and the cases burned really well due to the fact that they were cast magnesium
Poppycock. The cases were a magnesium alloy. The only way the guy got it to burn was to heat it to several thousand degrees so that the alloy broke down. Not to mention that he had to try it with two different cases, AND use tons of lighter fluid to get one to ignite.:-)
The NeXTStep (a.k.a. OpenStep) API was developed as part of the NeXTOS that ran on NeXT workstations during the 90's. Several deals were made with other Unix vendors (including Sun) for them to support the "OpenStep" standard.
NeXT was bought off by Apple, and was developed into Mac OS X. The OS X Cocoa API is really nothing more than the NeXTStep API set, and is almost 100% source compatible with programs from the old NeXT machines.
And it's obvious you're not paying attention. The GPL provides contractual obligations that are beneficial to both parties. i.e. I will give you the code (service provided to licensee) in exchange for you returning any changes you make (service provided to licenser).
You should take careful note the third link. The statement about the GPL being a contract was made by "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.". Not only does he hold a Juris Doctorate and a Masters of Law, but he is the author of Open Source Software Law. In other words, he knows what the hell he's talking about.
In short, the GPL is a contract because it has contractual obligations. Calling it a waiver or "not a contract" is misleading and unethical.
If you do not understand business law, please don't post as if you do.
Do you?
Linky 1 Linky 2 Linky 3 (I love the quote: "The GPL IS a contract. Calling it a license simply describes the type of contract it is. some people get confused and believe licenses are always required when copyright interests are at stake.")
I think the difficulty arises when people read things like this article which state that the GPL is a license because it is not solely enforcable by contract law. This is true. It is enforcable by contract law if the redistributer claims to have accepted the license. Yet the GPL relies on standard copyright law as a backup in case the redistributor claims to have not accepted the contractual requirements of the GPL license.
Now please, run along. For one day, I've been insulted more than enough for knowing what I'm talking about.
When I was 5 my dad helped me build a crystal radio from scratch. we wrapped copper wire around a TP roll, got a germanium diode, a copper strip, a 2,000ohm earphone and a board.
Yep, that's pretty much like the radio I built. Unfortunately, we were so far away from the broadcasting stations that I could only pick up the feignest of signals. The electric motor kit was much more interesting, especially after my dad explained how it could work as a generator if you applied mechanical power.
Odd as it may sound though, I never really got into electronic and mechanical design. Programming was somehow easier and more interesting.
He didn't beat me, he gave me all of his old TV and Radio repair tools to play with.
Cool! Just be careful with televisions. Many of them have charged capacitors that can give you a nasty shock, even if they've been unplugged for a few years.:-)
The GPL places conditions on its use, therefore it's tends to be more of a contract. However, the GPL exploits a loophole in that copyright law prevents redistribution. If you don't agree to the contractual agreements in the license, you have no right to redistribute the software.
That reminds me of an AM radio I built from one of those copper coil kits for kids. It was more of an ear-plug than a headphone, though. And when I say ear-plug, I mean that it was a massive thing that went right down your ear canal.
Which reminds me of the first headphone I ever used. It was a single ear-plug that plugged into one of those K-Mart black and white TVs. It was plastic, but the cord was a simple twisted deal. Not much in the way of wire protection.
I used to have a watch transistor radio that I inherited from a relative. Well, it fit on your arm anyway. The thing was so large that it was like taking the TR-1 and strapping it to your wrist. In comparison, I gave my wife an MP3 player that's 1.5x1x.5 inches.
License - A contractual arrangement whereby one person (Licensor) licenses another person (Licensee) some or all trade secret, patent, copyright, trade-mark or intellectual property rights the Licensor has in or to an invention. Unlike an assignment, a license does not transfer ownership. A sub-license occurs when the Licensee has rights to further license the Licensee's rights to a third party. A license may be for a set term or perpetual, be non-exclusive or exclusive, and is often granted in exchange for royalties or other compensation.
So, he may be in breach of copyright, but not contract.
That depends upon his defense. He can either state that he agreed to the license (breach of contract) or he can state that he didn't (copyright infringement). Either way, redistributing CherryOS before the situation is resolved will get you into deep trouble.
Not true. Right now he's in breach of contract (assuming the code is stolen) and he should attempt to comply with the terms of the contract before someone takes him to court. Pirating the software he distributes would give him grounds to sue you, even if his software isn't legally his to distribute.
