Actually, the track record of nuclear is excellent. In the West, a single accident nearly 40 years ago (TMI) with no victims. In fact, if all the other energy-producing methods were held to the standards of nuclear, you could never afford anything else...
Wind and solar will always only provide for peak demand, through massive overcapacity, because even occasional blackouts are unacceptable. You need a base supply, and if you cannot get hydro, the only clean alternative is nuclear.
Biogas is not something I am overly fond of. For heating from waste, it is a good option. For energy generation, not so much. And if you grow crops for that, I think it is really bad.
yes, I understand the deep desire of Germans to kill off the planet with CO2 rather than accepting that a) you need too much energy for renewables in the short and medium term to get rid of coal (new plants are coming on-line, which should be considered anathema to anyone wishing to minimise actual damage to humans) and that b) you will never get enough energy through renewables unless solar platforms in orbit start working -- they will, but I would not count on them this century.
The future is solar/wind/hydro and nuclear. Invent/create/perfect breeders to process the waste. Eventually fusion will be there (about when solar platforms will be).
That is, if we survive the consequences of the anti-nuclear movement.
And you know, this notion that nuclear is only a small percentage of humanity's energy usage? It doesn't make sense. Because the future is electric cars, which will increase massively the need for electricity. And the future is also much better insulation, which accounts for 40% of energy used for heating.
It will work because it is essentially there to help, and not generate a revenue stream, which implies preying on your data, on your privacy, or your goodwill.
For the lazy, it is the KDE project for cloud computing. A platform for distribution, backup and revisionning of data and apps. Encrypted. Local as well as distant. Robust. And you get to control both client and server.
It is an emerging economy. Sure, communism for so long does tht to you.
But not in terms of infrastructure and education, where they are clearly first world: communism does that also.
Russia is special in many case, and despite what one may think, Putin was a disaster. Although reforms are painful, and Eltsin seemed like chaos, they would be closer to OECD by now. I predict that if the Putin regime continues long enough, they will indeed have gone back to fully "emerging" status by 2030, instead of first world, which is where they should have ended, given the starting point.
Side note: only public lines count, those owned by companies, well, are lost for mankind.
Oh, I read your other comment, I ust don't agree at all. Basically, I would agree if we lived in an ideal world where people were moved by reason. Unfortunately the debate goes something like that:
Intelligent person: we should do research on that, it is very interesting, and there is potential to unerstand many fundamental mechanisms of embryogenesis, cell differentiation, epigenetics, etc.
nutter: You're killing BABIES !
at this point the intelligent person becomes either depressed and goes away, or goes for the cynical approach:
Cynical response: We will cure CHILDREN an GRANNIES. You are CHILD MOLESTERS !
Of course, at this point, any pretense of intelligent debate is gone, but you have good (50%, because you were as outrageous and loud as the other side) to get funding and do the research.
Because although in theory it should be so that people will notice you are not working on medical issues at, they don't. No long term memory.
In the even longer term, of course, cures do appear -- or not. but it doesn't matter because the principal objective, increasing knowledge is attained.
Yes, it is all very sad, but I prefer sad with science than sad without.
Incientally, this is why the democrats are playing it all wrong. You cannot discuss with nutters. You must do the right thing and use a barrage of outrageous arguments as a smoke screen. Such is the sorry state of public debate.
Who cares about bloody therapies! Stem cell research is fundamental science, wich will, down the road, lead to therapies. Perhaps.
But this is entirely uninportant. The trickle-down effect of additional knowledge in the field will enable more research in all connected fields.And yes, down the road, therapies. No perhaps.
And humanity advances.
And what is it with ESCs? These are not yet well understood at all, and because of the various bans the number of cell lines available for public research could be counted on the fingers of one hand. And were maintained since the seventies. And probably have nothing to do anymore with the real thing.
Please stop obstructing progress. It is because of people like you that researchers overstate the potential of their research. Because nitwits will give them money only for "applied" stuff. Despite the thousands of years of experience we have that fundamental science is amazingly profitable!
Basically, I have this icon on my panel. I clik on it and it asks me which wireless network I want to connect to. Then asks for the password if it is a new network. Then it works. If the network is in my favourites, it just works.
Comparing slackware to mac is a bit like saying that your ferrari is a piece of crap because it sucks at off-road activities compared to your pick-up.
You mean you want an expensive insurance with a limit to what they cover instead of unlimited cover with some participation?
This is not a lifestyle choice, this is an arithmetic error. There is nothing moral about being incapable of counting.
