Breastfed babies have higher IQ

A comprehensive UK study involving more than 10,000 children has found those who were exclusively breastfed for at least the first week of their lives performed better than those who were fed formula.

Researchers paired children up based on socioeconomic factors and their mother's IQ — the only difference was whether they had been breast- or formula-fed, the UK's Daily Telegraph reported.
Children who had been breastfed had IQs that were on average between three and five points higher than their formula matches, researchers from Oxford University and the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) found.
The study is part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, which is following the development of 14,000 children born between 1991 and 1992.
Children were tested at ages five, seven, 11 and 14. At each age breastfed children outperformed those who were fed formula.
"We wouldn't have been surprised if the effect faded with time, but it didn't," ISER research fellow Dr Maria Iacovou said.
Previous British studies have analysed the health benefits of breastfeeding, but the Oxford University study was the first that looked at its effects on intelligence, the Daily Telegraph reported.
The British study supports the results of an Australian study by the University of Western Australia's Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, which studied more than 2900 children born between 1989 and 1991 from before birth to the age of 10.
The Australian study found that boys who were breastfed for the first six months of life received significantly higher scores in maths, reading and spelling compared to formula-fed children with the same socioeconomic background.

Britain has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world, with only 35 percent of children breastfed exclusively.
In Australia, 84 percent of children are breastfed exclusively when discharged from hospital, 61 percent at three-months of age and 49 percent at six-months, the Australian Breastfeeding Association has said.
The World Health Organization recommends babies are breastfed exclusively for at least the first six months of life, with complementary foods and breastfeeding recommended up to two years of age.

Breastfed babies have higher IQ

A comprehensive UK study involving more than 10,000 children has found those who were exclusively breastfed for at least the first week of their lives performed better than those who were fed formula.

Researchers paired children up based on socioeconomic factors and their mother's IQ — the only difference was whether they had been breast- or formula-fed, the UK's Daily Telegraph reported.
Children who had been breastfed had IQs that were on average between three and five points higher than their formula matches, researchers from Oxford University and the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) found.
The study is part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, which is following the development of 14,000 children born between 1991 and 1992.
Children were tested at ages five, seven, 11 and 14. At each age breastfed children outperformed those who were fed formula.
"We wouldn't have been surprised if the effect faded with time, but it didn't," ISER research fellow Dr Maria Iacovou said.
Previous British studies have analysed the health benefits of breastfeeding, but the Oxford University study was the first that looked at its effects on intelligence, the Daily Telegraph reported.
The British study supports the results of an Australian study by the University of Western Australia's Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, which studied more than 2900 children born between 1989 and 1991 from before birth to the age of 10.
The Australian study found that boys who were breastfed for the first six months of life received significantly higher scores in maths, reading and spelling compared to formula-fed children with the same socioeconomic background.

Britain has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world, with only 35 percent of children breastfed exclusively.
In Australia, 84 percent of children are breastfed exclusively when discharged from hospital, 61 percent at three-months of age and 49 percent at six-months, the Australian Breastfeeding Association has said.
The World Health Organization recommends babies are breastfed exclusively for at least the first six months of life, with complementary foods and breastfeeding recommended up to two years of age.

Newborn Nursing Tips

How often, how long, and which breast? These are just a few of the many questions that new moms have about nursing their newborns. Here are some quick newborn nursing tips:

• Offer your breast whenever baby seems hungry or cries. This might be about every two hours or even more often in the first weeks (baby's tummy is tiny at birth).
• If a newborn younger than 6 weeks old is sleeping as long as four hours, wake her up to feed. She needs to eat or she'll get into a bad cycle -- so hungry that she's exhausted, and so exhausted that she can't wake to ask for food.
• Nursing sessions should last about 20 to 30 minutes. Some babies drink quickly and are done in 10 or 15 minutes; others doze off in the middle of breastfeeding and need to be roused, so that it takes more like 40 minutes to finish the meal. But breastfeeding less than 10 minutes or more than 40 minutes indicates a problem; check for signs that baby is actually getting milk, such as sucking movements and wet diapers.
• It's fine to do one breast at one meal, the other at the next. However, if baby drains one side and is still hungry, move to the other. Just continue to alter the "starting" breast from meal to meal. The reason: Breast milk changes in composition as baby drinks, being more liquid at first (the foremilk) and more fatty at the end (the hindmilk). Ideally, by draining at least one breast per feeding, baby gets both kinds of milk, optimal for brain development.
• A baby will unlatch naturally when she's done. You shouldn't have to ever take baby off your breast at the end. Whether she falls asleep or just pulls away, she'll take herself off when she's ready.

Newborn Nursing Tips

How often, how long, and which breast? These are just a few of the many questions that new moms have about nursing their newborns. Here are some quick newborn nursing tips:

• Offer your breast whenever baby seems hungry or cries. This might be about every two hours or even more often in the first weeks (baby's tummy is tiny at birth).
• If a newborn younger than 6 weeks old is sleeping as long as four hours, wake her up to feed. She needs to eat or she'll get into a bad cycle -- so hungry that she's exhausted, and so exhausted that she can't wake to ask for food.
• Nursing sessions should last about 20 to 30 minutes. Some babies drink quickly and are done in 10 or 15 minutes; others doze off in the middle of breastfeeding and need to be roused, so that it takes more like 40 minutes to finish the meal. But breastfeeding less than 10 minutes or more than 40 minutes indicates a problem; check for signs that baby is actually getting milk, such as sucking movements and wet diapers.
• It's fine to do one breast at one meal, the other at the next. However, if baby drains one side and is still hungry, move to the other. Just continue to alter the "starting" breast from meal to meal. The reason: Breast milk changes in composition as baby drinks, being more liquid at first (the foremilk) and more fatty at the end (the hindmilk). Ideally, by draining at least one breast per feeding, baby gets both kinds of milk, optimal for brain development.
• A baby will unlatch naturally when she's done. You shouldn't have to ever take baby off your breast at the end. Whether she falls asleep or just pulls away, she'll take herself off when she's ready.

