Here's a clear example of a stupid idea for a policy. Recently, there have been atleast three news reports of passengers on the metro system being robbed of their IPods. So some clever politician wants a ban on IPods. He goes on TV to say that there must be a safe IPod usage policy that will ban the usage of IPods in certain areas. How much more idiotic can a policy be? Is the metro population going to take this lying down? Why should the government interfere with such private matters of a citizen's life. I know that flounting my IPod makes me susceptible to muggers, so if I value my life and property more I will take precautions. On the other hand if I value listening to my music more and showing my fancy IPod off, then I do so at my own risk. What right does the government have to ask me to change my preferences? The idea of paternalism is giving rise to ridiculous policy ideas. So, if the IPods are taken off the streets that is going to prevent such crime? I see a sad tale here. Although the mp3 market segment is pretty competitive, IPods are pretty exclusive and the politician who wants this policy probably asked for an IPod for Chirstmas and didn't get one. Sour grapes, poor fella!!