....The efficiency of transporting power over a line vs. using a truck....
That depends on what the truck is carrying and how efficiently that can be turned into electricity. An 8000 gallon truckload of diesel fuel contains about 1,328,000,000BTU of energy. If all of that could be converted to electricity, it would come to 389,198 kilowatt hours. One of the largest power lines in the USA, the 500,000 Volt DC, roughly 850 mile Pacific Intertie from the Columbia River to Sylmar CA, can carry a full load of about 3100 megawatts. Therefore, that line is able to carry a truckload of diesel fuel energy equivalent about every 7 and a half minutes. A pipe line would need to transport a little over 1000 gallons/minute of fuel for the energy equivalent of that electrical transmission line. For perspective, the power coming down that line will run about 3 million households.
Because I'm feeling lazy right now, I'll leave it to someone else to figure out what the losses on that power line and practical conversions might be as compared to the the cost of driving that truck.
...I would expect similar results for energy storage....
You are confusing the storage of a physical thing, such as energy with storage with a non-physical thing, such as information. Information itself is not physical in the same way that energy is. Matter itself is the densest means of storing energy, but this energy is not easily accessed. The best we have done so far is nuclear fission.
Electricity is the most versatile form of energy, but it cannot be easily stored with present technology. I must be converted as needed from some other form, usually chemical energy in batteries or some sort of fuel. If the electrical energy equivalent of a gallon of diesel fuel could be stored in an equal weight and volume battery, most, if not all other forms of energy storage would disappear. Electricity can be converted cheaply and easily into movement of objects and heat.
....The whole reason we went with AC is that the transmission losses are lower.....
Not so. The electrical transformer is the reason why AC was adopted, rather than DC. Transformers don't work with DC, but enable the easy distribution of power from the big power plants to your wall socket.
For really high point to point, really long distance power transmission, DC is more efficient because more power can be transmitted at any given voltage.
As an alternative, the solar generated electricity could be used to make hydrogen which then could be used for transportation and storage for places and times where the sun doesn't shine. There are already gas pipelines cris-crossing the US, some of which could be used to ship hydrogen for later conversion into electricity by fuel cells for the grid and in cars.
In sunny spots, such as the Sahara, solar energy turned into hydrogen could be major export article for those nations.
Thanks for the interesting and informative exchange on this subject. It is also a refreshing change from what often happens even here on/. that there was no personal invective or name calling or other put downs.
No, I use Parallels 3.0 with something they call Coherence. Coherence makes the Windows desktop disappear. The Windows app then runs on the Mac desktop in its own Window(s) next to any normal Mac program. After a while the fact that the program is a Windows program seems to become unnoticed, although of course it still looks like a Windows program, including whatever color theme I originally set up. I can even run two programs, one under XP and the other under Win2k, together with normal Mac apps
I have explored the Windows-Mac integration just for interest sake with various versions of Windows, but I actually still regularly use only one program under Win2K. I can also open the virtual VM disks in OSX, without running Windows at all. The Win disk files mount in OSX like normal Mac disk images. This is handy to transfer files.
Ha, funny! Actually, VISTA runs acceptably well, once it boots that is, which seems to take forever. It does want plenty of RAM however. I use it mostly experimentally to test some apps, and learn about the OS itself and its networking peculiarities. Someone used to XP or older has quite a bit of learning to do, in order to use VISTA to its full capability.
I only have ONE Windows program left which I absolutely must have. That one runs well on Wink2k and needs no network access. So that's what I use, since it requires only 256M of RAM for the VM.
....They could demand that you never take ownership of the property...
Of course they could if you agree to such. Still that isn't intrinsic to IP or copyrightable items, but is true of anything. If I agree to a rent a futuristic car from a car maker, I must give it back and abide by whatever terms I agreed to.
In this case, the people that first obtained the CDs from the labels did not keep their supposed or implicit agreements with the labels. They are the one the labels should haul into court, not the guy who found or otherwise legally obtained those otherwise legitimate copies and is now selling those on ebay. He never made an agreement, implicit or explicit with anyone.
