Good stuff. The UK had a magnitude 5 earthquake in 2008. I believe the sum-total of the recorded damage was that one person's chimney collapsed, and a few plaster walls needed some poly-filler.
If a modern (sod it- even a truly ancient) power plant can't survive the likes of that unscathed, we really would need to shut them all down.
But seeing as Japan has god-only-knows how many nuclear power plants, and every single one survived one of the most devastating earthquake/tsunami events in their (very seismically active) recent history except for one, I'm thinking Germany is probably safe from that particular angle.
Another fun side effect is due to the carbon cap and trade scheme operated in the EU. If Germany wants to ramp up fossil fuel plants to solve the problem, they'll need to purchase carbon credits from "greener" nations (France with their nukes for one, and a lot of the smaller nations that have been going full tilt at renewables for two). And this from a country which is already (to paraphrase a BBC analyst who was on the news earlier today) close to "crippled" by "dangerously" high taxation levels.
On the bright side, it's good news for those smaller EU countries that have been lagging behind Germany in terms of growth. It'll be a bit like a sort of international redistribution of wealth! Fun times.
You're kidding yourself if you think chemical fuels are risk-free. Nuclear isn't without risks, and in an ideal world we'd have something better (like unlimited, ultra-efficient, cheap solar power). But for the time being, it's one of the best options we have (and far better than the only other serious competitors- coal and gas), and certainly not deserving of the ridiculous stigmatising heaped on it over the last few decades.
First someone publishes. Then their peers (other scientists) read the study and critique it. Some criticism will be sent direct to the authors, others will be published. The author reads the criticisms and responds, hoping to address the critics' concerns and shore up support for their article. IF they can't address the criticisms, the study is abandoned. IF they do manage to keep their study in good repute, it becomes a valid part of the scientific canon- and other researchers will try to replicate, disprove, or build on it experimentally (as is scientific BAU).
Personal attacks are obviously out of order, but alas, trolls and jerks exist in every walk of life. If you work in a place where there's not a single mouthy, tiresome arsehole then you're a very lucky person.
Hah, I always have the exact opposite thought whenever I hear Americans refer to the UK's leader as "Mr Prime Minister". Obama keeps doing it on this state visit, as did his predecessor. Bugs the crap out of me.
"Mr Prime Minister" is far too deferential (and not to mention cheesy) for British tastes. He should be referred to as "Mr Cameron", and only "the Prime Minister" in the same way as "the postman".
My Kodak inkjet MFU (with Wifi) was about £75. Equivalent colour laser MFU- about £300. Cartridge for my inkjet- £10 (last about 3 months each, separate carts for colour and B&W). Cost of colour toner- about £110. Lets pretend the toner cartridge will last 2 years (just a guess- I don't own one for comparative purposes, so it's tough to know how quickly my current use would burn through it).
That means the laser printer is only £25 cheaper in ink/toner every year, which means I'd have to own it for 9 years to break even. Even assuming the toner cartridges last longer than I guessed, that's still not exactly a stellar saving.
Obviously YMMV (I've never seen colour toner for UK equivalent of $90, so maybe it's just another one of those things where we're shafted compared to our amigos across the Atlantic).
If Scotland goes, will it pay back the remainder of the UK for having to bail out Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland? About £470 billion should cover it (that's about 300% of the Scottish GDP). That's an awful lot of North Sea gas that'll need pumpin' to pay off that bill.
SNP politicians used to talk of an "arc of prosperity" of North Atlantic nations, with the Scottish economy similarly aligned with those of Iceland, Ireland and Norway. Iceland and Ireland both went bankrupt, and Scotland would have done if RBS and HBOS didn't have the UK's large economy to prop them up. If nothing else, it proves nothing is plain sailing for a small independent European nation.
You illustrate, rather nicely, all that is wrong with these super-injunctions.
You assumed wrong- super-injunctions apply to everyone, regardless of whether they've heard of the super-injunction or not. Which is bizarre, as super-injunctions ban you from talking about the existence of the super-injunction (the second rule of super-injunctions is, NO TALKING ABOUT SUPER-INJUNCTIONS) making it highly unlikely that you'll know that there's a super-injunction not to talk about (and even less likely that you'll know what the exact details you're not allowed to talk about are). Even more bizarrely, some (not the Ryan Giggs one, but one taken by an actor recently) have been issued so that they apply to the entire world (a contra mundum order)- even the bits the judge doesn't have jurisdiction over! Most sources agree that if you want one of these orders for yourself, it'll set you back at least £50,000 (depending on your barrister).
