26 Magazine » Home & Lifestyle

FAA needs an upgrade

Awesome Rob — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:15:23 +0000

Earlier this week, there was a scare in the skies that reminds many people of the situation that happened on one infamous day in 2001. Flights all across the north east, reaching as far west as O’Hare in Chicago, were affected when the FAA was forced to ground hundreds of flights, due to a cascade of computer problems. The systems that failed were absolutely crucial to safety and function, and with them unable to function as they were designed, there was a very high risk for catastrophic events. The problem simply highlighted the FAA’s need for an overhaul to prevent disaster.

The FAA’s air traffic control systems are one of the many computer systems built years ago and still in use though there are many more efficient and reliable models and tools available today. The problem with the FAA’s systems is very much like every other government system in the country. While the government has no problem spending money on doing research on how much gastrointestinal discomfort a wombat might feel if it eats funny berries, they refuse to find the necessity to make sure the systems that safeguard human lives in a variety of aspects are kept up to date and working to the best of their abilities.

The FAA systems were once upon a time state of the art. As with everything in technology however, state of the art lasts about as long as it takes to say it, meaning that while the system worked at the time, with the increased load placed upon it now with increases in travel frequency within the country, as well as flights coming in from abroad, means that an upgrade should have been in the works when the last system was implemented.

The problem ultimately resides in the government’s reluctance to spend money on anything it deems able to get by with what it has already. The alternative is wasting the money on pet projects that serve no purpose other than to appease a very small group of people, usually those who donated to the politician’s campaign. Its a corrupt system where the “Old Boy’s Club” of friends get to spend a blank check on things they would never have dropped money into themselves, but since the government’s paying, why not? Instead of focusing on fixing potential problems and keeping the United States at the peak of technological advancement, the money that could be used to fuel progress is instead used to line bird cages and be thrown in fire pits to keep the flames of irrelevance burning strong.

One day, a disaster may happen in which the public outrage will be strong enough to force politicians to get off their self-serving pedestals and do something for the benefit of the nation, but it is unfortunate it takes such a situation to get the action that should have been executed preemptively.

Florida retirement community has no ethics

andrea — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:16:45 +0000

Ugh! The more I listen to the news here in Florida, the more I wonder why I turned it on in the first place. We certainly do have some crazy stuff going on around here, ranging from children being dumped in trash cans only to be found states away, to children being kicked out of their homes because of their age.

It’s a crazy world that we live in people! Just take a good, hard look at Florida if you ever need a reminder.

Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at the case of 6-year-old Kimberly Broffman.

Broffman, a freckle-faced redhead, lives with her grandparents in a Florida retirement community. According to Associated Content, Broffman has been there since her mother was deemed unable to take care of her. She was six months old.

Broffman and her two siblings were split between family members. Broffman ended up in the arms of her grandparents, Judie and Jimmy Stottler, in a “55 and older” community. (The community specifically says that there are absolutely no people younger than 18-years-old can be residents in this deed-restricted community.)

More than three years ago the community filed a lawsuit against the Stottlers claiming that they were in direct violation of the community’s rules and regulations because little Broffman was there.

Since this time, the Stottlers have been trying to sell their home in the community in order to relocate. There is a chance that Broffman may be taken away from her grandparents and put into foster care until her grandparents can find an appropriate place to live… where she’s allowed.

The Stottler’s home has been on the market for a while now and has decreased in price by over 100,000. It remains on the market to this day.

So the question is “Who is Right Here?”

On one hand, the homeowner’s association of the community isn’t wrong or unethical in expecting everyone who lives there to abide by the community’s rules. The people who live in this neighborhood have a reasonable expectation to not have a child running around. I mean, they moved there to be part of a “55 and older” community.

I would say that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with expecting people to do what they say they will do. There absolutely are exceptions though. With all the facts considered, it’s not ethical or “right” to tear a 6-year-old child away from the only family that she knows because of some stupid deed-restricted community rules.

