* * *
The Encyclopaedia Britannica in all its weighty gravitas played a large part in my childhood. We had the 1957 edition and I was fascinated by the sheer quantity of its contents. School projects were a doddle as I diligently copied out whole entries onto large pieces of cardboard.
But we grew up. The publication went from being a source of wonder to being a novelty to being a useful tool for weighing down anything being glued to being something that took up space in a corner of the garage until it had gathered enough mould to justify disposal.
Now, after 244 years, its publishers have discarded its 32-volume print edition, realising that no one will pay for an inferior version of what they can get for free.
Knowledge grows so quickly in the internet age that, as PC World commented, the Britannica was out of date the moment it was printed. Not a good look for a reference tool. For all its faults, Wikipedia is more authoritative in many areas, notably science and technology, than the Britannica ever was.
The Britannica's fate is a reminder that anyone who resists the consequences of technological change - I'm thinking particularly of movie companies and the music industry - is doomed to extinction.
* * *
Who knew we had 160 insurance companies? We now have 110, as 50 have opted not to continue in business.
The cause appears to be new Reserve Bank conditions designed to improve public confidence in the insurance industry.
These conditions require an insurance company to have between $3 million and $5 million in backup capital - that's roughly the price of a couple of houses in one of Auckland's more desirable suburbs - to continue trading.
If 50 companies couldn't scratch up that much in funds, perhaps the public was right to lack confidence.