If you don't like randomness in your games, then Go or chess are where you should be looking. The best games which have a random element, in my mind, are the ones that you can win by developing a strategy resistant to randomness. In Monopoly, for instance, you have no control over where you land, but you have strong control over what you _do_ on the square. Just the other day, I saw a statistical analysis of Monopoly properties, and how to develop your properties to win the game. Scrabble is another example--the tiles are acquired randomly, but knowing your language, statistical distribution of the letters, values, and strategies means that good players win. What the random factors do is force the strategy to be evolutionary, rather than static.
All of this, of course, doesn't take away from the fact that there are some very good new board games out there.
Speaking as an outsider, I think I can say that most of the world (a) doesn't much care how you get rid of them as long as you do it soon, (b) doesn't think there's anything worthwhile that can be done internally or externally as long as they're in power, and (c) thinks that your country has waited too long. In 15 years, the USA will be where Russia is today, if they're lucky.
Most people? How many people are "most people?" The general populace in China and India are in worse shape now than they were before the industrial revolution in many ways. Bill Gates, ironically, didn't start to make inroads with his charities until leaving Microsoft.
When you talk about companies, you're right about one thing: "whats more important is reputation." Unfortunately, companies can buy reputations, and not by good works.
Have you boycotted Pepsi yet? They pressured the US into invading a Chilean democracy and replacing it with a US puppet dictatorship.
How about Coke? Fertile farmland has been razed and poisoned to bottle Dasani.
Could it be that Sony is still selling products to you? If the first rootkit didn't convince you, I guess the second wouldn't either.
Of course you've avoided my former employer, General Electric, inheritors of the Love Canal who refused to acknowledge their responsibility for as long as they could possibly get away with it.
Oh yes, and of course accidents happen when you cut corners. We could point to Union Carbide, Dow Corning, and of course, Exxon. Or, you could go for the jugular and mention Monsanto, possibly the most evil corporation on the planet. (and that comes with some pretty prestigious neighbors!)
The point isn't these companies, and it's not even anti-globalisation. Fundamentally, I'm anti-people and anti-humanity. We have never, as a species (NOT considering individual exceptions here, because there are always those), shown that we can do anything good unless it's for short-term, personal gain. The only thing that capitalism and the free market economy bring to the table is power and efficiency. They make it easier for psychopaths to be rich, powerful, and immoral.
Fundamentally, humanity sucks. Capitalism allows the worst of it to seize control. That's about all we've accomplished in the five thousand-plus years since we started herding cows.
Given the charming and compassionate nature of the human race, the single greatest invention in the history of the race was on July 16, 1945. After that, it's all a matter of refinement and waiting. Oh yes, and small-scale destruction.
It's not. Companies will do EVERYTHING they can to make a profit. Morals are an unacceptable liability for Yahoo, for Google, for Microsoft, for Sony. Yahoo might have crossed the 'visible to a congressman looking for a cheap win' line this time, mostly because they're not in favour at the moment, but at any given moment, it could be any of the others.
***ALL*** companies are amoral by necessity, and capitalism quickly forces amorality into immorality. No exceptions. No escape. Just profit and run before you're caught.
Here's the short summary: It's a biggest dick war between two idiotic ego-driven CEOs, that's gotten out of hand.
If you dig far enough, NetApp asked Sun about disclosure on patents. Sun replied, NetApp said that's not good enough, Sun said, bite us, NetApp said we'll sue, Sun said we'll give you the info you want if you agree not to sue and pay us $36mil (or thereabouts), NetApp sued, Sun countersued, and so forth.
I use NetApp and Sun gear daily, and have done for years (decades?) now. Both are pretty much tops in their fields, both have some quirks, and both stand on their own without competing badly with the other (honestly, when was the last time Sun had a non-laughable disk storage system?). However, I'm sick of that pony-tailed bean-counting pinhead Schwartz, I'm sick of Dave Hitz "master of lying and crocodile tears," and I'm sick of fuckheads like this destroying good companies for the sake of their pathetic egos. Let's toss 'em in a room with their lawyers and weld the doors shut. The industry would be better off.
Can we now officially and formally declare the kibi/mebi/gibi prefix notation dead and buried? Nobody likes it, nobody uses it, and nobody wants it. Now, as of this ruling, nobody needs it either.
Good-bye and good riddance to the Gibibyte. Long live the Gigabyte!
The whole base-10 kibi/gibi/mebi crap was a retrofit into a system to justify hard drive manufacturers misleading people. 1MB RAM = 1MB ROM = 1MB cache = 1MB transfer speed unit != 1MB disk space. Who should change here? Hint: It's the industry who had the most to gain in sales by changing their definition.
OK, there was a time when code names were used by developers internally within a company so that the outside world wouldn't learn too much about the upcoming products. Somehow we got to the point where referring to products by their code name was a measure of hipness.
Now it seems the Linux world has to follow suit with this ridiculous and uninformative trend. Gutsy Gibbon? Hardy Heron??! Why not puking pigeon? Vomiting Vole? For that matter, Hurling Human seems appropriate, because that's what I feel like doing from all of this cutesy misnaming.
What's wrong with version numbers? Why can't we refer to products by their numbers, like (for instance) Ubuntu themselves do? It's pretty intuitive that 7.10>7.0>6.0 and so forth--we learned this notation when we were children and we've used it as part of the computer world for decades.
Are chemistry sets getting crappier? Of COURSE they are! When I was growing up in the 1970s, the best I could get was a pale imitation of the ones my dad had in the garage. Now we're a generation along, and the ones I had look like danger waiting to be used. It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the obsessive culture of safety.
TFA is a big, steaming pile of shit. Read it carefully, and you'll find there's not a single 'explanation' of why things are the way they are that holds water.
It's just a grumpy twit with a computer. Nothing to see here.
It's a different project, with a different focus. It's not going to ever become as much of a populist phenomenon as wikipedia, partly because wikipedia was _first_. However, there's a place for it, and it's doing well on its own terms.
Meh. If your job can be replaced by a program, then it probably should be. If something that takes an IT group a month to set up and ongoing man-hours to maintain can be transparently replaced by a program downloaded by Fred in accounting, then that's GREAT! Use IT for something better! Replacing people with robots in factory jobs is a much more difficult task in many ways, so it's a small miracle that this hasn't happened earlier.
I have a coffee mug on my desk (copyright 1980) covered in computer sayings. In my mind, the most insightful one on it has always been, "Computers work. People should think." The fact that we're spending less time sitting around, grinding out custom one-off applications is a GOOD thing, just like it's a good thing banks don't have departments of people adding columns of numbers anymore.
Part of me would be fascinated to hear such an explanation--like watching a car accident, you just can't look away.
However, too little tracking force (which is more common than too much in the audiophile circuit) leads to poor tracking, with the stylus causing more damage by bouncing on the record than it would at the proper tracking force.
Excessively high TF will definitely track better, which is why DJs use it. However, it also causes more wear on the records, increased crosstalk, high-end rolloff, more distortion, and more noise. Raising the noise floor will effectively reduce the dynamic range, but this is not the same as compression--you are not raising the low-level signals, just burying them in the noise.
To actually (dynamically) compress the signal, you would need to push the cartridge cantilever out of its linear compliance range, which would require probably 20-30g of tracking force--roughly ten times recommended TFs, and more than any table I know of will supply. It _can_ be done, but would take significant deliberate effort, and would destroy records in very short order.
If you want a better cartridge, go out (don't walk, run!) and buy a Grado Black. Cheap, simple, and sounds really good--better than anything else for the price.
For cleaning, there are two options: Wet cleaning (expensive, slow, and should only ever need doing once on a record--but probably should be done once on a record. Honestly, most of mine have never gone through it), and a quick brush before playing. For the former, you'll want something like this. For the latter, get one of these carbon fibre things. I've used every record brush on the market, and this style is flat out the best there is.
As far as the swordgeek goes, my tastes run towards lighter weapons. I fence competitively, and am planning on getting a combat-ready small sword eventually. Curiously, my wife is a major inspiration (and occasionally a source of a motivational kick in the ass) in my fencing, so...your mileage may vary.
Yep.. Many of them. TONS of them, in fact....and actually determined that vinyl is better than CDs?"
Ohhh! NOW you add conditions! In that case, the answer is no.
"This also reminds me of the age-old tubes versus solid state argument, and I don't think that one has ever been looked at objectively either."
Sure it has. Early transistor amps had lower THD but much higher IM distortion, which led to worse sounds. They were also prone to oscillation, which hurt the sound. Then there was the hard clipping at limit vs. very soft clipping of tubes, and you have lots of reasons that tube amps were better than transistor amps--in 1965.
Good transistor amps became completely transparent in the mid 1970s, by my estimation. That put them into the extreme stratosphere with the very very finest tube amps. Nowadays, a few hundred bucks and some good engineering will get you a transistor amp that is sonically neutral within its parameters. A few thousand will get you a tube amp that accomplishes the same thing. If you push either amp beyond its limits, or cut down either amp to be audibly flawed, you will get very different but very clearly understood and measured (and predictable) distortion models. Easy, straightforward, and proven for about a quarter century. Just don't tell the audiophools.
Vertical compression in vinyl is something we call "tracking weight." Cartridges are designed for it, and it's a critical (and limiting but non-damaging) part of playback.
This is NOT:
- lossless data compression (FLAC) - lossy data compression (MP3) - Dynamic range compression (what the article was talking about)
Was this just an attempt at satire that went wrong, or are you that deeply clueless?
Funny. Thinkgeek had a different turntable with onboard ADC a year ago, and it was complete crap. I was expecting the same thing here, but decided (gasp!) to look at the link before spouting off.
Now I'm laughing--that thing is exactly the Sony table I bought ages ago (in fact, the last new turntable I bought), with an ADC added on. Not a bad table, actually--not fantastic, but not bad; and my dad still uses it.
I'm currently running a Goldring 1012 cartridge in an old-ish Rega Planar 3 table. Not the highest end out there, but good enough for me. Fundamentally, that's all I'm looking for in vinyl playback, is something that's Good Enough vs. the flaws in records.
Yep. 1977, plus or minus. Someone posted on the audio newsgroups a while back that they have an album from 1982 (I believe) which actually had label material in the molded plastic!
Recently I picked up a dozen or so records from a guy dumping his collection. I had to go over my entire audio system when I heard Kim Karnes "Mistaken Identity," because it sounded so bad. It reminded me of just how much of the vinyl renaissance is pure misguided nostalgia.
GREAT album, both from a recording and a musical perspective. The remastered edition of Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" is another one--I usually take them both with me when shopping for audio gear. Basically, good vinyl can outperform bad CDs. Apparently not many people on/. are old enough to remember what bad vinyl sounded like. (hint: it was compressed, dull, and anemic. Often noisier than necessary too, because of used vinyl and no maintenance of the pressing equipment.)
"vinyl seems poised to make a comeback in the music industry"
Blah blah blah. We hear this every two months, and have done so since 1987. It ain't happening. Vinyl never quite disappeared, and every time some new group or demographic 'discovers' it, there's rumour of a resurgence in popularity. It will remain on the fringes, but it will remain. No news here.
"vinyl purists are...right about one thing: Records can sound better than CDs."
Absolutely. Great vinyl can sound better than shitty CDs. However, great vinyl won't sound as good as great CDs.
"mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible:"
On most CDs, yes. Exactly like they did with most vinyl for two decades. Have you actually HEARD some of the compressed crap that was released in the early 1980s?
"Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes..."
Wrong.
"...records generally offer a more nuanced sound."
Wrong.
"no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary."
Wrong. Well, pedantically almost correct but totally irrelevant. Do you understand Nyquist's sampling criteria? To get ALL of the data present up to a given frequency, you need to sample at twice that frequency. Simple. The point is that it's irrelevant to sample at a frequency to capture anything beyond human hearing limits.
You can love vinyl all you want--I know that I do! I've got some BEAUTIFUL music recorded brilliantly on heavy vinyl, I've got a damned nice turntable setup, and I have no interest in replacing that stuff with CD. However, you can't make any pseudo-technical claims to the "superiority" of vinyl recordings, because they just aren't there. Deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
It is almost certainly a backdoor. It's nearly impossible to accidentally design a flaw this specific and this exploitable into an algorithm.
"Dan Shumow and Niels Ferguson showed that the algorithm contains a weakness that can only be described a backdoor." That pretty much sums it up.
Yeah, this is deliberate. SOMEONE holds the keys--either NIST, or some group within the NSA.
What magazine was it?
If you don't like randomness in your games, then Go or chess are where you should be looking. The best games which have a random element, in my mind, are the ones that you can win by developing a strategy resistant to randomness. In Monopoly, for instance, you have no control over where you land, but you have strong control over what you _do_ on the square. Just the other day, I saw a statistical analysis of Monopoly properties, and how to develop your properties to win the game.
Scrabble is another example--the tiles are acquired randomly, but knowing your language, statistical distribution of the letters, values, and strategies means that good players win. What the random factors do is force the strategy to be evolutionary, rather than static.
All of this, of course, doesn't take away from the fact that there are some very good new board games out there.
Speaking as an outsider, I think I can say that most of the world (a) doesn't much care how you get rid of them as long as you do it soon, (b) doesn't think there's anything worthwhile that can be done internally or externally as long as they're in power, and (c) thinks that your country has waited too long. In 15 years, the USA will be where Russia is today, if they're lucky.
Most people? How many people are "most people?" The general populace in China and India are in worse shape now than they were before the industrial revolution in many ways. Bill Gates, ironically, didn't start to make inroads with his charities until leaving Microsoft.
When you talk about companies, you're right about one thing: "whats more important is reputation." Unfortunately, companies can buy reputations, and not by good works.
Have you boycotted Pepsi yet? They pressured the US into invading a Chilean democracy and replacing it with a US puppet dictatorship.
How about Coke? Fertile farmland has been razed and poisoned to bottle Dasani.
Could it be that Sony is still selling products to you? If the first rootkit didn't convince you, I guess the second wouldn't either.
Of course you've avoided my former employer, General Electric, inheritors of the Love Canal who refused to acknowledge their responsibility for as long as they could possibly get away with it.
Oh yes, and of course accidents happen when you cut corners. We could point to Union Carbide, Dow Corning, and of course, Exxon. Or, you could go for the jugular and mention Monsanto, possibly the most evil corporation on the planet. (and that comes with some pretty prestigious neighbors!)
The point isn't these companies, and it's not even anti-globalisation. Fundamentally, I'm anti-people and anti-humanity. We have never, as a species (NOT considering individual exceptions here, because there are always those), shown that we can do anything good unless it's for short-term, personal gain. The only thing that capitalism and the free market economy bring to the table is power and efficiency. They make it easier for psychopaths to be rich, powerful, and immoral.
Fundamentally, humanity sucks. Capitalism allows the worst of it to seize control. That's about all we've accomplished in the five thousand-plus years since we started herding cows.
Given the charming and compassionate nature of the human race, the single greatest invention in the history of the race was on July 16, 1945. After that, it's all a matter of refinement and waiting. Oh yes, and small-scale destruction.
It's not. Companies will do EVERYTHING they can to make a profit. Morals are an unacceptable liability for Yahoo, for Google, for Microsoft, for Sony. Yahoo might have crossed the 'visible to a congressman looking for a cheap win' line this time, mostly because they're not in favour at the moment, but at any given moment, it could be any of the others.
***ALL*** companies are amoral by necessity, and capitalism quickly forces amorality into immorality. No exceptions. No escape. Just profit and run before you're caught.
(bow)
Thank you. I'll gladly wear that label.
Here's the short summary: It's a biggest dick war between two idiotic ego-driven CEOs, that's gotten out of hand.
If you dig far enough, NetApp asked Sun about disclosure on patents. Sun replied, NetApp said that's not good enough, Sun said, bite us, NetApp said we'll sue, Sun said we'll give you the info you want if you agree not to sue and pay us $36mil (or thereabouts), NetApp sued, Sun countersued, and so forth.
I use NetApp and Sun gear daily, and have done for years (decades?) now. Both are pretty much tops in their fields, both have some quirks, and both stand on their own without competing badly with the other (honestly, when was the last time Sun had a non-laughable disk storage system?). However, I'm sick of that pony-tailed bean-counting pinhead Schwartz, I'm sick of Dave Hitz "master of lying and crocodile tears," and I'm sick of fuckheads like this destroying good companies for the sake of their pathetic egos. Let's toss 'em in a room with their lawyers and weld the doors shut. The industry would be better off.
Care to elaborate? We use it extensively, and have found bugs in the past which are long since (i.e. ~8 months) patched.
I've seen a fair number of bugs in Solaris lately, but absolutely none related to ZFS in well over half a year.
Can we now officially and formally declare the kibi/mebi/gibi prefix notation dead and buried? Nobody likes it, nobody uses it, and nobody wants it. Now, as of this ruling, nobody needs it either.
Good-bye and good riddance to the Gibibyte. Long live the Gigabyte!
Bullshit.
The whole base-10 kibi/gibi/mebi crap was a retrofit into a system to justify hard drive manufacturers misleading people.
1MB RAM = 1MB ROM = 1MB cache = 1MB transfer speed unit != 1MB disk space. Who should change here? Hint: It's the industry who had the most to gain in sales by changing their definition.
OK, there was a time when code names were used by developers internally within a company so that the outside world wouldn't learn too much about the upcoming products. Somehow we got to the point where referring to products by their code name was a measure of hipness.
Now it seems the Linux world has to follow suit with this ridiculous and uninformative trend. Gutsy Gibbon? Hardy Heron??! Why not puking pigeon? Vomiting Vole? For that matter, Hurling Human seems appropriate, because that's what I feel like doing from all of this cutesy misnaming.
What's wrong with version numbers? Why can't we refer to products by their numbers, like (for instance) Ubuntu themselves do? It's pretty intuitive that 7.10>7.0>6.0 and so forth--we learned this notation when we were children and we've used it as part of the computer world for decades.
Just a small rant.
Are chemistry sets getting crappier? Of COURSE they are! When I was growing up in the 1970s, the best I could get was a pale imitation of the ones my dad had in the garage. Now we're a generation along, and the ones I had look like danger waiting to be used. It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the obsessive culture of safety.
TFA is a big, steaming pile of shit. Read it carefully, and you'll find there's not a single 'explanation' of why things are the way they are that holds water.
It's just a grumpy twit with a computer. Nothing to see here.
It's a different project, with a different focus. It's not going to ever become as much of a populist phenomenon as wikipedia, partly because wikipedia was _first_. However, there's a place for it, and it's doing well on its own terms.
Meh. If your job can be replaced by a program, then it probably should be. If something that takes an IT group a month to set up and ongoing man-hours to maintain can be transparently replaced by a program downloaded by Fred in accounting, then that's GREAT! Use IT for something better! Replacing people with robots in factory jobs is a much more difficult task in many ways, so it's a small miracle that this hasn't happened earlier.
I have a coffee mug on my desk (copyright 1980) covered in computer sayings. In my mind, the most insightful one on it has always been, "Computers work. People should think." The fact that we're spending less time sitting around, grinding out custom one-off applications is a GOOD thing, just like it's a good thing banks don't have departments of people adding columns of numbers anymore.
Part of me would be fascinated to hear such an explanation--like watching a car accident, you just can't look away.
However, too little tracking force (which is more common than too much in the audiophile circuit) leads to poor tracking, with the stylus causing more damage by bouncing on the record than it would at the proper tracking force.
Excessively high TF will definitely track better, which is why DJs use it. However, it also causes more wear on the records, increased crosstalk, high-end rolloff, more distortion, and more noise. Raising the noise floor will effectively reduce the dynamic range, but this is not the same as compression--you are not raising the low-level signals, just burying them in the noise.
To actually (dynamically) compress the signal, you would need to push the cartridge cantilever out of its linear compliance range, which would require probably 20-30g of tracking force--roughly ten times recommended TFs, and more than any table I know of will supply. It _can_ be done, but would take significant deliberate effort, and would destroy records in very short order.
If you want a better cartridge, go out (don't walk, run!) and buy a Grado Black. Cheap, simple, and sounds really good--better than anything else for the price.
For cleaning, there are two options: Wet cleaning (expensive, slow, and should only ever need doing once on a record--but probably should be done once on a record. Honestly, most of mine have never gone through it), and a quick brush before playing. For the former, you'll want something like this. For the latter, get one of these carbon fibre things. I've used every record brush on the market, and this style is flat out the best there is.
As far as the swordgeek goes, my tastes run towards lighter weapons. I fence competitively, and am planning on getting a combat-ready small sword eventually. Curiously, my wife is a major inspiration (and occasionally a source of a motivational kick in the ass) in my fencing, so...your mileage may vary.
"Has anyone actually done a real study on this...
...and actually determined that vinyl is better than CDs?"
Yep.. Many of them. TONS of them, in fact.
Ohhh! NOW you add conditions! In that case, the answer is no.
"This also reminds me of the age-old tubes versus solid state argument, and I don't think that one has ever been looked at objectively either."
Sure it has. Early transistor amps had lower THD but much higher IM distortion, which led to worse sounds. They were also prone to oscillation, which hurt the sound. Then there was the hard clipping at limit vs. very soft clipping of tubes, and you have lots of reasons that tube amps were better than transistor amps--in 1965.
Good transistor amps became completely transparent in the mid 1970s, by my estimation. That put them into the extreme stratosphere with the very very finest tube amps. Nowadays, a few hundred bucks and some good engineering will get you a transistor amp that is sonically neutral within its parameters. A few thousand will get you a tube amp that accomplishes the same thing. If you push either amp beyond its limits, or cut down either amp to be audibly flawed, you will get very different but very clearly understood and measured (and predictable) distortion models. Easy, straightforward, and proven for about a quarter century. Just don't tell the audiophools.
What the FUCK are you on about??!!!
Vertical compression in vinyl is something we call "tracking weight." Cartridges are designed for it, and it's a critical (and limiting but non-damaging) part of playback.
This is NOT:
- lossless data compression (FLAC)
- lossy data compression (MP3)
- Dynamic range compression (what the article was talking about)
Was this just an attempt at satire that went wrong, or are you that deeply clueless?
Funny. Thinkgeek had a different turntable with onboard ADC a year ago, and it was complete crap. I was expecting the same thing here, but decided (gasp!) to look at the link before spouting off.
Now I'm laughing--that thing is exactly the Sony table I bought ages ago (in fact, the last new turntable I bought), with an ADC added on. Not a bad table, actually--not fantastic, but not bad; and my dad still uses it.
I'm currently running a Goldring 1012 cartridge in an old-ish Rega Planar 3 table. Not the highest end out there, but good enough for me. Fundamentally, that's all I'm looking for in vinyl playback, is something that's Good Enough vs. the flaws in records.
Yep. 1977, plus or minus. Someone posted on the audio newsgroups a while back that they have an album from 1982 (I believe) which actually had label material in the molded plastic!
Recently I picked up a dozen or so records from a guy dumping his collection. I had to go over my entire audio system when I heard Kim Karnes "Mistaken Identity," because it sounded so bad. It reminded me of just how much of the vinyl renaissance is pure misguided nostalgia.
Come on man, you've probably haven't even got a dozen different copies yet! Sounds like you're a big slacker, to me.
GREAT album, both from a recording and a musical perspective. The remastered edition of Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" is another one--I usually take them both with me when shopping for audio gear. /. are old enough to remember what bad vinyl sounded like. (hint: it was compressed, dull, and anemic. Often noisier than necessary too, because of used vinyl and no maintenance of the pressing equipment.)
Basically, good vinyl can outperform bad CDs. Apparently not many people on
"vinyl seems poised to make a comeback in the music industry"
Blah blah blah. We hear this every two months, and have done so since 1987. It ain't happening. Vinyl never quite disappeared, and every time some new group or demographic 'discovers' it, there's rumour of a resurgence in popularity. It will remain on the fringes, but it will remain. No news here.
"vinyl purists are...right about one thing: Records can sound better than CDs."
Absolutely. Great vinyl can sound better than shitty CDs. However, great vinyl won't sound as good as great CDs.
"mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible:"
On most CDs, yes. Exactly like they did with most vinyl for two decades. Have you actually HEARD some of the compressed crap that was released in the early 1980s?
"Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes..."
Wrong.
"...records generally offer a more nuanced sound."
Wrong.
"no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary."
Wrong. Well, pedantically almost correct but totally irrelevant. Do you understand Nyquist's sampling criteria? To get ALL of the data present up to a given frequency, you need to sample at twice that frequency. Simple. The point is that it's irrelevant to sample at a frequency to capture anything beyond human hearing limits.
You can love vinyl all you want--I know that I do! I've got some BEAUTIFUL music recorded brilliantly on heavy vinyl, I've got a damned nice turntable setup, and I have no interest in replacing that stuff with CD. However, you can't make any pseudo-technical claims to the "superiority" of vinyl recordings, because they just aren't there. Deal with it.