Category: Uncategorized

Wolfskin (Juliet Marillier)

The main reason that I bought Wolfskin was because I noticed that Marillier was a New Zealander (or at least was born here, although she lives in Australia now), and there’s not really very many NZ sci-fi/fantasy authors or books, and I’d like to support the locals as much as possible.  (As an aside, my favourite NZ book is Beak of the Moon, by Philip Temple, also of Dunedin).

So I wasn’t really expecting that much – it wasn’t quite charity, but I would have been happy with a pretty mediocre story.  However, I really loved this book.  I’m not sure why so many fantasy authors feel the need to set their stories in/around the UK, but it’s so common that it didn’t really bother me here.

The characters in Wolfskin were excellently developed, and a pleasure to get to know.  The antagonist was nicely grey – although you really could despise what he did, you could also understand his motivation for the most part.  The magic was pleasingly subtle, and the battles sufficiently short.

One minor note that bothered me (minor spoiler alert): early in the book, a girl is attacked, and the attacker isn’t identified.  The implication is that it’s the antagonist, Somerled.  The way the scenes were written, it seemed likely to me that it would turn out to not have been (directly) Somerled at all, but rather the girl’s friend, led to a bad decision by listening to Somerled (so he was at fault, but only indirectly).  Even later in the story, when the friend is re-encountered, nothing in the events seemed to contradict this theory.  However, the book ends without coming back to it, so I suppose that we’re meant to just believe that it was Somerled who did the attack.  I think it would have suited Somerled’s character, and improved the story, if we had discovered that it wasn’t directly his fault.

The story ends well, with the story nicely resolved, and although there’s clearly a hook left for a sequel, it’s subtle enough that the ending is satisfying and yet the hook doesn’t seem like the only purpose for that element is the sequel.

Overall I highly recommend reading Wolfskin, and intend to keep an eye out for anything else that Marillier produces.

S92A, and other thoughts on the revised Copyright Act

There is quite a furore (e.g. #blackout) at the moment about the eminent arrival of the updated Copyright Act in NZ, pretty much all surrounding section 92A.  92A doesn’t appear in the official online copies (either HTML or PDF) – I don’t know if that is because it only takes effect from the end of the month, or because someone left it out.  The Amendment does have the wording:

92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers

“(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.

“(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

The outcry among the public is basically saying that this amounts to “guilt on accusation” – i.e. someone accuses you of copyright violations, and you lose your Internet access.  That isn’t what it says, however:

  • Termination needs “appropriate circumstances”.  I can’t see how any right-thinking court would think that “proof of guilt” would be an inappropriate circumstance.  I don’t see how “found guilty by a recognised court of law” would be an inappropriate circumstance, either.
  • Nowhere does it say that termination of a user that is accused of infringement is required.  It’s quite explicit in that actual infringement is required.  I fail to see where this section removes the requirement for proof.
  • Termination needs repeat infringement.  You could define repeat infringement as downloading two songs at once, but I believe the more commonly accepted definition (what a court would hopefully require) would be that infringement is done more than one occasion (ideally with some sort of notice or warning after the first infringement).
  • I’ve seen it said that ISPs will use draconian policies out of fear of legal action.  However, the Act specifically exempts any such action:

Merely because A uses the Internet services of the Internet service provider in infringing the copyright, the Internet service provider, without more,—

“(a) does not infringe the copyright in the work:

“(b) must not be taken to have authorised A’s infringement of copyright in the work:

“(c) subject to subsection (3), must not be subject to any civil remedy or criminal sanction.

An ISP could adopt a policy that does provide for immediate termination on accusation, of course.  But they can adopt any policy they like (that doesn’t itself break the law) – that’s how the free market works.  Nothing there has changed.  An ISP could also chose to implement a policy that puts a reasonable burden of proof on the person/organisation making the accusation – considering that many of the major ISPs in NZ have spoken out against the section, it doesn’t seem unlikely that they would do so.

