So do you.
I meant “light-bearing” which is also a meaning of Lucifer - “a meaning” - not that it is completely identical in all aspects.
But those two words still share a connection… unlike “Lucent has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Lucifer”. This would be liked saying “ass has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with butt”.
The ad for Inferno was on the back page of a magazine. It is an entire Operating System involving cell phones, PlayStations, TV’s and computers - it even had its own web browser. I don’t think it could be called “minor”. Where’s your proof that it is “minor”. It being unsuccessful is irrelevant.
Thanks for that… but Lucifer not being the main character doesn’t do much to disprove my argument.
“Purgatorio and Paradiso aren’t even set in hell”
This is irrelevant - I think only the Inferno part of the poem has any connection to the Inferno OS (Dis, Styx, etc)
BTW I thought about the BSD daemon:
But guess what - it is connected! Both Inferno and BSD and that Lucent 1997 ad have links to Bell Labs.
I guess people would still insist there is no connection. After all agreeing with someone with a mental illness might make it worse somehow… :smack:
You are completely missing the point. It’s all about context and precise definition.
For example, it’s obvious that this [NSFW] and this [NSFW] are synonymous. Whereas this, and this are not. Get it now?
You’re saying that a donkey/ass is not synonymous to a cigarette butt.
But the proper chain of association is this: donkey = ass = butt = cigarette butt.
I’m talking about Lucent = lightbearing = Lucifer.
There is no middle word that links a donkey to a cigarette butt.
This doesn’t mean donkey (ass) is strongly connected to cigarette butt (butt)… “gluteus maximus” is NOT the meaning of donkey and is NOT the meaning of a cigarette butt.
:smack:
Allow me to correct your mistake – “lucent” does not mean “light-bearing”, nor is it derived from any word that means “light-bearing”. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of Lucent is (1) glowing with light : luminous, or (2) marked by clarity or translucence : clear. Origin: Middle English, from Latin lucent-, lucens, present participle of lucēre: to shine. Conversely, the entry for Lucifer reads: (1) used as a name of The Devil; (2) the planet Venus when appearing as the morning star; (3) [not capitalized] a friction match having as active substances antimony sulfide and potassium chlorate. Origin: Middle English, the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, The Devil; from Old English, from Latin, the morning star, from lucifer light-bearing, from luc-, lux light + -fer -ferous — more at LIGHT.
Therefore, “Lucent” and “Lucifer” are in no way synonymous. Your connection is a false connection. You are in error. The Matrix has you.
What matters is what it says here:
“The name “Lucent,” an evocative real word meaning light-bearing”
Landor is officially related to Lucent - you are not. So what they say is what matters.
Do you even know who Landor is?
Are you really so fixated on some glurgy corporate blurb as to ignore the collective knowledge of tens of thousands of professional lexicographers? Gimme a break, pal.
I’ve changed my mind – you don’t need a shrink, you need a remedial English teacher. Hopefully one who’s smokin’ hot.
“The Lucent logo, the Innovation Ring, was designed by Landor Associates”
So you don’t think the designers of the logo have any relevance?
If you say so.
I can’t believe it! The same guy I was arguing with on Wikipedia has helped me!
Here is the latest version of the section about Lucent’s name on Wikipedia:
I don’t mean to be condescending - you clearly don’t know anything about Lucent or large technology companies. If you read the Wikipedia article instead of trying to add your paranoid ideas to it, you’ll notice they’ve employed 165,000 people and have 30,000 patents.
They developed or were a major developer of the transistor, lasers, the C programming language, C++, UNIX.
7 Nobel prizes were awarded for work completed by Lucent.
The enormous amount of products they’ve created is pretty astounding, and really shows how completely irrelevant Inferno was to Lucent and everyone in the world but you.
And it’s not at all irrelevant that it was unsuccessful. UNIX would be just an OS if it wasn’t so wildly successful and the root of so many operating systems we’re still using.
and
are the only two times the word Lucifer is used in Inferno. Calling him “not the main character” is a pretty massive understatement.
Inferno has quite a few pages of its own on Wikipedia… in fact it has its own category with 13 pages…
Do any of Lucent’s other products even have ONE Wikipedia page for them?
It being unsuccessful is not relevant to whether there is a connection to Lucent and Lucifer.
Ok but it is well known that he is a character in it.
Fuzzy Dunlop:
“Do any of Lucent’s other products even have ONE Wikipedia page for them?”
By that I mean products that were started when Lucent started, in about 1996.
Fuzzy Dunlop:
About Inferno being a “minor” product:
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/index.html
The applications are written in a custom language (Limbo). It uses a virtual machine (Dis).
Inferno provides “…all the tools necessary for creating, testing and debugging the applications that run within it…”
On its own I don’t see how that could be a “minor” project. You’re saying that compared to the size of Lucent it is minor… but if it is minor then there should be at least 2 or 3 other projects at the time (1996). I think Inferno is one of the most ambitious OS’s at the time.
Bell Labs ==> Lucent.
If you’ve never heard of Bell Labs, your homework assignment starts tonight.
Focusing solely on Lucent’s minor setbacks in the late 1990’s is akin to treating Paul McCartney as that funny-looking honky that Michael Jackson occasionally sang duets with.
You may have missed this post of mine…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16995017&postcount=63
What you quoted by me:
Fuzzy Dunlop said the Inferno OS was a minor product (at the time / 1996?). To prove it he should provide evidence of other products that are more ambitious… they should have at least one Wikipedia page if they’re notable enough
“By that I mean products that were started when Lucent started, in about 1996.”
I mean products that were around when Lucent started, in about 1996.
I guess there could be a lot of other things that Lucent was doing in 1996…
