It does not make much sense imo to discuss whether the temperature of the syrup is transmitted through the thermometer . . . no, through its mercury . . . no, from the light rays that bounce from the thermometer to your eyes; there is no one right answer.

Laura Miller mentions numerous points from the book as though they were Truth.

The reality is that that many points are controversial among physicists. There are several differing interpretations of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Many physicists believe that when energy turn to heat, it most definitely *does* lose its information. Many physicists are considering the possibility that order can arise from chaos (like galaxy formation from dust, or evolution of life from the primeval ooze). The heat death of the universe is by no means universally believed to be inevitable.

I also found it offensive that Ms. Miller felt the need to say, in esssence, that scientists are not necessarily unfeeling jerks. The problem is the condescension that without her having put in a good word for scientists, the default would be to assume the stereotype.

(I suspect her heart was in the right place, but it came out all wrong.)

One more thing: The idea that the universe is a giant computer is in no way original with the book author, but as old as the hills, being detectable even in the 18th-century writings of Leibniz. It is nowadays mostly obvious, as well, that the universe figures out in real time things like the exact orbit of the moon or how water splashes on the floor, things that our computers could *never* figure out exactly, and would take eons to determine the answer to a high enough accuracy.

simply because I don't know that much about them.

But in principle it seems a good idea to me to present adults, and even high school students, with non-controversial courses about forming solid relationships -- or at least recognizing a good one or a bad one when they're in it.

Even younger students from kindergarten on up would benefit from courses in getting along with others, including smart conflict resolution.

When we consider how much strife there seems to be at every level in the world today, why not start on the personal level.

P.S. I tend to agree that in a dating situation checklists can be counterproductive. (Though learning about each other's most basic needs in a relationship like similar political and religious views, desire to have or live with kids, smoking/non-smoking, and whether the other person has murdered any previous romantic partners is best done sooner than later.)

When starting a dating relationship it's natural to discuss each other's lives. But if one confronts the other with a cross-examination, any chance of romance goes out the window right away.

. . . that a woman "tricked" a man into getting her pregnant. Isn't this a quintessential example of "he said, she said" ?

But in the unlikely event there were some way to prove it -- say a witnessed, signed agreement, or if she acknowledges that she tricked him into thinking she couldn't get pregnant when in fact she knew she could . . . then this is a tough decision.

Perhaps he should have to pay something toward child support, inasmuch as he always knows that pregnancy is a possibility, no matter what he or she *thinks* they know about its impossibility.

But if it can be proved that he was tricked into unknowingly and unwillingly fertilizing her egg -- and he really does not want to act as the father of the resulting child -- then his child-care obligations should be reduced by, say, at least half.

I don't know how often trickery like this actually occurs, but I do know that does sometimes occur.

For hundreds of thousands of years, pubic hair on a man or woman was an aphrodisiac to the opposite sex.

Especially as we slowly emerged from the Victorian era from the late 1800's through the early 1980's, pubic hair, being utterly taboo, was an incredible turn-on. Especially to the baby-boom generation, the least glimpse of real pubic hair was a promise of sex to come. Also it kept the opposite sex's genitals shrouded in mystery -- especially women's, since they have such mysterious forms.

Why anyone would want to tamper with the strong instinct that perceives pubic hair to be sexy is beyond my ken (or my barbie).

(Well, OK, I have a guess. In this era of dangerous STD's -- following an era when they seemed to be at bay -- maybe the bald look is so that one can see for oneself that there are at least no external signs of disease. Not a very sexy reason, but survival would trump sexiness. Yet, relying on only visual information would be quite risky.)

In my lifetime, I've been with more women than I care to mention, and every one of them was as nature intended down there; I doubt any of them were even "trimmed". And I hope that, at least for me, that never changes.

Another possible reason for the trend toward shaving down there is that these days, probably a lot of adolescents get some of their earliest sexual pleasure from watching porn videos (and the directors of those may have their own reasons for wanting the actors shaven -- as someone said, so the viewer can get an unobstructed view).

Once adolescents are deeply imprinted on what they see in porn videos, this is likely to create a preference for no hair down there. Too bad they don't know what they're missing.