I disagree. To wit, Apple pretty much owns patent on movement of the middle finger and are the only ones capable of making money by raising it. All the while, Microsoft, RIM and Nokia were caught with their fingers up their noses, and are still trying hard at moving them out.
I never said they would have, but they are far less likely to abuse it and more likely to be ridiculously cheap with licenses.
Companies hold patents to make money. Whether Google distributes the technology free of charge or not, it would still make money off the technology because it would distribute its OS more freely, thereby channeling the web traffic through their bread and butter: searches. Apple and Microsoft are doing the same thing that Google would have done.
The hypocrisy that is Google. Weren't they claiming that they wanted Nortel's patent portfolio because Google, as a young company, doesn't have much on its patent arsenal?
The hypocrisy that is Google. Weren't they claiming that they wanted Nortel's patent portfolio because Google, as a young company, doesn't have much on its patent arsenal?
"Arsenal" has the connotation of a weapon IMO. Personally, and in the view of many others, Google's search for unneeded patents is for use as a shield, not a spear. With close to 2000 patents in it's control (at last count), there's never been an instance of them using one to attack a competitor that I'm aware of.
Is that smart business? Dunno, but it serves as circumstantial evidence that Google doesn't view IP, whether home-grown or purchased, as a weapon to be drawn on other mobile or search companies at the least provocation.
"Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no."
Interesting.
Google's narrative is that they are victims of conspiracies against them. The execs might know it's bullshit, but their army of supporters and fanboys might actually buy that story.
Someone said that Apple is not an R&D driven company..
Just taking a look at any of their products and you will find they look like nothing else in the market. The fact that Apple has a very efficient and cost effective R&D, that is they key for of all their success.
They are not going around wasting millions like fools. They have road maps and they focus and stick to those product in particular. Apple also has a smaller amount of product compared to Sony, Samsung, etc. Its has even more competitive opportunities since they design the software and don't have to outsource development.
The notion that Google is good at developing technology is tricky. They have a lot of little things here and there but the only few things I could recall is the search engine and the maps service but other than that they lag far behind than Apple that has an historic record of devices, technologies, even business model.
Google to me look like the naive young adult that just waken from his dreaming and has to face the raw reality. It is a new company that tried to bring a product (android) to an industry stormed by Apple and its iPhone. The leaders on this industry like Nokia, Motorola and others still have no clue how to compete with Apple.
So how Google expect to compete in this realm. Even Apple is new to the smartphone world but they planned well ahead their strategy and their product. They have a good amount of their own innovations and patents to go forward and even more to come.
What I find more disturbing about Google stance is that they say that patents prevent innovation... really??? Why the people or companies that spend their time inventing stuff, making it better will sit and watch still how others rip their hard work. Is Google saying that is good to steal others work? But sounds like they do. They got 1k IBM patents for themselves to troll others and gain some leverage. So is good for them and not the rest?
Oh Google... what a cloudy future waits for you. grow up!
Google continues to operate like a bunch of teenagers in the midst of a business environment populated by adults. Their moves are like they think they are in a dart game, when it is actually chess. In business, it is absolutely essential to make moves strategically, or you will inevitably find yourself in dire consequences. Google is now finding itself in such circumstances and, like kids, stomping their feet and complaining unfair. Seasoned CEOs in the Fortune 500 must be shaking their heads at how foolishly Google is conducting itself, barging into initiatives and market areas with little thought or planning (Google TV being just one example) - or respect - as though, just like kids, they are trying to see what they can get away with. There's more arrogance than business intelligence in evidence there.
This is how Google behaved when they fought China a few months ago and eventually got their search engine banned in mainland China. Childish and immature bunch of children. Whining and crying like a little baby.
Then they bid PI billion dollars forthe Nortel patent trying to be cute AND LOST!
and now this!
Looks like Google/Larry Page still needs adult supervision.
This is how Google behaved when they fought China a few months ago and eventually got their search engine banned in mainland China. Childish and immature bunch of children. Whining and crying like a little baby.
Then they bid PI billion dollars forthe Nortel patent trying to be cute AND LOST!
and now this!
Looks like Google/Larry Page still needs adult supervision.
I think that was supposed to be an attack..on Google?
