Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Yeah I’ve not been for over 15 years, I felt it was too crowded the last time I went hence why it took 3 hours standing in a queue for the a bus in the pouring rain.

I also think that did it.

I think the last year I went was 1990 and overcrowding was a large factor then.

Another one from a few days ago.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 3:35 pm
In my Glastonbury* going days, I used to divide the ticket price by the cost of going to see the bands I liked at individual gigs. From memory, the breakeven point was five so everything else was 'free'. By that calculation it was a bargain.

* and many other festivals

The price became a problem if you liked to see acts you hadn't heard of but were paying for big acts you didn't want to see. Plenty of cheaper and smaller festivals with great musicians but fewer names.

Youngian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 9:07 pm

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 3:35 pm
In my Glastonbury* going days, I used to divide the ticket price by the cost of going to see the bands I liked at individual gigs. From memory, the breakeven point was five so everything else was 'free'. By that calculation it was a bargain.

* and many other festivals

The price became a problem if you liked to see acts you hadn't heard of but were paying for big acts you didn't want to see. Plenty of cheaper and smaller festivals with great musicians but fewer names.

My fondest memories of Glastonbury are the acts I "discovered" there. Fortunately in those days (1980s) there were always around 10 name acts which I would have happily shelled out to see if they were playing locally.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 6:36 pm Another one from a few days ago.

This is a version of "this caused the grid failure in Spain".

There's a long report out now by the Spanish equivalent of National Grid which explains what happened there.

Lies, circumnavigation, truth, boots, etc.

We can never have a serious public debate about energy direction because the field is packed with zealots.
Thaasans of 'em, and on both sides.

A quick viewers guide:
* Should re-open the coal burners, hang on while I spark up my fifth ciggie of the interview.
* Not one penny for the green crap (gulf-state brown envelope in his back pocket).
* Windmills are an eyesore.
* Pylons make my cows sad.
* Wind and Hydro aren't green enough - do you know how much concrete's used in a windmill base.
* Shut it all down, a small nuclear reactor in every town - no need for a grid. (Edison would love this guy).
* Don't build renewables, wait for hydrogen / fusion.
* Close the gas networks immediately.
* More efficient devices will reduce demand.
* Ignore the boring hippies.

It's like they took "Logical Fallacies for Beginners" and wrapped an energy strategy around each one.

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:36 am We can never have a serious public debate about energy direction because the field is packed with zealots.
Thaasans of 'em, and on both sides.

[snip]

* Don't build renewables, wait for hydrogen / fusion.

Recently the subject of fusion energy came up BTL in the Guardian and one comment was that it's always been just a few years away since the 1950s, when it featured in a children's encyclopaedia the author inherited. This received a typically-Guardian reply of:

Didn't know you were an expert in plasma physics. I am. Its taking so long due to a serious lack of funding + arguments over the siting of test facilities. With this investment - which is still nothing compared to the investment in renewables and addressing the impact of climate change - we will hopefully see a faster rate of progress, especially with industry now involved both in the UK and elsewhere.

Yeah, I'll still believe it when I see it.

Whilst I can't find the source of the report I was sent, this covers it well.
https://portugaldecoded.substack.com/p/ ... d-operator

And it IS true - fusion power is one of the things that were going to happen in the post-war jet age (see also jetpacks and roads in the sky) then got ignored some time around the early seventies.

"TORUS" rings a bell. It has probably been ignored because people have long realised it is pie in the sky. The "cold fusion" thing didn't help either.

File alongside "engines that run on water, but we're not allowed to have".

I spend too much time watching YouTube videos about wonderful breakthroughs in renewable energy, greening of deserts and combating global warming. I never hear of about most of them again but I get a nice warm glow watching them and it's pleasing sinister algorithms aren't targeting me with the depressing politics of hate and fear.
But some are real and here's one to cheer you up in the heatwave; green bricks from the Netherlands
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16UsgWNeRX/

Apparently the Heathrow incident was caused by NG ignoring a fault reported some seven years ago - of excessive moisture getting where it shouldn't be in the transformer.

Nothing, as various mouth-breathers would have you believe, to do with Net Zero then.

Report here.

Worth clicking through this. Guess how the Telegraph amended the headline to make it all sound worse.

You've got it- it disregarded the savings as a result of the policy. So £100 a year, not £24 a year.

Ha ha ha.

Good.

Normal headline.

That's the 66743th time by my count, Heath.

What is it this time?

As I understand, the right are just as mad about rescuing Afghan allies as they are about the data breach. Because, you know, they risked everything supporting the west against the Taliban, but they're still brown so fuck 'em.