<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thinkature.com &#124; The Idea Fuel Interview</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chrisschultz.net/2006/11/21/thinkaturecom-the-idea-fuel-interview/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chrisschultz.net/2006/11/21/thinkaturecom-the-idea-fuel-interview/</link>
	<description>The Adventures of Chris Schultz</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:13:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Web 2.0 Describes an Era, not a Genre at Blogature</title>
		<link>http://chrisschultz.net/2006/11/21/thinkaturecom-the-idea-fuel-interview/comment-page-1/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>Web 2.0 Describes an Era, not a Genre at Blogature</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chris-schultz-stage.flatsourcing.com/2006/11/21/thinkaturecom-the-idea-fuel-interview/#comment-138</guid>
		<description>[...] Jon and I were answering some interview questions for an email interview we’re doing with the folks over at VoodooVentures a few days ago. One of their questions was about how we defined Web 2.0 and whether we thought we were a Web 2.0 application. The idea of Web 2.0 has bugged us for a long time, but we could never really put our finger on why. Working on the answer for their interview focused our thinking, and I thought I would share what we talked about. You’ll see an abbreviated version of this in our VoodooVentures interview, but the long version is below. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Jon and I were answering some interview questions for an email interview we’re doing with the folks over at VoodooVentures a few days ago. One of their questions was about how we defined Web 2.0 and whether we thought we were a Web 2.0 application. The idea of Web 2.0 has bugged us for a long time, but we could never really put our finger on why. Working on the answer for their interview focused our thinking, and I thought I would share what we talked about. You’ll see an abbreviated version of this in our VoodooVentures interview, but the long version is below. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Kohlhardt</title>
		<link>http://chrisschultz.net/2006/11/21/thinkaturecom-the-idea-fuel-interview/comment-page-1/#comment-137</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Kohlhardt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chris-schultz-stage.flatsourcing.com/2006/11/21/thinkaturecom-the-idea-fuel-interview/#comment-137</guid>
		<description>Our diagramming too, Gliffy, is similar to this product.  

Please give it a try!

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gliffy.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gliffy.com&lt;/a&gt;

Chris Kohlhardt
Co-founder, Gliffy Inc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our diagramming too, Gliffy, is similar to this product.  </p>
<p>Please give it a try!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gliffy.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gliffy.com</a></p>
<p>Chris Kohlhardt<br />
Co-founder, Gliffy Inc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
