I've been waiting to see Hell on Wheels, but the wait is over. Hell on Wheels, the German documentary that follows riders from the Telekom team through the 2003 Tour de France, is now available on DVD in the U.S. from www.firstrunfeatures.com or www.worldcyclingproductions.com.

Here's the description from the First Run Features website:

On the Road... Behind the Scenes... With the Riders of Le Tour de France!

Love Lance? You'll love Hell on Wheels, the first film about professional bike racing that anyone can appreciate!

Le Tour de France, the toughest bicycle race of all, recently celebrated its 100th birthday. Year after year this spectacular event fascinates millions of people worldwide. But within the beauty of the French coutryside and the tensions of the race, Academy Award Winner Pepe Danquart chose to illustrate the torture and the pain, the fear and the courage of the riders of the Tour.

In the process he captures the thrill of the race, the essence of the stunning landscape, and shines light on the Tour's supporting cast - the masseurs, managers, fans and more. Adding a fine sense of history, Hell on Wheels transcends the sport it celebrates to reveal an astonishing human endeavor.

Featuring the world's best bike racers - Lance Armstrong, Eric Zabel, Jan Ullrich, Tyler Hamilton, Alexandre Vinokurov, Andreas Klöden & more!

Now, thanks to the internet, you can sit in the comfort of your home and see if you (or any of your friends!) have outstanding arrest warrants with the Austin Police Department.

It's easy! Just go to Austin Police Department Warrant List and type in 2 or more letters of the person's last name.

If you are considering taking Tamiflu, you might want to reconsider:

1. If you take Tamiflu after you have contracted the flu, it will shorten the period of symptoms by 1 to 2 days, so instead of being sick for 7 days you might be sick for 5 days
2. If you begin taking Tamiflu before you have contracted the flu, it might prevent you from getting the flu altogether, but it's not guaranteed and it might mean you take Tamiflu for up to 6 weeks
3. It has a number of side effects, many of them extremely serious
4. A number of deaths have been blamed on Tamiflu usage, although Roche denies any relationship
5. Young people (teens and earlier) should pretty much avoid Tamiflu altogether due to the high risk of problems and symptoms

My research process started when I heard an investigative reporter on the radio discussing Tamiflu. He said that it's really bad for most people, and doesn't offer much help anyway. At best, it might prevent you from getting the flu, but the company doesn't say how effective it is at flu prevention (leaving us to wonder if it does a good job at all...), and you'll probably have side effects (keep reading). At worst (and probably the most likely scenario), you'll get the flu first, and then you'll start taking Tamiflu, and by doing so you will risk serious side effects and - at best - shorten your flu exposure by 1 or 2 days. But the reporter also discussed the links to neurological problems, and said that there are a number of deaths blamed on Tamiflu. Of course, the company says it's safe, and so the FDA. So what do you do? Who do you trust?

I found the full product info on Tamiflu at Roche's website here: http://www.rocheusa.com/products/tamiflu/pi.pdf This seemed like a good place to start. No suprise, the product info is a boring, detailed document with a bunch of crap in it. Mostly uninteresting. But a few things really jumped out:

• When Tamiflu was administered to lab rats (1000 mg/kg dosage), they found that 14-day old rats did fine, but 7-day old rats died. When they looked at the brains of the dead, 7-day old rats, they found concentrations of the drug 1500 times higher than in adult rats (page 11).
• They did not do any testing on human children younger than 1 year of age, because it killed the young rats and they didn't know enough about the "blood-brain barrier" in humans (page 11).
• In a study of people without the flu, the known side-efffects that occurred in 1% or more of the study participants include: Nausea, Vomiting, Diarrhea, Abdominal pain, Dizziness, Headache, Cough, Insomnia, Fatigue. (page 12, Table 3 under "Prophylaxis")
• There are other side effects that occurred in less than 1.0% of the participants, but I didn't list them all here.
• Some of these side effects affected large numbers of people: 20.1% reported Headache, 7.9% reported Fatigue, 7.0% reported Nausea (page 12, Table 3 under "Prophylaxis")
• If 40,000,000 million people in the United States take Tamiflu, that would mean 8,040,000 people with Headache, 3,160,000 with Fatigue, and 2,800,000 with Nausea.
• In children aged 1 to 12 years, the side effects are different and occur in different numbers. 15.0% reported Vomiting, 9.5% reported Diarrhea, somewhere between 8.7% and 16.2 % (cannot determine the exact number from their data) reported problems with their ears or sinusus (8.7% Otitis media + 3.1% Epistaxis + 1.7% Ear disorder + 1.7% Sinusitis + 1.0% Tympanic membrane disorder; so if each child experiences only one of these symptoms, just add up all the numbers to get 16.2%, otherwise assume lower bound of 8.7% all children experienced Otitis and possibly one other symptom) (page 13)
• Other reactions that have been reported to Roche (but did not occur during any study) include seizure, arrhythmia (a serious problem that can lead to heart disease, stroke or heart attack), toxic epidermal necrolysis (a life-threatening skin disorder), hepatitis (page 14)
• In Japan, they are reporting that Tamiflu causes impaired consciousness and hallucinations in teenagers, sometimes resulting in death
• Bearing in mind the reported links between hallucinations and Tamiflu, the Tamiflu documentation says there are reports of "confusion" and "seizure" but they do not offer any more information (page 14). "Seizure" is pretty clear, but what does "confusion" mean? Should we be concerned? How many people reported this? They make no mention of the rates of occurrence (not too suprising, they barely say anything about this at all), but let's just make a wild guess that 0.01% of the population experiences "confusion or seizure". If 40,000,000 people in the United States take Tamiflu (this estimate is intentionlally low, the actual number of flu doses will be much higher), that would put 4,000 people in the "confusion or seizure" bucket. [Note: I realize this is conjecture, but I think it is highly likely that Roche has only provided as much information as is required by law, and nothing else. For serious reports such as seizure, arrythmia, and hepatitis, they should give us an indication of how many people are affected; without that information from Roche, I reserve the right to make guesses and discuss them here.]
• Those who stand to benefit the most are the pharmaceutical companies - it's not the people, because you can still contract the flu even if you're taking Tamiflu, and if you already caught it then you're still going to be sick even if you take Tamiflu. However, it is Roche itself who tells us that Tamiflu is good for us, that we should pay for and take their drug. Isn't that odd? We've got potentially 4,000 people who will have a seizure as a result of Tamiflu, but the company says to pay for it and take it.

This whole situation makes me wonder why people treat drug companies like trusted, unbiased, neutral information sources. They are none of these. They are in fact very biased and absolutely not neutral: they are in the business of selling drugs, and they'll do their best to convince you to buy them. All businesses work this way. Drive this car, it's the coolest! Eat this food, it's the tastiest! Wear these clothes so you can look your coolest! It's all marketing and advertising. The interesting thing is that people see the advertisements from drug companies and seem more willing to trust those than, say, ads from Wendy's telling you to eat their new Triple Double Cheeseburger. People obviously make their own choice about the burger, but they're totally fine to trust the pharmaceutical company. Isn't it clear that they're both advertisements?

Sources

• http://www.rocheusa.com/products/tamiflu/pi.pdf
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir
  

I just renewed the vehicle registration for our cars in Travis County. Each registration cost $57.30 (the minimum registration amount, based on vehicle age), for a total of $114.60 . When I took a closer look at the specific fees, it occurred to me that I don't really know what they mean.

Here's the list:

WINDSHIELD STICKER	40.50
REG FEE-DPS	1.00
REFLECTORZATION FEE	0.30
CNTY ROAD BRIDGE ADD-ON FEE	10.00
CHILD SAFETY FUND	1.50
AUTOMATION FEE (LARGE CNTY)	1.00
MAIL IN FEE	1.00
SERVICE FEE (NON-REFUNDABLE)	2.00
Total	57.30

According to this document, "there are approximately 15 million registered motor vehicles in Texas". So here's the above table, modified to account for the 15 million registered vehicles across the entire state:

WINDSHIELD STICKER	607,500,000.00
REG FEE-DPS	15,000,000.00
REFLECTORZATION FEE	4,500,000.00
CNTY ROAD BRIDGE ADD-ON FEE	150,000,000.00
CHILD SAFETY FUND	22,500,000.00
AUTOMATION FEE (LARGE CNTY)	15,000,000.00
MAIL IN FEE	15,000,000.00
SERVICE FEE (NON-REFUNDABLE)	30,000,000.00
Statewide Total	859,500,000.00

Collectively, we're spending almost one billion dollars on stickers and hidden fees. Am I the only one who's curious about where the money goes?

About the individual fees...

• WINDSHIELD STICKER - this one's pretty obvious, it's the sticker itself. However, I can't imagine why one sticker would cost $40. Surely this amount conceals where the money is really going? But if so, it seems odd that they wouldn't list a more reasonable dollar amount for the sticker, say $2, and then add another item "DPS Operation Expenses" (or something like that) for $38.
  
• REG FEE-DPS - No idea what this is, but I guess it's going somewhere to cover something... all $15 million of it.
  
