Ok, starting to get somewhere, so I thank you for that much. We have the understanding now that there is some discontent with one of Mr Mansfield’s amendments, specifically its perceived outcome on innovative, not-necessarily-defense-oriented-but-still-could-be research funding.
Still unanswered questions:
• Which Mansfield
amendment is wing referred to? Namong the year would be suffiicnetly identifying
• What were Mr. Mansfield’s goals in pushing his eponymous amendment.
And I would like to ask a follow-on, once again in appreciation of your response:
• Among the people (usually academicians in my experience) who express unhappiness with (one of) the Mansfield amendments, why don’t they express at least equal level of unhappiness with the NSF not being allocated a larger budget with mandate to fund the future Engelbarts & Kays? Or why don’t they advocate the standing-up of a National Engineering Foundation, or a peacetime non-weapons version of the OSRD to fund the next Engelbart, as vociferously as they express discontent with Mr. Mansfield’s amendment?
Still unanswered questions:
• Which Mansfield amendment is wing referred to? Namong the year would be suffiicnetly identifying
• What were Mr. Mansfield’s goals in pushing his eponymous amendment.
And I would like to ask a follow-on, once again in appreciation of your response: • Among the people (usually academicians in my experience) who express unhappiness with (one of) the Mansfield amendments, why don’t they express at least equal level of unhappiness with the NSF not being allocated a larger budget with mandate to fund the future Engelbarts & Kays? Or why don’t they advocate the standing-up of a National Engineering Foundation, or a peacetime non-weapons version of the OSRD to fund the next Engelbart, as vociferously as they express discontent with Mr. Mansfield’s amendment?