This sort of logic was present and functioning on the first steam-engines! You have such a system in your toilet — it closes the water-valve, when the "sensor" detects, the tank is full...

It'd be way safer to get a fan going to circulate the air than to crack the windows open. You really want car makers to open themselves up to having cars stolen easier?

Spinning fan will drain battery quickly. A slightly-open window will not make theft much easier — and the alarm will still go on, if the door is opened.

People do leave windows rolled-down a little on hot days as a matter of course. Would be nice, if the car could do it itself. And even close them back up, if rain starts.

* continuous monitoring will drain your battery, so you will come to a dead battery every time you go on vacation;

I have an outside temperature sensor, that radios figures to the display unit inside. Its puny little battery lasts a year... You too can get one at Home Depot.

the system will also have to monitor for precipitation

As I said, such sensors are already built into my car. The wipers start automatically, when the rain or snow hits the windshield.

there are better ways to spend ~100$ in parts and 5lb of weight.

All the hardware is already in the car. Just need to teach the existing software a new trick.

You want a machine to decide that for you...

No, I want it to decide for itself — when I am not there.

How would that make a difference? They're the government. They *are* all the money, right?

The government does have unlimited pockets, but the budgets of individual prosecuting agencies is limited...

And if they don't have the money now, can't they can just raise taxes during the next budget cycle to cover those costs?

It would still force prosecutors to be more restrained. If, for example, we paid $10K for each alleged felony and $5K for each misdemeanor, the guy in TFA would've been due $440K. Well, maybe, $430 if one of the felonies was downgraded to misdemeanor. Whether the agency has money or not, making the accused rich like that is embarrassing and prosecutors would be more careful. And, maybe, some of the funds may even come from the prosecutor's own bonus...

unlocking car boots, setting off windscreen wipers, locking brakes, and cutting the engine.

If a hacker can do all that, why can't the car itself open the windows slightly if the temperature inside gets high and there is no rain outside? All the hardware is already there — the sensors know both the inside temperature and whether anything is hitting the windshield (so wipers can turn automatically in rain).

Would've made returning to your car in the sunny lot more comfortable and even saved some lives.

So, to reform common law, instead of replacing it with civil law, you're making prosecutions capitalistic?

Gibberish.

Great... don't ever want to live in your imaginary world...

Please, do stay in your own.

Except we would be worse off

No. The change I propose would discourage big (guys or companies) from going after small (guys or companies) frivolously — when they don't care whether they win or lose, they just want the small to fold for fear of legal costs regardless of outcome. With my system, if you are sure of being right, you don't need to fear ruin upon winning.

because now on top of everything else the little guy has to pay the legal bills of the big company that screwed him over.

What "screwed over"? The judge/jury just ruled, that the "big company" was right. The loser ought to pay — whether he is large or little. The court has ruled and found him in the wrong. Pay up.

The legal fees should be capped

Maybe.

Small guy stretches his budget and pays $10,000 in legal fees. Big company's legal budget is $10 million.

If the target of the lawsuit (your hypothetical company) was forced to spend $10 million to defend itself, then, yes, $10 million it will be. Unless, maybe, the judge will tell them, they didn't need to feed 10 lawyers black caviar. But it is entirely possible that the parties' legal costs will be in different orders of magnitude — that may still be perfectly legitimate.

Now, granted, you may not be automatically entitled to all of your legal costs upon winning. But you certainly ought to be entitled to something. Something substantial. Like, say, $10K for each felony allegation, that did not hold — and $5K for each such alleged misdemeanor.

You might. And my system will help further discourage you from making a nuisance of yourself.

what do you do when one of those entities with large legal budgets initiates frivolous proceedings and wins precisely because they have said budget and the other guy doesn't?

They can already do that, so we would not be any worse off. My proposal would not seriously help those with large legal budgets — but it will help those with small ones.

It's no secret that prosecutors usually throw every charge they can at an alleged criminal

They wouldn't be doing it, if they — the prosecuting agency(ies) — faced non-trivial monetary loss for every charge, that did not hold up in court...

To keep it harder for entities — both private and governmental — with large legal budgets to initiate frivolous proceedings, the loser must pay winner. There is no such thing currently and even winning a suit can leave one with thousands of dollars in debt. It must become automatic and not require a separate lawsuit by the winner to recoup his legal costs.

people from Mexico are always going to try and flock from there to the US to work

Yes, and I don't blame them...

keeping them all out is an effort doomed to failure

Not at all. It is perfectly possible to a) block (most of) them from entering on the border; b) discourage all of them from entering by swiftly deporting those, who get through.

Catching them is easy — they don't exactly hide. We have done such deportations before — and they worked.

because Intel workers lose something like $35,000 worth of tools every year.

That sounds a lot cheaper than even a single one full-time engineer busy developing and maintaining this cool product. There must be some other motive...

Open source? You bet!

Yeah, because all of Intel's other software has been open source.

What's not to love about the company — and its careful PR campaign preparing the market for the demise of AMD? What a lovable corporation — I think, I have a thrill up my leg again.