In I live in the future and here's how it works, Nick Bilton effectively explains how new technologies are shaping our future; Bilton effectively highlights some advantages and possible future uses of the technology. It successfully shows how technology is evolving to better serve the “me” centric consumer and does a good job of highlighting the many benefits of Web 2.0 for its users. However, Bilton underestimates the negative effects of the Internet and multitasking on the brain; that is, it downplays how the way we learn, understand, and remember is disrupted. When Bilton says that “'Internet research seems more stimulating than reading,'” he implies that more stimulating is better, which is misleading because a more stimulated brain does not mean it learns, understands, or remembers more. In The Shallows: What the Internet is Damaging Our Brains Nicholas Carr writes that when it comes to activating neurons, more neurons are not always better (Carr 123). When Bilton cites studies showing greater brain activity present during online reading compared to linear reading, he concludes that Internet readers showed double the stimulation; this could be misinterpreted to mean that the brain benefited more from online reading. In this context the word “stimulation” can cause confusion. Neurologically, when we talk about “stimulation” we are referring to neurons that are actively engaged; in an MRI these parts light up when scanned and can therefore be measured. In neurology it is a mistake to think that more “stimulation” is better since it is not a measure of learning. In reality, it is the stimulation of the Internet that is distracting. According to Carr, whether the additional burden of decision making that hypertext places on readers compromises reading performance is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, understanding how the Internet affects our minds could lead to minimizing its harm. At the very least people who read online or choose to purchase an e-book version of their favorite paperback should be aware of the trade-offs they are making. Perhaps e-readers could come with warning labels like "warning: reading on this device may cause hypertext" or "warning: reading on this device may make you a bad listener at dinner parties" so that at least people can know what they're getting sacrificing themselves when they read Crime and Punishment on their iPads. Of course the Internet has made this much less of a problem because very few people now have the concentration and patience needed to read and understand a Dostoevsky novel; at least people of my mother's generation felt embarrassed enough to lie and say they did.