Living in Canada provides me with cheap insurance with a coverage I find not so good -- but I get covered.
Living in Switzerland, I get very good coverage, but pay perhaps four times as much (way, way less than in the US).
In the UK, I would pay nothing, but would wait longer in the hospital (this would not be life threatening, unlike what some people say, just not very comfortable)
In France, I would pay almost nothing, and get brilliant health care. But my taxes would be significantly higher.
All these are possible options, in all cases, there is universal coverage. In all cases, I can elect to pay more to get better service. But this would be about comfort, not odds of remission, which, in any case, are better than in the US!
In the US? well, were I an individual paying out of my pocket, I would get no health care (unable to afford it), unless I were very poor, or old enough. I would in practise get insurance only when employed, and only if my employer were so inclined. In any case, much more money would flow in the health system than anywhere else in the world. And yet, for large periods of my life I would not be covered. If I have an accident at the wrong moment, well, vae victis...
The US system, and debate surrounding its reform is outlandish to the rest of the World. You pay more (massively so) and yet have child mortality rates and life expectancy which would classify you as a developing nation (seriously! the most develop parts of China do better http://www.gapminder.org./ Yet so many, like you have decided on principle that the US certainly has the best health care system in the world. This is a particular brand of madness. But seeing your comment, it probably stems from something in your education which prevents you from counting whenever "morals"are at stake, couple with a frightening tendency to see morals in the weirdest places.
It depend for whom or what. For exemple, if google were not in the business of having as much content as possibe upoaded to the cloud so they can monetize retrieval, then purely technical questions such as bandwidth would predominate.
On the other hand, google thrives from the extension of services and media on the network. And knows, from experience, that a foundation of open standards is best to foster explosive growth. So they might well go for ogg just to prevent another company (adobe) from holding a deadlock in a critical market.
From the user's point of view, of course, it is clear that locked standards are a disaster. Just think of ms-doc: the network effect killed the competition more efficiently than any underhanded tactic of microsoft themselve.
So from your point of view, as a user, a locked format is a terrible choice. From google's point of view, it is a tradeof. But why you would support it, unless you were the google employee responsible for optimising bandwidth usage, is beyond me.
See, I've been known to call the fundamental physical principle underlying some experiment "the trick".
Or say things like "Your values are strictly positive, so the trick to get less stupid error bars is to use a log-normal error" -- and please don't start on the validation of error models and such: I know.
My point is that if "trick" as a word shocks you, you need to mellow a bit.
I realise that, but the data was acquired by other people, other organisations, and you could obtain it through them.
Which, I suppose, would be long, tedious and annoying.
But that is probably why the will to save deniers from all this work is pretty low. Scientists are humans, after all, and competition/rivalries a real fact of science. And contempt for media treatment of science (deservedly) high.
In the long term, truth wins, though. The problem being here that we can't really afford being wrong, 'cause truth only means something as long as humans are around:)
You, sir (or madam), are not a scientist. All the time is data not released, due to constraints by whoever is funding the research.
This is not a "perversion", simply a sad fact. The important thing is that methods are published so others can reproduce (or not) the results.
And seeing the kind of stupidity flying around climate change, I fully understand guys for not desiring to have unprocessed data around which _will_ get quoted out of context but nutcases.
I will add that when raw data is anomalous, does not match with the expected result, etc. it is normal to try and correct it based on your understanding of what might have gone wrong. And you call that a "trick".
Socialism is not so much about spreading the wealth around. Basically, capitalism (assuming a fundamental opposition between the two) does that on its own.
Socialism is about rules of ownership. What can you own, and what can you do with it.
I do not want perfect capitalism, because some things need to be owned in common. For example, the government is owned by everyone and has a monopoly on laws. A private gvt, owned by rich shareholders is obviously a bad idea.
I do not want perfect socialism, because I believe a measure of competition is good, and that the problem of planning the economy is untractable. Some parts of the economy obviously do not work without supervision, however.
You are never going to have proper competition between train companies on a given route, for example. Bus, yes. But we also know trains are more efficient, no matter how good the bus are. So some central planning is good there.
Health care and insurances in general are interesting. They actually do not work in an unregulated setting, but essentially because people are not actually capable of making good decisions about them. Who should decide who gets what share of a rare resource such as medical care?