Seriously could a craft with approx the propellant/mass of SMART-1 use this to get to Mars or beyond?
Farther. The Interplanetary Highway weaves throughout the ENTIRE solar system, making it cheaper and easier to get places that even Ion Drives cannot easily reach.
Think of the IPSHwy like square dancing. When there are only two people, you simply swing around and around. (Just like an orbit.) But when the whole crowd starts switching off, you'll find yourself being swung from person to person to person. This is, in effect, exactly how the superhighway works. Each slingshot swings you around and passes you to the next planet. Then you swing your partner doe-see-doe, and swing from Mars to Jupiter, to Saturn, swing around and catch Jupiter again, back to Mars, Earth, then Venus, etc.
That is great an all for someone to see on TV, but does someone suddenly understand genetics when this concept is taught? I do not think so. I believe understanding comes from being able to use probability to calculate measurable predictions from this concept.
Again, we're just talking about an introduction to the topic. For most people it is sufficient to state that we know ways of converting matter to energy, and methods by which we can accomplish the feat today. (antimatter anihilation, fission, fusion, etc.) Statements like "Energy is not an entity unto itself, but requires a carrier particle. Nature sometimes gets around this issue by using a massless particle called a photon." helps undo some of the nonsense drilled into them by Science Fiction. (Pure energy beings? Right.)
If the person is sufficiently interested in the topic, they can follow up on it. I'd even suggest having a website that would collect reference material (Wikipedia links would be cheap and easy, for example) for someone to follow up on a show they saw. At the end of the show, you just say "Visit www.scienceshow.com for more about today's exciting program!" The site would then arrange the frontpage to favor the shows most recently run. Older shows could be found by navigating their schedule or list of shows.
I thought that that the slugs were propelled by a chemical explosion.
Well, that's true in the sense that a bullet is propelled by a controlled chemical explosion. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would equate the detonation of a gun cartrige with a directed blast like the one used in an implosion device. Basically, a gun device wouldn't produce the large explosion like the Mark IV you mentioned, whereas an implosion trigger would. (In fact the gun device was retired simply because it was too easy for the guns to go off accidentally.)
Either way, the result is the same. The fissable material is temporarily made super-dense, and in that time it managed to go critical, then super-critical.
You're just agreeing with what I said. It was the conventional part of the bomb that exploded. There was no atomic explosion, what-so-ever.
As for the Uranium contamination, I wouldn't worry about it much. U235 is a lightly radioactive, alpha emitter. It really wouldn't cause much harm to anyone unless they managed to collect enough of the stuff to cause a high degree of spontaneous nuclear fission. (read: a do-it-yourself atomic pile)
All nuclear bombs use a chemical detonator.
That's not true. There are two types of atom bombs. The first one is a "gun" type of device that produces super-criticality by firing uranium slugs at each other. The combined force of the collision is sufficient to produce a super-critical reaction and thus an explosion.
The second type is the "implosion" device we all know and love. This variation uses a standard chemical explosive to produce super-criticality in Plutonium-239. This device is actually a bit more scalable (i.e. powerful) than the gun device. As a result, implosion devices are used as the trigger for fusion (i.e. thermonuclear) bombs.
In a thermonuclear bomb, the atmoic blast is reflected back on deuterium via the use of a Uranium neutron reflector. Since all the force is contained, the device heats up to temperatures similar to those in the sun, and the deuterium is forced to undergo fusion.
The concepts can only be parodied in a 45 minute program. Without the theoretical background, based in Math, the science is only an approximation.
So that's what we do when we brainstorm on new engine designs, or work out how to make Nuclear Fusion work. We simply "approximate" by saying "I want Nuclear Fusion", then we write a formula. Right.
Or maybe we figure out how an engine or fusion might work, then run the numbers to see if it will work. Don't believe me? Here's an equation for you:
k = f - l
What does that mean? Does it unlock the secrets of the universe for you? No! Of course not! It's just an equation to describe the total amount of fission by neutron capture. It doesn't explain that fission is accomplished by making the atom too heavy instead of blasting it apart with energetic collisions. Someone smart had to figure that part out!
Same thing with e=mc2, or Isp=EvG. These formulas merely descibe the physical properties of the universe in a form that allows us to know exactly how things will behave. Many times they are approximations themselves.
Besides, if someone gets interested enough in a scientific subject from watching a Science show, then they can spend the time with a book or on the Internet to look up the formulas.
