So the store tells you they won't print your photos, even suggesting (not in so many words) that their reason is that you might be a thief.
If they think this is okay, where does it stop? Will they refuse to change your watch battery unless you can prove you didn't steal it? Or repair the clasp on your necklace? Or change the oil in your car?
Dont knock it 'til you try it. I'm using two 18" LCD's (total cost around $700), no dead pixels on either screen, and the amount of screen real estate is unbelievably useful. I originally tried two displays with two CRT's, one 17" and one 15", using the smaller one for email, Windows Explorer, etc. and the larger one for applications. Now that I'm using the LCD's, they take up less space, they don't get as hot, and the picture is a lot more crisp and easy on the eyes.
I still use the Dualview setting by Nvidia, and very seldom stretch a single application across both screens (usually movie and/or sound editing or CAD), but having both monitors has been a great productivity boost.
Unless you are into...watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.
I don't know how you usually watch TV, but one screen is plenty for that, I think.
And the dead pixel problem is pretty easy to overcome - I had them take them out of the box at the store and hook them up to test them.
Though I did enjoy hooking up my ps2 controller to my machine for flying in bf1942.
Interesting idea - I have an Xbox, and it's a lot easier for me to use it for games like flying, fighting, or driving. The controller seems (to me) better suited for those types of games than a keyboard and/or mouse.
I find it peculiar that not too many people have mentioned that FPS games are easier to play on a PC than on a console - at least, that's been my experience. The little analog thumbsticks on the Xbox controller are much harder for me to use for precise aiming than a mouse is. Again, maybe that's just me.
But to echo your thought - no, I wouldn't buy a PC just for gaming, since I use a PC anyway; an extra $100 or so for a better video card to make it better suited for games isn't that much more of an investment.
This was an almost-believable story. The biggest flaw is the 6-inch fan capable of moving 25 cubic meters of air per second, or on the order of 54,000 cfm.
A fan that size isn't measured in watts, it's measured in horsepower. An axial (propeller) fan capable of moving that much air might be about six feet in diameter and be driven by a 10 hp motor.
Maybe there's a typo in there - 25 cubic meters per minute (I know, not a proper SI unit) would be about 900 cfm, much more believable for a 6" fan, but still howling.
...and we tried all the tactics you can supposedly use to determine the sex of your child, since we both wanted a girl. Right down to diet, monthly timing, position, etc.
It only took us about a week to embrace that we were having a boy, however. I guess engineer trumps teacher in this example.
Actually, I did consider the Scion - good size and an even better price. Both Edmunds and Consumer Reports felt it was underpowered - and in the end, that's the entire jist of this thread: other people trying to tell me how much power I should want in a vehicle.
A friend of mine drives a Saturn wagon, on par with a Subaru in size - it was way too small for my liking. Same with the Mazda.
No, I just think you're a selfish ASSHOLE.
I knew when I posted my comments that I could have been called a lot of different things as a result, but I didn't think "selfish asshole" was one of them.
But as long as I'm wearing the flamesuit, I'll go all out: as an American, I feel it's my right to buy and drive whatever vehicle that (1) I can afford and (2) is allowed by law. If it uses more fuel than another model, so be it. If we as Americans use more oil than other people think we should, let them do something about it. Somebody's got to be King of the Mountain, it might as well be us. Working backward to relinquish our standing as the world's superpower is contrary to the line of thinking that made us a superpower to begin with.
Do you have your Bush-Cheney '04 sticker on the back still?
If you would pull your head out of your ass long enough to follow the rest of this thread, you'll see that I bought the vehicle after the election. And no, I don't put stickers on my car, that's the sort of shit soccer moms do.
A lot of people bought big SUV's because the government allows you to write off up to $100k dollars of the cost of a vehicle weighing over 6k pounds.
Really? I did my taxes a couple of months back and the only writeoffs allowed were for hybrids and alternative fuel cars. If I could write off $100,000 for buying a $100,000 Hummer H1, I certainly would have done so.
Would any SUV owner be willing to pay their fare share of tolls? No of course not.
A lot of people, you included, seem to misunderstand the purpose of toll roads. The tolls are put in place because those roads are not built exclusively with government funds - the agencies contracted to perform (or assist) in the development, construction, etc. of the roads are authorized and assisted by the authority having jurisdiction to collect tolls to help recover their costs.