5 Facts About Nursing a Preemie

Here are five things you should know about breastfeeding your preemie:
1. Your milk adjusts to the circumstances. Studies show that when moms of preemies breastfeed, the milk they produce is more rich in proteins and has slightly different fats than later breast milk. It's specially designed to help a premature infant through those first difficult weeks.
2. Your baby may be in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The disappointment of not being able to be with your baby is compounded by your inability to nurse her. But you can pump -- let the doctors and nurses know that you'd like to do so, and your breast milk will be given to your baby there in the hospital (via tube, cup, or bottle), and/or you can freeze it at home for later use.
3. Sometimes doctors supplement with preemie formula. While breast milk is best for preemies because it's so easy to digest, occasionally doctors and nurses want to supplement with formula to maximize the calories your baby is getting. Just remind them that your goal is to eventually get your baby breastfeeding exclusively, and keep pumping every two to three hours to keep up your milk supply.
4. Transitioning to breastfeeding may take some patience. Switching to breastfeeding at home may be a bumpy ride, especially if your baby has gotten used to being fed with a bottle, which is easy to get milk out of. If needed, you can use a nursing supplementer -- a tiny tube is taped next to your breast and your baby gets milk from that and from you, then eventually will suckle from just you.
5. Enlist support. Breast milk is incredibly good for premature and ill babies, but your relatives and friends may not understand all the health benefits. They also might worry about your having to pump, and may suggest you switch to formula "for your own good." Many mothers of preemies, however, don't mind round-the-clock pumping, because it helps them feel that they can do something to care for their hospitalized baby. Explain this to well-meaning loved ones, and ask them to help you by giving you time to express breast milk.

5 Facts About Nursing a Preemie

Here are five things you should know about breastfeeding your preemie:
1. Your milk adjusts to the circumstances. Studies show that when moms of preemies breastfeed, the milk they produce is more rich in proteins and has slightly different fats than later breast milk. It's specially designed to help a premature infant through those first difficult weeks.
2. Your baby may be in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The disappointment of not being able to be with your baby is compounded by your inability to nurse her. But you can pump -- let the doctors and nurses know that you'd like to do so, and your breast milk will be given to your baby there in the hospital (via tube, cup, or bottle), and/or you can freeze it at home for later use.
3. Sometimes doctors supplement with preemie formula. While breast milk is best for preemies because it's so easy to digest, occasionally doctors and nurses want to supplement with formula to maximize the calories your baby is getting. Just remind them that your goal is to eventually get your baby breastfeeding exclusively, and keep pumping every two to three hours to keep up your milk supply.
4. Transitioning to breastfeeding may take some patience. Switching to breastfeeding at home may be a bumpy ride, especially if your baby has gotten used to being fed with a bottle, which is easy to get milk out of. If needed, you can use a nursing supplementer -- a tiny tube is taped next to your breast and your baby gets milk from that and from you, then eventually will suckle from just you.
5. Enlist support. Breast milk is incredibly good for premature and ill babies, but your relatives and friends may not understand all the health benefits. They also might worry about your having to pump, and may suggest you switch to formula "for your own good." Many mothers of preemies, however, don't mind round-the-clock pumping, because it helps them feel that they can do something to care for their hospitalized baby. Explain this to well-meaning loved ones, and ask them to help you by giving you time to express breast milk.

Solution For Blogger Images Disappearing | Blogger Hosted Images Doesn't Appear/Show/display Regularly

Why my blogger, blogspot images doesn't show/disappearing sometimes? Have any solution for blogger image disappearing that appear blogger images regularly? In my case I am not only using blogger image in my posts although my all templates images hosted on blogger and in the recent days some times blogger images hosted doesn't show/disappearing and without my template images my blog look like spoil so what is the solution of blogger image disappearing, that blogger hosted images will show /appear always. we have done for our all template images of this blog now my images now show although blogger hosted images don't show/disappear but my images will appear always. So,

How To get solution for Blogger Hosted Images Disappearing or doesn't show/display or disappear some times.

Although the old images will display/appear but at this time there are some problem of blogger hosted images so sometimes the blogger images appear and some times disappear and we have seen that blogger has been changed the path of blogger hosted images and still it is in picasa, A google photos storage service. So if you upload any image to your blogger then you will get the new path of your images which is different from the old path of blogger so the new images will display/appear at the time at which the old images not display.
So, is there any solution for old images that will display/appear regularly? Yes you can changes the path your old blogger hosted images to the new hosted path without uploading again.

The old blogger image hosted path was look like,

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_d23RhflOeI4/TStOCAF9SgI/AAAAAAAAAG4/9qVxZ-9dFVc/s1600/ordered+unordered+html+lists.jpg

now just you have to change 4.bp.blogspot.com or it can be 2.bp.blogspot.com or 1.bp.blogspot.com or any thing just you have to change it with lh5.googleusercontent.com so your new URL of your old images will,

http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_d23RhflOeI4/TStOCAF9SgI/AAAAAAAAAG4/9qVxZ-9dFVc/s1600/ordered+unordered+html+lists.jpg

You can copy the above both images path and paste it to your browser and check it is working or not. Now your new image path will always show while your old image path doesn't  work in any case.

You done!