In working markets, individual decisions are right in general, because the wants of the individual are on average aligned to what society can provide. Normally, you are well capable of deciding whether this 300$ box of caviar is worth it for you. But you will always decide that no cost is too high for your health. We are wired like that. So there is no limit in the costs the providers of care can impose. But the sad truth is that a human life is not really worth some infinite sum of money. Especially if this same money could be used to save, say two other human lives. So individual decisions about health care will always be wrong for society as a whole.
What the optimal solution is, I don't know, but rationing everyone on an egalitarian basis will yield a better result that free for all. And then it needs to be a collective, political, decision what should be the global budget for health care.
Sometimes, in the life of an app, the devs find that it is not possible to better it without making some radical changes. This only means that the older version becomes the older version instead of being the current version.
It stays the same app.
For the developper, this is the occasion to correct major design mistakes, rethink how the apps should work, etc. This is crucial so the set of functionnality of the app continues to live.
Of course some users are unhappy.
But I would never give up my KDE 4.4svn for the latest KDE3. It is _so_ much better. Alt-F2 was great, it is now insanely great (unit conversion on the fly? an actual calculator? remote controlling amarok and the volume? live search of wikipedia?).
I have been a KDE user since 1.0. And never a transition was so ambitious, and yielded such insanely great results. And yes, never a transition had been so painful. But even in the 4.0 days, it was clear that it would be worth it. From the start, it was clear that it would be more integrated, more beautiful, and yes, more powerful.
Simply, it took time to add the features back, but this time around, not only do you get the features, but they also are not a drag on the devs, who can then bring their apps to the next level.
Is it perfect yet? No. Is it the best DE bar none? yes. (Sorry mac-addicts).
modern (compositing) windowmanagers in linux have that feature. Super-fast, because all done in hardware at blazing speeds. Even using an El Cheapo graphics card, because scaling is such a cheap operation.
Run linux. Run windows in vmware. Use the magnify effect of kwin to solve your tiny fonts problem. Now, you use the correct resolution of your LCD, have scaling as good as possible, and crash protection.
This is exactly it. KDE4 works just as well on my tiny eeepc as on my 22" LCD as on my dual-screen setup.
Basically, if you cannot see anything because you are using inferior technology and basically propose fixing an inane system (windows/mac with their unscalable UIs) with an inane setup (let's use the LCD for a resolution it is not made for!) your problem is not technological...
Go live in the now: this is The Year of the Linux Desktop, where Stuff Works As It Should (most of the time). Hell, if you are desperate for windows, you can run it in vmware, full-screen, and use the magnification effect of kwin to solve your resolution problem the best possible way.
Look at the stats on infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.
See how the US looks like a third-world country.
The market works when people make semi-rational decisions. No one is rational when it comes to health, so it can only end in market failure. Which in the case of health means loss of lives. The US has the worse system of any developed nation. This is a fact.
What a good health system looks like, I don't know, many things are possible, many compromise can be struck. But the current state of affairs is objectively, by any measure other than cost (if you are a health professional getting paid, that is), the worse.
Ahh, but see, Alice cannot pay for insurance. So Bob would not get paid. And Alice will die. So taxes will not be paid and goods and services not produced.
Carol will gloat, except her tax burden is still higher from Alice's demise -- because the dead do not produce not pay taxes.
Or worse. Alice will not die right away. She will die in the emergency room. This will cost Carol because her taxes are paying for Bob there. And still the burden increases from Alice's demise.
But again, Carol will gloat. And she might live so much in denial that she thinks she has the moral high ground.
You obviously don't understand the concept of insurance.
It is inefficient to provide something which everyone needs: basically, you could imagine that everyone would pay some sum so that in the event you need to get lunch, you would be reimbursed. This is an insurance. As you can see, in this case, pretty much everyone pays and receives the same amount. You only added administrative overhead.
In the case of health care, insurance means that in the event of some expensive treatment, you do not go bankrupt. There is administrative overhead, but it is overall worth it. Because the costs of bankruptcies/deaths to society is greater than the amount paid for insurance.
So no problem of consistency from the GPs part, just your deep ignorance of the economics of insurances.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the track record of nuclear is excellent. In the West, a single accident nearly 40 years ago (TMI) with no victims. In fact, if all the other energy-producing methods were held to the standards of nuclear, you could never afford anything else...
Wind and solar will always only provide for peak demand, through massive overcapacity, because even occasional blackouts are unacceptable. You need a base supply, and if you cannot get hydro, the only clean alternative is nuclear.
