WWE Falls Asleep at the Wheel, or selections from Myspace

Holly Crap. That's all I have to say about the slew of new names that WWE just put out for their developmental talent. Lets review with pictures of the wrestlers with old and new names and see what I'm talking about. Old names on Left, new names on Right

vs
From bad ass to nonsense, at least they had a reason, as he has the same name as his dad. Still, does Afa Jr. really sound that bad?
vs
Yes, Lord Byron will see you now. I feel bad for Kelly Kelly, cause she lost a cousin.
vs
Cause when I think of hot chicks in cowboy hats, the first name that comes to mind is WESLEY. And since Divas lose their last names within the first week of competition, I'm thinking Vince is going for a tranny gimmick.
vs
This guy has a surfer gimmick, and now his last name is that of a cookie. Plus, way to be racially sensitive, I'm sure there are plenty of normal people named Taj.
vs Dolph Ziggler (Pics not out yet)
Yea, I'm sure a guy named Dolph Ziggler is gonna go over gangbusters. With people that make signs that is, there are just so many unique opportunities to make fun of this guy, and he was a male cheerleader once.
vs
Well, considering how much they get paid, I'm glad they actually improved on one of these.
vs
Sebastian. SEBASTIAN!! You cant have a wrestler named after the Jamaican crab from Little Mermaid. Also, why didn't they give the surfer last name to the guy with the SURFER GIMMICK!
vs
Kevin Kiley sounds like a wrestlers name. You know what Carson Oakley sounds like? A damn Farmhand! Unless they're bringing back Trevor Murdoch and he needs a tag partner, this is redikulous.
vs
Where in the world is Damien Santiago? Not over in the WWE, thats for sure.
vs
Is there anything wrong with alliteration. A name like Jones works on a tough guy, especially a boxer. While Tyson is a good name for him, putting nonsense like Tarver after it just generally confuses people in ways that are unacceptable.
vs
Hardy Har Har Dusty. Hardy. Har. Har.
-Pudge

Google Chrome, or the final nail in the coffin for Internet Explorer

Hey,

As I right this, I'm chilling at the Marshall Student Center at USF, enjoying tasty pizza from Sbarros. That's become pretty normal in the last couple of weeks, as I've become adjusted rather quickly to life up here in Tampa (so much so that I didn't even feel the need to post about it before today. It's just so natural). There is one strange thing about this blog post however, and unless you didn't read the title for some reason, you know it that I am posting it from Google's brand new Internet browser, Google Chrome.

Google has long denied that they were going to compete with FireFox and IE8, going so far as to work closely with Mozilla in making the search bar/address bar function for FireFox 3, which helps make it one of the best Internet browsers ever created. But the temptation for Google to control all aspects of the Internet experience was too great, and here we are with a very functional new contender in the browser wars.

As you first load up Chrome, the first thing you see is the minimalist design. Except for the tabs (which are positioned on the top of the window), and the address bar with built in Back, Stop, Reload, etc, the entire window is taken up by the website you are viewing. This makes it seem as if the browser isn't even there, which is perfect for visually heavy sites and long sites such as Myspaces. Where this approach fails is that there is no room for future addons like the ones for FireFox. The status bar pops up at the bottom of the page when a website is loading, and then disappears, leaving the bottom of the web page the bottom of the browser. I couldn't imagine doing heavy browsing without Adblock or Foxytunes, and there is no way to put in visual representation of addons in the browser without losing this minimalist idea. 

Despite this shortcoming, I have been using Chrome for one express purpose, and that is the feature that allows you to create a link to web applications like e-mail or databases that stays on your desktop. When you double click on the shortcut, a version of chrome without even an address bar appears and loads up the application, as if it were installed on your hard drive. This feature alone could drive any poor soul still using Outlook and its ilk to flock to the browser. It is also very helpful for a college student like me, as USF has a couple of applications that are vital to look at every day, but buried in the webpage. With Chrome, I've been able to get one click access to my class schedules and messages from professors, which assures that Chrome will stay on my hard drive for the next four years.

Considering that Chrome is only a week old, and knowing how resourceful Google is, I wouldn't be surprised if Chrome jumps ahead of IE pretty quickly on all but the most unknowing of computer users. I can't see it replacing FireFox, but given a little time, add on support from Google like FireFox has, and a lot of Google loyalists porting the best addons over, I think it might just be close. I'd recommend Chrome to anyone that checks their e-mail often, or someone addicted to a website run game like Battlefield Heroes, but other than that, Firefox still reigns supreme.

-May Internet Explorer find its spot next to Netscape Navigator in the history books

Pudge