<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (blech)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:blech/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from blech</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.economist.com/node/21542796"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20111204,0,507980.column"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="http://www.economist.com/node/21542796">
    <title>Technological change: The last Kodak moment? | The Economist</title>
    <dc:date>2012-01-16T17:03:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.economist.com/node/21542796</link>
    <dc:creator>blech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["While Kodak suffers, its long-time rival Fujifilm is doing rather well. The two firms have much in common." "Both firms saw their traditional business rendered obsolete. But whereas Kodak has so far failed to adapt adequately, Fujifilm has transformed itself into a solidly profitable business, with a market capitalisation, even after a rough year, of some $12.6 billion to Kodak’s $220m. Why did these two firms fare so differently?" Interesting stuff on the death of film (and why seeing the end coming can't always save you from it).]]></description>
<dc:subject>technology cameras photography chemistry film kodak fujifilm</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://instapaper.com/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:blech/b:2f79674780f4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:cameras"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:photography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:chemistry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:film"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:kodak"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:fujifilm"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20111204,0,507980.column">
    <title>Kodak's long fade to black | latimes.com</title>
    <dc:date>2011-12-10T23:16:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20111204,0,507980.column</link>
    <dc:creator>blech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Like the passing of distinguished individuals, the passing of great corporations should prompt us to ponder the transience of earthly glory. So let's pay our respects to Eastman Kodak, which at this writing appears to be a shutter-click from extinction."]]></description>
<dc:subject>photography technology film chemistry kodak latimes business</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://instapaper.com/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:blech/b:a3179ff24de5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:photography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:film"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:chemistry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:kodak"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:latimes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:blech/t:business"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>