'God particle' data falls short of proof, say Fermilab researchers

Physicists at the?Fermi National Accelerator Lab say they have strong evidence of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called God particle that could explain the existence of mass. But their evidence falls short of absolute proof, they say.?

By Andrew Stern,?Reuters, Sharon Begley,?Reuters / July 2, 2012

In this 2011 photo, a physicist explains the ATLAS experiment on a board at the European Center for Nuclear Research, CERN, outside Geneva, Switzerland. Scientists at CERN plan to make an announcement on Wednesday about their hunt for the elusive sub-atomic particle.

Anja Niedringhaus/AP/File

Enlarge

Physicists at Fermi National Accelerator Lab announced Monday that they had seen the strongest evidence yet of the subatomic "God particle" - more properly known as the Higgs boson - in the debris of collisions at the now-shuttered particle accelerator called the Tevatron.

Skip to next paragraph

' + google_ads[0].line2 + '
' + google_ads[0].line3 + '

'; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit").innerHTML += ad_unit; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } var google_adnum = 0; google_ad_client = "pub-6743622525202572"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '1'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "off"; google_image_size = '230x105'; google_skip = '0'; // -->

The evidence still fell short of proof, however. Because the same debris hinting at the existence of the Higgs could also come from other subatomic particles, the physicists could rule out other explanations with a confidence of only 550-to-1; that is, there is less than a 0.2 percent chance that the collision debris is not from the Higgs. But by international convention, the odds have to be closer to 0.14 percent.

On Wednesday, physicists at CERN, the European particle accelerator located on the Swiss-French border, are scheduled to announce their own findings in the Higgs hunt.

(Editing by Will Dunham)

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/VYQIr1E2xYE/God-particle-data-falls-short-of-proof-say-Fermilab-researchers

fox news debate martin luther king jr mlk mlk school closures being human being human

TechCrunch Makers Episode One: Inside Brooklyn?s Makerbot With Bre Pettis

It's been months in the making, but here it is: the first episode of TechCrunch Makers, featuring Bre Pettis of Makerbot. We visited Bre's downtown Brooklyn factory where he and the rest of team design, build, and ship hundreds of Makerbots a week.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/FtjMXeZMyXY/

lamar d antoni fashion star andrew bird lizzie borden lizzie borden iona

Mixed Signals: Smart Phone Sensors Recruited to Deliver Indoor GPS

News | Technology

Duke University researchers are developing a mobile app that uses WiFi antennas, cellular radios and other detectors to guide smart phone users

By Larry Greenemeier ?| July 2, 2012

LOCKED IN: Undergrad Alex Mariakakis tests the UnLoc system while roaming Hudson Hall on Duke University's campus. Mariakakis carries both a laptop and a smart phone, whose screen is inset in the lower right portion of the image. Image: Courtesy of Duke University, via YouTube

Global positioning system (GPS) devices may not always provide spot-on directions, but they do provide drivers, cyclists and hikers with convenient access to digital map data of every square meter of the planet shadowed by satellites. Step indoors and you will find that same GPS receiver becomes an expensive paperweight.

Indoor GPS has been in the works for at least a decade, but the plethora of interfering signals from Wi-Fi, ultrasound, cellular and other devices make it difficult for GPS units to come up with an accurate reading. Whereas a GPS discrepancy of a few meters while navigating city streets makes little difference to a driver, that same margin of error inside a big-box electronics store or hospital is likely to send users down the wrong aisle or hallway.

Instead of focusing on a single type of signal to map indoor areas, researchers at Duke University and Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology are developing software to help smartphone users find their way by gathering information from a number of different signal types. Their UnLoc system?short for unsupervised indoor localization?gathers signal data using Wi-Fi antennas, cellular radios, compasses, gyroscopes and accelerometers.

UnLoc tags each of these signals as a virtual landmark. One example would be an elevator whose distinct pattern of movement can be detected by a smartphone's accelerometer, according to the researchers, who presented their UnLoc system on June 27 at the 10th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys 2012) in Low Wood Bay, England (pdf). Similarly, a particular corridor might be configured with a unique set of Wi-Fi access points that the smartphone can read. UnLoc envisions these kinds of signatures as internal landmarks within a building, according to the researchers, who are led by Romit Roy Choudhury, an associate professor of computer engineering at Duke. Landmark information could then be stored in individual phones or shared as part of a larger database that maps indoor environments in more detail.

The researchers have demonstrated how UnLoc works in a YouTube video. In the video, Alex Mariakakis, a Duke undergraduate student who participated in the research, navigates an on-campus building using a Samsung Nexus S Android phone. As Mariakakis walks the building's corridors, UnLoc superimposes a dot marking his progress on a map of the building's floor plan, which is stored in the phone. The researchers say that UnLoc, which can track a user's location even without a preinstalled floor plan, typically located between 10 and 20 landmarks per floor in the buildings where they tested and was accurate to within about 1.7 meters.

As mobile devices have become more powerful, a number of academics and technology companies are developing indoor localization capabilities. For instance, Google, Microsoft and Stanford University are participating in the WiFiSLAM project, which focuses specifically on using Wi-Fi signals?as opposed to the variety of signals UnLoc purports to detect?to pinpoint a smartphone user's location to an accuracy of within 2.5 meters.

Indoor localization is expected to be particularly useful in health care settings. Norway-based Sonitor Technologies sells an ultrasound-based indoor positioning system (IPS). Patients in a health care facility wear wristbands that emit ultrasonic waves, and microphones placed throughout the facility pick up the high-frequency sound. Since walls and doors effectively confine the signals to a room, Sonitor's IPS avoids signal confusion with any radio-frequency identification tags or Wi-Fi hotspots used in the same building.

Source: http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=d9dbfb0ca163e2758474bc37ae2ae65d

ryan o neal dark knight rises trailer dark knight rises trailer vince young vince young evan longoria john edwards

Short stretches of piRNA evaluate cells' genetic history

Monday, July 2, 2012

As scientists have added to a growing list of types of RNA molecules with roles that go beyond conveying the genetic code, they have found the short strands known as Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs) particularly perplexing. New work from Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) scientists suggests those abundant molecules may be part of the cell's search engine, capable of querying the entire history of a cell's genetic past.

Organisms contain thousands of piRNA molecules, strands of 26 to 31 nucleotides encoded all over the genome. In two studies published online June 25, 2012, in the journal Cell,HHMI investigator Craig Mello of the University of Massachusetts Medical School has discovered that piRNAs may be responsible for detecting foreign RNA?such as that carried by viruses -- relying on a complex search mechanism to reveal whether an invader is foreign based on prior gene activity.

"piRNAs are found in all animals and some of their functions in some organisms have been explained," says Mello. "But overall they've been a very mysterious category of molecule."

Some piRNAs have sequences that match up identically to genes elsewhere in the genome, suggesting that they bind and regulate those genes. But most have no perfect genetic match. Mello and his team focused their attention on the more puzzling piRNAs -- those that had no obvious targets.

In the worm Caenorhabditis elegans,the scientists unexpectedly found that foreign genes that they inserted into the genome were sometimes silenced and sometimes not. When they genetically modified the worm to lack the Piwi protein, the silencing no longer worked.

When the researchers probed which sequences piRNAs tended to shut down, they found that if a cell has ever turned on a gene in the past, the piRNA system will recognize it as a "self" gene and allow it to be expressed. But if it hasn't been active in the organism before, the piRNA will set the silencing mechanism into action so it remains off.

The silencing or lack of silencing is permanent, they found. If the piRNA doesn't silence a gene the first time it encounters it, it won't ever silence it. And if it silences it once, then every time that gene appears in the future, the system will turn it off.

"This is really remarkable," says Mello. "It implies that an organism has a memory of all the previous gene sequences it's ever expressed before."

The researchers think that the snippets of piRNA do not hold the memory in their sequences. Rather, two other small RNA pathways are thought to provide epigenetic memories of "self" and "non-self" RNA. Mello says piRNAs likely allow mismatched pairing as they scan, so that virtually they can potentially recognize all sequences that have been expressed. Silencing occurs only when a sequence has not been seen before.

While people have hypothesized that foreign RNA is recognized by cells as foreign based on a particular feature of the molecule?like a structural element or chemical tag?the new results suggest that the recognition may be sequence based.

That's not all Mello's lab discovered about piRNAs. Not only did the gene silencing pattern that they establish persist throughout an organism's life, but the memory was passed very stably between generations.

"These small RNAs are present in the germline at all stages and are transmitted to both the egg and the sperm," says Mello.

When genetically identical animals exhibit opposite and heritable phenotypes, the mechanism of inheritance is dubbed epigenetic. In this case, the inducers of epigenetic silencing are piRNAs, so with that in mind, Mello coined the term RNAe, for RNA-induced epigenetic silencing.

A last highlight of the team's findings was that although an organism retains its pattern of piRNA silencing throughout its lifetime, each individual establishes its own pattern. While one may silence a gene everytime it encounters it, another may allow its expression.

"It's interesting that the animal is a little bit lenient," says Mello. "Maybe we don't necessarily want to shut off everything that we haven't seen before. Maybe there is some adaptive value to this type of variation."

More questions than answers remain about RNAe: What are all its targets? How exactly is the memory of past gene expression stored? And does the system react to changes in the environment, allowing more or fewer silenced genes to express in times of stress?

"So far, these small RNA systems are turning out to be really remarkable," says Mello. "But there's lots more to nail down."

###

Howard Hughes Medical Institute: http://www.hhmi.org

Thanks to Howard Hughes Medical Institute for this article.

This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.

This press release has been viewed 17 time(s).

Source: http://www.labspaces.net/121386/Short_stretches_of_piRNA_evaluate_cells__genetic_history

mega ball winning numbers baltimore county current tv megamillions ncaa basketball tournament 2012 megamillions winning numbers lotto winner

Bombshell Letter: 200+ PhDs And MDs Question Scholarly Merit Of ...

From The New Civil Rights Movement:? http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/bombshell-letter-scores-of-ph-d-s-ask-for-retraction-of-regnerus-study/legal-issues/2012/06/29/42413

by Scott Rose
on June 29, 2012

Reposted with Permission

Mark Regnerus? so-called ?study of children of gay parents has ?failed the rigorous ?standards demanded by ?academic peer review and his work is now under heightened scrutiny at the University of Texas and by the broader academic community ??

Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, Austin carried out a methodologically-challenged gay parenting study so blatantly in line with the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage?s goals of smearing gay people for political purposes, that many have considered Regnerus?s work far closer to election year political propaganda than to science. Indeed, Regnerus received a $35,000 ?planning grant? from the Witherspoon Institute, where NOM?s Robert George is a Senior Fellow. The appearance is that if George-Witherspoon had not approved the disingenuous, anti-gay study design, Regnerus would not have received any further funding from them. Regnerus has admitted that had he sought funding for a gay parenting study from the National Institutes of Health, their study protocol would have worked in the long-term best interest of science.

Regnerus?s activity is now the subject of a Scientific Misconduct inquiry at the University of Texas, Austin.

Scores of Ph.D.s and M.D.s and professionals in sociology, psychiatry and other relevant fields have sent a letter to James Wright, editor of ?Social Science Research,? the journal where Regnerus?s study was published with a companion piece by the known anti-gay bigot Loren Marks. ?In an e-mail, Gary J. Gates, Ph.D., Wiliams Distinguished Scholar at the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, told me this about the letter:

?As a scholar who studies the LGBT population, I see my role as a squeaky wheel in the academic grease.? Whatever assertions may be made about Dr. Rengerus? ideological leanings or the leanings of his funders, it doesn?t change the fact that a credible academic journal with no obvious ideological bias published his paper. I find this astonishing. The evidence is pointing to an inappropriately accelerated and potentially ?biased review process that calls the integrity of the journal and its editorial processes into serious question. The editorial advisors of?Social Science Research?include many notable and credible scholars. I am hopeful that they will eventually be compelled to intervene. If it can be clearly shown that the review process was biased and inadequate, the paper should be retracted until such time that it undergoes a more rigorous review.?

The letter follows in its entirety:

Letter to the editors and advisory editors of Social Science Research

As researchers and scholars, many of whom with extensive experience in quantitative and qualitative research in family structures and child outcomes, we write to raise serious concerns about the most recent issue of Social Science Research and the set of papers focused on parenting by lesbians and gay men. In this regard, we have particular concern about Mark Regnerus? paper entitled ?How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.?

LGBT parenting is a highly politicized topic. While the presence of a vibrant and controversial public debate should in no way censor scholarship, it should compel the academy to hold scholarship around that topic to our most rigorous standards. We are very concerned that these standards were not upheld in this issue or with this paper, given the apparently expedited process of publication and the decision to publish commentaries on the paper by scholars who were directly involved with the study and have limited experience in LGBT parenting research. We also have serious concerns about the scholarly merit of this paper.

In this letter, we detail the specific concerns that lead us to request that you publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.

We question the process by which this paper was submitted, reviewed, and accepted for publication. The paper was received by the journal on February 1, 2012. A revision was received on February 29, and the paper was accepted on March 12. This suggests that the peer review process and substantive revisions occurred within a period of just five weeks. According to the peer review policy of the Social Science Research website hosted by Elsevier, the first step of the review process is an initial manuscript evaluation by the editor. Once deemed to meet minimum criteria, at least 2 experts are secured for a peer review. The website states that, ?Typically manuscripts are reviewed within 2-3 months of submission but substantially longer review times are not uncommon? and that ?Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees upon receipt.? Clearly, Dr. Regnerus? paper was returned to him very quickly, because he had time to revise the manuscript and get it back to the journal by February 29th. Further, it appears that a second substantive peer review may not have occurred as the paper was accepted just two weeks after the revision was submitted.

The five-week submission to acceptance length was much shorter than all of the other articles published in the July 2012 issue. The average period of review for papers published in this issue was more than a year and the median review time was more than ten months. As we note below, there are substantial concerns about the merits of this paper, and these concerns should have been identified through a thorough and rigorous peer review process.

We further question the selection of commenters for the Regnerus paper. While Cynthia Osborne and Paul Amato are certainly well-respected scholars, they are also both active participants in the Regnerus study. According to her curriculum vitae, Dr. Osborne is a Co-Principal Investigator of the New Family Structure Survey. Dr. Amato served as a paid consultant on the advisory group convened to provide insights into study design and methods. Perhaps more importantly, neither Osborne nor Amato have ever published work that considers LGBT family or parenting issues. A cursory examination of this body of literature would reveal a wide range of scholars who are much more qualified to evaluate the merits of this study and were neither directly involved in the study design nor compensated for that involvement.

We have substantial concerns about the merits of this paper and question whether it actually uses methods and instruments that answer the research questions posed in the paper. The author claims that the purpose of the analysis is to begin to address the question, ?Do the children of gay and lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts?? (p. 755). He creates several categories of ?family type?, including ?lesbian mother? and ?gay father? as well as ?divorced late,? ?stepfamily,? and ?single-parent.? But, as the author notes,?for those respondents who indicated that a parent had a ?same-sex relationship,? these categories were collapsed to boost sample size:

That is, a small minority of respondents might fit more than one group. I have, however, forced their mutual exclusivity here for analytic purposes. For example, a respondent whose mother had a same-sex relationship might also qualify in Group 5 or Group 7, but in this case my analytical interest is in maximizing the sample size of Groups 2 and 3 so the respondent would be placed in Group 2 (LMs). Since Group 3 (GFs) is the smallest and most difficult to locate randomly in the population, its composition trumped that of others, even LMs. (There were 12 cases of respondents who reported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship; all are analyzed here as GFs, after ancillary analyses revealed comparable exposure to both their mother and father).

By doing this, the author is unable to distinguish between the impact of having a parent who has had a continuous same-sex relationship from the impact of having same-sex parents who broke-up from the impact of living in a same-sex stepfamily from the impact of living with a single parent who may have dated a same-sex partner; each of these groups are included in a single ?lesbian mother? or ?gay father? group depending on the gender of the parent who had a same-sex relationship. Specifically, this paper fails to distinguish family structure and family instability. Thus, it fails to distinguish, for children whose parents ever had a same-sex relationship experience, the associations due to family structure from the associations due to family stability. However, he does attempt to distinguish family structure from family instability for the children of different-sex parents by identifying children who lived in an intact biological family. To make a group equivalent to the group he labels as having ?lesbian? or ?gay? parents, the author should have grouped all other respondents together and included those who lived in an intact biological family with those who ever experienced divorce, or whose parents ever had a different-sex romantic relationship. That seems absurd to family structure researchers, yet that type of grouping is exactly what he did with his ?lesbian mother? and ?gay father? groups.

It should be noted that the analyses also fail to distinguish family structure from family stability for single mothers; this group included both continuously single mothers and those single mothers who had previously experienced a divorce.
The paper employs an unusual method to measure the sexual orientation of the respondents? parents. Even if the analyses had distinguished family stability from family structure, this paper and its accompanying study could not actually directly examine the impact of having a gay or lesbian parent on child outcomes because the interpretation of the measurement of parental sexual orientation is unclear. The author acknowledges as much when he states:

It is, however, very possible that the same-sex romantic relationships about which the respondents report were not framed by those respondents as indicating their own (or their parent?s own) understanding of their parent as gay or lesbian or bisexual in sexual orientation. Indeed, this is more a study of the children of parents who have had (and in some cases, are still in) same-sex relationships than it is one of children whose parents have self-identified or are ??out?? as gay or lesbian or bisexual.

Respondents were asked whether their parents had ever had a same-sex relationship. The author then identifies mothers and fathers as ?lesbian? or ?gay? without any substantiation of parental sexual orientation either by respondents or their parents. Given the author?s stated caveats, it is both inappropriate and factually incorrect for him to refer to these parents as ?gay? or ?lesbian? throughout the paper.

We are very concerned about the academic integrity of the peer review process for this paper as well as its intellectual merit. We question the decision of Social Science Research to publish the paper, and particularly, to
publish it without an extensive, rigorous peer review process and commentary from scholars with explicit expertise on LGBT family research. The methodologies used in this paper and the interpretation of the findings are inappropriate. The publication of this paper and the accompanying commentary calls the editorial process at Social Science Research, a well-regarded, highly cited social science journal (ranking in the top 15% of Sociology journals by ISI), into serious question. We urge you to publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.

Sociologists and Family Studies Scholars

For signatures go to:? http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/bombshell-letter-scores-of-ph-d-s-ask-for-retraction-of-regnerus-study/legal-issues/2012/06/29/42413

See Also: Ex-Gay Therapists Join Hate Groups In Praising Flawed Parenting Study

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

Source: http://womenborntranssexual.com/2012/06/30/bombshell-letter-200-phds-and-mds-question-scholarly-merit-of-regnerus-study/

cowboys vs giants ndaa timberwolves weight watchers rawhide bigfoot sandra dee

PFT: Spiller thinks Bills are Super contenders

Getty Images

If the NFL plans to return to Los Angeles in 2013, there?s only one team that can pull it off.

The Chargers.

A comparison of Sam Farmer?s Friday item in the Los Angeles Times regarding Commissioner Roger Goodell?s recent memo on the possibility of a move as soon as 2013 with the NFL?s relocation policy (a copy of which PFT has obtained) with the realities of the various stadium and ownership situations reveals that the San Diego Chargers (who actually spent their initial season in Los Angeles, losing the AFL title game to the Oilers) are the only team that currently can pull off a move by next year.

The Rams can?t leave St. Louis at the earliest until after the 2014 season.? The Jaguars must demonstrate three straight years of losses before being able to exit Jacksonville.? The Raiders? lease situation is irrelevant, because (as we?ve previously reported) the league won?t allow them to move to L.A. unless Mark Davis sells controlling interest in the team.

So that leaves the Chargers, who have an annual window to cancel their Qualcomm Stadium lease, from February 1 through April 30, with a buyout that decreases each year.? (For 2012, the cost was a mere $23 million, $2 million less than what Jaguars owner Shad Khan would have to pay former owner Wayne Weaver if the Jags move before 2017.)

The Chargers? three-month escape hatch overlaps by 15 days with the league?s relocation policy, which requires notice of an intention to move to be filed with the league office between January 1 and February 15.

The relocation policy also requires a team that hopes to move ?to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community.?? Relocation is appropriate only ?[i]f, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs.?

In other words, a team can?t move without showing that it has exhausted all reasonable efforts to stay put.

It won?t be hard for the Chargers to demonstrate that they?ve tried to work things out in their current home.? After all, the Commissioner has publicly said that ?unfortunately, some sense of a growing impasse and an absence of a sense of urgency? exist regarding efforts to build a new venue in San Diego.

The Commissioner who said that was Paul Tagliabue.? The year in which he said it was 2004.

Then there?s the fact that San Diego will be picking a new mayor in November.? Earlier this month, a preliminary election narrowed the field for the looming runoff to two candidates:? Republican Carl DeMaio and Democrat Bob Filner.

Both oppose using public money to build a new Chargers stadium.? DeMaio says that fixing streets and restoring services remains a bigger priority, and Filner doesn?t want to subsidize a billionaire without partial ownership of the team by the city, something that the league would never allow.

So the handwriting is on the wall, San Diego.? If any NFL team is going to be in Los Angeles by 2013, it?s the Chargers who will be, well, bolting.

Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/30/c-j-spiller-thinks-the-bills-are-a-super-bowl-contender/related/

angelina jolie oscars chardon high school christopher plummer viola davis school shooting in ohio shooting at chardon high school sasha baron cohen

13 Questions to Ask During Your Next Interview

---

is Senior Vice President at , a leading career management and transition services consulting firm in Boston. Mattson specializes in helping mid-to-senior level individuals in new career exploration, networking strategies and career decisions based on corporate culture fit.

[More from Mashable: ]

As you look for a new job, will you take any job offer or are you looking for the right one? What does the right job mean? Too often job seekers do not take enough time to reflect on where they have been in their careers before they actively begin their new job search. And when they receive an offer, they do not have any criteria that help them determine the right fit.

To help you identify what the right role would look like, think back on times during your career when you were the most satisfied. What role did you love doing, what type of manager were you working for and what was the culture like during this time? Finding a perfect fit comes down to three main questions that your potential employer must answer:

[More from Mashable: ]

• Does the culture meet the work values that you need fulfilled to succeed?
• Will you be utilizing your top three skills you excel in the most?
• Are you doing something that interests you?

Determining Fit with Questions

Now you know your criteria for the right role, you need to ask courageous questions in your interview -- not safe ones -- to stand out from your competition. Safe questions include:

• How would you describe your managerial style?
• How would you describe your culture?
• Does your company take risks?

A response from an interviewer will give you some answers, but will you find out what you really need to know to take the job with confidence? Here are more courageous questions to ask.

1. How receptive are you to feedback from your employees when do you do something they disagree with?

If one of your values is being able to speak up (diplomatically, of course) when you disagree with a certain decision or behavior of your manager or peers, then this is for you. This question will help you understand how receptive your manager and others would be to constructive feedback without fear of retribution.

2. As a manager, what frustrates you about the people that work for you?

As often as you can during the interview, ask questions where the manager would be able to tell you about a specific situation and provide concrete anecdotes. In this case, you want to know what frustrates him or her, so if you get the job, you will know what behaviors to watch out for in yourself.

3. Is there a project your department is working on now? If so, how are you interacting with your staff on it?

You certainly want direction from your new manager, but not one that micro-manages your work. If you ask the safe question, "Do see yourself as a micro-manager?" they might answer, "No, I am not at all."

However, if you ask the riskier question, you may hear he is involved in the project every step of the way -- a potential red flag for you about his style.

4. Can you give me an example of how you work collaboratively with other departments?

Your idea of how people collaborate can be completely different than others, so this question helps you assess if the environment is compatible with the way you work best.

5. Does the company welcome celebrating special occasions in employees' lives? What was the last occasion your department celebrated?

This question is a must if your idea of a fun workplace culture includes celebrating special occasions. Now, if the person mentions, ?We don?t tend to celebrate,? you could follow up and get a sense whether they would be receptive to it the future.

6. What would be the three things that your peers would say you do extremely well?

This question is often asked about you -- the interviewer is listening carefully to what you will say. In some cases, they might follow up with people you are referring to in your answer to verify what you said.

You could ask this question to the manager, potential peer or even HR to get a better idea of how the company operates. Since working in teams is much more prevalent in today?s businesses, you'll want to know more about your colleagues.

7. I understand the company has a formal recognition program; however, what type of recognition have you recently given to one of your staff?

If recognition or praise is one of your values, then this is a good question. It not only tells you about the company culture, but also if the manager is generous with recognizing the great work of his team.

Nearly everyone wants recognition for the work they do, but in very different ways. Find out whether the methods of the company you're considering work for you.

8. Has anyone on your staff been promoted over the last couple of years? If so, what was the reason why this person was promoted?

If you are looking for development opportunities, you will want to know what those would look like. You'll also want to know if the person was promoted because they pushed the subject or if the manager led the process.

9. What type of work do you delegate to your staff?

You want to work for a manager who delegates, so you can develop beyond your role. If a manager is not a good delegator, then he might be insecure about his role and not want you to know what they are doing. This could potentially hold you back from promotions or development.

10. What are the three main factors you will be using to determine the right person for this job?

This question is best asked toward the end of the interview, so the interviewer might use some of what you have to offer as some of the factors. You should find out how you fit in with the manager and job criteria, so if you could address the concerns in the post-interview correspondence and next round of interviews.

11. What have been the main characteristics of your favorite employees?

When someone is talking about a favorite employee, watch for their body language, tone of voice and their word usage. These factors will help you determine if you have some of their same qualities and if not, it will give you more to think about after the interview.

12. What was the company?s most strategic decision made in the last year? Could you describe how they came to this decision?

You want to work for a company that is planning for the future. By asking this question, it will demonstrate to the interviewer that you are thinking ahead. It will also help you understand what you might need to do to keep yourself current in your field and continue to add value to the company.

13. Can you give me an example of how and why one of your staff made a major mistake, and what was your response to it?

You want to be able to take risks, but you also want to know your manager will support you in resolving it -- not reprimand you. Asking this question will give you a sense of the level of risk-taking that would be acceptable.

Social Media Job Listings

Every week we post a list of . While we publish a huge range of job listings, we've selected some of the top social media job opportunities from the past two weeks to get you started. Happy hunting!

• at 1stdibs.com in New York City
• at NASCAR in Charlotte
• at Current in San Francisco

Image courtesy of ,

This story originally published on Mashable .

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/13-questions-ask-during-next-interview-154554115.html

nor easter ted nugent veep los angeles kings earth day timothy leary jonathan frid