It was so childish and poorly written that I honestly have no clue though.
Not very patentable? But perhaps just patentable enough to get a number of patents approved?
Didn't we go thru this before? More than once? But I understand it's common trolling game here to bait each other even when knowing that the other person is at least partially right - anything to score a point.
Anyhow, IMO, it's difficult to rank or judge innovation, patents or not. But I firmly believe the evidence is strong that Google and Apple innovate at different levels. Many Apple inventions are well known and therefore do not require my explanation. Google's technology starts but does not end with the search patents alluded to above. Here are some examples which I have cited before:
MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters
In Proceedings of OSDI 2004
Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data
In Proceedings of OSDI 2006
There are many more academic citations and patents which represent what Google has contributed to computer science. But I think CloudGazer has captured it best here - Google processes massive amount of data. To accomplish this, they have had to reinvent distributed computing.
IMO, iPhone, iPod and MacOS are all significant technology advances but they will not leave the same legacy that BigTable, MapReduce, GFS, search (and mobile search), etc. will.
Yes, Google did work to make the world more amenable to driving all web traffic to their servers so they could harvest and sell personal information at unprecedented volumes. Hooray for them.
Having established and made their money from near monopoly status in search (and the concomitant income from advertising) they now use that money to buy or duplicate every other conceivable web service, so that you simply won't be able to use the internet without providing them your information. Here's a nice list from a guy calling out Google for being pussies:
Yelp gets popular? Copy their info, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and put Google Places and reviews at the top.
Groupon won't sell? Spend billions from other businesses to destroy them.
Twitter and Facebook innovate on search? Take their content, whine when they try and stop you then spend billions to prevent their growth and hopefully destroy them.
Apple working on a touchscreen smartphone? Spend billions from another business and copy everything you can, down to swipes and apps.
Need a smartphone operating system with Java. Take Java and use it for your own ends.
Need a location mapping technology and Skyhook won't sell? Spend billions from your monopoly profits and strongarm your partners and drive Skyhook out of business.
Buy up the big travel search sites.
Claim you are open source but share nothing related to what your business claims to be about -- search, and nothing related to how you make your money -- advertising
Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system
Like all rich monopolists, they spend millions hiring high priced lobbyists and public relations teams inside the Beltway -- for their direct benefit.
That's what they've been doing for the last five years, not "innovating" or "advancing computer sciences." And to the extent that they are doing any basic research, it will always and only be in service to getting even more of your info.
Google apologists are fucking fools, as far as I'm concerned. And Google knows it, and plays to the geek demographic to do their propaganda for them. As long as they have super cool entrance exams that allow in only the really really "smart" people and talk about "openness" and bid "pi billion" on patents and make neat little coding exercises for their logo and run their data centers with renewable tech, we're supposed to politely look the other way while they hoover up ever more of the internet-- mind you, to make it "better", i.e. free stuff that only costs you your identity.
I am on google's side. Patent hardware, do not patent software. That kills innovation.
Let's see if I got this right.
You don't think software should be patented ..... you're on Google's side ..... Google has a patent on it's search software. How do you "square that circle" in your mind. Color me confused. \
I will also ask you, what does your response have to do with the claim that the original iPhone was so much better than existing smartphones available at its release? I will give you a clue, nothing...
I will give you a clue. Companies do not copy losers ... only winners. Maybe that's why nobody is doing a copy and paste of your posts. Ya think?
Yes, Google did work to make the world more amenable to driving all web traffic to their servers so they could harvest and sell personal information at unprecedented volumes. Hooray for them.
Having established and made their money from near monopoly status in search (and the concomitant income from advertising) they now use that money to buy or duplicate every other conceivable web service, so that you simply won't be able to use the internet without providing them your information. Here's a nice list from a guy calling out Google for being pussies:
Yelp gets popular? Copy their info, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and put Google Places and reviews at the top.
Groupon won't sell? Spend billions from other businesses to destroy them.
Twitter and Facebook innovate on search? Take their content, whine when they try and stop you then spend billions to prevent their growth and hopefully destroy them.
Apple working on a touchscreen smartphone? Spend billions from another business and copy everything you can, down to swipes and apps.
Need a smartphone operating system with Java. Take Java and use it for your own ends.
