"In short, every single point you made is precisely and exactly wrong."

You should learn what the words "precisely" and "exactly" mean. When you are hanging around with your fellow mentally retarded buddies at the law library throwing them around makes you sound intelligent, but here your use of them just amplifies your stupidity.

Damn! I was hoping to extend this! I'd just place something on my website: "Smiling at me and saying hello" constitutes an agreement to have hot nasty sex!" Also, clicking "Go" on the google search page constitutues a desire toi "Go" with me!

It's pretty clear that they already have their own IANAL

No. He's the original AC. He's been baiting himself for years!

"Either way since the 15th is now passed it's largely a pointless discussion to continue."

That certainly explains why you continued it ...up to the point where you said your peace on Thursday April 17, 2014 @04:51PM and then implied that any response would be inappropriate, what with it being past the 15th and all.

"Also by patenting it now he guarantees that 20 years from now it will be in the public domain "

So the advantage is that it will be in the public domain in 20 years rather than now? I agree that is an advantage, just not to the general public.

"But I don't find myself becoming less vigilant when I'm working in a more abstract language. I find myself thinking more about the problem and less about implementation details."

But you have the experience with, and therefore the understand of, the issues. You wouldn't have that if you started with a "safer" language and stayed there, as would be the case if everybody "just used safer languages"..

"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?