I knew how a rocket worked when I became interested in the subject, but I learned to calculate mission profiles from the information present on the 'net. So why does a show have to drill math into your head before you even know what the math is for?
It's the only vehicle ever to carry people to another world.
Yep.
It is a fantastic technical achievement.
It's also old. It was neat when everyone was in grade school (or perhaps in front of the television in '69), but it's old news now. I show my four year old son videos of the Saturn V, moon landings, Shuttle Launches, and the only Buran launch. He thinks that it's really neat stuff, but I know that he'll be frustrated by the lack of progress when he gets older.
Of course, most people don't know that. Half can't read. How could they know about the Apollo program?
An exageration. Yes, there is a serious education problem. But how do you expect those who "fall through the cracks" to become interested in getting an education if you don't give them something to strive for? The Saturn V was yesterday. There are no more flights. The future is here. Let the kids dream about being the first person to set foot on Mars. It will give them a goal in life.
Basically, if we can't make a business case for it, i.e. if we can't sell it for a 50,000% profit, it won't happen. Oh, we might get a magnanimous billionaire to throw a few million around here and there, but by and large, our society is stagnating. Nobody cares about anything unless it's a big pile of money.
Truth be told, margins have been shrinking for *years* and it has been tougher and tougher for businesses to make money. Space represents a new horizon for technological development, and a place to potentially make millions, billions, perhaps even trillions. SpaceShipOne was just the first step. The current design will kick off space tourism. Then Bigelow will provide cheap launch capability. From there Scaled or someone else provides manned space craft. Bigelow provides the space stations.
Next thing you know, we've got companies mining asteriods for some serious profit. Platnium, Gold, Silver, Uranium, etc. all exist for the taking. Even Iron becomes much more valuable as it's already out of Earth's gravity well.
For example, I would be interested in learning how a shuttle launch is planned and what are the general parameters that influence a flight plan, but I am not interested in knowing how to calculate the necessary roll variance needed to compensate for the axial plane deviation due to Frinkinson's drag in the lower stratosphere. (I made all of that up BTW)
Damn! You should be the next "technical consultant" for Star Trek. I'm getting pretty bored of hearing about rerouting the EPS counduits through the primary deflector dish to produce a coherent beam of tachyons. I'm sorry, that line sounds stupid to even the uneducated. Especially when Voyager used it every week.
And while you're at it, can you find Archer some better terms than "Xindi Weapon" and "Your Species"? That's driving me nuts! In the good old days, we used terms like "Molecular Deconstructor" and "Your people/Your race/Your culture". At the very least, the characters would have adopted the Xindi name for the weapon instead of calling it the "Xindi Weapon" to the Xindi's faces!
Err... I'm getting a little carried away here. Sorry.:-)
The average person couldn't pick a Saturn V out if it were grouped with a folding chair and a mop.
Actually, I'm willing to bet they could. The Space Shuttle and the Saturn V are the only space vehicles most people would know on site. Most people would know the form factor of the V-2 rocket, but they wouldn't know why.
Even if they can't identify it, the rocket smacks of "old". They've heard it a million times, "We built a big, damn rocket and flew to the moon. Yay for our side." Why should they be interested in the Saturn V? They want to hear tales of traveling to Mars!
Saturn V's would become far more interesting to the public if they first learned why we need such a big, damn rocket. Not for another trip to the moon, but rather for staging the real engines in LEO.
People aren't so afraid of nukes these days. Just think how much their imaginations would soar if you showed them an 8 million metric ton Orion. They'd easily be beating down the doors of Congress to get it! At the very least, our entertainment would again begin to reflect the spirit of adventure that made the first Space Age possible.
Actually, your article says it was a conventional bomb that was to be used as a detonator. I'm guessing if the atomic core had been there, there wouldn't be much left in that part of Canada. (Or at least the US would have had to fess up to its mistake.):-)
Slashdot Mirror
and the cases burned really well due to the fact that they were cast magnesium
:-)
Poppycock. The cases were a magnesium alloy. The only way the guy got it to burn was to heat it to several thousand degrees so that the alloy broke down. Not to mention that he had to try it with two different cases, AND use tons of lighter fluid to get one to ignite.
The NeXTStep (a.k.a. OpenStep) API was developed as part of the NeXTOS that ran on NeXT workstations during the 90's. Several deals were made with other Unix vendors (including Sun) for them to support the "OpenStep" standard.
NeXT was bought off by Apple, and was developed into Mac OS X. The OS X Cocoa API is really nothing more than the NeXTStep API set, and is almost 100% source compatible with programs from the old NeXT machines.