Yes indeed, your link gives lots of THEORETICAL flaws for the Mac OSX. Even so, there are no practical computer vermin for Macs out in the wild taking advantage of the many supposed flaws. I wonder why not.
Apple has a good thing going in that they seem to be able to support OSX or a selected subset thereof on most any hardware they want. It runs on PPC, x86 and ARM processors as in the iPhones. I have Win2K, XP and VISTA all installed and running as a VM file on my Intel Mac under OSX. VISTA is the slowest of all, but runs just fine. I tried Linux and it ran OK also, but I erased that again since it is very similar to OSX itself.
I think that eventually, virtualization is the future of computing, where a given hardware will be able to run any OS and its attendant applications. The real OS will be a simple VM manager that talks to the physical hardware. Aside from legal issues, even OSX could be run this way on any physical hardware that the VM can control.
If I rent a video or book, it is no different from any other object I rent such as a carpet cleaning machine. It belongs to the rental store, not he label or cleaning machine maker.
If I "lose" that legitimate copy and pay the rental store for it, there is no violation of law. If I later "find" that video, I don't have to give it back. It is mine. I may offer to give it back in exchange for a refund. Copyright doesn't enter into it, but the rental agreement I signed does. If I legally obtain a copy of a work, I ALWAYS own THAT copy. Copyright doesn't give the copyright owner any control over what I do with THAT copy. That carrier and its content are mine, just like any other object I own.
If I make a copy of the video or show it publicly, then obviously I violated copyright law.
....you got a copy or not and how legal that copy is....
Does that mean if I unknowingly buy or find a pirated copy of a CD, I can be convicted of violating some portion of copyright law? Would it not be necessary to prove that I made that copy illegally? Of course, if I had thousands of such copies, that would be another matter.
I suppose that if the copyright holder can prove that the copy I have is illegally made, they can make me give it up.
Copyright law itself doesn't allow the owner of the copyright to attach additional strings of use to an otherwise legitimate copy. Maybe under contract law, if they can prove that I had a proper agreement with them, they may be able to add some control that copyright law doesn't give them. If I sign an agreement with say Honda that I will never drive the free car they are giving me in the state of Washington, then they could hold me to that.
If the guy selling the CD's did not steal those, but got them legitimately, say found them in a dumpster, he would have no agreement with anyone. Whoever threw or gave them away may have had an agreement not to dispose of them. The labels could go after them for violating the agreement, but the guy who found them or bought them in a second hand store is not answerable to the labels.
...Macs are no longer safer than MS products sorry to say...
So how many viruses, trojans spyware etc. are there out on the net for Windows? Tens of thousands? How many for Macs? Like my sig. says; it's the practice, not the gray theory that counts. The Windows market share argument is empty also. I really don't care WHY my Mac house doesn't get burgled. The fact is Macs out there in the real world seem to get bypassed by all the malware. How many botnets of Macs are out there spewing spam and other digital pollution forth into cyberspace?
You are obviously a do-it-yourselfer in cars also. I am not averse to cracking open a computer, Mac or PC and tinkering with it. However your mother, like most people out there would be terrified at worst or baffled at best, looking in the guts of a computer. Just two days ago I rescued a HD out of a 2001 vintage Mac laptop someone had spilled a can of soda pop into. That ended the poor thing's life, (blew the power supply) but I was able to extract the data.
Like most/. readers we LIKE computers and enjoy tinkering with them. Since the deep software insides of Macs are open, just like Linux, they can be tinkered with many of the same commands that all UNIX heritage computers understand.
Yes and just like car drivers don't much care what is under the hood. They just want to go from place to place without stopping at too many gas stations and repair shops along the way.
Macs are safer and more consistent for the vast majority of users who rightly don't and should not have to care what makes it go. For those who like to tinker with the innards of the computer software, Linux is far better. For those who like to play games and run and anti-virus software, Windows is the way to go. For everybody else, Macs are the equivalent of a Honda. Our Hondas just run and run and run without missing a beat and without visiting neither the repair shop nor the gas station too often. Macs really are the computers for the "rest of us".
