In this case of the usage of "less", the function is clearly quantity and not quality, and that its wide spread use and understanding superceeds it's *correctness."superceeds"? 
As I understand it,
less may properly be used as a synonym for
fewer, despite the slight distinction. The distinction does not pertain to quantity-vs-quality: each word pertains to quantity, depending on whether the quantity is measured as discrete countable units (digitally;
fewer) or is viewed as a single mass (analog;
less). (E.g,
fewer pounds mean
less weight; "less sand" but "fewer grains of sand".) However, since
less can also refer to quality, it can sometimes create a slight ambiguity.
but speaking of woodpeckers: Kev, how about joining me at the John Barleycorn Pub on Lincoln Ave, where the menu offers a drink that's a mix of Moosehead Ale and Woodpecker Cider? I'll buy the first round of what they call the Moosepecker.