More Information
And it's obvious you're not paying attention. The GPL provides contractual obligations that are beneficial to both parties. i.e. I will give you the code (service provided to licensee) in exchange for you returning any changes you make (service provided to licenser).
You should take careful note the third link. The statement about the GPL being a contract was made by "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.". Not only does he hold a Juris Doctorate and a Masters of Law, but he is the author of Open Source Software Law. In other words, he knows what the hell he's talking about.
In short, the GPL is a contract because it has contractual obligations. Calling it a waiver or "not a contract" is misleading and unethical.
You should have read the line right after that:
Although it could be simple copyright infringment if he claims that he never accepted the GPL license.
If you do not understand business law, please don't post as if you do.
Do you?
Linky 1
Linky 2
Linky 3 (I love the quote: "The GPL IS a contract. Calling it a license simply describes the type of contract it is. some people get confused and believe licenses are always required when copyright interests are at stake.")
I think the difficulty arises when people read things like this article which state that the GPL is a license because it is not solely enforcable by contract law. This is true. It is enforcable by contract law if the redistributer claims to have accepted the license. Yet the GPL relies on standard copyright law as a backup in case the redistributor claims to have not accepted the contractual requirements of the GPL license.
Now please, run along. For one day, I've been insulted more than enough for knowing what I'm talking about.
Heh. True enough. Nothing like a few kilowatts to wake you up in the morning, eh? ;-)
When I was 5 my dad helped me build a crystal radio from scratch.
:-)
we wrapped copper wire around a TP roll, got a germanium diode, a copper strip, a 2,000ohm earphone and a board.
Yep, that's pretty much like the radio I built. Unfortunately, we were so far away from the broadcasting stations that I could only pick up the feignest of signals. The electric motor kit was much more interesting, especially after my dad explained how it could work as a generator if you applied mechanical power.
Odd as it may sound though, I never really got into electronic and mechanical design. Programming was somehow easier and more interesting.
He didn't beat me, he gave me all of his old TV and Radio repair tools to play with.
Cool! Just be careful with televisions. Many of them have charged capacitors that can give you a nasty shock, even if they've been unplugged for a few years.
The GPL places conditions on its use, therefore it's tends to be more of a contract. However, the GPL exploits a loophole in that copyright law prevents redistribution. If you don't agree to the contractual agreements in the license, you have no right to redistribute the software.
That reminds me of an AM radio I built from one of those copper coil kits for kids. It was more of an ear-plug than a headphone, though. And when I say ear-plug, I mean that it was a massive thing that went right down your ear canal.
Which reminds me of the first headphone I ever used. It was a single ear-plug that plugged into one of those K-Mart black and white TVs. It was plastic, but the cord was a simple twisted deal. Not much in the way of wire protection.
God, this stuff takes me back.
I used to have a watch transistor radio that I inherited from a relative. Well, it fit on your arm anyway. The thing was so large that it was like taking the TR-1 and strapping it to your wrist. In comparison, I gave my wife an MP3 player that's 1.5x1x.5 inches.
UltraSparc IV: 66 million transistors
:-)
Pentium IV Prescott: 125 million transistors
Power4: 170 million transistors
So how many transistors are in the TR-1?
4
For everything else, there's vacuum tubes. (Or diodes, depending on your radio set.)
The GPL is a license. not a contract.
A license is a type of contract. From here:
License - A contractual arrangement whereby one person (Licensor) licenses another person (Licensee) some or all trade secret, patent, copyright, trade-mark or intellectual property rights the Licensor has in or to an invention. Unlike an assignment, a license does not transfer ownership. A sub-license occurs when the Licensee has rights to further license the Licensee's rights to a third party. A license may be for a set term or perpetual, be non-exclusive or exclusive, and is often granted in exchange for royalties or other compensation.
So, he may be in breach of copyright, but not contract.
That depends upon his defense. He can either state that he agreed to the license (breach of contract) or he can state that he didn't (copyright infringement). Either way, redistributing CherryOS before the situation is resolved will get you into deep trouble.
What the parent post was stating is that either a) he gets sued for not complying with the PearPC license
Which is a breach of contract.
Although it could be simple copyright infringment if he claims that he never accepted the GPL license.
b) he complies, and everyone can distribute the source code to his software for free.
That's assuming he complies. Until he complies, anyone caught redistributing the software (as the parent suggested) would be a copyright infringer.