It's enough to make Kafka's head spin.
A few months back, David Cameron (the PM) got his knickers in a twist because Google's founders (not sure which ones) told him that they could never have gotten started in the UK with our laws the way they are. With frivolous law-suits being fired off at Twitter and Wikipedia by any celebrity with a dirty secret, it's not hard to see what they meant.
And product placement is illegal in some places, and subject to various differing regulations in others. Unless a company is getting paid for it (in which case their lawyers will work out the specifics), it's usually easier for them just to blur and forget about it.
All in all, there would have to be an almighty cock-up to get rid of him. Like, say another vastly overpaid acquisition. There are 8.5b reasons why he should go today, but.. guess what BillG steps in and says the takeover of Skype was all his idea.
Aside from the Skype acquisition, Ballmer has also presided over Vista, the repeated failure of MSN Search/Windows Live Search to gain any market share (Bing is doing better, but is still an extremely distant follower of Google), the Zune media player (about 2% market share, last I heard), the Kin phones (hohoho), being generally wrong-footed once again with Tablet PCs, losing the "biggest tech company" title (to Apple, of all people)...
I know Bill has to take some of the blame for the earlier ones, but Steve has been CEO for a long while now. I don't want to rag on MS too hard (I'm not really a knee-jerk MS hater) but they've had so many headline-grabbing cock-ups in the last decade, I honestly can't imagine what CEO in any other company would have expected to have survived. If the shareholders haven't shifted him after all that, I don't think they ever will.
One of the main reasons for discounting MACHOs has been lack of observational evidence, in terms of micro-lensing. If this study is right (that there is considerably more sub-luminal interstellar bric-a-brac out there than the current received wisdom), then presumably that does somewhat change the numbers, and lessens the amount of WIMPs required to balance the books.
They're claiming that free-floating Jupiter-sized objects outnumber stars (presumably including brown and red dwarfs) 2:1. They don't make any claims about smaller objects due to observational limits, which means we're talking quite a considerable chunk of extra matter if they're correct.
I'm not going to make any Quixotic attempts to work out how much extra matter that is, but I really hope someone else does:)
The researchers taught them the words. the computers on board did not invent the words they used.
My understanding of the article is that the robot's did exactly that. The programmers put two robots together that they had intentionally not given any specific words to (although presumably the basic rules for how to form words must have been given, which you might perceive as the analogue to humans having a physically limited vocal range to play with). The robots then trial-and-errored their way through "conversations" until they had established a common set of words for locations, directions etc..
If you have a better article (TFA was pants) that contradicts that, I'd be thrilled for a link.
When they say "habitable", they aren't talking about habitable for you and me. No-one in their right mind would want to try to colonise another star system; and with the exception of most absurdly unlikely coincidence of a planet, even a "habitable" planet is going to be far less habitable than Antarctica or the Gobi.
The reason it is exciting to look for habitable planets is several-fold. For one, the discovery of life (in any form) will be absolutely staggeringly important- the most important event ever to happen, ever, and that's no exaggeration. Mars and Europa, while promising, are hardly sure-things. Secondly, even if there are critters on Mars and Europa, we can be reasonably sure there isn't an intelligent civilization there; while these "habitable" exoplanets might seem unappealing to humans, they might be the perfect home to whole planets of squat, red-skinned dwarves, just waiting for our phone call. Thirdly, learning about other planets (and Gliese is near enough that it should be possible to directly image these planets with relatively near-future telescopes) provides us with much information about our own planet, and the rest of the universe.
It boggles my mind that so many slashdotters have responded to this news with "what's the point if we can't go there". Discovering exoplanets at all would have seemed ludicrous even a couple of decades ago, and now we've not only seen lots of them, but know which ones might contain aliens, and are within a hair's breadth of being able to look at them directly. Isn't that impressive enough without needing to plant a flag on it?
I should point out that (at least for the UK) 100MB is incredibly poor- I don't know a single mobile broadband provider that will sell you that. Three (a provider; I'm not just naming random numbers) will sell you 1GB for £7 a month (roughly $11) with a free dongle, and Vodafone will do you 250MB (the lowest I could find) for £3 a month, £19 for the dongle ($4.80 and $30).
So you can only really subtract about £90 ($145). I suspect you can find some $350 laptops out there ($500, less $145) easily enough.
