SICP, other texts

What's the big deal with SICP? Why does /prog/ recommend it for people learning programming? Is it because of the general outlook it gives you on programming (ex: programs aren't just instructions for a computer, but rather methodological paths to implement goals) and therefore gives a better understanding of how programming isn't a task but instead a definition that goes beyond computing? Is it because the language gives you insight into the fact that there are many different ways to get something done, unlike "modern" languages that simplify the API-calling-API-calling-API-calling-API system such that many programmers no longer have any idea of what they're actually doing?

Are there any other books or learning tools that /prog/ would recommend for functional (not functional vs imperative, but functional as in getting-things-done) learning?

Finally, what do the people of /prog/ do with their knowledge in programming with respect to computers and software? Hackers, task-men, etc.?

OP here:

>>3
I already knew that one.

>>4
Yeah, that was actually really well done.

>>6
Oh, hey, cool.

>>7
I've actually already gone through it. I'm asking what the people of /prog/ have derived from it and why they feel it's important. Regardless, I do understand what you mean - I know of many "programmers" who go deer-eyed when they realize that programming isn't meant to just be a hacked together set of plagiarized code.

Interesting work, though. I see no reason to feel bad about doing closed-source work. My only problem with it is when people let a free project atrophy and continue to claim it'll "get better" until people are finally fed up and start doing it on their own (Project64/Mupen64+). Yet, I still feel as though some software should almost always be open source. For me it's drivers. Companies have taken forced obsolescence and proprietization too far, like nVidia disabling CUDA as soon as you install an ATI graphics chip alongside it.