Yes, but they can't really be expected to apply such a policy fairly. You probably need a coalition of some sort between senators who are outraged (or respond to their constituents' outrage), those who support the policy because it helps their foreign policy agenda and those who just want to help out the competition.
So by it's very nature a consumer boycott should be more fair and tougher to dismiss.
Boycott buying hard copies of the book, and make electronic copies widely available via bittorent. Simple test: If all the copied text was in quotes or italics, I would say he actually intended to attribute it. If not, it would appear that he was trying to claim it as is own, and only made up an excuse after he got caught. Which is it?
Why would you want to do that? It seems like he didn't bother to put serious work into his book (and tried to hide the fact by not citing his sources) so it's probably a waste of time to read it. You would be doing a disservice to anyone who downloaded it from you.
I don't know, when solar panel constructors and banks offer to install them for a monthly rate which is 80% of his electricity bill most people will listen.
It's debatable whether solar power will catch on when the effective cost is 120% or 90% of the price of electricity. But to claim that people won't switch until it costs effectively one fifth of what they currently have is pretty strange.
Exactly. That's often what it takes to attract every-man.
That's confusing enough where I can't be completely sure you are wrong.
Sorry, the payback needs to be under 3 years to have any chance at wide spread acceptance. Here's the cold hard reality: until we tax the living shit out of fossil fuel consumption, alternative energy sources will never gain traction.
Are you serious? 3 year payback time would be like printing money.
While I like the idea and evaluate it myself every few years, I have to mention that during a major credit crunch deflation is always a real possibility.
True, but even if the expected value equals the current price he's better off because his risk is reduced. Of course it could be that the price of electricity is expected to fall substantially but I think that's just not the case.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?