It seems that you have your panties in a wad over the amount of damage done to the roads ("orders of magnitude"? Are we talking about 100, 1000, or 1 million times as much damage?) because of bigger cars, and that we don't pay our "fair share." You're wrong - the tolls are not put in place to recover damages done to the highways, but rest assured that the state recovers that money in the form of higher registration fees. Oh, and don't forget that for every gallon of gas I burn, I'm spending sixty some-odd cents in taxes - trust me, I'm paying my fair share. And it's a price I decided to pay when I bought the vehicle.
55HP (in my slightly modified engine) is more than adequate to move such a light vehicle
Respectfully, this is just one opinion - if everyone felt this way, no car company would ever have been able to sell a true sports car. Some people want a higher horespower-to-weight ratio for whatever reason. That's their business.
it will seat 4 people comfortably despite being only 10 feet long
Again, this subjective statement doesn't apply to everyone. I'm 6'-3" and the last time I sat in a passenger car without my head brushing the ceiling (or worse!), I was about thirteen years old.
and yet cars today are far heavier. We get worse gas mileage- sure the cars are more powerful but then again they have to be.
Today, car companies make cars that people want to buy, period. Once the demand for a model tanks, it's either pulled from the lineup or overhauled - nobody can sustain a successful business by developing and selling products that people don't want. Auto companies make bigger and heavier cars because people want to buy them, not to piss people off.
I realize some of this weight is the result of safety improvements and the like but it just feels like there has to be a middle ground.
There is, and apparently you're happy with it. Congratulations. For everyone who wants or already owns a compact car or a hybrid for whatever reason, that's their business - but many of the comments to this article are bashing those of us who drive larger, less fuel-efficient cars. (That, too, is their business.) I bought my Expedition earlier this year because I wanted a vehicle I could drive comfortably and haul around my son and all of his "stuff." (he's five months old). Yes, technically I may have been able to stuff a playpen, a stroller, a car seat, and the like - as well as myself, into a Prius or Civic; but I don't want to.
Don't try to force-feed us a bunch of environmentalist warm and fuzzy crap under the guise of it being the ostensible "right" thing to do. One size does not fit all in this case.
...that people have been stealing cars by acquiring a car's VIN and buying a key for that car. It's simple enough to put a piece of tape over the VIN on your dashboard - it can easily be removed if someone has a legitimate reason to see it - but any yahoo with an RFID scanner can get the VIN from an RFID tag, AND, even creepier, your registration and title information. For those who might be wondering, here in Texas that includes your home address.
I'm sorry, I'm not really the tin-foil hat type, but I'd just as soon keep that information just a little bit harder for the bad guys to come by.
What sense does it make to check what pests people are carrying if the same pests could just fly, walk, or be blown over the border all by themselves?
It's pretty simple, actually. Many of these checkpoints are in the desert - between the deserts and mountains in southern California, it's not all that easy for fruit flies, etc. to just fly into the valleys where the produce farms are.
part of the act of communication involves visualizing the other person's body language, facial expressions, and surroundings
Yes, that's correct - when I'm sitting across the dinner table from someone, or at a job interview, etc. Maybe I'm the only one, but when I speak to someone on the phone - mobile or otherwise - I don't have any need to try to visualize how they're behaving.
By this logic, one could postulate that a telephone conversation in a car is safer than a conversation with one of the car's passengers. But I agree with the parent - it's not that friggin' hard to have a conversation with someone, or listen to the radio, or whatever, while driving. At least it shouldn't be.
I've used my (Toshiba) Pocket PC for over two years now. It syncs with Outlook (which I use anyway, both at home and at work), it allows you to access the SD slot as a removable drive, both in handheld mode and when docked with a desktop, without adding any software, and it reads text files without a hitch.
I'm not going to knock Palm - I haven't used one, but I'm sure they're doing something right, since I'm sure they haven't sold millions of units strictly because of slick marketing. But the PPC is, at least for me, much more than just "eye candy" features.
However, Ballmer conceded it isn't going to be an easy battle to win. "Most people still steal music," he said.
Most people steal music? This informal poll might suggest a different story.
I'd love to know what numbers he's using to arrive at his assertation that "most people" still steal music. I seem to remember reading that many people have stopped downloading music from P2P sources - they don't "still steal music," do they?
