You're making a classic mistake there. When matter gets converted into energy gravitation doesn't care. It cares about the total mass-energy. Which doesn't change. So while the emitted photons do not have mass they do have energy which of course has a mass equivalent.
In a closed system* even if there are nuclear reactions taking place the mass-energy of the system does not change.
*to actually do this you'd have to contain all the mass and photons and neutrinos, which we don't know how to do, but the point stands...

Why is it so hard to imagine that there is a particle that interacts with gravity but not electromagnetically? That's really what this comes down to.
Remember you only touch that key on the keyboard because of photon interactions.
Are you happy with the existence of Neutrinos? These particles that barely interact with normal matter or do you think they are purely there to balance formulas too? (okay that's why they were originally there but not anymore)

Not to disagree with your point, but at least WebMD would tell you that you need drugs rather than the faith healer down the road. That might then get you to do something to get those drugs (either go to the next town for them, or try and get social changes so that you have better access to them for the next time). As things stand without the knowledge they may go to that faith healer and then blame the failure on God's will instead of things they might be able to change in their society.
Knowledge is always the first step.

Why?
Speaking as a citizen/subject of a western democracy, things are pretty good at the moment. Most laws work, most things work, it's the new stuff they keep proposing that sucks.
The problem is that we have governments with that majority you like the idea of and they keep changing the laws and are making things worse. If they spent more time arguing with each other so that only the really really good laws made it while all the stupid laws got tied up in knots then i believe things woiuld get even better.
Or you go the other extreme and have a dictator who at least gets things done and has a clear vision removing inefficiencies. But let's not go there because I might be one of those inefficiencies (s)he wants removed.

Not to mention the fact that a time travelling immortal would eventually become every person in the universe, then compose all mass of the universe then...

He has to die some time!

Many WLAN chipsets today use SDR(software defined radio), so most of the design is just a big DSP - so more clock speed = more complex algos. Alternatively since you'd likely have multiple channels in operation each of which probably has its own DSP by going faster you could put multiple channels onto a single DSP so save silicon area.
Or if you had hardened part of the algos into custom logic you could ease the memory latency requirements/move the hardened parts into DSP to save area.
Or move parts of the design that had to use onboard memories to use external memory to save area.

Lots of options and that's without me knowing the details of the design in question. As a general rule your 3 limits in a design like this are process speed, available area and external memory bandwidth; you're always at the limit for all 3 in any design, if you're not then you're wasting money

No, the clock signal needs to time between two connecting flip flops nothing more. It's extremely common (i.e. it's about 5% of my job) to have to change the design in order to achieve this local clocking requirement.
That's without having multiple asynchronous clocks on a single chip.
Or asynchronous logic

Even when you need to do very long paths it's called a clock tree for a reason you can have a 1GHz clock that takes several ns to get from its source PLL to its destination flop because the delay through the tree to all the leaf nodes is matched. that is a 1ns period clock can take 4ns to get from the source to the destination, and that's all fine because as long as it's the same 4ns...
  Now things get harder when different bits of the chip have silicon that runs at different speeds so you can't balance the tree like you'd like to, but that's what makes this job interesting ;-)

"And garbage collection has no place on a mobile device."
I would change and say that garbage collection has no place on an real time application, and I believe a mobile device should run an RTOS, even though no modern ones do.
Garbage collection is a great tool if you have sufficient memory and no real time requirements.
GC can help make programs more readable and programs should be written for humans to read and only incidentally for machines to execute. However in the many situations where it is not appropriate we shouldn't be using it and UIs are one of those.

But isn't this the way it should be, you knock up a prototype in the most convenient language for the job, then profile it, then improve it where it needs improving?

Unless that is what makes the John Hurt doctor not a doctor, because he hurt someone else to save himself.
It would explain all the comments made by the doctor in the last episode!

Well it would explain the capabilities of the sonic screwdriver. they could just call it a wand and be done with it

So the theory is that Paul McGann ages and becomes John Hurt?
Either way I'd buy it as long as he doesn't start going on about being Half human again...

When 1 changed into 2 it was called rejuvenated.
2 into 3 was a punishment by the timelords
3 into 4 was "a trick" (can't remember if the monk called it regeneration)
4 into 5 it onwards definitely called regeneration.

Like mobile phones are opt in. Like the internet is opt in. Like submitting your CV to recruitment agencies in MS Word or even PDF format is opt in.
It may get to the point where to be a functioning member of society you "have" to wear them.
Hopefully by that stage competition has stepped in and given us other less evil options, but maybe not.

So let me get this straight.
Rather than saying "I bought the second hand Fiat because it was cheaper than the Ford" you say "I bought the second hand Fiat that is actually on its third owner not including the garage and distributor and Fiat themselves because even though it has significantly higher maintenance costs given the likely probability of breakdown and usage patterns for a typical but not necessary same demographic as myself; when you factor in the expected costs of depreciation on a new model and the relevant tax, servicing and inflationary costs together with the differences in insurance and fuel economy for predicted driving conditions for by planned lifestyle as anticipated for a car like the Ford it would have proved to be more expensive than the predicted benefits would merit"

I bet you're a lot of fun at social events.
Normal sane discussion allows one party to assume verbal shorthands. If you forbid their use as you are trying to do with me then sensible discussion is impossible.
I knew that equipment costs included more than the simple BOM. You knew that too. Where is the problem and why are you trying to dismiss the rest of my argument because of this pointless semantic squabbling?

Can you explain this please, I don't get your argument.
I was referring to:

As far as I am aware finding the price of something by it's value to society is a good thing. How would you rather it worked?
The alternative I can see is that some things are socially or politically favoured and so are forced down our throats whether it's a good idea or not. As long as all costs* are taken into account then what's the problem?
*As a counter example I know not all costs of coal are taken into account, and they should be and this is a failing of capitalism but that's not related to the paying for the energy content of something which was the point of the OP.