Need a location mapping technology and Skyhook won't sell? Spend billions from your monopoly profits and strongarm your partners and drive Skyhook out of business.
Buy up the big travel search sites.
Claim you are open source but share nothing related to what your business claims to be about -- search, and nothing related to how you make your money -- advertising
Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system
Like all rich monopolists, they spend millions hiring high priced lobbyists and public relations teams inside the Beltway -- for their direct benefit.
That's what they've been doing for the last five years, not "innovating" or "advancing computer sciences." And to the extent that they are doing any basic research, it will always and only be in service to getting even more of your info.
Google apologists are fucking fools, as far as I'm concerned. And Google knows it, and plays to the geek demographic to do their propaganda for them. As long as they have super cool entrance exams that allow in only the really really "smart" people and talk about "openness" and bid "pi billion" on patents and make neat little coding exercises for their logo and run their data centers with renewable tech, we're supposed to politely look the other way while they hoover up ever more of the internet-- mind you, to make it "better", i.e. free stuff that only costs you your identity.
I see you're a Brian Hall fan. The exact same points on the same competitors in the same borderline obscene style he wrote in his strangely angry article. I was surprised they permitted it to be published under their name, or that you'd pass it off as your own ideas here. I usually enjoy your posts.
I see you're a Brian Hall fan. The exact same points on the same competitors in the same borderline obscene style he wrote in his strangely angry article. I was surprised they permitted it to be published under their name, or that you'd pass it off as your own ideas here. I usually enjoy your posts.
Maybe you didn't see where I say "Here's a nice list from a guy....." Kind of a clue I'm not claiming the list for myself. As for the rest, nothing I haven't said before, so it's not surprising that I would cite a likeminded person who did a good job articulating the particulars.
More generally you don't say what you disagree with, other than apparently being a bit fucking prudish. Is that list of acquisitions untrue? Is Google not the behemoth of personal info for sale as described?
EDIT I didn't do a direct link in the original since the guy's site appears to be down, so here's one to someone with the text.
It also was not released in many countries outside of the US.
Actually the original iPhone was release to countries with a combined population of some 600 million people. And like I said, it didn't take off until it added some standard smartphone features
Maybe you didn't see where I say "Here's a nice list from a guy....." Kind of a clue I'm not claiming the list for myself. As for the rest, nothing I haven't said before, so it's not surprising that I would cite a likeminded person who did a good job articulating the particulars.
More generally you don't say what you disagree with, other than apparently being a bit fucking prudish. Is that list of acquisitions untrue? Is Google not the behemoth of personal info for sale as described?
EDIT I didn't do a direct link in the original since the guy's site appears to be down, so here's one to someone with the text.
Mr. Hall really wrote very little in the way of facts (Google sells your personal data? Really?), but quite a load of innuendo. His repeated use of junior high insults and obscenity had me checking his bio to see if he was an adult. IMO he didn't write the article to be taken seriously. It was simply to get attention for his blog.
I don't think your use of obscenity helped prove any points any more than than Mr. Hall when he attempted to use it in his misguided attempt at attention. Instead he sounded like a angry, whiny little man with an ax to grind. A total fail if he thought it would help him be taken seriously as a respected industry voice. A perfect win if he was mimicking a overly dramatic hormonal 8th grader who thinks angry anti-social words make him a big boy.
Mr. Hall really wrote very little in the way of facts (Google sells your personal data? Really?), but quite a load of innuendo. His repeated use of junior high insults and obscenity had me checking his bio to see if he was an adult. IMO he didn't write the article to be taken seriously. It was simply to get attention for his blog.
I don't think your use of obscenity helped prove any points any more than than Mr. Hall when he attempted to use it in his misguided attempt at attention. Instead he sounded like a angry, whiny little man with an ax to grind. A total fail if he thought it would help him be taken seriously as a respected industry voice. A perfect win if he was mimicking a overly dramatic hormonal 8th grader who thinks angry anti-social words make him a big boy.
Actually it's you that don't seem to be overly concerned about facts, relying instead on personal characterizations to dismiss an article that you obviously disagree with.