• REFLECTORZATION FEE - I could not find an answer for Texas, but I did find this for Washington State: "All vehicle license number plates [...] shall be treated with fully reflectorized materials designed to increase the visibility and legibility of such plates at night." Again, this is for Washington State, but I assume it's the same thing in Texas, as Texas license plates are indeed reflective. But why would we pay an annual fee for that? Didn't they receive their reflectorzation fee when we first got our license plates? Or maybe the sticker is reflectorized? If so, shouldn't this $0.30 be bundled into the "Windshield Sticker" item above?
  
• CNTY ROAD BRIDGE ADD-ON FEE - This is the one I really want to find out about - it's the 2nd-largest item at $150 million, or nearly 20% of your registration cost. What is this mystery "road bridge add-on fee"?
  
• CHILD SAFETY FUND - What does this mean? Where does this money go? How is $22.5 million being spent to help keep children safe? And what are they being kept safe from?
  
• AUTOMATION FEE (LARGE CNTY) - no idea.... Travis must be a large county? And we're automated... somehow...?
  
• MAIL IN FEE - I guess this covers the cost of mailing the sticker.
  
• SERVICE FEE (NON-REFUNDABLE) - This must cover their transaction fees for credit card processing. Hopefully, the state isn't paying the card processor $2.00 per transaction, because that would be a crummy deal.
  

Click to enlarge

I'd like to see one of these for the "nucular".

John Murtha has been all over the news today for his stance on the war in Iraq (Top Democrat urges Iraq pullout). There are a handful of things that really set this guy apart from most people in the anti-war movement.

He's a member of the US Congress, and is a member of a House panel that oversees defense spending. In 2003, he fully supported the invasion of Iraq. He is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War. Each of these points (and probably plenty of others) show that he has credibility in matters of war.

Considering Murtha's credibility and experience, his comments today are extremely striking:

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency, they are united against US forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. [...] We need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis."

Wow. "We have become a catalyst for violence."

I do not support the war — I have no issues with the troops and their families, I think all of them have been asked to make a huge sacrifice — however, I do not support the war. But I know many people out there (especially here in Texas) are fully supportive of the entire Iraq effort. So I hope those pro-Iraq war folks are paying attention when somebody like this steps up to the microphone.

John Murtha is not some "quack liberal" or "anti-war hooligan" or [insert common derogatory term used by war supporters to describe anti-war people]. I'll bet he has more experience in war and military than most of the folks who say the US should remain in Iraq. But frankly, I prefer to pay attention to people who do have relevant experience, rather than listen to others who (like myself) have never been involved with the military and don't really know what we're talking about.

So instead of listening to you or me, let's listen to John Murtha instead: "we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis".

As things go from bad to worse, the SEC has launched an investigation of Motive. So not nice. It's not clear yet, but Motive thinks the investigation is related to the restatement of its financial results and stock sales by certain unnamed executives.

Having worked there for about 13 months (at which point I came to my senses and quit), this comes as no suprise to me. I worked in development, so I cannot comment on anything specific about Motive's financial dealings, but things sure seemed sketchy to me. Lots of re-shuffling of money, finances, sales, etc. I kept wondering if this was the kind of thing that bigger companies (like Enron) got busted for doing, but Motive was able to get away with it because they were relatively small.

Again, I can't prove anything, but I never, ever the warm fuzzies about how Motive handled itself financially.

According to this post by Tim, the city council sent out invites for the opening of Austin's first public skatepark. The opening will be at Mabel Davis park on Saturday, December 3rd at 1:30pm.

And austinpublicskatepark.org posted recent pictures of the continuing construction of the skatepark, and things look great. After much waiting, it looks like we're finally going to get our first public skatepark (and an awesome one, at that).

Watch two Chinese students do their best impression of the Backstreet Boys. So nice.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6739710473912337648

Play ping pong on your computer.
Right now.
For free.

Click to enlarge

In this photo, we see a demonstration of 3 common safety mistakes that cyclists must be careful to avoid.

1. Always wear a helmet, because you never know when you're going to crash and land on your head.
2. Do not ride through puddles, because water obscures potholes and other road hazards.
3. Do not ride your bicycle while holding an umbrella, no matter how good of an idea you think it might be.

Click to enlarge

You know this guy has to believe in aliens...

Click to enlarge

For the first time, we can finally answer the question, Who is faster, a cyclist or a fish?

It's official: the voting majority in Texas has approved a state constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage. Apparently, it wasn't good enough to have a state law against gay marriage. And sadly, I think everyone could see this coming from a mile away.

The final numbers are not yet in, but it's about 75% for and 25% against the ban. Said another way, 25% of the voters support gay marriage, and 75% support discrimination. I prefer to think well of my fellow Texans (and that's pretty easy to do for folks here here in Austin, unlike the back-asswards people who populate the rest of Texas). But it's a bit unsettling when 3/4 of the population steps up to say, "we're afraid of gay people, we think they're ruining society, and we think it's totally ok to discriminate against other people because they're not like us" [that's my summary of the general point of view, not an actual quotation].

