The Telegraph said:E-readers get heavier with each book
E-readers are meant to let bookworms carry their entire libraries with them without any additional weight – but the devices actually get heavier every time a new text is downloaded. The weight difference is unlikely to make much difference to holidaymakers' baggage allowances, however, because each new tome is about as heavy as a single molecule of DNA.
Filling a 4GB Kindle to its storage limit would increase its weight by a billionth of a billionth of a gram. Prof John Kubiatowicz a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, explained in the New York Times last week that storing new data involves holding electrons in a fixed place in the device's memory.
Although the electrons were already present, keeping them still rather than allowing them to float around takes up extra energy – about a billionth of a microjoule per bit of data.
Using Einstein's E=mc² formula, which states that energy and mass are directly related, Prof Kubiatowicz calculated that filling a 4GB Kindle to its storage limit would increase its weight by a billionth of a billionth of a gram, or 0.000000000000000001g.
This is roughly equivalent to the weight of a small virus, while the equivalent number of books – about 3,500 – would weigh approximately two tons. E-readers could also become slightly heavier in the summer, because they would take on more energy from their exposure to sunlight, scientists explained. Graeme Ackland, of Edinburgh University, told the Guardian: "If Prof Kubiatowicz is really struggling with the extra weight, he is welcome to come to Edinburgh where it's cooler, and the lack of thermal energy in his Kindle will more than compensate."
mishrashubham said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8858355/E-readers-get-heavier-with-each-book.html
Why do they suddenly seem so desperate for space-fillers?
Jack21222 said:I think this is a pretty neat popular science article that might get some people thinking. Not everybody knows that energy adds to weight.
What's your specific problem with this article?
qspeechc said:I'm no scientist, but doesn't the 'extra' energy come from the battery, so would this not change the weight, or what?
mishrashubham said:The problem is that it doesn't make a point. Why not explain such things where they matters. Instead of for example telling people that living in skyscraper makes you age faster, explain how time dilation practically affects satellites.
I didn't like the article either. But at least I had the good sense not to read it.Jack21222 said:If you don't like the article, don't read it.
Jack21222 said:NO articles ever make a point. Why are you singling this one out?
mishrashubham said:Actually most articles do have a point.
@jimmy - lol
Jack21222 said:The point is to entertain and inform the reader. This article attempts to do both. It's your point I'm failing to see, not the article's.
mishrashubham said:I meant 'point' in the sense of 'A brief version of the essential meaning of something'. All I can gather from this article is that books get heavier if you store more data in it; but by an amount so small that it wouldn't matter in the slightest bit. Why not explain about nuclear energy sources and how they fundamentally utilize matter-energy equivalence. Mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That way, the significance of the concept would be underlined and if most people do not know that matter are energy are the same thing like you said, I'm sure they would find it pretty interesting.
Why talk about e-book reader of all things? Looks very random...
mishrashubham said:living in skyscraper makes you age faster,
Many people associate the equation E = mc^2 with nuclear energy sources, and it comes up a lot when discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This article makes it clear that the same equation is at play in all phenomena involving energy and mass. Rather interesting don't you think? No matter, when I hear you say that this is the lamest news article ever I get the feeling that you don't read as much news as I do.mishrashubham said:I meant 'point' in the sense of 'A brief version of the essential meaning of something'. All I can gather from this article is that books get heavier if you store more data in it; but by an amount so small that it wouldn't matter in the slightest bit. Why not explain about nuclear energy sources and how they fundamentally utilize matter-energy equivalence. Mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That way, the significance of the concept would be underlined and if most people do not know that matter are energy are the same thing like you said, I'm sure they would find it pretty interesting.
Why talk about e-book reader of all things? Looks very random...
mishrashubham said:I wonder how all this starts. Does a journalist just randomly thinks of something like this and goes to universities searching for professors who can explain and calculate trivial things like these? I don' t think the professors take the initiative.
Jack21222 said:Because so many people have an e-reader and so few people lived through a nuclear explosion.
Haha I knew this was coming.Jack21222 said:If you think you can do better, start your own newspaper or start writing freelance.
Is that a bad thing?Jack21222 said:As it stands, though, you're in the minority so far in this thread.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8020988/Einsteins-theory-of-relativity-works-on-a-human-scale-the-higher-you-are-the-faster-you-age.html article claims otherwise. I am not familiar with physics so I don't know who is right over here. Can anyone clear out this thing? Note: This would still be relevant to the discussion since it aims at judging the credibility of the article.Nihilist said:I thought clocks in the ISS went slower than at ground level. Can someone please correct me if I'm wrong?
An increase in straight line distance from a gravitational center will increase the rate at which a clock ticks but orbital velocity will force it to tick slower (compared to Earth surface). If we had a (rigid) skyscraper the altitude of the ISS orbit (or satellite at an impossible geosynchronous orbit), its rate of time will be faster.
Which is why I saidJimmy Snyder said:Many people associate the equation E = mc^2 with nuclear energy sources, and it comes up a lot when discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
referring to Jack's claim that some people don't know about the mass-energy equivalence.... and if most people do not know that matter are energy are the same thing like you said, I'm sure they would find it pretty interesting.
I think you are right. I only read the newspaper twice or thrice a week and even then only a few pages each time. This could be an insufficient sample size bias.Jimmy Snyder said:No matter, when I hear you say that this is the lamest news article ever I get the feeling that you don't read as much news as I do.
f95toli said:No, universities and research institutes have KT/PR departments that are actively (more or less) looking for stories that might be of interest to the media. They tend to like "fun" research like this, mainly because results from "real" research projects tend to be too complicated.
Also, don't underestimate how important it can be for individual scientist to get noticed by a newspaper, even if it for something you did for fun one afternoon.
I stand corrected. However, I still think any story about Paris Hilton has to be lamer than this one unless, of course, it involves pornography.mishrashubham said:I only read the newspaper twice or thrice a week and even then only a few pages each time.
An article can be considered "lame" if it lacks substance, is poorly written, or contains inaccurate information. It may also be considered "lame" if it is overly sensationalized or lacks relevance to current events.
One way to determine if an article is "lame" is to critically analyze the content and sources. Look for any biases, errors, or lack of evidence to support the claims made in the article. Additionally, assessing the writing style and structure can give insight into the overall quality of the article.
Yes, there are several red flags that could indicate a "lame" news article. These include clickbait headlines, lack of credible sources, excessive use of adjectives or emotional language, and a lack of fact-checking or verification of information.
While a "lame" news article may not be the most reliable or informative source, it can still have some value. It may provide a different perspective or opinion on a topic, or it could serve as a starting point for further research and investigation. However, it is important to verify any information from a "lame" article with more credible sources.
There are several ways to combat the prevalence of "lame" news articles, including fact-checking information before sharing it, supporting reputable news sources, and being critical of the content we consume. It is also important to promote media literacy and educate others on how to identify and avoid "lame" news articles.