<?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: First Thoughts: Kodak 7.6&#8243; OLED Digital Picture Frame</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digitalpictureframereview.com/2008/09/first-thoughts-kodak-76-oled-digital-picture-frame/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digitalpictureframereview.com/2008/09/first-thoughts-kodak-76-oled-digital-picture-frame</link>
	<description>Digital picture frame and photo frame reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:32:11 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: oluv</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalpictureframereview.com/2008/09/first-thoughts-kodak-76-oled-digital-picture-frame/comment-page-1#comment-738</link>
		<dc:creator>oluv</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitalpictureframereview.com/?p=459#comment-738</guid>
		<description>although the frame itself is really slim, there is this ugly fat base, which probably doesn´t even include the adaptor.
 
is there a reason why there are no frames that actually don´t measure 8cm in thickness?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>although the frame itself is really slim, there is this ugly fat base, which probably doesn´t even include the adaptor.</p>
<p>is there a reason why there are no frames that actually don´t measure 8cm in thickness?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
