A +29 on Intimidate is a very large bonus. Especially on a fighter, who has few skill points and little use for Charisma in most cases; almost all of that is probably from skill ranks, which implies a very high level character.
Such a person should be trivially succeeding on attempts to demoralize most anything. Anything short of an actual god should be an easy target for this guy’s demoralizing. He’s that good. Demons quake and angels shudder before his fearsome gaze. And so on.
The DC to use Intimidate is not based on the chart you gave, however; see the entry for the Intimidate skill on PFSRD:
Demoralize
[...] The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.
Influence Attitude
[...] The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.
So you can see that the DC scales with the target you are facing. Assuming the fighter’s Charisma is the same as the target’s Wisdom, and they are the same level, and neither has any relevant special bonuses, his average roll is only 3 higher than the target’s DC (from the +3 for Intimidate being a class skill). That gives him a 65% chance of success; good, but certainly not great.
If the target is higher in level, or Wisdom relative to his Charisma, or has other bonuses, that 65% chance quickly becomes 50:50 or worse, which makes even trying to intimidate a fairly risky move (in combat, it wastes time that could be spent attacking, out of combat, it pisses the target off).
But since the fighter is high-level, or has an unusually high Charisma and/or sizable extra bonuses, he’s basically guaranteed to terrify lower-leveled characters. This is a good thing; it represents his training, prowess, and so on. The table you give that ignores the player's bonus completely defeats the purpose of having that bonus, which is really bad for the game: it means the character's training and Charisma and other bonuses are meaningless.
As for Disable Device, for mundane traps it has more static DCs that don't necessarily scale. This is fairly appropriate; there's a limit on how complex a machine is reasonable in the kinds of gameworlds typically seen in Pathfinder. In an unusual setting, you could imagine more complicated machinery that requires higher checks and/or specialized training. Even within Pathfinder, an Amazing lock has a DC of 40, which is very difficult even for high-level characters to make.
Plus magic traps have scaling based on the spell level used to make it, and only those with Trapfinding can even try to make the check.
But again, many checks are going to be very easy for high-level characters. This is intentional. They are high-level; they are supposed to be good at what they do. In a lot of cases, they really aren’t that good at what they do; using magic tends to work much better than using a skill.
Best Answer
Jonathan Tweet invented 3e’s core mechanic and its DC concept
Difficulty Class did indeed make its D&D debut in 3e,1 and has been traced by Shannon Appelcline's historical work directly to Jonathan Tweet, lead designer of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition.
Initial 3e work began without a design vision shortly after WotC acquired TSR, and CEO Peter Adkison stepped in to give an overall goal and philosophy and to install Tweet as the lead designer. Tweet proceeded to establish the core mechanic — and hence Difficulty Class — as “die + bonus”, a core mechanic initially developed by Tweet for and appearing in the first edition of Ars Magica.
Appelcline in his own words, from Designers & Dragons: The '90s, pages 155–6:
Though the inspiration for using a unified mechanic came from Alternity, that system doesn't feature DCs or an equivalent, instead having you roll under your own ability or skill scores to achieve a success. Flipping it around to use his “die + bonus” roll-over mechanic required a target number external to the character, as in Ars Magica — and by Tweet importing that design, thus did Difficulty Class enter into D&D's design DNA in 1999 and lives on to this day.
As an editorial note, I find it interesting that today it is Difficulty Class that we consider characteristic of this task resolution system. At the time, Tweet's own conception of the mechanic's innovation wasn't DC, but the idea that situational effects were reflected in a unified modifier (rather than alternative die sizes or modifiers on your stats, mixed with a few low-value straight roll bonuses). DC was just a necessary invention to accommodate that design. So although DC is the most visible characteristic of this core mechanic, this is somewhat backwards historically, as the original heart of the mechanic lies elsewhere.
Appelcline talks about this innovation within the RPG design context of the late 1980s — and credits it as an innovation of Tweet's — more in the 80s volume of Designers & Dragons on page 307, in the history of the publisher Lion Rampant2:
As obvious as design as it seems like today to have an uncapped bonus added to a die roll, it was something new under the sun in RPG design at the time. We can thank Jonathan Tweet for the idea of rolling and adding a small-or-large modifier in RPG mechanics, and the Difficulty Class that fell out of that design goal.
1. Though D&D has had “target numbers” in its DNA since the beginning, that's unavoidable in most dice systems — you need a number that separates failure and success. The particular core mechanic that made DC prominent and explicit was indeed new in 3e.
2. Lion Rampant was founded by Jonathan Tweet and Mark Rein•Hagen (of Vampire: the Masquerade fame) to design and publish Ars Magica, “a game that did wizards right” (qv. Appelcline). While Rein•Hagen was the creative visionary, Tweet was the meticulous mechanics designer.