New Zealand is pretty soft on crime (although hopefully that will change with the recent change in government).  If someone (provably) violates the law, and does so knowingly (i.e. I would personally include in a policy a requirement for a first warning, before it gets to “repeat”), then they should be punished.  The question is then whether their Internet access should be removed, or whether punishment should be left for the regular court process.  This is where I have a problem with S92A.

  • Although making it harder for a criminal to repeat offend is a good idea in general, it’s not common.  This is done in traffic offences – if you repeatedly offend, then you lose your license, or might even have your vehicle removed for a period of time.  Many crimes, of course, use only commonly found equipment (or none at all) – so this doesn’t apply to theft, assault, and other crimes like that.  I can’t easily think of a crime that requires specialised equipment – but there probably are some, and removal of a set of tools is probably not done in that case.
  • The section is vague, and the Act’s definition of “Internet Service Provider” is far too vague.  It would be better if it made clear that proof of guilt (e.g. a conviction by a recognised court) was required.

There are many more problems with the revised version of the Act (although it is arguably better than the version it replaces).  For example:

  • The definition of cache is wrong: it must be “for the sole purpose of enabling the Internet service provider to transmit the material more efficiently to other users of the service on their request”.  A cache may be legitimately used to transmit the material a second (or further) time to the same user.

Another example:

An educational establishment does not infringe copyright in a work that is made available on a website or other electronic retrieval system by storing a copy of the page or pages in which the work appears if—

(a) the material is stored for an educational purpose; and

(b) the material—

(i) is displayed under a separate frame or identifier; and

(ii) identifies the author (if known) and source of the work; and

(iii) states the name of the educational establishment and the date on which the work was stored; and

(c) the material is restricted to use by authenticated users.

As far as I can tell, this lets an educational establishment provide unrestricted copies of software to authenticated users, as long as the software is related to the course.  I doubt that’s what’s meant, but that’s how it reads to me.

Then there’s the section that’s meant to be one of the big improvements, stopping everyone that rips CD music (to put on a portable music player) from breaking the law:

Copying sound recording for personal use

(1) Copyright in a sound recording and in a literary or musical work contained in it is not infringed by copying the sound recording, if the following conditions are met:

(a) the sound recording is not a communication work or part of a communication work; and

(b) the copy is made from a sound recording that is not an infringing copy; and

(c) the sound recording is not borrowed or hired; and

(d) the copy is made by the owner of the sound recording; and

(e) that owner acquired the sound recording legitimately; and

(f) the copy is used only for that owner’s personal use or the personal use of a member of the household in which the owner lives or both; and

(g) no more than 1 copy is made for each device for playing sound recordings that is owned by the owner of the sound recording; and

(h) the owner of the sound recording retains the ownership of both the sound recording and of any copy that is made under this section.

This is great, but this specifically excludes video.  So although you can copy a legally purchased CD to a hard drive, then to an iPod, I am restricted from copying a legally purchased DVD to a hard drive, then to an AppleTV.  Where is the logic in that?

Time-shifting is also now permitted:

Recording for purposes of time shifting

(1) A person (A) does not infringe copyright in a programme included in a communication work, or in any work included in it, by recording it, if—

(a) A makes the recording solely for A’s personal use or the personal use of a member of the household in which A lives or both; and

(b) A makes the recording solely for the purpose of viewing or listening to the recording at a more convenient time; and

(c) the recording is not made from an on-demand service; and

(d) A has lawful access to the communication work at the time of making the recording.

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply, and A does infringe copyright in the communication work recorded and in any work included in the communication work, if—

(a) A retains the recording for any longer than is reasonably necessary for viewing or listening to the recording at a more convenient time; or

(b) in the event that the person who views or listens to the recording wishes to make a complaint to a complaint authority, A retains the recording for any longer than is reasonably necessary to prepare and despatch the complaint.

So I can record Lost to watch it later, but I can’t keep it longer than “reasonably necessary”.  “Reasonably necessary” is far too vague.  I’ve kept programs on MySky for close to a year before getting around to watching them.  Is that “reasonable”?  Would copyright holders really care if recordings for personal use had no time limit?

My biggest concern is that this Act (and presumably many others) was developed/debated by people who have no idea what they are talking about (just read the debate transcripts, and it’s obvious).  Surely someone could be found to inform the politicians, so that they have some clue about the decisions they are making?

