Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
KDE GUI

Interview With Andreas Pour of KDE 203

Posted by michael from the small-chip-on-shoulder dept.
friedmud writes "I just read a great interview over at OPEN for Business. It is with KDE contributor Andreas Pour. He goes over many topics - not only including KDE. My favorite part: 'they are basically saying, if you stop obeying us, we will stop you from viewing the documents you and your friends created. Who are they to say where and when I read my documents? Now I need a monopolist's permission to view my own creations? The audacity is mind-boggling, and that the Justice Department is permitting it is simply astounding.' - Wow"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview With Andreas Pour of KDE More

Interview With Andreas Pour of KDE

Comments Filter:

  • I think he raises the interesting point... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {nahsei}> on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @09:54PM (#4116497) Homepage Journal
    And the point is, humans have been allowed to patent standardized tools.

    "Now I need a monopolist's permission to view my own creations? The audacity is mind-boggling, and that the Justice Department is permitting it is simply astounding."

    This is something like patenting keys and locks. Obviously, if Microsoft ever tried to say something like: "No, you can't view your documents", I think the justice department would immediately step in and cry foul, much as if the person who invented the key demanded that all people who owned and used keys for operating locks pay him a surcharge or discontinue their use.

    "But I can't get into my house!", people would cry. They'd use the key anyway, and popular demand would win; much the same in the Microsoft case. The point is: someone allowed Microsoft to patent a key and license it, and now they're trying to figure out ways around this.

    Hm.
    • "The point is: someone allowed Microsoft to patent a key and license it, and now they're trying to figure out ways around this."

      I would recommend Notepad, personally.

    • Re:I think he raises the interesting point... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by idiotnot ( 302133 ) <sean@757.org> on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @10:17PM (#4116563) Homepage Journal
      This is something like patenting keys and locks. Obviously, if Microsoft ever tried to say something like: "No, you can't view your documents", I think the justice department would immediately step in and cry foul, much as if the person who invented the key demanded that all people who owned and used keys for operating locks pay him a surcharge or discontinue their use.

      I'm not sure that Justice would be so quick to do that. The real concern is that a situation such as this would arise.....

      1. You create document/opus/graphic with propriety tool X, document great_work.msx .
      2. Propreitary software maker patents the file format, and includes methods (Palladium, anyone) which make it impossible to open in anything other than proprietary tool X.
      3. You, as artist, no longer agree with the licensing terms (which changed during a bugfix that was automatically installed).
      4. You're screwed.

      Now, the old way of remedying this would be,
      5. Write new program that can read file format so that you can continue to use your work, but then;
      6. You've violated the DMCA if you do that.

      It's not a pretty picture.
      • No, it's not a pretty picture. That's because you painted it.

        Can anyone paint a different picture? Like, lets say, a best case scenario?
        • Well, sticking with some of the more idiotic premises of the original poster...

          1) You create document.
          2) Software maker patents format.
          3) Patent ruled invalid because the software maker didn't follow basic patent law and apply for the patent prior to testing or release (depends on the country, but most of Europe and Japan requires patent applications to be filed prior to testing. The US gives a 1 year grace period, but the patent still has to be applied for prior to commercial usage -- the product can only be used for testing purposes in that grace period)

          Ok, so assume that the company isn't absolutely stupid and knows basic intellectual property law.

          1) Company files for patent, releases software.
          2) For some idiotic reason you still use software to create your own document.
          3) Company changes rules for using said software, which you don't agree with.
          4) You retain copyright on the documents, start a class action suit to sue Company for unlawfully restricting your access to your own intellectual property. Patent is ruled unenforcable, or it's ruled that you have an implicit license to the patent since that capability was given to you through the software.

          People are being overly stupid with this. They're thinking of worst case scenarios that won't happen because they can't. I don't care how dimly you may view MS, the Justice department, the RIAA, etc. -- this kind of thing won't be allowed. Companies won't allow someone to seize their property in such a manner, nor will consumers. Nor will the government, which uses the same software as the majority of the world. Maybe in some dark, twisted universe of your own self-hatred, but not in this one.
          • unlawfully restricting your access

            I agree the situation would be so bad that the courts would "stretch" to try to change it, but I don't see how even a big stretch could consider the company to have done anything unlawful. IANAL though.