Basically all I'm saying is that there isn't much difference between the Democans and the Republicrats. Its six of one and a half dozen of the other. They both make promises which they know they cannot keep or maybe even have no intention of keeping. The left has a history of re-interpreting the constitution and the right simply ignores it.
....But if the "gift" was to let you listen to the CD under restrictions....
If someone gives me a CD, it doesn't matter WHAT stickers they put thereon. If it is a gift than I can do whatever I want. Copyright is exactly what it say, the right to make COPIES and distribute those illegally made copies. As long as I have a legal, official copy, copyright places no restriction on what I can do with those legal, official copies.
If I find those legal copies in a dumpster or someone "gave" them to me, the copyright holder has no higher rights over them than anyone else. If someone other than the copyright owner can prove they were stolen from them, they have the right to get them back. This is true of ALL property. Copyright law has NOTHING whatsoever to do with any of this. The copyright owners are trying to extend their reach WAY beyond what copyright law specifically says or intends. Once a legal copy is legally relinquished by a copyright owner, THAT legal copy is no different than any other property.
.....you already agreed to accept trial offerings....
Unless someone has my true signature on a paper, there is no way they can prove that I agreed to anything whatsoever. An agreement is a two way street. That's why those rip-open or click through "agreements" are worthless. Also, to enter a legally binding agreement, both parties have to be of age and of a sound mind. Just because I enter some sort of drawing or contest, doesn't give the one putting on the contest any legal right other than pertaining to the rules of the contest. They may disqualify me according to their rules.
The people who got around the "do not call" list were acting illegally and could have been sued. If I have a legal, official, copy of some copyrighted work, it is MINE, no matter what the copyright owner may think or wish. If I legally buy 10,000 copies of a book or video, I have the right to distribute those legal copies any way I wish. If I find them in some dumpster it would be the same, unless someone can prove they were stolen merchandise. In that case I would have to give those copies up to whoever can prove they are the rightful owner. This is true of any property. Copyright has nothing to do with that.
.....However, when Amazon does not have to charge sales tax....
Amazon doesn't CHARGE anybody sales taxes. All that NY wants to do is to force Amazon and other out of state entities into becoming tax collectors for NY. The question simply is this: Can NY enforce their laws in some other state? I think the answer is NO.
....for or against taxing sales derived from out of state...
The issue is simply this: Does NY have the constitutional right to force Amazon or other out of state online retailers to become their tax collector? They can and do tax the NY buyers who are supposed to pay the tax. Unless there is an agreement between states, one state cannot enforce its laws in another. Thats why there are criminal extradition agreements between states.
....Give the "taxes" to a corporation or to your local government....
The bottom line is the final amount. It's not like shipping costs are not included in the locally bought merchandise. Therefore, you even pay sales taxes on the shipping.
For relatively light, high priced items, shipping, even with high fuel costs, is still cheaper than the taxes. Local Fedex and UPS drivers and other employees pay taxes as well and contribute to the economy.
...It's about time they started requiring businesses to do this...
They do require all businesses WITHIN California to collect these taxes. However constitutionally, they cannot force businesses OUTSIDE of CA to do so. That is the entire issue here. NY wants to force Amazon and other online businesses into becoming tax collectors for NY or at the very least forcing them to become informers to the NY tax collectors about NY buyers and the amounts of sales to them. Armed with that knowledge, the NY tax collectors could then go after the NY buyers who did not pay the taxes they were supposed to.
Congress could make a law that all interstate sellers have to give lists of buyers and the amounts to each respective state that requests such a list. Each state's tax collector could then go after the tax evaders.
...will result in an increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of the population...
So what? Let the rich accumulate their wealth to their hearts content. Tax them as soon as they want to convert any of that wealth into goods and services. Tax them any time they buy anything at all, including things like real estate, stocks, bonds, and other transactions currently not taxed. Such a sales tax would have to be levied any time money changes owners. The tax rates could be tuned to be revenue neutral to the present taxes collected. The sates collect all taxes and then send the appropriate amount to the IRS.