Disclaimer time: Note that I am not a lawyer, nor do I follow this extremely closely.  I may be wrong in places.  However, I have read the Acts (original, revised, and amendment), and also the transcripts of the various debates/readings that were held.  I’m not convinced that many of the other people writing/speaking about this have done so.  I also strongly believe that people should be entitled to certain rights (such as those that the Copyright Act provides) over works that they developed (i.e. I’m not anti-copyright), although there should be sensible exclusions.  I believe that many of the changes are positive, and that many of the rights are fair.  As those that know me know, if there is a reasonably convenient, reasonably priced method of legally acquiring content, then I will always use that (even though I have sufficient knowledge to easily obtain illegal copies).

How to waste $500M

I believe this was announced a while ago, but I only noticed when it was twittered today: Vodafone NZ is extending their network so that there is 900 MHz 3G coverage over much more of the country.

I was quite elated reading that – the existing coverage is is not great, and it’s annoying having a very capable phone and not being able to use it as it was meant to be (especially when overpaying).  However, after asking a few questions, it turns out this is actually bad news – the extended coverage won’t work with the world’s best phone (only PR people really dispute that).  Since they’ve just extended the network, it seems pretty unlikely that they’re planning on a real upgrade any time soon, so this means that real coverage is further off, not closer.

The release has a list of 14 phones that can be used (only 14!).  These all look very uninteresting:

  • Nokia 3120.  Looks like something from 5 years ago.
  • Nokia 6121.  Perhaps 7 year ago.
  • Nokia 5320.  Perhaps 4 years ago.
  • Nokia 5800.  
  • Nokia N96.  A reasonable phone for its day – before people realised how good a phone could actually be.
  • Nokia E75.  Tiny screen, and two keypads.  Crazy.
  • Nokia E71.  Tiny screen, huge keyboard.  That’s the wrong way around, people.
  • Nokia E63.  These Nokia’s really do all the same…
  • Nokia N85.  A couple of years ago, this family of phones was pretty interesting.
  • Nokia E66.  The most interesting of the Nokias.  Still nothing fascinating.
  • Sony Ericsson 715.  Something not from Nokia!  I guess this might be already if you didn’t mind ugly and just wanted a pretty plain phone (but then what are you using the 3G for?).
  • Sony Experia.  It uses Windows Mobile, which I think everyone can agree is a joke at this point.
  • LG KS500.  Just a phone.  Ok, but boring.
  • HTC Diamond II.  Most interesting looking here, but (a) is this released yet? and (b) Windows Mobile.

What about the Pre? (ok, still coming soon).  What about the Storm or Bold – or any other BlackBerry?  What about the G1 (HTC Dream)?  And yes (the one I care most about since I own one), the one that they are all trying to better, the iPhone?

It’s possible that a third generation iPhone might support 3G at 900 MHz, but as far as I can tell Europe and the US don’t really have any 900 MHz 3G networks, so I don’t know why Apple would bother.

I’m not entirely clear on what Telecom’s about-to-arrive new network is, but my guess is that it’s not going to help (I bought the iPhone outright, so could easily switch if necessary, especially now there’s number portability).

For now, looks like we’re stuck in the slow lane.  At least the iPhone can use the home network when at home – I can’t understand why anyone would get a phone that didn’t have WiFi, especially with New Zealand’s terrible data prices/plans.

The one good side: having a twitter presence is great, especially since Brislen actually responds to people with useful answers.  He does seem to be quite good at his job – I wish this could be said about everyone at Vodafone!

Hello, Telecom NZ, it’s 2008 already…

My sister’s Internet connection isn’t working, and she called me up to troubleshoot it.  The router’s testing indicated that it was a line issue, so I headed over to Telecom’s service status page to see if this was a known problem.

The entire telecom.co.nz site (NZ’s biggest Telco) is down for 6 weekend daytime hours for maintenance!  These guys must think it’s still the 1990s or something (like Vodafone a while back).