Solution For Blogger Images Disappearing | Blogger Hosted Images Doesn't Appear/Show/display Regularly

Why my blogger, blogspot images doesn't show/disappearing sometimes? Have any solution for blogger image disappearing that appear blogger images regularly? In my case I am not only using blogger image in my posts although my all templates images hosted on blogger and in the recent days some times blogger images hosted doesn't show/disappearing and without my template images my blog look like spoil so what is the solution of blogger image disappearing, that blogger hosted images will show /appear always. we have done for our all template images of this blog now my images now show although blogger hosted images don't show/disappear but my images will appear always. So,

How To get solution for Blogger Hosted Images Disappearing or doesn't show/display or disappear some times.

Although the old images will display/appear but at this time there are some problem of blogger hosted images so sometimes the blogger images appear and some times disappear and we have seen that blogger has been changed the path of blogger hosted images and still it is in picasa, A google photos storage service. So if you upload any image to your blogger then you will get the new path of your images which is different from the old path of blogger so the new images will display/appear at the time at which the old images not display.
So, is there any solution for old images that will display/appear regularly? Yes you can changes the path your old blogger hosted images to the new hosted path without uploading again.

The old blogger image hosted path was look like,

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_d23RhflOeI4/TStOCAF9SgI/AAAAAAAAAG4/9qVxZ-9dFVc/s1600/ordered+unordered+html+lists.jpg

now just you have to change 4.bp.blogspot.com or it can be 2.bp.blogspot.com or 1.bp.blogspot.com or any thing just you have to change it with lh5.googleusercontent.com so your new URL of your old images will,

http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_d23RhflOeI4/TStOCAF9SgI/AAAAAAAAAG4/9qVxZ-9dFVc/s1600/ordered+unordered+html+lists.jpg

You can copy the above both images path and paste it to your browser and check it is working or not. Now your new image path will always show while your old image path doesn't  work in any case.

You done!

Mitsu a faultless ownership experience

Mitsubishi has the distinction of attracting the youngest new-car buyers in the land. What makes it painfully obvious is the bad spelling on display in their online posts about their Mitsus.

“Car has some seeing problems out of small back windows, this is a hassel that needs to be looked into.”

“Cheap Porsche nock off.”

“Slick-shifting transmantion.” And the ever-popular “breaks” — those things that scrub off speed.

Thanks to the take-no-prisoners Mitsubishi Lancer Evo — worshipped by video gamers long before it showed up here — the Japanese automaker's first Canadian dealerships were welcomed by a small but fervent fan base.

The Evo wasn't the only object of their desire. The Eclipse coupe enjoyed a considerable history in Canuckistan as the Eagle Talon, marketed through Chrysler's captive-import stores in the early 1990s.

While the third-generation Eclipse was part of the initial Canadian Mitsubishi lineup in 2003, it was the fourth-gen redesign that arrived in mid-2005 that really got people gawking.

Its Roger-Ramjet styling, abundant power and retina-scorching colours made the 2006 Eclipse a crowd pleaser — well, as much as a sporty hatchback coupe can draw a crowd. (Oddly, kids today favour four-door sedans.)

Built on the Galant sedan's extra-large “Project America” front-drive platform, most dimensions grew, including 8.3 cm wider at the hips and weighing some 160 kg more — an unfortunate outcome for sport coupes and husbands.

Inside and out, the Eclipse treats (or assaults) the eyes with engaging shapes, contours and ellipses. One car magazine put it this way: “Almost everywhere you gaze, something interesting, unusual or expensive-looking is happening.”

The cabin's low-slung bucket seats hugged the driver and passenger, while a pair of jump seats were tucked behind. Like many of its ilk, a buyer has to try on an Eclipse for size. The back seats are reserved for munchkins and are best left folded flat to extend the cargo hold.

Mitsubishi expanded the bore and stroke of its aging motor, creating a SOHC 3.8 L cast-iron V6 boosted by the MIVEC variable intake-valve timing-and-lift system. The update worked well, delivering 263 hp and 260 lbs.-ft. of torque to GT models.

Base GS models used a more pedestrian SOHC 2.4 L four cylinder pinched from the Galant, good for 162 hp and 162 lbs.-ft. of torque.

The four banger came with a five-speed manual or four-speed automatic transmission, while the muscular V6 was packaged with a six-speed stick or five-speed automatic.

Sadly, Mitsubishi didn't reprise its all-wheel-drive system, a sure-footed option that made the original Eclipse/Talon such a hit with enthusiasts. At least traction control was standard on the GT.

A Spyder convertible joined the coupe for 2007. Equipped with a fabric power-assisted top and heated glass rear window, the four-passenger Spyder could be ordered with a four- or six-cylinder engine.

The 2009 models received some minor styling updates, mostly to the front and rear fascias.

ON THE ROAD

Despite being saddled with unflattering mass, the V6-powered GT could overcome its slovenly tendencies and sprint to 96 km/h in 6.1 seconds with the manual tranny.

The four-cylinder Eclipse GS wasn't entirely embarrassing, taking 8.2 seconds to complete the same task through a five-speed stick. Add about a second to both times for the automatic.

Surprisingly, the Eclipse seemed to shed its weight at speed. The body stayed flat in the corners and the steering wheel conveyed a natural heft, telegraphing the inevitable understeer (it's a front-drive car).

Not everyone was enamored with its stiff ride, however, or enormous turning radius. “This kind of car should turn on the head of a pin, it shouldn't need three lanes to make a U-turn,” read one owner's post.

Some also weren't thrilled with the V6's voracious thirst for premium fuel. The four-banger is considerably better and it quaffs regular.

WHAT OWNERS REPORTED

Drivers love the Eclipse's athletic shape, taut reflexes, ample power, quick-folding top and decent value. Most have had a faultless ownership experience — Mitsubishi provides a comprehensive five-year warranty — although there are some minor issues to consider.

Early models exhibited squealing brakes and short brake life; Mitsubishi offered reformulated pads.

The audio system is fond of eating discs, and some felt the paintwork is susceptible to chips and scratches.

Reported sunroof problems include shifting glass and small leaks, while the heat shield on the four-cylinder engine can develop a rattle. A buzzing noise in the dash requires a clutch damper kit.

Reader Mel Bryan loves his Spyder, but grew wary of the tiresome rattles: “When I drive the car home from the dealer, the rattle is back immediately…I give up!”

But drop the top on a sunny day and all is forgiven, writes Bryan

Mitsu a faultless ownership experience

Mitsubishi has the distinction of attracting the youngest new-car buyers in the land. What makes it painfully obvious is the bad spelling on display in their online posts about their Mitsus.

“Car has some seeing problems out of small back windows, this is a hassel that needs to be looked into.”

“Cheap Porsche nock off.”

“Slick-shifting transmantion.” And the ever-popular “breaks” — those things that scrub off speed.

Thanks to the take-no-prisoners Mitsubishi Lancer Evo — worshipped by video gamers long before it showed up here — the Japanese automaker's first Canadian dealerships were welcomed by a small but fervent fan base.

The Evo wasn't the only object of their desire. The Eclipse coupe enjoyed a considerable history in Canuckistan as the Eagle Talon, marketed through Chrysler's captive-import stores in the early 1990s.

While the third-generation Eclipse was part of the initial Canadian Mitsubishi lineup in 2003, it was the fourth-gen redesign that arrived in mid-2005 that really got people gawking.

Its Roger-Ramjet styling, abundant power and retina-scorching colours made the 2006 Eclipse a crowd pleaser — well, as much as a sporty hatchback coupe can draw a crowd. (Oddly, kids today favour four-door sedans.)

Built on the Galant sedan's extra-large “Project America” front-drive platform, most dimensions grew, including 8.3 cm wider at the hips and weighing some 160 kg more — an unfortunate outcome for sport coupes and husbands.

Inside and out, the Eclipse treats (or assaults) the eyes with engaging shapes, contours and ellipses. One car magazine put it this way: “Almost everywhere you gaze, something interesting, unusual or expensive-looking is happening.”

The cabin's low-slung bucket seats hugged the driver and passenger, while a pair of jump seats were tucked behind. Like many of its ilk, a buyer has to try on an Eclipse for size. The back seats are reserved for munchkins and are best left folded flat to extend the cargo hold.

Mitsubishi expanded the bore and stroke of its aging motor, creating a SOHC 3.8 L cast-iron V6 boosted by the MIVEC variable intake-valve timing-and-lift system. The update worked well, delivering 263 hp and 260 lbs.-ft. of torque to GT models.

Base GS models used a more pedestrian SOHC 2.4 L four cylinder pinched from the Galant, good for 162 hp and 162 lbs.-ft. of torque.

The four banger came with a five-speed manual or four-speed automatic transmission, while the muscular V6 was packaged with a six-speed stick or five-speed automatic.

Sadly, Mitsubishi didn't reprise its all-wheel-drive system, a sure-footed option that made the original Eclipse/Talon such a hit with enthusiasts. At least traction control was standard on the GT.

A Spyder convertible joined the coupe for 2007. Equipped with a fabric power-assisted top and heated glass rear window, the four-passenger Spyder could be ordered with a four- or six-cylinder engine.

The 2009 models received some minor styling updates, mostly to the front and rear fascias.

ON THE ROAD

Despite being saddled with unflattering mass, the V6-powered GT could overcome its slovenly tendencies and sprint to 96 km/h in 6.1 seconds with the manual tranny.

The four-cylinder Eclipse GS wasn't entirely embarrassing, taking 8.2 seconds to complete the same task through a five-speed stick. Add about a second to both times for the automatic.

Surprisingly, the Eclipse seemed to shed its weight at speed. The body stayed flat in the corners and the steering wheel conveyed a natural heft, telegraphing the inevitable understeer (it's a front-drive car).

Not everyone was enamored with its stiff ride, however, or enormous turning radius. “This kind of car should turn on the head of a pin, it shouldn't need three lanes to make a U-turn,” read one owner's post.

Some also weren't thrilled with the V6's voracious thirst for premium fuel. The four-banger is considerably better and it quaffs regular.

WHAT OWNERS REPORTED

Drivers love the Eclipse's athletic shape, taut reflexes, ample power, quick-folding top and decent value. Most have had a faultless ownership experience — Mitsubishi provides a comprehensive five-year warranty — although there are some minor issues to consider.

Early models exhibited squealing brakes and short brake life; Mitsubishi offered reformulated pads.

The audio system is fond of eating discs, and some felt the paintwork is susceptible to chips and scratches.

Reported sunroof problems include shifting glass and small leaks, while the heat shield on the four-cylinder engine can develop a rattle. A buzzing noise in the dash requires a clutch damper kit.

Reader Mel Bryan loves his Spyder, but grew wary of the tiresome rattles: “When I drive the car home from the dealer, the rattle is back immediately…I give up!”

But drop the top on a sunny day and all is forgiven, writes Bryan

AOL steps up news, online ad sales push with $315 million buy of Huffington Post news site

The acquisition announced Monday is AOL CEO Tim Armstrong's most aggressive play so far as he tries to reshape a fallen Internet icon and boost efforts in news and online advertising. It is the largest purchase the company has made under Armstrong, a former Google advertising executive hired by AOL to engineer a turnaround.

The Huffington Post ranks as one of the top 10 current events and global news sites and draws 25 million U.S. visitors each month. It has built its popularity by compiling news from a wide selection of other media outlets, with links to articles and video on everything from politics to style to food. The site combines that type of aggregation with original work by its own small staff and blog posts from celebrity contributors who work for free in return for a platform to express their opinions. Bill Gates has written for Huffington Post, along with President Barack Obama, Robert Redford and several university presidents.

But just as important as gaining the site itself, the deal adds Huffington Post co-founder and media star Arianna Huffington to AOL's management team. Once the deal closes later this year, Huffington will run AOL's growing array of content, which includes popular technology sites Engadget and TechCrunch, local news site Patch.com and online mapping service MapQuest.

Although some analysts say that AOL is paying a lot for the Huffington Post brand, Benchmark Co. analyst Clayton Moran believes the price isn't a huge hit for the company in the short term, especially since it helps put to rest any question that AOL is now an online media company. Bringing Huffington Post to AOL gives it access to quality content and will drive new users to its site, replacing those the company has lost over time, he said. And the price is essentially "the hiring fee to get Arianna," technology analyst Rob Enderle says. Although he described the purchase as an "out-of-left-field" decision, he thinks the move "could put AOL back on the map."

Huffington Post grew quickly from startup to online colossus. Over time, it launched city-specific pages and developed a roster of sections such as food and books. The work of its 70-person paid staff is augmented by content from news outlets and 6,000 bloggers who write for free. Outsell Inc. analyst Ned May said the Huffington Post "has done a fantastic job of building content creation. And AOL can monetize it."

AOL sorely needs to. The company rose to fame in the '90s with its dial-up Internet service, managing to buy media company Time Warner Inc. in 2001 at the height of the dot-com boom. The corporate marriage never really worked, though, and AOL's main source of revenue began drying up as consumers flocked to speedier broadband Internet connections. After nearly a decade of attempts at integrating the two, Armstrong was brought in to prepare AOL to separate from Time Warner, and the companies split in Dec. 2009.

Although analysts say AOL's decision to buy Huffington Post is sound, Enderle warned that putting Arianna Huffington into a position of power could eventually threaten Armstrong's job security if AOL still struggles.

Gartner analyst Andrew Frank added that the deal is risky in the sense that media acquisitions are inherently risky these days. 

"There is a lot of effort ahead for online media to recapture the glory days when media was booming business," he said. "Deals like this offer hope. On the other hand you can't really dismiss the somewhat uneven record AOL has had with acquisitions."

Beyond Time Warner, another of AOL's well-known failed acquisitions was social network Bebo, which AOL bought in 2008 for $850 million and then unloaded two years later to Criterion Capital Partners for an undisclosed amount thought to be a fraction of what it paid.

Regardless, both parties clearly feel optimistic about this deal. In an interview Monday, Arianna Huffington said it seemed like the right move because she and Armstrong share the same vision for online content. She first spoke with Armstrong at the Quadrangle Conference in New York in November, where they were nearly finishing each others' sentences when talking about where they saw their companies going.

"I see this as a real acceleration of the goals that Tim has had for AOL and I have had for the Huffington Post," she said.

In a separate interview, Armstrong said the deal is a "tremendous opportunity" for AOL that brings an influential audience that is attractive to advertisers. The site's visitors and many of its contributors include business leaders, doctors and university presidents, he said.

"Last year was about the turnaround; this year is about the comeback," he said.

Armstrong has been trying to turn AOL into a go-to place for a wide variety of news since he was hired to revamp the company in April 2009 while it was still a part of Time Warner. The makeover is designed to give people a reason to visit AOL's websites more frequently to help boost ad sales. AOL had just a 5.3 per cent share of the U.S. display advertising revenue in 2010, down from 6.8 per cent in 2009, according to eMarketer. Facebook, meanwhile, accounted for 13.6 per cent of display revenue last year, up from 7.3 per cent in 2009.

Armstrong also has reduced payroll by thousands of employees through layoffs and buyouts to try to boost AOL's financial performance and stock price. It has been a slog so far. AOL lost more than $780 million last year, largely because of accounting charges, and the company's stock is now worth slightly less than after it was spun off from Time Warner Inc. 14 months ago.

Founded in 2005, Huffington Post is owned by Huffington, Kenneth Lerer and other investors. They will get $300 million of the purchase price in cash. The remaining $15 million will be paid in AOL stock.

On a conference call with analysts, AOL Chief Financial Officer Arthur Minson said the company expects Huffington Post will generate $50 million in revenue this year, with a profit margin of 30 per cent. By comparison, AOL drew $2.42 billion in revenue last year. About 53 per cent came from ads, and most of the rest from its dwindling base of dial-up Internet subscribers. Minson said the deal will save AOL $20 million a year by allowing it to eliminate operations that overlap with Huffington Post.

If it wins regulatory approval as expected, the transaction would likely close in late March or early April.

Shares of AOL, which is based in New York, fell 75 cents, or 3.4 per cent, to close Monday at $21.19.

AP Business Writer Andrew Vanacore in New York and Technology Writers Michael Liedtke in San Francisco and Barbara Ortutay in New York contributed to this report.

AOL steps up news, online ad sales push with $315 million buy of Huffington Post news site

The acquisition announced Monday is AOL CEO Tim Armstrong's most aggressive play so far as he tries to reshape a fallen Internet icon and boost efforts in news and online advertising. It is the largest purchase the company has made under Armstrong, a former Google advertising executive hired by AOL to engineer a turnaround.

The Huffington Post ranks as one of the top 10 current events and global news sites and draws 25 million U.S. visitors each month. It has built its popularity by compiling news from a wide selection of other media outlets, with links to articles and video on everything from politics to style to food. The site combines that type of aggregation with original work by its own small staff and blog posts from celebrity contributors who work for free in return for a platform to express their opinions. Bill Gates has written for Huffington Post, along with President Barack Obama, Robert Redford and several university presidents.

But just as important as gaining the site itself, the deal adds Huffington Post co-founder and media star Arianna Huffington to AOL's management team. Once the deal closes later this year, Huffington will run AOL's growing array of content, which includes popular technology sites Engadget and TechCrunch, local news site Patch.com and online mapping service MapQuest.

