Some sites put the cost of refueling and refitting a nuclear submarine at nearly a billion dollars so I would expect in current day dollars Seawolfs which is the class that followed LA class ships were North of two billion each.

I would expect the costs to repair one have to be close a new one, the difference being it might be easier to fund a repair instead of a new ship. Still I would have expected a fire to cause damage to the hull to be sufficient enough that major sections would have to be replaced. Let alone I have seen what fires that don't even burn the entire interior of a vehicle do to what remains and frankly the clean up would involve gutting any area smoke reached.

I don't think it is fair to classify them based on who is paying for the ride.

Lockheed Martin never had a goal of standing on their own, they always relied on the government to pick up the tab.Space X seems to be going from the direction of "We take the risk" more so than true defense contractors.

Space X also can provide services to other commercial and national interests. They certainly do not have the cost structure the truly government funded launches used.

You're just saying that because I get your sense of humor.

So your post is now at "0", up from "-1"?

I'm grad.

And may I say that I don't want you to be at the bottom of the ocean, either, at least until it's your time :)

Right. Now it remains to be seen whether the Judge is going to call Verizon in on the carpet. If I were the Judge, I surely would be doing that, but I haven't seen any hint of that in the Court's orders.

So far.

None of the procedures you described are applicable in this court.

It was a subpoena, issued by an attorney, not a court order. Verizon was responding to a subpoena, not a court order. The only court order at the time was an order permitting the attorneys to serve subpoenas.

It is not a "sign of respect" to provide responses to a subpoena when a motion to quash the subpoena is pending; it is a "sign of contempt".

Most of us do know that, but plaintiff's lawyers are hoping that the judges are among those who don't know.

It's based on a single BitTorrent download. I don't know the technology by which they claim to have identified the account.

Certainly in this case yes, where (a) the information is private confidential information of the subscriber, (b) Verizon has notified the subscriber that the information will be turned over on May 12th in the absence of a motion to quash, and (c) there is a pending motion to quash.

He or she is one of the John Does. He was notified by Verizon of the subpoena, and of his right to make a motion to quash, which he did, in this case, exercise.

Why not?

Prior to the information being turned over, he was notified by Verizon that it would be turned over on May 12th unless he filed a motion to quash.

I don't know for sure if Verizon knew, but it is hard to imagine any set of circumstances under which it did not know. If it did not know, then plaintiff's counsel acted in an extremely inappropriate manner. But it is much more likely that Verizon did know.

Yes it absolutely knew that. It sent him or her a letter telling him or her that it would reveal his or her identity in response to the subpoena on May 12th.

In this case Verizon undoubtedly did notify the John Does that it would turn over the information on May 12th. The John Doe quite properly made the motion to quash well in advance of that date, back in April. Verizon had absolutely no business turning over the documents on May 7th. If I were the judge, I would be calling Verizon in on the carpet.