<?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 (guardiantech)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from guardiantech</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.wired.com/2014/05/scientists-may-have-decoded-one-of-the-secrets-to-superconductors"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2013/08/hyperloop/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/513781/moores-law-and-the-origin-of-life/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time.php"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/ron-miller-what-if-we-had-a-planet-instead-of-a-moon"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://io9.com/5974034/this-is-the-biggest-mirror-on-earth"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://what-if.xkcd.com/26/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/elsevier-editorial-system-hacked-reviews-faked-11-retractions-follow/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/singularitarianism.php"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.slate.com/id/2293662/pagenum/all/"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="http://www.wired.com/2014/05/scientists-may-have-decoded-one-of-the-secrets-to-superconductors">
    <title>Scientists may have decoded one of the secrets to superconductors &gt;&gt; WIRED</title>
    <dc:date>2014-05-10T21:20:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.wired.com/2014/05/scientists-may-have-decoded-one-of-the-secrets-to-superconductors</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[<blockquote>Subir Sachdev, a professor of physics at Harvard University who helped devise Davis’ study, correctly predicted the form of the charge density waves in a paper last year, which detailed a possible mechanism behind both the waves and high-temperature superconductivity. Though further tests are needed, Sachdev’s theory is garnering support from many experts, who say it succinctly captures key features of the materials.

Taken together, the various findings are at last starting to build a comprehensive picture of the physics behind high-temperature superconductivity. “This is the first time I feel like we’re making real progress,” said Andrea Damascelli, a professor of physics at the University of British Columbia who led two recent studies on charge density waves. “A lot of different observations which have been made over decades did not make sense with each other, and now they do.”</blockquote>

Room-temperature superconductors are.. still theoretical though. But now potentially closer.]]></description>
<dc:subject>science superconductor</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:f235ddd77329/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:superconductor"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html">
    <title>If the Moon were only 1 pixel: a tediously accurate map of the solar system &gt;&gt; Josh Worth</title>
    <dc:date>2014-03-10T06:56:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Lots of scrolling involved. Space is really very big, isn't it?]]></description>
<dc:subject>science design space</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:6102e94b7bac/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:design"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:space"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments">
    <title>Why we're shutting off our comments &gt;&gt; Popular Science</title>
    <dc:date>2013-09-24T20:47:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Suzanne LaBarre: <blockquote>even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story, recent research suggests. In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments ("If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you're an idiot" ) or civil comments. The results, as Brossard and coauthor Dietram A. Scheufele wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself."</blockquote>

Remarkable.]]></description>
<dc:subject>comments science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:b711d037b4b4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:comments"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2013/08/hyperloop/">
    <title>Hyperloop &gt;&gt; All this</title>
    <dc:date>2013-08-28T21:58:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2013/08/hyperloop/</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Dr Drang is back, and he doesn't like Elon Musk's Hyperloop (which sounds like something out of Donald Fagen's 'IGY': <blockquote>So what’s the value of getting the vibration mode shapes of this little section of the Hyperloop? Simple: it makes pretty pictures you can put in your proposal.<p>

The stress contours are even more entertaining if you understand anything about the structural design of reinforced concrete.</blockquote>]]></description>
<dc:subject>hyperloop engineering physics science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:8e81c9c5361d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:hyperloop"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:physics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/513781/moores-law-and-the-origin-of-life/">
    <title>Moore's Law and the origin of life &gt;&gt; MIT Technology Review</title>
    <dc:date>2013-04-16T20:26:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.technologyreview.com/view/513781/moores-law-and-the-origin-of-life/</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[<blockquote>Here’s an interesting idea. Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every two years or so. That has produced an exponential increase in the number of transistors on microchips and continues to do so.<p>

But if an observer today was to measure this rate of increase, it would be straightforward to extrapolate backwards and work out when the number of transistors on a chip was zero. In other words, the date when microchips were first developed in the 1960s.<p>

A similar process works with scientific publications. Between 1990 and 1960, they doubled in number every 15 years or so. Extrapolating this backwards gives the origin of scientific publication as 1710, about the time of Isaac Newton.<p>