Obviously YMMV in terms of locally available dataplans, so perhaps it's a better deal where you live than where I live. Bearing in mind they're talking £400 for the 3G model Samsung Chromebook in the UK (that's about $650), it's looking even less attractive from where I'm sitting (lucky Americans...).
You can already buy Win7 Starter netbooks with the same or better hardware for less money than the article is quoting. If you just want to wipe it and put Linux on it, you'd be crazy to overpay for one of these.
The only reason you'd have for buying one of these is if the OS appeals to you, as that's what you're mostly paying for.
Why would you be comparing it to the iPad? Sure, it suffers from all the same drawbacks as the iPad (locked down environment, over-reliance on connectivity, etc.), but completely lacks the iPad's redeeming features (touch screen, tiny form-factor, and, er, an Apple logo).
You're better off comparing it to a cheap Win7 Starter / Linux / Android netbook. In the UK, Samsung is quoting £350 or £400 for the two versions of this- easily £100 more than the standard Samsung netbook with similar hardware (and a fuller OS). Why would I do that to myself?
100MB is presumably a US offer (as Verizon), but by UK standards that's not exactly impressive. I get 1GB a month on a fairly cheap package with my provider- and it's a rare month I don't burn through at least 100MB using just my phone.
100MB a month isn't exactly stellar, the hardware is nothing to write home about, and the software is a less flexible package than the standard that's out there (Win/Lin/Mac). I can definitely see the appeal- but not at that price.
When they release a Europe-side version for considerably less than £200, then I'll be interested.
English speech states the year last, and tends to have the month first.
Interestingly, not in countries which use the DD/MM/YYYY format. In the UK, it is quite uncommon to hear "May the 8th 2011", and far more common to hear "8th of May 2011".
I've often wondered about that in a chicken-and-egg sort of way. Was it the American turn of phrase, with the month first, that led to the US MM/DD/YYYY annotation, or is it the fact that the MM/DD/YYYY annotation is a US standard that has led people to adopt that turn of phrase? And vice versa for the UK?
Almost all major Western countries are suffering the same problem. Just because they're all equipped with the same primitive grid systems, it doesn't make it any less of a problem.
The grids as they stand were mostly designed 60 years to a century ago, principally for powering a few factories and keeping the street lights on. They just aren't designed for handling the intermittent power generation from renewables like wind or solar, or dealing with the intense surges that come of quickly charging large battery cells (al a electric cars).
That's probably referring to something else (like radio communication range), as the top speed is given as 50 km/h (which would give it a battery life of about 3 minutes if it only had enough juice for 3 km/h).
I'm still unconvinced. From the MS Office 2003 help page:
Insert a picture from a file
Click where you want to insert the picture.
On the Insert menu, point to Picture, and then click From File.
Locate the picture you want to insert.
Double-click the picture you want to insert.
So, 3 clicks, plus locating the file location.
For 2010:
Click where you want to insert the picture in your document.
On the Insert tab, in the Illustrations group, click Picture.
Locate the picture that you want to insert. For example, you might have a picture file located in My Documents.
Double-click the picture that you want to insert.
2 clicks, plus locating the file. And just as much skimming through menus/buttons to find the command the first time.
Depending on your jurisdiction, failing to cancel a card when you have good reason to expect it has been stolen/compromised puts the liability back on you.
It's a nasty trick on the part of the banks, but a legally tested one that they may very well use on you if they're feeling tight-fisted that day. Don't risk it- order yourself a replacement card and move on.
If I want to insert something, I go under "insert" and then click on what I want to insert (header, picture, whatever).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the previous UI, were the steps not to click Insert > click on name of what you want to insert (picture, header, etc.)?
So, essentially, the same number of steps. The only difference being that different categories of "thing" I can do are arranged as a collection of easy to understand words, tucked away neatly along the top of my screen, with all the options appearing as a dropdown menu when clicked.
I find the "ribbon" frustrating, as it is essentially an arbitrarily new way of doing the same thing, with no perceivable benefit. I'm computer savvy, and can figure it out in due course; but for one why should I be needing to "figure out" anything when the tasks are so easy and should be so intuitive after all these years, and for two I can't imagine the hassle of training less confident users the new set-up, or manning the tech support lines during roll-out.
Slashdot Mirror
Good stuff. The UK had a magnitude 5 earthquake in 2008. I believe the sum-total of the recorded damage was that one person's chimney collapsed, and a few plaster walls needed some poly-filler.