            If it happens, a large number of people are still going to be screwed for a long time until either congress or the courts manage to change the rules.

            -
          • Of course it won't happen. The point is that there is great possibility of conflict, and it is in our interest to anticipate that conflict, and hopefully resolve it before it grows out of proportion.
        • Can anyone paint a different picture?

          Ok, I'll paint 3, derived from the original senario. Let me know which one you'd like to go with.

          Senario One
          1. You never use a propriety tool to create document/opus/graphic.
          Note that for this to be a general solution replace "You never use" with "No one ever uses"

          Scenario Two
          1. You create document/opus/graphic with propriety tool X, document great_work.msx .
          2. No propreitary software maker ever patents the file format or they never include methods (Palladium, anyone) which make it impossible to open in anything other than proprietary tool X.

          Scenario Three
          1. You create document/opus/graphic with propriety tool X, document great_work.msx .
          2. Propreitary software maker patents the file format, and includes methods (Palladium, anyone) which make it impossible to open in anything other than proprietary tool X.
          3. No software vendor ever add new objectionable licensing terms.

          -
      • It's not a pretty picture.

        This is why open non-patent-incumbered file formats are so essential to the future of general computing.

        Companies that insist their proprietary formats are necessary to protect their business should be boycotted, because this excuse is simply unfounded. A file format is pure data. If it is architected well, it can store what it needs to store without giving up any secrets about the algorithms and other tricks implemented in the software. Any software product can and should compete on the quality of the implementation, where robustness, completeness, and user-friendliness would all be rewarded by the consumers. File formats are simply an excuse put forth by companies like Microsoft to protect their unfairly gained stake in the software industry.
    • Just because somebody gets a patent doesn't mean the patent will stand in court. It is not uncommon for the patent office to grant a patent that is overturned it court: the patent office has too little funding to check every patent thoroughly. They do a quick scan for prior art and a general estimation as to whether the "invention" is "useful," and then grant the patent. This is probably not the best way to work it, but it's the way it works. Eventually we'll see a court case about this and the judge will declare the licence requirement invalid for whatever reason, then the case will be appealed. Hopefully the case will get to the supreme court so we can have some intelligent people make policy about this. Fortunately, we still have the Supreme Court, which fortunately still values the Constitution.
    • We still do get it, do we? The point is america NEEDS a monopolist because ONLY a MONOPOLIST can be an effective cyber-cop of media content.

      If you have diversity and competition, you can't control data. And that's what media/content resellers are asking the goverment to do.

      On the one hand you have the citizens not knowing MS is getting ready to be the cyber-cop for a huge profit. On the other hand you have entire industries crying for a solution that involves allowing a Monopoly to solve all their problems.

      (sorry for the caps)
    • I think the justice department would immediately step in and cry foul, much as if the person who invented the key demanded that all people who owned and used keys for operating locks pay him a surcharge or discontinue their use.

      All things computery and digital seem to be viewed differently from meat-space things. Take the same lock ananlogy, if digital laws were applied to locks, it would be illegal to not only break into other people's houses, but to break into your own house, or to own a set of lock-picks or to distribute information on how to pick locks - all of which is perfectly legal in the real world.

  • The response, clever in its audacity, is to complement the previous anticompetitive strategy, documented so well in Judge Jackson's Findings of Face, of employing the financial largesse acquired through its "private" international computer taxation powers to "dump" product on the market for free (but only in terms of immediate financial cost, of course).
    I assume he means Jackson's Findings of Fact [washingtonpost.com].
  • OfB: KDE has become the most used Linux desktop, in fact OS News recently put the number at over 50% of the market. What do you think has been KDE's secret so far?
    buh?
    • If there are 9 desktops, and all but one have 10% usership, then the last one is the most used, even though the majority don't use it.

  • User interaction overrated. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @10:42PM (#4116637) Homepage
    To manage the overload, developers to some extent are forced to retreat from direct user interaction, such as on the user mailing lists. You can characterize this pessimistically as paying less attention to users, or more realistically as an appropriate adjustment to changed circumstances.

