I've personally experienced this when comparing blood pressure readings from my GP (an older man) versus that of the younger nurse.
Although I agree that listening to an MP3 on a phone with earbuds is a far cry from listening to the same music coming from an amp with nice speakers, I'm not sure the quality of music that the general population deems acceptable is on a downward trend.
I think it's all about what it has always been about: how important music is to you and how much you're willing to (or can) spend on it.
Now, I grew up more in the Walkman era, copying friends' cassette tapes and recording live radio on cassette, but I would imagine that "back in the day", when the general population demanded better music (if we're assuming a downward trend), there was a similar percentage of people listening using low-quality audio gear as there is now. Not everyone can (or is willing to) spend the money on high quality audio sources, and I don't think the type of music being put out has changed that.
As far as Neil Young's assertion that the quality of streamed music just isn't there yet... well, I'm guessing his songs will continue to be played on FM radio, huh? You're telling me that's better than streamed sources? That's a joke, and makes me question his true motives.
Maybe once they get off the ground they'll start offering orders of "rebranded" keys. I mean, if you didn't mind the layout of the keys themselves, but wanted to swap them around or replace them, I'd imagine it'd just require a minor software change. You'd just have to deal with having to remember that the "cmd" key is actually left alt, or whatever, without "rebranded" keys.
Looks cool, and sounds like it'd be fun to play around with, but I'll probably just keep my old Microsoft Natural Keyboard Elite. Unless my financial situation changed, that is, and I had money to burn.
Where we're going, we don't need roads!
Happy 30th, Back to the Future!
this shows just how bad an idea it is to put too much trust in computer models
What's this? What exactly did the output of their model harm?
If anything, it was a reality check reminding people who don't study the spread of disease just how bad things can get if something this harmful goes unchecked.
Exactly. Do those asking the question "did the modelers get it wrong?" think that the models can actually account for the level of response there will be from every country in the world that has the ability to help mitigate the spread of the disease?
I can see it now... epidemiologists sit down, come up with a model of the outbreak based on what they know about how the disease spreads, and where it's starting from, and then ask themselves "OK, now what's the World Aid Fudge Factor?".
"Gort, klaatu nikto barada." -- The Day the Earth Stood Still