XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.internet.wireless   
   From: marianjones@helpfulpeople.com   
      
   J. P. Gilliver wrote:   
   >> What I love about Usenet is we all work together as a team, where each   
   >> individual brings a completely different perspective to each discussion.   
   >   
   > This "minimum size" thing is certainly a different perspective! I don't   
   > _think_ anywhere in the UK has a minimum property size rule. (I vaguely   
   > remember - some decades ago - some people wanting to hinder development   
   > in some area sold off a field in square-yard patches, ideally to people   
   > abroad, thus making it difficult for any potential developer to even   
   > _contact_ all the owners, and something might have been done to prevent   
   > _that_, but we're talking many orders of magnitude different here!)   
   >   
   I love that people around the world, from the US to the UK and the EU and   
   even to New Zealand in this thread have contributed their experiences.   
      
   The router culture, for example, appears to be more hands-on in the USA   
   than, for example, in the case of the UK and mainland Europe for "modems".   
      
   >> The point is that we have such large parcels that we use Wi-Fi to reach   
   >> hundreds of feet, which is easy for us since our radios go for miles.   
   >   
   > Whereas here the matter is more likely _preventing_ access by others,   
   > either accidentally or deliberately!   
      
   I wish there was more we could do to "prevent" abuse of our radio   
   transmissions, where making the SSID hidden should help a bit since it   
   prevents purely passive connections like the one Micky (elsewhere) had.   
      
   When the broadcast beacon has a hidden SSID, unless a client is   
   simultaneously probing/authenticating at that very moment a vehicle drives   
   by, it's impossible for the random iOS/Android device to obtain the SSID.   
      
   They can get the BSSID, but it's my understanding that they legally have an   
   issue uploading that BSSID, so it's my understanding they don't upload it.   
      
   Of course, even when not hidden, and hence it's already uploaded, appending   
   "_nomap" to the SSID is your legal declaration that you do not wish the   
   well-behaved public databases from making it available to the world.   
      
   > In the UK, we limit building on agricultural land by what is generally   
   > referred to as planning permission, planning regulations, etc.; to a   
   > first approximation you need planning permission for any building work,   
   > anywhere (and in extremis if you build without it, you can be forced to   
   > take it down again, and probably fined too). There are exceptions and   
   > variations: you are allowed a certain amount of extension to existing   
   > buildings, and farmers need _less_ bureaucracy to erect agricultural   
   > buildings (e. g. barns) than dwelling-houses.   
      
   We have plenty of rules like that also, where we can't pollute streams, for   
   example, of which there are many in our Santa Cruz mountains. And living on   
   the fault line, we have plenty of earthquake codes to meet. And retaining   
   wall codes, since we have fragile Franciscan melange chert sediments.   
      
   > In certain areas even the   
   > _type_ (style) of things is controlled, to preserve the character of the   
   > area; this may (and is!) sometimes seen as draconian, but the converse   
   > argument is that it is the character of the area that attracted you to   
   > it in the first place, and if you wanted to build a lot of concrete or   
   > tin boxes, you should have bought land somewhere else.   
      
   That reminds me. We have "albido" codes! Yup. Albido. If a house is on the   
   mountain, it can't be "too visible" from the valley. The albido is a paint   
   requirement that every home must meet so that it doesn't reflect too much.   
      
   > But I'm getting   
   > off topic even from our off topic: basically, agricultural land is   
   > protected from being built on, basically on the basis that we need to   
   > preserve what ag. land we've got, at least where it's _good_ ag. land.   
   > (Also AONBs - areas of outstanding natural beauty - and national parks -   
   > even if not actually _good_ ag. land.)   
      
   I understand agricultural land being protected, & vice versa since   
   fertilizer runoff could be dangerous if homes are built in the drainage.   
      
   Here's the local Silicon Valley zoning which contains what we have.   
       
      
   Page 61 begins "HS" (hillside) zoning, which all the mountains are, where,   
   in some areas, apparently, the lot size can be as small as 20 acres (8   
   hectares) when subdivisions occur. But where I am, they don't want any more   
   people so there will never be more homes than there are currently here.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)