I’ve heard of some pretty wild deed-restricted community rules. I’ve heard of neighbors taking pictures of violations and then reporting them to the homeowner’s association… and by violations I mean either their grass is too tall or they have friends over and one tire is on the grass.

“There are rules,” they say. “And you agreed to them when you moved in here.”

I’m fairly certain that Mr. and Mrs. Stottler didn’t want their daughter to be unable to take care of her own child in such a way that they would become responsible for raising her.

As a Floridian, I’m embarrassed by these people’s actions. I don’t know what kind of cruel old person you have to be unable to see when a family is having trouble. It’s not always black and white and, as family structures change and the housing market continues to crumble, these nice people deserve to have some slack.

The Stottlers also deserve a pat on the back and encouraging thought or too. They’ve got a rough road ahead.

What do you think? Does this situation deserve special treatment?

Unfortunately you and I don’t get to decide, the case is going to a judge who will decide what the “Right” action is here.

Check out Today’s segment on Broffman here.

Boing Boing blog vs. Ralph Lauren stupidity

andrea — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:32:35 +0000

For years, the fashion industry has presented controversial advertisements around the world. With the development of digital imaging software like PhotoShop, the deceit becomes instantly attainable with just a click of the mouse.

Just ask Calvin Klein and now, Ralph Lauren.

A recent Ralph Lauren advertisement for some of their new pieces, featuring model Filippa Hamilton, has caused some serious drama. This is because her waist was edited to be so small that it actually appears smaller than her head.

Unacceptable.

The ad was leaked online by a blog named Photoshop Disasters in late September. Another blog, Boing Boing, scooped up the picture and instantly began to ream Ralph Lauren a new one.

According to ABC News, PRL USA Holdings, Inc. (Ralph Lauren) informed Boing Boing that their Web site wasn’t “authorized” to post the ad. Raph Lauren kindly notified everyone who had negative things to say that critics, like Boing Boing, were in “copyright infringement.”

Boing Boing editor, Cory Doctorow said, “Instead of responding to their legal threat by suppressing our criticism of their marketing images, we’re gonna mock them… Copyright law doesn’t give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings.”

Boing Boing is refusing to let this situation fly under the radar. They’re doing everything possible to get to the bottom of this. They’re confident that their usage of the picture isn’t infringement and, according to their Website, have told Ralph Lauren that with each threat they will:
- “reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it, and;
- publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart; and
- offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your model.”

I applaud Boing Boing for standing up for what is right. This epidemic in advertising has been going on long enough. Advertisements like this are why so many Americans have eating disorders.

I can’t help but to wonder how the model in this picture feels.

The modeling industry probably isn’t exactly welcoming to people of all shapes and sizes. If you’re not a zero, you hear about it. (I wonder what size she would be according to this picture. Definitely something in the children’s section.) I have yet to find her take on the whole thing.

Imagine, working hard to get an unrealistic body in the first place only to find out that it’s not good enough. Someone who works for this creepy company actually said, “I think she needs to be skinnier.”

Skinnier!!

I understand that there aren’t set rules or ethics for picture editing. There needs to be. America is seriously getting distorted and the distortion will only strengthen with more crap like this.

Some people can’t decipher what is real and what is crap. The people who can need to step up to the plate and take charge for America. Boing Boing, and many other blogs, are doing just that.

Let’s see if the blogosphere can actually make a different by showcasing the horrors of modern American advertising.

High fructose corn syrup: not as evil as we thought?

Brittany — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:00:28 +0000

I’m sure you’ve seen it. The commercial with a bunch of little kids on stage performing a third or fourth-grade play for an audience full of parents, dressed as green, red and orange vegetables and fruits. Everything is sweet and cute until suddenly, out of the corner of your eye (or screen) you notice the oozing, gross blob of a costume, known only as the recently infamous high fructose corn syrup.

If you’ve shopped for a loaf of bread recently, you probably noticed how much bread companies, at least, are pushing the whole anti-high fructose corn syrup movement, as many bread wrappers feature prominently bold text reading, “No high fructose corn syrup!” I guess that’s to make their consumers absolutely sure, without a doubt, that they’re using real sugar and not that bad, evil sugar pretender also known as HFCS.

Well, here’s a kicker. According to PR Newswire, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), led by Executive Director Rick Berman, just launched a million-dollar ad campaign in an attempt to show the world exactly how wrong it has been in falsely accusing our now infamously famous cheaper sweetener.

This nonprofit group blames the Sugar Association, saying that leading nutrition experts say the two are nutritionally equal.

Is this true? What about all the hubbub that’s been circulating? The segments on Oprah featuring real, live doctors, experts in the medical and nutritional fields, swearing up and down that high fructose corn syrup, a cheap, knock-off sugar substitute, is one of the worst ingredients any food product could contain? The countless commercials on TV and the radio about the evils of this thing that’s in just about everything? Or all the movements and changes that have been made in the food industry to accommodate all of these claims?

With all of this seeming evidence to back up the nightmarish story of the evil monster known as high fructose corn syrup, how could this new development be true? Would the food industry lie to us? Would the media lie to us? Would Oprah lie to us?

Well, as far as the article publishing most of this “breaking” news information goes, the only portion that makes any assertion to the contrary of what the world has been seemingly convinced of over the past year comes directly from the mouth of Mr. Berman, “The public will soon understand that they have been misled into thinking that high fructose corn syrup is handled differently by the body than other sugars. What people need to understand is that corn, beet and cane sugar are all processed. And they all contain the same amount of fructose. One is no more natural than another.”

Having looked at all the recent developments and such, this whole thing leaves me with but one question: If the two are the same, why would companies that use sugar to sweeten their products buy the one that costs significantly more than the other? Don’t most things today boil down to money anyway? Why would all of these companies be spending all this money to make such a big change if it’s not worth the time and the dollars?

I don’t know. You tell me.

Leah Lust: From teaching high school to playing in porn

Brittany — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:42:11 +0000

Honestly, Florida. When are you going to stop turning out (no pun intended) people like this?

That’s exactly the first thought that came to my mind after reading the latest news story about the latest teacher turned latest sex fiend…oh, I’m sorry, porn star. Oh yes, and not to mention, how many times am I going to read about a woman like this in Florida? (Seriously though. What’s up with this trend? Anyone?)

Maybe we should have taken the hint last fall when Ms. (formerly) Tiffany Shepherd was fired from her teaching job at Florida’s Port St. Lucie High School after pictures of her were discovered on the Web “moonlighting as a bikini mate on Smokin’ Em charters fishing tours,” according to Associated Content News.

Shepherd is now known as Leah Lust and has officially become a porn star. (Official as in just try searching for Leah Lust video, Leah Lust Secret Agent, or Tiffany Shepherd video on your favorite search engine to see what pops up.)

It may NOT also come as a surprise that the newly dubbed Ms. Leah Lust often stars in her films (if you can even call them that) as a teacher or “wife next door” type.

And what does the latest Florida teacher turned porn star have to say about all of this? You may (or may not, as in my case because nothing people today do or say anymore shocks me, sadly) be surprised.

“I’m not particularly proud of it. To be honest, I hate it,” said Shepherd (aka Leah Lust) to Page 2 Live. “I’m an educated woman, but I never though it would come to this. No one gets brought up thinking they’ll be a floozy.”

Lust says that since being fired, she has been unable to another form of employment, well, besides the porn-related jobs. She even claims that she’s sent out 2,500 resumes…to no avail.

How, then, is Ms. Lust supposed to afford taking care of one of her three children? I’m sorry, allow me clarify. Shepherd lost custody of two of her three children. (Wow. Such a shocker, I know. This story’s full of that…)

Though she won’t say exactly how much she makes, I think we all know that girls who work in the porn industry, at least the ones in front of the camera taking off their clothes, make a decent amount of money. Somewhere around $5,000 a scene, to be exact. I think I could live off of that for a while…a scene?!

Gee, I wonder why no one wants to hire this woman. And what types of jobs are on her application list? I don’t think the childcare center is going to call back, or the elementary school, or the… Yeah.

So what should we take away from this most momentous news event ladies and gentleman? Should we feel sorry for a woman struggling to support three children on the measly monetary earnings of a schoolteacher who just so happened to turn to the porn industry for support in a time of need? Or should we look at this as a woman taking the easy road (again, no pun intended) out of a constricting financial situation that perhaps better life choices would have avoided anyway?

Moronic murderer, cancelled reality show… What else is new?

Brittany — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:31:21 +0000

Ever heard of a murder so gruesome — and strange, but I’m still getting to that part — that the only way to identify the victim’s body was to check the serial number on the breast implants? Sure you have. It happened not even 10 days ago and it’s been all over the news — not to mention Blogosphere — ever since.

Of course, I’m talking about Ryan Jenkins, the man married to bikini model Jasmine Fiore who is now a suspect in his wife’s unthinkable murder.

Not only was Fiore murdered in cold blood (yes, allegedly, but read on to see the details and you decide for yourself on my choice words there), but her body was chopped up, stuffed in a suitcase and thrown in a trash bin. Even her fingers and teeth were removed, according to Zap 2 News and Buzz.

Who would have thought to pop out those bulbous breast implants after murdering someone along with the whole bleach and soap cleanup routine to destroy the evidence, too? Just when you think that fingerprints and dental records are the only ways you can identify a body as tortured as Fiore’s… They’ve got serial numbers on them that can lead back to you! Well, now we know. Pay attention here all you future killers so you don’t make the same mistake as this moron.

So the latest on this alleged murderer, well, it only gets better.

Familiar with the VH1 reality TV show Megan Wants a Millionaire? No, me either. At least not until last night when all this news broke. The show just got canceled, and not because it had an audience of all but one, but because Jenkins was a finalist.

Jenkins actually met Fiore just after the filming of the show, as reported by Zap 2 News and Buzz.

The show is essentially a trashy version of the latest Bachelorette, with Megan Hauserman the star…and also one of the many rejects sent home on the last season of Rock of Love. Lovely, eh?

Jenkins was portrayed as an investment banker nicknamed “Smooth Operator” with a net worth of $2.5 million, Zap 2 News and Buzz reported.

(What else isn’t real about reality TV shows?)

Yeah, I didn’t really believe it either, but it’s true.

(What, honestly, is next in this world? What isn’t this world capable of? You really can’t but think that with stories like this…)

Not surprisingly, Jenkins fled…to Oh Canada as soon as he heard the cops were after him…on foot no less. So now the manhunt’s on.

On that note, who in his situation would actually turn to Canada to escape murder charges? Hasn’t he ever seen any movies? Murderers, people running away from fraud, not paying their taxes and overall anything life ruining run away to Mexico. Duh. What was this guy thinking?

One thing’s for sure. This lying, cheating, murdering, Rock of Love double reject is going to be caught. It’s just a matter of time. In the mean time, I’m just going to laugh all the way until he’s in that cold jail cell. What a moron.

Chevy’s Volt a much needed jolt

Awesome Rob — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:42:38 +0000

A few months ago, people cried over the treatment of ‘Government Motors’ and its bailouts and eventual bankruptcy filing, while conspiracy theorists predicted the company would be a government entity within the private business sector. While many of those claims are still on their way to being proven false, the idea that GM would grow stale or would fail even with government intervention seem to be way off the mark. GM has needed a change in its public image, that much anyone can agree on. In many ways, GM needed not years of gradual improvement, but something so significant and earth shattering that it broke the hanging cloud of doubt over General Motors and its smaller companies and would renew interest in the struggling automaker.

The Volt was a much needed jolt to that cause.

For a long time, GM was known for its gas guzzling SUV’s and going all out with the luxury features in Cadillac, a questionable tactic of canceling heritage lines in Chevrolet and of course, owning way more brands than the average automobile conglomerate.

Hummer was the car so big and hungry, it looked for smaller compacts to eat for lunch.

Cadillac was a brand that oozed title and station, that those who owned them and had not a single accomplishment to their name still felt like a million bucks (or about $50,000, depreciating value with time).

Pontiac seemed like the idea of someone that manufactured generic brands, simply taking Chevy frames and throwing them into a new wrapper.

Buick marketed to a small demographic of those too old to see five feet in front of them, so they needed a boat built for the road to protect them on their 45-minute drive three miles down the road to pick up a bottle of Maalox.

Then there of course was Chevy, who made the questionable decision of derailing the Camaro years ago, only to bring it back at the same time of the bankruptcy filing.

There are other brands that were part of the umbrella of GM, and all can be detailed as these have, showing that there have been some marketing and production missteps that set the stage for the grand collapse. GM got too big for its britches, and all it took was a sickness, like the recession we’ve faced, to shake the foundation of what was once called “too big to fail.”

The Volt takes all that bad press and spins it into a positive light, showing that not only did GM promise to make a more energy efficient vehicle, but that it can still do so on an accelerated time table and still hold the values of the modern driver high.

Americans love leg room, arm room, butt room, and other room necessary space considerations for our either fear of claustrophobia or the love of fast food.

All while throwing them into a vehicle that can get an estimated 230 miles per gallon. The real mileage will vary tremendously with the driver, but the impact of the statement has been made. Millions have read, heard and discussed this now anticipated car, and the response has been pretty positive from consumers and one of high school trash talking, as Nissan had done with a twitter update after the Chevy announcement.

If GM can follow through, and if it plays its cards right, the American auto industry may be looking forward to a bright future.

Big bad boxer to become a woman

Brittany — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:00:39 +0000

He looks like any other buff boxer. He’s got massive shoulders, lean muscle and a bald head almost completely covered in tattoos. He looks tough, rugged, unquestionably masculine. In other words, it wouldn’t surprise you to find out that this man is a 44-year-old British boxer of more than 30 years. But what may surprise you about him is that he’s not planning on being this for much longer. In fact, he’s not planning to be any of this, well, all except the boxing part.

This man’s name is Rob Newbiggin and he just made it clear to the world recently that he plans to undergo a sex change operation. He also made it clear that he wishes to remain a strong part of boxing, just as a woman instead of a man…and also perhaps fight wearing pink boxing shorts instead of those black ones he used to fight with. (Okay. I added that last part. But you get the idea.)

After his last fight — as a man — on Aug. 14, Newbiggin will be known as Mercedes.

I’m sure you can imagine the reaction from his community. Shock. Amazement. Surprise. All fairly understandable from a man who spent so long as a decent boxer, especially one known for his masculinity. (Look him up on Google for yourself just to see those tattoos!)

On the other hand, you may or may not be able to imagine the reaction he received from his closest friends and acquaintances.

Complete and total rejection.

Newbiggin was quoted in a recent article on Daily News as saying, “[I] lost every friend I have ever had in the world in this town. My friends don’t want to know me. I’ve got people winding their windows down shouting abuse at me while I go for my run – that’s why we are having to relocate. I have to think about my kids.”

We’ve all heard stories about men or women wanting to become the opposite. Many of them claim they were born in the wrong body, that he or she had always been interested in things associated with the opposite sex, despite the genitalia he or she was born with.

In Newbiggin’s case, however, he was actually born an intersexual, which basically means that at the time of his birth, you couldn’t tell his sex either way.

In many of these cases, the doctor essentially chooses a gender role for the child, of course after consulting with the parents. The point of this is to try and make the life of the person a little easier. It would be rather difficult growing up not knowing which side of the fence you belonged, indeed, let alone the decision that would ultimately have to be made about what bathroom to use in public. The one with the body in the dress or the one with the body in the pants. Hmm.

