In short, I can track real-time recombinant memetics geographically now. I'm trying to get permission from my employer to publish some animations I've been working on that model injection and growth geographically and looks a lot like infection models put out by the CDC. You can even model meme-interaction and the spawning of new memes (not the innocent pictures, actual radicalized hyperbole spreading geographically).
Since this is getting modded up, I should point out the flaws:
The move by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was mostly in order to control *validation* not information source. Those with the wealth, infrastructure and motivation to control opinion aren't blind to disinformation, they are masters of it. By channeling sourcing to a small subset of the internet and then giving these sanctioned-sources the official blessing from controlled interests they hope to be able to regulate *social trust*. This is a key point in my original comment. As long as they control the data and the majority of the distribution they cannot be challenged, no matter how blatantly they lie or misrepresent the evidence.
Nobody was completely blind to media manipulation even before it became the modern social-psychology wonderland for special-interest we have today. Mr Smith Goes to Washington hit theaters in 1939. That was fear of newspaper control and monopolization by the politico-bosses (the biggest problem during the Truman era) and it was before the word psychology was a part of household vocabulary.
Hacker groups run into the following problems: IPv6 is being pushed: while it has good arguments and valid, necessary reasoning behind it; IPv6 also allows personal identification and sourcing tied to identity. ISP/Tellco routing: (redirection of the traffic and packet tagging). Data patterning (neural networks) are great at sorting out even tiny flaws in massive volumes of information, so unless the smoke screen is nearly flawless it can be wiped away with ease. Hacking groups do not have the same data, which means their trends are off, which means that they leave a footprint in high volumes of data. They are also unable to verify, prove, or even detect much of what they would need to combat.
Those are all technical reasons why it wouldn't work, or at the very least work well.
Next there is the philosophical reason: technology isn't bad, it is merely a tool. The tool can be used for great public good, or great public harm. Imagine a world where sophistry and lying (on mass for manipulation) are no longer possible. That's the promise of NNs used properly. Unfortunately it depends on open data for oversight and validation. Attempting to stop the tech is not only technically unlikely to work, it's philosophically killing the golden goose for fear of the golden egg's value. It's just another form of neo-conservatism that is horribly short-sighted.
Finally, not all countries are created equal. Canvasing one country may be possible due to civil liberty and restrictions on government, canvasing them all is just not socially possible. The internet is global, the politics cover regional, national and international and all of civil, criminal and regulatory law. There just isn't any way for judicial systems to keep up, even if they were effectively educated enough to make proper judgements (which they assuredly are not).
one more thing... saying that Google wasn't storing the data is provably untrue. Mobile games like Pokemon Go and Ingress are based on cellular tracking data. Google maps stores location history and you can see it in your review recommendations and account history. The two data sets can be merged to recreate the data Google claims not to store.
Training sets not being shared makes the results non-verifiable and manipulation virtually undetectable.
Not all NNs produce accuracy that can be verified easily. Lots of them produce inferences for researchers, especially social and political science research.
Peer reviewers do not typically get access to the source data, merely the sorting equations and algorithm detail.
Research doesn't agree with anything you said here. Google and Amazon weren't doing politics in 2016, just marketing and research. The few people calling out astroturfing were effectively powerless. Facebook wasn't even really fully aware of what CA was doing, they were focused on earnings alone. They took the money without really asking questions. That was their clearly documented corporate policy handed down from the execs, and there is a mountain of evidence that ignorance and incompetence, not malice, are the problem with Facebook.
The problem is largely that nobody *with the power to effect change* took the threats seriously if they were even aware of them at all.
As a long-time supporter of FOSS, EFF, Copyleft and essentially open access this has gone beyond mere 'best practices' and humanitarianism
Nobody, not a government or a private enterprise, can be trusted with private proprietorship of this much data at this level of detail.