    I'm glad they retreat. I think there's more to this than simple overload - I think alot of OSS devs are probably sick of backseat drivers trying to dictate features and direction of something they're doing for free anyway. The more OSS project mailing lists and forums I read, the more I am glad that developers choose to ignore more and more user requests. Everyone is quick to point out how "developers don't know what users need" and how "difficult" certain OSS developers are when dealing with users.

    I for one am glad when developers choose to ignore some users and just go away and code. If you're ever bored, go check out the INVALID or WONTFIX bugs in Mozilla, for example. I swear, the next moron that wants mozilla to render ALT tags as popups, or ask for colored scrollbars should get drawn and quartered. We're screaming for standards and these guys think its their right to dictate what Mozilla should be doing.

    We, as users, should take a step back and trust the developers for a bit. There are certain things in KDE that I feel are totally wrong, and there are certain things in there that I'm glad someone figured out for me. There's nothing wrong with giving constructive criticism ... but dear God people ... if you're a KDE developer, and you have half the people yelling "Make it more like Windows" and the other half yelling "Make it less like Windows", you'd get pissed off to. It's like this in all OSS projects. Who else cheers for Branden when he flames some jerk off that wants XFree4.2 in Debian "just because"?

    Mayor Quimby said it best when the citizens wanted a Bear patrol but wouldn't accept higher taxes ... "Is it me, or are these people getting stupider?"
    • Yes, those that don't contribute, either with code, or $$$, don't really have as say.

      The whole point of free software is that we do it for US, not them, US!. The moral freedom to do this is that them can share in the fruits of our labour freely.

      Be glad that there is an (absurd) movement afoot to make free softeare illegal -- that's far better than taxing it.

    • Re:User interaction overrated. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fferreres ( 525414 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @02:00AM (#4117151)
      Great, so because it's OSS and because some people work in their free time, they should not listen to anyone that requests feature X or state that they need to accomplish Y.

      The day a developer stops listening to user requests directly or indirectly and starts to do whatever he likes most (in their free or payed time) is the day I'll want to switch to something else (personal choice here).

      People usually don't ask for a response, they just ask for someone to listen to what they need. For a large project this may mean some people specialize in just that (communication between the org and the users) and for a small project these may be the same people developing.

      I think developers will benefit from users feeback *if they know how to handle it*, and that does not necesarily mean they should be the users bitches or anything like that. There is no magic solution. They key is to be able to listen to good requests and ideas, ditch the bad ideas and have a way to balance the time it takes to read these and do actual work.

      • The day a developer stops listening to user requests directly or indirectly and starts to do whatever he likes most (in their free or payed time) is the day I'll want to switch to something else (personal choice here).

        Which is why just about every OSS project (KDE included) that is large enough to use a bug-tracking system has a 'wishlist' category in the bug-tracker.

        Just about every OSS project I know would LOVE to hear about new ideas and ways to improve the software - but PLEASE report these ideas in the appropriate place, which is in the bug-tracking system. If you post your ideas to a mailing list, then not only are your proposals far more likely to get lost in the noise of other posts, you are also creating extra work for the developers who have to wade through tons of feature requests, often for identical things, before they can use the mailing list for what it was designed for - which is communicating with each other. If the idea is in the bug tracking system, it is recorded for eternity, indexed and can be searched and reviewed by developers easily when they run out of pressing bugs to fix.

        To repeat: if you have a killer idea, post it to the bug-tracking system, with a 'wishlist' category! Although you may not get an immediate response, my experience is that you have a far far better chance of seeing your idea implemented in the future than if you pollute project mailing lists.

        Now, if you're prepared to implement your idea yourself, then by all means post to the mailing lists when you need help - that is what they're there for - but if you aren't, leave it to the bug tracking system.

    • ... allowed to be heard.

      Just after I read your post mozilla crashed on me again, so I am going to respond.

      I submitted one of those WONTFIX bugs, and I stand by my suggestion still today. I recommended that an unstripped nightly or a linux talkback nightly build be distributed ( either one ), just as talkback nightlies for windows are distributed. The sad thing is the suggestion is simple. They would have to *not* strip a binary before inclusion on the mozilla ftp server. This would require no code changes and only a minor build change.

