And when the receptionist tells me after I've been waiting an hour that it'll be at least another hour, he has three patients ahead of me, and he's always like this? That's not an emergency, that's poor planning and a fundamental disrespect for the patient.

And, for the record, I fired him on the spot and demanded my copay back (that took some doing). Found another doctor who respects his patients' time, and wrote the first doc a note explaining why I'd fired him. He didn't even have the courtesy to apologize.

Housing is a little different--it's a mandatory expense, whether you buy (and pay interest) or rent. My mortgage is actually a bit less than the rent for a comparable property (if one could be found for rent), and there's an end in sight: after 30 years, it'll be mine free and clear, with no more payments to make. Rental goes on forever.

Luxury goods are different: it's not an expense you'll incur no-matter-what, so financing them makes a lot less sense.

I guess I don't see where giving people what they want as "predatory." Or do you figure that people have a right to "the latest toys" even though they "cannot hope to afford them?"

Personal responsibility goes a long way. Earn the money for your toys, or do without, or accept the costs associated with choosing to live past your means. Don't come whining when a contract you signed of your own free will turns out to be unfavourable.

Most people have access to it--once. You typically don't end up at a payday lender/rent-to-own shop/etc. until you have demonstrated through action that you can't be trusted to reliably pay your bills. The "usurious" interest (which almost certainly isn't, given that most states have usury laws, and would shut down violators) goes to pay the costs of servicing bad debt (that's where people take the product and don't pay as promised). After you fail to pay your bills, you have to earn your good name back in order to get more favourable credit terms.

Giving people with minimal income and a poor history "easier access to credit" sounds like a remarkably bad idea; in fact, it sounds like the kind of idea that could lead to, say, a collapse of the housing market.

Because the company offers a service, and you've decided that you want that service, and agreed to the price that the company requested for provision of that service?

If you don't want to pay for SMS, fine: don't. Just don't whine that you have a right to the product of somebody else's labor and equipment for no charge.

The protections of the First Amendment apply to unpopular, distasteful, and disgusting speech just as to any other. Popular speech doesn't need protection.

Yes, $DEITY forbid they should have to get productive jobs! Won't somebody please think of the glaziers, and go smash some windows to keep them employed?

As the T-shirt says: "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script." Isn't this why we invented computers in the first place?

Yes, but can it receive video from military drones?

So...you made a choice to trade better terms for better amenities. Seems to me you knew exactly what you were doing; why would it therefore be "adhesion," let alone "unconscionable?"

That's very gracious of you to accept it on my behalf. And without even consulting me--what a time-saver!

1) "Unconscionability" is an extraordinarily high bar to meet. You should be very careful when you describe something as "unconscionable," because the odds are very good that the court is going to disagree with you.
2) They are not contracts of adhesion. First of all, even if the full terms are not presented until later (which is a change from every apartment I've ever rented--I have always had to sign both the lease agreement and the "community rules" documents), that doesn't necessarily mean that you're unable to reject them. As techies, we should probably be familiar with ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), as it is the case which most directly approved shrink-wrap licenses. The court in Zeidenberg said:

Transactions in which the exchange of money precedes the communication of detailed terms are common. Consider the purchase of insurance. The buyer goes to an agent, who explains the essentials (amount of coverage, number of years) and remits the premium to the home office, which sends back a policy. On the district judge's understanding, the terms of the policy are irrelevant because the insured paid before receiving them. Yet the device of payment, often with a “binder” (so that the insurance takes effect immediately even though the home office reserves the right to withdraw coverage later), in advance of the policy, serves buyers' interests by accelerating effectiveness and reducing transactions costs. Or consider the purchase of an airline ticket. The traveler calls the carrier or an agent, is quoted a price, reserves a seat, pays, and gets a ticket, in that order. The ticket contains elaborate terms, which the traveler can reject by canceling the reservation. To use the ticket is to accept the terms, even terms that in retrospect are disadvantageous. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S.Ct. 1522, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991); see also Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 115 S.Ct. 2322, 132 L.Ed.2d 462 (1995) (bills of lading). Just so with a ticket to a concert. The back of the ticket states that the patron promises not to record the concert; to attend is to agree. A theater that detects a violation will confiscate the tape and escort the violator to the exit. One could arrange things so that every concertgoer signs this promise before forking over the money, but that cumbersome way of doing things not only would lengthen queues and raise prices but also would scotch the sale of tickets by phone or electronic data service.

In the event that you actually do find objectionable terms after signing (and why didn't you ask for a copy of the lease agreement to begin with?), you have the option of repudiating the agreement when you discover the objectionable terms. By continuing to move in and take advantage of the lease, you signal your acceptance of the apartment complex's offer. You don't get to take advantage of the offer, then complain later that you didn't like the terms.

And, for the record, the terms *can* be negotiated. I know because I've done it with nearly every apartment I've rented, having clauses struck that I didn't like and adding clauses I wanted. The idea that it's a contract of adhesion fails on several points, and "unconscionable" is laughable at best.

Oh, well, that explains everything. Certainly we should trust all of the data that's not obviously in error--after all, just because the people entering data (and presumably the people proofreading it) didn't realize that districts like the 69th, 86th, and 99th don't exist in any state in the Union, and that anybody who has ever watched a Presidential election could figure it out trivially, doesn't mean that we can't trust the facts and figures they've published that don't have such obvious sanity checks.

Of course, it would take a little more critical thinking to realize that saving 5,000 with only $42,000 means that Talladega County was able to save jobs at a cost of only $8.40 per. But we're supposed to trust the accuracy of data from people who didn't realize that?

Sorry, but their credibility is shot. You simply can't make mistakes that obvious, then turn around and expect people to believe statements that aren't independently verifiable (and verified).

That said, though, if you are the kind of person who believe such things, I've a bridge for sale. I'll even cut you a special deal, but it's just between you and me, okay?

So you think the taxicab (bus, trucking, etc.) industry is inappropriate or wrong?

A wasted syllable? You must be from Texas.