I've used CamScanner+ for a while, and although I'd recommend it for all the reasons given here, on on IOS / iPod 4G, there seems to be a substantial quality difference between snapping a page in the standard camera and then importing, as opposed to snapping from within the app itself.
My other job as the manager of a small record label frequently requires me to circulate press clippings and other bumf to everyone connected with a particular project. One option is to do this when I get back to the office but a better and faster one is to use CamScanner. CamScanner will take, crop, enhance and convert a …
Tuesday 29th November 2011 12:22 GMT mrmond
Tuesday 29th November 2011 12:24 GMT Sam Liddicott
Tuesday 29th November 2011 14:40 GMT Loyal Commenter
It's from this book, which is a very entertaining read, unless you are too stupid to be able to distinguish between the use of a word for comic effect and its use to cause offence. Which it appears you, and several others here are.
Tuesday 29th November 2011 12:35 GMT Fr Barry
Tuesday 29th November 2011 14:38 GMT samster
C'mon guys GET A PHUCKIN/FREAKIN/FLIPPIN grip!
(see what I did there?)
And that's the problem with your attitude. When American sitcoms say 'freakin' is that ok!?? C'mon we ALL KNOW what they mean right?! Or do you turn the channel?
Anyway, it wasn't the author - it was the example scan he used. Should he not have used the Onion? Should the Onion be banned in your books?
The article is fine. It's 2011 for fu**'s sake (oh sorry - 'for crying out loud I mean)
Tuesday 29th November 2011 14:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Oh lighten up
It's a grab of a page from the Onion book Our Dumb Century, one of the funniest things you will ever read in print although fair warning for the under 5s and prissy little twonks, it does contain the occasional rude word.
Made me laugh as well as demoing the app. Well done El Reg.
Tuesday 29th November 2011 14:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Totally Unnecessary (but brilliant)
I'm not with the others here, I'm with the Register - I enjoy a bit of peripheral gratuitous profanity, and actually hit the comments to see if anyone had linked to the original.
Fuck-tastically brilliantly irreverent moon shot coverage.
I pity the partners of these who value only necessity.
Tuesday 29th November 2011 15:05 GMT mrmond
Tuesday 29th November 2011 16:10 GMT Loyal Commenter
I believe that there is a difference between something that is inherently offensive, and something that a person CHOOSES to find offensive.
For instance, screaming unwarranted abuse at someone in the street is inherently offensive, the written word is only offensive if the person reading it decides it is so. This is amply demonstrated bu the fact that some people, myself included, obviously did not find screen shots of the Onion offensive, but you did.
In the first example, the source of the offence is the person screaming abuse, not the person being abused. In the second, the source of the offence is the person reading the rudey words, not the person writing them. In other words, people who find this sort of thing offensive are the cause of their own offense and should pretty much just get over themselves.
Tuesday 29th November 2011 20:57 GMT Sam Liddicott
just to be clear
There was no NSFW tag this morning when I read the post (yes I have a PDF of the page to check).
The reference to Jesus Christ is not one which I decided to take offence over after reading it; it made me recoil when I read it.
It is this class of offence: You walk into the bar with your missus and someone gropes her and then calls it a bit of a laugh and wonders why you don't get over yourself.
It suggests that the author is at least "not a politician" and lacks the courtesy that I hoped he was being paid to have,
I have "got over myself", but it is a personal offence that makes me wish I hadn't read it.
It's also plain bad manners not to consider those readers you've tried to build a relationship with.
I don't have to take this so I'm off after 7 years of fun with the reg; but not doubt I'm not the kind of reader the reg appreciates either as I also don't appreciate the increasing lewd innuendos either.
I stuck around today to watch the response from the reg - but none.
Tuesday 29th November 2011 21:11 GMT Tony Smith, Editor, Reg Hardware
Re: just to be clear
Sam, since you'd already said you'd be taking your page views elsewhere, there seemed little point in responding.
Since you ask, my view is that the use of swear words is entirely commensurate with the age, outlook and robustness of the vast majority of El Reg's readers.
FWIW, The Onion's comedy is hilarious - precisely because of the swearing. Could the author have used a tamer source? Certainly, but the review would have been less engaging and entertaining.
Personally, I also think it's important not to take offence when no offence is intended, as is the case here. One should feel more confident in one's beliefs when some else is seemingly rude about them. Turn the other cheek, etc.
Sorry to see you go, especially after staying with the site for so long.
Wednesday 30th November 2011 09:12 GMT mrmond
No offence intended ?
Tony, I thank you for your reply, but I think the issue here that some have taken, is that while no offence IS intended, for many people the use of Swear words CAN be offensive.
Rather than saying,your readers shouldn't take offence wouldn't it be better to take the stance that this could cause offence given the nature of the app ?
Case in point - The Viz app that gives out quotes of one of the characters. That I found very funny because it was in keeping with the nature of the app, and entirely expected.
I love Viz, I choose to read Viz, any article that is about Viz I would assume I may see swearing, crass humour etc, but not in this case. Not for an app that is basically just a simple scan to text converter.
Wednesday 30th November 2011 09:50 GMT KJB
If its "PC" media you're after...
...add the following to your whitelist and block all others:
PS: You say you'll be leaving though I'd be willing to bet you'll be back, recoiling at unexpected profanity once more (I mean seriously, who "recoils"?) and spreading your miserable view of life and how things "should be" upon all us commentards...
Wednesday 30th November 2011 10:43 GMT Peter Townsend
http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=fuck shows 247 uses of "fuck" on the Register since January 7th 2000 while 14 uses of "cunt" can be found at http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=cunt.
OK, most of those uses are probably in quotation marks, but this article isn't using the word fuck in an editorial context either.
I've a suggestion, if you read something and your eye alights on a word you choose to find offensive (it's not a given, I don't find the word "fuck" remotely offensive) stop reading rather than try to impose your restrictive world view on the rest of us.
As for announcing your are no longer going to read the site please grow up and stop assuming the rest of us give a monkey's. That's self-important priggishness of the highest order.
I'm guessing that like me the bulk of the Reg's readership found the choice of scan pretty inspired.