In the first place, why are they doing maintenance during the day?  Maintenance that needs downtime is done in the middle of the night when the impact on customers will be least (people building roads have known this for decades).

Secondly, it takes very little work to setup a system where you can serve at least something (static pages, if nothing else) via an alternate location.  Replicating the entire setup (account maintenance etc) is probably overkill, but there is absolutely no reason not to have some content available.  Certainly the status page would be one of those things (it could be manually updated if necessary – I doubt you could find a NOC staff member that can’t write HTML).  I would think that things like pricing and packages would be another (that content is probably dynamic, but anything that doesn’t require a login should be easily copied and served elsewhere temporarily).

NZ’s ISPs are pretty laughable in many respects.

Time for change, indeed

At last, after nine years, we have the change of government we need.  I think the most telling part of the results is that the winners are the parties that are willing to work with others.  The Maori party will work with Labour if that’s what gets their policies advanced, but their leaders (and the constituents will eventually catch up) understand that they can advance under National as well.  United Future, setting in the centre, can obviously work with anyone.  ACT, even though they are not in the centre, will work with National, but also with other parties (e.g. they agree with the Maori party on many issues).  National, obviously, is willing to put all of these pieces together and get something that is hopefully stronger than the individual parts.

I think the TV3 commentators were wrong when they said that ACT had no power being on the right, since National has the Maori party on the centre.  The Greens had a significant influence on Labour, even though they are less centre.  ACT will be no different, and have their 5-seat influence.

The Greens show up as the real losers.  They ended up with more seats, but no power.  If they were willing to work with National, like the Maori party are, then they could get things achieved, and appear more magnanimous as well.  I really hope that some day the Green party wakes up and realises that caring about environmental issues is not a left or right issue, and straddles both.  National and ACT would do positive things for sustainability & general environment issues by actually getting something done.  Why is that so much worse than Labour doing positive things by doing a great deal of talking and planning?  Why should one’s position in the debate over climate change have anything to do with whether you care about the environment or not?

The other thing that the TV3 commentators got wrong was Clark’s speech – she wasn’t that gracious.  She pointedly attacked the National policies.  If she was gracious, she could have said something like “I hope that when we come back in 2011 National have managed to safeguard all of the improvements we have made over the last nine years”.  Polite about National, but not praising them (just “safeguard”, not improve in any way), but not attacking either, and still putting in the note about the ‘achievements’ that Labour has managed.  Key was a much more gracious winner than Clark a gracious loser.

It’s not the result that I was hoping for, but I do hope that Key manages to do a good job, and the meme that I certainly agree with is that this is how democracy works.  Although I’m on one end of the new government’s policies, I respect that there are others who are on the other side and we can achieve greatness together.  Certainly if Key succeeds (with the Maori party included), then Labour is in a very tight position for 2011 (no NZ First, maybe no United Future, no guarantee of Maori party support, maybe no Progressives, no clear leader yet).

If the Maori party are included (and I hope they are), then it’s the first real MMP government (in my opinion), too – with four parties (National, ACT, United, Maori) working together for real progress.  Hopefully National and Labour will both continue to decrease in numbers, and we’ll have a real multi-party government one day.

I wonder if house prices in Australia just dropped 😉

iTunes applications restricted to US store

What possible reason can developers (Apple?) have for restricting an application like Grocery IQ to the US store?  I would have purchased this, but it’s not available in the NZ store.  I can’t see any reason that it wouldn’t work just as well here.

(I can understand that annoying legalities prevent applications like Puzzlotto being sold, but that’s a whole different story).

This isn’t the only application like this I’ve come across, just the most recent one.  It makes no sense at all.

Universal Student Allowances Revisited (verdict: still bad)

Quite some time ago, I wrote a post rebutting the popular idea of a universal (tertiary) student allowance, suggesting a better alternative.  Since the NZ Labour Party has resurrected this terrible idea as their latest election bride (hopefully the NZ public are not stupid enough to fall for the same trick twice…), I figured I would revisit this.  If you don’t want to read all the way through, here’s the take-away point: please do not vote for Labour because you think a universal student allowance would be good for students or New Zealand in general.

