13,600 hits. Significant enough for ya?
Finally, that GPL violation Issue tells me that Verizon isn't an example of honesty... I'd stay away.
You hit the nail on the head. Authenticity does not equal veracity. However, it is a prerequisite. Anabaptists claimed that their religion is the one started by the apostles. Catholicism claims the same thing - however, evidence discredits Anabaptism in favor of Catholicism.
analysis over historical records regarding the New Testament can only confirm us that the words in them were actually what the man called Jesus said - and not an invention made by a group of fanboys. But from that to affirming that Jesus is the son of God, that is up to the believer.
In other words, we cannot confirm that religion is true based only on ancient manuscripts - however, we CAN confirm that a religion is NOT true based on ancient manuscripts, if they disprove what the religion claims.
In the particular case of Scientology, physical evidence disproves Scientology's numerous claims - starting with the e-meter.
Not that good. The article speaks about the organization's credibility - not their doctrine's. The question in GP post is a straw man.
http://truckbearingkibble.com/comic/2008/03/10/eureka%C2%B3/
the race isn't anything like this one.
WASP: The treasure, it's hidden below three big W's!
(Which one of our browser stars will be the first one to reach it?)
The QWERTY keyboard
BTW, there's a flaw in the DVORAK keyboard: It was designed for the English language. I tried writing spanish on a DVORAK keyboard once. Let's just say that the experience wasn't pleasant.
Also, according to the image on page 4, in 2015, we STILL won't be using Vista.
:D
And that's good news!
It is true that the interface libraries are also covered by the GPL. But this can be gotten around easily enough by writing your own interface libraries
Yeah sure... we all do that (/sarcasm).
Hmmm... just when I read that article on people trusting their car GPS systems even if they'd go down a cliff....
Long live ReactOS!
Well, at least I'm confident that by the time Windows 7 comes out, ReactOS will be in a usable state.
Considering ming is a LIBRARY and not an IDE, i'd say it's pretty much a shovel, but there's no dirt to fill the hole yet.
I like where this thread is going
I also am against abusing human rights, specially when they're done in the name of religion. Notice that I never said anything against Islam - and that means the Koran, however I did spoke against islamic fundamentalists (ignoring the irony that "fundamentalist" is a western term designated for extremist christians).
Governments were created for a reason, to maintain order and peace among the citizens. When a religion threatens that peace, it must be contained, and neutralized if necessary. So there go UFO cults, Scientology, the KKK, and islamic extremists.
However - I don't agree with your previous commentary regarding the DaVinci code (yes, I'm Roman Catholic - just like Pasteur, Euler, Pascal, Babbage, to name a few). If you want to bash some people at the Vatican, or the pedophile priests in the US or around the world, or the fanatics who blow up abortion clinics, you're MORE THAN WELCOME to do so. But please, all I ask is that people don't bash our religious figures, or invent lies about our congregations (like Opus Dei).
See, there's this thin line between protesting against abuses by religious figures, and insulting all the people who follow a religion. Just because some (or most) followers of a religion do evil, doesn't give you the right of being evil against all the followers of such religion.
You want to debate about the Koran, or Mohammed, or Jesus, Buddha, the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition? PLEASE, DO IT.
But insulting authority or religious figures (or just supporting that behavior) is simply wrong. For three reasons: a) You hurt people's feelings - which is an evil in itself, b) You discredit all the people who follow your beliefs (atheism in this case), and c) Add more fuel to the fire, by motivating extremists from both sides to start more meaningless wars.
If on the contrary, you promote peace and understanding, you'll certainly have the moral authority to tell muslim people to act peacefully. The idea to piss off zealots by mocking what they consider the most sacred thing, is tempting, indeed - but it's not the way to go.
To quote Gandhi: "There is no way to peace. Peace IS the way"
If you have to be religious, go for it. Don't get in people's faces demanding this or that rule be changed to suit you. If people say your religion is shit, shut the fuck up about it.
I never said anything about questioning beliefs or morals. I'm talking about company-sponsored (or just moronic) insulting and mocking of the ideals people believe in. Respecting someone's religious figures is respecting the person itself. I can surely debate with muslims about Mohammed or the Koran, but I surely won't draw insulting cartoons of Mohammed - not because Mohammed deserved that respect, but because I respect other people's feelings.
I believe that respect and communication, and not mockery is the way we should take to solve (part of) the world's problems. If you can't understand that, then you're no better than those zealots who bomb buildings because they don't like how they do things.
So, all of a sudden you can bash ANYTHING you like and pretend you're not insulting ANYONE? I'm sorry, but one common thing in all (or most) religions is the golden rule, i.e. respect.
If you ridiculize a religion or imply that the religion or the corresponding deity is evil, then you are *ACTUALLY* insulting the people who follow that religion.
But it's very different having a religious authority condemning a cartoon and asking (or even demanding for the sake of peace) for that cartoon to be removed, and some mad bombers causing riots here and there.
I disagree with you on this. While I don't agree with Mel Gibson's view in "The passion of the Christ", I respect his right to make that movie. On the other hand, it's very easy to bash an organized religion and make a conspiracy theory out of nowhere just to make money. Historians (whether they're catholic or not) ARE offended by the Davinci Code. Why? Because it's mostly a bunch of fancy lies and a lot of people believe in those lies.
1. Make a movie/book bashing a certain religion and group of people. If you make up some lies and scandals, the better.
2. Wait for the bashed group of people react against your book/movie, and claim "censorship!"
3. Profit!!
You certainly seem to confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom to insult anything you want because you feel like it, no matter how many people are pissed off". While I strongly disagree with censorship (specially censorship driven by fear, something which makes my blood boil), your post certainly generalizes and treats all religions as a bunch of ignorant zealots. As if the only good religion was the religion that forced its members to shut up to be insulted whenever certain person or economic group decides to make a movie about it.
You hit the nail on the head. I wrote an article in my journal entitled "Consoles, Emulators and DRM" about how consoles are used to rip gamers off. Consoles are nothing but a blatant implementation of DRM for games - right since the game cartridge, which only dedicated hackers are able to copy (and not necessarily for piracy, but for private use i.e. backup). If you ask your friends if they ever had their favorite videogame broken because their disc got scratched, they'll tell you that at least they fear it happening.
You could say the console wars are the equivalent of the browser wars. Implementing non-standard features that the competition has to imitate while remaining incompatible to prevent users from fleeing to the other platform.
And this is why emulation rocks, it frees us from depending on a specific platform to play a game.
As easy as that. It's not easy to change a whole corporate culture, so in the end you have to break the rules to get more efficient.
For example - a friend told me that due to company policies, the SSL port was blocked by the company, so there was no way to securely communicate with the outside (or between the workers themselves, for example, by testing the network - a lot of them used MSN). What kind of policy is that? Just to keep information from leaking without being detected? How about emergencies? People then transferred files and information via open chat, where EVERYBODY could see it. Including non-loyal employees. Last thing I knew is that my friends' team ended up using http tunnelling. In the end, nothing was gained and the IT team spent more time than they should to just work around stupid company policies.
Another example: Forbidding non-default apps, I think this was discussed before. So you can't for example install software that will make your Windows safer, like Ad-aware or Firefox.
This is the problem about management. You just put an idiot in front of the department and have him send orders here and there. But programmers are hackers by nature, we find out how things work and find a way to make them more efficient - whether authorized or not. And the difference between younger and older people is that older people tend to play more by the rules - even when they know the rules are WRONG.
A "safe computing" seminar given by a security expert, could make things much more efficient at work, and educate employees to act smarter instead of having to babysit them with counterproductive policies.