I like your take on this. The whole application should be reject because it's based on a faulty premise (statement 6, below).
 Searching online for various media such as video, audio, and still images is known. Further, searching for such media on a user's local hard drive is also known. For example, programs such as Microsoft's Media Center.RTM., Google.RTM., Yahoo.RTM., Youtube.RTM., OSX.RTM., iTunes.RTM., Windows.RTM., and TIVO.RTM., all include integrated search mechanisms to locate specific data.
 However, each of these programs compartmentalizes the search process to specific kinds of data. For example, iTunes.com.RTM. locates all media stored or available within the iTunes.RTM. system, which is a small subset of all the video, images, and audio available online. iTunes.RTM. also only searches for data stored in its own format, and does not search a users locally or remotely stored available data. Youtube.RTM. only searches for videos on Youtube.RTM.. Windows.RTM. only searches for data on the user's internal and external hard drives. Yahoo.RTM. only searches the internet and not the user's hard drive or local media storage devices. Google.RTM., while providing a mechanism to search both the internet and the user's hard drive, cannot search both the internet and the user's hard drive simultaneously and provide a single set of search results. Further, Google only allows searches dedicated to video, audio, or images, and does not provide a mechanism for searching for all media types at the same time.
 Thus, there does not exist a system that searches all known media sources, both local and remote, and presents to a user a consolidated list of search results that is grouped according to media content and filtered and sorted according to the user's preferences.
A quick Google search for Trains shows relevant webpages, images, videos, and news articles. I'm pretty sure they've done this for awhile now, though I couldn't prove it.
Sometimes you have to physically walk in and make the effort.
Yes, but cold calls on the phone are still cold calls. Bigger companies can afford sales staff across the geography, but the companies that I've dealt with (Dell, EMC, SAP, Oracle) have significantly more sales staff in a central office operating by phone than "in the field" making the face-to-face cold calls and wining/dining the customers. Watson won't replace the field guys, it'll augment/replace the centralized sales and support teams.
The big companies are smart enough to know that they can't completely replace their human phone staff any more than they can successfully outsource all of it. People prefer a neighbor over a another person half a world away, same as they'd prefer any other person over a machine. Dell enterprise support, for instance, has a large call center a few miles from my school, where all of our calls go, but when my $300 netbook has a problem I can call India, talk to India in online chat, or email India. Some of these segments are candidate for replacement/augmentation by fully automated systems.
In short: they'll shrink one segment of the sales/support teams and add a new segment to them that's completely automated.
JS is SIMPLE. In the browser it is single threaded. You don't need to worry about concurrent programming. The language itself is also dead simple, but still very powerful if needed.
C (or most any other language) is single threaded too, and you don't have to worry about concurrent programming. That is, until a single thread just isn't good enough anymore and it's time to break out a threading library. Then you have to worry about concurrency, blocking, etc. Incidentally, this has a tendency to come about when you're writing server software.
Businesses are not people
Not all businesses are corporations, but corporations are people for most purposes in the US (and others) today. Google "corporate personhood" or "legal personality" for more information.
<criticism type='constructive'>It's "fewer" employees, not "less". Fewer is for discrete objects.</criticism>