mdegges

I was wondering if anyone here has applied and been accepted to the OAC core program. I was hoping to learn more about it (what books are covered, how interesting/useful you found the program, etc) and of course.. how you made it fit into a regular college + work schedule.

Besides the already stated fact that open source programs (and OS') are created & constantly modified by multiple programmers, no one mentioned that contributing to these are highly beneficial to the individual. The same is true of kids who join clubs/ student govt/ journalism in school.. it's great to put on a resume and talk about in interviews! The main concept in non-technical programmer books (ie the passionate programmer & other pragmatic bookshelf reads) is that you need to go above and beyond to get awesome jobs, lots of money, and be successful overall. So many people can say 'GIMP user' or 'Django user,' but how many can say 'GIMP contributor' or 'Django contributor'? You can say you love programming all you want in an interview, but you won't get anywhere if you can't back it up with facts. If you're working 50 hour weeks and still make time to contribute to programming projects (instead of just watching tv), you really show your passion. You'll also notice that programmers who actually program more are much more successful than those who only program during their day jobs. You can't expect to get paid for learning new skills on the job; you have to do most of that on your own time. Contributing to OS projects (or publishing code on git) is a great way to practice, build your confidence, and get feedback on your code.

In addition to that, I think these ideas also help people cope with traumatic experiences (ie when a child dies, it's easier to imagine him in a nice place up above, instead of decomposing in the ground). I know many people who strongly believe in heaven, but I also know some who just believe in it when they need to, as in the example. They don't put too much faith in it, but it's a nice idea in troubled times. It's only natural to think about the meaning of life and try to understand it.. but no one can say for sure what it is, or if it even exists. I just don't think it's healthy to take it to an extreme, one way or another, either strongly believing or strongly disbelieving. Then again.. it's probably better to have strong opinions, instead of sitting in the middle with a compromise. But both ways, imo, seem a little unnatural.

I think your question has a lot to do with the meaning of life. Where do we come from? Why are we here? What is it all about? Is life the ultimate goal of living, or is there some broader picture that we're missing? If there is, what is the ultimate goal? I haven't been convinced one way or the other. You can take a scientific approach, and say that everything in the universe aligned in just the right way to create Earth & make it possible to support life. Little tiny microorganisms came to be, and through natural selection, these evolved into more and more advanced organisms (while billions of not-so-hot species died off entirely). Humans are currently at the top of the chain because of this process. but..This still doesn't answer any questions about the meaning of life. In life, all animals have to make decisions which will lead them to either keep living or to die. But in the end, whether you live (either happily, or not so much) to be 15 or 85, you'll eventually die, and things will keep on rolling without you. As for the human life, it's hard to be concerned with what's going to happen after you die, because you won't be around to see it. So any (religions) assumptions you might have can't be proven. When I think about it, human lives seem insignificant in the grand scheme of things.. yet their cumulative actions affect many other generations (and Earth itself). The Objectivist take would be that life is the ultimate goal for yourself (as you can either keep yourself alive or die), which is all you are really concerned with.. but I think it's impossible to say whether there's a bigger picture, a larger meaning to each individual life as we know it. The idea of an afterlife (heaven) makes this a lot less scary, because it's a concrete place that people can visualize, where "people" or "angels" are there waiting for them. AR says that these people view death as the ultimate goal, because that is ultimately where they will go. But I don't think these people are living just to die! Death is a given.. and although heaven is irrational, it makes it easier to deal with.

If you're a computer guy (programmer, IT worker, or even just a person who's on a PC all the time), you should try reading some books from the pragmatic programmer's library. I really got motivated after reading "The Passionate Programmer," and at the end of every chapter it has exercises you can do every day to improve your skills (some of them only take a few minutes!) Another really good book from this library is "How to Land the Tech Job You Love," which explains a ton of different ways of finding, preparing, and nabbing a job you'll really enjoy. I know comp guys don't only care about tech stuff, but if you work in a technical field and don't enjoy what you're doing, I would suggest reevaluating your situation. Working on/with computers all day can be extremely hard, especially if you're not really into your job. Ultimately, though- if you're unhappy with you're life, listening to some awesome music/taking a hike isn't going to solve your problems. The best (and only lasting) kind of motivation comes from within.. and to become motivated, you need to really love what you do.

Thanks for all the interesting responses. I was trying to draw some conclusions from Rand's books. In We the Living, Kira seems immediately in love with Leo when she first sees him. Their relationship develops over time, but I think she definately fell for him without knowing anything about him (ie: his father's position, why it was dangerous for him to come into town, his work ethics, his passions, etc.) It's also interesting because she said she "knew" that he wasn't like other guys (as they met under interesting circumstances). So of course she would have dropped him if he turned out to be a lesser man, but she knew when she first saw him that he wasn't. As 2040 said, if the definition of love is an emotional reaction to the virtues you see in another person.. then well, I can't see love at first sight being likely at all. (If 'first sight' means seeing someone for the first time without knowing about them at all). I don't know if I've ever been lucky enough to see someone "reflecting my values" in an everyday life situation. For me, it always takes some time to talk to people and feel them out before I can make a decision about them.. but! There are some cases where I just "click" with people, and we become instant friends or friends+. Anyways, I think you're right Trebor: A judgement of a person is the sum of all past judgements, and a person can certainly grow on you over time. Instantaneous love.. I'm still not sure. Maybe it happens for some lucky people.

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread - sN *** I was just wondering what the "objectivist-viewpoint" was on love at first sight. As the saying goes, you can't judge a book by it's cover..but have you ever just "known" that a person was right for you when you saw him/her for the first time? Is this even really possible..? You might be physically attracted to a person and assume that they value the same things as you.. but without knowing a person at all, these may turn out to be completely wrong assumptions. I was just thinking about this, as a lot of people say, "I just knew when I met him.." I read somewhere that Rand saw O'Connor on the set of a movie and had similar feelings. She ran into him later and they ended up getting married. But then again, Gail Wynand's story was told in the Fountainhead: he "fell in love" with a beautiful girl, only to have her ask if some other girl was prettier than her. He was totally wrong about her, and never looked back when he walked out the door! What do you guys think: Is it irrational to believe in love at first sight, without even knowing a person?