The list of recent Google acquisitions/market entries is accurate enough, which is why I cited it when responding to a post about Google's "innovations." It's unassailably true that Google is in the information harvesting/sales business, and it bears repeated mention whenever the topic turns to Google's self-serving rhetoric regarding "openness" or the lack of same from its competitors.
I really don't give a fuck about your refined sensibilities regarding obscenity.
Comments
I disagree. To wit, Apple pretty much owns patent on movement of the middle finger and are the only ones capable of making money by raising it. All the while, Microsoft, RIM and Nokia were caught with their fingers up their noses, and are still trying hard at moving them out.
ROFL!
I never said they would have, but they are far less likely to abuse it and more likely to be ridiculously cheap with licenses.
Companies hold patents to make money. Whether Google distributes the technology free of charge or not, it would still make money off the technology because it would distribute its OS more freely, thereby channeling the web traffic through their bread and butter: searches. Apple and Microsoft are doing the same thing that Google would have done.
The hypocrisy that is Google. Weren't they claiming that they wanted Nortel's patent portfolio because Google, as a young company, doesn't have much on its patent arsenal?
"Arsenal" has the connotation of a weapon IMO. Personally, and in the view of many others, Google's search for unneeded patents is for use as a shield, not a spear. With close to 2000 patents in it's control (at last count), there's never been an instance of them using one to attack a competitor that I'm aware of.
Is that smart business? Dunno, but it serves as circumstantial evidence that Google doesn't view IP, whether home-grown or purchased, as a weapon to be drawn on other mobile or search companies at the least provocation.
https://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585
Brad Smith (@BradSmi)
"Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no."
Interesting.
Google's narrative is that they are victims of conspiracies against them. The execs might know it's bullshit, but their army of supporters and fanboys might actually buy that story.
Just taking a look at any of their products and you will find they look like nothing else in the market. The fact that Apple has a very efficient and cost effective R&D, that is they key for of all their success.
They are not going around wasting millions like fools. They have road maps and they focus and stick to those product in particular. Apple also has a smaller amount of product compared to Sony, Samsung, etc. Its has even more competitive opportunities since they design the software and don't have to outsource development.
The notion that Google is good at developing technology is tricky. They have a lot of little things here and there but the only few things I could recall is the search engine and the maps service but other than that they lag far behind than Apple that has an historic record of devices, technologies, even business model.
Google to me look like the naive young adult that just waken from his dreaming and has to face the raw reality. It is a new company that tried to bring a product (android) to an industry stormed by Apple and its iPhone. The leaders on this industry like Nokia, Motorola and others still have no clue how to compete with Apple.
So how Google expect to compete in this realm. Even Apple is new to the smartphone world but they planned well ahead their strategy and their product. They have a good amount of their own innovations and patents to go forward and even more to come.
What I find more disturbing about Google stance is that they say that patents prevent innovation... really??? Why the people or companies that spend their time inventing stuff, making it better will sit and watch still how others rip their hard work. Is Google saying that is good to steal others work? But sounds like they do. They got 1k IBM patents for themselves to troll others and gain some leverage. So is good for them and not the rest?
Oh Google... what a cloudy future waits for you. grow up!
Then they bid PI billion dollars forthe Nortel patent trying to be cute AND LOST!
and now this!
Looks like Google/Larry Page still needs adult supervision.
This is how Google behaved when they fought China a few months ago and eventually got their search engine banned in mainland China. Childish and immature bunch of children. Whining and crying like a little baby.
Then they bid PI billion dollars forthe Nortel patent trying to be cute AND LOST!
and now this!
Looks like Google/Larry Page still needs adult supervision.
I think that was supposed to be an attack..on Google?
It was so childish and poorly written that I honestly have no clue though.
Not very patentable? But perhaps just patentable enough to get a number of patents approved?
Didn't we go thru this before? More than once? But I understand it's common trolling game here to bait each other even when knowing that the other person is at least partially right - anything to score a point.
Anyhow, IMO, it's difficult to rank or judge innovation, patents or not. But I firmly believe the evidence is strong that Google and Apple innovate at different levels. Many Apple inventions are well known and therefore do not require my explanation. Google's technology starts but does not end with the search patents alluded to above. Here are some examples which I have cited before:
MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters
In Proceedings of OSDI 2004
Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data
In Proceedings of OSDI 2006
There are many more academic citations and patents which represent what Google has contributed to computer science. But I think CloudGazer has captured it best here - Google processes massive amount of data. To accomplish this, they have had to reinvent distributed computing.