Today, Alexei Sharov at the National Institute on Ageing in Baltimore and his mate Richard Gordon at the Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory in Florida, have taken a similar to complexity and life.</blockquote>

This is spooky. Although it doesn't seem to allow for punctuated equilibrium.]]></description>
<dc:subject>computers evolution science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:163eecf7248f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:computers"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:evolution"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time.php">
    <title>Sand won't save you this time &gt;&gt; In the Pipeline</title>
    <dc:date>2013-04-10T08:04:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time.php</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Carrying on from dioxygen difluoride (aka FOOF): <blockquote>In a comment to my post on putting out fires last week, one commenter mentioned the utility of the good old sand bucket, and wondered if there was anything that would go on to set the sand on fire. Thanks to a note from reader Robert L., I can report that there is indeed such a reagent: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride">chlorine trifluoride</a>.<p>

I have not encountered this fine substance myself, but reading up on its properties immediately gives it a spot on my “no way, no how” list. Let's put it this way: during World War II, the Germans were very interested in using it in self-igniting flamethrowers, but found it too nasty to work with.<p>…It’s been used in the semiconductor industry to clean oxides off of surfaces, at which activity it no doubt excels.</blockquote>

Maybe mention this stuff next time someone tells you how hard their job is. (Thanks @allanedwards on Twitter for the link.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>chemistry fire science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:964abd102eb7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:chemistry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:fire"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php">
    <title>Things I won't work with: dioxygen difluoride &gt;&gt; In the Pipeline:</title>
    <dc:date>2013-04-09T15:19:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A diversion into experimental inorganic chemistry. The scary sort: <blockquote>FOOF [dioxygen difluoride] is only stable at low temperatures; you'll never get close to RT [room temperature] with the stuff without it tearing itself to pieces. I've seen one reference to storing it as a solid at 90 Kelvin for later use, but that paper, a 1962 effort from A. G. Streng of Temple University, is deeply alarming in several ways. Not only did Streng prepare multiple batches of dioxygen difluoride and keep it around, he was apparently charged with finding out what it did to things. All sorts of things. One damn thing after another, actually.</blockquote>

The things he added it to are terrifying. Also, why?? (Via XKCD.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>blog chemistry science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:d1fb25cbb934/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:blog"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:chemistry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/ron-miller-what-if-we-had-a-planet-instead-of-a-moon">
    <title>What if other planets replaced Earth's moon? &gt;&gt; My Modern Metropolis</title>
    <dc:date>2013-04-03T20:18:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/ron-miller-what-if-we-had-a-planet-instead-of-a-moon</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[<blockquote>Space enthusiast, artist, and writer Ron Miller questions what the night sky would look like if the moon was replaced by one of our solar system's planets. His collection of manipulated images station planets, from the relatively minute Mercury to the enormous Jupiter, in place of Earth's moon. The simulated photos take into account the distance of the moon from Earth (approximately 240,000 miles) and re-imagine the natural satellite as its own celestial body.</blockquote>

Great, and scary. (Yes, yes, gravity, etc.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>photography planets science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:960c8ce37a27/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:photography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:planets"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://io9.com/5974034/this-is-the-biggest-mirror-on-earth">
    <title>This is the biggest mirror on Earth &gt;&gt; io9</title>
    <dc:date>2013-01-27T21:45:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://io9.com/5974034/this-is-the-biggest-mirror-on-earth</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[<blockquote>This guy is standing on the flattest, shiniest place on Earth. It takes over a large section of Bolivia, and it's so flat, dry, and reflective, that it's used for satellite calibration.<p>
If you ever travel to Bolivia, and want to take pictures that will freak out your friends, go to the Salar de Uyuni. Because of an interesting confluence of geography and physics, this place has formed the world's largest mirror.</blockquote>