If a modern (sod it- even a truly ancient) power plant can't survive the likes of that unscathed, we really would need to shut them all down.
But seeing as Japan has god-only-knows how many nuclear power plants, and every single one survived one of the most devastating earthquake/tsunami events in their (very seismically active) recent history except for one, I'm thinking Germany is probably safe from that particular angle.
Another fun side effect is due to the carbon cap and trade scheme operated in the EU. If Germany wants to ramp up fossil fuel plants to solve the problem, they'll need to purchase carbon credits from "greener" nations (France with their nukes for one, and a lot of the smaller nations that have been going full tilt at renewables for two). And this from a country which is already (to paraphrase a BBC analyst who was on the news earlier today) close to "crippled" by "dangerously" high taxation levels.
On the bright side, it's good news for those smaller EU countries that have been lagging behind Germany in terms of growth. It'll be a bit like a sort of international redistribution of wealth! Fun times.
Compared to conventional burnt (chemical) fuel, like fossil fuel, wood fired stoves, etc.?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-china-pollution.html
You're kidding yourself if you think chemical fuels are risk-free. Nuclear isn't without risks, and in an ideal world we'd have something better (like unlimited, ultra-efficient, cheap solar power). But for the time being, it's one of the best options we have (and far better than the only other serious competitors- coal and gas), and certainly not deserving of the ridiculous stigmatising heaped on it over the last few decades.
That's what students are for, surely?
On the contrary, this is peer review in action.
First someone publishes.
Then their peers (other scientists) read the study and critique it. Some criticism will be sent direct to the authors, others will be published.
The author reads the criticisms and responds, hoping to address the critics' concerns and shore up support for their article.
IF they can't address the criticisms, the study is abandoned.
IF they do manage to keep their study in good repute, it becomes a valid part of the scientific canon- and other researchers will try to replicate, disprove, or build on it experimentally (as is scientific BAU).
Personal attacks are obviously out of order, but alas, trolls and jerks exist in every walk of life. If you work in a place where there's not a single mouthy, tiresome arsehole then you're a very lucky person.
Hah, I always have the exact opposite thought whenever I hear Americans refer to the UK's leader as "Mr Prime Minister". Obama keeps doing it on this state visit, as did his predecessor. Bugs the crap out of me.
"Mr Prime Minister" is far too deferential (and not to mention cheesy) for British tastes. He should be referred to as "Mr Cameron", and only "the Prime Minister" in the same way as "the postman".
Different strokes I suppose.
My Kodak inkjet MFU (with Wifi) was about £75. Equivalent colour laser MFU- about £300. Cartridge for my inkjet- £10 (last about 3 months each, separate carts for colour and B&W). Cost of colour toner- about £110. Lets pretend the toner cartridge will last 2 years (just a guess- I don't own one for comparative purposes, so it's tough to know how quickly my current use would burn through it).
That means the laser printer is only £25 cheaper in ink/toner every year, which means I'd have to own it for 9 years to break even. Even assuming the toner cartridges last longer than I guessed, that's still not exactly a stellar saving.
Obviously YMMV (I've never seen colour toner for UK equivalent of $90, so maybe it's just another one of those things where we're shafted compared to our amigos across the Atlantic).
If Scotland goes, will it pay back the remainder of the UK for having to bail out Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland? About £470 billion should cover it (that's about 300% of the Scottish GDP). That's an awful lot of North Sea gas that'll need pumpin' to pay off that bill.
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7022678.ece
SNP politicians used to talk of an "arc of prosperity" of North Atlantic nations, with the Scottish economy similarly aligned with those of Iceland, Ireland and Norway. Iceland and Ireland both went bankrupt, and Scotland would have done if RBS and HBOS didn't have the UK's large economy to prop them up. If nothing else, it proves nothing is plain sailing for a small independent European nation.
You illustrate, rather nicely, all that is wrong with these super-injunctions.
You assumed wrong- super-injunctions apply to everyone, regardless of whether they've heard of the super-injunction or not. Which is bizarre, as super-injunctions ban you from talking about the existence of the super-injunction (the second rule of super-injunctions is, NO TALKING ABOUT SUPER-INJUNCTIONS) making it highly unlikely that you'll know that there's a super-injunction not to talk about (and even less likely that you'll know what the exact details you're not allowed to talk about are). Even more bizarrely, some (not the Ryan Giggs one, but one taken by an actor recently) have been issued so that they apply to the entire world (a contra mundum order)- even the bits the judge doesn't have jurisdiction over! Most sources agree that if you want one of these orders for yourself, it'll set you back at least £50,000 (depending on your barrister).