I don't know, it sounds like he's making a blanket statement to support his position without telling us how he intends to back his statement up. Perhaps he doesn't intend to?
And depending on the circumstances, lying about things that may or may not impact national security isn't altogether different from simply withholding information. I agree that it isn't totally ethical, but quite possibly better than the alternative - again, depending on the circumstances.
What so few people seem to want to mention is that (1) many of us Americans would rather take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to a hostile nation that may or may not be developing nuclear weapons, and (2) many people, if pressed to do so, would agree that the world is at least a little bit safer without Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq, regardless of whether he had any WMD's.
The above are the opinions of one person and most likely do not reflect the opinions of the rest of/.
The cost of living isn't controlled by corporations or by any other company, it's controlled by economics.
If you accept that corporations set the prices of all the things that fall under "cost of living," then you must accept that consumers will willingly pay any price for those items, something which we know isn't true. Think about it, when gasoline prices start skyrocketing, some people started buying smaller cars and driving less.
The cost of living is set by both firms and consumers at a price index that both sides are agreeable to. It's often called "supply and demand."
Perhaps, but it might have been more effective from a public relations standpoint for him to simply address the question without going into the whole "when did you stop beating your wife" comment. That part of his response took me aback just a bit, and as I re-read the/.er's question, it didn't seem to have that type of feel to it at all, but that could just be the way I interpreted it.
But you are right, kudos to Rob for at least answering and not dodging the question.
Well, ignoring the fact that a corporation is legally a person,...
A corporation is not a person; legally, figuratively, literally, or in any other fashion. A corporation is a model of ownership, just like "sole proprietorship" or "partnership."
Two of the most obvious differences between a "corporation" and either of the other two ownership models I mentioned are (1) a corporation uses allocation of stock to shareholders, whether publicly traded or not, and (2) the separate entity clause, which says very clearly that the assets, debts, etc. of the corporation are separate from the assets, debts, etc. of the owners (shareholders) - meaning if a company gets sued, litigants generally can't make a claim against the shareholders' assets.
By definition, a corporation is necessarily not a person, even in the instance of a corporation with a single shareholder.
From the site 2004-08-25: This site will be gone for some time due to the slashdot effect. The site was posted there and we got too much traffic. Things will be back as soon as things calm down. Sorry for any inconveniance. None of your images are lost, they are just removed temporarily until Slashdot leaves us alone.
Those of you who post images from your phones - they are still stored, only not shown right now.
See ya all again when the Slashdot people go away.
Apparently, monkeys, just like human beings, tend to slack off on tasks until the very last minute. They become quite adept at judging how long they have till they absolutely must complete these tasks.
It was very much the same when I was at The University of Oklahoma back in the early 90's. The engineering computer lab was about 20% PC, 20% Mac, 20% DEC workstations, and the rest were the beloved "greenscreens," the Unix dumb terminals.
Unfortunately, when I went to graduate school a few years ago in Texas, the computer labs were 100% PC, although most of these allowed you to telnet to one of the school's Unix servers (you can probably imagine how few people on the campus knew you could).
Interestingly, this was one of those campuses that had a sweet arrangement with Microsoft to sell software to students for $5 per CD - Windows, Office, Visual Studio, and a handful of others. I'm sure that deal had a lot to do with which OS would be used in the computer labs.
Re:4,800 degrees farenheit..
on
X43-A on to Mach 10
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It's incorrect to use temperature to describe something as "twice as hot," since temperature is an intrinsic value - not a "quantity" to be counted like length, mass, etc, but rather a relative scale, defined by the Zeroth law of Thermodynamics to describe the direction of heat transfer.
It would be somewhat more correct to possibly describe something as having twice as much internal energy (heat), because units of heat (joules or BTU's) are quantifiable units. Keep in mind that this still wouldn't lead to twice the temperature on an absolute scale, since the specific heat of virtually anything is variable with temperature - hence, you can't correctly surmise that just because there's twice as much heat then there must be twice as much temperature.
Slashdot Mirror
they're going to have to consider a draft. But they won't call it that... they'll want to call it something else.
They already DO call it something else - "Selective Service."
IF YOU DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH:
* You must have a HotMail account...
Isn't writing these instructions in English a bit like having drive-up ATM's in Braille?
So the store tells you they won't print your photos, even suggesting (not in so many words) that their reason is that you might be a thief.
