I used to like Mike and his website and purpose in life. Heck, I was even in the coffee club or water cooler club or whatever you call the small monthly donation club. But then he went full TDS and I gave up on him and his causes.

I'd give you an upvote, but apparently those aren't available to me.

Doesn't look like BleachBit does registry cleaning, though. Am I wrong?

My users wouldn't really need all the other stuff BleachBit does, but the registry cleaning that CCleaner does, does actually solve a problem once in a while.

I actually did have a problem, once, where the registry cleaner in CCleaner solved a problem for me. Someone I was supporting was having weird behavior in this one program. I did everything I could to solve it, down to un-installing the program and deleting the program folder, empty the temp folder, scan for viruses, rebooting, ran chkdsk - the whole of everything I could. And upon re-install, the problem came back. In desperation, I downloaded CCleaner, ran the registry cleaner, and - what do you know? The problem was solved. The problem was the result of bad registry entries left behind by the un-install process.

Now, at work I would like to use CCleaner - but the price for commercial use is ridiculously expensive; and, the whole thing has so much feature creep (bloat) that it's a no-go. I actually did buy a license for myself at home, because they solved the problem for me, and I wanted to throw some money their way for that.

Anyone know of a registry cleaner (only) that is either open source or super inexpensive for commercial use?

I don't think this is nearly the problem you perceive it to be. If I'm in public, I chose to be there.

And for the record, I'm a huge fan of police bodycams.

David Brin has a book about surveillance society - which unfortunately, I never finished reading. But I did get to the part where he makes the point (and I agree with him), that it would be nice if all these cameras were publicly accessible and all accesses were published.

So your daughter goes to play in the park. You access the park cameras, to keep an eye on your daughter. That you accessed the camera should be a matter of public record. If the police have a constant feed on the park, that should be a matter of public record too. If some perv is watching the children in the park, there should be a record of that too.

I'm not terribly worried about the fact of the recording; but I'd like to see more accountability in who does the watching. For police bodycams, I'd like to see more accountability when the office turns the thing off; perhaps having to key some sort of code that says why the camera is being turned off.

As of four days ago, they went to /dev/null.

This story was mildly interesting to me, because my COBOL teacher met Rear Admiral Hopper in person.

Did you know she coined the term "debug", because that was how she fixed an errant program? Found the relay that wasn't connecting, and removed a moth? Taped it into the log book with "Debugged the computer".

I feel they are a problem.

I have seen two articles that I think should have been kept; but some asshole that Mr. Wales trusts decided that they should be deleted. Seems like deleting articles is a power trip to me.

So whenever Mr. Wales asks for money, I am reminded to say no because he allows power tripping editors to ruin Wikipedia. Why would I donate money to these people?

You have a point. ActiveSync is free. But you get what you pay for - no protection from data leakage.

If the BB OS could be a virtual machine image (encrypted, sandboxed) inside an iPhone or Android phone, I would suggest that RIM pitch the idea of having control over the corporate data as Cost Of Doing Business. I'm pretty sure a large number of corporate users would be willing to pay for that.

But yeah, if Microsoft or Apple or Google decided to implement the same and give it away for free, RIM would be even more screwed than they are now.

It is a plus, but it's not nearly enough. Due to a stupid IRS ruling, we're being pushed toward people buying their own phone and we give them a stipend for corporate use. I don't see my end users opting for a BB (or BB + PlayBook) when they can get an iPhone or Galaxy or Hero or Droid.

I hate that the company data is going to be mixed with the user's personal data.

We're going to be dumping our BlackBerrys and our BES CALs because the Android and IOS devices can do almost as much, with far less security. The reality is that the big bosses want the latest high-tech jewelry, and the BB is The Old Stuff.

But RIM is fixated on selling the hardware of it's BB phone. The PlayBook is a large screen and keyboard for the BB phone. Your corporate email is still kept in the BB phone - not the PlayBook. I've got bad news for you RIM: no-one wants to wear two phones, one for work and one for personal. Even though the personal phones aren't nearly as good as the BB from a security standpoint, they are good enough. And frankly they are better at email/calendar/PIM/chat. Bye bye BB. And with that, I don't need a PlayBook either.

As an admin who has the duty to protect our information assets, I would far prefer to have those assets protected by our BES. It's an established solution and works well.

Instead of trying to make the PlayBook drag the BB along as the second phone (three devices total (are you serious RIM???)), they should be trying to give me the protection of the BES in my IOS or Android device. One device plus high security - that is an easy sell. At least this way they could keep that BES CALs revenue coming in.

Another thing wrong with switching over to personal phones is the mixing of personal data with the corporate data. But it will happen because the personal phone apps see integration as a good thing - it increases the data mining potential.

RIM is trying to make the walled garden larger by importing Android apps. I would far far prefer that my IOS or Android be able to launch the tiny walled (fortified with extreme prejudice) garden of my corporate data protected by the BES.

I've been through one acquisition, and it wasn't good. The company I was with was great, right up until a holiday disaster involving a boat and an airplane with a drunk pilot. After the crash / deaths / amputations, the owners of the company decided to sell out. My division was sold to Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) a truly vile company worthy of persecution and contempt. Xerox owns them now. By the way, avoid Xerox if at all possible. But I digress.

Where SCT was interested in customer happiness and the ability to deliver high quality services, ACS had the opposite plan. Cheap as hell, and customer happiness won't be measured unless it was forced on them in the contract. A pox on them!

I hope your merger goes better than mine.

Honestly, this is the first time in a week (or more) that I even checked the message center.

Revision 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that if a party has reason to believe that evidence may be subpoenaed, the party must keep the data (or face sanction). It's a lose-lose situation either way, and this way Google doesn't look like a place that is trying to hide a crime.

I have also learned that there is something called "in camera" which means that during a trial, you can show your data to the judge in person (he can view it with his eyes) and then make a decision whether the data should become a part of the official record. So evidence can make a difference in a trial but still be kept private.