If we work really, really hard at it and spend enough money on the electronics in each bulb, we can give you that by making them imitate a 19th century lamp.

Greenspan is right that taking the lid off of immigration will drive the top of the wage scale down, greatly reducing wage inequality.

Gates is right that there's one "job" that won't be automated: ownership.

I confess that I am assuming that Greenspan (who was never a dummy) is talking about wage, rather than income inequality. Otherwise I'm not sure how he expects a rise in immigration to do anything but accelerate the shift of income from wages to rents.

A particularly low vaccination rate, mostly. Along with Switzerland, it seems that most of the USA's trip-to-X-and-came-back-with-measles cases seem to be from France.

Short answer: because measles is a human-only disease like smallpox and polio. We could eliminate it. In which case, the we'd have as many adverse outcomes from measles and its vaccine as we do now from smallpox and its vaccine: zero.

There are other reasons, but IMHO that's good enough. Except, perhaps, for the virus-rights movement.

Most particularly, the very young. Possibly not a trait we want to eliminate from the population.

For every family that takes unvaccinated kids to France and brings them back sick, there are scores more who are in the pediatrician's waiting room, in pulic places, etc. with a kid too young to be vaccinated. Not to mention the small percentage for whom the vaccine just doesn't work.

Unless you're advocating keeping babies and others locked up and leaving public places to the shambling hordes of carriers, perhaps?

If that were the case, you'd be seeing the new cases in people over the age of 30. Instead it's pretty much all kids.

Using 1930s technology -- downdraft carbs and all. (Don't try fling them inverted!)

Street-legal Boxers put out over 300 BHP. Take liberties that are only legal for off-road use and they're a lot closer to the Bugatti 450 than to the replica's 200. Even with less weight. Don't underrate the value of fuel injection, modern alloys (esp. in the turbochargers) and electronic engine controls. And they're relatively inexpensive, even tricked out.

Plenty of "experimental" planes use turbocharged Subaru Boxers. Compact, 2.5 liter, not hard to get more than factory power out of them. Especially with thin, cold air and minimal exhaust modifications.

For incompressible flow, anyway. When you're sneaking up on Mach 0.8, though, wave drag is a serious part of the equation and the power curve gets even steeper.

It depends on where the mass is. Mass ahead of the center of lift does increase stability. Mass behind the center of lift causes instability (not hard to figure this out if you give it some thought.)

You can try it yourself if you like: Make a paper airplane. Fly it, observe how stable it is. Put a penny in the nose, repeat. Move the penny to the rear, repeat. If the results are too extreme with the penny all the way forward or back, adjust it in between.

That's why my comment depended on the location of the engines: they're way back in the plane. That's dangerously close to the center of lift, which might be OK for a racer but would make long flights (with fuel mass changing, never mind munitions!) really dicey.

Or Arizona. Falcon Field is now Mesa Municipal Airport, but they kept the old hall as a historical site. The hassle of getting flight trainees clear from Britain to Arizona 70+ years ago is minor compared to having more than 300 days of flying weather every year.