I simply find it interesting just how much attention this story has received. A lot. And I have to ask, why?

Obviously, our country — and this world, really — is still standing on sticky moral ground when it comes to gender role issues. And when you allow this whole situation to boil down, it comes to this man and his own personal life.

Who, exactly, will this man be directly harming by going through with this procedure? His family? Not directly.

The answer is: no one but himself.

I also have strong personal beliefs in this area of social struggle, however, considering the fact that Newbiggin was born an intersexual, I think this case deserves some social leniency.

Society should never dictate the personal life of any single person. As long as what Newbiggin does isn’t directly harming anyone else, and as it appears, will only be improving his own quality of life, I don’t see why we have such a problem with it.

Hypocrisy among the anti-abortion elite

andrea — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:00:07 +0000

The public healthcare debate is still underway, but another healthcare issue is emerging. This issue is viewed as a “right” by some, and “murder” by others. It’s one of the most controversial aspects of womens’ rights: abortion.

Abortion brings out strong emotions in many people, which which can include violent threats. In the past year alone, we have seen many abortion providers murdered by pro-life activists.

Hypocritical? I’d say so.

With the recent murder of Dr. George R. Tiller of Wichita, Kan. on the last day of May, this hypocrisy comes back on the scene.

The New York Times referred to Dr. Tiller as “schrewd and resourceful… the nation’s pre-eminent abortion practitioner.” People had been trying for more than 30 years to stop Dr. Tiller from performing late-term abortions. He was hit with lawsuits, gun shots, death threats and even had his clinic bombed.

This guy was seriously persistent.

“If a stake has to be driven through the heart of the anti-abortion movement,” he said, “I want to have my hand on the hammer.”

On May 31, Dr. Tiller’s part in the movement ended when he was shot in the head while ushering at church. The man who shot him: Scott Roeder. Roeder says that if he’s convicted, he will say his motive was to “protect the unborn.”

The gun was shot at point blank range. In a church. Now, you tell me what part of that is right. For people who are so convinced that “murdering” babies is so wrong, how can murdering adults be justified?

One in five abortion clinics are violently targeted each year, and many fold under the pressure. Dr. Tiller’s clinic stood strong for more than 30 years until his death when his family decided to close it.

Ms. Magazine reported that since the early 1990s, there have been nine doctors and clinic workers who have died because of pro-life extremists and an additional 30 have been wounded.

Will people only stop when abortion is deemed illegal? Because if Roe v. Wade is actually overturned, the abortions that are being safely conducted now will no longer be performed safely and will like result in more deaths because of this negligent care.

A common misconception about the idea or abortion is that mothers only kill their babies because they’re being selfish and don’t want them. While this is sometimes true, imagine finding out that your child will be a vegetable once it’s born and will only live for a few years. Or, imagine that you’ve been raped by your father and you’re now pregnant with your brother/son. If you’re a man, imagine that your sister was raped by your father and is pregnant. Or, imagine that you and your wife find out that your child has a fatal heart problem and won’t live for an hour after he or she is born.

Abortion provides a way for these women to avoid the pain of these horrible situations. Most of the time, the child is very loved, so loved that the parent(s) don’t want to bring them into the world in any of those awful situations.

Dr. Tiller provided women with a way, controversial though it is, to live their lives to the fullest.

For those who are so anti-abortion, please tell me how the heartless death of Dr. Tiller is any less horrendous.

Trade in old clunkers, gas guzzlers for cheaper new car smell

Brittany — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:00:40 +0000

Last month, Congress approved the “Car Allowance Rebate System,” also known as “CARS,” in an attempt to help push auto sales up, at the same time as rid the road of those old clunkers, gas guzzlers and otherwise inefficient vehicles. Taking advantage of this deal could mean $3,500 to $4,500 off the sticker price of a new — and overall better — car for you and your family.

