Nothing is more instructive about modern times than the idea that a scientific question could meaningfully be addressed by an adversarial system like tort law. The best science is created without passion or controversy, but tort law is passion and controversy — it's intrinsic.

The climate change question will ultimately be decided — not by a group of scientists, not by objective evidence where that exists, and not by a court of law — but by individual couples worldwide who will ponder whether they should have more children. Evolution (a topic about which there is no serious debate) says they will decide to have as many children as they can manage, and they will rationalize their decision in ways that make up in ingenuity what they lack in reason. They will do this because they're the surviving offspring of people who were equally adept at rationalization (the reasonable ones died out long ago).

Think this is too extreme? Okay — imagine confronting someone who looks like Jessica Biel, thinks like Marilyn Vos Savant and has the fertility of Nadya Suleman (a.k.a. Octomom) — imagine trying to persuade her that three children is too many. And good luck.

Regardless of the truth or falsehood of anthropogenic global warming, there is nothing we can do about it without addressing global population, a topic that is much clearer in its causes and effects and yet entirely outside anyone's control without resort to totalitarianism (or universal education).

In other words, global warming is either a myth or a symptom, but world population is the disease.

Having read the comments and having given this issue much thought over the years, I have to say that only useful ideas will be preserved, and no one has 500GB of useful ideas. My point is that the fate of one's personal data archive is ultimately in the hands of others, and they decide what's important.

It could be worse. In the pre-technological era, apart from a small handful of writers, the closest thing to a persistent data archive was a gravestone encryption. On that basis, and with an appropriately skeptical view of the durability of storage media, choose a small handful of critical data items and engrave them onto a stone. This actually works -- there's a beach in Wrangell, Alaska that archives messages from a prehistoric native culture, engraved into stones. The messages make up with persistence what they lack in depth:

http://www.wrangell.com/visitors/attractions/history/petroglyph/index.html

The Nevada Lightning Lab article says, "Far fields are mostly radiative, and drop off linearly with distance." This isn't true. Once the radiator's size becomes small compared to the distance (the definition of "far field"), an electromagnetic field's intensity declines proportional to the square of distance. I bring this up because there are some very basic physical rules that affect all radiation-coupled energy systems, and it's misleading for people to make these kinds of claims, especially for a new technology likely to be marketed.

The 1/r^2 rule applies to nearly all fields -- electromagnetic, gravitational, even sound in air. People who makes these kinds of claims are either ignorant or are intent on selling you something that doesn't exist. Or both.

It's too bad the narrator tried to demonstrate his circuit-design skills. Near the end of the video he powers an LED by connecting it directly across a disc battery. The only reason he didn't burn up his LED is because the voltages and temperatures were just right, but even that lucky break might have evaporated over a matter of minutes as the LED warmed up. When operating LEDs, you always want to have a current-limiting resistor or circuit in place -- always. The reason is that an LED's voltage/current/temperature relationship contradicts naive assumptions about electrical conductors.

To say this concisely, unless you have an unlimited semiconductor budget, "boys and girls, don't try this at home!"