Before reading Shirky's & Carr's articles I hadn't put much thought into how society has adapted their ways of thinking due to technological advances. In last 12 years or so in school my homework, class projects, & research have been solely internet based & I haven't really known any other way of thinking. And how Shirky & Carr argue bout whether to embrace or resist change is something scholars have been arguing about through out time. I can't say that either one is correct in their way of thinking. I can argue that it's not how we are receiving our information or how little effort it takes to obtain said information, their main focus should be questioning how to determine if the information is correct and how to further use supplemental research to back up the information they discovered on the internet.
I would also like to bring up another point about learning in general. I myself learn by a hands-on approach. If there is anyway I can explore the internet and find a real life example of a lesson I'm learning I find that to be much more helpful, rather than reading a 10 page supplement handed out by my professor. To Carr's dismay, I can also admit that I've used Google to answer a question of mine by typing in the exact question and received just the answer I was looking for, without having to read a long article.
Having unlimited access to information is probably the best thing about the time we are living in now, & the worst. It's the best because as I mentioned before we are granted access to any explanation we want or need. It also allows people to expose themselves to the world in ways in which they may have never have experienced it before. It is the worst because not all of the information they receive is the truth. The internet allows anything to be published, whereas it would have had gone through verification before reaching the public.