      I'm not just bitching about not being able to run nightlies under a debugger without building from scratch. I'm complaining about not being able to provide any reasonable information to the developers for those random crashes. And thus having to live with those crashes.

      I'm complaining about being shut out of this "mozilla community" I keep hearing about.

      Mozilla and other large OSS projects are turning their backs on one of the most important advantages of OSS, user feedback. As more and more of the decisions go corporate and behind closed doors, these projects will appeal less and less to many users.



  • Quote : OfB: Thank-you Andreas, your remarks were very insightful.



  • food for thought... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Whammy666 ( 589169 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @10:55PM (#4116684) Homepage
    "Now I need a monopolist's permission to view my own creations? The audacity is mind-boggling, and that the Justice Department is permitting it is simply astounding."
    Consider this: M$ releases another revised EULA buried in some 'upgrade' which states that they now have legal rights to anything created using their OS and/or product line. Could this be far off?
    • Which is akin to the makers of a hammer claiming they own the house you built with it. Don't you think that sounds a bit too ridiculous? So, its about 2 years off I guess.

      • M$ releases another revised EULA buried in some 'upgrade' which states that they now have legal rights to anything created using their OS and/or product line.

      Unthinkable... until we recall that they tried to sneak a clause into Frontpage that prevented us producing anti-Microsoft content with it.

      So no, I don't believe that's unthinkable in the long term. But they'll work on cutting us off from our own content first.

  • Audacity? Only in being that stupid. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yeah, yeah, here's some flame bait for you:

    Um, don't save your creations in the proprietary format created and maintained by a convicted felon. If a .txt or .rtf file can't give you what you want, .htm/l/ or .pdf can.

    And speaking of arbitrary, pointless and otherwise unnecessary divisions in the electronic desk-space, Gnome AND KDE both suck monkey nuts. Developers set up app installs to favor one over the other. The only way to effectively get around on the desktop is using something like Enlightenment or Ice for the default load. Then there's navigating the pointless folder nesting...

    Oh I know, burn time tweaking the installs. Sorry, I'm now old enough to drive. I have to go earn a living.

    Mike Nomad

    • Yeah right, welcome to the real world. I don't own any Microsoft products (not even illegal copies). I'm looking for a job, and I've been unable to apply for several because they demand my resume in Word format only, which I cannot save in. The worst offenders seem to be companies looking for unix help, companies looking for help with Windows don't have a problem with plain text.

  • Something everybody should keep in mind when dealing with other members of the open source community and/or world...

    "For example, there was a period not long ago where much ado was made about the incredible enhancements to the KDE themes and icons while the HTML rendering engine was not yet bug-free. It seems these critics truly did not understand that the contributors working on the themes and icons have no greater ability to improve the Konqueror browser than, say, the critic does."

    It's all about even distribution off talent...
  • This Government may find that, faced with opposition, the software vendor threatens to resort to self-help by disabling the vast majority of the nation's computers if its demands, however unreasonable and illegitimate from the Government's perspective, are not met. In short, the vendor threatens to shut down the nation's infrastructure and businesses, grinding the economy to a virtual halt. The Government, not having invested in alternative software systems, would face an indeterminate future in which a large proportion of the nation's workers would simply be idle. Faced with this Hobson's choice, what country could afford to risk non-compliance then? Faced with this threat to its security, what responsible Government will not act now to prevent an unaccountable, foreign, private entity from wielding this terrible weapon over the nation's collective head?

    Can you say 'Microsoft'? I knew you could.

  • The Old Agenda (Score:2, Insightful)

    by istartedi ( 132515 )

    Viewed in this light, FS / OS desktops present a perfect match for Government investment. Free desktops provide a boundless, publically-available resource which results not only in large financial savings to its citizens, but also protects and enhances citizen privacy, freedom and choice. Moreover, because Government investment in free software development can be made locally, such support stimulates the nation's or locality's technology sector. In the longer-term view, such investment eventually operates to sizably reduce the outflow of hard currency to other countries, something especially critical for developing nations but also a factor no Government cannot seriously consider. What responsible Government would prefer its citizens pay a large international tax to a foreign corporation over creating high-tech jobs in its local economy?