One second here -- time to feed the troll
I do not appreciate that comment.
Not true. Right now he's in breach of contract (assuming the code is stolen) and he should attempt to comply with the terms of the contract before someone takes him to court. Pirating the software he distributes would give him grounds to sue you, even if his software isn't legally his to distribute.
You forgot:
7. Yahoo is suggesting a solution that *should* have been the first thing everyone tried. Inventing complex new mail records is just silly.
Seriously could a craft with approx the propellant/mass of SMART-1 use this to get to Mars or beyond?
Farther. The Interplanetary Highway weaves throughout the ENTIRE solar system, making it cheaper and easier to get places that even Ion Drives cannot easily reach.
Think of the IPSHwy like square dancing. When there are only two people, you simply swing around and around. (Just like an orbit.) But when the whole crowd starts switching off, you'll find yourself being swung from person to person to person. This is, in effect, exactly how the superhighway works. Each slingshot swings you around and passes you to the next planet. Then you swing your partner doe-see-doe, and swing from Mars to Jupiter, to Saturn, swing around and catch Jupiter again, back to Mars, Earth, then Venus, etc.
That is great an all for someone to see on TV, but does someone suddenly understand genetics when this concept is taught? I do not think so. I believe understanding comes from being able to use probability to calculate measurable predictions from this concept.
Again, we're just talking about an introduction to the topic. For most people it is sufficient to state that we know ways of converting matter to energy, and methods by which we can accomplish the feat today. (antimatter anihilation, fission, fusion, etc.) Statements like "Energy is not an entity unto itself, but requires a carrier particle. Nature sometimes gets around this issue by using a massless particle called a photon." helps undo some of the nonsense drilled into them by Science Fiction. (Pure energy beings? Right.)
If the person is sufficiently interested in the topic, they can follow up on it. I'd even suggest having a website that would collect reference material (Wikipedia links would be cheap and easy, for example) for someone to follow up on a show they saw. At the end of the show, you just say "Visit www.scienceshow.com for more about today's exciting program!" The site would then arrange the frontpage to favor the shows most recently run. Older shows could be found by navigating their schedule or list of shows.
I thought that that the slugs were propelled by a chemical explosion.
Well, that's true in the sense that a bullet is propelled by a controlled chemical explosion. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would equate the detonation of a gun cartrige with a directed blast like the one used in an implosion device. Basically, a gun device wouldn't produce the large explosion like the Mark IV you mentioned, whereas an implosion trigger would. (In fact the gun device was retired simply because it was too easy for the guns to go off accidentally.)
Either way, the result is the same. The fissable material is temporarily made super-dense, and in that time it managed to go critical, then super-critical.
You're just agreeing with what I said. It was the conventional part of the bomb that exploded. There was no atomic explosion, what-so-ever.
As for the Uranium contamination, I wouldn't worry about it much. U235 is a lightly radioactive, alpha emitter. It really wouldn't cause much harm to anyone unless they managed to collect enough of the stuff to cause a high degree of spontaneous nuclear fission. (read: a do-it-yourself atomic pile)
All nuclear bombs use a chemical detonator.
That's not true. There are two types of atom bombs. The first one is a "gun" type of device that produces super-criticality by firing uranium slugs at each other. The combined force of the collision is sufficient to produce a super-critical reaction and thus an explosion.
The second type is the "implosion" device we all know and love. This variation uses a standard chemical explosive to produce super-criticality in Plutonium-239. This device is actually a bit more scalable (i.e. powerful) than the gun device. As a result, implosion devices are used as the trigger for fusion (i.e. thermonuclear) bombs.
In a thermonuclear bomb, the atmoic blast is reflected back on deuterium via the use of a Uranium neutron reflector. Since all the force is contained, the device heats up to temperatures similar to those in the sun, and the deuterium is forced to undergo fusion.
The concepts can only be parodied in a 45 minute program. Without the theoretical background, based in Math, the science is only an approximation.
So that's what we do when we brainstorm on new engine designs, or work out how to make Nuclear Fusion work. We simply "approximate" by saying "I want Nuclear Fusion", then we write a formula. Right.
Or maybe we figure out how an engine or fusion might work, then run the numbers to see if it will work. Don't believe me? Here's an equation for you:
k = f - l
What does that mean? Does it unlock the secrets of the universe for you? No! Of course not! It's just an equation to describe the total amount of fission by neutron capture. It doesn't explain that fission is accomplished by making the atom too heavy instead of blasting it apart with energetic collisions. Someone smart had to figure that part out!
