<?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: Name Popularity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.owenkellett.info/2005/11/08/name-popularity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.owenkellett.info/2005/11/08/name-popularity/</link>
	<description>Technology news, baseball, track and field, and more!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:15:57 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Owen</title>
		<link>http://www.owenkellett.info/2005/11/08/name-popularity/comment-page-1/#comment-93</link>
		<dc:creator>Owen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:37:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owenkellett.info/2005/11/08/name-popularity/#comment-93</guid>
		<description>Oh yeah you&#039;re right.  That would make sense anyways since if they reported numbers solely on a yearly basis, they would be obviously skewed by population growth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh yeah you&#8217;re right.  That would make sense anyways since if they reported numbers solely on a yearly basis, they would be obviously skewed by population growth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Katherine</title>
		<link>http://www.owenkellett.info/2005/11/08/name-popularity/comment-page-1/#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>Katherine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:02:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owenkellett.info/2005/11/08/name-popularity/#comment-92</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a really cool website.  If I&#039;m not mistaken, though, the numbers they give are per one million babies.  So in the year you were born, there were about 100 Owens per one million babies, not 100 Owens altogether.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a really cool website.  If I&#8217;m not mistaken, though, the numbers they give are per one million babies.  So in the year you were born, there were about 100 Owens per one million babies, not 100 Owens altogether.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