IMO, iPhone, iPod and MacOS are all significant technology advances but they will not leave the same legacy that BigTable, MapReduce, GFS, search (and mobile search), etc. will.
Yes, Google did work to make the world more amenable to driving all web traffic to their servers so they could harvest and sell personal information at unprecedented volumes. Hooray for them.
Having established and made their money from near monopoly status in search (and the concomitant income from advertising) they now use that money to buy or duplicate every other conceivable web service, so that you simply won't be able to use the internet without providing them your information. Here's a nice list from a guy calling out Google for being pussies:
Yelp gets popular? Copy their info, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and put Google Places and reviews at the top.
Groupon won't sell? Spend billions from other businesses to destroy them.
Twitter and Facebook innovate on search? Take their content, whine when they try and stop you then spend billions to prevent their growth and hopefully destroy them.
Apple working on a touchscreen smartphone? Spend billions from another business and copy everything you can, down to swipes and apps.
Need a smartphone operating system with Java. Take Java and use it for your own ends.
Need a location mapping technology and Skyhook won't sell? Spend billions from your monopoly profits and strongarm your partners and drive Skyhook out of business.
Buy up the big travel search sites.
Claim you are open source but share nothing related to what your business claims to be about -- search, and nothing related to how you make your money -- advertising
Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system
Like all rich monopolists, they spend millions hiring high priced lobbyists and public relations teams inside the Beltway -- for their direct benefit.
That's what they've been doing for the last five years, not "innovating" or "advancing computer sciences." And to the extent that they are doing any basic research, it will always and only be in service to getting even more of your info.
Google apologists are fucking fools, as far as I'm concerned. And Google knows it, and plays to the geek demographic to do their propaganda for them. As long as they have super cool entrance exams that allow in only the really really "smart" people and talk about "openness" and bid "pi billion" on patents and make neat little coding exercises for their logo and run their data centers with renewable tech, we're supposed to politely look the other way while they hoover up ever more of the internet-- mind you, to make it "better", i.e. free stuff that only costs you your identity.
I am on google's side. Patent hardware, do not patent software. That kills innovation.
Let's see if I got this right.
You don't think software should be patented ..... you're on Google's side ..... Google has a patent on it's search software. How do you "square that circle" in your mind. Color me confused.
I will also ask you, what does your response have to do with the claim that the original iPhone was so much better than existing smartphones available at its release? I will give you a clue, nothing...
I will give you a clue. Companies do not copy losers ... only winners. Maybe that's why nobody is doing a copy and paste of your posts. Ya think?
Yes, Google did work to make the world more amenable to driving all web traffic to their servers so they could harvest and sell personal information at unprecedented volumes. Hooray for them.
Having established and made their money from near monopoly status in search (and the concomitant income from advertising) they now use that money to buy or duplicate every other conceivable web service, so that you simply won't be able to use the internet without providing them your information. Here's a nice list from a guy calling out Google for being pussies:
Yelp gets popular? Copy their info, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and put Google Places and reviews at the top.
Groupon won't sell? Spend billions from other businesses to destroy them.
Twitter and Facebook innovate on search? Take their content, whine when they try and stop you then spend billions to prevent their growth and hopefully destroy them.
Apple working on a touchscreen smartphone? Spend billions from another business and copy everything you can, down to swipes and apps.
Need a smartphone operating system with Java. Take Java and use it for your own ends.
Need a location mapping technology and Skyhook won't sell? Spend billions from your monopoly profits and strongarm your partners and drive Skyhook out of business.
Buy up the big travel search sites.
Claim you are open source but share nothing related to what your business claims to be about -- search, and nothing related to how you make your money -- advertising
Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system
Like all rich monopolists, they spend millions hiring high priced lobbyists and public relations teams inside the Beltway -- for their direct benefit.
That's what they've been doing for the last five years, not "innovating" or "advancing computer sciences." And to the extent that they are doing any basic research, it will always and only be in service to getting even more of your info.