It's enough to make Kafka's head spin.
A few months back, David Cameron (the PM) got his knickers in a twist because Google's founders (not sure which ones) told him that they could never have gotten started in the UK with our laws the way they are. With frivolous law-suits being fired off at Twitter and Wikipedia by any celebrity with a dirty secret, it's not hard to see what they meant.
And product placement is illegal in some places, and subject to various differing regulations in others. Unless a company is getting paid for it (in which case their lawyers will work out the specifics), it's usually easier for them just to blur and forget about it.
All in all, there would have to be an almighty cock-up to get rid of him. Like, say another vastly overpaid acquisition. There are 8.5b reasons why he should go today, but.. guess what BillG steps in and says the takeover of Skype was all his idea.
Aside from the Skype acquisition, Ballmer has also presided over Vista, the repeated failure of MSN Search/Windows Live Search to gain any market share (Bing is doing better, but is still an extremely distant follower of Google), the Zune media player (about 2% market share, last I heard), the Kin phones (hohoho), being generally wrong-footed once again with Tablet PCs, losing the "biggest tech company" title (to Apple, of all people)...
I know Bill has to take some of the blame for the earlier ones, but Steve has been CEO for a long while now. I don't want to rag on MS too hard (I'm not really a knee-jerk MS hater) but they've had so many headline-grabbing cock-ups in the last decade, I honestly can't imagine what CEO in any other company would have expected to have survived. If the shareholders haven't shifted him after all that, I don't think they ever will.
One of the main reasons for discounting MACHOs has been lack of observational evidence, in terms of micro-lensing. If this study is right (that there is considerably more sub-luminal interstellar bric-a-brac out there than the current received wisdom), then presumably that does somewhat change the numbers, and lessens the amount of WIMPs required to balance the books.
They're claiming that free-floating Jupiter-sized objects outnumber stars (presumably including brown and red dwarfs) 2:1. They don't make any claims about smaller objects due to observational limits, which means we're talking quite a considerable chunk of extra matter if they're correct.
I'm not going to make any Quixotic attempts to work out how much extra matter that is, but I really hope someone else does :)
The researchers taught them the words. the computers on board did not invent the words they used.
My understanding of the article is that the robot's did exactly that. The programmers put two robots together that they had intentionally not given any specific words to (although presumably the basic rules for how to form words must have been given, which you might perceive as the analogue to humans having a physically limited vocal range to play with). The robots then trial-and-errored their way through "conversations" until they had established a common set of words for locations, directions etc..
If you have a better article (TFA was pants) that contradicts that, I'd be thrilled for a link.
When they say "habitable", they aren't talking about habitable for you and me. No-one in their right mind would want to try to colonise another star system; and with the exception of most absurdly unlikely coincidence of a planet, even a "habitable" planet is going to be far less habitable than Antarctica or the Gobi.
The reason it is exciting to look for habitable planets is several-fold. For one, the discovery of life (in any form) will be absolutely staggeringly important- the most important event ever to happen, ever, and that's no exaggeration. Mars and Europa, while promising, are hardly sure-things. Secondly, even if there are critters on Mars and Europa, we can be reasonably sure there isn't an intelligent civilization there; while these "habitable" exoplanets might seem unappealing to humans, they might be the perfect home to whole planets of squat, red-skinned dwarves, just waiting for our phone call. Thirdly, learning about other planets (and Gliese is near enough that it should be possible to directly image these planets with relatively near-future telescopes) provides us with much information about our own planet, and the rest of the universe.
It boggles my mind that so many slashdotters have responded to this news with "what's the point if we can't go there". Discovering exoplanets at all would have seemed ludicrous even a couple of decades ago, and now we've not only seen lots of them, but know which ones might contain aliens, and are within a hair's breadth of being able to look at them directly. Isn't that impressive enough without needing to plant a flag on it?
Fair enough.
I should point out that (at least for the UK) 100MB is incredibly poor- I don't know a single mobile broadband provider that will sell you that. Three (a provider; I'm not just naming random numbers) will sell you 1GB for £7 a month (roughly $11) with a free dongle, and Vodafone will do you 250MB (the lowest I could find) for £3 a month, £19 for the dongle ($4.80 and $30).
So you can only really subtract about £90 ($145). I suspect you can find some $350 laptops out there ($500, less $145) easily enough.