....The result of such a tax plan would be n acceleration in the already great imbalances in wealth between the upper income and middle income groups...
So then the rich would be able to accumulate untold wealth, but would not be able to buy anything if ALL sales of every sort were taxed at some level. If a rich person wants to enjoy his or her wealth, eventually they would have to buy something, say an expensive car, a yacht, or a fancy mansion by the seashore. They key would be a universal sales tax that would apply to ALL property, whether physical or not. There could not be any buying or selling of ANYTHING, without the taxman getting his cut. Under such rules, the income tax and its attendant complexity could be eliminated.
...New York's tax is, for all practical purposes, an import tax...
So what? They can tax the one who imports the tax, ie, the NY customers of Amazon. What NY cannot do is force Amazon to collect the tax for them. Amazon and all other out of state sellers should just ignore them. Let NY try to force them to collect the sales tax. I wonder what court of law they would try this in.
....They have no legal right to demand that Amazon, an out of state seller...
If Amazon or other out of state retailer simply ignores NY's law, could they be called to a NY state court to answer why they are not complying with that law? It seems to me that NY laws and courts have no jurisdiction over a resident or business in another state. Isn't that why there has to be an extradition proceeding in criminal cases?a Since the out of state retailer isn't committing a crime, they should be able to safely ignore any legal summons from the state of NY. Would they not have to get the Federal Courts or other Federal agency involved?
...The job of our courts is to interpret the Constitution's intent...
Not, the job of the court is to obey what exactly the constitution SAYS. Words have meaning and that meaning of the actual words is what the court has to ascertain and follow. Of course the liberals DO want the courts to play fast an loose with the true meaning and interpret the intent, rather that what is says. The current administration just simply ignores the parts of the constitution that don't fit with their agenda. The congressional democrats acquiesce to that gutting of the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
....The efficiency of transporting power over a line vs. using a truck ....
That depends on what the truck is carrying and how efficiently that can be turned into electricity. An 8000 gallon truckload of diesel fuel contains about 1,328,000,000BTU of energy. If all of that could be converted to electricity, it would come to 389,198 kilowatt hours. One of the largest power lines in the USA, the 500,000 Volt DC, roughly 850 mile Pacific Intertie from the Columbia River to Sylmar CA, can carry a full load of about 3100 megawatts. Therefore, that line is able to carry a truckload of diesel fuel energy equivalent about every 7 and a half minutes. A pipe line would need to transport a little over 1000 gallons/minute of fuel for the energy equivalent of that electrical transmission line. For perspective, the power coming down that line will run about 3 million households.
Because I'm feeling lazy right now, I'll leave it to someone else to figure out what the losses on that power line and practical conversions might be as compared to the the cost of driving that truck.
...I would expect similar results for energy storage....
You are confusing the storage of a physical thing, such as energy with storage with a non-physical thing, such as information. Information itself is not physical in the same way that energy is. Matter itself is the densest means of storing energy, but this energy is not easily accessed. The best we have done so far is nuclear fission.
Electricity is the most versatile form of energy, but it cannot be easily stored with present technology. I must be converted as needed from some other form, usually chemical energy in batteries or some sort of fuel. If the electrical energy equivalent of a gallon of diesel fuel could be stored in an equal weight and volume battery, most, if not all other forms of energy storage would disappear. Electricity can be converted cheaply and easily into movement of objects and heat.
....The whole reason we went with AC is that the transmission losses are lower.....
Not so. The electrical transformer is the reason why AC was adopted, rather than DC. Transformers don't work with DC, but enable the easy distribution of power from the big power plants to your wall socket.
For really high point to point, really long distance power transmission, DC is more efficient because more power can be transmitted at any given voltage.
....would take A LOT more transmission lines....
As an alternative, the solar generated electricity could be used to make hydrogen which then could be used for transportation and storage for places and times where the sun doesn't shine. There are already gas pipelines cris-crossing the US, some of which could be used to ship hydrogen for later conversion into electricity by fuel cells for the grid and in cars.
