Does a swap function really need any comments? Yes, I know we have std::swap, but I still see people rolling their own anyway.

Okay, if you're doing some fancy XOR'ing to avoid creating a temp variable, maybe. But your basic t=a, a=b, b=t function shouldn't require any comments, even at the function level.

Undocumented code is only a problem if the code does something that isn't obvious to any second-year CS student. Some code simply doesn't require comments because the code is obvious to anyone reading it.

Get/Set methods: do they *really* need comments?
Basic assignment loops?
List traversal loops?
Swap function?
etc, etc

That being said, poorly or incorrectly documented code is truly evil, I'd rather see no comments than incorrect comments.

Suuuure it is.

I was on a project a few years ago that required *every* non-whitespaced line of code to be documented. We would have functions that looked like this (in pseudocode)

#Function Name: FindEntryID
#Author: John Smith
#Modified Date: 03/17/2006
#Description: Find matching entry in the list and return the entry ID
def FindEntryID(entry, list) #Function Declaration
{ #Begin Function
    for item in list #Loop through list
    { #Begin Loop
        if item.data == entry #If item data matches the desired entry
            return item.id #return the ID
    } #End Loop
} #End Function

After a while, the entire team rebelled and gave management two choices: change the policy to something sensible or we *all* walk.

Excessive documentation doesn't help anyone. Document fixes, document weird quirks, document the mission-critical stuff. But for god's sake, don't document basic loops, get/set methods, etc.

You need to recognize the difference between a primary and a tertiary source.

Tertiary sources are normally only used when professors require you to document how you *found* your primary sources. Encyclopedias and the like are so heavily distilled that you'll never find good data, you'll only find sources. In this instance, it doesn't matter if the material changes, because you didn't take any data from the material, you took a link to the source. That source is still accessible and valid (and documented as a primary) regardless of whether the link changes. This is no different than citing a bibliography as a tertiary source. You aren't taking information directly from it, you are taking a *link* to the information.

Interestingly, your historical argument became invalid the moment encyclopedias became digital. Most cases of citing encyclopedias are now referencing the encyclopedia's website, which is subject to change as well. It doesn't always line up with printed versions (if they even exist).

IQ is just a flawed attempt at quantifying something that can't be quantified. The whole field of psychometrics seems highly suspect to me.

My comment on raising was meant to be more along the lines of: take two 100% identical clones, place them in two different families with different "styles" of raising children. Years later, would they show similar scores on an IQ test? If not, how much of the test is natural ability?

The prepping comment was always one of the things that annoyed me most in high school. When the FCAT rolled around, we spent over a month prepping for it. How reliable can the data be when we are spoon-fed details in advance on what to write and how to write it?

I had a few devices growing up that were essentially pocket PCs. I might be mixing up the model numbers, but I think they were the Zaurus ZR-5800 and the Sharp PC-E500. Never did find much for them, honestly. I think I programmed a few BASIC games on the Sharp, but they really were quite useless for me.

My eyes are taking enough of a pounding from working with PCs all day, the last thing they need is to spend all night staring at a 4-inch display on a phone.

For *primary* sources this is true. And I explicitly stated that they are only acceptable when *not* used as a primary source. There are times where you are expected to cite secondary and tertiary sources as well. These articles are suitable as tertiary sources (generally a source that you did not directly take data from).

Which opens an even more interesting question to be addressed in another future study: How much does the "raising" part affect their IQ? And we're back to the classic nature-vs-nurture debate.

Typically the only time I've cited either is when I encountered a professor who really wanted the works cited to be a roadmap. For those professors, If I looked at an encyclopedia article and used sources cited in it, I included the article as a tertiary source. Same for Wikipedia.

I much preferred to find sources directly in journals, but for really obscure topics it can be helpful to start with an existing article that provides a nice list of sources.

The challenge there is that a familial study isn't easily extended.

Factoring out the outliers (the mentally retarded, the extremely gifted), most Homo sapiens will have more or less the same internal structure. To get meaningful comparisons, you really need to dissect the brains of both species and compare the internal structure. The most any IQ study could say is that brain size correlates to IQ within the species, where many factors remain relatively unchanged across the sample. Even in these cases, the correlation coefficient is usually 0.4, implying a weak correlation.

If both species had similar neuron density, interconnections, etc, then it would be reasonable to assume this species was more intelligent. On the other hand, if a significant difference was observed (be it through natural evolution, external forces such as dietary deficiencies, etc), they might not have been any more intelligent.

I remember seeing a few studies on this back when I took Physical Anthropology, but I can't recall offhand any of the authors. The basic conclusion amongst the physical anthropology crowd is that brain size does loosely predict intelligence, if you hold the internal structure to be constant. To get a *true* picture of the difference, though, you need to know the differences internally as well, as these are considered to be more strongly correlated.

[Citation needed]

Had to do it. For large projects, most professors I've had were fine with citing Wikipedia, provided you did not cite it as a *primary* source. It is usually safe to cite as a tertiary source (the same way you'd cite an encyclopedia in any decent paper), or as a secondary source depending on the professor.

The two are loosely correlated. A much more important indicator than size is the complexity of the brain's internal structure. Density of neurons, number of interconnections, etc. To put a tech spin on it, a larger CPU might mean more processing power, but if it has fewer transistors per square inch, the computing power won't be any higher. These IQ comparisons always hold the internal structure to be constant.

By comparison, Homo neanderthalensis had a larger brain than Homo sapiens, on average. But while they are accepted to have been quite intelligent, they are seldom thought to have been more intelligent than H. sapiens.

It seems more likely that nature would select for a smaller, more densely packed brain than a larger, loosely packed brain. Big brain != more complex.

That's a big assumption, though. Look at the current state of health in this country. Our baseline is *waaaaaay* below that. For the average overweight, malnourished, sleep-deprived adult, any one of those boring answers would result in a very noticeable improvement.

Assuming you already have someone who has properly cared for their body, my next step would be to train the mind. Try an assortment of methods to improve the efficiency with which you think. Play with things like mnemonics to help your memory, for example.

Another boring answer, I know, but I see artificial solutions as a proper choice only when you have exhausted the natural solutions. Much like the focus on muscle size. I'd rather take X pounds of muscle and learn how to utilize it twice as efficiently than ingest some random magic powder to double my muscle mass while remaining at the baseline efficiency.

I think I'm the only 20-something techie who refuses to get a smartphone. Of course, I've run the numbers and I average about 17 minutes a day on the phone, so I'm a bit of an oddity all around.

Yeah, it's a great operating system. If only it had a decent text editor =)