Biogas is not something I am overly fond of. For heating from waste, it is a good option. For energy generation, not so much. And if you grow crops for that, I think it is really bad.
yes, I understand the deep desire of Germans to kill off the planet with CO2 rather than accepting that a) you need too much energy for renewables in the short and medium term to get rid of coal (new plants are coming on-line, which should be considered anathema to anyone wishing to minimise actual damage to humans) and that b) you will never get enough energy through renewables unless solar platforms in orbit start working -- they will, but I would not count on them this century.
The future is solar/wind/hydro and nuclear. Invent/create/perfect breeders to process the waste. Eventually fusion will be there (about when solar platforms will be).
That is, if we survive the consequences of the anti-nuclear movement.
And you know, this notion that nuclear is only a small percentage of humanity's energy usage? It doesn't make sense. Because the future is electric cars, which will increase massively the need for electricity. And the future is also much better insulation, which accounts for 40% of energy used for heating.
Be happy !
Once again opensource will save the day be providing the infrastructure for doing the right thing. Doing it well, Doing it for the user.
http://dot.kde.org/2010/01/24/kde-gears-free-cloud
It will work because it is essentially there to help, and not generate a revenue stream, which implies preying on your data, on your privacy, or your goodwill.
For the lazy, it is the KDE project for cloud computing. A platform for distribution, backup and revisionning of data and apps. Encrypted. Local as well as distant. Robust. And you get to control both client and server.
It is an emerging economy. Sure, communism for so long does tht to you.
But not in terms of infrastructure and education, where they are clearly first world: communism does that also.
Russia is special in many case, and despite what one may think, Putin was a disaster. Although reforms are painful, and Eltsin seemed like chaos, they would be closer to OECD by now. I predict that if the Putin regime continues long enough, they will indeed have gone back to fully "emerging" status by 2030, instead of first world, which is where they should have ended, given the starting point.
Side note: only public lines count, those owned by companies, well, are lost for mankind.
Oh, I read your other comment, I ust don't agree at all.
Basically, I would agree if we lived in an ideal world where people were moved by reason. Unfortunately the debate goes something like that:
Intelligent person: we should do research on that, it is very interesting, and there is potential to unerstand many fundamental mechanisms of embryogenesis, cell differentiation, epigenetics, etc.
nutter: You're killing BABIES !
at this point the intelligent person becomes either depressed and goes away, or goes for the cynical approach:
Cynical response: We will cure CHILDREN an GRANNIES. You are CHILD MOLESTERS !
Of course, at this point, any pretense of intelligent debate is gone, but you have good (50%, because you were as outrageous and loud as the other side) to get funding and do the research.
Because although in theory it should be so that people will notice you are not working on medical issues at, they don't. No long term memory.
In the even longer term, of course, cures do appear -- or not. but it doesn't matter because the principal objective, increasing knowledge is attained.
Yes, it is all very sad, but I prefer sad with science than sad without.
Incientally, this is why the democrats are playing it all wrong. You cannot discuss with nutters. You must do the right thing and use a barrage of outrageous arguments as a smoke screen. Such is the sorry state of public debate.
Who cares about bloody therapies! Stem cell research is fundamental science, wich will, down the road, lead to therapies. Perhaps.
But this is entirely uninportant. The trickle-down effect of additional knowledge in the field will enable more research in all connected fields.And yes, down the road, therapies. No perhaps.
And humanity advances.
And what is it with ESCs? These are not yet well understood at all, and because of the various bans the number of cell lines available for public research could be counted on the fingers of one hand. And were maintained since the seventies. And probably have nothing to do anymore with the real thing.
Please stop obstructing progress. It is because of people like you that researchers overstate the potential of their research. Because nitwits will give them money only for "applied" stuff. Despite the thousands of years of experience we have that fundamental science is amazingly profitable!
Basically, I have this icon on my panel. I clik on it and it asks me which wireless network I want to connect to. Then asks for the password if it is a new network. Then it works. If the network is in my favourites, it just works.
Comparing slackware to mac is a bit like saying that your ferrari is a piece of crap because it sucks at off-road activities compared to your pick-up.
This is how they do it in France :)
You mean you want an expensive insurance with a limit to what they cover instead of unlimited cover with some participation?
This is not a lifestyle choice, this is an arithmetic error. There is nothing moral about being incapable of counting.
Living in Canada provides me with cheap insurance with a coverage I find not so good -- but I get covered.
Living in Switzerland, I get very good coverage, but pay perhaps four times as much (way, way less than in the US).