If they think this is okay, where does it stop? Will they refuse to change your watch battery unless you can prove you didn't steal it? Or repair the clasp on your necklace? Or change the oil in your car?
Dont knock it 'til you try it. I'm using two 18" LCD's (total cost around $700), no dead pixels on either screen, and the amount of screen real estate is unbelievably useful. I originally tried two displays with two CRT's, one 17" and one 15", using the smaller one for email, Windows Explorer, etc. and the larger one for applications. Now that I'm using the LCD's, they take up less space, they don't get as hot, and the picture is a lot more crisp and easy on the eyes.
I still use the Dualview setting by Nvidia, and very seldom stretch a single application across both screens (usually movie and/or sound editing or CAD), but having both monitors has been a great productivity boost.
Unless you are into...watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.
I don't know how you usually watch TV, but one screen is plenty for that, I think.
And the dead pixel problem is pretty easy to overcome - I had them take them out of the box at the store and hook them up to test them.
Though I did enjoy hooking up my ps2 controller to my machine for flying in bf1942.
Interesting idea - I have an Xbox, and it's a lot easier for me to use it for games like flying, fighting, or driving. The controller seems (to me) better suited for those types of games than a keyboard and/or mouse.
I find it peculiar that not too many people have mentioned that FPS games are easier to play on a PC than on a console - at least, that's been my experience. The little analog thumbsticks on the Xbox controller are much harder for me to use for precise aiming than a mouse is. Again, maybe that's just me.
But to echo your thought - no, I wouldn't buy a PC just for gaming, since I use a PC anyway; an extra $100 or so for a better video card to make it better suited for games isn't that much more of an investment.
This was an almost-believable story. The biggest flaw is the 6-inch fan capable of moving 25 cubic meters of air per second, or on the order of 54,000 cfm.
A fan that size isn't measured in watts, it's measured in horsepower. An axial (propeller) fan capable of moving that much air might be about six feet in diameter and be driven by a 10 hp motor.
Maybe there's a typo in there - 25 cubic meters per minute (I know, not a proper SI unit) would be about 900 cfm, much more believable for a 6" fan, but still howling.
...and we tried all the tactics you can supposedly use to determine the sex of your child, since we both wanted a girl. Right down to diet, monthly timing, position, etc.
It only took us about a week to embrace that we were having a boy, however. I guess engineer trumps teacher in this example.
Actually, I did consider the Scion - good size and an even better price. Both Edmunds and Consumer Reports felt it was underpowered - and in the end, that's the entire jist of this thread: other people trying to tell me how much power I should want in a vehicle.
A friend of mine drives a Saturn wagon, on par with a Subaru in size - it was way too small for my liking. Same with the Mazda.
No, I just think you're a selfish ASSHOLE.
I knew when I posted my comments that I could have been called a lot of different things as a result, but I didn't think "selfish asshole" was one of them.
But as long as I'm wearing the flamesuit, I'll go all out: as an American, I feel it's my right to buy and drive whatever vehicle that (1) I can afford and (2) is allowed by law. If it uses more fuel than another model, so be it. If we as Americans use more oil than other people think we should, let them do something about it. Somebody's got to be King of the Mountain, it might as well be us. Working backward to relinquish our standing as the world's superpower is contrary to the line of thinking that made us a superpower to begin with.
Do you have your Bush-Cheney '04 sticker on the back still?
If you would pull your head out of your ass long enough to follow the rest of this thread, you'll see that I bought the vehicle after the election. And no, I don't put stickers on my car, that's the sort of shit soccer moms do.
A lot of people bought big SUV's because the government allows you to write off up to $100k dollars of the cost of a vehicle weighing over 6k pounds.
Really? I did my taxes a couple of months back and the only writeoffs allowed were for hybrids and alternative fuel cars. If I could write off $100,000 for buying a $100,000 Hummer H1, I certainly would have done so.
Would any SUV owner be willing to pay their fare share of tolls? No of course not.
A lot of people, you included, seem to misunderstand the purpose of toll roads. The tolls are put in place because those roads are not built exclusively with government funds - the agencies contracted to perform (or assist) in the development, construction, etc. of the roads are authorized and assisted by the authority having jurisdiction to collect tolls to help recover their costs.