The problem is neural networks, turning subjectivity into objectivity, and the unreliability of the source data. Whoever controls the data can use it for any purpose, and there is such a massive capability and potential for misuse, especially of human trust networks, that there simply is no acceptable level of trust.
All human governments and economic systems rely on trust. Before social media, social trust networks were the foundation of all government. Who do you know? Who knows you? When the answer is whoever has the data plus a few (maybe a couple of dozen) close family and associates, then the system is broken.
Most people can't possibly cover anywhere near the number of social connections that a single-process home computer can cover. My lab can millions of processes with petabytes of data and more than a TB of network pipe. That's a fairly good lab, but there are far better out there. With the right kinds of data, I can manipulate society like it's my own personal sandbox.
Without protections on the data, there is no way to detect, verify or validate who is doing what with it. One good person might be fine, but what happens when they die and someone else gets it? There just isn't any reliable assurance that it won't be misused, while history teaches us that it invariably will be misused by someone given opportunity.
Some kind of national infrastructure and protection must be placed around this level of power. It's not like nukes, you can't guarantee it won't fall into the wrong hands with traditional protection measures. Security has limitations... There is no other choice.
get called a 'drama queen' and 'hyperbolic' and other ad-homonym attacks by the 'real experts' in social psychology. You know, the guys who have no technical background and aren't allowed to perform these experiments because they were deemed unethical... they keep saying the tech doesn't work.
Meanwhile the internet war is getting really insane. You guys have the tools to check (mostly) but here's some screenshots I uploaded to imgur: https://imgur.com/gallery/I3vE...
I like how I got modded down for telling my own personal experience with e-ciggs.
Do people now have to provide a note from their doctor to be believed on the internet? I get that trolls are a problem, but it's insulting that a slashdot user for more than 10 years gets meta-moderated down for a comment involving personal experience.
Hell I even have to wonder now if those doing the moderating aren't socks suppressing information that is inconvenient to them. I haven't done studies, or research, nor do I know anything about eciggs other than what I stated: I tried one for a few months and yes, my lungs hurt and I coughed blood.
I had the same problem when I tried switching to smoking a pipe (not the blood, but it did make my chest hurt more). Am I now anti pipe for stating that experience?
The statistics used to say that GMO foods will not create a problem. They are heavily flawed and in serous need of a bit of applied chaos math with genetic outcome variations. The 'safe margin' used in the generation of mutation included no viral strains present in the habitats where the foods are raised. Scientists have definitely not finished mapping the proteins responsible for cell behavior when a cell is presented with infection. This means that we HAVE NO IDEA what viruses may or may not arise from infection of a GMO used for farming. Absolutely NO IDEA. Never modeled or studied.
Genomics isn't a simple statistic of probability of mutation. Millions of organisms interact with each other in every ecology, and only weak statistical probabilities based on weak environmental observations are enough for the 'intellectual elite' to declare us safe?
That's not science, that's gambling in an establishment known for cheating.
Paramount is attempting to write law using the threat of big-money legal harassment as their police force. Many corporations do this.
The issue here is that Paramount isn't a lawyer, and their grip on a cultural meme doesn't expire. It's a money game where cultural evolution is dictated by intellectual property rights that are unsupportable for society itself.
It has been over 50 years since star trek became a part of our culture. It has been propagating through two generations of humanity. The right to communicate with shared cultural meme cannot be 'owned' as intellectual property in perpetuity, or like the airwaves soon every shared idea will be owned by someone. There must be limits.
In 20 years I have yet to find a television show that comes anywhere close to 'what people would really do'
This AI is going to think everyone is either a clown, or a ninja. That one can always spot a villain by his monologing and that the only true evil is getting things for free.
The cost of these supercomputers is astronomical, so why the petaflops? As I understand it the benefit of a supercomputer is BUS speed (getting data between the CPU caches quickly) for massively parallel computing tasks. What I don't understand is why there are so few hybrids using parallel GPU processing (2x512x8/16/32GB) to achieve the same tasks, even for weather applications. It seems to me that processing blocks could be exchanged over fiber sufficiently for real time applications, but I may not fully understand the problem?