    Folks, this meme has been in the Free Software community from the earliest days of the FSF. Just read some of RMS's early essays and you'll see the same ideas. It's bunk. They just want us to exchange a private monopoly for a government monopoly. Private monopolies can be defeated when customers become so disatisfied that they choose alternatives. Private monopolies can be defunded because when customers stop buying they lose money. Public monopolies are much harder to defeat because they just confiscate money in the form of taxes. Almost all products produced by governments are inferior. This long-winded interview is just loaded with Leftist scare tactics. MSFT is not capable of preventing you from viewing your own creations unless you are stupid enough to let them. Don't let the government take care of you--do it yourself. You'll be much better off in the long run.

    • Re:The Old Agenda (Score:2, Insightful)

      by podperson ( 592944 )
      "Almost all products produced by governments are inferior"

      Who's counting? I'm not saying the government doesn't suck at doing many things, but if some FSF rhetoric is recycled left-wing crap, this is mindless right-wing crap.

      Do you prefer your army to be public or private? Macchiavelli suggested that mercenary (non-government) armies are less reliable than citizen militias, and most citizens of democratic countries seem to agree.

      When asked to choose between Democrat-flavored private health care and Republican-flavored private health care in a New York Times survey, most respondents picked *neither* and opted for Canadian-style public health care.

      So national security and healthcare *products* seem to be better when provided by government. Are you so sure that software is different?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • how on earth can a government releasing a "free gpl'ed software" be a monopoly in that area?

        Because the existance of such software tends to drive out low-cost proprietary alternatives leaving us with high-end proprietary and GPL'd "distributions". The compiler market is a good example of a place where "the middle" is stagnating because of this.

        Read the GPL --- you have the right to do what you want to do with the source, as long as you don't take away others' rights to do what they want to do with the new source.

        In other words, you can only propogate the GPL, and if the government throws its hefty weight into a particular market, it would create a monopoly by driving out proprietary competitors. The damage would be proportional to the quality of the product. If the product were really poor, it would produce little damage. If it breaks into the realm of "good but lacking some features" It will destroy the low end of the market. If it becomes the best-in-class it will destroy the entire market. Then, the government is free to sit on its collective ass and let what was once best-in-class slowly erode. The proprietary versions won't come back because the threat of increased government funding and restoration is ever-present.

        Where exactly in there do you see the government who may have written the sourc-code, exerting a monopolistic control over you?

        I think I've made it pretty clear. Although there wouldn't be an explicit government monopoly, there would be a defacto monopoly. The proprietary software industry would be effectively destroyed, which RMS freely admits is the purpose of the GPL. However, most customers want the choice. If people were properly educated and the issue were put to a vote, most would not want this to happen. Unfortunately, most people are not properly educated due to the Left's prior victories in education.

    • I don't understand. You're saying that governments should not buy desktops based on Free Software? It is better for governments to buy Microsoft because it's better to have a Microsoft monopoly than a "government monopoly"? What on earth are you talking about?

      • I don't understand. You're saying that governments should not buy desktops based on Free Software?

        No, he's talking about government funded/developed software. Or even mere governemt use of open source software would help drive its spread and developement.

        Not that I can see any way the government could have a monopoly if it's GPL or similar.

        -
    • The way a person refers to the Micro$oft corporation tends to reflect their relationship with it. For example the $ substitution implies that I may believe that they are a group of money grabbing SOBs.

      This gentleman refers to them by their stock ticker symbol, MSFT. The "use Open Source" solution is a threat to the great Ponzi scheme. Personally, I have worked in developing countries and can say sure, we give them a World Bank loan for a hundred copies of XP, but where are they going to money for their licence renewals/update fees?

      Government led OS initiatives do not mean a Government monopoly. The Govt is a useful first-mover and because of open-source, anyone can compete for the provision of support services, even local companies in developing countries.

    • MSFT is not capable of preventing you from viewing your own creations unless you are stupid enough to let them.

      Most people, and probably you and I as well are, in fact, that stupid. Or at least that's how it appears at the moment.

    • I know you're trolling, but in case someone doesn't ...
      They just want us to exchange a private monopoly for a government monopoly ... Almost all products produced by governments are inferior.
      No one said anything about the government producing the software. They are talking about the government using the software.
      Don't let the government take care of you--do it yourself.
      I thought we were talking abou a private monopoly vs. a government? Now you're comparing the government to do-it-yourself. If Palladium plays out as many people have speculated, doing it yourself won't be an option.
    • MSFT is not capable of preventing you from viewing your own creations unless you are stupid enough to let them.

