Arguably, given that ultimately all code is executed by microprocessor/controller/ASIC/whatever logic gates, I would say it has to be one of AND, OR, or NOT (or one of their base combinations). Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gates

Also note that this answer satisfies the "non-assembler format" constraint (in letter if not in spirit).

Actually you miss the context of 1Co26. That passage isn't referring to intelligence per se, but to those who think they are more intelligent than God (like, for instance, those individuals quoted by the original thread author).

The thing that struck me in reading all of those quotes is that Russell seems to have been unaware (ignorant?) of the parable of the shrewd (intelligent?) manager. Cf. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:1-15&version=NLT

Bart Simpson: I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.

Appropriately, from the episode "Screaming Yellow Honkers".

(From your own link)...so let's take a look at the controlling congressional parties during those years:

Reagan +9.3%, Democrat House, Republican Senate followed by Democrat Senate
George H. W. Bush +13.0%, Democrat for both
Clinton -0.07%, Democrat House followed by Republican House, Democrat Senate followed by Republican Senate
Clinton -9.0%, Republican for both
George H. Bush +7.1%, Republican House, Split Senate followed by Republican Senate
George H. Bush +20.7%, Republican House followed by Democrat House, Republican Senate followed by Democrat Senate

If you fail to discern the underlying pattern there, then you are not paying attention. Presidents get far too much credit and blame for the debt load of the country; it is Congress that writes the laws - the President signs or vetoes them. So when Joe Randomcitizen or some Talking Head tries to give credit to Clinton (or too much blame to Republicans) for a particular debt load without recognizing Congress's far-greater contribution, that too is misleading. Possibly known as lying? You be the judge.

(Side note on Clinton: he presided during one of the biggest economic booms in our history. As one presidential candidate recently put it: "when you're dealt four aces, it's easy to win the hand.")

The logical counterargument is that the buck stops with the president. Ultimately he decides whether to sign whatever congress puts on his desk. And arguably there are times where a president signs something that does not match 100% with his fiscal (or other) ideology. That's called compromise, and I think that our current congressional gridlock (Cf. funding the nation for months at a time rather than a full year) is due to the virtue of compromise being retrospectively mis-cast into a vice. Our congresspeople have no choice but to dig in their ideological heels or risk being outcast by their peers, Talking Heads, and even their opponents for not strictly following their chosen party doctrine.

Interesting that the captcha for this entry is 'revival'. That is truly what this country needs.

From Gleick's "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman"...

"'People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not...If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it--that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers...then that's the way it is.' He believed that his colleagues were claiming more success at unification than they had achived--that disparate theories had been pasted together tenuously. When Hawking said, 'We may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature,' many particle physicists agreed. But Feynman did not. 'I've had a lifetime of that,' he said on another occasion. 'I've had a lifetime of people who believe that the answer is just around the corner.... But again and again it's been a failure. Eddington, who thought that with the theory of electrons and quantum mechanics everything was going to be simple...Einstein, who thought that he had a unified thoeiry just around the corner but didn't know anything about nuclei and was unable of course to guess it...People think the're very close to the answer, but I don't think so....

Whether or not nature has an ultimate, simple, unified, beautiful form is an open question, and I don't want to say either way.'"

(From the epilogue of the book, pp. 432-433, emph. added.)