Problems with a universal student allowance

The main problem is (still) that it blindly encourages anyone to become a tertiary student, without any consideration of whether they should be.  This is already a problem – somehow a misconception grew that everyone should go to university (or at least a polytech), which led to vast numbers of students unable to manage the academic work, which led to dumbing down of the courses taught.  There’s absolutely nothing wrong with not going to university/polytech – apprenticeships, internships, and other on-the-job style training is vastly superior in many cases.  Other problems include:

  • People who can easily afford to study without any assistance would be given assistance anyway. I can’t see how anyone would think that this would be a good idea.
  • A universal student allowance does little to address the problem with the loan scheme (the allowance is not high enough to remove the need for a loan, unless you have free accommodation).
  • A universal student allowance has no reward for success, either in earlier education, or in tertiary studies. Someone scraping through with C’s gets the same allowance as the straight A student.  I realise that rewarding success is not popular now, but that’s no excuse for making things worse.
  • A universal student allowance does not encourage students to attach value to their education. If students pay for education themselves, then they clearly see that it is valuable, and should not be wasted.  Anyone that has been through the system knows the truth of this problem.
  • The system hurts married couples where the spouse’s income is higher than the threshold, but not high enough to fully support tertiary education for the other partner.  Another example of the Labour government’s hatred for marriage and traditional family systems.
  • Any allowance system will have problems with abatement levels, which are already a problem in New Zealand. I have been in the ludicrous position where I had to ask for lower pay, which meant that I could keep my allowance, or I would have less money in the hand each week. Students are discouraged from working, which is not a good situation, and the system makes it difficult to supplement an allowance income (which is not enough to live off).

A Better Solution

While I firmly believe that a universal student allowance is not the right answer, I do not believe that the current system works well. It is increasingly clear that something needs to be done to fix the system – but it is not clear what that should be. Here is my proposed solution; I believe that not only is it more equitable than both the current system and a universal student allowance, but it is also more practical (which means more likely to gain support from both Labour and National, which is required in order to make a lasting change), and more likely to have a positive long-term effect on the New Zealand tertiary education system.

There are 3 parts to this solution:

  • Allowances. Simple, just get rid of them all. (I suppose you could almost call this a universal student allowance, just one where everyone gets $0.00 per week). This meshes quite well with the NZUSA calls for everyone to be treated equally.
  • Loans. Loans and scholarships (see below) form the backbone of the proposed new system, so need to be well designed, so there are several changes to the nice-idea-but-poorly-implemented existing system (outlined below).
  • Scholarships. My knowledge here is a little out-of-date, but I don’t believe that things have changed all that much since I was a Secondary School student. (See below)

Loans

  • Interest. There’s nothing wrong with getting people to pay for their education, but making money out of them is rather over the top.  However, having no interest at all is just giving the money away. Fix interest at inflation, and continue to write off interest while studying.
  • Accessibility. It’s a loan, not a grant, and you can’t get out of it (by declaring bankcruptcy, for example) except by dying, so there’s no reason to deny people one. Anyone (who is a New Zealand citizen / permanent resident) should be able to get a loan. This means, in particular, that the existing level of study requirements (just dropped to 25%) should be removed – so that someone doing a single paper can get a loan, which is not the case now.
  • Amount available. Maybe once upon a time the amounts were sufficient, but has anyone looked at how much it costs to rent a flat in Auckland these days? Or how much textbooks cost? Every institution should provide StudyLink with a list of approved costs for each paper. These can be claimed without any additional approval required (computers would do all the complicated work, of course). A small additional amount (say $500, inflation adjusted) would be available for miscellaneous expenses like computer equipment, paper, pens, travel, and so on. For any other expenses, (like conference travel for post-graduate students), the student would have to provide a letter, confirming that the cost is course-related, from their institution. The living costs portion of the loan should simply be bumped up, and be bi-annually inflation adjusted. Living costs should also be available year-round, if the student provides evidence that they are enrolled for study in the following year. Sure, all of this means more money given out, but it’s a loan, not free money! Even if people spend it frivolously, it’s their own money that they are wasting, and they’ll have to pay it back at some point.
  • Writing it off. The aim should be to write off a quarter to a third of the total loan amount incurred each year. This allows the government to do the targeting sort of work that it loves to do (and, in some cases, needs to do). For example, you could have $500 wiped off your loan for every year in which you spend at least 300 days in New Zealand. You could have $500 wiped off your loan for every year in which you work in rural New Zealand. You could have $10 wiped off your loan for every hour of work you do for a registered charity (although this would need extremely careful monitoring). You could have $500 wiped off your loan for each year that you serve on a Board of Trustees for a New Zealand school. The list is as long as the list of work that needs doing, but doesn’t have people to do it.
  • Paying it back. In the end, most students should still have to pay a portion of their loan back – as they reap the benefits from it. The repayment rate should be adjusted, however, so that the total payments to the government out of income aren’t too extreme (lower tax rates would also solve this problem). Since there’s only way way (death) to get out of paying it back, there really isn’t any hurry – for the student, or for the government (and the idea is that the education is serving them for life, after all).

