I don't understand what your point is.
I'm left handed and I've always carried my watch on the left hand.

That doesn't really work all that well for lefties.

I'm a left-handed person and I always wore watches on my left hand. First of all it didn't cause me any problems to do so. Second of all it would be awkward to operate the watch on the right hand, since button-placement is ergonomically better suited for wearing watch on the left hand and operating it with the right one. Try winding a "legacy" analog watch with your left hand, while wearing it on the right one. You can, but it's damn uncomfortable.
The only alternative is then to wear the watch with wrong-side-up, which isn't any better :-)

I read somewhere, a long time ago, that wristwatches became "popular" during first world war. The reason was that watches were needed for executing coordinated attacks along the front. Wristwatches allowed you to check time, without letting go of your weapon. This also accounts for wristwatches being worn on the left hand. It allowed you to aim your rifle while being able to look at the watch along the arm that supported it.

Now you're changing your argument. Before you were saying that it's much easier to found a company in US than it is in Europe. Now you're saying that it's easy to do it Europe but that it's not profitable. It would be fairly interesting to see you back that up, since based on your argument no one in their right capitalistic mind would run their business in Europe. And let's not forget that a fair amount of US-based businesses are currently using EU as a tax shelter, since their profits can be better protected there than in US. I'll give you Apple and Amazon as examples here.

Exactly how difficult do you think it is to found your own company in Europe? In my country all that you need is a bit of starting cash (a few thousand Euros) and you're up and running in a day.

And as for choosing a company to work for, I can assure you it's like pretty much anywhere else. If you're qualified, you'll get a job pretty quickly. How good a job that will be will depend on the current economic situation, but that's also like anywhere else.

They are. But sex part has never been too emphasized.

How will HBO put boobs in this? Will there be fembots in it? :-)

Would this apply to your tax and health records then?

Large part of the problem here is that if you're accused, you can get ruined.

I know all about, and I'm all for, the concept of innocent until proven guilty. But ask yourself this: how would your immediate surroundings react if you were charged with kiddie porn charges? Chances are you would be in trial process for months, maybe years.
How would your boss react? School or kindergarten your kids go to? Your friends, acquaintances? Even spouse.

While child exploitation is extremely vile, the prejudice surrounding any suspect that is potentially involved, may be just as bad. And potentially is an important word here.

Not quite. You cannot carry landline phones around with you. And also your example is not correct. cranking was not used to power the phone, but to make the ringer ring. And I don't think you will find many people that are actually happy with current battery capabilities of todays' smarphones and that a lot of people would say that cell phones of 10 years ago were much, much better in that regard.

Not just Virgin. If the plane has video monitors, then almost all airlines in Europe, Middle East and Asia have this.

What kind of safety risks are there supposed to be in driverless trains, as opposed to the ones with drivers? I'm asking especially, since driverless trains are not a new concept. And I've yet to see (I may have missed them) headlines for accidents that happened due to the fact that the train didn't have a driver.

Driverless subways exits in other cities for a while now. And this is definitely one of those things, where you can automate a lot out of a system.

You are correct. I am claiming that those societies were not, or are not, civil. At least not quite civil yet.

Idea that we live together in groups, is that group offers benefits to a person, to which they otherwise wouldn't have access. Even in feudal times peasants paid certain amount of their income the benefits that they gained. Such as protection.

And to say that the principle, by which groups take care of individuals that are unable to do so by themselves, exists only for the last 100 years is in the very least extremely narrow in definition.

"Older" orders, such as even today in Africa, place a premium on society, usually in more narrow circles, taking care of individuals, such as elderly. The only difference is that today this kind of approach is referenced in taxes and social security that provides support to everyone. It's a simple extrapolation of the old concept, applied to larger societies.

Granted, the actual implementation doesn't always work as it's supposed to. There are countries where such systems are either inefficient, corrupt or both. But where it does work, it works great for everyone and not just for people that have money.

And I have to say that so far I have only ever heard people complain about these systems when they were healthy. Pretty much never, when they had to go into a complicated surgery.

I'm sorry, but you also don't know what you're talking about. Even though I wish it wasn't true, such system does exist in more than one country, besides the US. I live in one such country. We had it since the abolition of socialism (20+ years ago) and currently there are a lot of discussions going on that it should be abolished.