OK, so how will you solve the GP's problem then? Or to put it another way, here are two future meeting dates. Which one has been updated to reflect the new timezone, and which one has not:
I'm not saying that the GP's solution is perfect, but you've completely ignored the problem in making your comment. Unfortunately we live in a time where politicians and lobby groups think time is pretty flexible (sorry about the pun). So you probably need to store in UTC with an associated original timezone, original timezone offset, and a last updated time. For some apps that could be overkill. For others, it might be necessary.
You need the timezone information so that you record the creator's intent - I set this to 10 am Thursday in my timezone because I want it to be at 10am. You need the last updated date/time so that you know what the timezone configuration was when it was updated (i.e. "it was created/changed in daylight saving time, so even though we're now NOT in DST, I need to do some extra correcting of the display").
TL:DR; time is harder than it seems.
For me it's not the "hard and catastrophic" failures that are a problem - it's the subtle ones. For example a recent customer environment - DNS lookup for a particular server returned the wrong IP. It worked perfectly, and fast, except that the data was wrong. It took nearly a week of debugging firewalls, routing tables, services and app configuration to figure it out - and the problem was actually caused by OpenDNS and its filtering.
When you look at "64.27.80.4" and compare it to "67.215.2.41" the differences are obvious. Not so when you're trying to compare "6732:87fb:87fa:12a9::54d8" with "6732:87fb:87fa:72a9::54d8" and work out why things are failing.
Someone somewhere must have gotten some intel about this vector.
Intel? At the TSA? Not going to happen (aka "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here").
I recommended RAID 5 because it can tolerate two drive failures if you give it all five, and I have seen two drives fail at once. It also performs better for SQL, not that it really matters in this case.
Uh, no, no it can't, not no way no how. And it doesn't necessarily perform better for SQL either. A 2 disk RAID 1 can handle one of the two disks dying. A RAID 5 of ANY size can handle one of the n disks dying. If you're thinking of RAID 6 (HP called it RAID ADG for ages) then yes that can handle 2 disk failures. So can RAID 10 for a subset of cases.
And in either case I doubt POS for a restaurant is taxing the server - I recall Dominos stores in Australia running a simple SATA mirror set on their in-store servers for hundreds of orders each night. The biggest load it ever had was reporting (end of day etc).
As for my recommendation - two desktops (relatively new) with SQL Server mirroring and backup to disk (replicate the backups). Having the data and logs backed up gives you protection against "delete database" and Bobby Tables, among other things, which you will not get with a straight replica. Failover should be as simple as an icon on the desktop (that runs the appropriate script). Not automatic, but cheaper than having a third PC with SQL Express (or Workgroup, or whatever they're calling it nowadays) for a witness server. Less to go wrong too.
Consumer level routers don't need RADIUS or 802.1x.
So if you are a tech geek, and want to learn how to configure and manage certificate-based access, or centralised RADIUS, you need to spend 10x the average on a Cisco/Juniper type solution? Nah, leave it in. It hurts no-one to have other secure options there as long as the default state of the router (hold reset and power on) is WPA2+AES with a random password engraved or stamped on the bottom of the router.
Elliptic paraboloids for sale.