Most of the solutions for this sort of thing I have done involve wired HDMI extenders over Cat6 and a wireless USB mouse/keyboard. There are "wireless" solutions but all of them are way overpriced for residential use and many are limited in application because they HOG bandwidth. Technically you can do it, but it won't be very responsive without using ac wifi. I personally ran my own extender to do this at my house, was actually really easy to do with some fish tape/firebreak drill bits. That is what I would recommend and just make it modular so you can use the outlet jacks for whatever (I actually set mine up to have keystones in the wall and at the top of the attic boards where they come out so you can move the actual cable between wall jack without splicing and re-terminating constantly).
Standard Cat6 is not that much more expensive than Cat5e and has the extra headroom for go up to 10 gbps later on (I'm thinking like 30+ years ahead type of thing). While Cat6A or 'Cat7' would be literally triple the cost for the same amount (I'm not kidding at all I was able to get 1000 feet for about $150 and my buddy who gets pricing through AT&T gets Cat6A at $450 for 1000 feet). Your standard household probably doesn't have a need for over 1, but considering MY network is actually being designed for in home media streaming, VPNing and a development network on the side etc., yes I actually can utilize 10 in the future if it becomes standard.
That said, its hard to predict what the future may hold even for a standard consumer need in a standard household, and for a minimal cost increase on Cat6, I would just go ahead and use it. The installation isn't that difficult (punch down and crimp on Cat6 certified RJ45 plugs and connectors is really quick, no different than Cat5e to Cat5e connectors) and you are covered in case a need does arise later. Achieving the proper distance for full speeds isn't really that hard either, very few homes are going to have 150 to 200+ feet runs where you would actually lose speed if conditions are not right. Even in my long ass house I only have one run that goes over 150, and its only by 15 feet.
Cat7 is not considered a true standard yet as TIA does not recognize it. Not only that it is extremely expensive for only a minimal upgrade from Cat6A (which is a huge pain to work with, I have some of it). Very few homes would need 100m run of cable that needs to run at 10 gbps and Cat7 anything is REALLY expensive (so is Cat6A to be fair). Many standard pieces are also not made to support wiring that thick, I have enough issues trying to crimp a Cat6A cable (with connectors that are rated for 6A even...). No reason to use Cat7 especially when it is difficult to ensure it is actually following that "standard." Now the conduit access is a good idea so you can run extra cables or later on replace them, but no need to run anything more than standard Cat6 imho.
I've been working on the cat6 upgrade in my house for a bit now and I found three to be a good number for almost all rooms (a few varied from that). One for a main PC, one for TV (lots of providers have boxes with ethernet jacks in them), and one to allow for a small unmanaged switch to use if the room needs more expansion. My logic was basically only two devices really could use full gigabit speeds (even then the TV could be done with a lot less if you have a router that can handle the traffic correctly), the rest should easily be able to exist with ~100 mbps if the switch is filled (I have a bunch of eight ports I got for free). Even if more bandwidth is needed, the switch/router is the limiting factor in speeds since I kept all the runs within proper limits for 10 gbps speeds and consumer won't have/need/want those for a while.
Few of the rooms I ran extra, such as centrally there will be APs for wireless only devices and guests, but three is pretty much the smartest number I came up with. Plus with three wires you can comfortably drop them through a 3/4'' hole (9/16'' if you REALLY want to tug) so that you minimize how big a hole you put in structural supports. The firebreaks made it a pain for me, but a $35 drill bit from Home Depot fixed that and keeps it in code technically I think (although firebreaks are not required where I live, mine are just nice fluff from the original home builder).
I see motorcycles just as well as cars that way. Way too many friends that ride, wouldn't do it if I couldn't see them. I want to start riding myself, so no it isn't an issue.
Oops, replied to the wrong post, you're probably doing it right.
If your side view mirrors are adjusted correctly, you don't have blind spots.
Too late, Airbus is already thinking that...
Peter Gibbons once put it best: "This isn't Riyadh. You know they're not gonna saw your hands off here, alright? "
And to elaborate on the issue I described above, we did have to come up with a work-around and/or support staff in the interim while the issue was being fixed. Was an agonizing time dealing with all that especially with the number of people I had to talk to just to get the information I needed to troubleshoot the problem and the damn thing at first seemingly happened at random with very little debugging logs to show it.
That was also just the deluxe fix, the had 3 other simpler fixes that were cheaper. I believe the cheapest fix was something like $2. So sure, $11 per car I guess somehow people made a case, but fucking $2? That is just pathetic.
While true, there is also the problem that many of the families and people that bought that car had no idea there was a risk like this. At what point is there a cutoff? Many people will take risks like that to save money, but not all (maybe not even a majority). Is it really fair for them to make that decision for these people? I mean they even knew that almost every time it happened people would get killed. There is a huge difference in "this could cause a problem with operation of the vehicle" and "this will probably get someone killed". That to me is not taking reasonable precautions and is very unethical.
In the particular case we talked about how poorly Ford handled the issue after it was reported and specifically how instances of catastrophic failure need to be dealt with differently. The biggest take-away was the fact that when people started making the claim that the gas tank being punctured was causing the fatal fires, Ford tried to flat deny and cover up the problem. I would bet personally the engineers were not doing that, although we specifically talked about ethically they should have come forward.
I do acknowledge your point of basically hindsight is 20/20, but I would argue that even though this problem was a "rare" occurrence it should have been fixed due to the possible result. I have had things like this come up just doing software (not so much to the fatal degree, though when working on HMIs that actually can become fatal software issues...) where we found a severe issue that was rare but would cause a complete failure.
In the admittedly limited instances when this occurred regardless of the cost we had to fix it. I had one such bug make it into production not long ago (it was even legacy code) and I spent literally 4 months working on it to find out it was a problem in the lower API we were requested to use to fit in with the customers system infrastructure. There was no hesitation to fix it either, we found it, knew it would be tough (was a thread locking issue) and had to dive right in.
To me it is very strange with automobiles how they seem to be held to a different standard as far as severe safety issues like that. If a civil engineer makes a mistake like that the engineer and their company will get sued back to the stone ages, but automotive gets a pass a lot of the time... The Pinto case is one of the examples where they actually had to pay for their serious mistake and terrible handling of it upon discovery.
Agreed. We look at the Pinto specifically as a case study in my engineering ethics class back in college, there was not excuse for what they did. All engineers do have to make trade-off decisions, but the fucking deluxe fix was $11, that is it.They could have built that into the car price with virtually no impact. TFA picked one terrible example...
Oh, well maybe I mis-read it then. Either way the drive is merely an idea based on science concepts, but the engineering and hell even a lot of the science is not there to make a distinction if it is possible yet.