Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I'm in Canada, first, so that may have some strange influence. Second, I'm on our national do not call registry - noting that one of the first things our government did was sell the list to spammers and robocallers, increasing the volume of nuisance calls for 100% of the people who supposedly "opted out".
About 10 years ago, I set my answering machine up with its default outgoing message beginning with the "Intercept" (number changed or disconnected) SIT. Having collected call statistics since before then, I can say with a high degree degree of certainty that **NO automated callers have EVER respected the SI tones**. Ever. Not a single one.
YMMV, of course.
Many if not most of the artists I know, have met, or worked with [both inside and outside of academia] do what they love in such a way that what you're talking about [pay them by the hour] is not even remotely feasible.
Among other things:
* They tend to work for enormous lengths of time on only one thing. Writing a book, for instance, can take years - and often if not usually requires such a devotion of time that doing anything else - like making money by some "normal" means so they can just plain survive, let alone afford to work on their creation - is next to impossible.
* They never get paid -at all- for 80-90% of their "work" [yes, I'm making up numbers, but based on personal experience and observation and interaction with MANY artists this doesn't seem like an exaggeration]
* Most of the artists I have met and known -never- recover anything like what their time "should" be worth for their works of art, even if they do get paid for them. Many works of art -never- make money enough for the artists to even cover total materiel costs let alone how much time it took to create them.
Funny thing is that I'm usually on the side of the argument that you are - I think that copyright as currently implemented in most countries is ludicrous. I also think that the idea of perpetual royalties is outright stupid, and that copyright terms should be shorter than they are.
I can't agree at all with the idea that artists try to somehow get paid hourly for what they do, though. There are too many reasons that idea is utterly impracticable.
Where I live [Manitoba, Canada] and have lived most of my life since 1975, I could count on one hand the number of times I've seen the power go out longer than an hour. Outages lasting longer than a minute [from lightning strikes to transmission equipment, for instance] are few and far between [2-3x per year]. Outages lasting a few seconds occur now and then for similar reasons [weather], but still happen less often than 10x per year. Brownouts are rare in the extreme and almost always caused by nearby equipment failure [also usually because of weather]. Not sure if if would total more than 5 minutes on average but my guess would be - no.
Our power generation here is mostly hydroelectric, but we also have a gas-turbine plant nearby for use during the winter [and it's not always on]. There's also a backup coal generator beside it but it's rarely used nowadays.
Take a look at Need For Speed World for some indication of the future.. the worst-implemented and maintained MMO that I'm aware of [noting that I know I'm not an expert on MMOs, but NFSW is truly shite].
The game is ostensibly "free to play" and centred on multiplaying racing.. but:
* As with most EA fare, the game is run almost entirely by the marketing department [I actually feel sorry for the devs, as it's evident that they're effectively bound & gagged by the marketing department]
* the devs and marketing people actually stated, "You can't buy victory," despite the fact that the best of everything are available only for real money, and the best of everything totally affect gameplay and shift all advantages easily and quickly to any fool with a credit card
* There's effectively no matchmaking most of the time, so the chances of being able to enter a public event with even remote chances of winning a round depend mostly on how much you've put into real-money-only cars that make up nearly all of the top performers
* there's no chat system for users to communicate publicly; they had to disable it >1 year ago because the devs aren't competent enough to make anything even remotely robust or secure, script-kiddies would constantly cause the game to crash for other players with simple buffer overflows
* EA obviously don't get what the "micro" in "microtransaction" is supposed to mean: all transactions are in dollars or greater; if you were to compare NFSW to any other NFS title and try to get the same gameplay out of it, it would cost thousands of dollars of your real money to even get close [and there are players who've put in thousands, insanely]
* "Exclusives" cost up to $50-75CAD for things that are only special because of a repaint by the art department [exclusive monacle, anyone?]
I could go on and on.. yeah, it's only a game, but compared to their off-the-shelf titles this "free to play" game is effectively several orders of magnitude more expensive.. which make little sense given that the real multiplayer aspects of the game are either disabled, broken, or simply not present. The game is basically, at this point, not really a multiplayer game.
This is the future of gaming, going by EA's ethics-free "screw the customer" business plan: make the client free, but bleed players dry hundreds if not thousands of times over if they want to "achieve" the same things they can by buying last year's single-player+muliplayer title down-to-$10 at any brick&mortar store.
I feel sorry for the smallish studios that EA keep buying up - the devs lose all freedom to determine the direction they want their games to go, and live under corporate policies that amount to "leave the customer completely in the dark while charging them as much as possible." The future of gaming, indeed.
I still use QWERTY on other peoples' computers, or when forced to by software that ignores the user layout, and I can still type reasonably fast [~45wpm] with only one hand, and I have to say that the Dvorak layout doesn't really help in terms of speed - but it helps incredibly in relieving the strain that typing on QWERTY [and stretching your fingers all about] causes in abundance.
If you're favouring one hand over the other - even if the one is still somewhat useful - it may make sense to switch layouts just to relieve the strain of stretching across widely-spread keys. You can still assist with the less useful hand.
The best thing about the Dvorak one-handed layouts is their wide support: every OS I've used since the early 90s supported the layouts, more recently with relatively simple user settings.
Point of advice though: *don't buy a dedicated Dvorak keyboard* since they're usually ridiculously expensive. reflecting the fact that the only issue I've ever run into is converting an average QWERTY keyboard to the layout [which is a requisite for learning, for most people] is that a lot of current keyboard manufacturers [all of the big names, from my testing] purposefully makes their keyboards such that keys can't be simply re-arranged [assholes!]. Last time I went looking for a replacement keyboard I went through 4 [from logitech, saitek, maybe belkin, and lastly a no-name Chinese wireless] before I found one that could be re-arranged. Otherwise you may have to resort to using key-top labels which can be found relatively inexpensively.