It seems that you have your panties in a wad over the amount of damage done to the roads ("orders of magnitude"? Are we talking about 100, 1000, or 1 million times as much damage?) because of bigger cars, and that we don't pay our "fair share." You're wrong - the tolls are not put in place to recover damages done to the highways, but rest assured that the state recovers that money in the form of higher registration fees. Oh, and don't forget that for every gallon of gas I burn, I'm spending sixty some-odd cents in taxes - trust me, I'm paying my fair share. And it's a price I decided to pay when I bought the vehicle.
55HP (in my slightly modified engine) is more than adequate to move such a light vehicle
Respectfully, this is just one opinion - if everyone felt this way, no car company would ever have been able to sell a true sports car. Some people want a higher horespower-to-weight ratio for whatever reason. That's their business.
it will seat 4 people comfortably despite being only 10 feet long
Again, this subjective statement doesn't apply to everyone. I'm 6'-3" and the last time I sat in a passenger car without my head brushing the ceiling (or worse!), I was about thirteen years old.
and yet cars today are far heavier. We get worse gas mileage- sure the cars are more powerful but then again they have to be.
Today, car companies make cars that people want to buy, period. Once the demand for a model tanks, it's either pulled from the lineup or overhauled - nobody can sustain a successful business by developing and selling products that people don't want. Auto companies make bigger and heavier cars because people want to buy them, not to piss people off.
I realize some of this weight is the result of safety improvements and the like but it just feels like there has to be a middle ground.
There is, and apparently you're happy with it. Congratulations. For everyone who wants or already owns a compact car or a hybrid for whatever reason, that's their business - but many of the comments to this article are bashing those of us who drive larger, less fuel-efficient cars. (That, too, is their business.) I bought my Expedition earlier this year because I wanted a vehicle I could drive comfortably and haul around my son and all of his "stuff." (he's five months old). Yes, technically I may have been able to stuff a playpen, a stroller, a car seat, and the like - as well as myself, into a Prius or Civic; but I don't want to.
Don't try to force-feed us a bunch of environmentalist warm and fuzzy crap under the guise of it being the ostensible "right" thing to do. One size does not fit all in this case.
The more people we convert, the more support for our projects and the better they will become sooner.
Why do people try to get other people on their side in an argument instead of just arguing alone?
Wow...the message seems to embrace converting people to "our" side, while the sig seems to chastise those who do just that.
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this?
...that people have been stealing cars by acquiring a car's VIN and buying a key for that car. It's simple enough to put a piece of tape over the VIN on your dashboard - it can easily be removed if someone has a legitimate reason to see it - but any yahoo with an RFID scanner can get the VIN from an RFID tag, AND, even creepier, your registration and title information. For those who might be wondering, here in Texas that includes your home address.
I'm sorry, I'm not really the tin-foil hat type, but I'd just as soon keep that information just a little bit harder for the bad guys to come by.
What sense does it make to check what pests people are carrying if the same pests could just fly, walk, or be blown over the border all by themselves?
It's pretty simple, actually. Many of these checkpoints are in the desert - between the deserts and mountains in southern California, it's not all that easy for fruit flies, etc. to just fly into the valleys where the produce farms are.
part of the act of communication involves visualizing the other person's body language, facial expressions, and surroundings
Yes, that's correct - when I'm sitting across the dinner table from someone, or at a job interview, etc. Maybe I'm the only one, but when I speak to someone on the phone - mobile or otherwise - I don't have any need to try to visualize how they're behaving.
By this logic, one could postulate that a telephone conversation in a car is safer than a conversation with one of the car's passengers. But I agree with the parent - it's not that friggin' hard to have a conversation with someone, or listen to the radio, or whatever, while driving. At least it shouldn't be.
Right on.
I've used my (Toshiba) Pocket PC for over two years now. It syncs with Outlook (which I use anyway, both at home and at work), it allows you to access the SD slot as a removable drive, both in handheld mode and when docked with a desktop, without adding any software, and it reads text files without a hitch.
I'm not going to knock Palm - I haven't used one, but I'm sure they're doing something right, since I'm sure they haven't sold millions of units strictly because of slick marketing. But the PPC is, at least for me, much more than just "eye candy" features.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
From TFA:
However, Ballmer conceded it isn't going to be an easy battle to win. "Most people still steal music," he said.
Most people steal music? This informal poll might suggest a different story.