As I understand it the supercomputers have separate dedicated channels for types of memory exchanges for large matrices that get updated by all the processors, but block updates aren't read anywhere near as quickly as the chunks being worked on. It seems that the delay wouldn't make much difference overall, but I don't claim to be an expert on it.
Not to outright criminalize them, but certainly to make it a civil offense to hire people to lie for you. There are plenty of misinformed idiots already, paying people to make them into mobs should be discouraged.
Unlike authors, corporations live forever. They don't give a flying crap in the accounting department how many old fans get pissed off, because fans die. Revenue streams are forever. All they have to do is sit on a trademark (brand name) or copyright (of which Star Trek is both) until things die down. They'll give placebos to the fans a little, but honestly Axanar isn't well-known enough yet to hurt them over the long haul.
They'll just outlive any displeasure.
My biggest argument against all of this is that Axanar is a completely new story in a fictional universe that they bought the IP rights to. It's a social idea hook. It's LONG past the original 35 year copyright span.
The point of that original span was to be the lifetime of the exclusive ownership of a body of work for a reasonable time as defined by the following criteria: 1.) The lifetime of an author to enjoy the rights to his labor without theft. 2.) A reasonable compromise between cultural saturation and ownership. Over that amount of time it is unreasonable for any owner to expect any popular work to remain under their sole control due to the nature of human society.
Star Trek is now a cultural meme. It is a consistent fictional universe with a life of it's own. Attempting to extend ownership of an idea in perpetuity is a lucrative corporate wet dream, but it flies in the face of the way human society works. We evolve based on our shared dreams, desires and cultural ideas. Parents have now introduced TWO GENERATIONS to Star Trek without marketing based on an old ideal created by a now-dead author. Most graduates from high school have watched NONE, NOT ONE of the series of STTOS, STTNG, DS9, Voyager and even Enterprise has only been watched by a few. Ask them.
IP isn't just about the works anymore, it's about language and meme... owning the memories and cultural identities of huge segments of the population... for profit.
Nothing good comes from this.
If this holds up, then William Gibson should have a right to sue Microsoft for trademark infringement, as well as the Wachowskis. After all, their cultural memes came from Neuromancer.
I read it. Then I read it again. I can't help but laugh. The paper doesn't address the main problem: that of conservation of energy. Why? because it doesn't explain where the photons are gaining directional mass-to-thrust equivalence. 180-degree separation along a probability curve should, even given their equations, result in a net thrust of 0 or close relative to the atom that emits the photons.[1]
In essence, they are suggesting the same kind of 'free energy borrowing' from the vacuum as is suggested for the explanation of CP-symmetry violation in the low-order probability variant of Kaon decay. Zero point energy. Also quantum gravity.
1 Taken from the 'What is Gravity' section of the publication. Paper 'glosses over' the fact that gravity is being conflated with the surface of EM drive without explaining how or why. See the explanation of the equation (labeled (3) )
This paper needs a LOT of additional theoretic explanation before it's going to be even close to explanatory.
Once RNN reaches a point of being able to validate sources and use human comment input from social authorities (individuals with high reputation for wisdom, education and intellect) then people will gravitate more. Trust in the major networks has declined over the years. http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
At the core of the argument is the irreducibility problem. APIs combine high-level wrappers around functional pre-requisites dictated by the way computers operate on information. Most of these concepts are just semantic wrappers around set operations or popular methodologies. Examples for this are the terms 'threading' and 'multiprocessing' surrounding algorithms for scheduling, messaging and the distribution of resources at fixed offsets, 'database' around a separate organized data retrieval system (even IBM Sterling is called an XML database, although it's more of an XML REST API on top of DB2).
During community development, the names for API libraries are often built from micro-memes (ideas disseminated through a development group as semantic hooks to link together discussions).
