<?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/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Three discussions that rocked my weekend.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nathanpbell.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/three-discussions-that-rocked-my-weekend/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nathanpbell.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/three-discussions-that-rocked-my-weekend/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:36:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Clay Barnes</title>
		<link>http://nathanpbell.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/three-discussions-that-rocked-my-weekend/#comment-116</link>
		<dc:creator>Clay Barnes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 02:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanpbell.wordpress.com/?p=48#comment-116</guid>
		<description>Though I&#039;ve read your summaries, I haven&#039;t had a chance to read the relevant linked articles, so apologies in advance if this is redundant or boorishly uninsightful.  ;-)

Speaking of information presentation, take a look at this site http://worrydream.com/MagicInk I stumbled across one day. It&#039;s not nearly as well-written at the articles you cited (and it&#039;s painfully verbose at times), but it closely ties into some of these ideas. For example, the parts about context, memory and ambient extraction of information would be an excellent way to &quot;blur&quot; the current forced dichotomy of friend/not friend networks use now. &quot;This person is in lots of pictures with me, and we exchange messages---we must have a stronger relationship than that person who poked us once,&quot; etc. Besides, how often do we ever actually declare our relationships with each other? An interface predicated on the idea that binary (manual) &quot;friending&quot; is an analog our relationships is both more difficult to use and less realistic than the fluid relationships defined primarily and largely automatically by our interactions.  Of course, we need much better inter-site communication to really understand these relationships, perhaps something similar to Google&#039;s OpenSocial.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though I&#8217;ve read your summaries, I haven&#8217;t had a chance to read the relevant linked articles, so apologies in advance if this is redundant or boorishly uninsightful.  ;-)</p>
<p>Speaking of information presentation, take a look at this site <a href="http://worrydream.com/MagicInk" rel="nofollow">http://worrydream.com/MagicInk</a> I stumbled across one day. It&#8217;s not nearly as well-written at the articles you cited (and it&#8217;s painfully verbose at times), but it closely ties into some of these ideas. For example, the parts about context, memory and ambient extraction of information would be an excellent way to &#8220;blur&#8221; the current forced dichotomy of friend/not friend networks use now. &#8220;This person is in lots of pictures with me, and we exchange messages&#8212;we must have a stronger relationship than that person who poked us once,&#8221; etc. Besides, how often do we ever actually declare our relationships with each other? An interface predicated on the idea that binary (manual) &#8220;friending&#8221; is an analog our relationships is both more difficult to use and less realistic than the fluid relationships defined primarily and largely automatically by our interactions.  Of course, we need much better inter-site communication to really understand these relationships, perhaps something similar to Google&#8217;s OpenSocial.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skyler Tanner</title>
		<link>http://nathanpbell.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/three-discussions-that-rocked-my-weekend/#comment-114</link>
		<dc:creator>Skyler Tanner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanpbell.wordpress.com/?p=48#comment-114</guid>
		<description>Nathan,

If you had to wager a guess based on the multiple inflection points we&#039;re currently on top of, what will web 3.0 &quot;look&quot; like?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nathan,</p>
<p>If you had to wager a guess based on the multiple inflection points we&#8217;re currently on top of, what will web 3.0 &#8220;look&#8221; like?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: virtualnexus</title>
		<link>http://nathanpbell.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/three-discussions-that-rocked-my-weekend/#comment-113</link>
		<dc:creator>virtualnexus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanpbell.wordpress.com/?p=48#comment-113</guid>
		<description>Yes, the anti-social networking is definitely thought provoking.

Procrustean bed if you ask me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, the anti-social networking is definitely thought provoking.</p>
<p>Procrustean bed if you ask me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