Same thing with e=mc2, or Isp=EvG. These formulas merely descibe the physical properties of the universe in a form that allows us to know exactly how things will behave. Many times they are approximations themselves.
Besides, if someone gets interested enough in a scientific subject from watching a Science show, then they can spend the time with a book or on the Internet to look up the formulas.
I knew how a rocket worked when I became interested in the subject, but I learned to calculate mission profiles from the information present on the 'net. So why does a show have to drill math into your head before you even know what the math is for?
It's the most powerful rocket ever built.
Correct.
It's the only vehicle ever to carry people to another world.
Yep.
It is a fantastic technical achievement.
It's also old. It was neat when everyone was in grade school (or perhaps in front of the television in '69), but it's old news now. I show my four year old son videos of the Saturn V, moon landings, Shuttle Launches, and the only Buran launch. He thinks that it's really neat stuff, but I know that he'll be frustrated by the lack of progress when he gets older.
Of course, most people don't know that. Half can't read. How could they know about the Apollo program?
An exageration. Yes, there is a serious education problem. But how do you expect those who "fall through the cracks" to become interested in getting an education if you don't give them something to strive for? The Saturn V was yesterday. There are no more flights. The future is here. Let the kids dream about being the first person to set foot on Mars. It will give them a goal in life.
Basically, if we can't make a business case for it, i.e. if we can't sell it for a 50,000% profit, it won't happen. Oh, we might get a magnanimous billionaire to throw a few million around here and there, but by and large, our society is stagnating. Nobody cares about anything unless it's a big pile of money.
Truth be told, margins have been shrinking for *years* and it has been tougher and tougher for businesses to make money. Space represents a new horizon for technological development, and a place to potentially make millions, billions, perhaps even trillions. SpaceShipOne was just the first step. The current design will kick off space tourism. Then Bigelow will provide cheap launch capability. From there Scaled or someone else provides manned space craft. Bigelow provides the space stations.
Next thing you know, we've got companies mining asteriods for some serious profit. Platnium, Gold, Silver, Uranium, etc. all exist for the taking. Even Iron becomes much more valuable as it's already out of Earth's gravity well.
For example, I would be interested in learning how a shuttle launch is planned and what are the general parameters that influence a flight plan, but I am not interested in knowing how to calculate the necessary roll variance needed to compensate for the axial plane deviation due to Frinkinson's drag in the lower stratosphere. (I made all of that up BTW)
:-)
Damn! You should be the next "technical consultant" for Star Trek. I'm getting pretty bored of hearing about rerouting the EPS counduits through the primary deflector dish to produce a coherent beam of tachyons. I'm sorry, that line sounds stupid to even the uneducated. Especially when Voyager used it every week.
And while you're at it, can you find Archer some better terms than "Xindi Weapon" and "Your Species"? That's driving me nuts! In the good old days, we used terms like "Molecular Deconstructor" and "Your people/Your race/Your culture". At the very least, the characters would have adopted the Xindi name for the weapon instead of calling it the "Xindi Weapon" to the Xindi's faces!
Err... I'm getting a little carried away here. Sorry.
The average person couldn't pick a Saturn V out if it were grouped with a folding chair and a mop.
Actually, I'm willing to bet they could. The Space Shuttle and the Saturn V are the only space vehicles most people would know on site. Most people would know the form factor of the V-2 rocket, but they wouldn't know why.
Even if they can't identify it, the rocket smacks of "old". They've heard it a million times, "We built a big, damn rocket and flew to the moon. Yay for our side." Why should they be interested in the Saturn V? They want to hear tales of traveling to Mars!
Saturn V's would become far more interesting to the public if they first learned why we need such a big, damn rocket. Not for another trip to the moon, but rather for staging the real engines in LEO.
People aren't so afraid of nukes these days. Just think how much their imaginations would soar if you showed them an 8 million metric ton Orion. They'd easily be beating down the doors of Congress to get it! At the very least, our entertainment would again begin to reflect the spirit of adventure that made the first Space Age possible.
Actually, your article says it was a conventional bomb that was to be used as a detonator. I'm guessing if the atomic core had been there, there wouldn't be much left in that part of Canada. (Or at least the US would have had to fess up to its mistake.) :-)
The only problem is that many people don't get those channels. As a result, the regular Discovery Channel programming seems boring. :-(