Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (15451)	12/7/1999 3:36:00 AM
From: MNI	Respond to of 17770

Les, that is a catastrophe. Are you living in North Korea, or what? I think at least in some Browsers and TCP/IP stacks it should be possible to name an alternate DNS server in the configuration files. As I am not too competent about that, I will fetch the piece and post it for you later today. Regards, MNI.

To: Les H who wrote (15451)	12/7/1999 6:02:00 AM
From: MNI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

For Les, whose ISP doesn't provide full service ... Hungary Balks at the Price of NATO Membership 25 November 1999 SUMMARY Hungary’s ambassador to NATO has said that his country cannot afford to modernize its jet fighters quickly enough to meet the alliance’s requirements for interoperability, maintenance and logistical support. Instead, the Hungarian government seems poised to equip its forces to defend Hungary first and delay buying new fighters to conform with alliance standards. NATO will face two difficult choices: spending billions of dollars equipping its newest members or living with them as second-rate militaries. In the case of Hungary, the latter choice would expose what is now the alliance’s eastern-most border. ANALYSIS On Nov. 20, Hungary’s ambassador to NATO, Andra Simonyi said that his country cannot afford to update its fleet of Soviet-era fighters to meet the alliance’s requirements for interoperability, maintenance and logistical support. In an interview with the Reuters news agency, Simonyi said that Hungary should meet its own defense obligations before adapting its military for specialized roles required by NATO planners. His statement underscores a wider problem: turning NATO’s three newest members into true assets for the defense of Europe. They are geographically exposed to the east and technologically out of step with Western forces. Various types of munitions in Hungarian, Polish and Czech forces don’t match NATO’s. Neither does the supply chain of spare parts. Officers in the militaries of NATO’s newest members also lack adequate language training in English, the alliance’s working language. The differences between the forces of NATO’s original 16 members and its newest three have only become more evident since the end of the Kosovo conflict, and the resultant after-action reviews. Last month, defense ministry officials in Budapest announced that they would need five to eight years to meet NATO standards. On Oct. 29, Brig. Gen. Lajos Erdelyi said that while inadequate equipment has always plagued the 43,000-strong armed forces, the war against Yugoslavia demonstrated just how inadequate much of it really is. Hungary’s public involvement in the conflict was limited to allowing NATO jets to use two airports. Hungary’s immediate problems revolve around its fleet of 27 MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters. Though fine front line fighters, the jets still use Soviet-style Identification Friend or Foe (IFF), making it nearly impossible for alliance jets to positively identify them as allied aircraft. On-board systems are limited compared to NATO jets. And unlike most alliance combat aircraft, the Fulcrums cannot refuel during flight, further limiting their use. Spare parts are also scarce; the chief source would be a potentially undependable supplier, Russia’s Mikoyan. Germany’s DASA has offered to upgrade the MiGs. The German Luftwaffe has had to upgrade its own Fulcrums, which were acquired from the former East Germany. But Hungary probably cannot afford such an extensive overhaul. The chief problem, though, is not technical. It is ultimately financial and political. NATO has expanded its borders eastward with little consideration for the nature of those borders or local forces. Indeed, Simonyi’s statement suggests frustration. In dealing with all three new members, the alliance has lent little direct assistance to upgrade equipment. Instead, individual countries must shoulder the financial and political burdens of choosing new suppliers. But Hungary is at greater disadvantage than either Poland or the Czech Republic. Hungary is simply poorer. Expansion without adequate strategy is a luxury that the alliance may not be able to afford for long. The post-Cold War interim period is drawing to a close. Russia is becoming increasingly belligerent – and that increasingly makes the militaries of Central Europe nervous. But NATO has remained in its post-Cold War role: not so much a bloc poised to defend Europe as a quasi-military organization that also acts as a gateway to Europe’s economic clubs. In accepting new members and rejecting others on this basis, NATO has created two critical flaws. First, it has failed to create a contiguous eastern front, mainly by choosing to exclude Slovakia. The second flaw is now painfully evident. The countries the alliance did include are struggling to integrate their militaries with NATO forces and will be delayed by years – in the best of scenarios. Wittingly or not, Hungary is merely reminding the alliance that it must either pay dearly to upgrade the militaries of Central Europe or live with indefensible borders. A longer term solution for your problem should be to phone or mail the ISP and tell them that www.stratfor.com is NOT the site of a criminal organisation distributing child porn etc., and that you are not content with the quality of service as long as the DNS doesn't serve the entry for you. If you are looking for a solution that doesn't imply a helpful attitude of your attitude, emailing info@stratfor.com and requesting them to include you on their GIU mailing list is an option. There is also a technical way to work around your ISP's DNS using the secondary DNS entry in the Sytem configuration : Network configuration: properties of the TCP/IP protocol (sorry If have the German names of the menu items only, I am guessing back at the English ones) even if you are using: a MODEM connection to your ISP's Gateway with the standard MS WIN 95 IP stack, and all of it is documented in Windows help, but it may happen that you need the minimal collaboration of your ISP to tell you two or three IP numbers for his DNS, Gateway, and maybe Proxy. It may also be that you already know these, or are able to find them out without interaction with your ISP, but somebody else than me would have to supply you with the knowhow in this instance. The operating system/network software/gateway combination I mentioned above is maybe the most restrictive, and any other configuration should actually provide you with more abilities once you are willing to descend to network configuration dialogues/files. If your ISP does anything more than restricting your access to the IP number on the DNS (e.g. filter the actual IP numbers also on their way through the gateway), this work around scheme wouldn't be enough, of course. I remember a TCP/IP software I used in the nascent times of WWW that allowed me to specify eight alternative DNSes. That was software for a DOS driven PC AT286 with 4MB of RAM and 40MHz CPU rate. There was no graphic www browser available at the time, but only one that allowed text to be shown and pictures to be downloaded via ftp for later inspection ... mouse was infunctional in the browser, cursor was moved with up/down/TAB keys ... but I am sure the configuration would still be able to reach stratfor today (if restriction pertain only on a certain DNS)! Regards MNI.