Scholarships

  • Whatever the final assessment is at high school, this should have decent scholarships attached to it (The $400 or whatever that I got from an A bursary is not “decent”). For each subject in which a student receives a top grade they should get 1/6th of the average fees for a year’s study. A medium grade would be 1/12th, and other passing grades nothing; truly exceptional grades (back when I was a student a single Scholarship grade meant no money at all) would be 1/3rd. This would mean that a straight A (if ‘A’s existed any more) student would have more-or-less all their fees paid, a straight B student about half, and a student that gained scholarship marks would also have money to go towards living costs.
  • This money should be available for the full length of an undergraduate degree (say 3 years) – in my day you got 2 years, or, if your birthday just happened to be at the right time of year, 3 years.  (It’s possible this has been fixed since my day).
  • The amount of money shouldn’t stay tied to the grades you get in secondary school – it should automatically adjust to your tertiary grades. So a straight A student at high school that drops to straight B’s at uni/tech would only get ~ half their fees paid in year two, the straight B student that gets all A’s at uni/tech gets all their year two fees paid, and so on.
  • The idea here is that those people that are going to do well in their study (regardless of what subjects, their ethnicity, their gender, their socio-economic status, and so on) are helped more than those that perhaps should be considering another area (everyone is good at something, but not everyone is right for tertiary education).
  • This does make it easier for people straight from school than for “mature” students, but I don’t believe that that is a problem. For a start, that’s the way the current situation is. Secondly, we really want to encourage people to complete tertiary education while young (and then carry on with other, unsupported financially, learning later in life). If it really was an issue, then there could be special “mature” scholarship exams.

So what would this cost? When I calculated this several years ago, the total increase in spending was something like $415 million.  I’m sure it’s something similar now (since the loans are interest free already, the costs have probably reduced).  Certainly, compared to the foolish idea of a universal student allowance, it would be acceptable, and provides many other benefits.

MacBreak Weekly almost killed me

I’m working away, listening to episode 98 of MacBreak Weekly, and just as I happen to be taking a drink of water, Leo says something humourous in response to Scott (about 1:04:18 in), I involuntarily start to laugh, and start choking.  It was not a pretty sight – the water had to go somewhere.  I’m still coughing.

The show has some reasonable Mac analysis/tips, but it’s really the humour that makes it worth listening to.  Just be careful drinking at the same time!

Mahalo Daily Host Search (Follow Up)

Earlier, I gave my opinions about the six potential new co-hosts for Mahalo Daily.  Since then, 3 were eliminated, then another, and now the final winner has been chosen, although who it is will only be announced tomorrow.

In terms of the first elimination, I agree with Jason’s comment that if you don’t turn up you don’t get the job.  Unless there was a last minute family emergency or something like that, then you need to demonstrate a fanatical willingness to do the job to get the job in the first place.  So, although I thought Nadine was the best choice, and Michelle was good, I agreed that eliminating them was the right thing to do.  (From Jason’s comments, it’s obvious that Nadine wouldn’t have got through anyway.  Hopefully she’ll turn up in something else that isn’t MySpace).

