Don't you mean this Sound of silence?

So I guess you could say the fallout forum is now post apocalyptic.

Post-spammolyptic

Well, DK probably has the type of ninjas that are the most popular with little boys : http://www.lego.com/da-dk/ninjago

And you even linked to the original version! : )

I was going to ask if there was any other version it could be... except i see a remix by disturbed.

A bigger blast to the past was hearing the music when watching Watchmen, since i recognized the song, specifically i had a book at one time with like 100 common songs for the piano that i used to play.

God this brings back old memories.

No, I meant this version, which amounted to a "single version" and had a Byrds-sounding backing band spliced in. It's by far the most well-known and popular version, and still a good song, but it always sounded a little wrong to me. EDIT: The version you linked to (in case you just grabbed the link without listening to much of the video) was the completely acoustic version from an earlier release. Same recording, just fewer instruments. ; )
ANOTHER EDIT: Also, while I haven't heard their version, I'm pretty sure Disturbed recorded a cover of the song, rather than remixing the Simon & Garfunkel version. :)

The really weird thing is, when I played a bit of that video just now while preparing this reply, the ad that preceded the video (for some crappy-looking NBC cop drama pilot starring Jennifer Lopez) featured some no-name cover of "The Sounds of Silence" performed by a female vocalist. And I'm pretty sure it was a legit coincidence...which makes it weirder, somehow.

I guess my lingo for 'remix' is off :P

And you were so close to "remake", too, which would've been spot on! =D

Disturbed's cover is actually really really good. I was surprised at how far it was from their usual style.

I'm not sure you remake songs... you add instruments and change who's singing but otherwise it's the same song. Some songs are much better when they are redone, or at least make the song a lot more popular. Flowers on the wall comes to mind. orig?

I second this. Usually covers lack the depth and meaning of the original; reduced to just a tune. But that was surprisingly heartfelt given that it's not original material.

But that's one of the terms used, though it's pretty generic with regards to medium -- a film or a video game can also be a remake, for example. The music-specific term is cover version or cover. This specifically means a version of a song performed by a different artist from the one who originally recorded, wrote, or popularized that song (which seems to be the case with the Disturbed track).
A remix, on the other hand, usually means a version of an artist's song which still contains elements from that artist's recording of the song (typically including at least some of the original vocals), but which might also contain new elements introduced by whoever did the remix. In some cases, what is called a "remix" is almost completely composed of new material, without even the same musical arrangement left over from the original recording. (Then again, at the other end of the spectrum, there's also the sort of remix that's nothing more than -- for example -- the original producer or engineer going back and tweaking the mix of the instruments, making the bass more prominent-sounding or whatnot. A remix in the technical sense, but not what most people think of as such.)

To further confuse the issue, there are also often a number of mixes (also called edits or versions) of a song. They're not re-mixes, because they are released at the same time as the original. A CD single (back when people still bought those) often contained maybe 5 versions of the same song, such as "Original Album Version", "Radio Edit", "Club Mix", "Instrumental Version", etc.