Isn't that just a little condescending? When people put their address into a web form, I think they understand that it is going "online" [...]
you're kidding, right? Please say "yes" so that I can keep faith in humanity...
how many people thinks that they are helping a poor guy in Congo getting his heritage money safe by giving them their bank account numbers? How many people agree to "share" a video link on facebook to be able to see a stupid video of a girl having an orgasm while doing the SlingShot and are not realizing that they are giving access to their data to whoever put that online?
Most people don't understand how to protect their privacy and they don't even know how important that is until they are actually caught in some sort of financial fraud. Recently, a lady got some jail because the first thing she did after hitting another car, she wrote that on facebook instead of getting out of her can to see if the other driver was severely injured (he was). The "timestamps" of the facebook's posts were used as proofs. Now I'm actually happy that it went that way, but most people who read that article went: oh! I didn't realized it could go that far!
People are ignorant. I'm not saying this in a condescending way, I'm myself ignorant on many many topics. Being ignorant isn't a problem in itself (although it is a limitation). The real problem is that "pride" chimes in when you're trying to educate someone and they don't listen because they don't want to admit their ignorance.
Every document is uniquely and securely identified. - URI, Done
What? No way. Ever heard of "UserAgent"-based content generation? Or even simpler, a servlet? If you can't guaranty that a URI points to one specific immutable version of a document this requirement isn't met. History can easily be "reviewed" on the web right now: you could change a sentence in one of your blog story and no one could prove that you wrote something else before.
This is one big issue to solve before we can really "trust" the web. I mean, you can trust a publisher or an author, but the medium can't be trusted right now. Compare with a physical book that you can't alter (unless you chase & alter/destroy all copies) and you see right away the big difference.
Science is demonstrable, repeatable and self-correcting. Most importantly: Science Delivers. Not understanding the intricacies doesn't make it "faith". Faith is an idea with no evidence to back it up no matter how adept the 'experts'. Even more important, the 'experts' often don't agree on even the basics. Witness all the various religions and factions thereof.
+1000 "absolutely true" Science has brought us actual physically verifiable objects, even though I personally might not understand all of the details which led to the object's existence. Even scientific "theory" is based on data that we can verify - and science is willing to accept when it is wrong and make constant adjustments to get more accurate over time. Has a Christian "expert" ever actually turned a river to blood, resurrected someone who was dead for three days, or created a woman from a rib bone?
Wow, how self-fulfilling is that? Ever saw a paleontologist "prove" that a dinosaur really looked "like that"? Or a biologist crafted a living self-reproducing cell from random events (a living cell, not just some alpha acid base)? No? Science must be junk then...
What's really bad is that people who try to translate Science in "layman terms" often do as bad as pseudo-Christian "elite" who try do to the same: they give you faith in the wrong things.
Speaking of "delivering" and "repeatability": Christianity is actually pretty good with that: apply the principle of the Bible and you'll be getting the fruits proposed (and I'm talking about the ones you can actually "verify" in this world, not the ones we can "materialize" right now). "Trust" is built between on and the principles in the Bible in the same way we are building our trust toward Science: because we saw the expected results for a given set of actions.
There's abuse everywhere. When a "scientific" abuse and quit the "right path" of "scientific methodology", we end up with cosmetics products that will make you young forever, cold fusion working perfectly or perpetual motion. We also have sad stories like Denton who got "slapped" when he wrote a book about serious problems in the Theory of Evolution (his area of expertise btw, and no, he isn't a creationist).
For sure, Christianity talks about things that can't be verify in our material world (like the after life for example). On the other hand, it talks about a lot of things that can actually be measured in this world too (ok, maybe not with a voltmeter, but anyway).
"Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" -- The Censored Hacker