In the UK, I would pay nothing, but would wait longer in the hospital (this would not be life threatening, unlike what some people say, just not very comfortable)
In France, I would pay almost nothing, and get brilliant health care. But my taxes would be significantly higher.
All these are possible options, in all cases, there is universal coverage. In all cases, I can elect to pay more to get better service. But this would be about comfort, not odds of remission, which, in any case, are better than in the US!
In the US? well, were I an individual paying out of my pocket, I would get no health care (unable to afford it), unless I were very poor, or old enough. I would in practise get insurance only when employed, and only if my employer were so inclined. In any case, much more money would flow in the health system than anywhere else in the world. And yet, for large periods of my life I would not be covered. If I have an accident at the wrong moment, well, vae victis...
The US system, and debate surrounding its reform is outlandish to the rest of the World. You pay more (massively so) and yet have child mortality rates and life expectancy which would classify you as a developing nation (seriously! the most develop parts of China do better http://www.gapminder.org./ Yet so many, like you have decided on principle that the US certainly has the best health care system in the world. This is a particular brand of madness. But seeing your comment, it probably stems from something in your education which prevents you from counting whenever "morals"are at stake, couple with a frightening tendency to see morals in the weirdest places.
It depend for whom or what. For exemple, if google were not in the business of having as much content as possibe upoaded to the cloud so they can monetize retrieval, then purely technical questions such as bandwidth would predominate.
On the other hand, google thrives from the extension of services and media on the network. And knows, from experience, that a foundation of open standards is best to foster explosive growth. So they might well go for ogg just to prevent another company (adobe) from holding a deadlock in a critical market.
From the user's point of view, of course, it is clear that locked standards are a disaster. Just think of ms-doc: the network effect killed the competition more efficiently than any underhanded tactic of microsoft themselve.
So from your point of view, as a user, a locked format is a terrible choice. From google's point of view, it is a tradeof. But why you would support it, unless you were the google employee responsible for optimising bandwidth usage, is beyond me.
See, I've been known to call the fundamental physical principle underlying some experiment "the trick".
Or say things like "Your values are strictly positive, so the trick to get less stupid error bars is to use a log-normal error" -- and please don't start on the validation of error models and such: I know.
My point is that if "trick" as a word shocks you, you need to mellow a bit.
I realise that, but the data was acquired by other people, other organisations, and you could obtain it through them.
Which, I suppose, would be long, tedious and annoying.
But that is probably why the will to save deniers from all this work is pretty low. Scientists are humans, after all, and competition/rivalries a real fact of science. And contempt for media treatment of science (deservedly) high.
In the long term, truth wins, though. The problem being here that we can't really afford being wrong, 'cause truth only means something as long as humans are around :)
You, sir (or madam), are not a scientist. All the time is data not released, due to constraints by whoever is funding the research.
This is not a "perversion", simply a sad fact. The important thing is that methods are published so others can reproduce (or not) the results.
And seeing the kind of stupidity flying around climate change, I fully understand guys for not desiring to have unprocessed data around which _will_ get quoted out of context but nutcases.
I will add that when raw data is anomalous, does not match with the expected result, etc. it is normal to try and correct it based on your understanding of what might have gone wrong. And you call that a "trick".
Socialism is not so much about spreading the wealth around. Basically, capitalism (assuming a fundamental opposition between the two) does that on its own.
Socialism is about rules of ownership. What can you own, and what can you do with it.
I do not want perfect capitalism, because some things need to be owned in common. For example, the government is owned by everyone and has a monopoly on laws. A private gvt, owned by rich shareholders is obviously a bad idea.
I do not want perfect socialism, because I believe a measure of competition is good, and that the problem of planning the economy is untractable. Some parts of the economy obviously do not work without supervision, however.
You are never going to have proper competition between train companies on a given route, for example. Bus, yes. But we also know trains are more efficient, no matter how good the bus are. So some central planning is good there.
Health care and insurances in general are interesting. They actually do not work in an unregulated setting, but essentially because people are not actually capable of making good decisions about them. Who should decide who gets what share of a rare resource such as medical care?
In working markets, individual decisions are right in general, because the wants of the individual are on average aligned to what society can provide. Normally, you are well capable of deciding whether this 300$ box of caviar is worth it for you. But you will always decide that no cost is too high for your health. We are wired like that. So there is no limit in the costs the providers of care can impose. But the sad truth is that a human life is not really worth some infinite sum of money. Especially if this same money could be used to save, say two other human lives. So individual decisions about health care will always be wrong for society as a whole.
