I made the switch, and use vi daily. It took some getting used to it, but in the end it was worth it.

The 'j' and 'k' keys are still next to each other, which is a saving grace. I've also noticed that I used 'h' and spacebar for backward and forward rather than 'h' and 'l', like I did QWERTY style. I'm not a vi novice either, I use most every key command out there. Some, like the '+' command, don't get much action.

It took a lot longer than I thought it would to switch, too. It was two months before I was really comfortable. Longer than that for my vi
skills to fully return. I think it was because I had so much to unlearn. My typing speed was about 65 wpm QWERTY... I used to practice QWERTY typing drills all the time, and so forth. I'm back up to 70+ wpm or so dvorak, but retraining my fingers took time. I've been able to get close to 100 wpm in drills without too much trouble in dvorak.

If I had it to over again, I probably would do it again, but it would be a tough call. I do a lot of programming, and I was seriously hamstrung for about a two weeks and my typing was pretty retarded for about two months more. It was a year before I woke up and noticed that I did't make QWERTY mistakes anymore.

Now that I'm here, I'm never going back. (hehe). I can still type QWERTY pretty well, when needed. Plus, the keys have the letters printed right on the keyboard for when I go to a coworker's machine. That's pretty convenient. Plus it's really a nice layout. I prefer it in most every way... I especially like that there is a useful key ('s') under my right pinky. Why put a ';' key right under a finger? Like that's going to get used all that often by a normal typist. In dvorak it gets moved to the 'z' key, which is still easy enough to get to for the 'ol ':wq', and the end of statements in C or Matlab. The underscore gets moved to the apostrophe key. That's handy too.

And, yes, I know the argument that expanding basic science can lead to invention that benefits the individual, but personally I'd put more faith in the ability of industry to use the money making targeted investments while hiring scientists, than effective production from NASA.

The problem with relying on industry to do research is simply that it IS cost-effective. Industry does not do research that will not directly add to their bottom line. If all the great scientists of the past had had to prove up front the economic viability of their research, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages.

That's why we have agencies like NSF, NIH, et al, to fund the research and engineering that's important, but not to industry. The economic and social benefits of much research simply can't be forseen and won't be known for many, many years afterwards, but the benefits are almost always there.