I'd love to know what numbers he's using to arrive at his assertation that "most people" still steal music. I seem to remember reading that many people have stopped downloading music from P2P sources - they don't "still steal music," do they?
I don't know, it sounds like he's making a blanket statement to support his position without telling us how he intends to back his statement up. Perhaps he doesn't intend to?
And depending on the circumstances, lying about things that may or may not impact national security isn't altogether different from simply withholding information. I agree that it isn't totally ethical, but quite possibly better than the alternative - again, depending on the circumstances.
/.
What so few people seem to want to mention is that (1) many of us Americans would rather take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to a hostile nation that may or may not be developing nuclear weapons, and (2) many people, if pressed to do so, would agree that the world is at least a little bit safer without Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq, regardless of whether he had any WMD's.
The above are the opinions of one person and most likely do not reflect the opinions of the rest of
The cost of living isn't controlled by corporations or by any other company, it's controlled by economics.
If you accept that corporations set the prices of all the things that fall under "cost of living," then you must accept that consumers will willingly pay any price for those items, something which we know isn't true. Think about it, when gasoline prices start skyrocketing, some people started buying smaller cars and driving less.
The cost of living is set by both firms and consumers at a price index that both sides are agreeable to. It's often called "supply and demand."
Most people would just avoid the question.
/.er's question, it didn't seem to have that type of feel to it at all, but that could just be the way I interpreted it.
Perhaps, but it might have been more effective from a public relations standpoint for him to simply address the question without going into the whole "when did you stop beating your wife" comment. That part of his response took me aback just a bit, and as I re-read the
But you are right, kudos to Rob for at least answering and not dodging the question.
Well, ignoring the fact that a corporation is legally a person,...
A corporation is not a person; legally, figuratively, literally, or in any other fashion. A corporation is a model of ownership, just like "sole proprietorship" or "partnership."
Two of the most obvious differences between a "corporation" and either of the other two ownership models I mentioned are (1) a corporation uses allocation of stock to shareholders, whether publicly traded or not, and (2) the separate entity clause, which says very clearly that the assets, debts, etc. of the corporation are separate from the assets, debts, etc. of the owners (shareholders) - meaning if a company gets sued, litigants generally can't make a claim against the shareholders' assets.
By definition, a corporation is necessarily not a person, even in the instance of a corporation with a single shareholder.
From the site 2004-08-25:
This site will be gone for some time due to the slashdot effect. The
site was posted there and we got too much traffic. Things will be back as soon as
things calm down. Sorry for any inconveniance. None of your images are lost,
they are just removed temporarily until Slashdot leaves us alone.
Those of you who post images from your phones - they are still stored,
only not shown right now.
See ya all again when the Slashdot people go away.
Regards,
Stefan
Did we ever really plan to "go away?"
Apparently, monkeys, just like human beings, tend to slack off on tasks until the very last minute. They become quite adept at judging how long they have till they absolutely must complete these tasks.
/.
And in the meantime, we read
If you're talking about UT Austin (and it sounds like you are), this is not quite true.
The reason it's not quite true is because I'm talking about UT Arlington. The College of Business and College of Engineering, specifically.
It was very much the same when I was at The University of Oklahoma back in the early 90's. The engineering computer lab was about 20% PC, 20% Mac, 20% DEC workstations, and the rest were the beloved "greenscreens," the Unix dumb terminals.
Unfortunately, when I went to graduate school a few years ago in Texas, the computer labs were 100% PC, although most of these allowed you to telnet to one of the school's Unix servers (you can probably imagine how few people on the campus knew you could).
Interestingly, this was one of those campuses that had a sweet arrangement with Microsoft to sell software to students for $5 per CD - Windows, Office, Visual Studio, and a handful of others. I'm sure that deal had a lot to do with which OS would be used in the computer labs.
It's incorrect to use temperature to describe something as "twice as hot," since temperature is an intrinsic value - not a "quantity" to be counted like length, mass, etc, but rather a relative scale, defined by the Zeroth law of Thermodynamics to describe the direction of heat transfer.
It would be somewhat more correct to possibly describe something as having twice as much internal energy (heat), because units of heat (joules or BTU's) are quantifiable units. Keep in mind that this still wouldn't lead to twice the temperature on an absolute scale, since the specific heat of virtually anything is variable with temperature - hence, you can't correctly surmise that just because there's twice as much heat then there must be twice as much temperature.