Google apologists are fucking fools, as far as I'm concerned. And Google knows it, and plays to the geek demographic to do their propaganda for them. As long as they have super cool entrance exams that allow in only the really really "smart" people and talk about "openness" and bid "pi billion" on patents and make neat little coding exercises for their logo and run their data centers with renewable tech, we're supposed to politely look the other way while they hoover up ever more of the internet-- mind you, to make it "better", i.e. free stuff that only costs you your identity.
I see you're a Brian Hall fan. The exact same points on the same competitors in the same borderline obscene style he wrote in his strangely angry article. I was surprised they permitted it to be published under their name, or that you'd pass it off as your own ideas here. I usually enjoy your posts.
I see you're a Brian Hall fan. The exact same points on the same competitors in the same borderline obscene style he wrote in his strangely angry article. I was surprised they permitted it to be published under their name, or that you'd pass it off as your own ideas here. I usually enjoy your posts.
Maybe you didn't see where I say "Here's a nice list from a guy....." Kind of a clue I'm not claiming the list for myself. As for the rest, nothing I haven't said before, so it's not surprising that I would cite a likeminded person who did a good job articulating the particulars.
More generally you don't say what you disagree with, other than apparently being a bit fucking prudish. Is that list of acquisitions untrue? Is Google not the behemoth of personal info for sale as described?
EDIT I didn't do a direct link in the original since the guy's site appears to be down, so here's one to someone with the text.
I will give you a clue. Companies do not copy losers ... only winners. Maybe that's why nobody is doing a copy and paste of your posts. Ya think?
ahhh yes, the usual AI reponse, when proved wrong you start attacking people.
It also was not released in many countries outside of the US.
Actually the original iPhone was release to countries with a combined population of some 600 million people. And like I said, it didn't take off until it added some standard smartphone features
Maybe you didn't see where I say "Here's a nice list from a guy....." Kind of a clue I'm not claiming the list for myself. As for the rest, nothing I haven't said before, so it's not surprising that I would cite a likeminded person who did a good job articulating the particulars.
More generally you don't say what you disagree with, other than apparently being a bit fucking prudish. Is that list of acquisitions untrue? Is Google not the behemoth of personal info for sale as described?
EDIT I didn't do a direct link in the original since the guy's site appears to be down, so here's one to someone with the text.
Mr. Hall really wrote very little in the way of facts (Google sells your personal data? Really?), but quite a load of innuendo. His repeated use of junior high insults and obscenity had me checking his bio to see if he was an adult. IMO he didn't write the article to be taken seriously. It was simply to get attention for his blog.
I don't think your use of obscenity helped prove any points any more than than Mr. Hall when he attempted to use it in his misguided attempt at attention. Instead he sounded like a angry, whiny little man with an ax to grind. A total fail if he thought it would help him be taken seriously as a respected industry voice. A perfect win if he was mimicking a overly dramatic hormonal 8th grader who thinks angry anti-social words make him a big boy.
Mr. Hall really wrote very little in the way of facts (Google sells your personal data? Really?), but quite a load of innuendo. His repeated use of junior high insults and obscenity had me checking his bio to see if he was an adult. IMO he didn't write the article to be taken seriously. It was simply to get attention for his blog.
I don't think your use of obscenity helped prove any points any more than than Mr. Hall when he attempted to use it in his misguided attempt at attention. Instead he sounded like a angry, whiny little man with an ax to grind. A total fail if he thought it would help him be taken seriously as a respected industry voice. A perfect win if he was mimicking a overly dramatic hormonal 8th grader who thinks angry anti-social words make him a big boy.
Actually it's you that don't seem to be overly concerned about facts, relying instead on personal characterizations to dismiss an article that you obviously disagree with.
The list of recent Google acquisitions/market entries is accurate enough, which is why I cited it when responding to a post about Google's "innovations." It's unassailably true that Google is in the information harvesting/sales business, and it bears repeated mention whenever the topic turns to Google's self-serving rhetoric regarding "openness" or the lack of same from its competitors.
I really don't give a fuck about your refined sensibilities regarding obscenity.
I really don't give a fuck about your refined sensibilities regarding obscenity.
http://www.cusscontrol.com/tips1.html
http://www.cusscontrol.com/tips1.html
I have to admit that the fact that website even exists makes me laugh.