<?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: On Web 2.0 and Unoriginality Redux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rluxemburg.com/2007/05/30/on-web-20-and-unoriginality-redux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rluxemburg.com/2007/05/30/on-web-20-and-unoriginality-redux/</link>
	<description>It&#039;s Latin for &#039;Let there be Light&#039;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:23:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: seamus</title>
		<link>http://www.rluxemburg.com/2007/05/30/on-web-20-and-unoriginality-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-846</link>
		<dc:creator>seamus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:07:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www25.a2hosting.com/~rslux1/2007/05/30/on-web-20-and-unoriginality-redux/#comment-846</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;re right that Web 2.0 could be used for improving existing technologies, and to an extent that&#039;s happening with open source efforts.

However, I think that your definition of Web 2.0 might be different from that commonly used. Web 2.0 usually refers to a platform for user-generated content. Google doesn&#039;t generally do this kind of thing -- their technologies are all engineered in-house or acquired from start-ups. The Street View app could have been Web 2.0 if the pictures were submitted by users.

The Street View thing doesn&#039;t bug me because it&#039;s just a documentation of the view from the middle of the street, and what could be more public than that? I&#039;ll just try to keep my naked jogs out of view of their camera van.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;re right that Web 2.0 could be used for improving existing technologies, and to an extent that&#8217;s happening with open source efforts.</p>
<p>However, I think that your definition of Web 2.0 might be different from that commonly used. Web 2.0 usually refers to a platform for user-generated content. Google doesn&#8217;t generally do this kind of thing &#8212; their technologies are all engineered in-house or acquired from start-ups. The Street View app could have been Web 2.0 if the pictures were submitted by users.</p>
<p>The Street View thing doesn&#8217;t bug me because it&#8217;s just a documentation of the view from the middle of the street, and what could be more public than that? I&#8217;ll just try to keep my naked jogs out of view of their camera van.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melinda</title>
		<link>http://www.rluxemburg.com/2007/05/30/on-web-20-and-unoriginality-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-845</link>
		<dc:creator>Melinda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 02:16:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www25.a2hosting.com/~rslux1/2007/05/30/on-web-20-and-unoriginality-redux/#comment-845</guid>
		<description>Tech is about creating a need, and then providing the answer for it. It&#039;s not necessarily about solving what needs to be solved.

I don&#039;t think you need an attitude adjustment, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tech is about creating a need, and then providing the answer for it. It&#8217;s not necessarily about solving what needs to be solved.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think you need an attitude adjustment, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