In sunny spots, such as the Sahara, solar energy turned into hydrogen could be major export article for those nations.
Thanks for the interesting and informative exchange on this subject. It is also a refreshing change from what often happens even here on /. that there was no personal invective or name calling or other put downs.
Have a good day!
Armin
...have you had much success with Fusion ...
No, I use Parallels 3.0 with something they call Coherence. Coherence makes the Windows desktop disappear. The Windows app then runs on the Mac desktop in its own Window(s) next to any normal Mac program. After a while the fact that the program is a Windows program seems to become unnoticed, although of course it still looks like a Windows program, including whatever color theme I originally set up. I can even run two programs, one under XP and the other under Win2k, together with normal Mac apps
I have explored the Windows-Mac integration just for interest sake with various versions of Windows, but I actually still regularly use only one program under Win2K. I can also open the virtual VM disks in OSX, without running Windows at all. The Win disk files mount in OSX like normal Mac disk images. This is handy to transfer files.
....A glutton for punishment...
Ha, funny! Actually, VISTA runs acceptably well, once it boots that is, which seems to take forever. It does want plenty of RAM however. I use it mostly experimentally to test some apps, and learn about the OS itself and its networking peculiarities. Someone used to XP or older has quite a bit of learning to do, in order to use VISTA to its full capability.
I only have ONE Windows program left which I absolutely must have. That one runs well on Wink2k and needs no network access. So that's what I use, since it requires only 256M of RAM for the VM.
....They could demand that you never take ownership of the property ...
Of course they could if you agree to such. Still that isn't intrinsic to IP or copyrightable items, but is true of anything. If I agree to a rent a futuristic car from a car maker, I must give it back and abide by whatever terms I agreed to.
In this case, the people that first obtained the CDs from the labels did not keep their supposed or implicit agreements with the labels. They are the one the labels should haul into court, not the guy who found or otherwise legally obtained those otherwise legitimate copies and is now selling those on ebay. He never made an agreement, implicit or explicit with anyone.
....Hard numbers...
Yes indeed, your link gives lots of THEORETICAL flaws for the Mac OSX. Even so, there are no practical computer vermin for Macs out in the wild taking advantage of the many supposed flaws. I wonder why not.
Apple has a good thing going in that they seem to be able to support OSX or a selected subset thereof on most any hardware they want. It runs on PPC, x86 and ARM processors as in the iPhones. I have Win2K, XP and VISTA all installed and running as a VM file on my Intel Mac under OSX. VISTA is the slowest of all, but runs just fine. I tried Linux and it ran OK also, but I erased that again since it is very similar to OSX itself.
I think that eventually, virtualization is the future of computing, where a given hardware will be able to run any OS and its attendant applications. The real OS will be a simple VM manager that talks to the physical hardware. Aside from legal issues, even OSX could be run this way on any physical hardware that the VM can control.
...If you rented it from a video rental store,...
If I rent a video or book, it is no different from any other object I rent such as a carpet cleaning machine. It belongs to the rental store, not he label or cleaning machine maker.
If I "lose" that legitimate copy and pay the rental store for it, there is no violation of law. If I later "find" that video, I don't have to give it back. It is mine. I may offer to give it back in exchange for a refund. Copyright doesn't enter into it, but the rental agreement I signed does. If I legally obtain a copy of a work, I ALWAYS own THAT copy. Copyright doesn't give the copyright owner any control over what I do with THAT copy. That carrier and its content are mine, just like any other object I own.
If I make a copy of the video or show it publicly, then obviously I violated copyright law.
....you got a copy or not and how legal that copy is....
Does that mean if I unknowingly buy or find a pirated copy of a CD, I can be convicted of violating some portion of copyright law? Would it not be necessary to prove that I made that copy illegally? Of course, if I had thousands of such copies, that would be another matter.
I suppose that if the copyright holder can prove that the copy I have is illegally made, they can make me give it up.