Although some analysts say that AOL is paying a lot for the Huffington Post brand, Benchmark Co. analyst Clayton Moran believes the price isn't a huge hit for the company in the short term, especially since it helps put to rest any question that AOL is now an online media company. Bringing Huffington Post to AOL gives it access to quality content and will drive new users to its site, replacing those the company has lost over time, he said. And the price is essentially "the hiring fee to get Arianna," technology analyst Rob Enderle says. Although he described the purchase as an "out-of-left-field" decision, he thinks the move "could put AOL back on the map."

Huffington Post grew quickly from startup to online colossus. Over time, it launched city-specific pages and developed a roster of sections such as food and books. The work of its 70-person paid staff is augmented by content from news outlets and 6,000 bloggers who write for free. Outsell Inc. analyst Ned May said the Huffington Post "has done a fantastic job of building content creation. And AOL can monetize it."

AOL sorely needs to. The company rose to fame in the '90s with its dial-up Internet service, managing to buy media company Time Warner Inc. in 2001 at the height of the dot-com boom. The corporate marriage never really worked, though, and AOL's main source of revenue began drying up as consumers flocked to speedier broadband Internet connections. After nearly a decade of attempts at integrating the two, Armstrong was brought in to prepare AOL to separate from Time Warner, and the companies split in Dec. 2009.

Although analysts say AOL's decision to buy Huffington Post is sound, Enderle warned that putting Arianna Huffington into a position of power could eventually threaten Armstrong's job security if AOL still struggles.

Gartner analyst Andrew Frank added that the deal is risky in the sense that media acquisitions are inherently risky these days. 

"There is a lot of effort ahead for online media to recapture the glory days when media was booming business," he said. "Deals like this offer hope. On the other hand you can't really dismiss the somewhat uneven record AOL has had with acquisitions."

Beyond Time Warner, another of AOL's well-known failed acquisitions was social network Bebo, which AOL bought in 2008 for $850 million and then unloaded two years later to Criterion Capital Partners for an undisclosed amount thought to be a fraction of what it paid.

Regardless, both parties clearly feel optimistic about this deal. In an interview Monday, Arianna Huffington said it seemed like the right move because she and Armstrong share the same vision for online content. She first spoke with Armstrong at the Quadrangle Conference in New York in November, where they were nearly finishing each others' sentences when talking about where they saw their companies going.

"I see this as a real acceleration of the goals that Tim has had for AOL and I have had for the Huffington Post," she said.

In a separate interview, Armstrong said the deal is a "tremendous opportunity" for AOL that brings an influential audience that is attractive to advertisers. The site's visitors and many of its contributors include business leaders, doctors and university presidents, he said.

"Last year was about the turnaround; this year is about the comeback," he said.

Armstrong has been trying to turn AOL into a go-to place for a wide variety of news since he was hired to revamp the company in April 2009 while it was still a part of Time Warner. The makeover is designed to give people a reason to visit AOL's websites more frequently to help boost ad sales. AOL had just a 5.3 per cent share of the U.S. display advertising revenue in 2010, down from 6.8 per cent in 2009, according to eMarketer. Facebook, meanwhile, accounted for 13.6 per cent of display revenue last year, up from 7.3 per cent in 2009.

Armstrong also has reduced payroll by thousands of employees through layoffs and buyouts to try to boost AOL's financial performance and stock price. It has been a slog so far. AOL lost more than $780 million last year, largely because of accounting charges, and the company's stock is now worth slightly less than after it was spun off from Time Warner Inc. 14 months ago.

Founded in 2005, Huffington Post is owned by Huffington, Kenneth Lerer and other investors. They will get $300 million of the purchase price in cash. The remaining $15 million will be paid in AOL stock.

On a conference call with analysts, AOL Chief Financial Officer Arthur Minson said the company expects Huffington Post will generate $50 million in revenue this year, with a profit margin of 30 per cent. By comparison, AOL drew $2.42 billion in revenue last year. About 53 per cent came from ads, and most of the rest from its dwindling base of dial-up Internet subscribers. Minson said the deal will save AOL $20 million a year by allowing it to eliminate operations that overlap with Huffington Post.

If it wins regulatory approval as expected, the transaction would likely close in late March or early April.

Shares of AOL, which is based in New York, fell 75 cents, or 3.4 per cent, to close Monday at $21.19.

AP Business Writer Andrew Vanacore in New York and Technology Writers Michael Liedtke in San Francisco and Barbara Ortutay in New York contributed to this report.

Online company AOL Inc. is buying online news hub Huffington Post in a $315 million deal that represents a bold bet on the future of online news.

The acquisition announced early Monday puts a high-profile exclamation mark on a series of acquisitions and strategic moves engineered by AOL CEO Tim Armstrong in an effort to reshape a fallen Internet icon. AOL was once the king of dial-up online access known for its ubiquitous CD-ROMs and "You've got mail" greeting in its inboxes.

Perhaps just as important as picking up a news site that ranks as one of the top 10 current events and global news sites, AOL will be adding Huffington Post co-founder and media star Arianna Huffington to its management team as part of the deal.

After the acquisition closes later this year, Huffington will be put in charge of AOL's growing array of content, which includes popular technology sites Endgadget and TechCrunch, local news sites Patch.com and online mapping service Mapquest.

The price that AOL is paying is "really just the hiring fee to get Arianna," said technology analyst Rob Enderle. "This is one of those out-of-left-field moves that actually makes a lot of sense. This could put AOL back on the map."

Armstrong, a former Google Inc. executive, has been trying to turn AOL into a go-to place for a wide variety of news since he was hired to turn around the company in April 2009 while it was still a part of Time Warner Inc. The makeover is designed to give Web surfers a reason to visit AOL's websites more frequently to help boost online ad sales.

At the same time, Armstrong has laid off hundreds of employees in an effort to boost AOL's financial performance and stock price. It has been a slog so far. AOL lost $782.5 million last year, largely because of accounting charges, and the company's stock is now worth slightly less than after it was spun out of Time Warner 14 months ago

The deal "will create a next-generation American media company with global reach that combines content, community, and social experiences for consumers," Armstrong said in a statement announcing the deal.

Founded in 2005, Huffington Post is owned by Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer and a group of other investors. The site attracts 25 million monthly visitors. AOL will pay $300 million of the purchase price in cash.

Putting Arianna Huffington into a position of power could eventually threaten Armstrong's job security if AOL still struggles, Enderle said.

"This is a gutsy move on (Armstrong's) part because Arianna could end up running AOL," Enderle said.

In a blog post about the deal, Arianna Huffington praised Armstrong's vision for AOL and said they were on the same page as they discussed their ambitions for online news. "We were practically finishing each other's sentences," Huffington wrote about their discussions. She wrote that the deal was signed at the Super Bowl in Dallas, which she and Armstrong attended.

If it wins expected regulatory approval without any hitches, the deal will likely close in late March or early April.

Armstrong has been an aggressive deal maker since his arrival, but this marks by far the biggest acquisition of his tenure. Various published reports quoting unidentified people have also said he has talked to private equity firms about the possibility of trying to buy Yahoo Inc., another struggling Internet pioneer that remains a household name. Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, though, has shown little interest in working with AOL.

AOL had just a 5.3 per cent share of the U.S. display advertising revenue in 2010, down from 6.8 per cent in 2009, according to eMarketer. Facebook, meanwhile, accounted for 13.6 per cent of display revenue last year, up from 7.3 per cent in 2009.

Huffington Post grew quickly from startup to online colossus and ranks as one of the top 10 current events and global news sites. Over time, it launched city-specific pages and developed a roster of sections such as food and books. The work of its 70-person paid staff is augmented by content from news outlets and 6,000 bloggers who write for free.

Online company AOL Inc. is buying online news hub Huffington Post in a $315 million deal that represents a bold bet on the future of online news.

The acquisition announced early Monday puts a high-profile exclamation mark on a series of acquisitions and strategic moves engineered by AOL CEO Tim Armstrong in an effort to reshape a fallen Internet icon. AOL was once the king of dial-up online access known for its ubiquitous CD-ROMs and "You've got mail" greeting in its inboxes.

Perhaps just as important as picking up a news site that ranks as one of the top 10 current events and global news sites, AOL will be adding Huffington Post co-founder and media star Arianna Huffington to its management team as part of the deal.

After the acquisition closes later this year, Huffington will be put in charge of AOL's growing array of content, which includes popular technology sites Endgadget and TechCrunch, local news sites Patch.com and online mapping service Mapquest.

The price that AOL is paying is "really just the hiring fee to get Arianna," said technology analyst Rob Enderle. "This is one of those out-of-left-field moves that actually makes a lot of sense. This could put AOL back on the map."

Armstrong, a former Google Inc. executive, has been trying to turn AOL into a go-to place for a wide variety of news since he was hired to turn around the company in April 2009 while it was still a part of Time Warner Inc. The makeover is designed to give Web surfers a reason to visit AOL's websites more frequently to help boost online ad sales.

At the same time, Armstrong has laid off hundreds of employees in an effort to boost AOL's financial performance and stock price. It has been a slog so far. AOL lost $782.5 million last year, largely because of accounting charges, and the company's stock is now worth slightly less than after it was spun out of Time Warner 14 months ago

The deal "will create a next-generation American media company with global reach that combines content, community, and social experiences for consumers," Armstrong said in a statement announcing the deal.

Founded in 2005, Huffington Post is owned by Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer and a group of other investors. The site attracts 25 million monthly visitors. AOL will pay $300 million of the purchase price in cash.

Putting Arianna Huffington into a position of power could eventually threaten Armstrong's job security if AOL still struggles, Enderle said.

"This is a gutsy move on (Armstrong's) part because Arianna could end up running AOL," Enderle said.

In a blog post about the deal, Arianna Huffington praised Armstrong's vision for AOL and said they were on the same page as they discussed their ambitions for online news. "We were practically finishing each other's sentences," Huffington wrote about their discussions. She wrote that the deal was signed at the Super Bowl in Dallas, which she and Armstrong attended.

If it wins expected regulatory approval without any hitches, the deal will likely close in late March or early April.

Armstrong has been an aggressive deal maker since his arrival, but this marks by far the biggest acquisition of his tenure. Various published reports quoting unidentified people have also said he has talked to private equity firms about the possibility of trying to buy Yahoo Inc., another struggling Internet pioneer that remains a household name. Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, though, has shown little interest in working with AOL.

AOL had just a 5.3 per cent share of the U.S. display advertising revenue in 2010, down from 6.8 per cent in 2009, according to eMarketer. Facebook, meanwhile, accounted for 13.6 per cent of display revenue last year, up from 7.3 per cent in 2009.

Huffington Post grew quickly from startup to online colossus and ranks as one of the top 10 current events and global news sites. Over time, it launched city-specific pages and developed a roster of sections such as food and books. The work of its 70-person paid staff is augmented by content from news outlets and 6,000 bloggers who write for free.

Aldi Does the Right Thing - Eventually.

This morning we received a voucher for ten pounds in the post from Aldi along with a letter not containing any word of apology - but a back-covering set of paragraphs about investigations not having turned up a reason for the chicken being stinky.

I'm afraid this just wound Hubby up a tad. Last Monday he had been told that we would be getting a 'free shop' which at the time had sounded a generous offer in mitigation of them having refused us a refund when we returned the chicken.