Well hey, to the rest of the non-backward folks out there, I didn't vote to ban gay marriage. In fact, I don't think gay people are causing anywhere near the social disruption that controlling, paranoid, freak-out conservatives cause by being bad parents and weird neighbors, the kind of people who are defined by little more than the church they attend.

You want to see some positive changes in local society? Let's take all of those conservative, controlling, "oh-my-god-everyone-else-is-ruining-society-except-for-me!" people and encourage them to think for themselves. I know that's never going to happen, especially because this whole "gays ruin marriage" war is being led by Christians, and it's Christianity itself that trains people at being good followers, not individuals with the capacity for critical thought. Come on, people, don't you have anything better to do with your time? Aren't there a few areas in your own life that you could stand to improve? Why not start with yourself first, before you go running around trying to fix everyone else? Has it ever occurred to you that if your life sucks in some way, perhaps it has more to do with you than with gay people (or anyone else)? [Answer: Yes, your happiness does have more to do with you than anyone else; this applies to you no matter who you are.]

It's stunning that grown adults will tell you, with as much seriousness as they can muster, that gay people are ruining the sanctity of marriage. News flash: divorce ruins marriage, not gay people. And 1 out of every 2 marriages in this country (between straight couples) results in divorce. That's half of the married population, and that's a goddamn lot of people. Are the gay-bashers too gay-scared and gay-distracted to realize this? Do they think that it's gay people who are causing 50% of straight folks to get divorced? Or maybe they think that straight people didn't even get divorced until gay people came along and started ruining society, so now straight people get divorced 50% of the time?

Ouch, this is bad news for Motive. It's never good when two dozen shareholders sue your ceo, cfo, and the company itself.

Motive shareholders file class-action suit:

Some shareholders of Motive Inc. have filed a class-action lawsuit that accuses the company and two executives of misleading investors about the company's prospects before reporting quarterly results that fell well below forecasts.

The Austin software company declined to comment Thursday on the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Austin against Motive, CEO Scott Harmon and Chief Financial Officer Paul Baker.

Three other law firms issued news releases Thursday saying they also plan to file class-action lawsuits against Motive. Shareholder lawsuits are not unusual when a company's stock takes a drastic dive.

Attorney William Federman, whose Oklahoma City law firm filed the suit, said about two dozen shareholders have joined the suit.

"It's difficult to judge the damages, but it appears to be well in excess of $10 million," Federman said.

The lawsuit claims that Motive executives knew demand for the company's software was decreasing but continued to issue positive sales projections. Specifically, the suit points out that when the company released preliminary second-quarter results July 11, Harmon said revenue didn't meet expectations because of a missed deal and a shortfall in consulting services, but he expressed confidence that general demand for its management-automation software remained healthy.

On Oct. 4, the company warned that third-quarter results would fall below forecasts and said it would look at the possible sale of its automation-software business and focus on its telecom products because of disappointing financial results. On the news, Motive's stock fell 36 percent to $4.01.

The company also later restated first- and second-quarter financial results, causing the stock to drop to $3.66 a share. It rose 20 cents Thursday, or 5 percent, to $3.95.

Click to enlarge

I just came across Cthulhu. I've never been interested in mythical characters, but sometimes the social background is interesting, or maybe the drawings are just plain neato.

Unfortunately, the rules for labeling food as "organic" are at risk. The organic food market is one of the strongest growing industries around for the simple fact that more and more people are sick of eating fabricated, processed food products that taste like shit.

If the corporate mega-monsters and their puppets in the U.S. Government have their way, food producers will be able to use chemicals and other artificial ingredients and still claim that the food is "organic". For consumers, that pretty much sucks. The whole point of buying and eating organic food is to avoid eating chemicals and other artificial bullshit that is not food.

It's infuriating that Kraft, General Mills, and the other corporate giants who are behind the Organic Trade Association are trying to change the law so that they can continue selling their fake-food bullshit to people who explicitly do not want to buy it. The "Organic Trade Association" is nothing more than a corporation-run lobbyist group that would be more appropriately named "A Bunch of Corporate Assholes Who Will Do Whatever the Hell They Want, Whether You Like It or Not".

Excerpts taken from What is Organic? Powerful Players Want a Say:

Last week, Senate and House Republicans on the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee inserted a last-minute provision into the department's fiscal 2006 budget specifying that certain artificial ingredients could be used in organic food.

The Organic Trade Association, an industry lobbying group that proposed the amendment and spent several months pushing for its adoption, says that the measure will encourage the continued growth of organic food.