Could be neither. In many jurisdictions, the roadside breath test (or field sobriety test) merely provides probable cause for law enforcement to obtain a warrant, with which they can compel a blood sample. I wouldn't be surprised if they are allowed to test for a range of intoxicating substances - including THC - and not just ethanol with these tests.

Note, as well, that "25% tested positive" is not the same as "25% were 'high' or intoxicated". Detectable amounts of THC or metabolites don't mean, necessarily, dangerous or intoxicating quantities. (Depending on exactly what was being tested, and the sensitivity of their instruments, they could have been seeing very low levels associated with marijuana use days or even weeks previously, or even with secondhand exposure.)

Sigh. Another Slashdot story about a new article published in a scientific journal, another Slashdot story that fails to link to the original published paper. I just noticed that the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" tagline no longer appears on the Slashdot front page; this sort of omission is probably one of the reasons why.

For people who are interested in the actual data:

Sanghavi, P. et al. "Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Treated by Basic vs Advanced Life Support." JAMA Intern Med Published online November 24, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5420.

And here's the JAMA press release.

1. Not always the case. Some journals (or articles) are open access.

2. Many Slashdot readers have access to paywalled journal articles through our schools or employers.

3. Abstracts are virtually always free to access, and often still provide better information than news coverage.

4. Links are cheap, and there's no reason to avoid providing links to both the lay summary and the actual paper.

Direct link to PNAS abstract.

Why, why, why is it that Slashdot always reports on new scientific discoveries with a link to a lay press summary or a press release, and never gives us the useful link to the actual papers with the real words by actual scientists? Aaaargh.

Oh, I don't know. The seriousness of the potential crime -- for which the police have genuine probable cause to suspect has occurred -- probably should have some bearing on the warrant that is issued. There is a balancing of interests here, which you actually have buried in your own comment. "How reasonable", in your words, likely includes "how horrifying" as one of its elements--you just saw an opportunity to try to score a cheap rhetorical point.

Unless, of course, you believe that a judge should award a warrant with the same breadth and alacrity whether the video shows a kidnapping or the theft of a candy bar.

I voted in a municipal election in Toronto, Canada earlier this week. Not on the voter's list? No problem--you can register at one of the city clerk's offices. There's five of them, serving a population of 2.6 million people. Oh, and they're open from 8:30am to 4:30pm, Monday to Friday. So that should be a snap to get to, as long as you don't have a full-time job, or a child to care for, or mobility issues. (You don't mind choosing between a couple of extra bus fares and eating lunch, do you?)

I followed the campaign closely, I was aware of the major issues of the day (as well as the minor issues that didn't get nearly enough coverage), I had strongly-held opinions based in thorough, extended research--and I registered to vote on the day of the election.

The notion that all people who didn't register in advance are somehow lazy, unworthy, and incompetent is canard that punishes the working poor, the single parents, the handicapped. Looking in from the outside, it's apparent that it's one piece of a larger Republican campaign to disenfranchise as many Democratic-leaning voters as possible. It's a story that is propagated by Fox News, the viewers of which are exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

'Approved' isn't the right word.

OneGet has the notion of 'trusted' repositories. We're likely to expand this concept a bit in the future, but for now, that's what it is.

Built-in package sources from reputable sources may be marked as 'trusted' by default, but the majority of sources should be 'untrusted' until the user makes that change.

The real trick is getting package provider plugins to tell OneGet the truth if a repository is trusted or not.

I suspect that we're going to have to introduce a level of trust with the package providers too, and expose this to the user ... somehow.

You've got a really good point.

We're tossing around some notions about different factors that make a 'package' or 'repository' trustworthy.

I'm sure we can do some stuff with signed repositories and signed packages to detect when things 'change' and/or keep unsigned repositories 'untrusted'.

Really, our first target for this stuff is developers and admins, not my mom...

Well, considering that the chocolatey provider for OneGet points to the community-controlled repository, I'll have to take that as a win :)

The concept of curated repositories is one that we're really trying to come up without screwing it up.

Regardless, with OneGet, the *user* maintains control. Which repositories they connect to, what software they install.

Actually, to be perfectly clear, OneGet isn't really a package manager.

It's a package-manager-manager -- It's a unified way of installing packages of software regardless of the how-it's-implemented-on-the-back-end.

The first real package provider plugin is a Chocolatey one. Why re-invent the wheel when the wheel already works?

The purpose here is to leverage all these different sources of software using a common set of commands and APIs.

Anything that can be represented as a 'source' of software can be plugged in on the back end. I'm aiming for plugins for NPM, Ruby Gems, Python, on top of the expected MSI, Chocolatey, NuGet, etc...

Plugins can be written by anyone, and I'm going to great lengths to make it as simple as possible -- it's about ~15 or so functions to implement and we can plug in virtually any package format or service into OneGet.

[FYI -- I'm @FearTheCowboy everywhere else, my /. id is so old that my name got trimmed from "His Name Cannot Be Spoken" 15ish years ago when they did a database adjustment... ]

I have had thoughts on how to do this; I suspect that while we may not set up a repo to do that, I may hack out the instructions on how that could be done easily if one wanted to maintain their own.

It really boils down to how much time I can throw at that.

Of course, we also want it to plug into WU and WSUS, but that'll be a bit more down the road.

You know, I just put together now that "SJW" is intended to be an acronym for "Social Justice Warrior" (which is in turn intended to be a derogatory phrase meaning, as far as I can tell, "uppity feminist"). For some weeks now, I have been pondering what the internet has against straight (or single) Jewish women. Now it makes a lot more sense.

That the "reasonable" faction of the male IT world - that the parent poster would like to think he represents - seems to believe that the SJW caricature represents a non-trivial force that is conspiring against him is troubling. That the acronym SJW exists and is presumably widely understood in his circles is rather more revealing about (his part of) "IT culture" than he probably thinks.

Don't get me wrong, the parent poster is better than the grandparent asshole who believes all rapes are imaginary--but just being better than the anonymous trolling asshole isn't setting a high bar.

When it's an infraction that is easy to avoid? Yeah, sign me up. (And what's this "permanent unemployment" nonsense?)

No one accidentally has a beer, and no one accidentally gets behind the wheel of a car. If there were a way to ensure that selfish assholes only put their own lives at risk, that would be one thing--but this situation isn't that. Incidentally, I feel the same way about the people who think they're still good drivers when they're on their cell phones. (To be clear, that's everyone who is driving while using a portable electronic device. No, you aren't special.)

Not quite true. You have to be white, and preferably wealthy or a member of a police force, and preferably directing that violence toward a person of color. Being from a red state helps, too.