Obviously YMMV in terms of locally available dataplans, so perhaps it's a better deal where you live than where I live. Bearing in mind they're talking £400 for the 3G model Samsung Chromebook in the UK (that's about $650), it's looking even less attractive from where I'm sitting (lucky Americans...).
You can already buy Win7 Starter netbooks with the same or better hardware for less money than the article is quoting. If you just want to wipe it and put Linux on it, you'd be crazy to overpay for one of these.
The only reason you'd have for buying one of these is if the OS appeals to you, as that's what you're mostly paying for.
Why would you be comparing it to the iPad? Sure, it suffers from all the same drawbacks as the iPad (locked down environment, over-reliance on connectivity, etc.), but completely lacks the iPad's redeeming features (touch screen, tiny form-factor, and, er, an Apple logo).
You're better off comparing it to a cheap Win7 Starter / Linux / Android netbook. In the UK, Samsung is quoting £350 or £400 for the two versions of this- easily £100 more than the standard Samsung netbook with similar hardware (and a fuller OS). Why would I do that to myself?
100MB is presumably a US offer (as Verizon), but by UK standards that's not exactly impressive. I get 1GB a month on a fairly cheap package with my provider- and it's a rare month I don't burn through at least 100MB using just my phone.
Still doesn't explain the bizarre price.
100MB a month isn't exactly stellar, the hardware is nothing to write home about, and the software is a less flexible package than the standard that's out there (Win/Lin/Mac). I can definitely see the appeal- but not at that price.
When they release a Europe-side version for considerably less than £200, then I'll be interested.
English speech states the year last, and tends to have the month first.
Interestingly, not in countries which use the DD/MM/YYYY format. In the UK, it is quite uncommon to hear "May the 8th 2011", and far more common to hear "8th of May 2011".
I've often wondered about that in a chicken-and-egg sort of way. Was it the American turn of phrase, with the month first, that led to the US MM/DD/YYYY annotation, or is it the fact that the MM/DD/YYYY annotation is a US standard that has led people to adopt that turn of phrase? And vice versa for the UK?
Almost all major Western countries are suffering the same problem. Just because they're all equipped with the same primitive grid systems, it doesn't make it any less of a problem.
The grids as they stand were mostly designed 60 years to a century ago, principally for powering a few factories and keeping the street lights on. They just aren't designed for handling the intermittent power generation from renewables like wind or solar, or dealing with the intense surges that come of quickly charging large battery cells (al a electric cars).
(which would give it a battery life of about 3 minutes if it only had enough juice for 3 km/h).
Should be km, not km/h. Should have made better use of that there "preview" button...
That's probably referring to something else (like radio communication range), as the top speed is given as 50 km/h (which would give it a battery life of about 3 minutes if it only had enough juice for 3 km/h).
Article I saw gave it a battery life of 25 mins.
I'm still unconvinced. From the MS Office 2003 help page:
Insert a picture from a file
Click where you want to insert the picture.
On the Insert menu, point to Picture, and then click From File.
Locate the picture you want to insert.
Double-click the picture you want to insert.
So, 3 clicks, plus locating the file location.
For 2010:
Click where you want to insert the picture in your document.
On the Insert tab, in the Illustrations group, click Picture.
Locate the picture that you want to insert. For example, you might have a picture file located in My Documents.
Double-click the picture that you want to insert.
2 clicks, plus locating the file. And just as much skimming through menus/buttons to find the command the first time.
Depending on your jurisdiction, failing to cancel a card when you have good reason to expect it has been stolen/compromised puts the liability back on you.
It's a nasty trick on the part of the banks, but a legally tested one that they may very well use on you if they're feeling tight-fisted that day. Don't risk it- order yourself a replacement card and move on.
If I want to insert something, I go under "insert" and then click on what I want to insert (header, picture, whatever).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the previous UI, were the steps not to click Insert > click on name of what you want to insert (picture, header, etc.)?
So, essentially, the same number of steps. The only difference being that different categories of "thing" I can do are arranged as a collection of easy to understand words, tucked away neatly along the top of my screen, with all the options appearing as a dropdown menu when clicked.
I find the "ribbon" frustrating, as it is essentially an arbitrarily new way of doing the same thing, with no perceivable benefit. I'm computer savvy, and can figure it out in due course; but for one why should I be needing to "figure out" anything when the tasks are so easy and should be so intuitive after all these years, and for two I can't imagine the hassle of training less confident users the new set-up, or manning the tech support lines during roll-out.