An API doesn't solve a problem, it builds an INTERFACE that has been reduced as much as possible (for usability) to the absolute minimum exchange of information necessary to execute an algorithm. Attempting to declare intellectual property ownership over the format of an API is, simply put, a giant greased slippery slope.
Let's consider this as a symmetry experiment by swapping the IP owner out with another IP owner, such as the public domain. If we do this, then we should also be able to assume that public domain information that is used in proprietary IP requires that the IP become public domain. Solutions from mathematicians that are public domain (published in journals but accredited to them) would therefore mean that if the algorithm is used in a solution then by extension the algorithm is public domain and any API interface to the implementation is also public domain. That is to say, IP patents would all become null and void. Copyrights would apply, but only for distribution and marketing purposes.
In Python one has collections and in Java one has collections, but essentially the APIs are just common semantics around very similar ways of handling sets of information and performing combinatorics with that information.
This all comes down to the 14th amendment and the concept of equal protection. Build a solution, not a business plan of extortion that depends on sophistry and inherent lack of understanding among the lawyers and judges. Once one cuts through the semantics, we're really talking about the fact that IP patents are centered around a concept of 'first to market so we own the whole market' rather than true innovation.
And we wondered while the publish it now, make it work later trend is getting worse?
Slashdot Mirror
I run into this a great deal, even from people who are otherwise technically sophisticated.
Here are some things to let you learn for yourself just what is and is not possible:
* https://www.ibm.com/watson/dev...
* https://www.ibm.com/watson/ser...
* https://www.safaribooksonline....
* http://devarea.com/machine-lea...
* https://ai.google/research/pub...
In short, I can track real-time recombinant memetics geographically now. I'm trying to get permission from my employer to publish some animations I've been working on that model injection and growth geographically and looks a lot like infection models put out by the CDC. You can even model meme-interaction and the spawning of new memes (not the innocent pictures, actual radicalized hyperbole spreading geographically).
Since this is getting modded up, I should point out the flaws:
The move by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was mostly in order to control *validation* not information source. Those with the wealth, infrastructure and motivation to control opinion aren't blind to disinformation, they are masters of it. By channeling sourcing to a small subset of the internet and then giving these sanctioned-sources the official blessing from controlled interests they hope to be able to regulate *social trust*. This is a key point in my original comment. As long as they control the data and the majority of the distribution they cannot be challenged, no matter how blatantly they lie or misrepresent the evidence.
Nobody was completely blind to media manipulation even before it became the modern social-psychology wonderland for special-interest we have today. Mr Smith Goes to Washington hit theaters in 1939. That was fear of newspaper control and monopolization by the politico-bosses (the biggest problem during the Truman era) and it was before the word psychology was a part of household vocabulary.
Hacker groups run into the following problems: IPv6 is being pushed: while it has good arguments and valid, necessary reasoning behind it; IPv6 also allows personal identification and sourcing tied to identity. ISP/Tellco routing: (redirection of the traffic and packet tagging). Data patterning (neural networks) are great at sorting out even tiny flaws in massive volumes of information, so unless the smoke screen is nearly flawless it can be wiped away with ease. Hacking groups do not have the same data, which means their trends are off, which means that they leave a footprint in high volumes of data. They are also unable to verify, prove, or even detect much of what they would need to combat.
Those are all technical reasons why it wouldn't work, or at the very least work well.
Next there is the philosophical reason: technology isn't bad, it is merely a tool. The tool can be used for great public good, or great public harm. Imagine a world where sophistry and lying (on mass for manipulation) are no longer possible. That's the promise of NNs used properly. Unfortunately it depends on open data for oversight and validation. Attempting to stop the tech is not only technically unlikely to work, it's philosophically killing the golden goose for fear of the golden egg's value. It's just another form of neo-conservatism that is horribly short-sighted.
