About the only way I can see you safely making a backup image before applying updates to an AD domain controller is to make the image, then download the updates, and then most importantly disconnect the DC from the network, or at least sever all links from any other DCs in the forest before applying the updates. That way if things do go south you can always restore the backup without having mucked up the rest of the forest.

I've done it on my forest, but each network segment is connected by a VPN or VLAN and there is only one DC per segment, so it would be relatively easy to segregate a DC during updates. Having more than one DC in the same AD site on the same segment would be a pain.

The way checkpoints have been enforced just about everywhere I've gone, it's not the volume of the liquid contained, but the potential volume of the container...

If you have a 1 gallon container with 1oz of liquid remaining, they'll still seize it.

... and a quick Google search says your wrong.

The presence of lead or other heavy elements was not required for visualization. Fragments as small as 0.5 mm were easily detected if there was no overlying bone.

And a somewhat NSFW link with some glass objects that shouldn't be there.

Density makes a difference. It won't jump out like metal, but it should be visible. here are some examples and notes

Restoring domain controllers from images is a dangerous game. Nothing like'a'split brain AD network to make your day.

Modern drives for the last five years at least, have calibration factors for platter/head packs on the EEPROM on the controller board. If you swap boards, the board most likely won't be able to read the data on the disk, since it's not calibrated to the head/platter kit.

You have a software feature in a server OS that supports certain client OSes to do backups to the server. RAID may be a software feature, but even if it's "software raid", you often have BIOS bootable raids that even work with one of the drives missing. This essentially means that you can work OS agnostic on a lower level than "I have a backup system that works". For Linux, you can have a backup system too that will restore from a LiveCD/USB stick and stores on a remote server. The same amount of time roughly will be needed to backup and restore, differential, incremental, full backups, the works. The solution you are providing is really nothing comparable to RAID. It's fundamentally different because it works on a totally different layer, doesn't prevent downtime and it's not OS agnostic. RAID should prevent downtime, making working backups should prevent data loss. Maybe WHS is the shizniz, you rock for making actual backups, but other than that, your post is totally offtopic in this context and doesn't even begin to solve a problem that Linus was facing with his desktop.

I'm not modding you down, even though I have mod-points, but I'm telling you exactly why I think you shouldn't have posted this. I hope you learned something from it and in the future will implement both backups and RAID when unscheduled downtime is important. Maybe you would even implement a system that works for all relevant OSes in the environment you have to do it for, without relying on a single vendor that offers a closed source product. It's a risk that means you'll have to support their product and licencing and other requirements until the data isn't relevant anymore, even after you have migrated to a competing product.

If AWS gave you a console session, I'm presuming someone (like, say, the NSA) already has a backdoor and can happily grab your password.

Not sure what the surprise here is. I had a Server 2003 guest go nuts on my KVM server and become pretty much unbootable. I mounted the raw image file via loop back and ntfs3g and happily copied all the data off of the virtual hd. I've done the same thing with Linux and BSD raw images, partitions and physical drives.

If I wanted real security I would use disk encryption like TrueCrypt on the vm volume, so that even if someone could gain access to the VM host, they would be confronted with an encrypted volume, and without the pass code or key, they're hooped. Mind you, because I'm using some cloud service, if they are nefarious (or the NSA has backdoor access), they've already got my key and/or password, in which case whether or not the volume on the cloud VM is encrypted or not, they've been happily vacuuming up my data anyways.

The moral here is that unless you have custody of your data, you ought to presume the worst.

Open up a single dealership, all shares owned by Tesla themselves. They don't even have to own a showroom, just a mail drop off point at a forwarding service should suffice. If that's what the system demands, make them see that it's flawed.

They made perfectly good 5.25" Hard Drives for quite a few years before they went with the 3.5" and now the 2.5" format. The size of the platters isn't really the problem at the lower data densities that drives had back then. When you move to higher densities and "smaller bits" on the media, the bigger platters tend to vary in exact placement a bit more, both due to the distance they could have from the spindle and the basic fact that almost all solid materials expand as they get warmer. This means that you can't get spindle speeds as high with big drives, or you have to invest in a lot of technology and materials to keep the whole thing stable. That would make the drives too expensive, resulting in a price/performance trade-off that put the bigfoots at the wrong side of the curve. Also, because you can't counter all of the effects completely, data density would still be lower on the bigger platters than on the small ones. You could by some really crappy hard drives in the era of the bigfoots, but their capacity got superseded by reliable 3.5" drives in less than 12 months at the same price point, so Quantum figured it was no use investing in the product line pretty fast after they introduced them.

The patent states they will aim the antennae in the charging device at the receiver. This will make it a $100 charger for only one device at the time. Given the fact that people have at least a dozen chargers per person wandering around the house these days, often using several at the same time, you'll have to have a cupboard of these in the average family home to keep all your devices charged. At 1W effective charging energy, possibly more. Also, your devices probably won't charge a whole lot if you move around, since the transmitter antennae won't be aimed at it, so you may still need to charge them another way as well.

That's because it's dead and biologists only study living things

I see plenty of "business people" pull out a tablet and use it to make notes during meetings. The fact that it's not ergonomic doesn't matter since all they care about is being hip or something. Having your MS project handy on your tab is enough argument for any project manager to warrant it alone. Since the employer is picking up the tab, a $10 monthly fee for photoshop (not a $1000 price for a static license) isn't a problem either, if they need it for the job. People have allowed ergonomics to go die in a corner since someone thought that laptops would be cheaper than desk top computers for the employer, there is no reason tablets shouldn't replace those laptops either. The decision makers don't care about productivity anymore, they just think that everyone uses computers in the exact same way they do themselves and vendors only advertise shiny new "smaller is better" computers so the sheeple tend to want them as well. You may still want that big dual desktop 30" screen and a computer that will run that real estate effectively, but you're never going to get it since it's not "flexible" enough.

And you can identify them easily. They're the display units with the thick layer of dust.

How could anything that sold so few units have any kind of legacy, other than purely negative terms?