Going to have to agree with you here (bet you didn't see that coming :) ) -- I don't see a foreign country sending drones over the Continental US, simply due to the huge distances involved. They would be very easy targets inbound. And the people Les226 is talking about are not affiliated with an actual country; they're ... err.. "independent". So they would have even less ability to cause harm to us. And yes, while every technology we make is eventually mastered by other countries, it's pretty easy to figure out when and where that technology is being developed. We can, rather effectively, prevent certain tech from getting to people we don't want to have it.

All I'm saying is that the answer to drones annoying us is *more drones*. If all you want is to set up your own virtual Class A airspace, and ensure that *nothing* will bother you, or spy on you, it can be done very cheaply using parts commonly available, and programming already showcased in Artificial Intelligence labs in universities across the country. The huge amount of dirigibles could be deployed in a grid pattern, and "stacked" with multiple layers, and if offset correctly, it may even confuse satellites by physically being in the way of the satellite being able to "see" down. Of course, this would have absolutely zero *offensive* capability, but that's really the point: it's only purpose is to defend an area.

Where did I say that these drones would be flying anywhere near my actual location? They're blimps; they can loiter. And for a lot cheaper than the "aerial assets" you're talking about. With a maximum forward speed of 35 knots, but the ability to stay controllable in the air for 8 hours at a time (more depending on sunlight), for the cost of a single Bone (283.1M, Fiscal 98 constant dollars), someone could build 25,000 of these, fill them with hydrogen, and blanket a huge amount of airspace with protection from, well, pretty much anything. Sure, some of them would go away, but compared against a simple AIM-9 ($471K) ...

If China or some other country were flying drones over my area on a regular basis, here's what I would do: 1) Build 4 GPS-guided, robotic dirigibles with solar panels on the top and a decent size gas generator on the bottom (along with a computer to control it, and a couple electric motors, control surfaces, etc.). They would be around 33 feet long by 8 feet in diameter, and hold part of a large, but very light, net. Said drones would cost less than $10,000 to build, per. 2) Program said drones to fly in tight formation close to the flight path of the drones (or non-autonomous aircraft) which harass me 3) when one is detected, send a command to expand the net directly in the flight path of the harassing plane.

Don't worry -- most of us can tell the difference between a 1 and an l. I just wish I could talk with whoever manages the comments -- I'm a developer, and willing to donate some time to make this site handle comments a little better. I like the idea of moderation, but most of these comments can be handled automatically -- just take a checksum of the text, and when the same (or multiple) people post the similar things over a span of time, flag it automatically as "potential spam", and allow users to choose whether to see it or not.

Rhett Engelking does not represent the Catholic Church at all -- he's a member of the Secular Franciscan Order, so he is not even an Ordinary Priest or Brother. It's like being an Honorary Space Ranger for Buzz Lightyear. He represents the failed philosophy of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, who brought the Catholic Church back a long way during is reign over the USCCB which ended in the 2000's. The new head of the USCCB (Timothy Cardinal Dolan) represents a dramatic move *away* from the Socialist/Communist focus that the Church had under Bernardin. Rhett believes in the Bernardin Machine (the socialist way). Real Catholics don't.

Sounds like Rhett Engelking ( http://www.franciscanaction.org/engelking ) is a Socialist that has found what he believes to be a home in the Secular Franciscan order. This is what we should expect from typical leftist (Milwaukee, WI) people who don't actually read the Bible (or the 10 commandments), but believe that everyone should be forced at the point of a gun to give to those "less fortunate". To my mind, people backed up by those with guns can never be the "less fortunate", but it sounds like he doesn't quite grasp that concept. He is the guy running the site that Kate referenced, by the way.

Also, "thou shalt not covet".