Finally, not all countries are created equal. Canvasing one country may be possible due to civil liberty and restrictions on government, canvasing them all is just not socially possible. The internet is global, the politics cover regional, national and international and all of civil, criminal and regulatory law. There just isn't any way for judicial systems to keep up, even if they were effectively educated enough to make proper judgements (which they assuredly are not).
one more thing... saying that Google wasn't storing the data is provably untrue. Mobile games like Pokemon Go and Ingress are based on cellular tracking data. Google maps stores location history and you can see it in your review recommendations and account history. The two data sets can be merged to recreate the data Google claims not to store.
Training sets not being shared makes the results non-verifiable and manipulation virtually undetectable.
Not all NNs produce accuracy that can be verified easily. Lots of them produce inferences for researchers, especially social and political science research.
Peer reviewers do not typically get access to the source data, merely the sorting equations and algorithm detail.
Research doesn't agree with anything you said here. Google and Amazon weren't doing politics in 2016, just marketing and research. The few people calling out astroturfing were effectively powerless. Facebook wasn't even really fully aware of what CA was doing, they were focused on earnings alone. They took the money without really asking questions. That was their clearly documented corporate policy handed down from the execs, and there is a mountain of evidence that ignorance and incompetence, not malice, are the problem with Facebook.
The problem is largely that nobody *with the power to effect change* took the threats seriously if they were even aware of them at all.
As a long-time supporter of FOSS, EFF, Copyleft and essentially open access this has gone beyond mere 'best practices' and humanitarianism
Nobody, not a government or a private enterprise, can be trusted with private proprietorship of this much data at this level of detail.
The problem is neural networks, turning subjectivity into objectivity, and the unreliability of the source data. Whoever controls the data can use it for any purpose, and there is such a massive capability and potential for misuse, especially of human trust networks, that there simply is no acceptable level of trust.
All human governments and economic systems rely on trust. Before social media, social trust networks were the foundation of all government. Who do you know? Who knows you? When the answer is whoever has the data plus a few (maybe a couple of dozen) close family and associates, then the system is broken.
Most people can't possibly cover anywhere near the number of social connections that a single-process home computer can cover. My lab can millions of processes with petabytes of data and more than a TB of network pipe. That's a fairly good lab, but there are far better out there. With the right kinds of data, I can manipulate society like it's my own personal sandbox.
Without protections on the data, there is no way to detect, verify or validate who is doing what with it. One good person might be fine, but what happens when they die and someone else gets it? There just isn't any reliable assurance that it won't be misused, while history teaches us that it invariably will be misused by someone given opportunity.
Some kind of national infrastructure and protection must be placed around this level of power. It's not like nukes, you can't guarantee it won't fall into the wrong hands with traditional protection measures. Security has limitations... There is no other choice.
get called a 'drama queen' and 'hyperbolic' and other ad-homonym attacks by the 'real experts' in social psychology. You know, the guys who have no technical background and aren't allowed to perform these experiments because they were deemed unethical... they keep saying the tech doesn't work.
Meanwhile the internet war is getting really insane. You guys have the tools to check (mostly) but here's some screenshots I uploaded to imgur: https://imgur.com/gallery/I3vE...
Our real enemy will be the humble potato and in one fell swoop everyone with a hankering for french fries or potato chips will become a zombie.
I like how I got modded down for telling my own personal experience with e-ciggs.
Do people now have to provide a note from their doctor to be believed on the internet? I get that trolls are a problem, but it's insulting that a slashdot user for more than 10 years gets meta-moderated down for a comment involving personal experience.
Hell I even have to wonder now if those doing the moderating aren't socks suppressing information that is inconvenient to them. I haven't done studies, or research, nor do I know anything about eciggs other than what I stated: I tried one for a few months and yes, my lungs hurt and I coughed blood.
I had the same problem when I tried switching to smoking a pipe (not the blood, but it did make my chest hurt more). Am I now anti pipe for stating that experience?
They did, after all, buy their monopoly fair and square and should have a contract with the city for it.
