NFC chip

After a big buzz generated by the NFC chip in Google's Nexus S phone
last year, I'm surprised that none of the new T-Mo phones announced so
far this year do not seem to have that chip in them. Any ideas why?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:05:38 -0400, Cameo <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> After a big buzz generated by the NFC chip in Google's Nexus S phone
> last year, I'm surprised that none of the new T-Mo phones announced so
> far this year do not seem to have that chip in them. Any ideas why?

Wait Cameo, what are you wondering here, really? That none of them *don't* have that chip in them (i.e., that all of them *do* have it)? or that none of them actually *have* that chip in them?

Cheers (and never quite not unsure how to take a double negative), -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

"tlvp" <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsp.vt697bhlitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net.. .
> Wait Cameo, what are you wondering here, really? That none of them
> *don't* have that chip in them (i.e., that all of them *do* have it)?
> or that none of them actually *have* that chip in them?
>
> Cheers (and never quite not unsure how to take a double negative), --
> tlvp

After rereading my post, I am embarrassed I did not spot that before
send. I was composing something else that I edited later but did not
look at the whole context. Thanks for the correction. So here is what I
*really* wanted to write:

"After a big buzz generated by the NFC chip in Google's Nexus S phone
last year, I'm surprised that none of the new T-Mo phones announced so
far this year seems to have that chip in it. Any ideas why?"

Better?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:21:51 -0400, Cameo <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "tlvp" <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsp.vt697bhlitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net.. .
>> Wait Cameo, what are you wondering here, really? That none of them
>> *don't* have that chip in them (i.e., that all of them *do* have it)?
>> or that none of them actually *have* that chip in them?
>>
>> Cheers (and never quite not unsure how to take a double negative), --
>> tlvp
>
> After rereading my post, I am embarrassed I did not spot that before
> send. I was composing something else that I edited later but did not
> look at the whole context. Thanks for the correction. So here is what I
> *really* wanted to write:
>
> "After a big buzz generated by the NFC chip in Google's Nexus S phone
> last year, I'm surprised that none of the new T-Mo phones announced so
> far this year seems to have that chip in it. Any ideas why?"
>
> Better?

Absolutely :-) ! (Alas, I have no ideas why, just as I'd have had no ideas
why for the alternative interpretation of the original question :-{ .)

Thanks, though; and cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

"tlvp" <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsp.vt78fyk0itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net.. .
> Absolutely :-) ! (Alas, I have no ideas why, just as I'd have had no
> ideas
> why for the alternative interpretation of the original question :-{ .)

Oh, give a break to someone for whom English is the second language.

> "After a big buzz generated by the NFC chip in Google's Nexus S phone
> last year, I'm surprised that none of the new T-Mo phones announced so
> far this year seems to have that chip in it. Any ideas why?"

You mean that chip that will make a lot more thieves want to steal
your phone? Whether you ever use it (the chip) or not?

There's a lot of battling between the scenes with cell phone
companies, phone companies, banks, and payment processors trying
to cut each other out of the small hidden fees that add up to a
HUGE amount annually in the United States. I'm not sure how it
works in other countries.

There's also the issue that it's rather pointless to put the chip in
unless it's part of one of the top two or three standards. Few people
will use it if you can only buy vending machine condoms and cigarettes
at one particular chain of gas stations with it.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:48:49 -0400, Cameo <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "tlvp" <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsp.vt78fyk0itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net.. .
>> Absolutely :-) ! (Alas, I have no ideas why, just as I'd have had no
>> ideas
>> why for the alternative interpretation of the original question :-{ .)
>
> Oh, give a break to someone for whom English is the second language.

You and me both, brother Cameo :-) .

Salut, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

"tlvp" <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsp.vua1sxnuitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net.. .
>> Oh, give a break to someone for whom English is the second language.
>
> You and me both, brother Cameo :-) .

Then no wonder you're so sensitive to double negatives. Generally I am,
too, but sometimes editing part of a long sentence in a hurry without
rereading the whole makes me sin against the Queen's English. Sh*t
happens, especially when your first language happens to allow double
negatives, such as "I ain't got nothin' against it." ;-)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 23:17:43 -0400, Cameo <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "tlvp" <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsp.vua1sxnuitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net.. .
>>> Oh, give a break to someone for whom English is the second language.
>>
>> You and me both, brother Cameo :-) .
>
> Then no wonder you're so sensitive to double negatives. Generally I am,
> too, but sometimes editing part of a long sentence in a hurry without
> rereading the whole makes me sin against the Queen's English. Sh*t
> happens, especially when your first language happens to allow double
> negatives, such as "I ain't got nothin' against it." ;-)

And then there are also the single negatives -- the "pleonastic" negatives -- that count instead as accentuated affirmatives :-) . (You know what I mean, I suppose -- and, if you don't, well, consider yourself spared :-) .)

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP