And gues wat? NOBODY visits any web site because it's "cool". Stop trying to impress me, because you're not going to do it with a "cool" web site. You'll only annoy me. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Clearly, you've never met a teenager. There's different website styles for different people; some people want things that are flashy and cool, some people just want to check their e-mail. The point is applying the same design philosophy to both projects would be crazy.
Truth? Wikipedia might actually have a good idea. Truth is whatever the majority believes at the moment, and the majority can always edit the story to make it fit the latest fad.
That's an awfully short summary of a pretty big field of philosophy, right there. Sure, there's a spin on it and we will always see what we want to see, but 100 years later, when people have had time to dissect leaked documents with the benefit of hindsight, things will surface. The majority may believe something at the moment, but it's not the truth.
Guantanamo Bay hasn't been closed yet because the previous administration didn't care enough about many of the prisoners there to keep proper files on why they were there in the first place, and they don't want to release everyone on the grounds that they don't quite remember what they did. Granted, a lot of them shouldn't have been there in the first place, but they don't want to accidentally release some criminals along with however many presumably innocent people are there...the point is that they don't know whether releasing them or not would be really, really dangerous, and they're trying to find places to move them while they figure it out.
Similarly, with the health care reform...well, I don't know if you've heard, but there's been somewhat of a debate on the issue holding it up a bit? Nothing huge, it'll probably blow over soon.
This is the same problem that teachers face every day. Teachers who give up and figure most teenagers "just don't care" aren't the ones kids thank later in life. Of course people are going to react negatively when you try and take away their YouTube. Let their manager deal with their lack of productivity in whatever ways managers do it best (or worst...).
The problem is that there's a fine line between "keeping twerps from using up all the company bandwidth" and "administering draconian policies to get everyone to work your way or else". The only difference between the two is the discretion of whoever's in charge, and leaving it up to that person often has disastrous results. The answer is definitely not to fight from both sides until someone gives up, that just makes enemies out of both sides, when it's in the interest of both parties to be on the same side.
For example: a common method to limit bandwidth is to block users from installing Flash and thus block websites which use Flash to stream content (YouTube, streaming radio stations, etc.) But then you run into having to allow access to people who want to use Flash for legitimate reasons. Or people who want to stream content in the background while working more productively (like listening to music at work)?
If you're in IT, it's your job to make sure the systems work so that people can do their jobs better, not to hinder the systems so that people do their jobs worse.
It's undoubtedly your trusting & respectful attitude that makes your workplace a wonderful place to get things done. What ever happened to educating people about what the problem is with this software? I wouldn't go so far as to say start holding classes, but if it's a continuous problem there's nothing stopping you from sending out a mass e-mail telling them that there are fake things on the internet that people need to watch out for. Mention the extreme security risk, include lots of pictures and borrow a copywriter from Marketing for a half hour to make something people will actually read, instead of dismissing like "another IT e-mail," and you just might reduce some problems. Management & people skills shouldn't be just for the guys in the suits.
Want a car analogy? What if AAA took away your keys and left you with the valet one everytime you locked your keys in the car, or your insurance company installed a camera on your dashboard to make you paranoid and start to do that check-your-mirror-every-3-to-5-seconds thing you did while taking driving lessons and then immediately stopped once you passed your test.
Sure, it's your job to take care of the company's computers - and this involves keeping them clean and virus-free - but power-tripping with technology most people don't understand properly (or understand only as deep as they need to do their jobs) doesn't help anyone. Neither does a "no mercy" policy.
Hang on...they're thinking it's bad that people no longer look at you funny when you ask them what browser they use? They're lamenting the good old days when people put the entire e-mail in the subject line? They miss the lucrative position of explaining to someone that no, they can't just have root access? Explaining that the backup isn't supposed to be the only copy?
This is a problem?
Oh I agree that it's like Pascal's wager, but that's more of a bad thing than you'd think. Granted, I've never raised a kid so I don't know how difficult any of this is, but the Pascal's wager logic is just weird.
Yes, Pascal's wager is a decent justification for being religious but it proposes a pretty terrible way to get into a spiritual life, as a way of basically covering your ass in case God exists. It's basically the tattoo on the ass of the "Archbishop" in Johnny English: "Jesus is coming - look busy." Sure, you end up with a lot of people going to church, but they're going 'just in case,' rather than honestly believing that God is someone who should be praised. It's a lousy excuse for showing up to mass, and you'd probably be better off concentrating on being a decent, moral, secular person than faking that you believe in God, however well you manage to halfway convince yourself.
Same thing with this watch. I mean a protection "just in case" your child gets abducted sounds great, but it's also a lousy excuse for not teaching your child to think about what they're doing when a stranger in a van offers them candy, or , or just in general. Sure, you end up with a lot of parents feeling safe about their children, but it's because they trust some strange device they're paying a monthly fee for, not because they trust their actual child, and which would you rather trust, some company called Lok8r, or your own offspring?
Plus, there's plenty of technical reasons why this is a terrible idea. Ignoring the very real possibility for someone other than you to track your kid, you're saying you can't think of a way for someone to get the watch off without "forcibly removing" it in the ways they've come up with? I can, and they're more horrifying than a simple abduction.
Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?