Dropping Sarah next was surprising – I expected that Kristina would go first, just based on experience (it really did seem like it would take a while for her to get up to the professional quality that Mahalo Daily seems to be aimed at).  I ranked Sarah last, so that fit with me – she seems to have got something out of the experience, and if she & Lon do start a film podcast, it’s possible I’ll listen to that as well as Filmspotting.

Kristina was obviously going to go before Leah & Andrea.  For all the “dark horse” comments, she clearly was not of the same quality as the others, and while she might well have got there after a while, it doesn’t seem like this is the right place to be learning those skills.

At this point, the “viral video” contest was introduced.  I understand the reasoning behind this – the host does need to be able to be creative and imaginative, and hopefully “think outside the box”.  Producing episodes that actually do spread would obviously also be great, since at least some viewers would start watching regularly.  However, it was certainly a huge challenge – predicting what video will next catch the eye of the Internet masses is basically impossible.  At least they didn’t base the winner on the number of YouTube views or something like that (although it would have been better to let the videos spread for a few days I think).

First to appear was Andrea’s Guitar Hero training video:

This was pretty disappointing, since I would have previously chosen Andrea over Leah.  Problems:

 

  • Training videos (particularly Rocky-style) have been parodied hundreds of times already.  Another training video parody is extremely unlikely to ‘go viral’, no matter how good it is.
  • There was too much repetition – some really wacky training scenes might have livened it up somewhat.
  • The ending was pretty disappointing.  Jason suggested in the comments that having a guest appearance by Veronica Belmont would have been a good ending, and that indeed would have been great (especially if Veronica was gracious enough to record herself getting slammed by the newcomer).

 

On the good side, it showed off Andrea well (not just her looks, but the style she would bring), and it was well put together.  Lon was used well, although not great.

Leah’s video was also, unfortunately, a parody, but of a music video:

This was a good video, and clearly much superior to Andrea’s.  There were still problems:

  • It’s another parody.  Aren’t we all done with parodies now?  They are also such an easy choice.  I realise there was a pretty limited timeframe, but making an unusual choice would have been great.  Something really risky (i.e. it might bomb) since Jason made it clear it wasn’t about how popular it was, but about how creative.  If you look at the viral videos that have been successful, many of them are appallingly bad on the surface.  Without thinking about it much, I would have liked something like a fake Mahalo Daily blooper real (pick a dozen of Veronica’s shows and make up semi-realistic but very funny bloopers – perhaps a short guest appearance by Veronica herself), or some wacky science thing (like the Cola+Mentos stuff, or blowing things up – find a crazy science guy and you’ll get some good suggestion), or an original song (original lyrics at least), or some crazily dangerous physical stunt (perhaps looking much more dangerous than it actually was), or a completely over-the-top homage to something odd.  I’m not the creative one, and yet even I wouldn’t have chosen a parody.  The need to feature the contestant themselves (and possibly Lon and Mahalo somehow) did make it more of a challenge.
  • The video shows off Lon’s skills as a comedian (comedienne?) more than Leah’s.  I would absolutely hire Lon based on this, but not necessarily Leah.  There are a few moment where she does shine, but having her a bit more ‘center-stage’ would probably have suited the contest more.  Her acting is also pretty weak, but that hardly matters for a hosting job.
  • Probably it’s just because it’s a parody, but I can’t imagine recommending watching this to anyone, and I have trouble seeing it have a great deal of ‘viral’ success either.
  • Gender-reversal jokes are funny, but they’ve been done to death, and it’s a stretch to take it to two and half minutes.

BTW, I think re-mixing this (is that permissible?) with popup video style additions would make this more humourous.

I think it’s pretty obvious that Leah will win (with a slight chance that both will be hired in some way).  I hope that Andrea goes on to host something else I’m interested in, since I think she’d make a good host (although not good enough to watch something uninteresting!).

Overall, my compliments to all of the contestants, especially the final six.  Despite the fact that I didn’t like them all as potential hosts, getting that far is clearly a remarkable achievement, and they all clearly have enough talent to succeed with something else.