Nothing had materialised by this Monday and so he had a fairly heated exchange on the phone with the acting area manager who managed to make a tricky situation worse with shall we call it 'diplomacy skills that left a little to be desired'. We weren't cross because we wanted the dosh (although it would have been nice) but because we felt we'd been fobbed off.

So when a ten pound voucher arrived it hardly seemed to qualify as a 'free shop'. I mean I don't know about you but we spent more than ten quid when we go shopping - Aldi is cheap but you can't get a full shop from a tenner can you?

But given the horrible news from Christchurch, us being miffed over a voucher and the general lack of satisfaction from our experience with Aldi, hardly seemed worth wasting blog space on today. We decided to just chalk it down to experience. One of life's flies in the ointment. Just don't use that ointment again.

But just now something surprising happened. 

Hubby & son are out for the afternoon as Sprog had a hospital appointment as his eyes are showing signs of deterioration which is part of one of the genetic conditions the menfolk in my family share.

The doorbell rang. I went to answer and was surprised to find a smart gentleman in a suit carrying a bunch of flowers!

It was Kieran from Aldi, recently returned from leave and 'gutted,' at the problems we had encountered from our chicken purchase what seems now so long ago.

I have to hand it to him, he seemed genuinely bothered. He was polite and respectful - despite the fact he had caught me in my scruffy hanging around the house top and 'blogging track pants' with my hair up and frankly making

Waynetta Slob

and Vicky Pollard

look like elegant fashionistas! I had also decided today was the day to thaw the lobster left over from Xmas and eat it slathered in garlic butter while the men were out of the house. So my breath is biological warfare grade hazardous at the moment!

He was surprised to learn that there were a number of people following this situation via the internet and that I had a popular well followed blog, 1,600+ Twitter followers and a large facebook community.

I do think that Aldi do themselves no favours by not having an easily contactable 'trouble shooter' at the end of an email address. Though to be fair neither do ASDA, but Tesco do have a good internet response.

Since moving back to the UK - we've had the Smelly Bridgend Tesco incident - which was handled quite well via a customer complaint form at the store and an email via their website. It didn't cost them anything other than timely communication and politeness.

Then we had the disappointing chocolate swiss roll - supposedly recommended by customer tasters from ASDA - our complaint about that disappeared into the ether never to be responded to by ASDA. Their packaging says you can send them feedback but when you try it is well-nigh impossible to do so.

And then this fiasco with Aldi at Bridgend.

One lesson to be learned here for Supermarkets who want to keep their customers - politeness costs nothing, rudeness costs everything.

But thank you to Kieran for making an effort. What a pity the person at Aldi who does 'polite' was on holiday when we needed his special talents. Maybe they can train someone else to be polite for next time?

Aldi Does the Right Thing - Eventually.

This morning we received a voucher for ten pounds in the post from Aldi along with a letter not containing any word of apology - but a back-covering set of paragraphs about investigations not having turned up a reason for the chicken being stinky.

I'm afraid this just wound Hubby up a tad. Last Monday he had been told that we would be getting a 'free shop' which at the time had sounded a generous offer in mitigation of them having refused us a refund when we returned the chicken.

Nothing had materialised by this Monday and so he had a fairly heated exchange on the phone with the acting area manager who managed to make a tricky situation worse with shall we call it 'diplomacy skills that left a little to be desired'. We weren't cross because we wanted the dosh (although it would have been nice) but because we felt we'd been fobbed off.

So when a ten pound voucher arrived it hardly seemed to qualify as a 'free shop'. I mean I don't know about you but we spent more than ten quid when we go shopping - Aldi is cheap but you can't get a full shop from a tenner can you?

But given the horrible news from Christchurch, us being miffed over a voucher and the general lack of satisfaction from our experience with Aldi, hardly seemed worth wasting blog space on today. We decided to just chalk it down to experience. One of life's flies in the ointment. Just don't use that ointment again.

But just now something surprising happened. 

Hubby & son are out for the afternoon as Sprog had a hospital appointment as his eyes are showing signs of deterioration which is part of one of the genetic conditions the menfolk in my family share.

The doorbell rang. I went to answer and was surprised to find a smart gentleman in a suit carrying a bunch of flowers!

It was Kieran from Aldi, recently returned from leave and 'gutted,' at the problems we had encountered from our chicken purchase what seems now so long ago.

I have to hand it to him, he seemed genuinely bothered. He was polite and respectful - despite the fact he had caught me in my scruffy hanging around the house top and 'blogging track pants' with my hair up and frankly making

Waynetta Slob

and Vicky Pollard

look like elegant fashionistas! I had also decided today was the day to thaw the lobster left over from Xmas and eat it slathered in garlic butter while the men were out of the house. So my breath is biological warfare grade hazardous at the moment!

He was surprised to learn that there were a number of people following this situation via the internet and that I had a popular well followed blog, 1,600+ Twitter followers and a large facebook community.

I do think that Aldi do themselves no favours by not having an easily contactable 'trouble shooter' at the end of an email address. Though to be fair neither do ASDA, but Tesco do have a good internet response.

Since moving back to the UK - we've had the Smelly Bridgend Tesco incident - which was handled quite well via a customer complaint form at the store and an email via their website. It didn't cost them anything other than timely communication and politeness.

Then we had the disappointing chocolate swiss roll - supposedly recommended by customer tasters from ASDA - our complaint about that disappeared into the ether never to be responded to by ASDA. Their packaging says you can send them feedback but when you try it is well-nigh impossible to do so.

And then this fiasco with Aldi at Bridgend.

One lesson to be learned here for Supermarkets who want to keep their customers - politeness costs nothing, rudeness costs everything.

But thank you to Kieran for making an effort. What a pity the person at Aldi who does 'polite' was on holiday when we needed his special talents. Maybe they can train someone else to be polite for next time?