Copyright law itself doesn't allow the owner of the copyright to attach additional strings of use to an otherwise legitimate copy. Maybe under contract law, if they can prove that I had a proper agreement with them, they may be able to add some control that copyright law doesn't give them. If I sign an agreement with say Honda that I will never drive the free car they are giving me in the state of Washington, then they could hold me to that.
If the guy selling the CD's did not steal those, but got them legitimately, say found them in a dumpster, he would have no agreement with anyone. Whoever threw or gave them away may have had an agreement not to dispose of them. The labels could go after them for violating the agreement, but the guy who found them or bought them in a second hand store is not answerable to the labels.
...Macs are no longer safer than MS products sorry to say...
/. readers we LIKE computers and enjoy tinkering with them. Since the deep software insides of Macs are open, just like Linux, they can be tinkered with many of the same commands that all UNIX heritage computers understand.
So how many viruses, trojans spyware etc. are there out on the net for Windows? Tens of thousands? How many for Macs? Like my sig. says; it's the practice, not the gray theory that counts. The Windows market share argument is empty also. I really don't care WHY my Mac house doesn't get burgled. The fact is Macs out there in the real world seem to get bypassed by all the malware. How many botnets of Macs are out there spewing spam and other digital pollution forth into cyberspace?
You are obviously a do-it-yourselfer in cars also. I am not averse to cracking open a computer, Mac or PC and tinkering with it. However your mother, like most people out there would be terrified at worst or baffled at best, looking in the guts of a computer. Just two days ago I rescued a HD out of a 2001 vintage Mac laptop someone had spilled a can of soda pop into. That ended the poor thing's life, (blew the power supply) but I was able to extract the data.
Like most
....Because much like Mac users....
Yes and just like car drivers don't much care what is under the hood. They just want to go from place to place without stopping at too many gas stations and repair shops along the way.
Macs are safer and more consistent for the vast majority of users who rightly don't and should not have to care what makes it go. For those who like to tinker with the innards of the computer software, Linux is far better. For those who like to play games and run and anti-virus software, Windows is the way to go. For everybody else, Macs are the equivalent of a Honda. Our Hondas just run and run and run without missing a beat and without visiting neither the repair shop nor the gas station too often. Macs really are the computers for the "rest of us".
Basically all I'm saying is that there isn't much difference between the Democans and the Republicrats. Its six of one and a half dozen of the other. They both make promises which they know they cannot keep or maybe even have no intention of keeping. The left has a history of re-interpreting the constitution and the right simply ignores it.
....But if the "gift" was to let you listen to the CD under restrictions....
If someone gives me a CD, it doesn't matter WHAT stickers they put thereon. If it is a gift than I can do whatever I want. Copyright is exactly what it say, the right to make COPIES and distribute those illegally made copies. As long as I have a legal, official copy, copyright places no restriction on what I can do with those legal, official copies.
If I find those legal copies in a dumpster or someone "gave" them to me, the copyright holder has no higher rights over them than anyone else. If someone other than the copyright owner can prove they were stolen from them, they have the right to get them back. This is true of ALL property. Copyright law has NOTHING whatsoever to do with any of this. The copyright owners are trying to extend their reach WAY beyond what copyright law specifically says or intends. Once a legal copy is legally relinquished by a copyright owner, THAT legal copy is no different than any other property.
.....you already agreed to accept trial offerings ....
Unless someone has my true signature on a paper, there is no way they can prove that I agreed to anything whatsoever. An agreement is a two way street. That's why those rip-open or click through "agreements" are worthless. Also, to enter a legally binding agreement, both parties have to be of age and of a sound mind. Just because I enter some sort of drawing or contest, doesn't give the one putting on the contest any legal right other than pertaining to the rules of the contest. They may disqualify me according to their rules.
The people who got around the "do not call" list were acting illegally and could have been sued. If I have a legal, official, copy of some copyrighted work, it is MINE, no matter what the copyright owner may think or wish. If I legally buy 10,000 copies of a book or video, I have the right to distribute those legal copies any way I wish. If I find them in some dumpster it would be the same, unless someone can prove they were stolen merchandise. In that case I would have to give those copies up to whoever can prove they are the rightful owner. This is true of any property. Copyright has nothing to do with that.
