What ideas in CS are as interesting to the layman as the most interesting parts of physics? Tell a layman about black holes, galactic collisions, big bangs, quantum weirdness, nuclear fusion, or any of those other things in physics which are unimaginably (to us) big, small, hot, cold, fast, slow, or weird, and for the most part (with the exception of particularly dull laymen) they'll be fascinated. How much can you tell a layman about CS that will get the same reaction?

But that said, the practice of science, at a day to day level, doesn't even remotely approach the level of satisfaction you get from a good hack.

I guess we'll have to disagree, but I think artificial intelligence, machine learning, complexity theory (PCP theorem, zero knowledge proofs, etc), and algorithmic information theory (Chatin's number, etc.) are as interesting and profound as anything in the basic sciences. CS also has the advantage that much of the field is still in development, unlike almost every other field of science.

I'm really more of a scientist by training.

No offense, but completing most of an undergrad physics degree doesn't make you a "scientist by training". To be a properly trained scientist, I think you need to have done multiple pieces of significant, original research, and more than likely have a PhD.

And if math is your thing, that's fine. Study what you like. Although I'll admit I'm more than a little confused by your assertion that basic science is no longer "in development"...

For what it's worth, he did start with "No offense, but..." which doesn't really sound like flaming.

She was totally bored.

Then I switched into how Rome is awesome, and Instabul was a romantic place, cools things to do in Europe blah blah.... a little bit more interesting to her as she had never travelled in europe.

I quit dating her after that night. I was "sick" for a while, then in "Boston" for a long time....

I just couldn't date a person with that low level of curiosity.

Anyways, you would be suprised on how layman might be totally un-interested to even these cosmical events. Something it is just beyond some people, it is like foreing stuff, that they don't need to understand, and trying to understand will only give them headaches.

Moral of the story: When dating, never trade intelligence for beauty. You will regret it as soon as the eye candy wears off.

My wife and kids and I have a rule - I'll watch whatever 10 minute video they want to show me on YouTube if I get to show them a 10 minute clip from Cosmos. Let's just say they that their about at their limit of "Star Stuff" :-) But I don't think any less of their intelligence or curiosity just because Carl Sagan isn't their thing. My wife knows much more about philosophy then I and my kids interest in biology and psychology is greater than mine.

EDIT: vapid eyecandy is good for one thing, and then it is seldom good.

When I'm explaining computer science to someone who wants a capsule explanation, I don't tell the "computer science studies the problem X Y and Z, along with their generalizations", I say:

"Computer Science studies the limits of human thought, trying to understand exactly how hard a particular idea is to think, and what sort of problems it is reasonable (for various notions corresponding to best, average, worst case complexity)to ask a person to solve".

IT is a very broad industry and CS is very relevant to a significant subset of it.

Basically, to most 'regular' employers they need a "tech guy" (or girl) who generally understands the domain of their needs. Or maybe I am applying for crap jobs - who knows? But I do know that typically when "cold" applying for positions, the two are usually considered equivocal.