Wonderful. Any better pics?]]></description>
<dc:subject>science mirror satellite</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:70432ab3cd45/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:mirror"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:satellite"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://what-if.xkcd.com/26/">
    <title>Leap Seconds &gt;&gt; What-if-XKCD</title>
    <dc:date>2013-01-15T22:36:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://what-if.xkcd.com/26/</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[<blockquote>For example, the clock in your smartphone’s GPS is 16 seconds out of sync with the phone’s system clock. This is because the system clock uses Coordinated Universal Time (which has leap seconds), but GPS time doesn’t. They were in sync in January of 1980 and probably never will be again.</blockquote>

Don't worry, there's a solution.]]></description>
<dc:subject>physics science xkcd</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:cf929903d1c0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:physics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:xkcd"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/elsevier-editorial-system-hacked-reviews-faked-11-retractions-follow/">
    <title>Elsevier editorial system hacked, reviews faked, 11 retractions follow &gt;&gt; Retraction Watch</title>
    <dc:date>2012-12-13T18:39:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/elsevier-editorial-system-hacked-reviews-faked-11-retractions-follow/</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[<blockquote>Retraction Watch has learned that the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) was hacked sometime last month, leading to faked peer reviews and retractions — although the submitting authors don’t seem to have been at fault. As of now, eleven papers by authors in China, India, Iran, and Turkey have been retracted from three journals.</blockquote>

Scientific skullduggery.]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing science hacking</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:915df1bbb00a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:hacking"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/">
    <title>On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study &gt;&gt; Berkeley University</title>
    <dc:date>2012-10-09T13:03:42+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Just bear in mind that They don't want you do read this. But don't let Them know you know. (Thanks @sputnikkers for the link.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:e95b6ddbdea6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/singularitarianism.php">
    <title>Singularitarianism? &gt;&gt; Pharyngula</title>
    <dc:date>2012-02-19T22:35:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/singularitarianism.php</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[PZ Myers, biologist: <blockquote>Magazines will continue to praise Kurzweil's techno-religion in sporadic bursts, and followers will continue to gullibly accept what he says because it is what they wish would happen. Kurzweil will die while brain-uploading and immortality are still vague dreams; he will be frozen in liquid nitrogen, which will so thoroughly disrupt his cells that even if we discover how to cure whatever kills him, there will be no hope of recovering the mind and personality of Kurzweil from the scrambled chaos of his dead brain.</blockquote>

Perhaps "Singularitology"?]]></description>
<dc:subject>science singularity nonsense</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:e2dc24e94086/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:singularity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:nonsense"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/">
    <title>The Science Code Manifesto</title>
    <dc:date>2011-10-13T22:20:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[
                
                    "Software is a cornerstone of science. Without software, twenty-first century science would be impossible. Without better software, science cannot progress.

"But the culture and institutions of science have not yet adjusted to this reality. We need to reform them to address this challenge, by adopting these five principles:...."

They're good ones.
                
            ]]></description>
<dc:subject>charlesarthur science opensource openknowledge software</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:8950af035366/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:charlesarthur"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:opensource"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:openknowledge"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:software"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.slate.com/id/2293662/pagenum/all/">
    <title>Tim Harford's Adapt: What the RAF's World War II Spitfire can teach us about nurturing innovation and radical ideas &gt;&gt; Slate</title>
    <dc:date>2011-06-20T20:30:14+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2293662/pagenum/all/</link>
    <dc:creator>guardiantech</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["It's not hard to make the case that the Spitfire was one of the most significant new technologies in history. A brilliant, manoeuvrable, and superfast fighter, the Spitfire - and its pin-up pilots, brave to the point of insouciance - became the symbol of British resistance to the bombers of the Nazi air force, the Luftwaffe. The plane, with its distinctive elliptical wings, was a miraculous piece of engineering.<br />
<br />
"'She really was a perfect flying machine,' said one pilot. A Californian who traveled to Britain to sign up for the Royal Air Force agreed: 'I often marvelled at how this plane could be so easy and civilized to fly and yet how it could be such an effective fighter.'"<br />
<br />
Eat that, Alan Sugar.]]></description>
<dc:subject>charlesarthur business science engineer</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/b:1c91b964eb19/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:charlesarthur"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech/t:engineer"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>