What the optimal solution is, I don't know, but rationing everyone on an egalitarian basis will yield a better result that free for all. And then it needs to be a collective, political, decision what should be the global budget for health care.
Bad distro? Change distro.
Are you kidding? Bitching in forums is wayyyy more fun!
just a minor nitpick: a project is dead when it has no devs, not no users.
But as long as it has users, one might become a dev...
See, nobody forces you to update.
Sometimes, in the life of an app, the devs find that it is not possible to better it without making some radical changes. This only means that the older version becomes the older version instead of being the current version.
It stays the same app.
For the developper, this is the occasion to correct major design mistakes, rethink how the apps should work, etc. This is crucial so the set of functionnality of the app continues to live.
Of course some users are unhappy.
But I would never give up my KDE 4.4svn for the latest KDE3. It is _so_ much better. Alt-F2 was great, it is now insanely great (unit conversion on the fly? an actual calculator? remote controlling amarok and the volume? live search of wikipedia?).
I have been a KDE user since 1.0. And never a transition was so ambitious, and yielded such insanely great results. And yes, never a transition had been so painful. But even in the 4.0 days, it was clear that it would be worth it. From the start, it was clear that it would be more integrated, more beautiful, and yes, more powerful.
Simply, it took time to add the features back, but this time around, not only do you get the features, but they also are not a drag on the devs, who can then bring their apps to the next level.
Is it perfect yet? No. Is it the best DE bar none? yes. (Sorry mac-addicts).
modern (compositing) windowmanagers in linux have that feature. Super-fast, because all done in hardware at blazing speeds. Even using an El Cheapo graphics card, because scaling is such a cheap operation.
Run linux. Run windows in vmware. Use the magnify effect of kwin to solve your tiny fonts problem. Now, you use the correct resolution of your LCD, have scaling as good as possible, and crash protection.
Once more linux/KDE saves the day.
This is exactly it. KDE4 works just as well on my tiny eeepc as on my 22" LCD as on my dual-screen setup.
Basically, if you cannot see anything because you are using inferior technology and basically propose fixing an inane system (windows/mac with their unscalable UIs) with an inane setup (let's use the LCD for a resolution it is not made for!) your problem is not technological...
Go live in the now: this is The Year of the Linux Desktop, where Stuff Works As It Should (most of the time). Hell, if you are desperate for windows, you can run it in vmware, full-screen, and use the magnification effect of kwin to solve your resolution problem the best possible way.
Yes. You are right. You owe nothing to the country's infrastructure.
Nothing at all.
Because it would be _wrong_ to let other people use _your_ roads which _you_ built.
And this water you are drinking, why should anyone use your purification plant. You built it.
And schools? For you, your children or your employees? I mean, you are running them, they should purely benefit you.
BTW, these children of yours? None of anyone's business that they are basically your slaves: you gave them life, after all.
Courts? Ha. Vampires.
gapminder.org
Look at the stats on infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.
See how the US looks like a third-world country.
The market works when people make semi-rational decisions. No one is rational when it comes to health, so it can only end in market failure. Which in the case of health means loss of lives. The US has the worse system of any developed nation. This is a fact.
What a good health system looks like, I don't know, many things are possible, many compromise can be struck. But the current state of affairs is objectively, by any measure other than cost (if you are a health professional getting paid, that is), the worse.
Ahh, but see, Alice cannot pay for insurance. So Bob would not get paid. And Alice will die. So taxes will not be paid and goods and services not produced.
Carol will gloat, except her tax burden is still higher from Alice's demise -- because the dead do not produce not pay taxes.
Or worse. Alice will not die right away. She will die in the emergency room. This will cost Carol because her taxes are paying for Bob there. And still the burden increases from Alice's demise.
But again, Carol will gloat. And she might live so much in denial that she thinks she has the moral high ground.
You obviously don't understand the concept of insurance.
It is inefficient to provide something which everyone needs: basically, you could imagine that everyone would pay some sum so that in the event you need to get lunch, you would be reimbursed. This is an insurance. As you can see, in this case, pretty much everyone pays and receives the same amount. You only added administrative overhead.
In the case of health care, insurance means that in the event of some expensive treatment, you do not go bankrupt. There is administrative overhead, but it is overall worth it. Because the costs of bankruptcies/deaths to society is greater than the amount paid for insurance.
So no problem of consistency from the GPs part, just your deep ignorance of the economics of insurances.