It's posted all over the place.

Google for any component phrase or set of words such as "ordinary would still be an understatement. Robert Louis Kemp has built a plateau of quod erat" and you'll get a number of hits.

Anon is at least efficient with his writing.

Why do they need to do arithmetic in a college level physics class? All the work in my physics, thermo, etc. classes was symbolic. No one would have thought an arithmetic aid like a simple calculator would have been of any use.

I still have(why???) some 8 inch "really floppies" and some paper tape reels that were once fed into PDP-8s and -11s via teletype, but I no longer have the hardware to read them.

With a different interpretation of timestamp, I just found one of my dad's old child books "What's new in the Aircorps" , copyright 1941.

Anyone using Obama for support, loses.

If you want to win, better 'hope' he doesn't 'volunteer' to support you.

If for no better reason than because no one else has managed to post the obvious.

Really, I'd take the pen from the guy break it, and give him a pencil!

I've had people come over to my desk and start writing their notes on my documents, and expecting to walk away with them! Then they are surprised when I stop them.

I get so much more done per hour during off hours, without annoyances and distractions, the boss would freak if he found out.

Full-on MIPS core makes an excellent C target as we well as asm.
Many free or low cost tools.
Dev boards available for as little as $35.
Plenty of code space, RAM, and performance.

His comment is the equivalent of saying "the purpose of a car is to take you to work and back home every day."

Sadly, he's just another victim.

"Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?"

Believe me, it works. I've seen some seriously sad sh*t in my career. Definitely motivates to make sure your work does not look the same.

I know it is a small sample, but I've just been fortunate enough to know well and frequently fraternize with several(4 in particular I'm thinking of) really bright people. They are hard for me to classify. As simply as I can state it, they are all very interesting. There are certainly variations among them as they are from the 4 corners of the continent. Yet there are some common features. All came from relatively poor to mid class families. All are well read, but with different interests. All consume drugs for entertainment, alcohol and/or other. A couple are serious devoted sports fans, while two have no interests there. All work in the semiconductor industry. All have a strange, twisted, and sharp sense of humor. You do not want to get into an insult joust with any of them. If I might attempt some generalizations in the current context, they would be socially liberal as in "free". That is, they don't give a damn what your skin color is, unless it makes you sexy exotic somehow. Nor do they care what kind of sex you like; rather they are more likely to want to join in if you show them something different. Finally, they don't care much what you think of their tastes either.

On other matters they are universally quite conservative, intolerant of sheer stupidity and ignorance in themselves and others. The most anger I have ever seen in any of them was in one when he, or the government did something stupid. They are all fiscally sound, think the government should be also, and freedom loving nearly anarchistic. All seem to have a certain recklessness, what one described as "a healthy disrespect for the law". One was the first to reveal to me the concept that "just because it's the law doesn't make it right". If my dad ever heard that, he'd go up in flames.

If you asked any of them "Are you a liberal?" They'd all say no. I'm sure of it. Same for the conservative question. They certainly don't fit any modern representation of "moderate" either as some of their ideas are, at least in these modern contexts, pretty harsh.

Skipping to the end of your post, if intelligence has any effect at all on the reproductive success rate in the modern world, it seems to be counter productive. So I certainly agree with you there.

Yes, that was my point. Note "really smart people". Minor variations to either side of the norm might produce measurable statistics. Once you get to the extremes, you can no longer make such generalizations.

So, if he wants to establish some equivalence between higher IQ scores and higher "liberalness" he fails because people that score higher than the stated 103 will not classify themselves in such a simple minded manner. This is probably why he did not include any stats about people that score 120, 130, or even more. Unfortunately for him, they don't fit his vision.