Should be interesting.
In communism, the state owns the corporations.
In capitalism, it's the other way around.
Party politics stay the same.
I stopped when I started coughing blood.
Seriously, I tell everyone these things haven't been researched sufficiently.
Size does, in fact, matter
The statistics used to say that GMO foods will not create a problem. They are heavily flawed and in serous need of a bit of applied chaos math with genetic outcome variations. The 'safe margin' used in the generation of mutation included no viral strains present in the habitats where the foods are raised. Scientists have definitely not finished mapping the proteins responsible for cell behavior when a cell is presented with infection. This means that we HAVE NO IDEA what viruses may or may not arise from infection of a GMO used for farming. Absolutely NO IDEA. Never modeled or studied.
Genomics isn't a simple statistic of probability of mutation. Millions of organisms interact with each other in every ecology, and only weak statistical probabilities based on weak environmental observations are enough for the 'intellectual elite' to declare us safe?
That's not science, that's gambling in an establishment known for cheating.
Paramount is attempting to write law using the threat of big-money legal harassment as their police force. Many corporations do this.
The issue here is that Paramount isn't a lawyer, and their grip on a cultural meme doesn't expire. It's a money game where cultural evolution is dictated by intellectual property rights that are unsupportable for society itself.
It has been over 50 years since star trek became a part of our culture. It has been propagating through two generations of humanity. The right to communicate with shared cultural meme cannot be 'owned' as intellectual property in perpetuity, or like the airwaves soon every shared idea will be owned by someone. There must be limits.
Yet another article that takes massive liberties with pure speculation and has almost nothing to do with science other than the word scientist.
High-Tech rednecks are a lot less expensive to hire than Hipsters and Yuppies.
Heck I can get a website cobbled together for a case of beer and one visit to a strip club.
In 20 years I have yet to find a television show that comes anywhere close to 'what people would really do'
This AI is going to think everyone is either a clown, or a ninja. That one can always spot a villain by his monologing and that the only true evil is getting things for free.
But I thought that the shader pipelines were basically low-latency vector processing chains.
The cost of these supercomputers is astronomical, so why the petaflops?
As I understand it the benefit of a supercomputer is BUS speed (getting data between the CPU caches quickly) for massively parallel computing tasks. What I don't understand is why there are so few hybrids using parallel GPU processing (2x512x8/16/32GB) to achieve the same tasks, even for weather applications. It seems to me that processing blocks could be exchanged over fiber sufficiently for real time applications, but I may not fully understand the problem?
As I understand it the supercomputers have separate dedicated channels for types of memory exchanges for large matrices that get updated by all the processors, but block updates aren't read anywhere near as quickly as the chunks being worked on. It seems that the delay wouldn't make much difference overall, but I don't claim to be an expert on it.
CNN article: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/1...
For what it's worth, this has been down-played in media (haven't seen it blasting twitter and stuff much)
So basically NONE OF THE PROPOSALS would have prevented him from getting a gun.
As a voter, I'm sick of intelligent and informed voters being sidelined by media and legal cowboy politicians.
Not to outright criminalize them, but certainly to make it a civil offense to hire people to lie for you. There are plenty of misinformed idiots already, paying people to make them into mobs should be discouraged.
Unlike authors, corporations live forever. They don't give a flying crap in the accounting department how many old fans get pissed off, because fans die. Revenue streams are forever. All they have to do is sit on a trademark (brand name) or copyright (of which Star Trek is both) until things die down. They'll give placebos to the fans a little, but honestly Axanar isn't well-known enough yet to hurt them over the long haul.
They'll just outlive any displeasure.
My biggest argument against all of this is that Axanar is a completely new story in a fictional universe that they bought the IP rights to. It's a social idea hook. It's LONG past the original 35 year copyright span.
The point of that original span was to be the lifetime of the exclusive ownership of a body of work for a reasonable time as defined by the following criteria:
1.) The lifetime of an author to enjoy the rights to his labor without theft.