.....However, when Amazon does not have to charge sales tax....
Amazon doesn't CHARGE anybody sales taxes. All that NY wants to do is to force Amazon and other out of state entities into becoming tax collectors for NY. The question simply is this: Can NY enforce their laws in some other state? I think the answer is NO.
....for or against taxing sales derived from out of state ...
The issue is simply this: Does NY have the constitutional right to force Amazon or other out of state online retailers to become their tax collector? They can and do tax the NY buyers who are supposed to pay the tax. Unless there is an agreement between states, one state cannot enforce its laws in another. Thats why there are criminal extradition agreements between states.
....Give the "taxes" to a corporation or to your local government....
The bottom line is the final amount. It's not like shipping costs are not included in the locally bought merchandise. Therefore, you even pay sales taxes on the shipping.
For relatively light, high priced items, shipping, even with high fuel costs, is still cheaper than the taxes. Local Fedex and UPS drivers and other employees pay taxes as well and contribute to the economy.
...It's about time they started requiring businesses to do this...
They do require all businesses WITHIN California to collect these taxes. However constitutionally, they cannot force businesses OUTSIDE of CA to do so. That is the entire issue here. NY wants to force Amazon and other online businesses into becoming tax collectors for NY or at the very least forcing them to become informers to the NY tax collectors about NY buyers and the amounts of sales to them. Armed with that knowledge, the NY tax collectors could then go after the NY buyers who did not pay the taxes they were supposed to.
Congress could make a law that all interstate sellers have to give lists of buyers and the amounts to each respective state that requests such a list. Each state's tax collector could then go after the tax evaders.
...will result in an increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of the population...
So what? Let the rich accumulate their wealth to their hearts content. Tax them as soon as they want to convert any of that wealth into goods and services. Tax them any time they buy anything at all, including things like real estate, stocks, bonds, and other transactions currently not taxed. Such a sales tax would have to be levied any time money changes owners. The tax rates could be tuned to be revenue neutral to the present taxes collected. The sates collect all taxes and then send the appropriate amount to the IRS.
....The result of such a tax plan would be n acceleration in the already great imbalances in wealth between the upper income and middle income groups...
So then the rich would be able to accumulate untold wealth, but would not be able to buy anything if ALL sales of every sort were taxed at some level. If a rich person wants to enjoy his or her wealth, eventually they would have to buy something, say an expensive car, a yacht, or a fancy mansion by the seashore. They key would be a universal sales tax that would apply to ALL property, whether physical or not. There could not be any buying or selling of ANYTHING, without the taxman getting his cut. Under such rules, the income tax and its attendant complexity could be eliminated.
...New York's tax is, for all practical purposes, an import tax...
So what? They can tax the one who imports the tax, ie, the NY customers of Amazon. What NY cannot do is force Amazon to collect the tax for them. Amazon and all other out of state sellers should just ignore them. Let NY try to force them to collect the sales tax. I wonder what court of law they would try this in.
....They have no legal right to demand that Amazon, an out of state seller...
If Amazon or other out of state retailer simply ignores NY's law, could they be called to a NY state court to answer why they are not complying with that law? It seems to me that NY laws and courts have no jurisdiction over a resident or business in another state. Isn't that why there has to be an extradition proceeding in criminal cases?a Since the out of state retailer isn't committing a crime, they should be able to safely ignore any legal summons from the state of NY. Would they not have to get the Federal Courts or other Federal agency involved?
...The job of our courts is to interpret the Constitution's intent ...
Not, the job of the court is to obey what exactly the constitution SAYS. Words have meaning and that meaning of the actual words is what the court has to ascertain and follow. Of course the liberals DO want the courts to play fast an loose with the true meaning and interpret the intent, rather that what is says. The current administration just simply ignores the parts of the constitution that don't fit with their agenda. The congressional democrats acquiesce to that gutting of the constitution.