Here’s what the Associated Press published about the program:

Q: Which vehicles qualify?

A: Cars and trucks must be 1984 models or newer to be eligible for a trade-in rebate. They must get 18 miles per gallon or less in combined highway/city rating — based on the “Estimated New EPA MPG” ratings available at http://www.fueleconomy.gov. The vehicle needs to be drivable, insured and licensed for at least a year — so forget about buying a clunker this summer for $500 and “flipping” it through the program. Violators face penalties if they submit false information.

Q: How do I qualify for the incentives?

A: For passenger cars, consumers can get $3,500 if the new vehicle gets at least 4 mpg more than the trade-in and $4,500 if the new vehicle gets at least 10 mpg more than the trade-in. For sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans, owners can get a $3,500 rebate if the new vehicle gets at least 2 mpg higher than the old vehicle. The rebate improves to $4,500 if the new vehicle gets at least 5 mpg higher than the trade-in. Large work trucks weighing at least 6,000 pounds can also qualify for rebates of $3,500 to $4,500.

Q: Can I buy any kind of vehicle through the program?

A: This won’t subsidize a new Ferrari. The new vehicle needs to meet the fuel-efficiency requirements and have a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of less than $45,000. It can be a domestic or foreign model. Used car purchases are not allowed under the program.

Q: Can I get the clunker rebate plus the value of my trade-in?

A: No.

Q: My old car or truck is worth more than $4,500. Should I use this program?

A: Probably not. The program essentially guarantees a minimum trade-in for a vehicle. So someone with an old beater valued at $1,000 that meets the mileage requirements stands to gain the most. Any prospective buyer with an old car worth more than $4,500 should probably trade it in for a new one. But many automakers and dealerships are offering additional incentives, so it’s worth talking to your dealer.

Q: What happens to my old vehicle?

A: The trade-in vehicle will be scrapped. Dealers are required to use a government-approved salvage facility for the vehicle disposal. Vehicles need to be shredded or crushed within six months.

Q: What do I need to do to participate?

A: Go to your local car dealer. Dealer registration for the program began Friday. Owners need to bring their vehicle, title, proof of registration and proof of insurance.

Q: How will this program affect other dealer and manufacturer incentives?

A: Dealers must use the rebate in addition to — instead of as a substitute for — other rebates and discounts available to consumers. Many automakers are combining internal incentives with the government rebates to lure customers to showrooms. For example, Chrysler is offering $4,500 in cash toward the purchase of a new vehicle. Dealers are also required to disclose the best estimate of the salvage value of each vehicle.

Q: Does any money change hands?

A: No. If a consumer qualifies for a government rebate, the amount of the rebate is deducted from the vehicle’s sticker price and the dealer is later reimbursed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Q: How many clunkers are expected to be traded in through the program and how much will it cost the government?

A: The program will cost $1 billion to remove about 250,000 vehicles from U.S. roads. It’s unclear if Congress will seek more money later this year. Some lawmakers, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have said if Congress provides more funding, the program should require consumers to buy vehicles with higher fuel-efficiency than the current program’s requirements.

Q: How long does the program last?

A: It ends on November 1 or when the $1 billion in funding runs out. Jack Nerad, executive market analyst for Kelley Blue Book, makes this suggestion: “I would look to see if I qualify right away. A lot of people won’t qualify” because of the specific requirements. Nerad said automakers may offer additional incentives before the program ends.

Q: Where can I find more information?

A: Visit the government’s CARS Web site http://www.cars.gov/ or call the government hot line at (866) CAR-7891. Auto companies and Web sites such as Edmunds.com http://www.edmunds.com/cash-for-clunkers, Kelley Blue Book http://www.kbb.com/kbb/cash-for-clunkers/default.aspx and AutoTrader.com http://www.autotrader.com/cash-for-clunkers.jsp have compiled additional details and eligible vehicle lists for consumers.