2.) A reasonable compromise between cultural saturation and ownership. Over that amount of time it is unreasonable for any owner to expect any popular work to remain under their sole control due to the nature of human society.
Star Trek is now a cultural meme. It is a consistent fictional universe with a life of it's own. Attempting to extend ownership of an idea in perpetuity is a lucrative corporate wet dream, but it flies in the face of the way human society works. We evolve based on our shared dreams, desires and cultural ideas. Parents have now introduced TWO GENERATIONS to Star Trek without marketing based on an old ideal created by a now-dead author. Most graduates from high school have watched NONE, NOT ONE of the series of STTOS, STTNG, DS9, Voyager and even Enterprise has only been watched by a few. Ask them.
IP isn't just about the works anymore, it's about language and meme... owning the memories and cultural identities of huge segments of the population... for profit.
Nothing good comes from this.
If this holds up, then William Gibson should have a right to sue Microsoft for trademark infringement, as well as the Wachowskis. After all, their cultural memes came from Neuromancer.
I read it. Then I read it again. I can't help but laugh.
The paper doesn't address the main problem: that of conservation of energy. Why? because it doesn't explain where the photons are gaining directional mass-to-thrust equivalence. 180-degree separation along a probability curve should, even given their equations, result in a net thrust of 0 or close relative to the atom that emits the photons.[1]
In essence, they are suggesting the same kind of 'free energy borrowing' from the vacuum as is suggested for the explanation of CP-symmetry violation in the low-order probability variant of Kaon decay. Zero point energy. Also quantum gravity.
1 Taken from the 'What is Gravity' section of the publication. Paper 'glosses over' the fact that gravity is being conflated with the surface of EM drive without explaining how or why. See the explanation of the equation (labeled (3) )
This paper needs a LOT of additional theoretic explanation before it's going to be even close to explanatory.
Once RNN reaches a point of being able to validate sources and use human comment input from social authorities (individuals with high reputation for wisdom, education and intellect) then people will gravitate more. Trust in the major networks has declined over the years. http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
At the core of the argument is the irreducibility problem. APIs combine high-level wrappers around functional pre-requisites dictated by the way computers operate on information. Most of these concepts are just semantic wrappers around set operations or popular methodologies. Examples for this are the terms 'threading' and 'multiprocessing' surrounding algorithms for scheduling, messaging and the distribution of resources at fixed offsets, 'database' around a separate organized data retrieval system (even IBM Sterling is called an XML database, although it's more of an XML REST API on top of DB2).
During community development, the names for API libraries are often built from micro-memes (ideas disseminated through a development group as semantic hooks to link together discussions).
An API doesn't solve a problem, it builds an INTERFACE that has been reduced as much as possible (for usability) to the absolute minimum exchange of information necessary to execute an algorithm. Attempting to declare intellectual property ownership over the format of an API is, simply put, a giant greased slippery slope.
Let's consider this as a symmetry experiment by swapping the IP owner out with another IP owner, such as the public domain. If we do this, then we should also be able to assume that public domain information that is used in proprietary IP requires that the IP become public domain. Solutions from mathematicians that are public domain (published in journals but accredited to them) would therefore mean that if the algorithm is used in a solution then by extension the algorithm is public domain and any API interface to the implementation is also public domain. That is to say, IP patents would all become null and void. Copyrights would apply, but only for distribution and marketing purposes.
In Python one has collections and in Java one has collections, but essentially the APIs are just common semantics around very similar ways of handling sets of information and performing combinatorics with that information.
This all comes down to the 14th amendment and the concept of equal protection. Build a solution, not a business plan of extortion that depends on sophistry and inherent lack of understanding among the lawyers and judges. Once one cuts through the semantics, we're really talking about the fact that IP patents are centered around a concept of 'first to market so we own the whole market' rather than true innovation.
And we wondered while the publish it now, make it work later trend is getting worse?