Corporate Gibberish Generator™

Welcome to the Corporate Gibberish Generator™ by Andrew Davidson. andrewdavidson/at\andrewdavidson/dot\com
Enter your company name and click "Generate" to generate several paragraphs of corporate gibberish suitable for pasting into your prospectus.
(The gibberish is geared more toward Internet and technology companies.)

We here at Google understand that it is better to integrate ultra-globally than to visualize strategically. The power to whiteboard perfectly leads to the aptitude to recontextualize virally. Our feature set is unparalleled in the industry, but our short-term, enterprise schemas and newbie-proof use is always considered a terrific achievement. Think efficient. Do you have a game plan to become enterprise? Our technology takes the best aspects of ActionScript and XHTML. What does it really mean to strategize "magnetically"? A company that can unleash faithfully will (someday) be able to implement correctly. The metrics for performance are more well-understood if they are not innovative. What does the standard industry commonly-used commonly-accepted standard industry term "value-added" really mean? At Google, we think we know how to brand dynamically. We pride ourselves not only on our feature set, but our user-proof administration and newbie-proof configuration. We will actualize the capacity of architectures to integrate. It seems staggering, but it's realistic! We pride ourselves not only on our feature set, but our simple administration and easy operation. Is it more important for something to be subscriber-defined or to be seamless? We think that most 24/7/365 web sites use far too much WAP, and not enough Rails. What does the standard industry term "social networks" really mean? A company that can engineer courageously will (at some indefinite point of time in the future) be able to optimize elegantly. Our technology takes the best aspects of CSS and RDF. What does the term "research and development" really mean? We pride ourselves not only on our feature set, but our newbie-proof administration and user-proof operation. We will aggregate the standard industry commonly-used industry jargon "synergistic". At Google, we realize how to facilitate dynamically. Your budget for cultivating should be at least three times your budget for delivering. We realize that it is better to deploy transparently than to exploit transparently. Think super-macro-intra-reconfigurable. A company that can facilitate easily will (at some undefined point of time) be able to synergize courageously. A company that can transition correctly will (at some unknown point in the future) be able to recontextualize defiantly. We have proven we know that if you engineer iteravely then you may also monetize strategically. We apply the proverb "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" not only to our schemas but our capacity to incubate. We invariably transform customer-directed process management. That is a terrific achievement considering this quarter's conditions! It comes off as unclear, but it's true! Have you ever been unable to streamline your mission-critical feature set? Without having to pay consulting fees? Our feature set is unmatched, but our virtual content and newbie-proof configuration is usually considered an amazing achievement. We have proven we know that it is better to transition iteravely than to scale interactively. We think that most mission-critical web portals use far too much Dynamic HTML, and not enough XForms. What do we reinvent? Anything and everything, regardless of incomprehensibility! We think that most sexy web sites use far too much XML, and not enough SVG. We think we know that it is better to scale cyber-virally than to envisioneer intuitively. Quick: do you have a intuitive strategy for coping with new architectures? Imagine a combination of HTTP and FOAF. What does the jargon-based jargon-based term "metrics" really mean? Think mega-B2C. What does the term "solutions" really mean? Have you ever been pressured to mesh your scalable feature set? Free? Is it more important for something to be plug-and-play or to be collaborative? Is it more important for something to be C2C2B or to be real-world? We think that most customer-defined entry pages use far too much Flash, and not enough AJAX. What do we synthesize? Anything and everything, regardless of abstruseness! Think nano-impactful. We constantly reintermediate mission-critical frictionless TQM. That is a terrific achievement when you consider this quarter's cycle! Our functionality is second to none, but our ubiquitous, virally-distributed, backward-compatible versioning and newbie-proof operation is usually considered a terrific achievement. The metrics for partnerships are more well-understood if they are not best-of-breed. The 60/24/7/365 research and development factor can be summed up in one word: B2C. At Google, we think we know how to syndicate efficiently. Do you have a strategy to become distributed? We think that most strategic entry pages use far too much FOAF, and not enough Unix. Quick: do you have a intuitive strategy for managing new paradigms? If all of this sounds dumbfounding to you, that's because it is! Our technology takes the best features of Apache and ActionScript. We will strategize the term "killer". We will scale up our aptitude to e-enable without decreasing our aptitude to matrix. Your budget for synergizing should be at least three times your budget for maximizing. Is it more important for something to be value-added or to be B2B2C? A company that can streamline fiercely will (eventually) be able to e-enable easily. Google has revolutionized the abstraction of power shifts. Think cyber-robust. Without adequate returns-on-investment, social networks are forced to become frictionless. The metrics for accounting are more well-understood if they are not user-centric. Your budget for orchestrating should be at least one-tenth of your budget for targeting. Imagine a combination of Unix and XSL. Without preplanned eyeballs, channels are forced to become virally-distributed. Your budget for iterating should be at least twice your budget for upgrading. Imagine a combination of DOM and Perl. Think bleeding-edge, integrated. Think 24/7. Think magnetic. But don't think all three at the same time. Without preplanned relationships, transparent dynamic CAD metrics are forced to become proactive. Our feature set is second to none, but our user-centric architectures and user-proof configuration is often considered a remarkable achievement.