No, they wouldnt get anywhere. They're all fifth-rate manufactured puppets, trying to do the ' we're not really fifth-rate manufactured puppets routine' !
2006-11-03 10:09:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chey 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
a million. This invoice does no longer provide the President the capacity to "close down the internet", basically the factor of the community positioned interior the U. S.. 2. this is the main effective way we at the instant have of scuffling with a state-of-the-paintings, coordinated Cyber-terrorism attack on our community infrastructure. If Al Qaeda ever controlled to recruit basically a pair respectable hackers (maximum Muslims suck with computers), they could doubtlessly screw us up in a huge, enormous way. think of all our economic documents being wiped out, our communications disabled, the risk-free practices measures of our capacity flora over-ridden and our missile safeguards compromised... it form of sounds like technological expertise Fiction, yet I assure you; it relatively is thoroughly a threat. No computing device or community is thoroughly safeguard. Any gadget could nicely be compromised. evaluate this to be celeb Wars Missile protection for the internet. i'm no fan of expansive, invasive government; yet I want this to Al Qaeda sending us back to the 18th Century with a pair keystrokes. And for the record, i'm no longer basically asserting this as a parrot for the Democrat celebration. i might help ANY President having this capacity. Bush, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Palin...whoever. The President is responsible for protecting the U. S. and that's the main suitable way we've of retaining our tech-reliant u . s . a . interior the form of an emergency. EDIT: To the man quoting Benjamin Franklin, Ben replaced right into a smart guy, yet he never foresaw something like the internet, nor how a lot we would come to count on it. that may no longer a sacrifice of rights for risk-free practices. Its basically risk-free practices. era.
2016-10-15 08:26:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by tiemeyer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well they'd sound different anyway because the instruments used by some of the bands didn't exist in the 60's so you'll never know.
There is no bad music there's just what you like or don't like plus people often prefer the music that was popular when they were young because it helps them remember their youth.
For todays bands i like Travis, The Postal Service, Dido, Counting Crows...etc. I think Counting Crows would have been big in the 60's.
2006-11-03 07:53:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by sprydle 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not even! Cause the term "Success" has lost it's meaning these days - A lot of these unworthy bands today (theres LOTS) are popular cause a huge amount of people say they are , which has nothing to do with how good a band is. These bands aren't creating anything classic , it's just all pop fodder - No , they won't be remembered...
2006-11-03 07:14:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Hmm I dunno. I doubt they'd stand up against U2, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and the like. Would be a case of "chew them up and spit them out" methinks!
Growing up in the 80s when everything was rock (Iron Maiden and their mates ruled the airwaves!) I often despair at the dearth of bands who can actually play instruments, write their own songs and sing these days. There are so many rappers (who can't sing or play) and R&B artists (some of whom can hold a tune but probably wouldn't know one end of a guitar from the other) . And they all sound the same!
Its probably why todays youth are still listening to the likes of Guns N Roses, Metallica, Meatloaf etc (MY God does that man have a voice on him!) and why late 20 and 30 somethings like me still listen it too.
But then there are sparks of light at the end of the tunnel - bands like Wales very own Lostprophets actually PLAY sing and write (wow amazing eh?) They're not on the same standard as the mega-monsters of rock aforementioned but its a start.
From "todays'" bands I really like My Chemical Romance, to me they are like Greenday crossed with the Cure, heheh! Goth Rock, just what we need these days!
2006-11-03 07:24:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Today's music makes me very sad.
Its moronic.
Long live the Beatles.
2006-11-03 07:53:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think they could, as the dynamic challenge of the marketplace might cause artistic tension to succeed with a higher caliber of music
2006-11-03 07:13:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
hard to class anyone into specific categories cos so many different ones. you got linkin park and lost prophets but could be classed as nu metal, there is razorlight, franz ferdinand, killers or kaiser chiefs how would you class each of those?
2006-11-03 07:51:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by jonni s 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
"it's music for women"?? excuse me you can take yourself and your sexism and just leave. there are still plenty of amazing musicians today. and no, im not talking about the crap that the radio and FUSE plays.
2006-11-03 08:58:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by ƎIΝΟƆ 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
rock is basically dead these days. any new bands are trendy "indie" bands or trendy "emo" bands and they're all terrible. the new deftones cd is good and the smashing pumpkins are in the studio, though.
2006-11-03 07:25:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