"Thus, those languages, while not perfectly safe (nothing can be), are manifestly safer than C."

Bullshit. Tell that to the robot arm that is crashing down on your skull because the code to stop it was blocked by the GC (excepting ADA, which has other dangers, I'm sure)

Again, the biggest problem you have is not having any idea what you are talking about, and going on and on trying to quantify a language using qualatative terms.

"Luckily for us, the people responsible for maintaining the Linux Kernel understand the difference between C and C++ "

Yes, it is indeed lucky for us that the competent OS developers know their stuff, and they don't listen to people like yourself who have no idea why C is better for the Linux kernel (or any kernel, really). I hate to break it to you, but you aren't smarter than the top Linux developers. You simply aren't. Stop confusing yourself into thinking you know more than they do. It is pathetic to watch.

No it isn't because that is a stupid question. C is a language, and like all languages it is never "safe" unless you know what you are doing. Also, like all languages I have encountered, it is "safe" if you do know what you are doing. There is no such thing as a "safe" or unsafe language; only safe and unsafe programmers.

"And yet the vast majority of programmers... are not hypervigilant."

FTFY. Let's not single C out as if it is the exception to the rule.

" If Microsoft's code had been the root cause, there would be a hatestorm of immense proportions. Since it's open source, the overall attitude has been, "oops! it's okay, they can fix it,it's an honest mistake!""

I must have missed it. When did the OpenSSL team use illegal and immoral businesses practices to coherce or trick people into having to pay money for their software? You see. That's the difference in a nutshell. If you offer someone something for free they tend to be more forgiving of flaws than if you force them or trick them into buying it.

"Furthermore, because in C you have to spend time and effort making sure you're not susceptable to memory errors, that takes time and effort away from looking for other errors."

Your analysis gets it wrong. With so called "safe" languages people are less vigilinte because they can get away with being lazy and not really understanding what is going on. With C you have to be hypervigilinte and know your stuff, which are two very good qualities for a programmer to have.

"Does anyone know how good their test coverage is?"

They think it's pretty good, but they haven't had time to test it yet.

I'm resolving it by simply pointing out that you don't understand what was written and refuse to even state what it is I wrote that you don't understand. If you refuse to state the problem you have understanding what I wrote in specific terms I can hardly help you get a clue now, can I?

Actually, the reason you won't do that is because there was no "sarcasm" (a word I'm not convinced you even understand), and to try to point out any sarcasm in an attempt to cover up your inability to follow a thread would be folly, as you well know.

Those words were never used until you used them. Please try to pay attention.

""Oh crap, we're running low on cash! We need more monies! Quick, let people spend $1500 for some tech from us!""

You are evidently unaware that Google Glass is made by Google?

You should have gone with glass.google.com, since google.com is the only domain any sane person would expect to find google products.

And I said that it negates the REST of your point...uhm. WHERE?

"And you know some clueless Glasshole is going to post his lame attempts at picking up women and getting bitch-slapped once they notice what he's wearing."

You really don't understand how the real world works, do you? The more likely scenario is that she wasn't going to give him the time of day until she noticed the Glass(es?), at which point she'll be at least interested enough to try to find out if he has millions or is just in the wealthy category. Seriously, the number of people who take issue with Glass elsewhere (i.e. not Slashdot) is exceedingly low. Here people like to paint it as a universally despised technology, but it's not. Also, I'm not entirely certain from your post, but: You do know that Glass doesn't magically render the capability to see women's underwear, right?

Do pray tell us. What do you think was "made up" in my post? You seem to have left that little detail out, presumably because you know how stupid you would sound if you tried to provide an actual example.