      My standard answer to the "MSFT can't do XXX" argument is "Who is going to stop them?"

      Don't let the government take care of you--do it yourself. You'll be much better off in the long run.

      I have to agree with you here, because the government can F up just about anything. But as long as the government doesn't control open source, I think everything will be OK. (and I don't think they can control it)

      • My standard answer to the "MSFT can't do XXX" argument is "Who is going to stop them?"

        Apple, Sun, Palm (if they can survive), Any other corporation that can please people for whom control really matters, and last but not least--the Free Software and Open Source movements.

        I actually like the fact that they exist as independant players in the market. What I object to is them being enshrined as part of the government, because when government gives something away for free there is potential for serious inequity. The public schools are the best example of this. Poor kids can only use public schools. Rich people may choose private. Vouchers are a good solution, but the Left fights it tooth and nail. Now, imagine if everybody can run free government Linux systems but if you want the features missing from that you have to pay $1500 for Windows or MacOS. Would that really be good?

  • US Government Nationalizes Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crosbie ( 446285 ) <crosbie@digitalproductions.co.uk> on Thursday August 22, 2002 @04:24AM (#4117430) Homepage
    The second the US gives up trying to use the courts to keep MS in check, it'll simply nationalize MS. It'll certainly do this the moment it perceives a conflict of interest. It may neuter it (like IBM), but it will probably nationalize it given widespread reliance on it.

    There is of course the small chance that MS will become the ascendant (espicially with a tad of infiltration in congress, etc.), and the US will become the United States of Microsoft.

    When more taxes get spent on IT infrastructure than anything else, they'll be the de facto government anyway.

    So, there's a choice: Software Dictatorship or Software Democracy. Run by an individual from taxation, or run by the people by community sponsorship.

    I'm not saying there's anything wrong with making money out of software, but it's not a good idea to have a government start enshrining the interests of commercial organisations in law at the expense of peoples constitutional rights.
  • What a surprise, he's afraid that software vendors are going to own his thoughts. "In other words, the products of our creative minds, the very essence of our humanity, are being relentlessly stripped from us."

    Hey, KDE is very good and all, and yes, there are some real serious issues about proprietary document formats. But anytime somebody starts into this sort of extremist scare-mongering, even if I basically agree with them, I just tune it out. Most people who use such exaggeration aren't capable of thinking through the issue clearly. It's become far too common these days to make some trivial cause into something of earth-shattering importance. Spare me.
    • What a surprise, he's afraid that software vendors are going to own his thoughts. "In other words, the products of our creative minds, the very essence of our humanity, are being relentlessly stripped from us." Hey, KDE is very good and all, and yes, there are some real serious issues about proprietary document formats. But anytime somebody starts into this sort of extremist scare-mongering, even if I basically agree with them, I just tune it out. Most people who use such exaggeration aren't capable of thinking through the issue clearly. It's become far too common these days to make some trivial cause into something of earth-shattering importance. Spare me.

      Hmm. Guess you missed this story. [slashdot.org] Sure, the guy signed an invention disclosure agreement, but what if MS put a similar clause in the EULA? "I agree, that by using this software, that I forfeit any rights to any invention created all or in part by any of the software contained herein, and the intellectual property rights to those inventions shall be the sole property of Microsoft."

      Think it won't happen? Who is going to stop them?

  • When did "Microsoft" become a dirty word?

    Looking through the interview, I noticed that Andreas actually said "Microsoft" once.

    Whenever he discussed them, it was always
    • "software vendor(s)"
    • or "one particular vendor"
    • or "a noted software and Internet services vendor"
    • or "the monopolist"
    • or "the world's largest creator and enforcer of proprietary prisons"
    • or "a monopolist"
    • or "those with the current monopoly".

    When did "Microsoft" become one of the Seven Dirty Words???

Slashdot Top Deals

GREAT MOMENTS IN HISTORY (#7): April 2, 1751 Issac Newton becomes discouraged when he falls up a flight of stairs.

Close